Suggestions/14th-Mar-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

Advanced Character Skills

Timestamp: 00:07, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Advance Skills
Scope: Maxed out or High Level Characters
Description: A skill set of this type was first suggested by DicktheTech back on the suggestion page but was receiving many Kill votes (including mine) due to it not being a fully fleshed out idea. I liked the concept and thus have tried to put my own polish on his basic concept. So here goes...

Intro:

What do you do once you maxed out the skill trees? There is no place left to go! Your XP just keeps accumulating with nothing to spend it on. The following proposal is designed to fix this problem.

I propose a new set of advanced skills for characters of level 10 or higher, for the veteran players to dump their accumulating XP into. Each skill would give a bonus to a particular attribute or skill and would stack with any existing skills and bonuses. Each new skill would appear at the end of their corresponding skill trees. Each level of the skill would cost an XP amount increasing incrementally with no cap. For example:

  • Skill Level [1] = 150xp, 150xp total.
  • Skill Level [2] = 300xp, 450xp total.
  • Skill Level [3] = 450xp, 900xp total.
  • Skill Level [4] = 600xp, 1500xp total.
  • Skill Level [5] = 750xp, 2250xp total.
  • Etc...

Alternate: Exponential increase (for discussion purposes):

  • Skill Level [1] = 100xp, 100xp total.
  • Skill Level [2] = 200xp, 300xp total.
  • Skill Level [3] = 400xp, 700xp total.
  • Skill Level [4] = 800xp, 1500xp total.
  • Skill Level [5] = 1600xp, 3100xp total.
  • Etc...

Note: Currently the Skills page states that a human character requires 2000XP to 2325XP to max their skills, Zombies require 1500-1600 xp.

The skills:

Military:

  • Expert Pistol Training [1] - A bonus of 1%/skill level to hit with pistol attacks.
  • Expert Shotgun Training [1] - A bonus of 1%/skill level to hit with shotgun attacks.
  • Expert Knife Combat [1] - A bonus of 1%/skill level to hit with knife attacks.
  • Expert Axe Proficiency [1] - A bonus of 1%/skill level to hit with Axe attacks.

Science:

  • Expert Medical Technique [1] - A bonus of 1 HP/skill level when using a first aide kit.

Civilian:

  • Graffiti Artistry [1] - Additional bonuses to spray cans and tagging XP bonuses (This skill is a bit vague, but I could not find information on the exact nature of the Tagging skill)
  • Ultimate bargain hunting - A bonus of 1%/skill level to searches in malls.
  • Extreme body building [1] - A bonus to 1HP/skill level to maximum health
  • Endurance [1] - A bonus of 1 AP/skill level to maximum AP.

Zombie Skills:

  • Ragged Claws [1] - A bonus of 1%/skill level to hit with claw attacks.
  • Jagged Teeth [1] - A bonus of 1%/skill level to hit with bite attacks.
  • Strengthened Sinues [1] - A bonus to 1HP/skill level to maximum health. This skill is a sub-skill of Brain Rot.
  • Unstoppable [1] - A bonus of 1 AP/skill level to maximum AP. This skill is a sub-skill of Brain Rot.

Pros: The pros for these skills is that it allows for some kind of further development for advanced characters. The cost for these skills is quite high for a relatively low payback, but what else are you going to do with that XP? It's nerfed pretty well so that I don't feel that will un-balance the game.

Cons: There a a few cons that I know people will jump all over so let me address them here.

  1. - These skills are slightly unbalanced toward Zombies. A zombie without brain rot could sink a bunch of XP into Extreme BodyBuilding and Endurance before taking brain rot to get the Strengthened Sinues and Unstoppable skills. This would give them an advantage over their warmer adversaries. I would also counter this by saying that most veteran zombies with a lot of built up XP would already have brain rot and thus would not be able to take advantage of this possibility.
  2. - These skills mess with AP. This seems to be a sacred cow with some people. My take on raising the max AP level is that it gives the player an advantage one day but gives them a dis-advantage the next. Since the AP recharge rate remains constant, the more AP used on one day means less AP available the next. I would be more concerned with any skill or item that messed with the recharge rate.
  3. - There are many veteran characters with massive amounts of XP saved up. These will become unstoppable supermen in a day! Granted I do not know how much XP some of the oldest characters have saved up, but looking at the amount of XP required to gain a 5% or 5 point bonus, and looking at the number of skills in which you can sink your XP, I don't see this as a big problem. Besides, if you have been playing for that long you deserve some sort of benefits.

Conclusion: This new set of skills gives veteran characters something to still strive for. I think that it is fairly well nerfed as not to not completely unbalance or destroy the game.

