Suggestion:20080217 Survivor Skill: Aggressive/Passive death stance

	Closed
	This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Peer Rejected.

20080217 Survivor Skill: Aggressive/Passive death stance

Billy McGoggenhammer 00:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion type

Survivor skill in the Necrotech employment tree

Suggestion scope

This will reduce combat revives for all zombies without the skill and expedite the reviving of zombies within a horde who do have the skill.

Suggestion description

Necrotech scientists have made a new breakthrough in their studies of the undead. Mental conditioning and memory enhancing techniques allow the learning of this skill, which gives them a seven day period in which they can control whether or not they have an aggressive or passive stance, a precaution to be taken when expecting to be revived after dying.

All characters without this skill, when playing as a zombie, their stance at all times is aggressive. This dialogue will be presented to a player attempting to revive a zombie with an aggressive stance:

You try to stab the zombie with the syringe, but it growls and flails wildly.

In order to not make the brain rot skill completely useless for those willing to fully commit to being a zombie character, the aggressive stance will:

• NOT prevent DNA extraction
• reduce revival chances by only 25% (percentage can be higher)
• NOT break the reviver's syringe

The passive stance will divide a zombie horde into two parallel stacks. The attack stack will put all passive zombies below aggressive zombies, meaning passive zombies will not be attacked unless there are no other aggressive zombies left in the horde. The revive stack will make it so that only passive zombies are revived until there are only aggressive zombies left. Attacking or reviving a zombie in your contact list will remain the same.

You have seven days starting when you first stand up after being killed before your aggressive instincts prevent you from being passive any longer. This is to prevent career zombies from abusing the skill to be shot at less when they log off.

It will cost 1 AP to change to a passive stance. You may not attack any character or object while passive. You may change back for another 1 AP. You can only do this when you are a zombie. These dialogues are presented upon changing your stance:

• You recall your Necrotech training to calm your nerves and silence your thirst for human flesh. You have become actively passive.
• Rage fills your being and you prepare yourself to lunge, maul and bite to your unbeating heart's content. There is no satisfying your bloodlust. You have become aggressive.(automatic after 7 days for no AP cost)

Skill Requirements

Necrotech Employment & Memories of Life

Author's note

This is all several suggestions, really, rolled into one possible implementation of a single new skill. Several parts of it can be changed for better game balance, but what I like the most about it is the attack/revive stacks that will greatly prevent survivor zombies from being attacked as well as the reviving of career zombies first. My logic is: why would you shoot a zombie just staring into a corner when there's another one bearing down on you with its mouth open? Passive and aggressive zombies may even be visible separately from each other, but that might be a bit much. I wanted the revive prevention percentage to be much higher at first, but that would've made it nearly impossible for low level players to get revived. 25% seems like a good balance that would make it a favorable challenge to a low level player instead of a nasty one.--Billy McGoggenhammer 00:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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. Author Keep - One from me...--Billy McGoggenhammer 00:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Keep- Thumbs up. Well thought out!--BoboTalkClown 02:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Interesting - I like. Needs a bit of tightening here and there but fundamentally, it is a good idea. Just needs a bit of work on the numbers to get it perfect. -- Cheese 21:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Keep-Sounds good for high level players, not so good for us low levels. To many kills you have my vote for keep.--Jamie Cantwell3 23:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Keep - Well thought out + depth = Keep. --Alphonse Burr 16:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Keep - I like the suggestion, but maybe, in terms of the switching state skill, that the zombie cannot switch back to aggressive for at least one day and that would prevent the skill being discarded because of mistrust.--The apprentice 03:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - I don't really see a need--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 00:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Kill - Nice, but it's horribly overcomplicated. And the current system really is quite nice. --Hhal 01:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Kill/Change - Like the Doc said, this idea looks good, but it's too convenient for the survivors. Some balance changes I could think of: (1) duration of passive stance only lasts one day from standing up, (2) the attack/revive stacks are reversed from a zombie POV, so aggressive zombies can ZK the passive zombies first. --Aeon17x 01:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Kill - Way out of theme. Besides, can you imagine that training? "Remember, when you're hungry, DO NOT EAT BRAINS!! RELAX!" ... --Pgunn 01:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Kill - Seems well thought out, But I think the current system is fine.--Trav 04:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Kill - Hey Billy. One thing I think you forgot about when writing this: This will tremendously hurt new players who get killed, and try and get a revive. They won't have this skill, and thus not be able to choose "passive." It will be difficult for them to achieve a revive, and they may become discouraged with the game. Let's not make it harder for new players. Nice thinking though!--Dr Doom86 05:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

