Suggestions/13th-Nov-2006

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

Recovery Version 2.0

Pesatyel convinced me this was an auto-defense. Let no one say I can't be swayed by reason. It will be revised shortly, and probably retitled. --Jon Pyre 09:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Forklift

Timestamp: Lord of the Pies 08:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Type: Improvement to Power Stations, Factories and Warehouses
Scope: Survivors
Description: Now there's already a Forklift suggestion in Peer Reviewed, but this one is different.

Forklifts should be able to be found in Power Stations, Factories and Warehouses; they would be used to help survivors barricade more efficiently. Therefore, Forklifts remove the chance of failure to barricade (after a barricade being Quite Strongly Barricaded) because it's much easier for someone using one to find a good place to add another crate/box/whatever to the barricade. Players would see Forklifts as 'you can see the shape of a forklift in the shadows (if building is unpowered, regardless of whether the forklift is powered or not), 'you can see an industrial forklift in the loading bay' (if building is powered), 'you can see a powered forklift in the loading bay' (if both the forklift and Generator are powered).

However, Forklifts require three things to become operational; a powered Generator (you can hardly drive one around in pitch blackness safely), a Fuel Can for itself and the Engineering skill (so 'Forklift Training' is much more accurate, but it sounds wrong for the game) because really, some random guy you pull off the street isn't going to use a forklift properly.

Assuming that Malton is a modern city, it probably has electrically powered forklifts using lead-acid batteries; in this case, 'Fuel Can' becomes a catch-all term for any kind of fuel intended for vehicles or heavy equipment. Fuel Cans, when in Power Stations, Factories or Warehouses, would have drop-down menus for 'Generator' and 'Forklift' options. They would last about half a week, approximately half the time that a Fuel Can supposedly lasts in a Generator.

To operate a Forklift (assuming the player already has the Engineering skill) a player must click a button marked 'Operate Forklift (2AP)'; once they are using the Forklift they may barricade as normal. When barricading while using a Forklift, there is no chance that the attempt to barricade the building will fail; as a result, it would take 22APs (assuming no other actions in between) to barricade a building from nothing to EHB+3. This is approximately 10-20APs fewer than normal. The 2AP cost only happens once while using the Forklift; however, if the player gets out of the Forklift or stops using it (i.e. performs any other action other than barricading) then the cost comes into play again as they must click the 'Operate Forklift (2AP)' button again. In effect, every time they start barricading they have to spend 2AP before they start. Therefore it's in the Survivor's interests to focus on barricading. When successfully getting into an operational Forklift players would receive message such as 'you climb into the Forklift, putting your hands on the controls'. When using Forklifts players would receive messages such as 'you use the forklift to place a stack of wooden pallets/a crate/a large section of pipe/an abandoned car on the barricade' (when using the Forklift successfully) and 'you try to lift the object onto the barricade but there's no room left' (when the barricade has reached its limit).

Additionally, Forklifts can't be used while a zombie is inside the Power Station (only that block) the factory or the Warehouse. Forklifts also cannot be used if the Generator is destroyed or if the building is Ransacked; if either occurs while the Forklift is being used then the player is forcefully ejected from it. Players attempting to use a Forklift without a powered Generator, without a Fuel Can itself or in a Ransacked or zombie-inhabited building would receive messages such as 'you try to get into the forklift, but it's too dark to drive it' (if the Generator is unpowered), 'you try to get into the forklift, but you notice that the battery has run down' (if the Generator is powered bu the Forklift isn't), 'you cannot use the forklift because there is a zombie inside the building' (if there's a zombie inside the building, obviously) and 'you cannot use the forklift because the building is damaged and cluttered' (if the building is Ransacked).

Forklifts can be attacked and damaged at the same rate as Generators; damaged Forklifts are not destroyed, they simply lose their Fuel Can. There would also be indications as to the level of energy left in the forklift with identical messages as those of a Generator.

The Engineering skill is a sub-skill of Construction and is necessary to operate a forklift. Without it, the option to use a forklift doesn't appear.

