Suggestion:20080101 A really BIG rock...

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Undecided Suggestions.

20080101 A really BIG rock...

 Swiers 07:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion type
weapon

Suggestion scope
survivors and zombies

Suggestion description
"Big Rock" is just a generic term for any big heavy object you can smash / drop on somebodies head. It could be a cash register, TV, car battery, end table...

"Big Rock" - 10 damage, 5% base to hit, 30% encumbrance

benefits from either "Hand to Hand Combat" (+15%) OR "Vigor Mortis" (+10%)

Found in Ruined buildings of any type.

1/3 of all searches will turn up a suitable "big rock"; the rest turn up normal items (or nothing as normal searches).

Zombies can use the "ransack" skill inside a ruined building; 1/3 of t the time they grab some suitable item during their rampage.

Voting Section

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. DOH - These were intended as single use weapons; if you use them in combat, you drop them (hopefully on somebodies head) in the scuffle. It seems most of the voters below assumed that anyhow.  Swiers 16:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Keep - Meh, nothing spectacular but at least it's something new.--Karek^maps?! 08:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Keep - I wanna hit people with big rocks!--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 10:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Keep - As Karek. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Keep - Mmm.. 10 HP at 15% accuracity. Sort of flare attack for zombies, I suppose. Why not? -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 14:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

   Yep, that's pretty much the point. Its also decent for survivors, though not intended to be a weapon of choice.  Swiers 16:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

6. Weak Keep - Ehh. --Pgunn 15:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Strong Keep - Sounds like a decent new implementation, could be expanded on, eg: Body Building lets you use bigger rocks.--Thekooks 15:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Keep - Cucking huge lums of stuff at each other makes logical sense.--Seventythree^Talk 15:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Keep-ish - Could've been clearer, but I heard it in discussion, where it was actually reasonable.--TriPolarClicky! 16:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, I messed up and lost the first version I wrote, then re-wrote and posted this one in haste. I may need to re-post, but there's been so many votes here already...  Swiers 16:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

10. Keep - I would also be cool if you could drop them from large buildings, but then again there's really no tactical reason other than just to do it. Which would still be fun (anvils, pianos, & safes, much like in Bugs Bunny cartoons!) --Uncle Bill 20:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Keep I assume it would say the item name and not "Big Rock" in your inventory or attack menu. --Jon Pyre 22:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Keep covers the puzzling unresourcefulness of survivors around rubble. Change name to "heavy rubble", though.--Shotstol 22:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Keep - I like it because it's useless but also a little fun, but maybe change the name, i dont like logging on to find that im carrying 3 big rocks =P --/~Rakuen~\ 22:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Holds the rock at the edge of the roof Now I just gotta wait for The Grimch to pass under... good suggestion, man.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  22:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
15. weak keep - Its a gopod idea but the harmans have a "one up"on the zeds!!!--Worthog117 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Keep- More items are good --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! SR} 00:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Keep - Ugh. Hhal want to hit bad zombies with rocks. Get many zombie pelts. Rrrgh. --Hhal 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Change - Rename it "Large Object". Big rock sounds moronic. BoboTalkClown 02:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Keep/Explain - So, are these dropped outside the building seeing as they're big enough to drop one one's head? Also, how would zombies be able to pick them up? While Malton's zombies are highly intelligent, I figured that their rotting limbs would be too weak to pick up something weighing more than fifty pounds.... --Private Mark 03:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    You could drop it from above, or just raise it over your head and smash downwards, resulting in dropping the object on the ground. Zombies don't seem weak to me; their claws do the same damage as a fire axe, with a better chance to hit, so they must have some real power behind them. Also, if you read the description that shows up when you (as a zombie) use the ransack skill, it implies they pick things up and hurl them around; all this requires is they hold onto those things for a while. And seeing as zombies don't get (physically) tired, that's not much of a stretch. If carrying capacity is still in doubt, remember that they already can hold onto the 4 generators they had when they died without any trouble...  Swiers 05:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

20. Keep - not stupid. --Pdeq^Talk* 03:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
21. Keep - I deeply want to deliver headshots via TV. --Heretic144 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
22. Keep - Meh, it's good enough for a keep--Zach016 07:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
23. Change - I have always wanted to kill a zombie with the hood of a car. Or a bar stool. Yeah. But if these objects are so big, they'll have to have some heavy encumberance, right? I don't like dumping out my inventory so much. Would I have to make it so I can't pick up heavy items whenever i'm not in an auto place or a bar? Blah this has problems. --Vandurn 14:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
24. Keep- Gives zombies an attack with "ammo". Also, I'm assuming that these attacks are affected by flak jackets, so this would also double as giving survivors a reason to wear flak jackets besides protection from PKs. And as a survivor, it would be fun to bash a zombie's head in with a television. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 16:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
25. Keep - Looks rather useful. Gives zombies a kind of crutch. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 17:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

