Suggestion talk:20080221 Feral Frenzy

Discussion Moved From Talk:Suggestions

This is content moved directly from Talk:Suggestions and is no longer an active discussion

---

---

Feral Frenzy

This is now up for voting. Or it will be if Boxy can fix my cock-up :( --Honestmistake 11:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Timestamp:	--Honestmistake 09:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Combat Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Zombies with Feral Frenzy are able to drive themself to unnatural exhertion. A zombie with this skill enters 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!) Each attack will cost 3AP and 2HP. The zombie obviosly needs "tangling Grasp" to take this skill.

• Note the screen will still "fog" over when you reach 0AP... however the message will change to something like "Your exertions cloud your mind and you can focus on nothing but the Harman struggling in your grasp!" an attack box would also appear but would contain only that survivors name.

• Been thinking of this for a while and I think it will make an interesting buff for zombies... the fairly steep AP and HP cost combined with the randomness of how many attacks you will be able to get should more than balance out the benefit of a few extra strikes! --Honestmistake 09:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Would have a very minor effect on the game, with my experience grasp rarely lasts more then 2 to 3 times before losing grip. Although certainly adds a bit of flavour/"realism"--xoxo 10:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You would probably need to disallow bite attacks as zombies with digestion would gain HP to offset this cost. That aside, do the zombies really need another buff right now?--Mister Nathan Marbles 10:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't need to disallow bite... hit chance is significantly lower and thus reduces your chance of keeping hold anyway. As for zombies needing a buff? I don't really see what that has to do with it, we are supposed to vote on the idea and its merits/flaws. It may or may not be needed right now but if its a good idea it should still pass regardless of which side is currently "winning" (or moaning loudest ;D) This would give zombies another option to consider in their main area of gameplay and as if that wasn't enough the image of a zombie going beserk in its single minded pursuit of brains seems to good to miss! Given that 2 of my 3 characters are survivors I do keep an eye on balance and can't see this leading to the mass extinction of harmans (though it will make a hell of a mess!) In a large break in this would mean the slaughter would be a little quicker but its main use would be for the ferals and smaller mobs who waste moste of their AP chewing Cade only to get a swing or 2 before they AP out. --Honestmistake 11:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea; what we really need to balance the game is to make ferals more effective without buffing overpowered megahordes, and this does that--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 20:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Absurdly overpowered. So long as the potential to actually kill a person almost entirely with this exists, its going to be that way. A major balance feature of the game is the fact that there is only so much a single person can do in a days play. I am not fond of suggestions that undermine that, regardless of the cost. Also, its rather poorly explained. Why exactly does a zombie lose HP for it? I can think of no non absurd reason for it be so. While realism isnt terribly important in a zombie game, things need to be realistic enough to enable suspension of disbelief and make the whole thing fun. Magic loss of HP for no explicable reason kind of makes that difficult, especially considering the fact that the zombie cause has been pretty much established to be biological, rather than magical (With magical, you could say that without rest the bindings that animate them are weakened by such overload actions, with biological you have no such luxury). Id say scrap this idea. its a neat concept, yes, but it isnt possible to get it to mesh with the basic game concepts in a satisfactory way that maintains game balance. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Brutal and honest as ever (in this case thats a compliment by the way) I will address your 2 main points though.

1st the AP balance. Harmanz can already go way past their AP limit in syringe manufacture so there is precedent. More importantly though you would have to be unfeasibly lucky to kill anyone who wasn't already almost there anyway (how often do you get even 10 hits on the run with maxed claws?) but even if you did you are now down a large chunk of HP and at -30AP meaning you will do squat the next day. If at the end of your rampage you get headshot you will be standing up at 12AP in 24 hours, which means you probably take a day off. This doesn't give you more AP it just gives you a chance to borrow from later at a pretty high interest rate!