Keep Votes
For Votes here
Kill Votes

  1. Kill I'm afraid that this would make the structures you proposed far too overpowered, almost like fortresses - It would wreck the balance between the AP needed to create a barricade, and that needed to destroy it. The diehard zombie players who think that letting survivors have anything more than toothpicks is "overpowered" will be all over this like a rash, --Garrett Fisher 12:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kill - It already takes a lot more AP to tear down barricades than it does to put them up. That doesn't need a buff, and giving it one would severely weaken zombies. --Reaper with no name TJ! 15:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kill - This would make any EHB building almost impenetrable. We would have another Strike from this. There is a perfect balance between tearing down a barricade, and bringing one up, and this would ruin it. --SteelVortex2 12:04, 13 November 2006 (EST)
  4. Kill I think the whole deal with forklifts is a bit complex. --Jon Pyre 17:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Kill A rare miss, old sport. Even if a mass of Zombies can take out any barricades in seconds, I don't see the need for an increase in barricades. --Peter Moran 21:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Kill Do survivors really need any help to barricade more efficiently? Chronolith 03:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - We need balance when it comes to barricading. This removes that balance by spending far less AP to barricade up to extreme. One person could barricade and have enough AP for other activities.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 15:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC) And of course, this goes against the suggestion dos and do nots. Changed my vote to SPAM because of this.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 15:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spam - no problem to fix. --Funt Solo 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Spam - No. Balance. Also, my job has absolutely nothing to do with forklifts, yet I know how to drive one. Go figure. --Joe O'Wood 23:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Spam -The Forklift suggestion in Peer Review is good. This one is neither an improvement upon nor differently workable to that suggestion, therefore pointless.--Pesatyel 04:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nursing

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 10:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: During the plague there were the doctors, the medical experts that sewed flesh and treated the virus. Then there were the nurses. These were often just ordinary people that stayed behind to treat the sick, unwilling to abandon anyone and risking their lives in a room of patients that might die and reanimate at any moment.

People with the skill Nursing can tell the freshly revived apart from the truly dead and can drag them indoors for 1AP. The detection aspect would work like Scent Death does but instead of describing their scent it'd just say "There are X bodies here. X are alive." Nurses would be able to drag these bodies one at a time into the building it's laying in front if it's barricaded at Very Strong or less. This would bring the Nurse and the body into the building together and give the nurse 2xp.

Bodies dragged into a building are now visible as "unconcious" and living, even to those without Nursing. They can no longer be dumped outside. If a reviving body was already in a building a nurse could attend to it. This would have the same effect as dragging one in but without moving it.

If the building is conducive to treating unconcious patients, possessing many chairs, beds, or benches the patient would start to recover from bed rest. Bodies dragged into non-ransacked churches, cathedrals, arms, hotels, and motels would start recovering hp at a rate of 1hp per hour. This health is added to their base revived health upon standing up, potentially bring them up to maximum if they've been lying in bed for over a day. It does not cure infection. Standing up ends the healing process.

If the building is ransacked any recovering bodies would stop regaining health. If it is repaired they would start healing again.

