Suggestions/12th-Feb-2007

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

  1. These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
  2. Suggestions with a rational Vote tally of 2/3 Keeps over total of Keeps, Kills, and Spams will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page by a moderator, unless the original author has re-suggested the Suggestion.
  3. Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
  4. All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
  5. Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
  6. Again, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. It will be used as a historical record and will eventually be locked.
Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current Suggestions • Suggestions up for Voting • Clothes Suggestions
Cycling Suggestions • Peer Reviewed • Undecided • Peer Rejected • Humorous
Suggestion Advice • Topics to Avoid and Why • Help, Developing and Editing

Driving Hunger and Driving Force

Withdrawn by author to make vote cycling easier. Enough kills that longer voting seems a waste of effort. --S.Wiers X:00 00:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Exhaustive actions only when AP stay positive

Timestamp: LAME MAN 01:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Game logic improvement
Scope: dead and reviving characters, probably anyone doing AP-costly tasks
Description: After my zombie character was killed (with a headshot) by a survivor recently, I was left dead with 0HP and 1AP. I accidentally hit the button to stand up and saw my character rising with -14AP and therefore standing prone to attacks for a period of at least seven hours. And it didn't take even one until he was actually killed, once again taking away at least five hours from him. I found this not only frustrating, but also illogical, as AP use is seen as a measure of exhaustion. And with 1AP, my character shouldn't have been able to fulfill such an exhaustive task. I also see no reason why a non-AnkleGrab-character should be able to use up to 14AP beyond his limit this way, while characters with this skill can only do so by 5.

I therefore ask to disallow standing up, or rather more any action which would lower AP beyond 0 (I have not advanced far enough to see other actions), as it defies the game logic.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep Author vote LAME MAN 01:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep The two main "strategies" based around this (the infamous ?rise command and the syringe precharge (manufacturing a syringe @ 1AP before going on vacation)) would be considered exploits in most other games. --Specialist290♠ 05:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - it's a game bug that people use as an exploit. It should be coded out. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - As Funt and Specialist. --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. WTFZOMBIES I agree. Mattiator 04:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. It would destroy ?rise during sieges. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill Usually a bad idea but as Hagnat pointed out standing with -AP has its purpose. --Jon Pyre 02:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Actions that can leave you with negative AP in case of being performed have a reason to be able of being performed. Be more careful, don't take away options that other players use just because you find them unagreeable: PKing wouldn't exist if it was for some people. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    Re I'm not questioning that negative AP can be used in several useful (and probably doubtful) ways depending on the side, but the logic behind the implementation. And of course I will be more careful after having experienced it, but again logic made me assume it shouldn't have been possible. The couple of hours lost don't really matter to me. LAME MAN 08:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill I like to think of -AP as similar to pushing in MechWarrior --Oo6red2 05:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Unnecessary. It is called paying attention to what you are doing.--Pesatyel 05:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. KillHagnat said it best, doing that is a siege strategy--♠ Che ♠-T GC X 05:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - Nope, I like -Ap actions. They save me time when I can't get to a computer in 24hrs. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 07:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill Would once and for all remove the only benefit of syringe manufacturing. - BzAli 11:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - In my view negative AP is extreme exhaustion to the point that the player has to take more time to recover. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 16:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    Re However, this doesn't explain why non-AG-characters can surpass their AP limit by 14 when standing up, while AG-characters can only do so by 5. And neither why you can't do the same thing by running through 14 blocks, which would be an equally complex action. At least you were the first one who really had an argument against which wasn't that the change would be nerfing. LAME MAN 17:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    Re: Excuse my lack of common sense but what is AG? --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 01:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    AG -> Ankle Grab. --Toejam 10:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Actually it does. You see, with non-AG, you stand up ineffectively, wasting tons of AP. With AG, you suddenly...just suddenly know the fine Art of Grabbing Ankles and therefore spend less time standing up. Basically, it nerfs ?rise and Manufracture.--ShadowScope 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Kill - I'm with zombie slayer it's a show of extreme exhaustion, its like waking up in the morning, and not having enough energy to get out of bed. --EL Zillcho 01:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Kill - There's nothing finer than being killed indoors, while you're recharging just one AP, and coming back to find the idiot trenchcoater didn't dump your body. ?rise -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 11:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Pay attention to your APs and you won't stand up with negative something APs. What if you just got a revive? You stand up too early and you're dead, needing a revive all over again. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Kill I used ?rise with 2 ap after a headshot last night. Seeing that "-3 AP" and having my friends tell me I was still inside the building made my day. I got killed pretty fast a second time, so somebody else got some extra fun (xp, use of headshot.) Its good all around, don't take it away. --S.Wiers X:00 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Competing Grasp: Zombie Team Attack Skill

