Suggestion talk:20071126 Zombie Skill: Play Dead

Discussion from suggestion

1. Spam - Would allow the ability to create zombie ambushes.--Seventythree^Talk 00:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

   Could someone please tell me why that's a bad thing? Seriously? D4rkness 00:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

   Because what if all the zombies on the map could disappear when they wanted to? Would suck to be a zombie hunter then wouldn't it. The game is made in a way that hiding would ruin it for people, almost griefing. BTW: We should take this to the talk page. - Whitehouse 00:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying my point, Whitehouse. If this was bought in, not only could zombies create ambush armies, but they could also dissapear and hide before they log out, making it impossible for survivors to find any zombies, or fight againgst them.--Seventythree^Talk 00:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I somehow think you're missing the point of the game. Maybe it's just me, but I thought the point was to survive? How does 'hunting zombies' play into that surviving aspect? It's only beneficial when A) they broke into your safehouse, or B) combat is your only decent means of xp. And for that second one, I really don't like that survivors are actually encouraged to go around taking pot-shots at zombies when they could be doing more productive things like healing, barricading, searching for supplies, etc. But, that's just me. D4rkness 01:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, what about this: add a zombie hunter skill that allows survivors the chance to recognize the hiding zombies? Though, I'm not sure if that would work better as an action or an automatic thing. If they could notice hiding zombies automatically, that would defeat the purpose of either skill, so I think it would have to be a 'search bodies' action or something like that. It could also have the benefit of letting survivors see which bodies look dead, and which are reviving. They shouldn't be able to notice more than one hiding zombie at a time, though. D4rkness 01:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Although some people argue that hunting zombies is pointless, it actually has some value, if a person does nothing with their AP because they always find the cades are up and everyone healed (most likely to occur in safe suburbs) then they are simply sitting around wasting it. So, if for example they then search and have ammo and never use it, well why not go outside and shoot at zeds, if your AP is not being put to any further use, then you can harm the zeds a little by stealing 5 AP from them. Of course, the 24 AP used to kill vs the 5 AP stolen is obviously a bad trade, but not all people leave their safe suburbs simply because it's their home. My point is, zombie hunting has some value in peaceful suburbs, making it safer by taking AP from zeds at no negative effect to your own side (your side currently has no use of your spare AP), despite not a great one.

Now that I have argued the purpose of zombie hunting.. as you said, a skill that automatically recognized hiding zeds would be pointless, so one in which you had to search the corpses would make more sense. But then you would have to decided if it checked every corpse in one (for 1 AP) making the hide ability weak, or checking each individual corpse (which could amount to a hell of a lot of AP used). - Whitehouse 02:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, my thinking was that it would be 1ap to check all the bodies in one square. However, you'd only be able to turn up one zombie at a time. So, for instance, if there were two zombies hiding amongst the bodies, and a survivor searched, they would turn up one first (probably the one at the bottom/top of the stack). Then, if that one was killed, the other would turn up. --D4rkness 02:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes that seems fair. Basically you begin searching all the bodies, and stop when you come across the first live one. - Whitehouse 02:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I just realized I might not have made this clear, but the skill involving a sneak attack was meant to be an optional action. Like, once they lay down, they have the option of preparing an attack. Zombies buying the skill won't be force to use it, so they won't get revealed if they don't want to. D4rkness 02:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm all for giving the zombies a bit of a boost, and trying to get some survivors to cut down on so much of their trenchcoatery but this alows zombies to be practiacly invunerable if they use this skill before they log off. Would you like it if you're playing as a zombie and you broke into a house only to find that all the survivors had "hid" in some way and where practicaly invunerable when offline? THe golden rule is, No-one should ever be completely safe. That goes for zombies too--Seventythree^Talk 02:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Edit: Your idea for a search adds needless AP penalties to survivors and would still allow zombies to be practialy invisible and invunerable. --Seventythree^Talk 02:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Edit again (damn edit conflicts) You've jsut added a stealth attack. This is realy a massive no-no. THis suggestion is basicaly zombie ambush... Please, read freq. Suggested!--Seventythree^Talk 02:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I read Freq. Suggested, and I understand why people are against an auto-attack, but can you honestly tell me you're fine with people being able to wander the streets, wading right through huge groups of zombies, without a scratch? It kind of takes me out of the experience. The few times I get caught by online zombies actually make it interesting to go outside, but that's a rare occasion.