This provides a use for several currently useless buildings and also presents a risk/reward tradeoff. These buildings can aid in recouperating the revived, and bring them safetly indoors in case every building is overbarricaded later when they stand up. However it'd mean leaving the building with more vulnerable barricades. And to get the full benefit a survivor would have to wait over a day before standing, which might waste more AP than its worth in many cases.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep I believe this should address many people's concerns. It's useful at aiding the newly revived, but requires you keep a building at Very Strong, prevent it from being ransacked, and the greater the benefit the longer the patient has to stay down and out of the action. --Jon Pyre 10:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Yes! Now that, is different and makes sense! Being able to drag the revived into a safe building (if they are outside of it...) Being able to help them heal up is a different matter, the building would have to be secured, which it may not. It could be powerful, but usually it just gets you some XP and saves another survivor some hassles. {MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. It works for me, but if you do revise, please be sure to include the location revisions that those guys down there are talking about.--Labine50 MH|ME|P 07:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Keep Just been revived and now I have to stand up and find shelter?! But wait! I already have shelter? Wonderful! --Tahoe 06:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Almost Keep. (Quite a strong revision, this.) I'd add that if the building is ransacked, the bodies should become dumpable again, but really that's a minor tweak and not why I'm voting Kill. Your list of buildings is truly odd from a role-playing perspective. People would recover health in a pub, but not in a hospital? In a motel, but not in a building or towers (large structures with beds)? My list would be cathedral, church, hospital, mansion, stadium (med facilities), building & tower. (Tempting to include NT, PD and FD, as well, tbh.) --Funt Solo 10:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC) The trouble with Gene's idea is that, if survivors can heal a recovering victim, then it would only be fair to allow zombies to attack them. Some people stay "dead" in order to regain AP in a completely safe environment. Wouldn't want to nerf that. --Funt Solo 11:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re No, I wouldn't want to nerf that at all. Those survivors still can't be targeted by zombies. Zombies don't hunger for reviving bodies. They "smell funny". That's well established. But zombies do have a way of stopping them from healing: Ransack. Ransack the building and they stop healing. And if zombies can't ransack the building then there are other survivors in the building already so there's no tactical reason from a completely OOC point of view why they'd want to attack someone on the ground when there are still targets standing. You're right that my building list is a bit wonky. I forgot some of the ones you mention. --Jon Pyre 15:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you see how that idea is unfair, though? A survivor could be dead but healing - which a zombie can stop - but if the survivors can add HP, then why can't zombies take it away? Normally, the dead state is a frozen HP state - stasis. With this, it's a key advantage to revivifying survivors - they can lay still and regain both HP and AP in complete safety. Zombies can't do that. I like the idea of corpse retrieval - but I'd like to see the healing aspect either dropped or balanced. --Funt Solo 16:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Almost Keep. I agree with Funt Solo. Great suggestion, but the list of buildings simply doesn't make sense. If it'd been my suggestion I would've made it exclusively hospitals but at a minimum hospitals cannot be excluded. --wfjeff 10:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kill - The recovery thingy, while full of realism, is a little complicated. Also leads to a lot of arguing about who can recover where etc (as above). Why not just let Nursing be a skill that allows you to drag recovering survivors inside (as in the first half) and allow you to heal the unconcious survivors with faks? --Gene Splicer 11:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re That...that is a good idea. I'll probably submit that tonight as I've already used up my revision for the day. It's a shame though, I was trying to give hotels and churches a special purpose. If you could think of some way of keeping that... --Jon Pyre 15:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Almost Keep - I'd be all for if it was simply just the recovery of bodies, the antithesis of the "dump body" action. The healing aspect would just create confusion, and the automated healing effectively incorporates both an "auto-attack" and "something for nothing". --Garrett Fisher 13:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Kill - I'm in agreement with Gene. Reduce it to a reversed feeding drag and the ability to use FAKs on unconscious survivors and I'll switch to a Keep. –Ray Vern 12:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Almost Keep- I think hospitals should be added to the list of places where this can be done. Do that, and I'll vote keep, because otherwise I really like this idea. Although I also like what Gene and Rayvern were saying, too. --Reaper with no name TJ! 15:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Almost - Illogical listing of buildings (i mean, come on! A hospital has got to be on the list there) And i agree with Funt that bodies should be dumpable hen the building in question is ransacked.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 16:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Revise - Like everyone else, the buildings are...odd. Otherwise, I like it. -Mark 16:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. I quite like this suggestion, but it needs the small buildings tweaking that most of the others are suggesting. I tried very hard to think of a way for a zombie spy to use this to their advantage, but as far as I can tell there isn't one. Also, please clarify the bit in the third paragraph: "If a reviving body was already in a building a nurse could attend to it. This would have the same effect as dragging one in but without moving it." What does this mean? AFAICT, the only effect other than moving was granting XP. --ExplodingFerret 18:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re That's in case someone was revived indoors. You'd still be able to seperate them from dead bodies and prevent them from being dumped, and you'd also start the healing process if in the right buildings, but you wouldn't move them since they're already inside. --Jon Pyre 19:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I see, thanks for the clarification. It's just down to tweaking the choice of buildings for me now. --ExplodingFerret 20:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Kill - Tis a week kill, for me, verily. Do some revision (see above comments), otherwise, it's a good idea. --Peter Moran 21:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Almost Keep - What Gene Splicer said. --Joe O'Wood 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Almost Keep - As several people above me said, just the recovery of bodies would be better.--J Muller 01:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Kill - Sorry, overpowered Feeding Drag for humans. Chronolith 03:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