Votes

  1. Keep - Authour Vote --Jim Stevens 00:07, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - I like it although the XP needed to spend should start higher and be exponential, as to give soem sort of barrier. i dont think combat should ever be higher the 85% to hit. Although i dont see myeself ever having 100000XP to spend :PEdit: isnt that a Geometric increase? wouldnt exponential be much greater? --Kirk Howell 00:23, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - The Alternate equation would be 100 x 2^(L-1) where L=skill level. I think that's exponential--Jim Stevens 00:35, 14 March 2006 (GMT) Edit: Sorry, forgot the -1 to the exponent.--Jim Stevens 03:09, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Because you specify "no cap." 100% hit rate or search success rate is generally considered to be too unbalancing. Go through and specify what the ultimate limit is on each skill and you'll be much closer. Also, I prefer the doubling-XP requirements for each level. Make that your final answer rather than an option. --John Ember 00:39, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill No Cap to the things. Very bad. Also, I deleted DicktheTech's vote because the suggestion was posted both with it and the Authors vote, as seen in the History. Last i checked an author couldnt make other peoples votes for them. --Grim s 01:03, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Sorry. Dick voted when this was still in development on my char talk page. He can revote here.--Jim Stevens 03:11, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - You are so close with this. Put a cap on it (I'd say no higher than 5 for each one), and I'll vote Keep. --Blahblahblah 01:09, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - I like this suggestion alot, but the cap is my only complaint. Give a cap and then you have my vote as a keep --Private Chineselegolas RAF 01:27, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - I'm not worried, the XP requirements alone are a LOT, and I'm sure there will be a cap of 90-95% anyways even if this skill were used, just to prevent "auto-hits". I love the fact zombies can become insane AP monsters long term, because old undead are damn scary. All good! --MrAushvitz 18:35, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Needs a cap... at the very least --McArrowni 01:48, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - A cap at 5? So, after all that work gathering 2250-3100 XP... I get a 5% increase to my attack rate, and that's it? I like the idea of putting a cap in there at about 20, perhaps, but this idea strikes me as one that has been given enough love and attention. I think he's right on the money with this. Unsigned vote, add signature and remove strikeout --CPQD 16:22, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - A 5 (10?) level cap or so would get this an instant "Keep" from me. Remake this in a day or so (or delete this one and start anew now) and I'll give that vote. --Dr. Fletch 01:52, 14 March 2006 (GMT) Keep - You raise a good point about the sheer magnitude of EXP needed. --Dr. Fletch 02:24, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • RE Level Cap - The reason that I did not include a cap on these skills is that by doing so, all you are doing is postponing the character max. The 100% to hit is valid, but to get there it would take Advanced Pistol Training [35]. This would require a total of 94,500XP to obtain (or 3.44x10^12 XP for the exponential option). I suppose the incrementally increasing levels option would be possible, but the exponential would not. (Not in this lifetime at least). --Jim Stevens 02:09, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - I'd like to have some place to sink my extra XP now. X1M43 04:40, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 6 Keep, 5 Kill, 11 Total --Jim Stevens 04:48, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - I like it. the "no limit" scares me abit. but as a whole I like it. - --ramby T--W! - SGP 04:52, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - With a cap, this could be a fine way to dump extra XP without overly unbalancing the game. --Gene 05:23, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - As someone relativeley new to the game I don't have firsthand knowledge of running out of skills to buy, but this is the best advanced skill system i've seen yet. --Hamster Ninja 05:23, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - Cap = Keep. Why? Because while the XP amounts are extreme, people will get them, and then we have people running around with 100% rates on everything. It may take a while, but it will happen. I would probably suggest no more than a 10% rate, or maybe a cap on the number of times you can upgrade total (like, 10 upgrades, split between skills or something). --Pinpoint 07:59, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - That would make for some really interesting diversity. You'd have some players put all their buffs to firearms skills, others to melee, others to healing, and so on. Could help players to specialize and break up some of the homogeneity in the population. --John Ember 15:38, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - I don't think a cap is such a big concern. Kevan isn't a robot plugging in every single idea exactly as we see fit. Although it doesn't bother me, I'm also not opposed to a cap of somewhere around 10-20%. 5%, however, would be far too low. --Pool Cleaner 08:41, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - I lovve it. I have a character myself maxed out and he needs something to do. Plus, I think it all makes sense too. Unsigned vote, add signature and remove strikeout --CPQD 16:22, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - All good, like it as now have three characters that are maxed or have all the skills they want / are appropriate. Good work! KyleTravis 13:59, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - No, I don't think so. Not without a cap. And not without removing any "alternate" or optional items. Timid Dan 14:29, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - Like most people I like the idea, but without a cap I have to vote kill --CPQD 16:22, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 10 Keep, 8 Kill, and 2 Unsigned --CPQD 16:25, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - A lot of thought has gone into this, but I'll vote the same reason I voted "kill" on the last one: there are far more useful Survivor skills compared to zombie ones. Also, it would be a helluva lot easier for a survivor to get from 65% accuracy to (say)85% accuracy than for a zombie to do the same starting from a 50% damage rate. That military guy could take down 6 or 7 zeds a day! (Incidentally, saw a survivor today with over 4000XP banked). --WibbleBRAINS 17:46, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - The 4000xp is very useful information. The amount of banked xp that the veteran chars have will help determine the best skill cost scheme. Up until now I have just been guessing. I plan to re-submit this suggestion with a revised skill cost / cap etc. as suggested by the masses in a few days. As far as balancing the suggestion with improved Zed skills, that could be implemented afterwards (baby steps...) --Jim Stevens 18:48, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - I agree that this system might work, but you must realize that not all skills can be made 'expert'. Tagging, for example, makes no sense to have an 'expert' skill. --hagnat talk 18:29, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - As long as you either use a cap or the exponential XP. Tagging doesn't make sense, and Medical may be overpowered - a +5 HP for each FAK is a lot better than a +5% to hit. I would also suggest making the Human and Zombie skills not work when in the alternate state. Overall, though, a good suggestion and a way to spend hoarded XP. --Norcross 19:21, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - Gives an insentive for veterans to carry on playing. --Otware 19:37, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill - I'm going to agree to the need for a cap system, along the lines of only buying upgrades a total of fifteen times, and no more than five upgrades to any single ability. The additional diversity there is more important to me than preventing super-characters, which would require a ridiculously large amount of XP. --Dickie Fux 20:36, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  26. Keep - Yeah, I'm voting keep, given that this is a partial dupe of something I suggested a long time ago...like, Nov. 19th. Talk about a blast from the past. Bentley Foss 20:38, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  27. Keep - I vote keep, however i strongly prefer the exponential variant. Perhaps cap it a 10 advanced levels/category though. --Certified=Insane 22:37, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  28. Keep - I like it... no cap needed. I mean it would take years to fully max out to 100% and if someone wants to spend that much time... well I say hey let em. If they are that dedicated then they deserve it. --TheBigT 03:53, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  29. Keep - Very good idea. Using the one that would cost more would eliminate the need for a cap. It's a very well fleshed out idea that can give a good advantage to people who are dedicated. --Tirion529 20:24, 15 March 2006 (EST)
  30. Kill - I'm going to shirk at messing with the AP. That's a major part of the game balance and the current headshot I think is too harsh. Change that and you get a keep. Maybe something to keep characters from picking up too much HP wouldn't hurt either. The beauty of UrbanDead is that even a maxed character isn't immune by any means when he logs off. --Snikers 05:30, 18 March 2006 (GMT)
  31. Kill - I'm so sick and tired of these suggestions, why is it so hard to except that at one point Xp becomes meaningless? try to find some other reason to play then leveling up. Learn to live with it--Vista W! 18:49, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
  32. Keep - What the hell, why not? Dickus Maximus 06:24, 26 March 2006 (BST)
  33. Keep - But you should put a cap of at least 100%.G P.S:Sorry about not signing before. - Ironically not signed. Velkrin 21:38, 31 March 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 18 Keep, 12 Kill, 0 Spam 21:38, 31 March 2006 (BST)