   Re: That's why I suggested a failure rate of only 25%, for the new players. I don't think it makes revives that much more difficult for a new player, and meta-gaming is mostly required for speedy revives. Thanks for viewing, though.--Billy McGoggenhammer 07:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

7. Kill - Too OP and unnecessary.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  07:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Kill - Sorry, but it's for roleplay reasons. Your suggestion is based on the idea that zombies want to be human - and while that may be true of the players - I believe it shouldn't be true of the characters. Let me put it this way: when one of my survivor playas is killed, I rise up as a zombie and suddenly I'm playing zombie - and it's time to kill "harmanz". That's what I'm built for, zombie-wise. I can get the role-playing idea of a horde going to the graveyard, and becoming Mrh? cows, as well - so yeah, there's room for that. But the idea of passive zeds in a horde - that's going too far. For me. Also, the 10AP cost of a combat revive is tough, and so's what happens to you when you start turning hostile zombies into harmanz - watch your back! (And that last is okay, flavour-wise, because it could be like "Omigahd! Being a zombie for so long has turned him insane!") --Funt Solo ^QT 09:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Kill- As Funt.-Studoku 12:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Kill - As above. Don't get me wrong, your idea is good, but the game has no real need for it... yet. --Private Mark 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Kill - I posted a suggestion about weaponising syringes a while back. Unfortunately I don't think this suggestion is the change we are looking for. -- Iscariot 18:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Kill - I don't like it at all. --The Gecko PKer 03:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
13. As Funt. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 14:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Weak Kiil - I personally see no need for it. -- Quizzical  Quiz  Speak  01:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
15. kill - zombies are alreay co-dependent enough, they don't need MORE passive-aggressive traits! ;P but seriously... no... the uncertiainty is part of the fun.... --WanYao 05:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Kill - Nah, sorry. Ioncannon11 20:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Kill -- I hates it! Mot Nilknarf 14:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
18. kill - i like, but noobies would never get revived as they would always be aggressive, which would discourage them to persevere.--xoxo 06:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Kill - Combat revives are a part of the game, don't change it. --Vandurn 13:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
20. KillCombat revives are part of Life- er, Death. Deal with them. Besides, being able to combat revive obviously didn't do us much good- we lost over two-thirds the map! ~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? 05:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Good idea in theory - But no. The current way is fine as it is. -doc crook 01:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Spam Why do people always forget that it costs 10 AP to "combat revive"? Thats already pretty significant. 7 days is too long. And Brain Rot already has significant requirments beyond the 10 AP cost.--Pesatyel 04:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

   Re: People will combat revive, even if it is frowned upon and the fact that it takes 10 AP hasn't stopped it from happening. Just ask the people who do it and they'll tell you that it always costs more AP to kill them. And I think you meant 100 XP cost?--Billy McGoggenhammer 07:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Spam - Don't suggest things that purposely break the stack. This is overpowered, wordy, and Over complicated.--Karek^maps?! 04:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Spam- This is a terrible idea, there is no need for it and it is way too overcomplicated. -- BKM 05:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Spam - because you require both human and zombie skills. --~~~~ [talk] 07:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Spam - As everyone else. --Themanwhocares4 14:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Spam - As above. And you missed everything. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF MOB pr0n} 21:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Spam - Well, I'm a badass Cowboy livin' in the Cowboy days. Wiggy, wiggy, scratch, yo, yo, bang, bang. Me and Artemus Clyde frog go save Salma Hayek from the big metal spider. A wiggy wig wig wiggy wiggy wig. Fresh cowboy from the west side. Wiggy wiggy scratch yo yo bang bang. Me and Artemus Clyde frog go save Salma frog polly prissy pants. Go down to, well... rumpletumpskin. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF MOB pr0n} 18:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Unjustified vote struck (unless I'm missing something). --Funt Solo ^QT 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Spam - Predictably game breaking revive buff. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)