Suggestion:20071121 Zombie A Grabs a Person, Zombie B Gets a Bonus

	Revised
	This suggestion has been withdrawn for revision, the new version is still in the works.

20071121 Zombie A Grabs a Person, Zombie B Gets a Bonus

Jon Pyre 17:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion type
Skill

Suggestion scope
Zombies, Tangling Grasp Subskill

Suggestion description
I've always wanted something in UD that simulates that classic zombie genre scene where a victim is grabbed by multiple zombies and torn from all sides. I suggest the following:

If you have a survivor in a Tangling Grasp you get Unyielding Grasp as an attack option. Unyielding Grip is meant to be a sign-off moved you perform with your last few AP before logging off for a significant period of time. An Unyielding Grip has a 100% chance of success because you're already holding onto the survivor (so you can use your very last AP) but only a 60% chance of doing 3 damage (2 without death grip) by holding tightly (so you don't give up the chance of doing damage. This just includes a hand attack as part of establishing your Grip).

A Gripped survivor obviously can't dodge as easily! This gives all attacks other zombies make against them a 5% accuracy bonus. Also if the survivor is taken outside with Feeding Drag they take 2 damage as they're literally torn from the zombie's hands, one chunk of flesh left in each zombie hand.

There's no limit to how many zombies can grip a survivor at once, but the bonus doesn't stack. The survivor can't move as much but they're also harder to reach through the crowd so its a wash. The extras would just serve as backups in case one gets killed. You'd be whether a survivor is gripped and how many zombies grip them by a superscript number by the survivor's name: Jon Pyre³.

If the zombie performs any action, dies, or the survivor leaves the Unyielding Grip is broken. The Grip maintains the tangling grasp 10% bonus for the gripping zombie, but is not a tangling grasp - other zombies can grasp the survivor without breaking the Grip.

Answers to Voter Concerns

• Q) Is this an autoattack?
• A) No, this is a way of debuffing a survivor. Yes, it gives another zombie the benefit of your skill but how is that different than debuffing a building by using your superior skills to break down the barricades or open the door? Or drawing a survivor outdoors with Feeding Drag.}}

• Q) What about that 2 damage from feeding drag? You don't have to do anything! That sounds like an autoattack
• A) You do have to do something: Maintain tangling grasp long enough to use your Unyielding Grip on them. This is a debuff as well. The same way Infection isn't an autoattack by draining health without your zombie's action this isn't either. This is weakening a target by performing an action against them, an action that is performed by the player. Your zombie is not a robot gun turret here. Besides, 2hp? That's mainly flavor.}}

• Q) This is overcomplicated. Grips and drags and grasps! My brain can't take your crazy science! Take your quantum physics elsewhere!}}
• A) You hit someone. Then you grip them. Then everyone else beats the crap out of them. Simple.}}

• Q) Is 5% too weak an attack bonus?
• A) As Grim points out in his vote, it isn't overwhelming. But it would be enough to put the bite attack on par with the hand attack, allowing people to use Digestion or reinfect the survivor as much as they want without performing less damage. Besides, this is meant to be a small bonus as a reward for genre-tastic gameplay. Not a big beefy buff. And Kevan could always up it if necessary...is it really worth resubitting this entire thing as is but with 5% changed to 7% or 8%?

Voting Section

Q/A struck as an abuse of the "notes for clarification feature being used to bypass using re's. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Grim, I've restored them. Please don't edit my suggestions. There is no "abuse of the notes" underneath the rules. What am I going to do, overclarify? I've put Q&As in several suggestions in the past. Other people have as well. And I even responded to your vote, you can reply to that reply if you feel cheated out of a chance to respond. --Jon Pyre 17:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped. # justification ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Keep Votes

1. Keep I like your style. --Jon Pyre 17:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
   • Re Thanks! --Jon Pyre 17:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
     • Re I was being sarcastic! Moran! Hahahaha! --Jon Pyre 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Keep Sounds good. CharonX 18:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Exactly what part of "No 100% Accurate Unavoidable Auto Attacks" do you find so difficult to understand? Also, this would almost never be of any use, since it would only be used at the end of ones ap, and thats when zombies get killed and dumped. Useless and breaks the dos and do nots, ah Jon Pyre, You've done it again. Oh, and the bonus to hit is pretty weak too. One extra hit in 20 swings, not worth writing home about, and doesnt overcome the rest of the suggestions sheer stupidity. Also, if you want to answer me, use a re, stop editing your suggestion so it looks like you pre-emptively answered everything i said. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
   • Re Actually I didn't read your vote before I added the first two Q&As. I was preparing for what I knew would come based on the original version of the suggestion, Crushing Grasp. The third however is in response as I clearly state. And yes, this is meant to be used at the end of your AP. The zombie cannot use their own Grip to get another 5% bonus, and it doesn't do anything if you are dumped and killed right away. However this is useful if you've let out a groan and more zombies come. Imagine a building with five zombies inside, each one gripping a different survivor. That's five people each arriving zombie could choose to get a 5% bonus against. --Jon Pyre 17:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
     • NOTE - Your use of Q/A inside the suggestion to bypass using Re's and hold debate is an abuse of the notes for clarification permission and has been struck. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
       • NOTE Re I've restored my Q&A Grim. I could put anything I want in my suggestion. I could post the complete works of Shakespeare. I think answering voter concerns that people pointed out in the last suggestion is perfectly acceptable. And I replied to your reply. It's right above your note! You can debate back all your like. I didn't prevent you from doing anything. --Jon Pyre 18:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Spam As Grim, JON GTFO. Omega 17:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
   • Re If you'd like me to stop making suggestions then I'd like you to stop using anything in the game I've suggested. I can make a list for you if you like. --Jon Pyre 17:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

   RE Plz do just leave it on my talk. Omega 17:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Spam - -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 18:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Auto-Spam - because you've heavily edited the suggestion after voting started. That's a no-no, as far as I'm concerned. How am I to know that you'll not edit it again after I vote? You know you're not supposed to do that, right? You understand why, right? So, why are you doing it? --Funt Solo ^QT 18:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
   • Re I actually added the first two Q&A without even realizing Grim had voted yet. The third I added as a joke is response to his angry vote. I would have used preview except sometimes my comp crashes, it's nice to know that the main part of the suggestion is saved while I put the last touches on it. And you're allowed to make edits for clarity. The suggestion I didn't touch at all, changing any mechanics would clearly be a big no-no and grounds for immediate removal, by anyone.--Jon Pyre 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

   • Re - "When considering adding a clarification note, it is often better for all parties involved, for the author to remove the suggestion and resubmit it" That's not written in there for shits 'n' giggles. --Funt Solo ^QT 19:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

5. Spam - 100% success = zerg abuse --~~~~ [talk] 20:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)