Exponential XP

Timestamp: 00:52, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill buying system alteration
Scope: Everyone
Description: I submitted this a long time ago and it was shot down, but it's been long enough and and situation is different enough I believe it deserves a resubmit. I've also clarified the details somewhat, to please don't be an ass and call dupe. Anyway. My idea works like this: Homogeny is a big problem in today's UD world. The suggestion prior to this one, regarding endgame skills with high XP costs, attempts to remedy this problem, but I feel there should be a more fundamental solution. Thus I propose that instead of a flat 100XP cost for skills (with class/crossclass multiplers) the cost should go up depending on your level. The first skill a new character buys should cost 50XP. All subsequent skills should cost a bit more, but going continuously up so that the cost to buy every skill in the game is huge. The progression should probably be something like 50-60-75-95-120-150-190-240 and so on, or just multiply the cost by 1.25 or even 1.5 for each successive skill. But what about all the players that already have huge numbers of skills? Simple: they lose all their skills and are refunded 100XP per each (or 75 for class skills and 150 for cross-class, depending on their status) and this, plus whatever XP they have currently, can be freely spent under the new system. Yes, this will be painful. Yes, I would rather my highlevel characters could stay high-level. But there's really no other way I can think of to solve the homogenity problem short of actually resetting the game, which nobody wants. This method turns an essentially simple skill-acquisition system that becomes meaningless very quickly into one with a lot more depth and strategy involved--you hesitate a lot more before buying Shopping when you know it'll take 100XP before you can get Bargain Hunting, and for that entire 1000XP Shopping will be pretty useless, since it'll be more profitable to search in a Hospital or PD. IF you're going to be a gunner, buying all the gun skills first will make it that much harder to get essentials like Free Running or Diagnosis--perhaps you ought to hold off on the shotgun skills and only buy the pistol ones for now--but of course that means the shotgun ones will cost more later. I think that boost to the flair and flavor of the game is worth experienced players losing some power.

