View source for Talk:Suggestions/archive1

{{Archive|Suggestions}}


==Suggestion Debate==
===Donations===
Hopefully, this is meant to go here; I couldn't find an alternate area. I'm suggesting that this game doesn't become one of the sort where donations allow people to purchase certain 'skills' for their character, or other advantages. This goes on in many free internet games - understandably, as the owner wants to make money from something he puts so much time into. However, in terms of UD, I would suggest this be done via advertising rather than allowing certain players to 'buy' advantages; such unbalancing only has the effect of depopularising the game for the majority who are typically unwilling or unable to donate money and cannot stay at the same standard as those who do. In the long term, this leads to a drop in the total number of players, in turn leading to a drop in donating players - and nobody wins. Please don't let UD follow the same path as Ravenblack's 'Vampires!' --[[User:Cortman|Cortman]] 21:48, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)

===Player interaction===
Hope this isn't out of place... I'm adding this part here at the top to discuss skills suggestions in general rather than specific skills. In particular, it would be interesting to have more skills that encourage player interaction, of any sort. You'll notice that the skill and mission suggestions I posted in the article part kind of revolve around that. The main way a player can influence other players is by altering their likelihood of succeeding in their actions or by altering the XP they get for it. With that in mind, the Cultist player class someone else suggested would be an example of something that makes the game more interesting by influencing player behavior at the XP level. Another, already implemented example that comes to mind is how you only get XP for healing ''other'' players. Instead of coming up with items and skills that "give more plusses" it would be cool to see what skills and items people can come up with that require no player cooperation to use (because of game mechanics limitations) but the effect of encouraging interaction between players. --[[User:F1r3br4nd|F1r3br4nd]] 17:07, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)===Marksmanship===
What kind of graphics changes would be necessary to represent individuals inside and outside of buildings?  --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 05:26, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)
::''I'm going to keep my responses under the bulleted skill name because this is quickly becoming messy.''  [[User:Milo|Milo]], why are you opposed to strengthening melee skills?  The only reason the game is weighted in this way is ''because'' the weapon skills are so powerful.  [[User:Kevan|Kevan]] might think it's amusing to continue his experiment by shifting the balance to melee skills, just to see how it changes the tactics of the game.  I know I would, just to see what happens next!  --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 20:19, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::Battle for buildings == cool--[[User:Milo|Milo]] 03:01, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::Exactly why I added this skill, and Sniping. There's really no way currently to hold a building beyond simply being a huge group that can't be whittled down effectively, unless you're also a huge group. Being able to shoot outside may help to change that. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 04:48, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)
:Marksmanship wouldn't need extra graphics at all. There'd be, say, an extra button saying "Aim Outside" and you'd end up seeing everyone outside instead of everyone inside. That button would change to "Back Inside" and when you clicked it, things would return to normal. It'd enable you to pick off threats outside without risking yourself to attack. Simple as that.
:I should really put this in the description or something. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]]
Marksmanship doesn't seem very useful.  You could just skip straight to sniping.  Sniping would be very useful, as it would enable you to free-run through a complex of EH buildings and fire outside, never having to risk going onto the streets.  Martial arts I oppose; the game is currently structured to make firearms far more powerful than melee weapons, and this encourages humans to hold strategic locations like malls and forts.  Black Belt I oppose for the same reason.  Basic reconnaisance is good if you want to find an empty (and therefore PK free) building to hole up in.  Advanced Reconnaisance isn't important enough to merit a place on the (already overflowing) military tree.
:The fact that you ''could'' free-run through buildings and never have to risk going outside is why Marksmanship exists. You have to work up to it. In fact, I should probably say that shooting from inside costs 2AP so that people won't do just that if the skill is implemented. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 04:48, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)

Perhaps, instead of sniping from a window, the player would go onto the roof of a building to snipe. This would expose them to ranged attacks (maybe with reduced accuracy?) from zombies and other players alike.   It might help balance the skill out more, as it would prevent PKers from sniping by-standers then hiding behind their barricade, and allow higher-level zombies a counter skill to snipers (if a ranged zombie attack is ever implimented). -[[User:Raelin|Raelin]] 06:48, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
:Zombies can't do ranged attacks, though. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 07:08, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
::Yeah, but some have been suggested.  As it stands though, it seems a bit overpowered to me.  There should, at least, be some minor level of risk involved.  If not, you could simpy take a small group of survivors with this skill, barricade a building, and remain practically invincible to any non-coordinated zombie attack. -[[User:Raelin|Raelin]] 07:27, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::I can't see any ranged zombie attacks in the skill tree. Not to mention ranged attacks kinda miss the point about zombies anyway. But still, using Marksmanship like that only works if you've got enough ammo to last for as long as it takes, you never go to sleep or take shifts sleeping, and you never get attacked by organised zombies. Besides, there have been plenty of zombie films where a group of survivors have done just that. In any case, if you look at the zombie skill tree, there have been many suggested skills to help improve zombie group work, so you'd be able to see a lot more hordes occuring without the use of metagaming. Also I think I need to make it so shooting outside costs 2AP, that might solve any other lingering compatability issues. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 07:32, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::Agree with Katthew about sniping/marksmanship needing 2 APs instead of 1. We may even do 3APs. However, we need to ramp up the damage done significantly, and perhaps increase the chance of doing headshots. Remember in RE2:Apoc one of the STARS guys is sitting on the roof with his sniper rifle? How about this... Ability to choose shots, a 1AP shot (normal), a 2AP shot (deliberate) and a 4AP shot (aimmed), with commensurate bigger damage and/or better to hit for the shots? [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 08:07, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::::How about we don't ramp up the damage because it would be patently unfair to make this advantage any more powerful than it already is. Simply because you're on the roof or jamming your gun out of a window doesn't instantly make you a killing machine. If anything, it's more difficult to aim and hit. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 08:24, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)


===Basic Reconnaissance===
Same question as marksmanship.  How do you propose showing everyone inside and outside on our low-tech map?  --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 05:26, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

:Maybe just show zombies in the room desciption?  "There are 4 zombies outside"--[[User:Milo|Milo]] 05:38, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

::Would make it less effective for PKers, but more workable.  --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 05:44, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

:Reconnaissance works like search: you try to see inside the building. It is affected by barricade status (I should really edit this in) in addition to being a random chance (say, 10%). If you successfully recon a building, it returns something like "You see a few people inside." "You see a few people inside." "You see a person inside." "You see many zombies inside." "You see no one inside." It wouldn't be as accurate as walking in and checking, but it'd be safer.
::Why would anyone take it if it only worked 10% of the time? Did you mean it FAILS 10% of the time? --[[User:LibrarianBrent|LibrarianBrent]] 05:54, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::IT WAS AN EXAMPLE! It'd probably be more like, I dunno, 40% or something. I dunno how this game is balanced. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 06:00, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)
:Also, how is this "Keep/Kill Discussion"? You're just asking questions. Maybe I should put in a "Debate" section. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 05:51, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)
:: AND I HAVE! --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 05:55, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)



===First Aid===
Forgoing the Field Surgery section below, I see a discrepancy between non-experienced and experienced First Aid Kit usage.  A character without the skill uses a kit on a survivor and heals up to 5 HP and gains 5 XP, whether he healed 1 or 5 HP.  A character with the skill uses a kit on a survivor and heals up to 10 HP, but still only gains 5 XP, whether he healed 1 or 10 HP.  XP earned should be based on damage healed.  Now for the naysayers, consider that most of the time you are not healing 5-10 HP on someone; you are actually healing 3 or 8 HP.  It should average out to less XP for a non-skilled survivor and a bit (but not too much) more XP for a skilled survivor.  Comments?  --[[User:Squashua|Squashua]] 15:04, 27 Sep 2005 (EST)

:I definitely agree. I have the First Aid skill and it seems like a waste of XP points because it does not seem to give me anything extra for using it. Yes, the players I heal are happier because they are healthier, but I still only get the 5 XP's that a non-skilled player gets. Everything else seems to be keyed to XP's=value of damage/heal done: If you hit a zombie with your fist you do 1 point of damage and gain 1XP; if you hit them with an axe you do 3 points of damage and gain 3XPs, why not the same for healing?--[[User:Elena|Elena]] 09:32, 29 Sep 2005 (BST)

I just read in the balancing area that you can use First Aid on a zombie (see XP farming on the article page).  Aren't zombies technically dead?  One should not be able to heal them, or zombies should be able to set a flag so that they cannot be healed by humans.
--[[User:Squashua|Squashua]] 12:16, 28 Sep 2005 (EST)

:I think it's perfectly reasonable to heal zombies with a first aid kit. Just stick the squishy bits back together again with duct tape. Besides, it's a cool thing to allow in case anything ever happens with the 'Death Cultists' I proposed a while back. --[[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 18:53, 28 Sep 2005 (BST)

::While the Death Cultists are an awesome idea until they get implimented, Survivors are leveling faster than Zombies with this XP farming method.  I think it would be nifty keen if being a death cultist was a permenant flag that allowed you to heal Zombies, but you were known to other survivors for the wild look in your eyes, but also that normal Survivors could not heal Zombies.  It just makes the gap grow wider as more and more Survivors use this method to get to level 10 and get headshot, therefor making my exp gains with my Zombie very very slow compared to my survivor. --[[User:echochild|echochild]] 10:00, 4 Oct 2005 (EST)

===Diagnosis vs. Bodybuilding===
Instead of Diagnosis showing HP like this: 50HP, it should show it like this: 50/50. This is a small but important change that would save a lot of headaches. Currently, if a medic enters a room full of 20 people with an HP value of 50, there's no way of knowing whether or not some of them may need healing without A) wasting an action point trying to heal a random person who may or may not have bodybuilding, or B) clicking on individual profiles to check their skills, and in the process wasting precious hits. It could be argued that with 150 hits a day, users playing only one character should be able to spare enough hits to do so, but I believe my point has been made about how irritating this process can be. So, in summary, HP should be displayed in the format of CURRENT/MAXIMUM instead of the present system. Also, trying to heal someone at full health should not waste an AP.--[[User:DSGDarkRaven|DSGDarkRaven]] 12:40, 30 Sep 2005 (EST)
:* A cleaner solution would be to simply change the colour of the HP text when a person is injured. This would also help them stand out on the page when you wander into a room with a pile of people in it. Since healing provides the same XP no matter what, you could also potentially remove the HP numbers altogether and just change the colour of the name.--[[User:Dave-K|Dave-K]] 03:33, 13 Oct 2005 (BST)
::The code to do this, however, would probably produce a larger-sized output, as coloring links requires more code to be generated that a simple "/60" would. I'm not sure if we're hitting bandwith issues, so I'm not sure if this is a problem as such, but it is something to consider. -- [[User:Odd Starter|Odd Starter]] 04:20, 13 Oct 2005 (BST)



===Field Surgery + General Practitioner + ER Experience===
Combine them all, and you find a 2-use medkit every 2AP (on average.)  That ends up being 10XP for 4AP, an average of 2.5XP/AP, compared to 2.65 for the pistol.  Way, way too powerful.  At least get rid of ER experience (that would lower the find percentage to the same as a mall, if you don't count newspapers.)
:Consider them nerfed, mystery stranger. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 01:31, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
::Better perhaps, have a skill that allows you to use a first aid kit with a chance of it not being expended.  Kind of like the spray can & Tagging, you get more uses out of the can.  For example, the current situation is a first aid kit has a 100% chance of being expended when used.  The skill, call it ER Experience or Trauma Medicine or Battlefield Medic, gives the user a chance to be more sparing with their supplies, and the first aid kit drops to a 75% chance of being expended with used.  The next stack of the skill drops it to 60%.  Just skip the part about making med supplies easier to find.  How's that?  --[[User:Dogbarian|Dogbarian]] 03:52, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)

===Hunger===
Since I originally suggested this on the NecroTech list (and then completely forgot about it until someone was kind enough to resurrect it here), I'm all for it.  I'm playing three survivor characters now, and although it's not always easy to gain XP, it's pretty damned easy to hide out and stay alive.  I'd like more of a challenge.  --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 20:34, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)
::"that maybe would change the game for the docs, if they heal all in the building for hunger when they will have a chance of getting huge xp dialy" -random guy
::''This could be extended so that a zombie who does not taste human flesh, through a successful bite attack on a survivor, loses an AP for each day they do not feed. --[[User:Perikles|Perikles]] 15:08, 16 Sep 2005 (GMT)''
::I'm not sure what I think of the hunger idea. Right now my character has been trapped inside a building by someone barricading the place way beyond what I can get out of myself. I've been spending the week trying to gradually rip down that barricade. Dying of hunger just because some A-hole didn't check with the current occupant before building is the kind of thing that would really put people off playing, I think. [[User:JanneM|JanneM]] 06:35, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::You know you can just click on a square in the minimap and leave, right? --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 06:41, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::Duh. Color me stupid. Which leads me to write in a suggestion about fixing this.[[User:JanneM|JanneM]] 15:45, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::You can just leave, but it's not the mostly realistic assumption that heavy barricades are like one-way mirrors.  I'd suggest that jumping out a window simply injure, rather than kill, and then that there be difficulty getting out of barricaded buildings, either by AP cost or simple prohibition, depending on the strength of a barricade. --[[User:Mortimer shank|Mortimer shank]] 20:09, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::::My [[Suggestions#Other Ideas|Hunger Alternative]] fixes the First Aid Kit XP farming, as it reduces Max HP instead of current HP; only [[Suggestions#Other Items|food]] could reset your Max to it's full and proper amount, and having it tied to AP use instead of real time means that people who are away from the game for a while don't come back to find their character waif-modelled or dead -- y'know activity fuels calorie consumption and all that goodness!  If this gets implemented, I think that the [[Talk:Suggestions#Diagnosis vs. Bodybuilding|Current/Max display suggestion]] under discussion should be implemented as well, so that Diagnosis will properly diagnose victims of acute starvation instead of confusing them with cases of acute trauma! Zombies should not be susceptible to Hunger in any way or form, since being undead is supposed to suspend bodily requirements, and any way, Zombies have to pay with XP to get certain inherent Survivor abilities, so being immune to one of the detriments of being a Survivor is fair --[[User:Juntzing|Juntzing]] 15:44, 9 Oct 2005 (BST)


===Zombie Skills===

====Mismanaged Skill Names/Placement====
Upon looking over the suggested skills for the zombie class, though most of the skills would be worthy additions I've a few criticisms regarding their placement.  To begin with, a number of child skills have nothing to do with their parents.  Feeding Frenzy and Digestion are apparently only related by the word "Feeding."  The skill itself would be more logically placed with Hunger Howl (as a base skill), Last Grab and Sleepless Watching in a new tree dedicated to compounding group effects.  Why is Morbid Manipulation a subskill of Death Rattle?  Do we softly moan our tools into functioning?  Mortos del Fuego - XP is ammo now?  Finally, neither Rigid Limbs nor Deathly Torpor seem to have any natural dependence on mutation.  Rigor Mortis and playing dead are two things corpses should be able to do without much help.  For that matter, none of them would sensibly follow Brain Rot.[[User:Lurve|Lurve]]
:As I've said before (if you'd read this page) Morbid Manipulation is a subset of Death Rattle not because it has anything to do with speaking, but because it is a powerful skill that is related to Memories of Life. I'm surprised you say this almost immediately after asking why Feeding Frenzy is under Digestion. "Hey, this one is only related in name! That's stupid! Hey, this one isn't related by name! That's stupid!" '''Make up your mind, ''please''.'''