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 02:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This is an idea for a zombie teamwork skill. Competing Grasp is inspired by those scenes in zombie movies where a survivor is grabbed from all directions and torn to bits. It would be a Tangling Grasp subskill. When a zombie with Competing Grasp grabs hold of a survivor with tangling grasp if there are no other survivors being grabbed by zombies then that survivor's plight will become visible to others. So if a zombie grabbed a survivor (let's call them SurvivorMan) a line would be added to the room description saying:

A zombie has SurvivorMan in its grasp.

This status and message endures until the zombie performs some action that breaks its grip like missing on an attack, moving away, getting killed, or until the survivor moves away or dies.

If a second zombie attacks SurvivorMan the message would change to this:

Two zombies have SuvivorMan in their grasp, pulling in different directions.

This message could have any number of additional zombies with Competing Grasp added to it (three zombies have Survivorman, four zombies have SurvivorMan, etc.) However if SurvivorMan is already grabbed with Competing Grasp and another zombie with Competing Grasp targets a different survivor Competing Grasp would not take effect. This is to encourage all zombies with the skill to gang up on the same one survivor. You wouldn't have to attack them if you didn't want to and there would be no penalty for choosing a different survivor instead. But essentially the first zombie with Competing Grasp on the scene picks who everyone will target if they want to take advantage of this skill.

  • What Being Grabbed Does

Besides informing people who is under attack here's what the skill would do: if the survivor's health drops to three times the number of zombies grabbing them or lower they instantly, die, torn apart by the mob. So if SurvivorMan has 5 zombies grabbing them if their health is reduced to 15hp or below that'll kill them. If 8 zombies grab them they'll die at 24 hp. 15 zombies 45hp or lower would kill them. Teamwork is rewarded but not in a way that really helps zergers. This is a third-tier skill and if someone has enough zerg zombies to take advantage of this they already have a force that can clear out almost any building without this skill.

This should give zombies a bonus for gradually building a mob around a lone target and provides tactical options. They can choose to attack the mobbed person to take advantage of their raised threshold for dying, or kill a different survivor and then latch on to the mobbed survivor with their last two or three AP so a future zombie can slay the target with less effort. It would sort of become a judgement call for a zombie: Are there enough zombies grabbing the target yet to make attacking them outright worthwhile yet? Is it better to wait longer at the risk of zombies being killed or the target moving away? Or should I try to kill them now?

