Suggestions/13th-Mar-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


Aggressive VS Non-Aggressive Zombies

Timestamp: Reaper with no name TJ! 14:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Improvement
Scope: The Stats Page
Description: Let's be honest here for a moment. Zombies are outnumbered. Sure, the stats page says 44/56 in favor of zombies, but a lot of those supposed "zombies" are probably just Mrh? Cows waiting for a revive (especially when you consider the recent string of zombie victories that have been occuring, which no doubt results in a lot of players who need revives). Can we really consider those players to be zombies? True zombies are out smashing barricades and eating brains, not standing in a cemetery waiting for someone to come along and poke them with a needle. Unfortunately, as long as the stats page does not differentiate between these two types of zombies, we will never be able to get even a rough estimate of how many true zombies there are in the game.

Therefore, to rectify this, I suggest that two statistics be added to the stats page right under the "Standing Zombies" stat: Aggressive Zombies and Non-Aggressive Zombies. Obviously, each will have a number and percentage, and the sum of the two will equal the "Standing Zombies" stat.

Any standing zombie that has brain rot or is not in an empty block will be considered an Aggressive Zombie, and any standing zombie in an empty block that does not have brain rot will be considered a Non-Aggressive Zombie.

As a general rule, "true" zombies don't hang out in empty blocks unless they are a rotter trying to disrupt revive queues. And the vast majority of Malton's revive points are on empty blocks, so there's little to no reason for any zombies to be there unless they are either a rotter (who is considered a true zombie regardless of location due to the nature of brain rot as a "hardcore" zombie skill) or a Mrh? Cow. So, we can therefore use this to determine roughly how many zombies are "true" zombies and how many are Mrh? Cows.

Of course, like any other system, this idea isn't perfect. There are a few revive points that aren't on empty blocks, and there probably are some "true" zombies who like empty blocks for some reason. However, neither of those factors should be significant due to the low numbers of each. The same is also true of Griefers and Death Cultists, since their numbers are not believed to be large enough to significantly affect the stats page. And like I said, this is only supposed to give us a rough estimate. But a rough estimate is certainly better than no estimate at all.

Keep Votes
For Votes here

  1. Author Keep - If I wouldn't vote keep on it, why would I be suggesting it? --Reaper with no name TJ! 14:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - That would sure clear things up, and it doesn't seem to complicated. So it's great show's that the surviors are survieing or something.YU 337
  3. Keep - Gives a slightly more accurate picture of the number of true zombies. --Anotherpongo 15:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep -- Interesting Idea --Lord Evans 15:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - Clarifies the number of "true" zombies on the stats page. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Excellent idea. -Mark D. Stroyer 18:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep- I like it, althoug both numbers (passive and aggresive) are an important indicator of zombie power in Malton.--Grigori 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Too prone to error. While it is true that a succesfull zombie campaign boost the zombies numbers with enough of percentages points of mhr? cows that the stats page is not entirely reliable, this introduces even more errors to that. Most zombies don't have brainrot yet, a lot of them are ferals that wander around and with about 50% of the squares empty a lot of action takes place there. I can think of boatloads of reasons for mistakes. Introducing even more unclear data in the stats page wont help the discussion.--Vista 20:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill It would be highly inaccurate. Just have it show the number of brain rotter zombies if that's what you want. And hey, Vista's back! Welcome back! --Jon Pyre 00:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Not much info it adds over the current numbers. If it was something like indicating the % of zombies who have made attacks on barricades or survivors in the past 24 hours, THAT would be a useful indication of "active zombies." --S.Wiers X:00x-mas tree dead pool 02:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Here's a better idea. A person goes and click a checkbox in his profile stating "MRH COW", so that anyone scanning his profile would know that he is indeed a Mrh Cow who want to be revived...and he doesn't even need to say Mrh to get revived in the process. This indicates that he indeed a Mrh Cow who wants to be revived to the game. The game tracks the amount of Mrh Cows, and then volia. No accuracy problems.--ShadowScope 02:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill - 80% of statistics are made up. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 08:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill -Zombies outnumber survivors? muh muh muh muh muh muh... wow. I keep saying "the endgame is upon us!", but this is still shocking. Do you remember back when it was like 60% survivors and 40% z's? Just shows how unbalanced the game is. Also, to prone to error. --AlexanderRM 3:09 PM, 14 March 2007 (EST)

Plus, if we differentiate bettween mrh? cows and normal zeds, we'll have people complaining that the game is unbalanced towards survivors when its 100% zombie. -AlexanderRM
Spam/Dupe Votes

Hand-to-Hand for Zombies

Timestamp: DreadHeadDead 21:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Type: Human Skill To Zombie Skill
Scope: Humans who become zombies
Description: Alright, let me rephrase my suggestion. Hand-to-Hand Combat adds 15% to melee combat. What a zombie does IS Melee combat. So it should add 15% more chance of hitting a target regardless if you are a zombie or a human.

Keep Votes
For Votes here

  1. Author Keep Because it makes sense to me. DreadHeadDead 13 March 2007, 16:17 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Exactly which human skills would cross over, and the effects they would have, need to be specified before I could vote keep on a suggestion like this. For instance, would hand and teeth attacks both gain extra accuracy from the hand to hand combat skill? --Toejam 21:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill -Hand to hand is boxing, karate, being able to swing a pipe effectively etc, etc. If it was too cross over, the flavor would be "ninja-zombies" cool, but not entirely fitting. And because zombies have their own skill set that works on their attacks, It's best left the way it is. Also it helps if you suggest what your suggestions actually does. How much extra bonus, how much extra damage, which attacks it boosts, etc. etc. Because right now this isn't a suggestion as much as it is a complaint that you just wasted 100XP.--Vista 21:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)--Update I'm happy you changed your suggestion to reflect the input you got. Unfortuneatly for your suggestion damage in game is reasonable balanced. This would not improve that.--Vista 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill -Makes sense, does it? I agree with Vista that hand-to-hand combat requires, um... better hand coordination and things like that. I'm going to assume the zombie's half-dead muscles wouldn't respond so well that it could master hand-to-hand combat. --Storyteller 00:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill A 75% attack rate would be unreasonable even if zombies were outnumbered, and now the opposite of that is true.. --Jon Pyre 00:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill As John Pyre. --Kamden 02:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill As above -- plus I think this was added to the queue out of order and changed after voting began. --Matt Scott 9 12:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. kill not one of the best. Oh and it was edited after 2 votes but only too address the first none author vote.--Honestmistake 14:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Wouldn't bother removing it as its doomed anyway!
  8. Kill Multiply by a Thousand... Zombie attack percentages are fine as is. It's a bit rough early on, but once you get your claws maxed things get much easier. --Dread Lime 14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - An attack rate of 75% is a little too much. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 15:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Strong Kill -Zombie claws are ALREADY 10% higher accuracy than the axe PLUS tangling grasp, and you think we should RAISE that? nuh-uh. --AlexanderRM 3:13 PM, 14 March 2007 (EST)

Club Cunningham

Spaminated with 7/7 Spam/Total Votes. Voters believed it was trivial and useless. -Mark D. Stroyer 18:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/13th-Mar-2007&oldid=1878973"