::Neither subskill effects have a single thing to do with their parent.  Name them whatever you want, just place the skills in somewhat close proximity to others with the same effect.  Don't hang a generic damage skill under a specialized self-healing skill, and don't require the ability to speak as a prerequisite for axe swinging.  I still don't see how Manip is powerful, as it would only be useful to former Firefighters and zombies wishing to roleplay them.  Even so, plain zombie combat skills would greatly outdamage it.~[[User:Lurve|Lurve]]

:Mortos del Fuego is a fun skill that many people have said would be amusing to have. I'm not sure what your quarrel with Rigid Limbs and Deathly Torpor is - I'm really not, honest - especially with the word "mutation" thrown randomly in there. None of the zombie skills are "mutations" - they are things that develop over time. Calloused fingers that do extra damage, organs rotting away, etc. etc. That's ''decomposing'', not mutation.

::Not sure what the problem with Digestion and Feeding Frenzy is, Feeding Frenzy is a passive result of chewing on Survivors once they've been brought down, and Zombies with Digestion are more likely to use Bite to do the deed...  Consider that Digestion Zombies have a hungeer for flesh, and most of the skills that chain off of it are the passive result of chewing on the fresh corpse.  None of the Muertos skills make much sense though; Z's don't tend to spontaneously combust, and are not supposed to be agile or interested in self-preservation enough to WANT to dodge. --[[User:Juntzing|Juntzing]] 15:59, 9 Oct 2005 (BST)

::I don't have a problem with Mortos del Fuego, except for the fact that it's no language I recognize. I mean, "mortos" seems to be Portuguese, but "fuego" is Spanish, if I remember correctly, Portuguese for "fire" is "fogo" (correct me if I am wrong). If you were looking for the skill to be named in Spanish then it would be better to say "Muertos en Llamas" or "Muertos Incendiados" or something like that to reflect that they are on fire. "Muertos del Fuego" are not "Dead on Fire" but "Dead of the Fire". Ta.--[[User:Elena|Elena]] 19:56, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)

::Since Mutation was removed, I don't have a problem with them.  Incidentally I rather liked Mutation (though it needed a better name.  Leathery Flesh?), as it was essentially a Flak Jacket skill.  It was just too good to hang under a "Commit to Zombie forever or you can't get it" taunt.~[[User:Lurve|Lurve]]

:::I'd put 'Leathery Flesh' under Vigor Mortis, except it's already too much of a prerequisite for other Zombie skills. --[[User:Juntzing|Juntzing]] 15:59, 9 Oct 2005 (BST)



====Brain Rot====
I am seeing more and more suggestion threads that begin with the assumption that Brain Rot is meant to be built on, presumably to reward the "true" zombies for their courage and dedication.  I feel that's bollocks.  Brain Rot as it is is already more important than it should be, for several reasons.
*It nullifies a portion of the game's mechanics.  This in itself would quickly assure its removal in any serious game project.  You do not for any reason allow a class to remove a chunk of the enemy's strategy without a workaround.  Especially when that chunk comprises the better of the two methods by which zombies can be put down.  Brain Rot does not hamper the human ability to revive zombies.  It removes it.
*It removes an endgame condition.  With the presence of Brain Rot, Humans cannot win.  At all.  Even if the zombies were outnumbered 100:1, with Brain Rot the humans have no choice but to shoot them down over and over and over again.  Not really fun for anyone compared to the possibility, however remote, that every zombie were revived, that all towers and hotels were heavily barricaded.  That Malton was safe.
*It denies roleplayers the ability to fully explore the game while cooperating with established game mechanics.  A large portion of the players like to "take it as it comes."  They play a zombie when a zombie, and a human as a human.  That does not mean they are any less dedicated to playing a zombie than those with brain rot.  Perhaps they feel as I do, that the two above points so skew the game that they'd feel bad using it, even against their enemies.  Adding otherwise useful skills with Brain Rot as a prerequisite would only cripple them unfairly.
*It is just a passive convenience skill.  It does nothing but keep you from having to spend an extra ten or so AP leaping from a tower.  All other current prereq skills are either extremely useful in and of themselves with later specialized additions (vigor mortis, firearm training) or are less useful precursors of more useful skills (Necrotech Employment, Scent Fear).  Brain Rot can be neither unless it itself was broken into multiple skills that gave increasing chances of Revive resistance, culminating at 100%.

So, my suggestion: leave Brain Rot as a solo skill, and move its current children into other trees.  It's more than powerful enough by itself to not need any child skills dangling like carrots beneath it, and its entirely optional nature currently benefits both those who wish to roleplay and those who would rather not deal with the annoyance of killing themselves every so often.  Not to mention bored max level humans would be more likely to try playing zombies (killing two birds with one stone) if they didn't have to totally commit to being a zombie to get the most from their undeath.~[[User:Lurve|Lurve]]
:Your comment about a new section of the skills tree for group-reward skills is good, though, I'll give you that. However, your complaints about Brain Rot are insubstantial at best. So Brain Rot doesn't allow humans to revive zombies? Hooray, good for the zombies. I hate getting my zombie character revived. Rest assured his brain will be oozing out of his ears before the week is out.
::My humans hate being eaten. If only they had Inedibility. Come on! --[[User:Jim Bubba|Jim Bubba]] 19:49, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
:Reviving is already far, far too powerful. It has no chance to fail, meaning it is a weapon with 100% accuracy. With enough syringes, you can neutralise a zombie horde in instants. '''That''' "nullifies the game's mechanics" far more than anything. You should not be able to simply prance up to twenty zombies and stop them single-handedly.
:In case you hadn't been paying attention to what kind of game this is, '''humans are not ''meant'' to win.''' This is a zombie apocalypse, an outbreak of the walking dead. Hell has no more room, so on and so forth. Humans are not meant to be capable of winning in the long term. That would be ridiculously boring. Brain Rot allows zombies the chance to stay zombies. Considering this game already has 3 humans for every zombie, it'd be ridiculous if no zombie could resist being revived. That's imbalance for you.
::In case you hadn't been paying attention to what kind of game this is, '''this is an ''MMORPG.'''''  A game where humans are picked off constantly by high level zombies with no way to fight back would be just as unfair and unfun as the current situation is now.  The perfect medium would be a city with sections where humans fear to tread, and areas no zombie can survive for long in.  You cannot call any situation where zombies inevitably win "balanced."  If you really think Zombies should get total immunity to being revived, then show some spine and add in a matching skill to the human side.  '''Both''' being revived and being converted are game mechanics, despite what the movies say.  To nullify either one is unfair, so let's nix both.  For balance.  It'll be humans blasting zombies and zombies eating humans, for all of eternity.  Sounds like a fun time.~[[User:Lurve|Lurve]]
:If people want to roleplay between zombie and human, they do this magical thing called '''not buying Brain Rot.''' The game does not ''force'' this skill on zombies. It is not mandatory. Having skills placed below it would be rewards for those zombies dedicated to being undead, sure enough, but they're hardly essential for people who want to bounce back and forth anyway. Oh no, I'll never be able to stand up for 5AP, my character is ruined.
:Perhaps if there were ten zombie players for every human, I would agree with some of what you said. However, the whole point of this game is for the humans to be afraid of the zombies. They're not. Only large hordes like the Many (and practically ''only'' the Many) get anywhere in this game, and even then they get no reward for working in a group.
:Brain Rot can confound human players, yes, but reviving does so much more to disrupt zombie players. How would you like it if zombies had a method of causing you to spend 20AP or more just to become human again? It's ridiculous. Zombies need a way to stop that happening to them, and Brain Rot is the answer. I don't see why they shouldn't be rewarded for it. After all, they're giving up a tonne of ''other'' skills by electing to never again be human.
:Besides, it's three skills. Nice to have, but hardly necessary or groundbreaking. If I'd added in "Zombie can breathe poisonous fire that can melt barricades" then yeah, that'd be a powerful skill. It'd also be a retarded skill. Hence why you won't see any Resident Evil-style skills in that list. Nobody wants them, especially not me. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 07:27, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
::With due cognisance of the risk here (being Katthew-flamed), I do disagree about Brain Rot. It's akin to having Invulnerability for a human. Zombies do have a way of causing you to spend at least 20AP just to become human again: it's called killing you, and then you have to find a sympathetic needle-wielder. I do, however, agree that the dice are currently way too loaded against zombies. My humans level up, and my zombies don't. However, to keep to the spirit of the issue, it makes sense to me that zombies could develop resistance to revivification in increments, like a undead immune system developing itself. I'd also support some additional zombie-strengthening and encouragements. Infectious biting (I know, I know) is probably the easiest way, something that has to be countered with advanced Necrotech skills. While we're on the subject, Scientist progression is definitely limited, and this would make them indispensable. --[[User:Jim Bubba|Jim Bubba]] 16:58, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::With all due respect, you cannot possibly compare a zombie killing a human to a human reviving a zombie. When a zombie attacks a human, it takes chances to hit and innumerable AP. Reviving is a 1AP, 100% chance to hit, 100% chance of success attack. It's ridiculously powerful. Perhaps some tweaking of ''both'' Brain Rot and the syringes would help. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 08:41, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
::I do not have a problem with other optional skills being added after brain rot, though I would prefer they were accessible.  My problem is that people assume adding essential skills after BR would encourage more people to be zombies.  It wouldn't.  It'd make them stay away from them because they could never change their mind.  So you'd end up with a fair number of weak zombies shambling around, and human players crying out for a buff.  Add those skills in another tree, and bored humans might be convinced to drink from the cup of the damned to try out their promised powers.  It's either that or they keep shooting you.  Placing vanity or convenience skills under Brain Rot is fine.  Placing important skills that you might need to survive is not.  I notice that Headshot has no useful child skills.  Or any for that matter, though the ZH area has a fair number of additions.  Could that be because not everyone enjoys being an asshole and crippling the other side?
::Perhaps a compromise could be reached.  What I truly object to is Brain Rot's irreversible nature.  You take it or you don't, 100% resistance or none.  No second chances, no switching back.  Perhaps, as I alluded to earlier, Brain Rot could be broken into a set of four skills, each adding 20% chance of revive resistance.  This culminates at an 80% chance of resistance, for the math impaired.  With all four one is essentially a zombie forever, as few NecroTechs would be willing to waste 5 syringes for a handful of experience on a zombie who'd just run off and die.  However, the possibility of revival is still there.  While my zombies would still feel bad taking all four skills, 60% gives the bleeders a sporting chance.  Hang your child skills from your branch of choice.  Either that or switch Brain Rot and Deathly Torpor.  The former is just a convenience skill, while the latter adds a very useful ability to the zombie class.~[[User:Lurve|Lurve]]
:::There are very, ''very'' few skills under Brain Rot compared with all the other skills on that list. If your definition of a weak zombie is one with twenty-plus skills, then I prescribe a little quality time with the dictionary. Even at current a non-Brain Rot zombie is fairly powerful. "Weak" does not enter into it at all.
:::The skills under Brain Rot are good, but hardly groundbreaking. Oh snap, it's immune to Heashot! But, wait, it takes an additional 50XP to buy any other skill. LOOK! IT CAN STAND UP FOR 5AP! Wait, that's not exactly fantastic. Heaven preserve us! It can ''spend 10AP and pretend to be a corpse''. Wait, wait... that's not exactly awe-inspiring. Definitely not "important skills you might need to survive" at all.
:::Three skills. '''Three skills.''' Not a brand new tree full of mutations and super-powers, just three skills. If you feel that people will break down and cry over the torturous decision of whether or not to become a permanent zombie because of three skills... you're wrong. Terribly wrong. It's there to reward those people playing dedicated zombies, yes, but it's not like it's making them into unstoppable killing machines.
:::Headshot has no useful child skills because it's Headshot and I'm not sure what you can progress on from Headshot. Double Headshot? '''Combo''' Headshot? Whilst zombies need a Headshot equivalent (which has been suggested), there's no logical way to progress on from that on either skills tree. Brain Rot > Hollow Skull is progression. The other skills are there just to make becoming a permazombie a nicer thing.
:::As far as I can see, ''Brain Rot is fine how it is.'' We do not need people having to spend 400XP for an extra 20% chance to resist. That is a dumb idea, and everyone I know agrees with me. I do not want my dedicated zombie characters changing back into human, so I am buying brain rot for them. I do not want a "slim chance" of them becoming human again. I do not want them to ''ever'' become human again. I do not want to suffer the constant harassment of revivals just because humans think it's unfair that they can't beat the zombies. Life is unfair, and undeath is even more unfair.
:::Also, Deathly Torpor is hardly as useful as Brain Rot. I know which I'd want to take first. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 08:41, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::Well, I gave you an extra day or so just in case you happened to actually ''read'' anything I'd written and notice you were only  launching strawman attacks, most of which I'd already addressed anyway.  But you did not, so I wonder why I even bothered.  Fine.  You win. Whatever.  Also, way to nitpick implementation instead of addressing an idea directly.  Good job.  You deserve a cookie or something.
::::By the way, Deathly Torpor would be far more useful to me than Brain Rot.  Since all of my deaths (and revivals) happen while I'm logged out, I'd gladly pay 10 AP for guaranteed insurance against headshot and revive ''on my terms.''  It's also an extra nine IP hits I can invest in a fourth character, so only one AP is actually lost.  A feature which would, incidentally, reward players with multiple zombie characters without anything that a good portion of the zombie population would object to.  But hey, it's not like we're concerned about forming a game that's fair to everyone half as much as we are with winning our precious catfights.  I'd just rather not waste my time.~[[User:Lurve|Lurve]]