  1. Spam -This looks like a combination of Fireman's Carry from the 9th and your previous ideas on regeneration...without the fixes that keep it from being an Auto-Defense. Since nothing seems to have changed, I'll reiterate what I said last time. An Auto-Defense is any action that protects the character from danger without costing the character any AP. That is EXACTLY what this does. And, to use your definition, "...action performed by your character without you controlling it." Does the character spend AP to regenerate? Can your character control it happening? No, it AUTOMATICALLY happens, whether the player wants it to or not (techanically speaking). Therefore, an auto-defense. Other than the nurse thing and it being weaker healing, I see nothing different. If the Nurse was spending AP to take care of the "patient" (too which you eluded in paragraph 3 but did nothing with) or the "patient" had to spend AP "resting" then maybe. Or, maybe the person is "at rest" but technically "standing" (ie. attackable) But this way? No. Sorry. And by the way, since most people play a particular character once a day (waiting to max out AP), they WOULD gain the "full benefit" (24 HP, give or take) from this skill. And it would partially nerf healers if a person can "regenerate" to max HP (or close enough to it) without spending AP or FAK.--Pesatyel 04:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re It requires an action on part of the nurse to drag bodies inside, and additional AP spent on fighting zombies because of more frequent break-ins through weaker barricades. --Jon Pyre 08:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Reduce Stand-Up Cost

Timestamp: Reaper with no name TJ! 17:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Type: improvement
Scope: Standing up
Description: One of the most frustrating things about being a newbie zombie (or even a newbie survivor) is the stand up costs: "10?! That's a fifth of my AP!". It's even worse if you're a zombie who's been headshot: "15?! What the &$%@?!". What I suggest is that the default stand up cost be reduced to 5 AP. This will make the game a little more fun for newbies and reduce the odds that they will quit the game out of frustration. However, at the same time, this doesn't nerf ankle grab or headshot, because headshot will still make harder for zeds to get back up, and ankle grab will still greatly reduce the amount of AP required to stand up.

Let's run the numbers, shall we?

Currently:
No ankle grab or headshot=10 AP
Headshot but no ankle grab=15 AP
Ankle grab but no headshot=1 AP
Ankle grab and headshot=6 AP

Under this suggestion:
No ankle grab or headshot=5 AP
Headshot but no ankle grab=10 AP
Ankle grab but no headshot=1 AP
Ankle grab and headshot=6 AP

As you can see, this suggestion has no real effect on higher-level players. Survivors will still want to get headshot so they can slow down zeds, and zeds are still going to want ankle grab because it significantly reduces the amount of AP they have to waste standing up. All it does is help newbies, be they survivor or zombie.

Keep Votes
For Votes here

  1. Author Keep - Hey, somebody's gotta think of the newbies, right? --Reaper with no name TJ! 17:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep - UD loses a lot of players because newbie zeds are difficult to play. --Carl Panzram 21:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep - I can't believe I'm voting this, but it really does suck to pay 15 AP as a new zombie to get up after a headshot. It really, really does. Also, taking into consideration about half the survivors in Malton currently have headshot. Yes. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 01:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill On the day newbie survivors take 10AP less to toss a newbie zombie out of their safehouse. --Jon Pyre 17:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - You forget that this affects newbie survivors too. And they'll be needing it, considering how often they die. --Reaper with no name TJ! 18:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kill - The complaint is a fair one. 15AP is a lot - 30%, in fact, of the daily allowance. But, if you're going to reduce that, you have to balance it somehow - like let them stand up for less, but then have some other negative attached to them - like half chance to hit for a few APs time. Or an inability to attack. Maybe the zombie can stand up and move around, but as it's brain is sewing itself back together it can't attack. Cool (but complicated). --Funt Solo 19:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kill This was almost a keep for me. I do recall how hard it is to level as a beginning Zambah, especially in a human controlled suburb. 15 AP killed me, if you'll pardon the pun. But that being said, it's still possible to level easily if you can find a horde, and making lower level hordes more effective (see, fall of Caiger) certainly won't help balance any. --Peter Moran 21:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. I gotta agree with Funt.--Pesatyel 04:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Kill - Sorry, but I think the rules are good as-is. Chronolith 04:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Kill The current cost seems steep but it is good motivation to try not to die. --Tahoe 06:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - This game has to have some balance. Zombies are practicaly invincible- How can you beat them if they can stand uo for free all the time? Lets be honest here, yes its hard leveling up as a survivor and a zombie but be real we all managed it didn't we?--MarieThe Grove 17:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dying is important. It's supposed to be a big event, although not as big in this game as in the real world. My survivor maxed out human skills before even dying once, whereas my zombie character started at the same time gets killed all the time... but of course, you can deal with that fairly soon using the skills available. Fiddling the numbers isn't going to help, and if anything is going to make a mockery of the whole dying thing. --ExplodingFerret 18:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Spam - Do not mess with this balance. As Marie has already said zombies are virtually invicible as it is and they need to have difficulties at one point or else it'll just be a breeze for zeds and a nightmare for survivors.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 21:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. SPAM! Can I just say... what did you think ankle grab is for? A new corpse has a much easier time than a new survivor, the AP cost is the means of balance until you've levelled up. My zombie alt levelled far faster than either of my survivors! --Garrett Fisher 22:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - Interesting that you should say that, because out of my 4 characters, my zombie character has been levelling so much slower than my other characters that it is ridiculous. My firefighter (created a month after my zombie) was about 5 levels ahead until Caiger. And even now they're still not even. Plus, my firefighter usually only gets about 20-30 actions per day (I generaly divide my last 60 IP hits between my firefighter and scientist so that my other two characters can use all of their AP), and did nothing during the entire Caiger siege except sit in a southern mall searching for gennys and fuel cans. --Reaper with no name TJ! 00:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Zombies are unstoppable as it is. I need to suggest my Advanced Headshot that I've been working on. -Mark 22:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Spam - Ankle Grab is just one skill, guys.--J Muller 01:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - True. But you have to get lurching gait first. So it's really 2 skills you have to buy to get the benefit. And if a zombie has any desire to be able to get a decent amount of XP, it's going to go for it's combat skills first. --Reaper with no name TJ! 00:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Zombie Regeneration