Keep Votes

  1. Keep Teamwork! Tactics! A balanced way of making the zombie side more interesting. --Jon Pyre 02:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. I love it.--Gage 02:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Eak, agh, ooh, urg, SPLAT It kills me. However, the first half is a bit confusing. Only one survivor at a time (in a location) can suffer this plight, right? (That seems unduely limiting, if somewhat cinematic.) Also, I'm under the impression that as the game currently functions, one zombie establishing a grasp actually breaks the grasp that any other might have- which is exactly why most zombies currently do NOT prefer to all attack one target. Obviously this would have to change, if it is indeed the case. --S.Wiers X:00 02:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re It wouldn't have to change for zombies with just tangling grasp, only ones with competing grasp. I limit it to one survivor at a time for three reasons: 1) It's cinematic. 2) It's more effective for the zombies 3) Imagine the spam if ten zombies each attacked a different target. You'd have "A zombie has X in their grasp" repeated ten times in the room description. --Jon Pyre 02:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    All good points, glad I asked for the clarification. Might I point out that his is inherently zerg-resistant? It requires multiple zombies to make claw attacks vs one character. If you use alts (from the same IP) to make attacks vs one character, the zerg flag kicks in, and (at the very least) your chances to hit go in the toilet. No hit = no grasp = no kill. --S.Wiers X:00 15:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Yeah! --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 03:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Brilliant - Well thought out and very cool. Sounds like fun...--Lachryma☭ 04:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep a flavorful and wonderful idea.--Blood Panther 04:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Thank you! --Jon Pyre 04:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep - Encourages zeds to cooperate. Therefore, it is one of the most awesome suggestions ever. Congrats on the most awesome suggestion ever. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 05:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - Pure Genius! --DinkyDao 06:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - I like this. Certainly brings memories of Dawn and Shawn of the Dead. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 07:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. I really like it. -Mark 17:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep - Awesome. --Aeneid 22:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Keep - Yup. A keeper. --Mayor Fitting 22:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. THIS IS IT! - it needs a little fine tuning but this is would benefit zombie groups so much(seiges might be a bit too strong though) used with feeding drag, and well have humans flying everywhere and maybe staying on the zombie side for once. --EL Zillcho 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Keep- I like it, very in-genre and leads zeds to work together.--Grigori 01:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Keep- could use some work, but the over all idea is great. -Bullgod 02:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. WTFZOMBIES as Bullgod. Great Idea, but needs a little tinkering. exactly what tinkering? No idea, something that makes it zerg proof. Mattiator 04:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Keep - Good idea -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 12:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. '100 zombies grab hold of this suggestion. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes
:Kill While i do like the idea, i am a little worried about the spam this might cause. if a message appears each time a zombie grabs a survivor then my screen would be filled with lines of A zombie has SurvivorMan in its grasp.. if you could some how work around this i see little reason to not allow this.--Blood Panther 03:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC) this satisfies my worries so i'm changing my vote.--Blood Panther 04:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Re You misunderstand, the message wouldn't be an alert. It would be added to the room description. This wouldn't cause a bit of spam, it'd just be one additional line on the screen after the number of zombies present. I hope this satisfies your concern. --Jon Pyre 04:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Interesting idea. However, I believe there should be a limit on how many zombies can grab someone. I mean get a mob of 16/20 zombies and you could kill a full health character. Also, what how would this work extactly? Say zombie 1 hits and grabs but does nothing else and thus maintains the grab. Then comes along zombie2 who does the same thing, then zombie 3 and 4. Then Zombie 5 does all the "work" to get him down to the request HP and he dies. Or do all 5 zombies have to continue attacking? And what about XP? Would all 5 zombies get the kill bonus, given the circumstances?--Pesatyel 05:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Only the zombie that performs the attack that ultimately kills the survivor gets the xp death bonus. And yes, this could end up killing survivors that are just a point or two below full health if they've been healed a lot (remember each zombie has to use a hand attack to attach). But if a building has 16 or more zombies all with this third-tier skill inside singling out a lone survivor I think the zombies have earned the high hp kill. Besides, it'd be rare for that many zombies to come by before one of them just finishes off the survivor. --Jon Pyre 06:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    That's what I figured. So, basically, there is no benefit to any of the other zombies.