Votes

  1. Kill - Unfair to newbies who haven't been able to get the skills yet. Plenty of people are already maxed out. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:03, 14 March 2006 (GMT) Spam - My bad. I'm still against resetting the game, though. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:23, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Um, what? did you read the suggestion? This doesn't hurt newbies more than anyone else. Everyone will require the same amount of XP to get a given skill after this change, were it to happen, and everyone will start out with no skills. Old users will get all their XP back, to represent all the time they've already spent with the game--yeah, noobs will have to work harder to catch up. Just like every other MMORPG ever, including this one right now.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:14, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Spam - Don't Suggest Something That Requires a Reset. Read the suggestion Do's and Do Nots in future. --Grim s 01:07, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: I helped write the Dos and Do Nots. I know people don't like the idea of taking people's skills away. However, I believe it to be necessary if this game is going to be as great as it could be. Take note that old players do get to keep the XP they've gained, just in the form of XP rather than skills, so as not to make this system only apply to newbies--that would hurt them unfairly compared to older users.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:14, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Double-re moved to Discussion
  3. Kill - Unfair to zombies, who have a much harder time getting experience than survivors do and just as many "must have" skills. --TheHermit 01:31, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re:...so your argument against my suggestion is that zombies find it hard to get XP? That's not a problem with my suggestion, that's just a problem with the game. Why vote against this because of it?--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:34, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Double-re moved to Dicussion
  4. Kill - Something tells me that removing everyone's skills and refunding all of their spent XP isn't as easy as you would have it seem. I certainly wouldn't want to put Kevan to all that trouble.--Wifey 01:39, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - I've already given all my arguments in the suggestion.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:57, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - For the record, I think you are very close. very, very close. And, like myself you are willing to use mathematical formulas or escalating costs of XP to describe certain skills based on overall effectiveness. BUT what I'ved had beaten into me repeatedly is these players want it SIMPLE many of them might not be old enough to have taken an Algebra class and probably get annoyed when they see an "X".) But I don't want to discourage you, this is useful. This game already exists and people have spend their XP.. so what can we do. People who made existing characters probably shouldn't be penalized for adding to the game or being around longer per se.. they have all that saved up XP if they could spend it on anything they'd be happy I'm sure. In truth, I'd recommend a more slanted approach characters up to level 5 - 50 XP per skill, 6 to 10 - 100 XP per skill, then up and up and so on in 5 level increments. Keeping in mind your initial character class affects the overall cost we can't get TOO exponential with XP costs (don't make a general cry!) But if it were implimented in a method that was ALL character in game by this date their skills are SET (bought and paid for), all characters after this date new skills are purchased based on this new system, blah blah.. it makes Kevan's server safer from killing or screwing up character's existing skills. But then everyone buys skills after that point based on a new system. (some people may even reactivate their "old" characters if they still exsist. --MrAushvitz 19:09, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Algebra? Such as suggestionx = Spam, where x = MrAushvitz? :P --John Ember 02:07, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Touche', well done. --MrAushvitz 19:07, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - It's interesting, but such a reset -- hey, if you wrote the guideline you have only yourself to blame ;) -- would drive players away in droves. Surely there are other ways to solve the homogeneity problem... new skills whose availability would depend on your starting class, that sort of thing. --John Ember 02:00, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - You get your xp back anyways. Would help newbies. --McArrowni 02:01, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Spam - Hurts newbies = bad = no way in hell. - --ramby T--W! - SGP 03:13, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re:...to borrow a phrase, lolwhat? how does it hurt newbies again?--'STER-Talk-Mod 03:55, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re It takes longer to max out a zombie then it takes to max out a survivor. I maxed my survivor in less then 4 months. I maxed my zombie in over 4 months. There are less zombie skills then survivor skills. As of that imbalance it is harmful to newbie zombies who for some reason, most people think are npc's or something. - --ramby T--W! - SGP 04:15, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - It will make things harder to get, it will make the game a lot more competitive, it will make thigs a lot more fun. --hagnat talk 03:36, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - He never said that there would be a reset for this. I vote keep. This plus the suggestion above it would help keep UD going strong. --Pool Cleaner 08:55, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Taking away all my skills and booting me back to square one isn't a reset? Sure, it's not zeroing out the database; but call a spade a spade. --John Ember 20:58, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill Not a bad idea starting from scratch. But it'd be pretty chaotic for everyone to lose their skills and become low level players again. --Jon Pyre 17:13, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - This would only serve to screw over players who don't have 3K XP in the bank already to repurchase their lost skills. The game takes quite long enough to level as it is, especially for zombies. This is a pretty poor way of encouraging new players or zombie players in particular. Bentley Foss 20:41, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - All the "kill" votes appear to be from people who did not read that everyone would receive all their spent exp back. The only modification I would suggest is that zombie and human skills be counted seperately, so that a killed level 10 survivor does not have to spend infinity minus one exp to buy lurching gait. Well, that and I would insert some paragraph breaks in there somewhere. Gene Splicer 22:30, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Spam - Sorry, I just can't vote for a skill that requires a reset. Also, this is in the DO NOTS page... --Certified=Insane 22:43, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Spam -Sorry 'Ster, it might be a good idea when the game will start anew, (when it's out of open Beta) but with whould still mean I have Xp that I couldn't use. all this does is change the point when Xp becomes useless. Why is it so hard to simply let it be useless?--Vista W! 18:57, 19 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 5 Keep, 6 Kill, 5 Spam 21:34, 31 March 2006 (BST)

Horde Feeding

Timestamp: 01:46, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Currently, when a zombie grabs hold of a human using Tangling Grasp, they will lose that hold if another zombie successfully attacks that human. With this skill, a zombie can grab a hold of a survivor without disturbing the grip of other zombies attacking that survivor. This will allow for hordes to focus their attacks and still reap the benefits of tangling grasp. The only prerequisite is, of course, tangling grasp. No hit % bonuses are added, and no changes to the chance of losing the grip are made.