Timestamp: Bryan Davies 18:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)--
Type: balance change
Scope: zombies.
Description: Killing hits survivors far harder than zombies. Death turns survivors into zombies, and undermines their efforts. Because zombies can just stand up again at the cost of just a few action points, killing barely undermines them at all. There is a clear imbalance here, giving zombies an unfair advantage. This balance would be redressed by zombies coming back to life with a handicap. When they first stand up after being killed by a headshot, a zombie should only have a limited number of hit points, e.g. 10. They would regenerate hit points spontaneously at a slow rate, e.g. 1 per hour. This would make a recently killed and resurrected zombie more vulnerable to attack, instead of being more resilient than before they were killed!

Keep Votes
For Votes here
Kill Votes
Against Votes here

  1. Kill - Interesting idea, but no. At least not in it's current form. Zombies have it hard enough with regards to how easily they get killed (survivors don't have to worry about headshots and can hide behind barricades). Maybe if you ramped up the starting HP to 40 or so. You also fail to mention what would happen if the zombie is attacked before they are finished regenerating. Does the regeneration cease? Or does it continue until the zombie reaches max health? --Reaper with no name TJ! 18:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kill - As above, interesting idea, but I don't see this as a particularly good idea. anyway, there isn't really a problem with death affecting zombies less the survivors, since survivors are harder to kill (they can barricade, zombies can't). --Rgon 18:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Change This and I'll Keep - Its a good idea in theory, but 10hp is too low and unfair to zombies- thats one shotgun shot. Perhaps make the zombie have 2/3s of its health and it be fully regained in 40ap- whatever they do. --MarieThe Grove 18:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Your simplistic reasoning is ridiculous. Just because death doesn't affect zombies as much as humans doesn't automatically mean the game is unbalanced. Zombies are more vulnerable to being attacked, have less shiny things to attack with, have huge communication difficulties to overcome. You can't ignore all the individual factors that go in to making the balance between humans and zombies. Try starting characters with both at the same time, and see which one you find easier. --ExplodingFerret 19:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Kill This is a powerful zombie ability but also a fundamental one. It doesn't need to be changed. --Jon Pyre 20:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Kill - This is a balance change alright. You're trying to make it even more balanced towards survivors. --Carl Panzram 21:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Kill Badly flawed for all the reasons given here. Maybe if the starting health was half, like a revived survivor - then I might be convinced. Might be. --Garrett Fisher 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Kill - Not a bad idea, but death is supposed to be horrific, not just some trivial event. --Wikidead 00:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Kill Guys.. zombies and/or survivors should at most heal 3 to 6 Life per day if you multiply it times a thousand or a million. It would get damn near impossible for members of one side to kill the other.. keep the theory.. it's good. Down the healing rate, 24 Life a day is bad! Even if you had a full medical staff attending to your injuries you should not heal 2 and a half gun shot wounds a day, with bedrest. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 01:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Kill - No.--J Muller 01:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Kill - Even though they can stand up easy, zombies still have it hard. They have a hard time finding food in their early years, they can't speak so that survivors can understand them without Death Rattle (except Mhr?), and they move very slowly in the beginning. We don't need to add to their troubles.Waluigi Freak 99 21:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - there isn't a problem to fix. --Funt Solo 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Erm, no. I don't like this.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 21:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Spam - But nice job naming it so it doesn't sound like a crippling balance shift. --Burgan Burgan 22:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Why, How Fascinating! v2