====Hunger of the Dead====
Hello all... I'm relatively new to this game, but I added a suggestion to the Zombie skills named Hunger of the Dead.  I am hoping this skill would balance things a little more towards the Zombies (as I am a little frustrated that my Zombie is advancing so much slower than my Survivor).  This suggestion does not invalidate NecroTech's, but does make it a little harder for Survivor PC's to just get Revived when they are killed by Zombies.  It also means that NecroTech's are not the whirling "death" that has happened to my Zombie countless time in the past 2 weeks.  Hope you all like, and I'm cool with critizism and such. --[[User:echochild|echochild]] 13:03, 20 Sep 2005
:If your zombie gets revived too much, buy Brain Rot. It looks like syringes are getting rarer and rarer to find now anyway, though, so you'll probably be in the clear soon enough whatever you do. Your skill idea could use a better name, though, I think. "Hunger of the Dead" is a bit of a mouthful. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 18:07, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
:: Okies, I wasn't sure if it would help or not, seeing as I have seen a lot of discussion about how the game is currently favoring the Living, and this might keep them dead longer, but if the syringes are getting rarer, then I guess this would be somewhat unnessecary.  I haven't been able to get the XP together to get Brain Rot as I kept getting Head Shot-ed until the rules were changed (I think I lost a total of 130 xp or so).  Either way thanks for looking at it, and maybe something else could come of it.  Sorry about the cheesy title, but it was all I could think of at the moment..."Edit" One more question... I had another suggestion but I was unsure as to which category to put it in, That each class of Survivor might have a unique starting skill that no other Class could get... which category would that belong to?  I'll make sure to make the suggestion tomorrow as I've used my one per day +)--[[User:echochild|echochild]] 13:26, 20 Sep 2005
:::Yeah, as of late everyone (except a few morons) has noticed the imbalance between living and dead. There's roughly three humans for every zombie, according to Kevan. Hopefully with a few more zombie skills implemented, and the upcoming zombie epidemic that'll be caused as a result of the syringe shortage, the balance will at least equal out.
:::The whole "class-specific skills" thing has been raised before, and Kevan has shot it down, so don't bother with it. I'm fairly neutral on the subject - don't ''hate'' the idea, don't ''love'' the idea - but I'm not the one running the game.
:::And don't worry about the skill's name, it isn't even one billionth as bad as '''Putrid Possum''' - which I still think was only edited in as a joke. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 18:34, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::That's sad about the class thing... it would diversify the classes more, but the Putrid Possum thing is hysterical.  Either way Thanks! +)--[[User:echochild|echochild]] 13:56, 20 Sep 2005
:::::I too have noticed the imbalance between Zombie and Survivor. My Survivor has been levelling up pretty quickly through holing up in a barricaded Police station and making hit and run attacks. Meanwhile my Zombie has been Revived and then Killed twice, then shot to death another time, while wandering around trying to find some warm, tasty courage to devour. Glad to see the syringes are getting rarer, that should put them back in the place of being used to revive people and not being uberweapons. I have a few ideas for Zombie Skills, only added Ghastly Grapple so far (trying to stick to 1/day). I was wondering though; would it unbalance the game too much to reduce the cost Zombies pay for skills? Say to 80 or something, and have it only apply to players who started as Zombies? Since Zombies gain XP slower than Survivors it might offset the skills. Or perhaps a sliding scale - have it cost 70xp + 5xp per skill you already have (to a max of 100xp), representing the brain getting duller and duller as the Zombie Plague sets in? (sorry for babbling - I don't articulate well) - [[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 21:48, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)

====Restless====
Suggested under Memories of Life. The skill makes a logged out zombie automatically do a random attack on any character that tries to interact with it in any way (from attacking to healing to DNA extraction). The attack type is random, costs no AP and gives no XP. The in-game motivation is that the remains of the spine is functional enough to cause a reflexive reaction even when the brain is temporary shut down. Out-of-game, this would give survivors reason to respect zombies even when their players aren't logged in. Since you never know what zombie will take a swipe at you, you won't saunter around, treating them like immobile statues. The motivation for a zombie player to take the skill (apart from the satisfaction of annoying the living) is that it will tend to discourage them to pick you as a target. One swing and they may decide to attack another zombie instead. [[User:JanneM|JanneM]] 02:15, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)
:How about spending 1 or 2 AP to go into 'overwatch' mode? You would then allocate, say, 10AP to the Overwatch and automatically make a hand attack against any Survivor who interacts with you? The attacks use up AP as normal, up to the amount you allocate. You don't have to have all the AP you allocate, it includes those you generate while in Overwatch. As for a name, how about Death Spasm? - [[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 09:23, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)
::My problem with anything that drains AP while I'm gone means that I don't actually know when it's sensible for me to log in again and make some moves. Right now it's real nice and predictable; I know that when I get home, I can log in and have enough AP to do something sensible. Bu contrast, death becomes a punishment for a zombie precisely because you lose a bunch of AP. I'd much prefer something simple like what I suggested above. The point is after all not to "continue gaming" while logged off, but simply to give you some off-line protection and instill a bit of much needed caution among the survivors.[[User:JanneM|JanneM]] 08:39, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::I agree, that anything that could possibly drain AP while your away from the computer is not really feasable, and damn unfun besides. i understand that you would set the AP amount before you left the computer, but if i log in, found myself dead, use 10 points to stand up, i'm looking at 25-40 ap allready. take another 10 points off of that, and if i was at 50 to begin with, i'm at 30ap for the WHOLE DAY. i... i just don't care for that idea. Death's 10ap allready is a pretty big hit per day, so i'd rather not deal with a mechanic that reduces that number allready. 
:I like this idea, but perhaps instead of being under a skill tree, it should be another stand alone skill.
::Just going along with the idea of "restlessness" perhaps the zombie should have a % to react based on AP. Say, the account has racked up 25AP, and so has a 50% chance of either takeing a swing or biteing (at either a normal or flat 10% attack chance). every AP point that is acclumated is worth 2%, thus a zombie that has been left untouched (50Ap) has a full 100% chance to react to danger, attacking every time its interacted (ie: hit) with, at either a 10% chance to hit or its normal base chance according to its skills.
::(That being said, i'm usualy in favor of a K.I.S.S* method of doing things.)
:::Keep It Simple Stupid*

====Infectious Bite====
What are everyone's thoughts on humans killed by infectious bite standing up as zombies with the skill themselves? --[[User:Dayfat|dayfat]] 19:51, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
:I did consider this when implementing it, but think it's probably too open to abuse - zombie team-leaders biting zergling cops before urging them out of a tower block window, parachute-instructor style. "Killed by" is an interesting distinction, but it still feels a bit too generous. --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] 20:18, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)

::I see said potential for abuse, but I think the wording is misconstrued.  It is not necessarily "killed by" but more of a "died while" infected.  Survivor hit with infectuous bite would be labeled "infected" until either healed to full health (possibly only by someone with First Aid Skill!) whereupon the "infected" label is removed, or killed whereupon he becomes a zombie with "Infectuous Bite" Skill.  Of course, something is currently implemented I've avoided getting bitten so far, so I don't quite know the ramifications... --[[User:Squashua|Squashua]] 9:10, 28 Sep 2005 (EST)

====Running====
I added this; maybe it should be endurance running; zombies in the recent flicks (28 Days Later (ok, "infected") and the new DotD) seem to have this incredibly scary run that is much faster than the traditional Romero lurch.  I figured that in order to not unbalance the action points vs. speed, it could be approximately 1 move = .66 action points, but the moves had to be consecutive, and all had to constitute movement.  This would require tracking the last 2 prior actions of a zombie and might be tough to implement. --[[User:Squashua|Squashua]] 2:56, 27 Sep 2005 (EST)
:The third move might not even need to be a movement; it could be an attack, simulating a rush forward and then instant attack, not costing the zom an extra AP as long as the prior two actions were spent moving.  This requires keeping track of the prior two actions (move_flag value = {0,1,2}, set initial value = 0; spend 1 AP on move, set value = 1; spend 1 AP on move, set value = 2, otherwise set value = 0; next action (move, attack, whatever) costs 0 AP, set value = 0. --[[User:Squashua|Squashua]] 12:03, 28 Sep 2005 (EST)

====Greater Undead====
and it's friend - is anyone else reminded of Zombie Mutation/ Zombie Juggernaut? Skills which turn your character into another race/being are a bad idea. --[[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 18:42, 29 Sep 2005 (BST)

====Ankle Grab====
Conceptually, why is it called "Ankle Grab" instead of, I don't know, anything else?  I'm not sure how the name of the skill invokes the ability of the skill. --[[User:Squashua|Squashua]] 20:51, 28 Sep 2005 (EST)

:Agreed. Ankle Grab sounds like a zombie attack of some sort. In fact, I thought it was a new zombie attack until I looked it up on this wiki. Think we could come up with a better name? Some quick lame names from the thesaurus: Rebound, Bestir, Rouse. Maybe a Fast adjective in front of that. Like: Quick Rouse. --[[User:Radoteur|Radoteur]] 21:28, 29 Sep 2005 (BST)

::Ankle Grab is definately not the best description of this ability. What is it supposed to mean? Sounds vaguely proctological to me. I suggest "'''Rubber Soul'''" with the catchy phrase "Puts the spring in your step that keeps you coming back for more." Maybe it's not great, but almost anything would be an improvement. --[[User:Stuckinkiel|Stuckinkiel]] 08:23, 4 Oct 2005 (BST)

:::It's called "Ankle Grab" because the zombie could grab the ankle of a survivor and pull themselves up. If it doesn't already, this skill should require that someone standing be in the same place as them, or else it's not really an ankle grab at all. - [[User:XxXThe TruthXxX|XxXThe TruthXxX]] 01:46, 14 August 2006 (BST)

====Memories of Life Subskills====
I was thinking that I doesn't make much sense to have Morbid Manipulation as a subskill to Death Rattle, the two activities don't seem very related.  Hunger Howl, though seems like a more likely candidate for a subskill to Death Rattle. Thoughts? --[[User:Raelin|Raelin]] 02:43, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
:Hm. The problem is that Morbid Manipulation is a fairly powerful skill, allowing zombies to use the other melee weapons. It needs to be a couple of levels down, I think, and the only subset of Memories of Life is Death Rattle. So that's where I put it, as it's a "life memory" skill, even though it's not specifically to do with talking. Hunger Howl I think I should place elsewhere. It is a useful skill and shouldn't require you to wait that many levels to get it. Tricky business, all this skills tree stuff. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 02:51, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
::Indeed, very tricky business.  Perhaps, instead of placing it deeper within the skill tree, you could give it a level limit as with the Zombie Hunter skills? --[[User:Raelin|Raelin]] 02:59, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::It looks like there might be some point when I have to, frankly. There's so many zombie skills that just having one tree is getting a bit out of hand. I can think of a few existing skills that would be all the better for a level limit, though. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 03:03, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
::No human melee weapons deal more damage than claws, even with full %to-hit.  This places it straight into "vanity" territory.  Make it a subskill of Memories, or place it on its own to allow former firemen an easier XP route while saving for Vigor Mortis and its decendents. ~[[User:Lurve|Lurve]]
:::No zombies can use guns. End of discussion. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 08:52, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::Who said anything about using guns?  Are you just making things up now? ~[[User:Lurve|Lurve]]
::You could put Morbid Manipulation under Last Grab if you're still concerned about the power level. --[[User:Kwil|Kwil]] 17:05, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)

==== Death Stench ====
What do you guys think of it? Just something we came up with at the forums. Check there for several variations.

===General Debate===
I'm going to start seriously criticizing these individually tommorow, but for now, my main objection is that Military skills, in the current UD build, dominate the tree.  Not only do they improve the rate of XP gain much faster than science skills do, but there are more of them.  There need to be more science skills which are actually important, and adding new military skills will only make things worse.  Also, you can't make science good just by adding combat skills to the science tree.--[[User:Milo|Milo]] 09:40, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)
:I'm afraid you might have a point on that "combat skills on the science tree" thing. I only added them as a suggestion, in order to make low-level Scientists slightly more apt at causing damage. The amount of times I've seen some doc lament that he keeps dying... Still, now that I think about it, the knife one is probably a bad idea. I like the idea of the "anatomy" one, though, 'cause wouldn't a doctor know where to hit to cause the most damage?
:Military skills, I think, dominate the tree because there's just so Goddamn much it covers. Both the actual Military units, and the cops and the firefighters. Plus it's pretty much the only place you can put combat skills. I guess I could relegate the two "martial arts" skills to civilian, though... people usually learn karate and crap like that outside the military.
:Science definitely needs more good skills, though, definitely. I liked the "security clearance" ones that [[User:JanneM|JanneM]] came up with. Those sound neat. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 09:54, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)
::I think it's a bit off to see the lack of damage causing ability as a weakness for scientist characters. If causing damage is what you want, then perhaps you shouldn't be playing a scientist in the first place. I play one myself, and I'm happy not having combat skills; in fact, thne lack of them was the reason I chose it. Actual combat should be deadly, basically. The revivification syringe is a good offensive get-me-out-of-this-situation skill and item; I don't think the class really needs much more.
::Instead, the game should push the perceived strengths more. My "security clearance" idea was an attempt to do so. Scientists/doctors should be good at things that depends on knowledge or specialist support. [[User:JanneM|JanneM]] 10:20, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::I'm starting to wonder how exactly one would use the security clearance data.  Would you just avoid suburbs where a lot of tagged zombies existed?
::::I'd say it depends on whether you're on your own or support for a group. Being alone, a lot of tagged zombies means 1) a lot of zombies (dangerous, thus bad); and 2) not so many untagged zombies (not so much Xp opportunities, thus bad). I would tentatively go for the greener, less crowded fields. As group support, however, you can tell people where to go to hunt. [[User:JanneM|JanneM]] 16:55, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
:I understand that game balance is important, but speaking realistically (I know, I know...), military "skills" ''would'' dominate what people were trying to learn and get better at under these circumstances.  I know I'd rather get a little better with a shotgun than figure out how to extract DNA from a zombie. In a "real world" Malton, the scientists and doctors would be crouched in the most secure buildings they could find, far away from the windows, letting the military guys and the cops do their thing. --[[User:Stankow|Stankow]] 13:49, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

Just a thought, and I don't know enough about coding to do this elegantly, but can the Skill Trees indicate the skills that are currently in the game vs. the ones that are suggestions?  A lot of people (me included) play almost exclusively as one side or the other and may not recognize current skills -- some sort of indication would be more convenient than going to another wiki page. --[[User:Stankow|Stankow]] 17:51, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)
:How about bold-vs-italic?--[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 18:04, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)
:: Good idea. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 18:09, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

Security Clearance isn't terribly useful, but it would help NTs avoid suburbs where everyone had been tagged (Alpha and Beta are good, Gamma is kind of pointless.)  CPR is good; I wouldn't get it as a doctor, but combat-oriented characters would get it to heal themselves.  Knowledge of Anatomy is WAY overpowered, and doesn't seem right in the science tree.  General Practioner and ER experience are fine.

Athletic Prowess I dislike because it improves melee quite a bit, but, as it's not a military skill, it might be okay.  Boxing is totally useless.  Architecture is poorly worded; the easiest way to do it would be to make it so that barricading never misses.  Alternately, you could have it so that barricading added two items at a time.