Votes

  1. Keep - Sounds fair. --Dr. Fletch 01:52, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - I never even knew that this occured. I was wondering why I kept losing my grip without being informed of it...--Wifey 01:54, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Tear them limb from limb.. --Technerd 01:56, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Author vote. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:58, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - Excellent. I like having this as a new skill on top of Tangling Grasp. It's like you have to spend 200 XP to get the "real" Tangling Grasp, but I'm all for more stuff to spend my XP on! --John Ember 02:02, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - Looks good to me! --Mia Kristos 02:03, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - minor details, should have been done this way at first --McArrowni 02:05, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Makes sense if your zombie travels in an area known for large packs, which is VERY zombie-ish. Besides, having a lot of zombies taking turns trying to eat your face shouldn't make life easier for the survivor trying to defend himself. Oh no! Zombies fight over meal, each zombie gets a trophy!--MrAushvitz 19:12, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Because the current system is stupid. --Grim s 02:19, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - So we'll actually be able to pull off a banana gangbang. Velkrin 02:42, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - It should be. --Bermudez 03:06, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - This is the obvious solution. This is the first thing one would think of. In fact, the way the system currently works is simply bizarre. Therefore, don't you think the current system must have some good reason to exist as it does? You can't make me believe Kevan never thought of this. Either it would be unbalancing or, more likely, there is a technical issue that keeps more than one zombie from hitting the "grapsed" flag on a survivor, or whatever the hell actually happens. If this were possible, it would already be done. --Snikers 03:32, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - This is the way it should have always worked, and unless Kevan used some truly bizarre data structures implementing it this way cannot possibly be any more difficult than implementing it in the first place. --Sindai 03:36, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill-- Tangling grasp is already too strong, ok fix it so it isnt lost if someone else attacks, but it doesnt make sence that 7 zeds can grab 1 person at a time. way too overpowerd.--Kirk Howell 04:20, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tangling grasp is almost useless in its current state, since you'll most likely have lost it by your next attack. This makes the skill actually worth buying. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:01, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep -- As the in-game logic works, Tangling Grasp increases hit percentages because the target is immobilised. By that logic, any zombie attacking a tangled survivor should get the attack bonus. Which is obviously unbalanced, hence why that's not how the skill works. I only bring it up to point out that there's nothing in the in-game logic behind Tangling Grasp preventing multiple zombies from grasping the same target, so why not bring the implementation into line with the logic? The fact that it requires a second skill purchase that only benefits a group of zombies who all have the skill -- and even then doesn't add any attack bonuses beyond what they'd get from soloing with Tangling Grasp alone -- make this a fairly well-balanced addition. Indeed, I'd say you could easily take it farther without fundamentally altering the game. (I.e., by simply not requiring a new skill but rather modifying the implementation of stock Tangling Grasp.) For all those who have ever said, "Zombies should be deadly in hordes!" this is a prime example of one way to do that. Indeed, the current system makes them less deadly in hordes by decreasing their combat bonuses if they don't spread their targetting. furtim 04:47, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - Conceivably, 100 zombies in a square could grab the same guy. Change it so that no more than, say 6 zombies can grab the same target.--Pesatyel 05:08, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • No, they couldn't. A survivor has 60HP. Claw attacks do 3 damage. Explain to me how 300 damage fits into 60. Even if there were 100 zombies there, the guy's gonna die anyway. This just allows the zombies to get their combat bonus that they paid for. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:01, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - That's rather a moot point, though, Pesatyel. If 100 zeds of the level we're talking about are all attacking the same person at once, he's dead no matter what happens to their grasping attack bonus. Good suggestion.--Guardian of Nekops 05:22, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - makes sense, because lots of zombie movies have the scene (or scenes) where an entire horde converges on one guy and tears them apart. --Arcibi 05:26, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - Losing grip because another zom rips the survivor from your hands and slams them to the pavement -- head first? What is this pro-wrestling?!? --Gene 05:31, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - Yes. --Basher 09:50, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - I don't see why this isn't already built-in to Tangling Grasp. Multiple grasps should actually make it harder for the victim to escape in a cumulative fashion, if we're going by what happens in film. --ism 10:56, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - Cool both in game terms and flavour - cos thats what Zombies do!KyleTravis 14:04, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - More incentive to work in groups? check. Got my vote. Timid Dan 14:32, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - Sounds more like a bug fix, really. --Reverend Loki 15:27, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - If it makes the zeds more powerful, I'm in. (Disclaimer: I'm not a zed, but if you lived your whole life in Yagoton, you know that every zed adds to the fun...). With this ocasion, which zed group would like to visit Yagoton? The Abandoned are ready to welcome you all. :)) --Abi79 16:51, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  26. Keep Yeah, I don't even think it needs to be a skill. --Jon Pyre 17:10, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  27. Keep -All this is doing is making Tangling Grasp what it was supposed to be. --WibbleBRAINS 17:51, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  28. Keep - Excellent tweak to a great skill. --Pool Cleaner 19:14, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  29. Keep - Great idea. --Norcross 19:24, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  30. Keep - The way it should have been from the start. Only thing I don't like is that it has to be a skill. Should be a bug fix. --Mookiemookie 19:55, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  31. Keep - Perhaps make this suggestion a subskill of Tangling Grasp. --lordofnightmares12:26, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  32. Keep - The fact that numerous zombies ganging up on a single survivor has a drawback seems really out of place. This could be either a new skill or a change to the current skill. --Dickie Fux 20:40, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  33. Kill - Geez...people, you know, there was a time before Tangling Grasp. Just accept Tangling Grasp as the nice bonus it sometimes is, and leave it at that. Bentley Foss 20:43, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  34. Keep but I think this sould be applyed to the Existing tangling grasp rather than have it be a new skill. Can Everone say "Zombie Group Hug!" :P --I see dead people 20:53, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - "Group Hug" would be an excellent name for this skill. Kevan, this has to happen! --John Ember 21:10, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  35. Keep - Bentley.... there was also time before Urban Dead existed... should we accept it as a nice bonus and not bother changing it at all, accepting it as is with all its problems as well? Seems like we are all wasting our time worrying about this game by that logic. Heck, I'll go as far as saying there was a time before sewage systems, sliced bread, electricity, or even (god forbid!) computers! ... *ahem* Still, The idea of multiple zombies grabbing a person is certainly within theme and a person being attacked by more than 1 zombie is likely to die anyway... --Zarquon 21:01, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  36. Keep - I say keep, though i think this should be part of tangling grasp, and this skill simply add the grab bonus to anyone else attacking the grabbed victim. --Certified=Insane 22:48, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  37. Keep - In fatc, I didn't know you lost a grip if someone else hit the survivor.G
    • Tally - 32 Keep, 4 Kill, 0 Spam/Dupe
  38. Keep - Yes yes yes!!! Dickus Maximus 06:26, 26 March 2006 (BST)

Septic Points

Timestamp: 19:22, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Survivor Living Conditions Penalty
Scope: Encompasses disease, need for food, bad living quarters, etc.
Description: Septic Living Conditions
  • The basis for this skill is to provide a disadvantage (of sorts) to survivors who spend too much time hiding out in the same building with several "other" survivors. Believe it or not, not going outside (even with zombies about) can be bad for you as well. Especially when survivors keep getting wounded by the living dead.