Each author should not make more than one suggestion per day (i.e. in a 24 hour period beginning at 00:01 BST) --Joe O'Wood 00:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Backhand/Near Miss/I Suck At Names Today

Timestamp: Gene Splicer 20:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Type: Melee Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: Melee attacks (yes, including the fireaxe) have been languishing in the dust since Powered Searches showed up. Whateverthehllthisiscalled would be a tier 2 H2H skill, such that when someone attacks with a melee weapon and misses, they have a chance to hit the zombie (or human) with a less effective "recovery" attack.

Flavourwise: If you miss with the head of your fire-axe, you might be able to follow up with a handle to the face. If you miss with a swing of your baseball bat, you might jab them with the end instead. Miss with a knife, get a quick side-stab into the arm. Punch someone and miss, you um... hit them with your other hand, I suppose. Suitable flavour messages would be applied.

This would manifest as a 10% to your to-hit chances with melee weapons, but a success in this range only deals 1 damage. Example fire axe: 1-40% deals 3 damage, 41-50 deals 1, 51+ is a flat miss. For the number crunchers out there, that's a flat +0.1 to damage per AP across the board. 0.35 for fists, 0.6 for blunt, 1.1 for knives and 1.3 for the fireaxe.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep This could work with a better name and some flavor text when you pull it off. It has been an awfully long while since survivors got any kind of combat boost and melee weapons are hurting. Here's a thought though, maybe make it apply more to blunt weapons so they suck less? Perhaps leave the axe more or less alone in the realm of the most damage melee can do, but make it so that blunt weapons have a greater chance of striking overall. This would leave blunt weapons in the middle range of combat. You could get luckier or unluckier with an axe but be almost guaranteed a certain range with a bat. --Jon Pyre 21:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. I like it. This would bring the fire axe to 1.3 damage/AP (up from 1.2)--Gage 21:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep - I like. Zombies don't need the buff particularly much.--Burgan Burgan 22:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. I agree with Burgan. --ExplodingFerret 22:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Keep -Reluctantly sure, but make sure zombies don't get this bonus because zombie's primary mode of attack is hands while survivor's primary mode of attack is bullets. Also, make this a skill and change it so that survivor punches shouldn't benefit from this because they already deal 1 damage. --Wikidead 00:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Actually, given Garrett Fisher's argument (the one about the AP, not the one about the crotch), I think I will abstain from this vote. --Wikidead 01:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Keep - I'm confused, though. Is this the normal hit %, and then an extra 10% chance to do half damage? You describe it oddly. Leeksoup 00:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Awesome idea. I agree with Burgan.--ShadowScope 01:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Stick in face=Good Ah, this reminds me of hockey, the taste of well seasoned wood across the gums.. what's not to like? Seriously, yeah a nice 1 Damage hit for a near miss or glancing blow.. that's cool. Makes the baseball bat and such more "fun". What the hell! MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 01:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep - Fire Axes could use a bit of a boost...--J Muller 01:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Keep - Why not? Could use a bit of a boost.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 06:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Keep - how about "vicious pummeling" for a suggestion name? --Kaminobob 08:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Keep - how about "lucky strike" or better yet "cheap shot" Wfjeff 21:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - If you want this give the same chances to zombie claw attacks. --Carl Panzram
  2. Kill So if you're going for the head with the shaft of the axe, where is the blade going on the downswing? That's right, your crotch! The chance to hit with the melee weapons is very arbitrary and has no reflection on reality. It works as it is, APs balanced nicely to mean damage. Please dont mess with it :) --Garrett Fisher 00:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC) 21:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Sorry, this really doesn't make sense. Are you holding the axe/bat/pipe/crowbar by the MIDDLE in order to get a swing with the other end? If you swing the weapon, whether it be an overhead downward chop or side swing, how are you gonna get the momentum to reverse direction so quickly and with any force to hit with the other end. Besides, your going to have, at best a 50% chance to do ONE damage? Who would use it?--Pesatyel 04:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Kill - Yet another human power-up? No. Chronolith 04:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Beer Glass