--Pesatyel 08:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. kill I don't like the insta-kill feature: and the information about whether it's worth attacking can be achieved with scents second-tier skill, or even diagnosis. - BzAli 11:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re It isn't really insta-kill. It's more "first a bajillion zombies grab you, then you die". And Diagnosis and Scent Blood while useful aren't absolutely crucial for this skill. It might be better to attack someone grabbed by several zombies because they'll die sooner rather than attack someone with a lower hp value. --Jon Pyre 13:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Free lunches, anyone? Seriously. The final zombie that joins the group instantly kills the survivor for one AP, and gets all of the XP. Also, there's already something that does this in the game: It's called every zombie doing damage to a survivor, and not just spending one AP to hang onto the survivor and than logging off. Besides, if each zombie does 3 damage, then by the time you have a number of zombies equal to 1/3 of the survivor's HP, he will be dead already. --Saluton 14:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill/Change - Make it a simple group Tangling Grasp. Lose the auto-death part. --Matt Scott 9 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re What do you mean by group tangling grasp? This is very different than a further accuracy bonus, is that what you mean? --Jon Pyre 17:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - I think that there should be a limit to how many zombies can attack a single survivor. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 16:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re There doesn't really need to be a limit. Sure if 19 zombies grab a survivor over time, and someone repeatedly heals the victim so the initial attacks don't kill them outright, then this could result in death at 57hp but once the survivor has 8 or so zombies attached it makes far more sense for any zombie to attack the survivor and bring them down to 24hp on their own rather than wait for 11 more zombies and risk the survivor logging on and moving away. --Jon Pyre 17:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    Re: I really didn't convey my point across at all in my initial comment so I'll say it here. I think that multiple zombies attacking a survivor is acceptable and I don't have a grudge against insta-kills. I want to state that it is physically impossible for a large amount of zombies, say 30, to attack one survivor all at the same time due to spacial constrictions. It would make more sense if only a certain amount of zombies could attack someone due to the concentration of the group around a survivor. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 01:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - While very in-genre, I don't think this is a good idea in practice. For one thing, there's the multiply-it-by-a-billion rule. Also, it would cause zombies to be even more reliant on hordes. This would be the wrong direction for the game to go. The fact that zombie game mechanics are geared towards horde combat (while survivor game mechanics are geared towards smaller groups and individual survival) practically guarantee that the zombies themselves will be underpowered. Furthermore, the fact that zombies have no other tactical options except hordes makes it impossible for them to do any meaningful damage. Sure, the horde may take a suburb or two, but in the process they would have had to divert zombies from several other suburbs (which have now become much safer as a result). We shouldn't be trying to increase horde strength; we should be trying to increase the strength of zombies in general. --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Zombies are only effective in hordes. Rather than work against that recent additions have tried to encourage further hording and make hording more effective: Feeding Groan, Scent Death, Flailing Gesture, etc. There's no real way to aid individual zombies other than attack buffs. --Jon Pyre 22:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - This would let the synchronised zombie groups kill almost twice as many people per AP as they can now, while the benefit it provides to the average zombie is minimal. The synchronised zombie groups already have a large advantage relative to normal zombies because of barricades, and I don't think the game should create even more inequality between the two groups. --Toejam 22:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Groups are coordinated enough to attack at the same time but not really enough to time attacks to the second. Just waiting around for the other zombies in your group to latch on before attacking gives defenders time to rebarricade and start dumping your allies. --Jon Pyre 23:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • An organised group could easily use an instant messenger service to synchronise their attacks. There'd be very little waiting around getting shot at. --Toejam 10:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. No Here's the simple reasons, 1. Auto Kill 2. Zerging 3. Multiply by a Billion rule. This makes zeds in a siege too overpowered. Can you imagine the Shacknews horde? They timed their attacks down to the minute, their meta-gaming capabilities are by far the best I've seen. This skill is far to overpowered.--Tirak McAlister 00:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill/change -The "free lunch" rule, obviously. Divide up the kill XP evenly (and make a 10-zombie limit for this, too, so you get at least some XP). However, some other kill voters obviously need a brain transplant: zombies being more effective than survivors in groups but less effective as individuals makes them overpowered, not under. lets take two different situations: 1: 50 zombies VS 50 survivors. zombies time their attack down to the minute, breack in for less than 1AP each on average, and kill most if not all of the survivors. no matter how co-ordinated the survivors are, its overwhelmingly likely that none of them will ber awake at this time. more survivors and more zombies stays about the same. #2: 1 zombie VS 1,000,000 survivors. guess what? ITS A TIE! --AlexanderRM 8:12 PM, 13 Febuary 2007 (EST)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Grab something!

