Suggestion:20080221 Feral Frenzy

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

20080221 Feral Frenzy

Honestmistake 11:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion type
Combat Skill

Suggestion scope
Zombies

Suggestion description
Unceasing hunger and decayed pain receptors are driving zombies beyond the limit of human endurance. Zombies with Feral Frenzy are able to drive themselves to unnatural exertion. Driven by instinct and pure spite for the living a zombie with this skill may enter a frenzy when they reach 0AP AND have entangled a survivor (tangling grasp). The frenzied zombie may continue to attack his current target until such time as his victim breaks free (grasp is lost) or dies! Because the zombie is exceeding his normal capabilities a heavy cost is paid for these attacks, each will cost 3AP and 2HP. This cost represents the strain and damage a zombie is doing to itself by ignoring the limits that nature (kevan) put upon its body

• The zombie obviously needs "tangling Grasp" to take this skill.
• The screen still fogs over at 0AP but an attack box with suitable flavour text replaces the normal description. For example: "The days exertions fog your mind and you can focus on nothing but the manbag struggling in your grasp"
• Should the HP loss drop the zombie to 0 or below it will count as a headshot.
• Grim Karek expressed concern that this could be used to kill a healthy survivor by grabbing him with your last AP and then getting (very) lucky. However even without body development a maxed out zombie this would require 12 consecutive bites or 16 consecutive claws (at a cost of 36 and 48 AP respectively) all without losing tangle... doesn't seem likely to me and seems awfully expensive.
• It was also noted that this wastes zombie AP. It does, but only if the zombie player chooses to use it. There will be times that the extra attack or 2 are well worth the steep AP cost and there will be times when its not. There will also be players that do not know the difference... well surely thats their problem not mine :D
• I know a lot of people will question whether zombies need another boost right now, my answer to that is that we should be voting on the merits of the suggestion. Kevan deals with balance and there is no reason why this could not be introduced alongside any of the excellent survivor skills already in PR.

Expected game effects Given the prospective cost versus benefits this should mostly be a boost to ferals and small gangs of zombies. During a major break in by a horde the high AP cost is going to make it counter-productive to do more than risk 1 or 2 extra swings, if there are enough zeds inside that those extra swings will make a real difference you are already dead ;) Ferals who waste a huge amount of AP on barricades are far more likely to be tempted to burn the AP for a few extra pokes! What I imagine this will mostly do is result in a few more infections, a few more feeding drags and a more enjoyable game for ferals who (in my experience) would rather play less if it meant having an effect other than fight with barricades!

• NOTE Jamie Cantwell3's vote brought the issue of zombie blocking to my attention, although I am not going to withdraw and resubmit this I think he does raise a valid point and believe that if Kevan were to implement this it may be fairer if Zombies on negative AP did not count for blocking purposes. That of course is a balance issue for him to decide upon but is one I would strongly support if it were possible. Please bear in mind while voting that Kevan is not stupid and is more than capable of adding such refinements and do not vote kill based solely on the fact that I have not included it in the mechanic (although please do feel free to mention it if you feel it is a strong influence. --Honestmistake 19:43, 21 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. Kinda Keep- I'd raise the penalties for doing this a bit more, but an innovative idea nontheless. --Kingofallpie 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
2. weak keep - i don't really like the "playing after AP ended" concept, but zombie won't manage too many attacks with this, so meh... --~~~~ [talk] 12:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Obviously Keep I wrote the damn thing so of course I like it. --Honestmistake 12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Keep - well, as long as the AP goes into the negatives, I'm fine with it. But prepare yourself for massive flaming below. --Alphonse Burr 13:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Keep - as far as I can see the costs balance the potential benifits. I like it.--Seventythree^Talk 13:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Keep I posted my reasons on the talk page--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 13:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Keep - Works for me. --Uncle Bill 13:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Keep - There are times when mah zambah just needs a couple of attacks to finish a harman. -- John Rubin^{T! ZG} 14:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Keep - This is great.-Studoku 15:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

   Keep -Fantastic Idea, good RP value as well. William Reynalds Improperly signed vote struck. No timestamp. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