Scent Life is fine.  Scent Trace should (maybe) require the number of people to be greater than the number of items, instead of the barricade level.  Scent Death is kind of pointless, but would at least encourage zombie-style behavior.  Jagged Teeth is useless because of flak jackets.  Sturdy Jaw is good though.  Unless I've forgotten how to do math, it puts bite at 1.8 expected damage per turn, which is a lot, but zombies could have a lot more power without it disrupting the game balance.  Morbid Manipulation is cool, but it should allow human melee skills to affect the accuracy of zombie-wielded weapons.  Then a zombie fireaxe would get a total of 50% accuracy (including +10 from VM,) or 1.5 damage per turn, equivalent to a fully leveled claw attack.  Sleepless Watching is a little overpowered, but if people wanted to barricade, they could just step outside and kill the zombie first.  The only trouble is that malls and the like would be difficult for the humans to hold if enough Sleepless zombies converged on them.  Hunger Howl is an old and neccesary idea.  Corpse Slam needs some tweaking, but it is the best zombie suicide suggestion I've seen yet.  Coffin Skin and Fetid Blood are ridiculously overpowered. As flak jackets already take a point off of bullet attacks, you could have bullets which did only two damage to the zombie.  Mortos del Fuego would be cool, but zombies *want* to commit suicide.  Giving them a bonus for doing so seems unfair.  Hollow Skull is a very good idea.

The ZH skills are all good.--[[User:Milo|Milo]] 19:33, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

:Phew, that's a lotta discussion right there. First, you can't skip straight to Sniping as it's place under Marksmanship. Marksmanship allows you to shoot outside of unbarricaded to strongly barricaded (after which point we assume all the windows get boarded up), whilst Sniping allows for kills regardless of barricade status. With Sniping, you could have a veritble fortress with players barricading it beyond all entry whilst snipers lay on the roof and picked off zombies. However, a decent-sized zombie rush would sort that out, but there's not much a decent-sized zombie rush wouldn't sort out. Perhaps it could use some tweaking, though, but I'm too tired to think of how right now.
:Your points about the martial arts skills and athletic prowess are good - perhaps if we kept one melee-boosting skill in Civilian and expressed a greater concentration on firearms? I have to admit, friearms are the ideal way to deal with zombies, but since ammunition can be scarce at times, it's good to have a melee weapon for backup, and having the skills to weild it effectively is a must. After all, a crowbar to the brain does more damage to a zombie than a shot to the leg.
:Architechture... to be honest, I'm not 100% sure how barricades work (having not had much to do with them beyond knocking them down) but I figured a skill to make them twice as fast would be good. Feel free to edit that one to make it read better.
:I agree with you on Scent Trace. Scent Death is there precisely to encourage zombie behaviour - all we have currently is isolated groups of zombies, ones and twos and threes everywhere. There's no grouping mentality and a good set of skills that give bonuses for grouping would surely encourage more zombies players. I was thinking something like "Horde Mentality" or whatever, where zombies deal 1 extra damage for every 10 zombies in the area. Or have a +5% chance to hit for every 10 zombies in the area. I think zombies are a much underloved class at the moment, resulting in masses of humans which results in either boredom or PKing.
:I don't think human skills should affect zombie melee attacks - humans have radically different ranges of movement compared to zombies, and the strength factor is different too. Perhaps the human skills could be half as effective? That might be more apt.
:Sleepless Watching does need changing, I think, but it's a decent idea. I hate the way people barricade zombies in buildings and stupid stuff like that. That's why I suggested the "extra AP for escaping zombies" bit - it's more accurate, when you look at zombie films. I mean, I've seen people saunted into a building where the Many were - over 100 zombies - shot several and then just left. You should not be able to just waltz through a pack of zombies as pretty as you please. On that note, maybe Sleepless Watching could be relative to zombies in the area? For every zombie with Sleepless Watching inside/outside that building, the greater the chance you'll fail to make a barricade.
:Hunger Howl is an effort to make it so that metagaming isn't necessary for co-ordinated zombie attacks, like Scent Death and my hypothetical "horde mentality" thing. It would as terrify humans if heard one right outside their window one night. Perhaps with another skill to add to it, it could serve to attract even more zombies, but I'd wait until it's actually tested before going that far. Corpse Slam is, surprisingly, something I'd never have thought of but a Goddamn awesome idea. Just the image of a group of zombies hurling their rotting bodies at a barricade is enough to make me grin. It's definitely a needed skill - smaller groups of zombies just can't cope with huge barricades.
:Coffin Skin and Fetid Blood ''are'' ridiculously overpowered, you have me there. I have no idea what I was thinking. Whilst either might be okay... together, not really. I have a feeling I came up with the names before I came up with the effects. Consider them gone, frankly.
:Mortos del Fuego isn't actually about ''killing'' the zombie, it's just a stupid idea I had ages ago and thought it'd be fun as a mega-high-level skill. After all, what could be more terrifying than a zombie on fire? I think it'd probably work best as a kind of "temporary" skill - you'd have to have Digestion, in order to heal yourself, otherwise you'd end up keeling over dead and then when you stood up again, you'd be extinguished and have to earn another 100XP in order to catch alight. Expensive, but fun.
:Hollow Skull is a Goddamn necessity, but I'm starting to doubt whether or not it should be below Brain Rot. A lot of the problems I have with headshot is that trigger-happy hunters blow some poor sap's brains out while he's waiting for a revive. I should know, this happened to me. But with Brain Rot, you can't get revived, and man this is getting complicated. I'm really not sure about the placement of this skill, so I'll just leave it until I've have some sleep.
:The zombie hunter skills are quite nice, and reflect the abilities of someone who hunts zombies, but they should cost a lot more than 100XP. As far as this game goes, humans are prey, albeit armed prey, and zombies are predators. They are the tougher, more destructive species who eats the weaker species. Zombie hunters are prey become predator, which is a hard thing to do, and a measly 100Xp to tip the scales in your favour isn't fair. Zombie hunters should definitely be a difficult thing to become. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 21:41, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

::I like Hollow Skull below Brain Rot, it rewards the kind players who choose to dedicate themselves to the intensely boring zombie class.  I like the concept of Mortos del Fuego: maxed zombies would have a challenge presented to them (staying on fire as long as possible.)  The specifics of fire don't appeal to me, but the basic idea of a temporary zombie skill is very good, almost neccesary, given the amount of bitching done about how boring zombies are once you have the skills.--[[User:Milo|Milo]] 01:08, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

:::I was considering making another skill (something like "Torsoin' Around") where you'd lose your legs. You'd gain such abilities as being able to stand up quicker (as you wouldn't have any legs) and wriggle through barricades (akin to Free Running) but you'd also be down to 35HP max and lose such skills as Lurching Gait.
:::Maybe it should be a zombie class or something.
:::And yes, zombies should be much more appealing to new players. It'd help out the imbalance between humans and zombies. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 01:28, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

::'''Security Clearance Gamma:''' I was worried it'd be overpowered, but you want to get rid of it as pointless?? Remember, as a scientist character you are either back-up and information gatherer for other characters, or you go by yourself and earn your Xp by DNA tagging and revivification. And with a limited amount of AP:s, knowing which way to go for a reasonable - but not overpowering - number of zombies is a huge help. [[User:JanneM|JanneM]] 01:54, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

:::Meh, you could be right.  My take on it was that it gave so little information: there are huge tracts of map you know nothing about.  But as I haven't played much with NTs, I'll take your word for it.--[[User:Milo|Milo]] 02:04, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

'''Doctoring Skills'''  Maybe its because I am a med student, but I think the doctor should have some small ability to heal without a first aid kit.  Maybe the medic too.  Noy much mind you, maybe like a 30% chance to heal 2 HP or something.  And then you could have more advanced versions that improve your chances available at standard price to scienteists and double price for everyone else.
--[[User:Tiger Striped Dog|Tiger Striped Dog]]

:Doesn't seem too useful to me :(.  The ambidextrous thing would be cool for knives, but I don't think anybody can swing two fireaxes at once (this topic was much discussed on the forums.)  Also, I hate the whole rifle idea.  Any time you introduce a new firearm, you have to ask yourself, "is this worth having an extra ammo type to juggle?"  In this case, it is not (plus you'd have to change all the menus.)

'''Dead Calm:''' Is there any penalty to AP to leaving a zombie infested building now? I've added "Last Grab" as an idea to make one.. (which could be a very nasty skill in groups)-[[User:Kwil|Kwil]] 02:27, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:There ''should'' be, frankly. I've seen people dance in and out of buildings full of dozens of zombies. People have wandered in and out of a building packed full of 120+ zombies without a care in the world. It is just. Not. Accurate. You don't see people in movies move in and out of infested buildings like it's another day at the office, so it shouldn't be so here. An extra AP to leave (not enter) any building or street per 10 zombies there. If there's 10, you need 2AP to move on. If there's 120, you need 13AP to move on, etc. etc. '''Dead Calm''' represents the zombie hunter's unflappability in the face of the walking dead, so they don't need any extra AP with that skill. '''Last Grab''' is also a good skill idea, I like it. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 04:36, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

*'''Communications''' - with a comm unit (also suggested; found in NecroTech offices) a player with information skills like "Security Clearance" would be able to receive the info anywhere, not just in the office. [[User:JanneM|JanneM]] 02:39, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

*'''Proficiency Points''' - Just about everything you mentioned there is already covered by skills. Extra HP exists in the form of Body Building, extra chance of finding stuff is the Bargain Hunter skill, extra accuracy comes with the weapons training skill, making better barricades would be an extension of the construction tree. I believe it has been stated somewhere that there you can never affect someone else's chance of hitting with an attack, so the 2% dodge bonus is not needed. Also, levelling up is also covered - your level is equal to the number of skills you possess, there is no arbitraty 'every 100xp is a level' going on. In short, Proficiency points are pointless as they are just a way of having a second tiny skill at each level. --[[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 22:01, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

'''Dead Reckoning:''' Suggestion added for discussion. I think it would make high-level survivor characters more useful in mass zombie attacks, with the corollary that they'd become prime targets for the attacking zombies. If people feel its overpowered, maybe a high XP for acquisition?

=== [[Wirecutters]] reloaded ===
Sorry, I just realise I may have voice my opinion in the middle on my proposal about the change to the [[Wirecutters]], instead of just proposing the change there and explaining why here. Nevertheless, the idea is not to destroy a barricade completely in one go, but to destroy one level of it by AP you spend using your wirecutter on it. Granted, if the wirecutter is a permanent object, it take only 7 AP to destroy a barricade completely, which is utterly too powerful. But if there is a 40% your wirecutter break at each use, you will probably need a new wirecutter after having dropped 2 or 3 levels of the barricade, but that would be enough for most begginers to enter an interesting building without having to buy Free Running amogst your first level skills.
:But considering wirecutters are so easy to find, it would be child's play to stock up on them and then go tear down a barricade. I think they shouldn't break, but just give a 30% chance of doing damage to the barricade. After all, barricades are huge piles of junk, not wire fences. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 22:25, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)
::Are they ? AFAIK, you only find them in Fire stations and malls. Sure you can stock them up and go  tear down a barricade. But if I ever see a survivor hanging around my beloved safe house and tearing down more than the necessary level to enter it, he is dead as sure as hell... Granted it would need we get a message when someone lower the level of the barricade of the building you are in, in the first place... Gosh, this is something which is really needed anyway.
:::I'm trying to picture how one could use wirecutters to get through filing cabinets and vending machines.  --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 23:32, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::Well I pictured the "wirecutter" myself has being the sort of one firefighter used in car crash accident (don't know if there is a more appropriate english word for them). That's cutting through cars, so that could cut through anything, really--[[User:Cat Lord|Cat Lord]] 15:00, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::::Are you talking about the [http://www.hurstjaws.com/Home/Default.Asp jaws of life], Cat Lord? When most people talk about wirecutters, they mean the little handheld tools, like [http://images.google.com/images?q=wirecutters&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images these ones], that are only good for cutting wires.--[[User:Tocky|Tocky]] 15:48, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::::Something in between, in fact, like [http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/images/misc/metal_theft1.jpg what those soldiers are using]. Maybe it's called a bolt cutter, but I bet if it can cut bolts or rope wire, it can cut a lot of other things... ^_^ --[[User:Cat Lord|Cat Lord]] 21:21, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)

=== Advanced Melee Skills (* skills)===
As a note, all skills labelled with a [*] are meant to be accepted as a package. After some tinkering around with my previous work, this is Mark III of a possible Weapon Differentiation project, and before people started belting it, I thought I'd show my assumptions:

1 Pure Damage weapons are pegged to do an approximate average 1.5D/AP. Effect Damage have been pegged at around 0.8D/AP, due to their other effects. This is in opposition to the Firearms which have much higher damage averages.
2 The Philosophy is to create a skill set that allows any Melee weapon to be justifiably used. There are some winners, but the winners are not so blatantly obvious that use of any other weapon is a stupid idea.
3 Each weapon is built to have it's own specific character. Pipes and Crowbars do more than just HP damage. Axes remain the consistent high-damage weapon, but at a low probability compared to others. The Knife becomes a Low-damage, high-probability weapon. The Baseball bat becomes primarily a middle-road weapon, with the chance of Exceptional damage. The Punch becomes an unpredictable, but effective attack, doing damage at both Low and High scales, at varying probabilities.

The Averages, for those who are interested, are essentially:
Punch: 1.5D
Axe: 1.6D
Knife: 1.2D
Baseball Bat: 1.5D
Pipe: 0.8D, + 10% AP damage
Crowbar: 0.7D, + 10% XP damage