Timestamp: DinkyDao 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Makes new consumers start with a random melee weapon.
Scope: Harmanz
Description: Simple. New Consumers start with a random melee weapon, with the following chances to start with each.

Bat(25%) Length of Pipe(25%) Knife(25%) Crowbar(25%) Why? Well if there was a zombocalypse, i'd expect people to grab the nearest thing they can find and use it as a weapon. Simple Logic. Edit: OK OK, NO MORE FIREAXE! I repeat, Fireaxe has been REMOVED.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - ZOMG --DinkyDao 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Sure, however take out the axe. That is a firefighter-class staring weapon. It may be "realistic", however for game purposes consumers are below everybody in terms of fighting skills and equipment. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 07:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep As Dux. -- Dance Emot.gifTheDavibob LLLDance Emot.gif 08:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep Dux said it allready. - BzAli 11:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep with change Remove the fire axe. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 12:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - This is one of the those "wait, this isn't the way the game works?" moments for me. Of course everyone should have some starting way of getting XP! And if it's a weapon, so much the better. --Saluton 02:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. WTFZOMBIES Make it a knife. thats everything any person would have. Mattiator 04:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Not Quite A Dupe - but the suggestion I've linked to has a consumer starting with a crowbar - so the idea is already out there. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - no need for a random melee weapon. Just pick one standard starting weapon for consumers. The PR'd suggestion Funt mentions covers this just fine. –Ray Vern Pig.gifphz •T 12:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - I concur with Ray Vern that Funt's PR'd suggestion adequately covers this matter. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 16:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - The "randomness" you talk about means that someone that wants the fire axe will create dozens of charactwers until he gets one with the desired weapon, and leaving the other 20 to rot in the streets. No-no. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 18:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - Will make some starting consumers more powerful than others, which isn't really fair. Granted, the starting classes aren't really balanced as it is, but this would just make it worse. --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill' - Consumers are useless, they deserve all they (don't) get -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 12:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. As Funt. And you do know you're not suppose to edit during voting, right? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill' - Crowbar? Sure, let's give them the one item that has a big advantage over the others.--Jay Clarke 18:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Melee Weapons Skill

Moved to the discussion page, as only 1 suggestion/day allowed. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Un-Buying Brain Rot

Timestamp: --Captain911 10:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Un-Buying A Skill
Scope: Brain Rotted Zombies/Survivors
Description: Here's how it works. Zombies who have the Brain Rot skill can Un-Buy this skill for 1000 Exp. Under the skill Brain Rot there would be a skill or a button which would take Brain Rot off for 1000 Exp.


I suggest making it 1000 XP. Why? Because this would help reduce the problems of griefing by making it unspammable, yet most high-level players can afford that cost - it's hefty but they can afford it once or twice. And if you feel that this shafts the low-level players, I think that's unlikely because if you're a low-level survivor/zombie, what are you doing getting the Brain Rot skill?


My reason for this is that I have played as a zombie with Brain Rot for more then a year, and I would like to play as a survivor now (with all my skills). I would be willing to Un-Buy Brain Rot for 1000 Exp, I believe this is reasonable and should be implemented.