10. Keep - With survivor buff to accompany. --Heretic144 23:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Keep - I hare you pro survivors who think that zombies should be good at nothing, hence almost all the people who voted no. --The Gecko PKer 00:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Keep - A fresh idea, and it helps ferals without helping hordes too much. --Toejam 13:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Keep - Zombies should get useable negative AP, like harmanz have. --BoboTalkClown 18:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Keep Feral Buff, nigh-useless in a Siege. Me Likey! ~A`Blue`Jelly^TME*V*I*L*_? 06:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Keep Got my vote, although the HP&AP loss combined seem a bit much, I'd still use it though. --Kamikazie-Bunny 13:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. Kill - Zombies stop when they run out of AP because their brain stops working at that point; no amount of feral instinct or physical influence can make a zombie move when they already stop thinking. Also the reason why headshot is quite effective, it retards a zombie's already limited thinking ability. As for how Feral Frenzy only wastes AP when zombies choose to use it, they also only 'waste' AP on the barricades when they choose to do that; they can easily choose not doing that by following a horde and listening to feeding groans, something they should work for than giving it all to chance. --Aeon17x 13:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
   • Re many skills give zombies new abilities, for example; a human nose isn't good enough for the scent skills but it gets better when you die? Instinct and hunger are the very essence of what zombies should be and this builds on that very premise. As an aside I always assumed headshot just took longer to heal hence the AP penalty representing the extra regeneration cost. --Honestmistake 14:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
2. killish - i understand why you made this suggestion... but it's 50 AP a day. period. a more viable idea would be a new attack that costs more than one AP to perform. but, that would not go through, either... sigh, everyone is soooooo conservative here ;) --WanYao 14:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Kill - The suggetion's interesting, but despite the penalties, this is still going over the 50 AP limit. And, as above, when a zombie reaches 0AP their brain shuts down, making any further bodily functions (frenzied or otherwise) impossible. --Private Mark 17:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
4. Kill - Good suggestion, but I don't like the 0AP thing. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Very strong kill - This just make zeds even more unstoppable, could you imaginon if this got put in the game. With zed being able to block some barricading and then keep attacking after their AP's are all gone, THERE WOULD BE NO POINT PLAYING A SURVIVER! I have read alot about people talking about the balance of the game, yes survivors at first where much better off. Now though, there are ALOT and I mean alot of Zed groups; PKers and, GKers groups, well organised groups. SO NO! NO! NO! TO THIS!!!--Jamie Cantwell3 19:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
   • Re Your point about blocking is actually a very good one that I had not really considered... While I am not going to revise and resubmit I will add a note to the suggestion pointing out that it may be a good balancing feature if -AP zombies were discounted for blocking purposes, Ultimately such details are up to Kevan to decide --Honestmistake 19:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Strong Kill - NOBODY should be allowed to continue playing once their AP has run out. Survivors or zombies. Kevan has designed the AP system for a reason, and nobody should be allowed to bypass it.--Dr Doom86 20:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

   *RE: Syringe Manufature. --BoboTalkClown 18:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC) -- Non-author RE. -- Cheese 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

   You missed the point Bobo. Syringe manufacture can ONLY be done when a player has AP to spare. You can't make any moves once your AP are gone. Period.--Dr Doom86 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC) -- Moar non-author RE. -- Cheese 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

7. Hell no! - I'm with Jamie Cantwell3 and Dr Doom86 on this one. This is unbalanced as it will make zombies more stronger than Survivors. --Waterspark2 22:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Kill - The Idiots *cough* Jamie *cough* that are voting kill because "OMG IT MAKZ TEH ZOMBAHZ EVN MOAR POWRFUL!!!1 TEH SURFIFORZ WONT STAND A CHNCE!!!1one" have probably never played a zombie character, because it's a hell of a lot harder than playing a human character. Plus, the new update was put in to make the game more balanced, which it has, yet the idiots seem to think that the zombies have a huge advantage because of it, which is utterly ridiculous. I mean, OMG NOEZ!!! TEH HARMANZ LOSE 5 HP BECAUSE THEY FELL!!! THAT MEANS THAT THE ZOMBAHS ARE UBER LEET NOW!!! OMG LETS GO ON STRIKE BECAUSE THE HARMANZ NEED MINIGUNS AND ROCKET LAUNCHERS OR ELSE THE GAME IS UNFAIR!!! but this just isn't that good of a suggestion [/rant] *note* sorry about that, but I'm just pissed off at people that for some reason think that survivors are nerfed because of the new update, because their not, especially when 60% of the standing people are Harman... *end note* --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 23:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Nope - First, intllegent survivor defenses are based on making zombies run out of AP. That is what stops zombies, and its a good mechanism, IMO. Second, I think this would actually HURT zombies, because you'd log in the day after you used it with substantially fewer AP, then attack a building and have an incentive to use it AGAIN because you don;t have enough AP... its a downward spiral. Eventually you end with a lot of zombies up loosing a net 4 average AP a day (2 attacks made this way vs the normal way, I figure, would be average), which simply put, HURTS zombies, rather than helping them. Skills that over all are likely to HARM your own "side" should be avoided. "Ruin" is already bad enough in that respect.  Swiers 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
   • ReUsed stupidly that would indeed be a very probable outcome, however people would adapt and learn to use this sparingly... even if they didn't we shouldn't really go out of our way to protect them. Used right this would prove very useful in certain circumstances... much like brain rot.--Honestmistake 00:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
10. The weakest of weak Kills - I like this, I really do. I just don't think it would work in the game. Sorry. -- Cheese 23:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Kill - No actions after 0 AP. --Pdeq^Talk* 01:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
12. I like it some. But its overpowered, even with the penalties. What I think would be better is the zombie has to ALLOCATE AP to the task. Say the zombie allocates 10 AP to the task. When he reaches 0 AP, as in the suggestion, those allocate AP then go into affect, as per the suggestion. Once the AP is "spent" the zombie can continue grasping as normal, if it hasn't lost the grip. Also, perhaps, if the zombie loses grip early, any "unused" AP is wasted.--Pesatyel 03:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