So, this system provides obvious winners, but no weapon's stats are so clearly better that using any other weapon would be useless. -- [[User:Odd Starter|Odd Starter]] 08:04, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
:How can I put this... we do not need a heaping tonne of new Military skills that do nothing but unnecessarily ramp up melee damage. Players should not even contemplate being able to punch someone to death. No weapon should do XP damage like that, and no weapon should do AP damage ''at all''. There were two melee-enhancing skills added earlier, which got removed due to quite a lot of people complaining (either on this page or directly to me) about how dumb they were. You've added '''TWELVE GODDAMN SKILLS''', which regardless of how the math works out is far more than six times worse.
:"Baseball bats gain a %10 probability of inflicting double damage." "Players gain an additional attack per AP with a punch." This is a (vaguely) realistic zombie apocalypse game, not Mortal Kombat. Combos have no place here.
:I can tell you're enthusiastic about this, and that's great, really. But the problem is you're enthusiastic about some really awful ideas. This isn't just my opinion, it's shared by many people. I have registered wiki users and people who just browse it asking me right now to remove these skills, and I'm going to.
:I'm not against enhancing melee skills a bit. I added several which aid those who fight with melee weapons. But this is just ridiculous. Nobody needs that many skills to do with punching. I'm sorry, but they've got to go. Please don't let this discourage you from adding good skill suggestions, though. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 08:40, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
::Right, so in short, literally ''no'' skills that improve current weapon abilities, even if they patch up holes in the existing system, will be accepted ever. Gotcha. -- [[User:Odd Starter|Odd Starter]] 13:46, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::There are plenty of skills which improve melee weapons. Athletic Prowess. Physical Endurance. Hefty Swing. Axe Experience. They are fairly balanced skills which lend a little extra help.
:::As I said, we do not need multiple skills to do with punching. Punching is useless. Punching accomplishes nothing. You should not even contemplate being able to punch someone to death. You should also not be able to pull off combo moves. Also, I think it should be taken as a given that no player should be allowed to become more than 80% accurate with any weapon. I will recheck the skills tree to make sure that is so.
:::As I said, it's great that you're enthusiastic. '''But your ideas are horrible.''' I'm sorry, but they really are. There are no other skills that promise "double damage" or "extra attacks" and yours shouldn't either. Don't think I'm biased against melee skills - I will also delete horrible skills that ridiculously boost ranged weapons, or even zombie skills. Perhaps if you come back with some ''good'' ideas related to melee weapons, they'll be good enough to keep. But the ones you currently have aren't. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 22:37, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
:I'm amused that Odd Starter's comments about "patching holes" in the skill system is met with "punching is useless" as a counterargument.  I think Odd ''knows'' punching is useless, and recognizes it as a ''problem'', rather than a Commandment From On High that Punching Shall Always Be Useless.  I'm not personally trying to say that it's definitely a problem, but some others seems oblivious to the possibility that such a point of view even exists. (i.e. Punching is useless, don't you ''get it''?  That's the Way It Should Be!) I'm pretty happy for punching to be pretty terrible, since no one is forced to use it, but it's ''not'' totally useless, and frankly quite funny for a portion of players to actually kill someone with a punch.  (I assume the UrbanDead audience is fairly diverse, like most game audiences to some extent.  Some are competitive coots, some are in it for the camaraderie, others Just Like Zombies, and still others just want to goof around.  Good game design includes at least some elements that appeal to all of these players, and then some.)  Also, regarding Odd's assertion that ''"no skills that improve current weapon abilities (...) will be accepted ever"'': Take this all with a grain of salt.  This Wiki certainly doesn't define the future of UrbanDead; as the top of the Suggestions page and the FAQ state, Kevan isn't really looking for suggestions anyway.  This just lets a lot of people, such as myself, blow a lot of virtual hot air talking about something we like.  --[[User:John|John]] 05:47, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
::Punching is useless in ''real life''. It's not "patching holes", it's making something that should be a worthless attack into a better attack for no good reason. Considering his previous attempt at an "advanced melee skills tree" included skills like "axe tornado" I'm not quite sure why anyone's defending this. Everyone I ask says these skills are terrible ideas and we don't need them, yet only the minority who actually like the concept of being able to punch zombies to death voice their comments on this wiki. I shall not be made into the bad guy here - these skills are not wanted by the majority, so I remove them. That is how this thing works. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 08:45, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
:I'm sorry if it was the wrong way to go about it, but I editied the military skills a bit.  I added "fient" and cut "axe expereince" out completley.  Lots of folks are doing fine with axes already, but fienting would be fun, and NASTY if you have combat knife training.  --[[User:swiers|swiers]] 17:17, 22 Sep 2005 (CMT)
::Things certainly should be tinkered with a bit. Blunt weapons are useless at the moment; if giving them a chance for double damage, or making them inflict AP damage, is the way forward, then perhaps we should try it. And from reading the earlier posts, it's clear to see why Katthew isn't a moderator anymore. --[[User:Cortman|Cortman]] 23:16, 28 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::As a note to all who are interested, since Melee weapon suggestions are extremely low priority, we should probably discuss this off the main suggestions page. I've made a section in [[Talk:Combat_Suggestions#Melee_Weapon_Discussion|Talk:Combat Suggestions]] for people to discuss this. Discuss it here, and when we come up with something that's clearly excellent, ''then'' we'll try discussing it again here. -- [[User:Odd Starter|Odd Starter]] 02:20, 29 Sep 2005 (BST)

==== New proposal on advanced melee skills / weapons ====
by [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 05:51, 28 Sep 2005 (BST)

Right now the various melee weapons only have minor differences. What we need some TRUE variety in weapons, with truly DIFFERENT weapon behaviors, without messing much with the interface or mechanics. 

Current melee weapons are mainly blunt weapons (with exception of axe, which doesn't really act differently from others), and max to-hit is limited to 40%, even with max skill. 

There are two ways to improve upon that. The "critical strike" way, or the "spectrum of weapons" way. 

=====Critical Strike=====
by [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 05:51, 28 Sep 2005 (BST)

I agree that damage for melee should be lower than guns, but some compensatory damage could be added, similar to gun's "headshot". Here's a concept: critical strike. All attacks that does damage has a 2% (more? less?) of causing 10 damage instead of the regular damage. As more melee skills are learned, the percentage to-hit is improved. But later, melee skills actually improve the chance of delivering critical strikes. The overall percentage of critical strike will still have to be under 10% (or whatever appropriate amount). 

This change is mainly in the background and thus will not mess with the interface much, and does not mess with the combat calculations much either. 

=====Spectrum of Weapons=====
by [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 05:51, 28 Sep 2005 (BST)

To make new weapons truly different, you want to introduce weapons on the two extremes: a weapon that hits quite often, but does very little damage on one end, and a weapon that rarely if ever hits, but does tremendous damage (how about 8?). 

Let us take the fire axe for example. Default to-hit is 10%, damage is 3. Max to-hit is 40%. 

Then the "weak" weapon would have default to-hit of, day, 30% or 40%, with damage of one, maybe a "rapier" or just plain "knife"? 

The "strong" counterpart would be a "mace", perhaps. Default to-hit of 5%, damage of 6 or even 8 (double or more). 

We'll need to rebalance the percentages the melee skills improve the to-hit of these new weapons, but it should be quite interesting to see different "schools" of combat grew out of the two "extremes".

===Infection===
I already suggested the cut throut and the special status "poison" for a guy to get into a mall and die, an infection would do a one-hit-death, you bite them once and they die. better join a titanic group of zombies like the one on shearbank (am I allowed to tell that, I mean huamns have the                     zombie tracker to know things like that --[[User:Random guy|Random guy]], er, sometime (moved from main page by [[User:Morlock|Morlock]] 09:23, 23 Sep 2005 (BST))
: I think some kind of infection behavior is ''definitely'' in genre, and a good idea to help [[Player-Zombie_Imbalance|zombie/survivor balance]].   I propose a discussion page to talk about how it works, after consensus that people do want something like infection. --[[User:RodgerYoung|RodgerYoung]] 17:24, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)
again that's why I suggested "poison" originally the only cure to that was the first aid, if you don't get healed (at least 5 damage) you will die


===Scaling===
(idea moved from here onto the main Suggestions page by [[User:Tocky|Tocky]] 05:30, 28 Sep 2005 (BST))

There are lots of ways to tilt the game in favor of the zombies. While an automatic balancing system sounds nice, its implementation would be quite difficult. -- [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 09:36, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
:Well, not really. It'd work like this: The game sets the scale modifier a couple times every day. Whichever set of players (humans or zombies) there's less of gets the modifier. It's zombies, so I'll use zombies in my example. The modifier is [nh/ih]/[nz/iz] where nz is the number of zombies, nh is the number of humans, iz:ih is the ideal ratio of zombies to humans. (I think that works. I haven't tested it very hard.) The scaling could be weakened by just halving the modifier, or quartering it, or whatever. Then, for every zombie attack, the damage is multiplied by the scale modifier. For every zombie action that has a chance to succeed, the chance is multiplied by the scale modifier. It wouldn't be hard to implement. --[[User:Tocky|Tocky]] 12:27, 26 Sep 2005 (BST)

===Mutation Quest===
Hi all. I know I'm new, but I decided to throwout my idea none the less. I know it's a way off, but would be nice to see eventually. Heck, I could try and help with its implementation. But first, what do you people think of it? Ask if I ommited anything <.<; --[[User:Skarmory|Skarmory]] 19:20, 28 Sep 2005 (CET)
:Me again. I had a new idea, to help balance it too. Zombies can somehow acquire Samples (quest? search?), and become Mutants. To becomea Hybrid, a survivor has to take down a Mutant and then do a quest to lean how to control the mutation. BTW, way to see interest -.- [[User:Skarmory|Skarmory]] 16:25 04 Oct 2005 (CET)

===Missions/Events===
I would love to see some kind of event for Halloween.

===Scavenging===
As stands i would suggest its a bad idea as the potental for abuse would be HORRID. Being able to remove items from another person's inventory opens the door to EQ style abuse. However, the idea itself has merrit, i think. It would certently be concistent with a zombie movie for survivers to go thru the pockets of the dead looking for tools to survive. As a game mechanic, i would say that sence you are looking in a smaller area (dead body vs building) you would have a higher chance (30%-70%, depending on whatever is seen as "balenced") of finding SOMETHING. However, the list that you would be drawing from would be much smaller (said dead person's list of items) as long as the item dosen't dissapear from the persons inventory. It would also give the drop function a use, as now you could drop all but your wirecutters and have a good laugh as people come away from your courps with 4 pairs of cutters. On the other hand, it would be easy to abuse this, creating "ammo dumps" (pun intended) of bodys holding nothing but shotgun shells or pistol clips. Perhaps a limit, like taging zombies, of only being able to rife thru a body's pockets once every 24 hours? i do not think it would be horrabliy dificult to include this suggestion.--[[User:Spellbinder|Spellbinder]] 21:56, 5 Oct 2005 (BST)

===Headshot===
Hi, relatively new player here. I'm a Zombie player who had the misfortune of running up against some very experienced survivors with the ''Headshot'' skill.

While I do recognize the good points of the ''Headshot'' skill, even at Level 3 the ''Headshot'' skills can wipe out an good portion of an entire day's hard work for a Zombie. This gets worse if we actually have to chase down our food... :)

Honestly, it's a bit, well, over-the-top. Survivors do have multiple avenue for XP gain, and they don't (AFAIK) lose XP on death, so penalizing the Zombie players this way is... well, intention is interesting and in-fluff, but perhaps too harsh.

My suggestion is to reduce the penalty to 5XP per level after the 1st (or 5XP per level to compensate for the lower amount lost). Alternative, ''Headshots'' can cause zombies to lose 5 or 10AP straight out AND fall down, so that it's a combined 15 or 20AP to stand up (without ''Ankle Grab''). Sure reduces the havoc a Zombie can wreck -- [[User:Lynx7725|Lynx7725]] 07:47, 13 Oct 2005 (BST)

==Keep/Kill Discussion==

===Unarmed Combat/Advanced===

Kill.  Who would pay for this? -1% hit chance? Weak sauce.  Also, I'm not a fan of skills that affect the hit range and damage of other players.  It kills meele weapons, which are low on damage and ACC compared to guns anyway.--[[User:The Sham|The Sham]] 01:27, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)

: My thoughts exactly. --[[User:ShaqFu|ShaqFu]] 02:34, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)

===Hefty Swing===

Kill Hefty Swing, axes are already overpowered, and this would put the nail in the coffin of every non-firefighter class. I see no possible way this is balanced, since it makes axes as strong as pistols. --[[User:LibrarianBrent|LibrarianBrent]] 05:31, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:Axes are overpowered?  Since when?  And it does not make them as strong as pistols, pistols are like 2.75/shot.--[[User:Milo|Milo]] 05:37, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:Gyah, misread, sorry.  Yes, adding 2 damage is a too much.--[[User:Milo|Milo]] 05:39, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
::Perhaps +1 damage, zombie hunter skill? --[[User:LibrarianBrent|LibrarianBrent]] 05:42, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::Durr, this was ''meant'' to be a Zombie Hunter skill. Too damn tired to think straight. I think I'll change it and this'll be my last edit before I get some sleep. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 05:45, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::: Kill, a long with Physical Endurance: both make axes overpowered. @Milo: think of ammo as conserved AP. If you factor the search cost into the damage calculation you'll find axes are a pretty sweet deal. --Markus 15:57, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)

===Killing Count===

Kill "killing count" -- reason: PKer's wet dream.
:I don't agree with killing other survivors, but as long as it's possible, I don't think adding a counter would make it more likely.  --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 20:36, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)
::You obviously underestimate the power of bragging rights. Put this in and I can almost guaruntee PKs will have competitions to see how many of their own they can kill before they're put down. --[[User:Kwil|Kwil]] 01:55, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::Considering it also counts zombies, possibly separately, it has uses beyond that. PKing isn't the heinous crime everyone makes it out to be anyway. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 02:24, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::That's a forum-like debate you just dangled out there, and I encourage everyone to not respond.  I have very clearly-defined opinions about this topic, but don't feel that they belong ''anywhere'' on the wiki - at least anywhere we've created yet.  Wikis are for information, not debate.  Maybe a "Renfield Controversy" page to describe the different positions . . . but I digress.  Katthew, go to your room.  --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 13:49, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::::In games where if you character dies, it's dead forever, or loses masses of gold/xp, or can be looted of all its items - yes, PKing is a serious thing, because you lose something and you'll probably never get it back. In this game you bounce back and forth between alive and dead all the time - PKing is an inconvenience and nothing more. I'm speaking here as someone who's been PKed but has never PKed, so I think I know what I'm talking about. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 22:19, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::I wrote this one to count how many *things* you have killed humans or zombies, I have killed 6 Z but some don't belive me, if you put this in everyones porfile it could be used to see if you are worthy of following - random guy

===Sleepless Watching===

Kill it, no revives, no standing up.  This one screams of server madness and game balance destruction.  --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 21:49, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

Yeah, although it was originally my suggestion, I don't think there's a way to properly balance Sleepless Watching (in its current state it's underpowered, previously it was overpowered.) The basic issue is that zombies just aren't supposed to hold territory; it's out of genre. Might as well kill it--[[User:Milo|Milo]] 22:45, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

===Hiding & Stealth===
'''Hiding''' - Player becomes invisible after not logging in for 3 days instead of 5.
'''Stealth''' - Player becomes invisible after not logging on for 24 hours .

I think this is more "abusing the system Kevan put in to stop people unable to access the game for a while from getting killed a lot" than "skill". Perhaps it could be changed to "Player has a 45% chance of not showing up as in the building." and "Player has a 70% chance of not showing up as in the building." You wouldn't be able to hide in the street, and perhaps zombies with Scent Trace might be more likely to find you. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 04:28, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:These were taken almost directly from the Vampires game. They basically allow people who intend to be taking a break to not worry about it so much. Since once you log-on the protection disappears I don't see the problem with them. Just a question on ettiquette though, are we free to just delete anything we like and then put justification up here after the fact? Or should we leave it in the main list for at least a day or two while it's debated out here? -[[User:Kwil|Kwil]] 16:46, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
::Hmmm... I suppose something like that wouldn't be too bad, but in a zombie-infested town, it's hard to find safe places. Not to mention the military skills tree is getting way, ''way'' too big. Perhaps some kind of button marked "suspend account" or something, which would make your character invisible (but also unplayable) for however many days you intended to leave for. While being able to safely leave your character is a good idea, I'm not sure that making these skills you have to purchase with hard-earned XP is a good idea.
::Deleting stuff is for mods and admins. You can edit things, but not outright delete them. If you feel a skill is useless, superfluous or downright terrible, then post it here where people can talk about it. I've got this page on my watch list, so I notice all edits made. Because this page is one of the most popular and most edited in the entire wiki, I take a much tougher stance on it. The last iteration of this page was full of terrible ideas and basically messed up good and proper, and I don't want that to happen again. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 22:15, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

===Heavy Machine Gun===
It's rather ridiculous.  The AP penalty for movement would make it unusable.  Even if you just camped a fort, you'd only be able to visit four blocks a day.  And, frankly, nobody cares about being able to do 50 bajillion damage per turn, except PKers.  Oh, and 5% is pretty normal.  In most buildings, you find an item 20% of the time.  So 5% is one quarter of that, which is about as often as you'll find a pistol in a PD.--[[User:Milo|Milo]] 21:45, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:I'm starting to think I should lock the main suggestions page and have people suggest things in this talk page, to stop the sheer amount of horrible ideas that get added. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 21:54, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:I agree that I don't think we need weapons heavier than what we're got now, except MAYBE combat shotgun. When the zombies are REALLY out of control, we can introduce grenades. :D  [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 02:13, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)

yeah, I'm sorry about this one I wrote it when I was running from 63 Z, this must be my worse suggestion. random guy

===Stun Weapons===
There should be a way to stun an opponent, doing little/no physical damage, but cost him/her AP. 

