Suggestion:20090208 Nightvision (zombie skill)

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

20090208 Nightvision (zombie skill)

Devon lobham 14:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion type
Skill

Suggestion scope
Zombies

Suggestion description
A purchasable skill which enables zombies to see in unpowered dark buildings. They can see the complete room description and their attack rates aren't halved.

To balance the amount of effort a survivor needs to find a generator and its fuel then install it in a dark building, zombies with this skill don't see in darkness immediately. Instead, they have to use an action, probably called "Adapt Vision" which costs 5 AP and shows a text which goes something like:

Standing where you are, you scan the pitch-black room back and forth until you gradually recognize shapes.

It's implied ingame that zombies have to take time to adjust their pupils, the way your pupils gradually adapt to tolerable darkness.

This skill also will only compensate for a quarter of the original attack rate.

Currently the dark building feature actually makes zombies benefit from a generator and puts them at a loss in the absence of it. This is a paradox since it's humans who should be needing this sophisticated item anyway, not walking corpses. Implementing this skill will once again encourage zombies (or at least the ones who's purchased this skill) to destroy generators.

Also, while survivors can (in theory) immediately address a dark building problem by placing a fueled generator, zombies can't do such.

Roleplay-wise, it can be said that zombies have spent so much time out in darkened streets that their visual senses become fine-tuned to darkness.

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. Keep Devon lobham 14:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Keep --Drugsanimudongs 18:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Keep This makes sense role-playing-wise. Also, it does adress the needed incentive to destroy generators. I don;t see this unbalancing the game in any signifigant way. You have to buy the skill AND pay an AP cost to use it. If it did unbalance the game, that would probably be a good thing. The survivors are doing far too well. --Fenian 16:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Keep This makes TRP barricading and defense all the more important for survivors. There will be greater and greater battles as a result. --FLZombie 00:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Keep Most zombie movies I have seen and games I have played show that zombies can see in the dark better than humans. Also, I agree with FLZombie. ChainReaction01 03:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

   Keep--Sgt Gonnella 02:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Late vote struck. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 08:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Kill Votes

1. Kill Unless we're giving flashlights to survivors (and I don't want that) then this skill is an unfair advantage for zombies --Mkgeeeeze 16:39, 8 February 2009 (GMT)
2. Strong Kill - Entirely unfair, and utterly idiotic. Nerfs survivors by giving zombies advantages in the dark. What are they, cats?-- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 22:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Kill Negates any tactical use of dark buildings. They'd instantly become abandoned. --A Big F'ing Dog 02:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Kill As Big F'ing Dog --Explodey 11:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
5. Kill - Unnecessary. Contrary to popular belief, the dark building update wasn't a survivor boost. It nerfed survivors almost as much as zombies. The only ones who really benefitted from dark buildings were PKers and HIPSters. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS|
6. Kill As Big F'ing Dog. --Speels 00:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Kill - This would be a major nerf to survivors who hide in plain sight, and kinda misses the point of dark buildings. --dgw 02:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
8. Kill - I don't see the balance here. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 07:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Kill - Needs some balance with survivor skills. The dark buildings are a nerf to both survivors and zombies, so it needs some balance with survivor skills. --ZsL 07:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Kill - Sucks. --Ocular ^Druuuuu 04:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
11. Kill- to imbalanced and unfair for survivors.--Dudeperson13 16:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
12. Kill - Would finally unbalance a game unless night vision was added for humans, and even that somehow seems unrealistic. Nemesis645 12:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
13. Kill - I would support something like this on roleplaying grounds if it were based on scent rather than magical night vision, because after all, if I can smell where my group members are from many blocks away, why can't I smell humans?? But this doesn't even have a nice roleplaying justification -- Sage|Carr ^Cobra 23:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Really? This TOTALLY creates an unbalance between survivors and zombies. Also as Big F'ing Dog. Please for the love of God, run this shit through Developing Suggestions and actually pay attention to what people comment on it!!--SirArgo ^Talk 02:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
2. 'Spam - Unlike the shrill, frothing voters above (particularly GS, sheeeeeeesh, man) I'll say that I think you've got the problem right. Dark buildings are awful for zombies, biggest zombie shaft ever. However, your solution is clumsy and horribly unbalanced: for very little AP zombies could completely negate the penalties, and that's not in any way balanced. I do echo the others in asking, "Why the fuck didn't you run this through Talk:Suggestions, for chrissake". --WanYao 05:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC) btw GS.... zombies are predators... they also have a skill called "Scent Death"... there are many reasons to think that they would not be as adversely affected by darkness as the living. No... not cats... but not crippled by the dark, either. I guess you only role play a smart person in an online game, nuh? --WanYao 05:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Spam - as SirArgo. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Spam - Argo, this WAS on Developing Suggestions, he just didn't listen. Oh, and this isn't the solution we're looking for. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 07:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

   _{Non-author RE moved to talk Linkthewindow  Talk  08:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)}

5. Spam - No. --William Told and Co. ^{ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ} 00:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Spam - No. Period, end of discussion, unless you want to give survivors one of the many flashlights suggestions. --Private Mark 03:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
7. Spam - Pointless and unbalancing.--Michaleson ^CAPD 22:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)