    Kill - The point of AP is that you can do things while you have it and this just breaks the game mechanic. --Carnexhat Improperly signed vote struck. No timestamp. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

13. stab - With a knife. No over actions. The 20ap for 1 needle is nice, but death grip for zombies is not. -doc crook 03:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
14. KILL! KILL! KILL! - way overpowered. This feels like it could be a potentially game breaking zombie buff. - Headshot Hal 07:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
15. kill - when you are out of AP, thats it, no more actions--Scotw 07:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
16. kill - If zombies got to keep attacking after 0 AP, survivors would want to keep attacking after 0 AP, call it survivor desperation or whatever.--Cpt Masterson 12:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Kill - I'll vote this down like a raise for teachers. This suggestion increases the amount of actions you can take past your AP limit, and I have to vote against that.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  17:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Kill - 0 AP equals no more actions. Rocky Ford 18:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Weak Kill - One of the rare times where gameplay should override concerns for realism. Management of AP is one of the central parts of the game, and this would shift that too much by letting people "open a tab" of potentially unlimied length. --Pgunn 20:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
20. Kill Zombies have no pain receptors, that's why flamethrower idea's never work. I know that it's tough as a zombie, got one myself, and survivors aren't nerfed because they can fall, but this is a stupid idea. I think that any actions after 0 AP should still draw AP into the negative side.--Normal Phobic^C 11:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
21. Kill - Raising AP for 1 group and not another completely destroys the balance of the game --Rick Best 18:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Kill - 0 AP = end of play -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:38 25 February 2008 (BST)
23. Awful - Your parents must be ashamed of you. --Vandurn 13:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Re they probably are but I assure you that its for far better reasons than this ;) --Honestmistake 14:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Kill 50ap is the limit. Travel in bigger hordes.--Airborne88 10:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
25. Kill - Broken, will almost never be used, unneeded.--Kolechovski 04:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
26. Kill - seriously, if you can't get what you want done within the 50ap then come back in a few hours. --Rocky Road 17:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. No extra attacks if you're out of AP. It's close to the concept of auto-attacks. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 14:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Spam - Overpowered auto-attack that heavily promotes zerging by theoretically giving one character multiple days worth of AP loss at a time. This would mean they'd turn to a secondary character, having gained a hugely unfair advantage over their opponent using the AP-free uber-tangling grasp unstoppable attack of doom. In other words - get off, playa-hater. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
   • ReI really don't want to re everything but what are you talking about? It is in no way an auto attack and the chances of you getting more than 4 or 5 actions are incredibly slim. As for it being an AP free Uber-tangle of unstoppable doom? Its a normal attack that eats into the next days Ap and makes you easier to kill. As soon as you miss you are done, in theory you could get to -87AP but i suspect the odds of getting 29 unbroken hits is rarer than rocking horse shit and you would have more chance of winning the lottery and spending the rest of your life fu***ng playboy bunnies!!!--Honestmistake 14:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

   • Re - that's a potential 87AP more than any survivor is allowed. That's where it breaks the balance of the game, for me. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

   • further discussion on the discussion page. --Honestmistake 19:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)