The purpouse of this skill is to add to the "infection" conditions of Malton, not just the zombie infection, but the disease and starvation elements... Of which, now that the millitary quarantined conditions have reached this duration, are becoming more.. ripe.

This suggestion incorporates a lot of other suggestions (use of food, not staying indoors, cramped living conditions, lack of sunlight, hiding for weeks on end, etc) under one subheading.

Each living character will gain a new statistic along with Action Points, and Hit Points.. there are Septic Points! (SP)

Getting a lot of SP is a BAD thing! You don't want or need septic points (you do need a good bath periodically..), and as they accumulate you'd better do something about it, or else. This is the one 'other' vulnerability the survivors have that the zombies don't, living body maintenance! The human body needs food, water, sleep, rest, decent shelter, clean clothes, and to avoid disease! Zombies can walk buck naked through a snowstorm and it hinders their battle effectiveness only slightly. In a long term conflict, this is the ultimate terrible price the zombies bring to the humanity within Malton's walls, human suffering and slow starvation behind a barricade until they venture forth.

Now your character may not be in use for a few days (we all have lives) so you accumulate SP based on what your character is doing during their game sessions. (That way we aren't penalizing people for not being online for a few days or weeks, per se, they might get killed by a zombie while in a building so that's bad enough.)

This additionally (for game balance purpouses) is an actual in game reason to go outside periodically. This gives the zombies a chance to see you, where you were headed, and so forth.. making it more "fun" for all (even you have fun, going outside, seeing an active zombie following you.. made you look!)

Penalties For Current Septic Points: All SP penalties are culmative (meaning they are all in effect if you have at least the amount required to gain the penalty allotted.) So if your SP is high, you are going to need some help! If your SP gets high chances are you're going to do something about it, if you want to live, and FAK's alone won't do it.

SP value (SPV) - Septic Rank - Penalty

5 SPV - Sickened Survivor - Your character replenishes AP at 3/4 normal rate (every 2 hours, you "skip" 1 of the 4 AP you would have gained, thereby gaining only 3 AP per 2 hours) "You don't feel well, and it's hard to go on." 10 SPV - Infected Survivor- Your character becomes "infected" by the zombie infection every time you hit 10 AP (by a SPV increase, not by a decrease... increasing to over 9 AP or more with 1 increase will cause infection if you were not already infected), and that means you need a FAK to remove it (or lose Hit Points for so many turns). "Your terrible living conditions have caused you to become infected!" In addition, your character is at -5% to hit with any ranged attack (shaky hands.) 15 SPV - Infected Wounds- Your character has extreme difficulties having their wounds healed. Your character only gains HALF (rounding up) of Hit Points restored by FAK's (3, 5 or 8 points gained!) "The first aid kit didn't have the full effect due to your infected wounds!" In addition, your character is at -5% to hit with any unarmed attack(weakened grip) "You can't stop shaking, you feel.. so... cold.." 25 SPV - Plauged Survivor- 2nd "Infection", just as "Infected Survivor" status. In addition, your character now replenishes AP at 1/2 normal rate (every hour, you "skip" 1 of the 2 AP you would have gained, thereby gaining only 1 AP per hour) "You can't stop vommiting. You need medical attention!" 30 SPV - Walking Wounded- Now FAK's only heal 1/4 hit Points rounding up (2, 3 and 4 points respectively), zombies that hit you with an infection attack you will lose 2 points per AP instead of 1 unless treated. "Your character is not unlike the zombies in appearance, and speech. You hurt like hell, all over." 35 SPV - Death. "Your character dies horribly oozing sweat, pus and blood from every pore" (survivors in the area witness this as well "_____ dropped dead as a result of disease!")(Note: it is not easy for a survivor to get to this level and run into an area of high survivor activity and just die in front of them, but if that's your game, it's a good way to tick off, and infect a lot of players.)

The 50 AP "Cycle": Every 50 AP your character spends is a "cycle" of sorts. mostly a "day" for your character. Every time your character has spent 50 AP the computer will look at what you did (or didn't do) on the list of LOSE and GAIN septic points, and will modify your SP at the end of the "cycle". When this happens you will be notified: "This cycle has passed you gained X SP.." or "This cycle has passed you lost X SP!" Then your SP rank changes up or down if nessesary, listing how you "feel" currently.

How To LOSE Septic Points: (Note each only is applied ONCE per cycle maximum) Once per cycle if you ate any food, you lose 1 SP (a full stomach makes it easier to put up with a lot in Malton). Once per cycle if you drank any Wine OR Beer, you lose 1 SP (you feel better at any rate). This benefit is for one or the other, not both. Once per cycle if you spent at least 10 AP inside any Hospital, Church, Library, Museum, School, Club or Cinema or at any outdoors location you lose 1 SP. (Includes moving to and from such locations). Once per cycle if you spent at least 15 AP at any outdoors location you lose 2 SP (this is in addition to the above bonus, this is the "moving" bonus)(outdoors also includes outside of any buildings!)(Includes moving to and from such locations). Once per cycle, if you used an FAK and the hit points you healed was in excess of your maximum. Lose 1 SP. (This is the "overage" bonus, or "disinfectant" bonus)