For example, say stun gun when applied to a zed, only does about 2 pts damage, but also takes away 2-5 APs. 

===Marksmanship===
I vote to kill this one.  Being able to shoot characters that have no way to fight back is decidedly unfair.  --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 03:10, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)
:Well, I could argue that whenever you kill somebody who's offline, you're killing somebody who has no way to fight back, but I won't.  I vote keep, it would encourage overbarricading, which would in turn increase the zombie population, as more people would die trapped outside.
::Please remember to sign your entries.  --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 04:48, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)
'''Keep''', 90% of the time your target isn't online anyway, and thus has no way to fight back. If they're one zombie attacking a building with snipers firing from it, they're going to get killed anyway... --[[User:LibrarianBrent|LibrarianBrent]] 04:10, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::I think there should be a prereq to this and Sniping, but not Basic Firearms. I think the ability to SEE outside would be nescessary before you could shoot at them. I propose a skill entitles something to the effect of Eagle Eye, where it lets you see players outside of a building if you are inside, or inside of the building if you are outside. Of course, this would make reconnisance useless, so I agree it should take an additional AP to look. Once you've seen who is out/inside of the building, THEN you can target them with Marksmenship (if the barricades are low enough) or Sniping. Additionally, the Snipign skill should automatically let the rifle fire into the surrounding 8 squares if you are outside, it requires 3 skills, it shouldn't need a scope. Plus, you would have to find a scope for every rifle. It's kinda pointless, as a rifle is made to fire long distances, and shooting one block away, especially if you have advanced training doing so, wouldn't require a scope. --[[User:Kuroneko|Kuroneko]] 02:06, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
: I'd vote keep as well, but implementation could be a problem, as it would change game mechanics a bit. Perhaps as follows. Rifle can be "deployed'. At that time, player chooses a facing: N / S / E / W. Then the rifle's "target" list will show the elegible targets (outside, 1 block). When deployed, the player cannot move, but gets 20% to-hit bonus (bipods, prone). Can be deployed INSIDE building. Requires "Marksmanship" skill. If you don't have the skill, a rifle acts like a shotgun, not possible to "deploy".  [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 02:21, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
'''Kill'''- but the name should be kept and given to a good idea.
====Speed Load====
* I don't like the skill it was put under on the tree, but this I like.  Having to buy a couple of skills before you get it is a good idea to keep it from getting too common.  --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 03:10, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)

* Disagree. I don't think speedloading is needed as it saves way too many APs and makes gun-users even MORE powerful.  Perhaps we can do it like this: if the player stays still and has regenerated more than X APs (say, 5 APs) without moving, then one of the weapons is automatically reloaded provided appropriate clip / shell is available. [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 08:13, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)

* Alternatively, introduce a better shotgun... a single barrel shotgun with an 8-shell magazine. Still takes 8 AP to load, but can fire 8 AP without reloading. [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 08:13, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
: * The shotgun's not a bad idea, I guess. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 08:26, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
: * But slightly out of place, I know. -- [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 07:06, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
: * Having a different shotgun isnt that great an idea, the same thing can be accomplished by having 4 fully loaded shotguns, you get 8 shots in a row. I currently have a character with 3 fully loaded already. The main point here is that ammo is still hard to find and expends a lot of AP to get enough ammo to load a weapon, then a bunch more AP to load it. It's not that unbalancing as you still have to find the ammo to use it. --[[User:UglyToy|UglyToy]] 10:57, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
:: * we're discussing SPEEDLOADING, not the combat shotgun. SPEEDLOADING adds firepower of shotgun by cutting reload time to zero, virtually increasing their firepower by 50%. Instead of fire / fire / reload / reload, it's just continuous fire. It's too unbalancing. See discussion below. -- [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 07:06, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
* It's a handy skill. I'd kill for it. If I could obtain it in the game, I would literally kill everyone I could just to get it. It doesn't make gun users that powerful (as you still need ammo) and doesn't deserve needlessly complicated things like having to stand still for two hours in order to reload. If anything that would make "speed loading" an oxymoron. -- random guy?
: * But it's unbalancing, as this makes the shotgun the ULTIMATE weapon, as long as you have a steady supply of shells. Right now you need 2APs to shoot a shotgun blast (1 AP to shoot, 1 AP to load). At top upgrade your percent to-hit is 65% for 10 damage. So in 10AP, assuming single shotgun, I would have fired 6 times and reloaded 4 times, hit 4 times out of 6 (okay, slight fudging), doing 40 damage, all in 10 AP. With speedload, I would have fired 10 times, hit at least 6 times, doing 60+ damage, in just 10 AP! I've just increased my firepower by 33%. --[[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 08:04, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
:* Or compare to pistol. In 10 AP, assume I start with a loaded pistol, I would get 6 shots off, reload once, and get 3 more shots off, for total of 9 shots. At 65% to-hit, that should give me 6 hits (close enough), for 30 damage. If I have speedload, then I would have gotten off 10 shots instead of 9, only a slight damage increase, about 7% or so, not that unbalancing. -- [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 08:04, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
* What about nerfing Speed Load slightly by making it less than 100% accurate?  The skill could give you a 50% chance of reloading for free - and could even be different between the shotgun and pistol. It's only checked when you run out of ammo, so it shouldn't add too much server load. --[[User:RodgerYoung|RodgerYoung]]
: * You can nerf the shotgun speedload by spending 1 AP to load both barrels. That would decrease the gain to about 10% or so, not that unbalancing. -- [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 07:06, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
* I came up with this before I heard that the game was so out-of-balance toward the humans. If things are as bad for the zombie players as I've heard, then this ''is'' too much of an unbalancer and should be tabled for now. --[[User:Stankow|Stankow]] 15:55, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
*'''Kill'''- Shotguns are just fine without the need to turn them into pistols.

===Zombie XP for Barricades===
I like the idea of zombies getting XP for barricade smashing - it makes it easier for low-level zombies to get XP and encourages zombie-like behavior.  There is definitely the chance for abuse (cultists building barricades for their pet zombies) but survivors can already punch and heal each other.  It's also possible to make barricade smashing like studying - there's a chance of getting XP, but it's not certain. --[[User:RodgerYoung|RodgerYoung]] 19:24, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)

:I posted about this in the Necrotech mailing list and think it would be a good idea.  Here's the reasons for this, as posted in the mailing list.  This made the assumption that the zombie would gain 1 XP for every hit.

:1.  Zombies would naturally aggregate towards barricades, since they're a source of XP.  This induces the hording behavior in a non-verbal way.
:: You should re-order these. There'd be no horde-like behaviour until Players became more judicious. --[[User:Kwil|Kwil]] 18:30, 3 Oct 2005 (BST)
 
:2.  Players would need to be more judicious about the placement of barricades because zombies could go to any barricade and power up.  This would prevent people from abusing free running and arbitrarily barricading buildings.   I don't know if it being abused at the moment, but it seems to have the potential.  If anything, it denies zombies options of movement.
 
:3.  People hiding behind barricades would need to come out occasionally to "clear away" (i.e. kill) the zombies from the barricades to prevent them from gaining too much XP.  This would generate more conflict.  If players don't, then the eventual outcome is that the zombies will break through AND be more powerful.  As it stands, people find a place to turtle and continually barricade buildings cheaply.
 
:4.  The hubbub over the loss of AP and XP (due to headshot) would be minimized.  Let's say that a zombie get one XP for each successful hit on a barricade.  Let's say that the zombie died outside a barricaded building and now has 50 AP.  Upon standing up, that zombie has 40 AP, and can attack the barricade 40 times (assuming it stays up that long).  That's 40 XP for the zombie.  A substantial reward for persistence, but still less than the XP gain for successfully killing a survivor.  Now let's say a zombie-hunter comes by and headshots the zombie.  This XP gain is impacted by the headshot, but the loss doesn't break even until the zombie hits level 4.  By that point, the zombie will have at least a few zombie skills.  At higher levels, XP from barricades probably won't be as satisfying as ripping a zombie hunter's head off.  But for those 3 beginning levels, it's a good source.  
:: -- You are assuming that every attack hits. With the to-hit so low for the noob zeds, you'd be lucky to get 8 hits out of those 40 APs. [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 06:47, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
::: -- I don't have any first-hand experience, but the [[Barricades]] page says it's a flat 20% chance to knock down a piece.  So, 8 hits out of 40 APs would be average. [[User:RodgerYoung|RodgerYoung]] 16:33, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
::: -- You're right, at the time of the posting, I assumed that every attack hit.  So my calculations would be a little different.--[[User:FngKestrel|FngKestrel]] 04:49, 27 Sep 2005 (BST)
:5. (thought of a new one) As a rationale, it would seem that zombies would learn after breaking through umpteen barricades how to break through barricades more efficiently, so it seems that breaking through a barricade would be an XP gaining activity. --[[User:FngKestrel|FngKestrel]] 00:27, 24 Sep 2005 (BST)
:: -- Alternate idea -- player stop receiving XP for barricade strikes after level X (6?)

:6.  I think a zombie should get 5 minus its level exp for each level it takes down a barricade. So a level 1 zombie gets 4exp per level lowered and so on. -- [[User:Dark RyNo|Dark RyNo]] 04:05, 2 Oct 2005
:: Why exactly? Books get no less effective as humans power up, why should barricades be less effective for zombies? --[[User:Kwil|Kwil]] 18:30, 3 Oct 2005 (BST)
:::Simple. I see the main problem, not that zombies find it hard to level in general, but low level zombies do. The book is pretty useless anyway, however this would make it easier to level as a low level zombie, and then after a few levels, the zombie would have to stop randomly muching barricades and munch humans instead like they are supposed to.
: I like this one. A lot. [[User:Skarmory|Skarmory]] 13:00, 2 Oct 2005 (CET)
:: Let me eleaborate as to why I think this idea rocks: A: Low-level zombies get a much-needed boost. B: Dissuades survivors from barrcarind everything and their mother. C: High-level zombies can't powerlevel. [[User:Skarmory|Skarmory]] 12:19, 8 Oct 2005 (CET)
:I like this idea too, but I'm concerned about how it would power up zombies far too quickly. Since zombies have to smash barricades in order to get experience anyway, perhaps this should only be a percentage chance of getting experience when they hit one, like a book is only a percentage chance of getting an XP when you read one. 
--[[User:Kwil|Kwil]] 18:33, 3 Oct 2005 (BST)
::The Zombie would only receive XP for successfully attacking a Barricade, in a similar way to having to hit a survivor with an attack. Successfully attacking meaning making bits fall off, or receiving 'the barricade creaks' messages. Simply attacking it wouldn't give XP. --[[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 19:10, 3 Oct 2005 (BST)
:Keep- 1xp for every item removed (i think its a 20% chance, right?) seems a great way for a zombie to gain xp.
::Actually, that's 20% to hit.  That gives the message, "The barricade creaks."  Substantial damage is needed to remove a level.--[[User:FngKestrel|FngKestrel]] 18:18, 12 Oct 2005 (BST)



===Item Keep/Kill===
* Vote on '''explosive bullets'''
: KILL --[[User:RodgerYoung|RodgerYoung]] 21:18, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)
: KILL -- seconded. Whoever wrote that CLEARLY didn't think it out. There's no reason that dum-dum rounds would have fewer bullets in a clip, take longer to load, or, for that matter, be available in Malton to begin with. They would, however, be incredibly rare in pistol ammunition, as they're really only used in military, vehicle-mounted weapons, and would be much more prone to misfires and such. -- [[User:Arathen|Arathen]] 01:56, 24 Sep 2005 (BST)
: KILL -- Dum Dum rounds dont work in the context, you need to save the ammo and weapons rather then risk screwing it up with a misfire. --[[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 12:40, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
:Kill -- Above reasons--[[User:Spellbinder|Spellbinder]] 22:08, 5 Oct 2005 (BST)

* Vote on '''hand grenades'''
: KILL --[[User:RodgerYoung|RodgerYoung]] 21:18, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)
: KILL -- Agree that humans don't need any more advantage at the moment, so no to grenades (for now). [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 08:17, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
: KILL -- AOE attacks are a bad idea. --[[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 12:40, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
: KEEP -- So what if humans don't need any more advantage? Just don't implement it at the moment, doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea. AOE attacks are a bad idea? Elaborate. --[[User:ClearSeventy|ClearSeventy]] 11:27, 29 Sep 2005 (BST)
::See Combat Suggestions for reasoning. AOE attacks would be very hard to balance. --[[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 12:45, 29 Sep 2005 (BST)
:Kill -- AoE attacks are unballanced--[[User:Spellbinder|Spellbinder]] 22:08, 5 Oct 2005 (BST)

* Vote on '''metal detectors'''
: KILL --[[User:RodgerYoung|RodgerYoung]] 21:18, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)
: KILL -- metal detector is just a fancy flashlights that helps in searching, and there are already skills that help with searching. [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 06:31, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
: NEUTRAL -- may be useful just in junkyarks or wastelands, maybe it needs a skill to be effective? --[[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 12:40, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
: KILL -- As an item, kill, perhaps as a skill for junkyards?--[[User:Spellbinder|Spellbinder]] 22:08, 5 Oct 2005 (BST)

* Vote on '''entrails'''
: KEEP -- I like the idea behind '''entrails''', but I'm not sure about the implementation. --[[User:RodgerYoung|RodgerYoung]] 21:18, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)
: KEEP -- Maybe one "free" entrail per zombie every 25 AP? Or they have to "find" entrails in bodies on the ground? -- [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 06:31, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
: NEUTRAL -- I like the idea of Zombies finding entrails, but I think they should be devoured for health instead of being used as a weapon. --[[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 12:40, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
: '''KEEP''' -- a zombie weapon that can't be upgraded due to skills (but put it back in as HP damage), or as perhaps a bonus to hit or a bonus to damage?--[[User:Spellbinder|Spellbinder]] 22:08, 5 Oct 2005 (BST)