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep – I believe this is a reasonable cost for un-buying brain rot.--Captain911 10:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Although I believe that being able to un-buy Brain Rot would take away aspects of roleplaying, it would save an awful lot of time for a veteran zombie should they choose to give life a go, not to mention stupid survivors who purchased it accidentally would be able to un-do their mistake over time... The option of un-buying Brain Rot should cost two or three thousand though, it's not uncommon to find players with a thousand spare exp anymore. --Chopper 11:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - 1000 XP to unbuy a skill does come across as a bit bizarre, but I suppose if Brain Rot is going to remain a sign of commitment to zombiehood then un-rotting would need to be expensive. Anyway, looking through Peer reviewed, I don't see any better "Sell Brain Rot" skills, and this would be an improvement to the game, so a keep. --Toejam 11:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - I suppose it's not a total dupe, however I like it. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 11:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. keep - The price is negotiable, but the idea is good. - BzAli 11:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - as BzAli. –Ray Vern Pig.gifphz •T 12:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep I've been playing for over a year and even I don't consider 1000xp to be a tiny amount. I only have 6,0000xp after all this time. I have a zombie character that would probably take brain rot if this were implemented.--Jon Pyre 13:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep - No choice in the game should permanently prevent a player from playing the way they want to. --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - I'm not sure why everyone is voting spam instead of kill. Only a few actually look like spam votes. --Gm0n3y 21:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep - In response to the Spam votes below, I can only say one thing: "All your XP am belong to us." -Mark D. Stroyer 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep' - *cough* SOMEONE copied and pasted what I wrote about a previous suggestion. Heh. Don't worry, I won't take offense at that. And I'm voting Keep because I'd hardly disagree with my own thoughts would I? -- Ashnazg 1057, 18 February 2007 (GMT)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If someone does something stupid, the game shouldn't help them. It's their own fault. And if they want to be a survivor again ... well, maybe they shouldn't have bought brain rot in the first place. --Saluton 14:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Uh...you do know UD Toolbar has a function which hides the Brain Rot skill on the zombie skill tree, right? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Brain rot is teh bomb... makes ya appreciate life... makes death actually cost something -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 14:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. WTF SQUID AEROPLANE - The price is ridiculous. 1000 XP to undo one accidental mouse click? I think not. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 12:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - This suggestion isn't for stupid people that click there mouse on the Brain Rot skill, its more less for zombies who want to become survivors again. Btw, if you accidentally click the Brain Rot, you can still get revived and work on your Experience to get it up to 1000.
  2. Change - Make it "all your current XP, but a minimum of 1000" and it's a keep from me. This is not a power that should be given lightly - and 1000XP might be considered light to someone who has 5000 and no other way of spending it. If a character is changing from rotter to non-rotter, it should cost them. Remember, rotters can be revived - it just isn't easy. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 13:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - I was thinking about this but what about a zombie that has 2500 Exp, but only has the 20 zombie skills ?? ie, its kind of unfair...--Captain911 13:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Spam - Removing a skill in any form is not game material IMO. Theres a reason that you can revive rotters in powered NT labs. - JedazΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 13:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Charlie Echo November Tango Unoform Romeo Sierra - sorry, but this just doesn't work in any form. However, if this had been a suggestion to hard-code in an option to hide the Brain Rot skill, I would have voted for it. (Yes, there are Firefox extension that do this, but not everyone uses Firefox!) --Sgt. John TaggartUNIT 11/5 WCDZ TJ! 15:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Spam - 1000 XP is too large of a price to get rid of a skill, which is not game material IMO. If someone wants to get rid of Brain Rot they can just go to a rotter clinic. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 16:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Spam - My zombie is a rotter. Every time I needed to get a human skill or some human fun, I went to a rotters clinic: in less than a day, I was up again with the skill or the fun that I wanted to have. To be a zombie when you have the BR skill IS ALREADY OPTIONAL, why facilitate this even more? for zombies that "didn't know what they were doing", that "aren't so decisive in the choices they make"? Gimme a break... --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 18:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re -NONE of you are seeing the point! Sure a Brain Rot zombie can be revived, but im also not well liked around the area of Malton...If anyone sees me they shoot first ask questions later...i can't stay alive for 5 minutes...its harder then you think getting a Brain Rotter revived a billion times!! It may seem like im just complaining but its just a fact.--Captain911 20:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Re - That's why Brain rotted zombies should be dedicated zombie characters. If you have fins, tail, and lack lungs, you don't try a life in the surface do you? But don't feel excluded, you can start a new character whenever you want, that's the magic of UD. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 22:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Brain Rot as a Surivior is like playing Urban Dead on Hard Mode. It's...fun.--ShadowScope 20:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re - Are you retarded ?? lol...If you call dying and getting pissed off abunch of times fun your not playing the same game as i am...--Captain911 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Re-Just quoting Jorm, who played as a Surivior character with Brain Rot and recommend it. And, please, DON'T ever insult voters or Re every little thing. It's annoying.--ShadowScope 23:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill My reason is the same everytime I vote on suggestions like these. You buy Brain Rot, you live with the consequences. I actually think ShadowScope has a good point, I never thought of it that way. Anyway, even if you click on Brain Rot accidently, it's your own fault. --Tirak McAlister 00:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Dupe of like 500 suggestions -The last day or so you should find one. spam or killed every time. --AlexanderRM 8:16 PM, 13 Febuary 2007 (EST)

Scent Trail for Zombie Attacks too

Timestamp: Matt Scott 9 18:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Skill change
Scope: Zombie skill enhancement
Description: The description for Scent Trail currently reads, "Zombie is able to sense the new positions of survivors it's had recent contact with." But this is only partly true, since it currently only applies to survivor-initiated contact.