How To GAIN Septic Points: (Note each only is applied ONCE per cycle maximum) While replenishing AP (not logged in, replenishing at least 20 AP), if you are at any location that contains any 1 of the following: Very Heavily Barricaded, at least 7 survivors (exception: Kaiger Mall or other massive buildings this is raised to 70), at least 3 survivors who are at 10 SP or higher. Gain 1 SP. While replenishing AP (not logged in, replenish at least 20 AP), if even 1 zombie entered your location while you were replenishing at least 20 AP. Gain 1 SP. (This benefit is a "bonus" for zombies, to capitalize on attacking safehouses, even if they don't kill a survivor, it is a disruption and brings disease.) While replenishing AP (not logged in, replenish at least 20 AP), if at least 3 survivors were infected by zombie attacks at your location. Gain 1 SP. (Massive locations, like Kaiger mall this requirement is raised to 30 infections at your location.) While replenishing AP (not logged in, replenish at least 20 AP), if even 1 survivor died at your location as a result of a zombie attack. Gain 1 SP. (Massive locations, like Kaiger mall this requirement is raised to 10 zombie attack deaths at your location.) While replenishing AP (not logged in, replenish at least 20 AP), if even 1 survivor died at your location as a result of a 35+ SPV death. Gain 1 SP. (Massive locations, like Kaiger mall this requirement is raised to 10 infection deaths at your location.)

Now all in all seems like a massive boot to the head to the survivors, BUT only to the ones who hide a lot, and don't eat (or drink). This is to offset the "AP Advantage" that survivors have over zombies (for movement anyways) survivors are going to have to search in locations with food periodically (and keep some food handy), spend some time outside when they can (not just building to building movement) and yes, smaller safehouses might be better for many reasons because of the smell if nothing else.

This is NOT intended to screw over mass areas like Kaiger Mall, however, mass locations will definately have their problems, not just zombie attacks. The results of zombie attacks, disease, starvation, and the like.

By all means let's carefully pick this one apart, and work on it.. I think it would be a "major" event for Malton, one that could kick in slowly at first (let's say upper limit of SPV 10 effects to start) until the living conditions worsen (all the way up to 35).

This could also lead to a whole shwack of new skills suggestions to offset the SV situation, making "leaders" in healthcare and services (power, running generator, etc) another element of the game. "Yeah there's zombies all over, and we need some damn LIGHTS okay?"

There also could be a lot of items which reduce SPV when used (once per cycle perhaps) and these items could make "other" buildings more useful (it ain't just guns when you got gangerine!)

So, what do you all think?

BTW - I ain't touching your AP, just the rate at which you get it back, get some sun.. son!

Votes

  1. Keep - It kicks a$$, too damn long, but there is a core of possibility here. Let us explore it's goodness and see what deliscious fruit lies within! (Here comes the 1st burn vote..) --MrAushvitz 19:21, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - There are so very many things wrong with this, I don't know where to start. I'll just say it would be not fun and let others do the talking. Edit: I should also point out that Caiger is spelled with a C, not a K. Now to get back to fixing this fubared template.Velkrin 02:44, 14 March 2006 (GMT) Edit: I see Grim beat me to it.
  3. Kill - Yes i did :P. Anyhow, this idea is very, very complicated, and it hurts my head to read it. --Grim s 03:12, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - To much of just about everthing.--Bermudez 03:20, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - It's always nice to make suggestions CONCISE (or at the very least, offer a summary), especially when you have a reputation of unbalanced/poorly-thought-out suggestions. Highly detailed doesn't imply that you though about the impact of your suggestion. Anyways, forcing certain behavior on survivors (especially "going outside") = nerfing. --mikm W! 03:24, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Spam - It is assumed that you do that stuff while youar eoffline. - --ramby T--W! - SGP 03:26, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Spam - I always assumed we eat/drink/crap while we were offline. Like any 'food' suggestion, this doesnt have a place in this game. Like it doesnt have in any other MMORPG. --hagnat talk 03:32, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Way unbalanced. Too complex. --McArrowni 03:43, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - "And that's the weather. In news on the technological front, Kevan Davis - otherwise known as the creator of low-tech internet hit Urban Dead - made history today when he reported the first ever incident of a server literally melting from overloading." --Snikers 03:48, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Spam - *Brushes off a dusty, archaic-looking book. After the dust is displaced, it reveals a cover that reads "Suggestions Dos and Do Nots"* Please, gentlefolk, allow me to cite for you a nice passage from this book which obviously isn't featured in MrAushvitz's local library. "If you feel you must start your suggestions with a statement like 'I know this will get shot down' or ' This isn't the best idea,' you're right. Don't post it. The purpose of the suggestion page is to vett suggestions for possible inclusion in the game, not to provide a forum for you to express your creativity or hear yourself talk. If you know your idea will be a failure, you're just wasting all our time by posting it." Verstehst du, Herr Aushvitz? Destin Farloda 04:27, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Re - Nein! Nein! Ya, unt sheizer! Mein Herr! Mein herr! MrAushvitz 16:27, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - But this is very, very intriguing. I look forward to seeing some further refinements of the idea.
    • First, I don't think you should mess with the AP regain rate. Consider that the player must expend AP to lose SP. If you're slowing their AP regain, you're providing a double whammy.
    • Second, since being in a VHB+ building incurs SP (I like that), make it so that spending time in a lighter barricaded building (Say, VSB or below to be fair) can reduce SP.
    • Third, I would be inclined to do away with the survivor number factor, or at least raise it much higher. Spending time with 7 survivors shouldn't be a big deal; hanging in a crowded house of 50 might be.
    • Fourth, I have a feeling the FAK "overage" option is going to be the loophole most exploited by players. A player will just ask for his "SP protection" for the day and someone will give it to him. This will hurt the behavior modification you're trying to achieve.
    • Fifth, try to simplify where possible. Remember someone has to code all this into the game! But I do like how you're thinking on this one. --John Ember 04:46, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill I see potential. Move it to the discussion page for refinement.--Pesatyel 05:15, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill "BTW - I ain't touching your AP, just the rate at which you get it back, get some sun.. son!" So you're not taking away AP, your just stopping people from having AP. --Jon Pyre 05:51, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - I laugh at you people who actually read the whole thing. I got to Scope and stopped when I saw food. That alone killed it for me. --Pinpoint 08:11, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Spam - Broken. Completely. And simply, not fun. --ism 11:02, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Spam - If you KNOW it needs discussion, it belongs on the discussion page, not here. It's horribly broken anyway. Timid Dan 14:33, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - If your septic points (SP) are less than 10 and there are fewer than 10 survivors in the room and your Adjusted Gross Income is less than 25,000 dollars proceed to line 52 and calculate your Earned Income Credit Action Point Renewal Rate and Prescription Drug Health Allowanc... --CPQD 16:11, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - Good idea, but the implementation is too complicated. Try to make it simpler. --Norcross 19:28, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Spam - This is UD, not The Sims.--Mookiemookie 19:57, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - This is not the Sims. I don't want to waste time making my character use the bathroom and clumsily dial the number for a pizza. Survivors are designed to hide out. Making a suggestion that tries to reverse that core truth is bad. Bentley Foss 20:49, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 1 Keep, 13 Kill, 6 Spam 21:32, 31 March 2006 (BST)