Now for the HP loss, I see that as part of the pay back for driving your body onto excessive exhertion. The energy used is puting unnatural strain onto your body damaging muscles and basically breaking stuff. Think of some maniac on PCP not knowing he is so broken that he is actually dead... Or put it anotherway, the zed is biological and having burnt its energy reserves is burning its structure to keep going... if he eats (with digestion) he replenishes that fuel and can mitigate the effect. but will still take longer to recover his full strength (AP)--Honestmistake 13:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The difference between existing go into negative ap methods and this is that you are completely helpless when you do so. In this case, you are actively engaged in hostilities with another user, far from helpless. I never said this gave you ap, my comment was the fact that theres only so much a person can do in one day. For zombies especially, a one day payoff immediately is a lot more valuable than that same over a long time given the massive impact of barricades on their AP efficiency. Also, your explaination as to why a zombie loses health is somewhat lacking. Extra strain? They are dead. The very picture of undeathly health. Gunning them down a dozen times and them standing up is a lot more strain, yet they do that with a smile then bite your nose off. Things that can take that much punishment and just get up again wont be affected in an adverse manner healthwise by a little extra activity. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Love the flavor!!! Keep. BoboTalkClown 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is horrible, wastes so much AP it's useless, can be used up to 30 times and then it's, again, useless, there's no guarantee you'll be doing anything other than wasting your AP and guaranteeing more no play time, which is my big problem with any suggestion that removes large amounts of AP for no reason, like headshot, it reduces fun and reduces the ability to actually play the game.--Karek^maps?! 06:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How on earth can you compare this to headshot? This is entirely volutary... don't think you will benefit then don't bother. If on the other hand you have managed to get your target near death its going to be well worth the use of those AP to try and finish the job. No one is going to use this to the extent you seem to worry about because the chances of hitting more than 3 times on the trot are very very slim and only get lower. How the hell you think it can be used 30 times is beyond me? Each use requires tangling grasp to be in effect which means you have to hit on each and every one of those attacks, even at 60% its pretty improbable that you could get more than 5 hits in, you probably have more chance of winning the lottery than you do getting 30 consecutive hits! So yes the chance to waste a phenomenol amount of AP is built into this but I could say with certainty that it would never happen. In practice this would only be used against targets close to either death or the 13HP feeding drag limit or very rarely by someone knowing they will not be playing the next day anyway and thus willing to burn AP if they get lucky!--Honestmistake 09:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone has told you this or not but the RNG streaks, it streaks a lot, it streaks so much that when you hit you hit more than three times most of the time when you miss you miss more than three. It streaks regularly enough that I frequently get hit streaks of 10 or more and then miss streaks of just as many with maybe one hit in 20 actually hitting. It's not as bad with people as it is with barricades but it is enough that 15-20 AP lost because of this isn't actually unreasonable at all.--Karek^maps?! 13:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

maybe so but it must even out or the percentages are a joke and all calculations we make on these suggestions are pointless. You can't figure in things like that into any suggestion because it is a) just a theory and b) totally unpredictable! --Honestmistake 20:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

---

---

Discussion above the line is from Talk:Suggestions and is no longer active.

Discussion on Voting

Discussion on Voting goes under here

Discussion on the suggestion page

Discussion on the suggestion as submitted goes under here

A response primarily to Funts vote but relevant to a number of others too

• "I do understand the reluctance to allow more than 50Ap in one day but consider that this is already in game in a different form with survivors manufacturing syringes. Also survivors do something like this in another way (though in reverse so please bear with me ;D) When a survivor searches for ammo he is effectively storing AP for later use, its his main advantage in combat and far more reliable and versatile than what I am suggesting here. As I said to Funts vote, it is theoretically possible to get to -87AP with this,just very unlikely. Please remember though that this is not an extra 87 actions its an extra 29 that you take at a much higher AP cost and in the real world it will be almost impossible to get more than 5 or 6 and those come at the cost of a very significant chunk of the next days AP!"--Honestmistake 19:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately such details are up to Kevan to decide --Honestmistake 19:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the big don'ts in suggestions. --Aeon17x

which is why I clearly indicate my preference. I put that in not so much as an excuse but as a reminder.... I don't think some voters remember that Kevan reads, thinks and then adjusts.. still it was an afterthought and only a minor option to the whole idea which i felt did need attention drawing to it!--Honestmistake 00:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion should rise and fall on its own merits, not the mystical ability of the Big K to fix whatever's intrinsically wrong with them. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you which is why I added a note and made clear my support for a proposed change. I have (& had) no intention of revising this for another attempt and felt it was only fair to draw attention to the flaw in my suggestion in a way that would point out a potential solution to future voters (and kevan if it got through) As is the rest of the votes seem not to care about that issue anyway and dislike the negative AP aspect most.... to be honest i did expect a lot of spam votes on something as unusual as this and am pleasantly surprised they have been kept top a minimum with pretty much every vote being sensible about what they do and don't like! --Honestmistake 11:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Spam

Nonauthor or additional Res go under here