I suggest that in addition Scent Trail should also be triggered when the zombie successfully attacks a survivor (they would after all certainly have gained the human's scent). This would allow zombies to track a wounded survivor if it tries to make a getaway, or if the zombie runs out of AP and has to log back in later (that is, if it hasn't been headshot yet).

The current rules for Scent Trail would still apply. The scent expires when the zombie is killed, successfully revived, or if the targeted survivor is killed, or if they are more than 10 blocks away. Only one scent could be active at a time, which means each new scent would replace any existing scents. And the current description wouldn't even have to change.

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep - Zombie buffs make the game more fun for survivors. --Matt Scott 9 18:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Makes sense, is perfectly in-genre, and adds a fun "hunting" dynamic to the game that the current Scent Trail fails to possess. --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Zombie trackers!--ShadowScope 20:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. keep Good one. - BzAli 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - Logical, useful, and entertaining. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - Sure. Limits can be set as everything else is with Scent Trail, no need to explicitly set them on the suggestion itself Jon. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 02:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep- great idea. -Bullgod 02:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. WTFZOMBIES I see no reason why i shouldn't vote keep on this. Mattiator 04:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. BARHAH - Gage 04:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep - I'ld like Jon to point out a Zombie which has stayed standing up continuously for a month, or even a week. - JedazΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 06:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. keep If a zombie is trying to track me a month after an attack, I'm likely to be ont the otherside of the city. Besides, I'm not sure if scent trail survives idling out. The Mad Axeman 10:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. A zombie scent the new position of this suggestion. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep - But note that it is very nearly a dupe of Suggestions/13th-Dec-2006#Memorize_Scent - the only difference is this removes some limits / requirements that suggestion put on the user. --S.Wiers X:00 14:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill Add a time limit. Maybe 1 hour. The idea of being tracked by the same zombie a day, a week, a month later is not nice. --Jon Pyre 22:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • RE - Scent Trail already has plenty of limits. Jedaz & The Mad Axeman said it above, but even more to the point, show me 1 zombie who has avoided being attacked even ONCE for a month/week... Because that's all it would take to lose the scent. --Matt Scott 9 14:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Buying Skills as Body

Timestamp: Mark 18:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Improvement.
Scope: Everyone.
Description: I was killed recently, and out of curiosity checked the skills page. There it showed I could buy survivor skills, while a dead body. I stood up, checked again and it now showed zombie skills. I soon got revived. I again, as a body, checked the skills page, and it showed survivor skills.

Now, I realize that zombie skills shouldn't be shown, so as to avoid someone freshly-killed buying Ankle Grab to save 9 AP. But do skills even need to be shown at all when dead?

I propose that when a player is a dead or revived body, that player cannot buy skills. Clicking on the skills page would show “You must stand up before buying skills.”

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep -Mark 18:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep -Helpful. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 19:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - Being able to buy survivor skills while dead isn't really fair to zombies. --Reaper with no name TJ! 20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - i dont really care if it benefits anything it makes sense and should be part of the game. --EL Zillcho 02:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - I can't see a point in making this change. --Toejam 19:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill Why provide a one-time harassment to people? --Jon Pyre 19:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Well, you see, if I'm combat-revived, I don't want to stand up and risk getting myself eaten while I buy some skills. Rather, I buy the skills, THEN Stand up and wait for a fellow zombie to eat me.--ShadowScope 20:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - Who does this help? What if you die (or are revived) and you notice that you have some experience and want to pick up a skill or 2 before you stand up and start playing the other side? --Gm0n3y 01:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - Suggesting is about bringing in new possibilities, not taking out the old ones. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 02:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill Meh. I feel mean today. this isn't an exploit. Mattiator 04:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. I'm thinking of...buy zombie skills as a dead body, but human skills as a revived body. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

Air-Borne Pathogens

Superceded by Suggestions#Pathogenic_Liquid. No point having further voting on this one. This will self-destruct in 48 hours..--SporeSore 22:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/12th-Feb-2007&oldid=1878959"