    Keep - I think it would be cool, doesn't seem over powered or anything. Unsigned struck --Funt Solo ^QT 23:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

26. Keep Just so I can say I killed someone with a rock. ~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? 05:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - it's not clear, can zombies use "big rocks". If so, what hit rate, how many can they carry? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:46 1 January 2008 (BST)

   Yes, they are intended for zombie use. As mentioned, zombies get +10% for vigor mortis, so would hit at 15% if they have that skill. 30% encumbrance means you can carry at most 4 of them, plus 8% in other stuff (like, say, a flak jacket, FAK, and crowbar). That would hold for both zombies and survivors.  Swiers 16:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

   Change - I can smell potential, but you need to flesh out the details more. Is the search rate incorporated into the current search rate? If so, what's with the "1/3 of all searches"? Can't you chuck generators around too? Why is a car battery nearly twice as heavy than a portable generator? ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 16:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

   It seemed simpler to simply "replace" a search in a ruined building with a result that yeilds a "big rock" 1/3 of the time, given that search rates for other items in ruined buildings are largely unknown. In an ideal world, generators could be used this way, but that also is more complex. They have high encumbrance mostly to limit the number of them that zombies can carry to 4 or less. A car battery may be a bad pick for flavor- how about an engine block?  Swiers 16:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

   Hmmm. Voted changed anyway. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 17:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Kill - dilute all search percentages?! --~~~~ [talk] 19:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

   Only in ruined buildings would searches ever be affected. Maybe that was unclear.  Swiers 04:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Kill - As Garland. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  20:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Kill - 0.5 damage/attack for a weapon that needs replacing, is too heavy to stockpile and is only found in ruins is seriously underpowered.Studoku 00:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

   The inability to stockpile it matters very little if you are fighting zombies inside a ruined building. It competes well with the Flare Gun or Pipe on over-all efficiency, and requires only one skill to max out on. Its not intended to be a Tommy Gun.  Swiers 00:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

5. Kill - This is just plain stupid -Downinflames 02:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
6. The rock is too big! - Silly. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Change - Lower the hit percent. 10 damage is ambitious. -drugsanimudongs 08:00 (UTC), 4 January 2008
8. Unsure - It seems a bit overpowered to me. I'm not against the idea, but zombies could load up on 4 of these, right? Then run into a building and hit-manipulate a kill. Sure, at such a low hit-rate, hit-manipulation is tougher, but it can be done, and that would give an instant kill, right? The zombie would then have enough AP left over to continue doing more damage. Basically, if a survivor needs most of his AP to bring down a zed (and ammo take many mroe AP to find), a zombie shouldn't be able to get an instant kill that easy. They should have to duke it out like survivors do. Maybe if this gets revised, there's a better chance of passing, IMO.--Kolechovski 15:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not sure what you mean by "hit manipulation". And its NOT an instant kill, no idea where you got that idea; they do 10 damage, that's all, with a pretty low chance to hit. But yes, zombies could carry 4 of these, and they are INTENDED for zombie use. Its sort of like letting zombies find and use a couple flare guns; they aren't very effective over all, but when you don't have AP to do anything else, they might do the trick.
   What sort of revivion did you have in mind, btw? I probably should re-submit, as the text is really badly written, and voting is close.  Swiers 19:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

9. Kill - I dont like how zombies are able to use it. I would say keep for survivors only, but I don't think it would be of any use to any survivors, so kill for them too. - Inky 20:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Suggesting things for the sake of suggesting things is pointless, and spam in the purest sense. There is no point to this suggestion. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Grim is right. Big rocks are not flavorable at all.--ShadowScope 16:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Spam - Stupid. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 17:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Spam As Bob. Omega 06:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Spam - Very stupid. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 14:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Spam - utterly pointless, and it's been done before. And haven't you already suggested a generic heavy object? Someone has. --Funt Solo ^QT 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

   No, I haven't made such a suggestion that I recall, and if so not with these mechanics. Your brick reference is nice, but it obviously isn't a dupe for multiple reasons. Its far from pointless, as it provides a "hail mary" (known as high variance in technical jargon) attack to newbies and zombies alike.  Swiers 19:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

   I never claimed it was a Dupe, so we're in agreement on that point. However, the idea of blunt, heavy objects as weapons has passed through here before. There seem enough weapons in the game already. --Funt Solo ^QT 20:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

7. I am on a voting spree, but to make this vote valid, I'm in agreement with those above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)