As for invulnerable zombies thing, it really only works while they're outside. If they try it inside, they can be dumped and lose any ground they had. A zombie is already basically invincible outside anyway. They can just stand up and be fully healed. I just don't see how this would be any worse. --D4rkness 02:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It just breaks too many guidelines and adds too much power to zombies. Plus it seriously lowers the chances that you might get killed as a zombie. --Seventythree^Talk 02:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we're just not on the same page about the whole zombie death thing. I mean, death is hardly a punishment to zombies. The only time it has any serious impact is when they're inside a building, since it allows them to get dumped. If a zombie dies outside, all they've lost is a few AP to stand up. This can be troublesome for newbie zombies, but for anyone with Ankle Grab, it's negligible. --D4rkness 02:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you now argue that this is no different from death then what is the point? Death has the advantage of full health (at the same cost as this). And if you use it for the auto attack... an attack, that in the worst case scenario could cost you about 5-6 AP, 5 AP to lie down, then an auto attack at a cost (how much does the attack cost?), and then maybe a headshot after that. I can't see how this skill benefits the zombies, apart from nerfing the survivors so they have no one to shoot. - Whitehouse 02:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll admit it's not entirely sound from an AP-usage perspective. I guess my thinking was that it would give zombies more flexible options for strategy.

I was also thinking that, if the zombie has the infected bite skill already, then the ambush attack could infect the survivor, which would give zombies an advantage to help control traffic in suburbs they're trying to control. Survivors would be more cautious about travelling through zombie-controlled areas if they ran the risk of getting infected and damaged.--D4rkness 02:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I do see what you are saying, it is way to safe to travel outdoors these days, the danger comes more from survivors barricading each other out. Surprise attacks with infectious bite, hehe, now that could be fun. And I agree about giving zombies options, but you would really need to include that searching bodies part, and it would need to be a skill that is fairly easy to get, or else the newbie survivors get nerfed. - Whitehouse 02:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Giving up

Alright, from the looks of things, most people want nothing to do with this idea. I'd love to keep working on it, but I think it's safe to say the vast majority of Suggestion voters are too set in their ways to even consider this. Call me a rebel, but I wasn't content to abandon this idea just because other people feel that hiding/auto-attacks are unworkable and unfair without exception. But, obviously this won't be passing anytime soon, and no amount of polishing will make this turd look any nicer to the Spam/Dupe crowd who shoot down everything in sight like it's their job.

To the few of you that actually took the time to discuss it intelligently, I thank you for your input. However, I'm starting to feel like the UD community just isn't ready for something like this, so I'm going to set this aside for now. Maybe if I come up with new version that somehow sets everyone's fears to rest, I'll repost it, but until then I'm going to step back and let this get spam-voted into oblivion. (btw, does anyone else find it ironic that most of the spam votes could be considered spam themselves?)--D4rkness 15:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Its been discussed and rejected repeatedly in the past. Hiding just isnt for UD. This is not Nexuswar. Now stop pretending to have some sort of moral high ground about this. At the very least you had the sense to call a turd a turd, and thats the only reason im not flaming you. Besides, the proboards forum sucks. The proboards guys once thought that a suggestion to protect the barricades with a force field simply by leaning a pipe agaisnt it was a great idea. Not there anymore, they seem to have conducted a purge of the older threads. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's always worth a try. But as Grim says, it probably isn't meant for UD. Though if you do come up with something, take it to the talk page and have it discussed. You can get good input there, a lot better than the spam votes that get fired at suggestions that aren't quite ready. PS: Grim, Forcefield??? - Whitehouse 15:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Im not kidding. Ask some of the older zombie players about it, those who were around in 05/early 06, especially old RRFers. It has a special place in our chest cavities. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if that sounded self-absorbed. I find it hard to respond any other way when half the people voting on this make no indication that they even read past the title. Plus, I'm kind of a self-absorbed jackass, so it just comes naturally to me. Anyway, lesson learned: Suggestions are not discussions. Next time I have an idea (if ever), I'll bring it by the Talk page first. --D4rkness 01:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)