Each author should not make more than one suggestion per day (i.e. in a 24 hour period beginning at 00:01 BST) --Joe O'Wood 00:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wounded Effectiveness

Timestamp: Murray Jay Suskind 8:41 pm GMT 13 November 2006
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors and Zombies
Description: Essentially, I think it's unrealistic that wounded characters are able to inflict maximum damage or inflict damage at the maximum hit rate. Someone who is on the verge of death wouldn't be able to operate a shotgun effectively and a zombie who's had its arm blown off wouldn't be able to hit as effictively. My suggestion is to make the hit percentages go down in proportion to how much health a player has. For instance, a player with maximum hp of 50 would have a 4/5 of normal hit ratio between 37-49 health, 3/5 of normal hit ratio between 24-36 health, 2/5 of normal hit ratio between 11-23 health and 1/5 of normal hit ratio between 1-10 health. In practice this would impact zombies more than survivors as survivors have easier access to FAKs, so this would have to be balanced by something that would help the zombies out (look below).

- Edit - The more I think about this, the above proposal if applied equally would be really tilted for harmanz, so in the interests of maintaining better game balance (and the fact that damage doesn't mean as much to someone who is undead) zombies would impacted less. For instance a zed with a max of 50 hp would be impacted to 4/5 effectiveness between 21-40 hp and 2/5 between 1-20

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep - Murray Jay
  2. Keep - This mirrors an idea I had I'm all for it. My idea went along with an infection rather than low health though. This makes perfect sense and adds to the realism as a heavily wounded person would not be fighting fit. --Carl Panzram 21:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep - I like it. It's not like I'm ever between Full Health and 0 HP anyways. --SirensT RR 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. I've always wanted a suggestion like this. But the ones before were "when you are hurt you can't free-run." -Mark 22:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. I don't even bother looking for FAKs anymore. --Ron Burgundy 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill There's already a downside to being at low health: being close to death. I don't think we need to add to it. --Jon Pyre 20:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Jon. Being close to death is already bad for survivors, because everyone can see it and zeds/PKers can take advantage of if. And for zombies: when I have to go look for somewhere with doors open for my zombie character to enter and jump out of, then stand up, just so my attacks go back to full strength -- that's when the game just becomes silly. --ExplodingFerret 20:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kill - As Jon said there is already a downside. No need to add anything else to it.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 20:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Kill - I don't know, being one step away from death would probably just make people want to shoot/claw the heck out of anything that came close to them even more than normal.--Labine50 MHG|MEMS 21:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Kill - In real life, a survivor can easily get off shot with a gun as long as his finger is working; it's much different for a body at the verge of death to attempt a hand attack. Yaznov
  6. Kill - No insult to our injuries please. Also, do not use the "realism argument." --Wikidead 00:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Kill - Nerfs newbies, also slightly unrealistic--J Muller 01:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. I could see having some (minor) penalties for being at 12 HP or less, but this is just too much.--Pesatyel 04:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Kill - The problems with multiple human alts serving as meatshields in a single building or mall 4-square needs to be fixed first. Otherwise a good idea. Chronolith 04:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Kill - You want realism? We live in a city full of flipping zombies for crying out loud!Waluigi Freak 99 21:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

  1. Tinned Meat Nice idea, but think how unfair that would be to newbies and low level characters? Consistent attack damage is fundamental to the game. The low chance to hit is enough of a hindrance, and this skill would nerf any attacks by low level players if they got injured. Also, your logic is flawed - zombies low on health can heal with digestion, or just die and rise again with full health. Survivors don't have that option. --Garrett Fisher 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Zombie Barricade Demolition

Each author should not make more than one suggestion per day (i.e. in a 24 hour period beginning at 00:01 BST) --Funt Solo 08:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/13th-Nov-2006&oldid=1878975"