* Vote on '''flashlight'''
: KILL -- Flashlights are definitely in genre, but without a day/night cycle I'm not sure we need them. --[[User:RodgerYoung|RodgerYoung]] 21:18, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)
: NEUTRAL -- Since the buildings are without power, one WOULD need flashlights inside buildings. On the other hand, it's just another search bonus. -- [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 06:31, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
:: What if we make the flashlight have a chance to run out, similar to the way a book works? So any bonus would be temporary at best. -- [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 08:17, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
: NEUTRAL -- Until a day/night cycle is in place, there's no need. But once there is one, Flashlights would be useful. --[[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 12:40, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
: KEEP -- While there may not be a day/night cycle, it's still dark in buildings. --[[User:ClearSeventy|ClearSeventy]] 11:27, 29 Sep 2005 (BST)

* Vote on '''combat shotgun''', a.k.a. '''pump shotgun'''
: KILL -- not useful as currently you could just carry 4 or more loaded shotguns for same effect, but if inventory limit goes into effect this could be useful. -- [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 06:20, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
: NEUTRAL -- Dogbarian seems to like the idea, as it's more realistic than all these double-barrelled shotguns lying around.
: KILL -- Even if it's a very rare item, it'd still be unbalancing. --[[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 12:40, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
: KILL -- we don't need a better shotgun--[[User:Spellbinder|Spellbinder]] 22:08, 5 Oct 2005 (BST)

* Vote on '''sword'''
: KILL -- it's "just a better axe". [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 06:20, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
: KILL -- As mentioned, it's just another axe, and sword wielding ninjas have no place in Zombie Survival Horror. --[[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 12:40, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
: KILL -- Above reasons

* Vote on '''acid'''
: KILL -- novelty of hurting corpses aside, humans have enough weapons already. [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 06:41, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
: NEUTRAL -- I like the idea of acid flasks, but not as a weapon. Maybe use it to dissolve barricades? --[[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 12:40, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)

* Vote on '''combat axe'''
: KILL -- already have zombie hunter skill proposal "hefty swing" [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 06:38, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
: KILL -- Agree with above. --[[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 12:40, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
: '''KILL''' -- Don't need a better axe--[[User:Spellbinder|Spellbinder]] 22:08, 5 Oct 2005 (BST)

* Vote on fencing upgrades, cages, alterations to wirecutters
: NEUTRAL -- I propose the whole fencing/locking/what to do about wirecutters bundle gets its own page. --[[User:RodgerYoung|RodgerYoung]] 21:18, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)
: UPDATE: Thanks to [[User:Mortimer_shank|Mortimer_shank]], all [[Hindered_Movement|Movement Hindrances (and solutions to them)]] have their own page, and can be discussed there. [[User:RodgerYoung|RodgerYoung]] 16:38, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)


===Other Skills===

''If the debate on any skill gets long enough, please add a section for it and move the debate there, thanks.  --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 20:33, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)''

Kill: Marksmanship, Martial Arts, Black Belt, Advanced Reconnaisance, Security Clearance Gamma, Knowledge of Anatomy, Boxing, Jagged Teeth, Coffin Skin, Fetid Blood.  Reasons explained above.--[[User:Milo|Milo]] 20:43, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)
:Explain to me again why flak jackets make Jagged Teeth useless? I've already gotten rid of the other useless zombie skills (CS, FB) but I want to know what flak jackets have to do with biting. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 22:59, 15 Sep 2005 (BST)

::http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Useful_Items#Flak_Jacket Basically, against anybody wearing a flak jacket, attacks do 80% damage, rounded up. So a 4-damage attack does 4 damage (80% of 4 is 3.2 which rounds up to 4,) but a 5-damage attack also does 4 damage (80% of 5 is 4.)  You purchase a skill to boost bite power from 4 to 5, but end up doing 4 damage anyways, since flak jackets are so ubiquitous. --[[User:Milo|Milo]]
:::Not everyone has flak jackets, even if they're everywhere. Plus, with Gastric Miasma it ups to a potential 6 damage which would outdo the flak jacket and up it to 5 damage. So it's fairly useful that way. Just because a skill can be worked around doesn't mean we should lose it. Introducing Brain Rot didn't immediately get rid of all rev-syringes. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 00:06, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::Flak jackets don't have an effect on attacks under 5 HP, that's why zombies don't deal more than that right now. I'm pretty sure it's not a "80% rounded up" case under 5 HP, I thought I read that flak jackets just ignore damage under 5 HP. But I could be wrong, and as all attacks are either under 5 damage or deal 5, 10, or 15 damage, we can't really tell. --[[User:Kuroneko|Kuroneko]] 02:06, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)

:Don't agree on security clearance; see reasons above. [[User:JanneM|JanneM]] 01:52, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
::I think knowing how many zombies are in a 9-suburb area is just a ''little'' too powerful. Let's leave it off for now. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 04:36, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::Not how many there are - how many have been tagged the last 24 hours. That will _tend_ to correlate with the current mumber, but will be no more than a rough guess. A lot of zombies can lurch in or away, be killed or revivified, or be created in the meantime. And it _is_ a skill that will need 4*75 Xp to take, absolute minimum, for a NecroTech employee that takes no other skill. For a non-scientist, we're talking 500Xp to get there - and you still need to find and enter a NecroTech building to use it. [[User:JanneM|JanneM]] 07:38, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

Kill: rifles (adds an extra ammo type), rifle skills (adds yet another military skill), study (free XP), concentration (steady aim is enough).--[[User:Milo|Milo]] 03:01, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:The rifles do add an extra ammo type, yes. But if said ammo (and weapons) can only be found in the forts (and perhaps rarely the PDs), then it shouldn't be too much of a bother. I don't see the rifle as regular weapon - it's powerful, so it's rare. You'd only get the skills if you knew you could get one, or already had one. (Also, zombie skills currently outnumber Military skills, so it's not like there's that many really. I think it's just easier to come up with Military skills at first. Once we hit critical mass, though, I think I'll stop accepting any news ones.)--[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 04:28, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
::Agreed. This could be easily improved by making rifles only found in fort armories.--[[User:Milo|Milo]] 04:52, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:Study is 8XP a '''day''', provided you've got 50AP. Some people can make more than that in 1AP. You'd have to spend over a ''week'' sitting on your butt to gain enough XP for one skill. Which, as it translates to basically sitting on your butt and studying, isn't that inaccurate.
:Concentration is there, like all the other zombie hunter skills, under the assumption that they'll cost 200XP. If they will still cost 100XP, then it'll go. But as far as I'm concerned, 400XP for an extra 20% to hit (making for a maximum of 80% when both in effect) isn't that bad, compared to other skills of a similar nature. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 04:28, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
==== Study ====
::For study, you had 1 XP an hour when I posted; 1 XP per 3 hours is more reasonable: not good enough to encourage people to sit on their asses, but enough to be useful to those who are considering going on vaction.  One other thing... in general, I don't like follow up skills (at least for the purpose of this page): they take up space and usually don't change things too much. Hence, Ambidextrous probably doesn't need a follow up.--[[User:Milo|Milo]] 04:52, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::Yeah, I don't know why it changed back to 1 hour but it did, but now it's back. Three hours is plenty, and like you said, allows people going away on vacation not to feel like their character is languishing in some Turkish jail. Ambidextrous doesn't need a follow up, you're right - the only things I feel have to follow up a skill is stuff like "training/advanced training". Otherwise I just sort skills depending on what they're related to (like "memories of life" in the zombie skill tree or whatever) and stuff like that. I don't feel that all skills should have a follow-up, just those that should. Better to have one good new skill than two crappy follow-ups. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 05:18, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::You realize you've just totally eliminated the point of books. --[[User:Kwil|Kwil]] 16:40, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::::Books can net you XP regardless of how much AP you have. '''Study''' allows you to get tiny amounts of XP provided you have full AP and aren't dead. It's hardly as effective as actively gaining XP, but (as said) allows people to not fall behind on characters. However, I think I'll reduce it from 3 hours to 4 hours, so it'll take over a fortnight to gain enough XP to gain a single level. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 22:07, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::::For Study, why not just say that if you are at max AP and have a book, instead of wasting the AP you would gain each half hour you instead read the book automatically? --[[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 12:32, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
:Kill it. People who don't participate shouldn't be rewarded for that in any way. --[[User:Kwil|Kwil]] 18:36, 3 Oct 2005 (BST)

I'm a little leery of the 5 shot clip, 10 shot total system, though. I know of no gun in the real world that has two clips and 5 shots per clip is extremely small. Perhaps 20 shots, with clips extremely rare (read: fort only)? --[[User:LibrarianBrent|LibrarianBrent]] 05:29, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:I have no experience with guns, so I made a random guess. I guess I should have asked TFR or something first. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 05:59, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
::Rifles, nominally assault rifles like we would see the military and SWAT have, usually have magazines of 20 or 30 rounds, with some being extended to 50. I think the best way to do this would let the rifle load a maximum of 30 bullets into the gun at once, with each magazine found only adding 10 to the gun. It wouldn't be using 3 clips at once, it would be taking the bullets from the non-full magazine and putting them in the one the rifle is using. Additionally, a "clip" was a series of 5 rounds connected by platic, used with older rifles to load 5 rounds quickly without needing to change a magazine. Perhaps you could find rifle clips instead of magazines. I think 10 rounds is a good number, it would take 3 of them to fully reload a 30-round rifle, which could possibly only take 10 shots before being empty (the rifle can shoot 0-3 rounds per AP). It wouldn't be much more different then stocking up on pistols or shotguns, reloading them all, so that when you go out to attack you never need to reload mid-battle. It would take finding 3 clips, 3 actions of reloading it, to fully reload the gun. Finally, I think making rifles rarer to find then pistols or shotguns is definately a good idea, but not keeping them in armories. That's only two squares in the whole game and people would constantly camp them out so they would be able to find more rifle rounds. I think they should be able to find both rifles and clips in police stations and gun stores, just more rarely. --[[User:Kuroneko|Kuroneko]] 02:06, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::I know quite a bit about rifles, and yes, the average police station and gun shop in America will have rifles & ammo available.  Not sure about UK though.  If you really wanted the assault rifle type weapon, I would recommend 20 round capacity (that is a far normal clip size for civilian rifles), and the search result would be a 5 round clip, which can be loaded into the weapon for 1 AP.  So, 4 AP to reload weapon fully.  Firing it expends 1 to 3 bullets (random), however, the weapon does a set damage (most 3-round bursts only land 1 bullet on-target).  For balance, I'd recommend 8 points of damage per hit (6 vs flak vest?).  Rifles are more accurate than pistols, and it's easier to teach people how to use them, so I would start the base accuracy at 10% (also considers the fact that extra bullets are being spent).  However, Basic Firearms skill only raises this to 30%, and the Rifle & Advanced Rifle adds 25 & 10 respectively.  Keep in mind that the large magazine size means the damage potential of a full weapon is much greater than pistol & shotgun, even though the ending accuracy numbers of all weapons is the same after Basic Firearms & up.  However, you have to successfully search 4 times to fill the mag, where as pistol only needs 1 and shotgun 2.  This does tend to balance out this much higher damage potential. By the way, I like the idea of a pump shotgun above - single barrel, 6 to 8 shots internal, 1 AP to load a single shell, no change to accuracy.  --[[User:Dogbarian|Dogbarian]] 03:56, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)

===Postmortem Examination=== 
* A good idea in my mind. However, there are some changes necessary, I think. First, it really should go as a subskill of diagnosis. Second, while I think 5Xp would be reasonable, I do think you should only be able to do it once per corpse (if it rises, then gets put down again, it'sa new corpse, of course). That would differentiate it from DNA analysis. Also, I'd actually want to see something like 10Xp, but it takes 10AP to do the procedure (skill "Arch eyebrows meaningfully in a CSI-like manner" sold separately). Since corpses are usually found outside (and not guaranteed to stay corpses forever either), it would require some degree of planning. [[User:JanneM|JanneM]] 15:59, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
:* On the other hand, is this just another XP source for doctors? Or is this meant for the necros? I can see Necros stabbing their DNA analyzers into bodies and get a quick reading. In that case, I'd say 1 AP = 2 XP if the corpse is "fresh" (has not been tagged today). If it's meant for doctors, then I can see it as a 10 AP = 10 XP type of action. -- [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 09:53, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)
:* To be honest, the skill strikes me as something no sane scientist would try in a field situation: carving up a critter that you know could get up and and claw or chew you to bits at any second without some sort of restraint. I also fail to see what finding out what a corpse's skillset is/was would add to the game itself.--[[User:Dave-K|Dave-K]] 05:15, 12 Oct 2005 (BST)

===Cadaver Camouflage===
Doesn't really seem sensible, considering that zombies don't really navigate by sight. --[[User:Tocky|Tocky]] 02:53, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
:Uh... what? I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. "You see a dead body here" is what it says, regardless of whether you're playing zombie or human. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 03:04, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
::What I mean to say is, zombies navigate by scent, for the most part. Camoflague wouldn't really be very useful. --[[User:Tocky|Tocky]] 04:02, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::I'm really not understanding what you're talking about. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 04:20, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::Zombies have a heightened sense of smell. They can sense the living, even if they can't see them moving about. I don't think that a survivor making themself look like a dead body would be enough to keep the dead from finding and eating them. --[[User:Tocky|Tocky]] 04:52, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::::You're not quite understanding this skill, I take it? I'm not suggesting that the zombie hunter just lie on the floor and try to sound not alive. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 05:00, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::::And what I'm suggesting is that it wouldn't work. Zombies are not remarkably smart creatures, but one of their baser instincts is knowing who's alive and who's not. --[[User:Tocky|Tocky]] 05:06, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::::::It would work. You know why? Because the skill says it will work. Hey presto I solved the problem. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 05:46, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::::::Heh. You're a jerk, Katthew. --[[User:Tocky|Tocky]] 06:12, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::::::::I'm a jerk because I don't understand what you find wrong with a skill no one else has seen any problem with? And it isn't a case of balance or anything like that - it's because you think zombies can smell too well? Well, gee, I guess I'm a jerk then. After all, it's not like a zombie hunter could cover themselves in blood, guts and entrails in order to disguise their scent. If I'm a jerk, Tocky, then you're a dumbass. Next time you have a complaint about a suggestion, make sure it's actually valid. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 06:39, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::::::::I called you a jerk becaise you dismissed everything I said outright. I though your "it works because it says it works" solution was humourous, and I was happy to stop arguing with you about it because I knew that you were probably right, and it's not really something that'll bother me a lot ingame anyway. It still seemed a pretty jerky way to put it, though, and so I said. I've got no real beef with you. --[[User:Tocky|Tocky]] 07:28, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::::::::::I didn't dismiss everything you said outright, I just had no idea what you were talking about. I literally didn't, I swear to God. I thought you didn't know that the human and zombie interfaces are identical. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 08:44, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::::::::::Alright, not outright - from "It would work. You..." - that part. Nevermind. This whole deal is settled, as far as I'm concerned. --[[User:Tocky|Tocky]] 08:52, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)

===Zombie Skill Tree: Mutation===

Moved to [[Talk:Zombie Mutation]]

===Self-Control===
"you don't suffer the effects of '''FEAR''', but you need to have all the other zombie hunter skills."
Two questions, really: what is '''FEAR''' and what purpose does this skill serve? As far as I can see, Dead Calm already does everything this skill does. I think. It's hard to tell. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 00:29, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)

:I believe it's a reference to a suggestion made a while back, that a fear system should be introduced.  Not quite sure of the specifics, though I seem to remember it being mentioned in the forums. --[[User:Raelin|Raelin]] 00:39, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)

::Well, without anything actually saying what '''FEAR''' is, and a skill already existing which does the same thing (Dead Calm), I think no one would mind if I deleted it. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 00:42, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)

==Suggestion Protocol==
Am I the only one that thinks the attitude towards suggestions here is an absurd one bordering on insulting? What's next, you'll start charging people for the privilege of making suggestions? Why have a wiki at all then, why not just have a blog with maybe write access given to a few admins (as long as they promise never to have any ideas or suggestions)? I have bozos who don't know jack come up to me all day long (in real life) with suggestions. You think I try to educate them on the right way to give me suggestions? Hell no. I smile and nod and pretend to write their suggestion down. Once in a while they even come up with something halway intelligent, but either way, they're giving me the gift of their brain-cycles, and I do not spit on gifts no matter how flawed they might be.

Another way of addressing this terrible, terrible burden of suggestions from all these annoying people who love the game and are excited about it is for Kevan to release the source and say "Here, you want hand grenades and cars? Code them yourself. And by doing so you agree that I have the right to use your code in the unlikely event that your version of the game turns out to be an improvement over what I already have."

- [[User:F1r3br4nd|F1r3br4nd]] 09:36, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)


I agree that probably only mods should delete a suggestion, but unless it's misplaced I don't think it should be deleted without a consensus . . . which I interpret as a couple of weeks of people having a chance to look at it.  Ditto significant editing.  Granted, these will never, ever be looked at by Kevan, but if we're going to have a page for suggestions the thin egos of our users need to be considered.  --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 20:41, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:Some ideas are just really, really bad. I admit, it's hard to come up with fair and balanced skills/items that wouldn't disrupt gameplay or be totally unmanageable, but it doesn't cost anything to not add an idea if you're not sure it's great, and instead ask about it on the talk page. I will not indescriminately delete anything I just don't like the look of - most of that I'll suggest in Keep/Kill - but there are some which are just plain horrible. I'm counting down until someone adds a "SAS Training - +100% to hit on all weapons" skill. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 21:59, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::I agree that some, if not most, of the ideas suggested are plain awful.  Probably enough so that we could justify getting rid of the whole damned page.  But since we aren't talking about that, seems unreasonable to shitcan something, no matter how bad, unilaterally.  It's doesn't cost ''that'' many sanity points to read about the '''Dirty Bomb''' skill, does it?  ;)  --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 00:37, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::I'm ashamed to admit that when I read this I went to the page and searched for "dirty bomb" as quickly as possible. In any case, whilst reading about such suggestions doesn't cost many "sanity points" (as you put it), it's far easier for me to take the brunt of the madness and delete the unashamedly bad suggestions.
::::However, don't think I'm doing this purely based on my own thoughts. I'm constantly in an Urban Dead related IRC channel, and whenever I find a new skill that I think is suspect I put it to the other people in that channel to see what they think. I usually get about ten or twenty opinions, and I go with them. They also suggest what ways borderline suggestions can be made better. I'm not just some backspace-happy jerk acting on my own. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 03:25, 17 Sep 2005 (BST)
::Is it worth having a section, or even a separate page, to explain what's wrong with the more common bad suggestions, in the hopes of stopping them popping up again and again and again? [[User:Morlock|Morlock]] 13:25, 18 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::I had hoped it was, you know, common sense that things such as "rocket laucnher" and "poison glands" were obviously horrible ideas, spawned from the same kind of 14-year-old mind that thinks lingerie-wearing ninja assassin-babes are a good idea. However, new people keep seeming to think that such rules as "1 idea a day" don't apply to them. If this kind of thing continues, though, I'm taking steps to put a severe end to it. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 00:40, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::I'd love to be a lingerie-wearing ninja assassin babe zombie.  Throw in "robot space marine" and you've got yourself a deal.~[[User:Lurve|Lurve]]
::::If it's chainmail lingerie, count me in. More seriously, one person's horrible, painful clich� is another's genre-defining centerpiece. We can't decide on what is what, collectively, unless the ideas get a chance to air in public first. [[User:JanneM|JanneM]] 08:21, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::::Ah, yes, but more importantly, one person's painful clich� is widely accepted to be a horrible idea by many, many people. Which is why they're out. Find me enough people who want crap like this to stay in and I'll keep it in. Although I doubt you'll find that many people, considering I can name dozens and dozens who want it ''out''. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 08:50, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
There's been a lot of controversy about how suggestions are modified, deleted, etc. Perhaps it's a good time to have a discussion here on the wiki about what principles should guide the suggestions page? Rather than just pointing out grammar issues and 'dumbness' as reasons suggestions are good and bad, a section emphasizing game balance, the current heavy pro-human tilt of the city, and general principles (nothing that kills a player dead-dead, etc).--[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] 16:36, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)
:ITSM what we need is a time limit for voting, with no deletions taking place until that's up, even for really really stupid ideas.  The only things that should be automatically deleted are ideas that have already been rejected once through such a process (and there should be a "bad ideas" archive).  But yeah, a "Guidelines for good suggestions" section that would point out what things people are going to be considering when they vote would be very useful.  A rule that you have to get a certain minimum number of "keep"s, regardless of number of "kill"s (maybe 5?) might be good for weeding out mediocre ideas. [[User:Morlock|Morlock]] 16:58, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)
::I would agree with this, it's a good idea to post a page with guidelines on submitting ideas. When I added a skill yesterday, I used the formatting suggested by the skill box (although that got deleted). The Bad Ideas page would also be good if it highlights why an idea is bad and should stop people re-suggesting it. - [[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 17:09, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::I added a basic 'what makes a good idea' section near the top. I can see room for improvement, but I tried to explain the basic ideas of 'simplicity, feasibility, and balance.' I think Morlock is correct; a timed voting mechanism could help, with an archive.--[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] 17:17, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::Nice work Jeff, I had a quick read and it looks good to me.--[[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 17:23, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

At what point should discussion of suggestions move from Suggestions to Talk:Suggestions?  Is it possible to put links from a suggestion to the debate on that suggestion? --[[User:RodgerYoung|RodgerYoung]] 15:01, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)
:I think most of the comments on the front page (many have attributions after them) should be cut and put into the Talk pages. That's what Talk pages are for, right?  Right now, it just clutters up the Suggestion page.

===A modest proposal===

OK, the main page and the talk page are both long and unwieldy and nothing really seems to be being decided.  Here's what I propose:

*Each suggestion gets its own subpage, which will combine the initial proposal and all discussion on it, including voting.  (More like Wikipedia VfD than what we've got now.)
*Time limited voting.  Let's say a week.  People vote for whether it's good, bad or funny, and when voting closes the suggestion goes to [[Bad Suggestions]], [[Humorous Suggestions]] or a new page, "Good Suggestions," as appropriate.  "Good Suggestions" would basically amount to "things the Wiki community think Kevan might not actually be completely wasting his time to look at".
*The main Suggestions page has prominent links to the three other pages, and an explanation of how it works, but mainly becomes a time-indexed link of all the current suggestion discussions.
*To clear out the cruft, all suggestions already on the page as of this posting that haven't attracted at least five "keep" votes on here by the time the changeover is made go straight to Bad
*Proposed rules of voting: If Good > (Bad + Funny), suggestion goes to Good; else if Funny > Bad it goes to Humorous; else it goes to Bad -- better ideas welcome (perhaps we want a supermajority for Good?)
*People can change their votes at any time up to the deadline (designed to reflect the fact that the idea itself might evolve during the discussion).  Changing other people's votes (easy to detect from the histories) will result in a ban, 24 hours for the first offence and rising thereafter.
*If there are disputes over naming, people vote for their preferred name at the same time as registering their vote.  People should probably vote for a preferred name even if they're against the idea, in case they're not in the majority on that.
*Once the system's going, any suggestion that's a duplicate or near-duplicate of a suggestion that's already been voted on will be deleted post haste.

If no one objects or comes up with better ideas I will implement something like this at some point over the weekend, once I have sorted out this fucking code I ought to be debugging. --[[User:Morlock|Morlock]] 11:07, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)

:This all seems very elaborate. I didn't think the current system was that bad, that we're losing the obvious bad stuff and maybe keeping around some things that are 60% bad, but it's not taking too much effort to do that. All we really need to do is tidy up this talk page to clear up any stagnation, I think. --[[User:Spiro|Spiro]] 11:57, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)

:I have slight issues with the whole name thing (Honestly, I don't see the big issue with the names, considering that if Kevan is going to implement things, I'm sure he has the capacity to come up with decent names for things), but other than that, this seems reasonable. If the main issue is just size of Talk and Main Suggestions pages, this would be a way to help alleviate it. -- [[User:Odd Starter|Odd Starter]] 12:03, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)

:I don't think moving things straight to bad if they havent had enough votes is a good idea. From what I've seen, Bad suggestions tend to get alienated right from the start, but no-one talks about the good ones. Maybe move all suggestions with no comments/votes onto a 'Pending' page until people comment about them, then move to Good/Bad/Whatever. --[[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 13:01, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)

:I think something like this is a good idea, but I agree with Zark that a 'Pending' marker or page may be a good way to encourage feedback.  I also think we need to concentrate suggestions of Human v. Zombie game balance on a page - we have a lot of suggestions that touch on that, but I think it's a more central issue than that. By making human/zombie balance more of a focus, maybe we can get people to stop suggesting better human combat skills for a while. --[[User:RodgerYoung|RodgerYoung]] 16:58, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)
: It's a good idea, but I would prefer removing suggestions and their debate from the wiki altogether. (and demand a link to a forum discussion which shows sufficient approval for every new suggestion).  -- Markus 16:11, 25 Sep 2005 (BST)

==Skill Names==

Might it be better to just put an "(Other possible names: ...)" list on a skill, rather than continually flipping back and forth between people's favourites? --[[User:Spiro|Spiro]] 21:48, 20 Sep 2005 (BST)
:That generally doesn't happen. The only exception is [[User:Goat Roper|Goat Roper]] and his inane quest to rename Deathly Torpor to something utterly retarded. Possibly because he's a complete and utter moron, but there is always the off chance that he's a genuinely intelligent person who has the worst taste in names in the known universe. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 16:41, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)
:I think that's a fine idea, Spiro. Lots of people have ideas for alternate skill names, many that improve on the original. Maybe all a worthwhile skill needs to be included is the right name. --[[User:Goat Roper|Goat Roper]] 16:53, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)
::Deathly Torpor may not be the finest name known to man, but it outshines "putrid possum" by a factor of ''billions''. You cannot name a skill worth a damn, Goat Roper. Don't do it anymore. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 17:00, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::I looked up torpor. It doesn't carry the sense of false or feigned death as well as possum does. Torpor used to imply hibernation is an uncommon usage, as the word is generally understood to mean lethargy or ennui. Hmm. Hibernation gives me some ideas... --[[User:Goat Roper|Goat Roper]] 17:18, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::"Possum" doesn't really convey "death" to me, so much as it conveys "small, fuzzy animal". Torpor is a pretty decent name, Goat Roper. Why are you so intent on changing it? --[[User:Tocky|Tocky]] 23:43, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::Goat Roper, let me be as blunt as possible: you have no aptitude when it comes to thinking of names. Your ideas are all horrible beyond belief. Nobody in their right mind would buy a skill called "Putrid Possum", regardless of what it did, simply because it sounds utterly retarded. It sounds more like a character from an old Hanna Barbera cartoon than anything, and even then one of the old, unpopular cartoons that nobody remembers. '''It. Sucks.''' As does every other stupid name you've come up with. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 10:06, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::: "Playing possum" means pretending to be dead to avoid predators, it's a thing possums do. It's not worth using because it ''does'' sound absurd if you don't know this, but at least we'll stop other people suggesting it, if it's listed among alternative names. --[[User:Spiro|Spiro]] 10:17, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::::: I know what "playing possum" means. But whether or not you know that, it doesn't change the fact it sounds ''completely fucking retarded.'' It's not a case of factual accuracy here, it's aesthetics. It is, simply, a terrible, terrible name. --[[User:Katthew|Katthew]] 10:29, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)
:I agree with Spiro here. If someone has a suggestion for a name, they should add it just after the skill name. In Goat Roper's case, it'd be '''''Deathly Torpor''' (Putrid Possum)'' . Although I do agree that Putrid Possum is dumb, to say the least. - [[User:Zark the Damned|Zark the Damned]] 17:04, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)
::Since we have a section called "Skill Names" here on the talk page now, can't we just propose new skill names here, and vote in the good ones? --[[User:Tocky|Tocky]] 23:43, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)
:::Vote all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Kevan doesn't give a durn about ''any'' of the suggestions, as the quote from the FAQ illustrates.  --[[User:Otherlleft|otherlleft]] 00:41, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::I'll admit that Kevan hasn't implemented anything that's been suggested here. It's probably worth noting that he has read and made posts on both the suggestions page and this talk page. I can't argue about what Kevan cares about, because I haven't had any correspondence with him. All I'm saying is, regardless of whether this stuff goes into the game, if there's going to be conflict over suggestions, it should be on the talk page and not through a bunch of reverting back and forth. --[[User:Tocky|Tocky]] 02:49, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)
::::''"...on both the suggestions page and this talk page."'' ... or maybe just on the suggestions page. I was pretty sure I'd read something by im here, but I guess not. --[[User:Tocky|Tocky]] 02:58, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)

== Military skills ==

Sniper- Possibly you need a specific weapon.  any way, you can see all people/zombies on the street adjacent to your building.  and you can shoot them for a damage of 3 or so holds 5 or so bullets. -- ZAR pof 

* Did you bother reading the item suggestions above? Marksmenship has been debated to death, just about. -- [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 19:02, 7 Oct 2005 (BST)

A new weapon.  the machine gun. has 30 bullets, every time you fire you fire 3, each one does 2-3 damage. a bullet proof vest affects every bullet ruducing all the damage to 1-2.  so basicly you do 6-9 damage to a person/zombie.  or if they have a vest, 3-6.  and maybe only one or two of you bullets will hit out of your small burst you fired.  I don't know if you can do that on the urban dead game engine. -- ZAR pof

* Did you bother reading the item suggestions above? Heavy machine gun has already been vetoed. -- [[User:Kschang|Kschang]] 19:02, 7 Oct 2005 (BST)

== Archiving.Objections? ==

I'm probably going to archive this talk page, as the page is getting quite large.  If you have anything that you would like to remain here, or have any suggestions as to what should be done, please say so now.  --[[User:Raelin|Raelin]] 22:27, 13 Oct 2005 (BST)