Running Out of Syringes

Timestamp: 04:48, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Balance change
Scope: Revivification Syringes that are found, not made
Description: When the NecroNet Access skill came out and allowed you to created syringes for 20 AP, I was puzzled. I can usually find a syringe, and sometimes two, with far fewer than 20 searches, and unless you're trying for a combat revive in real time combat AP is a lot more valuable than time. In addition, I have seldom had to wait in a revive line for more syringes: it is usually the scientists who are missing.

The fact is, it's too easy to get revived these days for the good of the game. Revivification is easily the most magically powerful thing in the game, yet a level 2 scientist can do it with realative ease. The chances to find a syringe in a NecroTech Building currently stands at 6%, and I think it would be better for the game if they were harder to find. Say, a 2% chance. This would make NecroNet Access almost essential for the dedicated reviver, reduce the number of syringes floating around, and force your average slain survivor to spend more time as a zombie. Hopefully, some of them will find they like playing for the other side.

Flavor-wise, this could easily be explained by the dwindling supply of the things, or by the serum in one of the old shipments passing the expiration date.

By the by, those with NecroNet Access would have to deal with the lower percentage whenever the power was out, further limiting the flow of the miracle needles.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote- While I hate to suggest anything that works against my main character, death needs to start meaning something to survivors. It's the price we ought to be paying for weapons, barricades, and the lion's share of the skills.--Guardian of Nekops 04:55, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - Death needs to be something to worry about, not an inconvenience. I hate that revive points have turned into the Starbucks Coffees of Malton. --John Ember 04:58, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - I don't think this would have much affect with the ability to manufacture syringes. As part of a larger "make death mean something" idea, maybe. But by itself no.--Pesatyel 05:18, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • RE- So I should link a few more suggestions together to get your vote? Sorry, not supposed to do that.--Guardian of Nekops 05:29, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - forcing players to play a side they don't want to is a horrible idea and I'll killvote it every time. --Arcibi 05:23, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - I've played both sides: hell, my zombie started as a survivor and then he became more fun to play when undead. More people need that shot rather than "OMG REVIVE ME". --Dr. Fletch 05:30, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill Why should low level scientists have it made harder specifically for them? --Jon Pyre 05:42, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • RE High levelers also have to deal when the power's out in the building, since NecroNet's not available. But if you want my reasons, here's a couple. First, low level scientists are often alts for people with other characters (perfectly legitimately), and as such do nothing but work the revive lines. Higher levels also fight, generally, and don't revive as much. Also, lower levels tend to combat revive more often due to lack of gun skills, which I hear is quite annoying to our green friends.--Guardian of Nekops 05:51, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep even though this would really put my survivor in a jam if killed this would be more realistic.--Deathnut RAF 06:00, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Doesnt go far enough. Most people using syringes already have necronet access, so this will not make any difference whatsoever in the astronomical revive rate. Unless something is done, and soon, the zombie will slide into extinction as players just give up on them. --Grim s 06:56, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - I don't like something that only adds realism. There are a lot of areas where technically things should be running low. There are an infinite number of guns floating around in Malls. And don't punish people who die and want to be survivors still.--Hamster Ninja 06:56, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • RE- "Only adds realism?" You misunderstand. The primary goal of this suggestion in balance; taking down the number of one-hit-kill, 100% to hit weapons that are wielded by level 2 characters. As for punishing those who have died and want to return back to life, that's the point of this game. If we wanted to be 'fair' to them, why don't they automatically rise up as survivors like zombies rise up as zomies, with no penalty for dying? Balance is the reason. I don't think making people stand in revive lines twice as long as they do now is an unreasonable price to pay for balance and the continued survival of zombies in this game. It's kind of important.--Guardian of Nekops 13:37, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill This hurts new players too much, and take the " what if everyone did it at once" idea into acount: what if every high level scientist died every sing one, and everyone that had a syringe died too? There would be no more survivors. they would all die and thats it. The zeds would swarm the NT buildings so noobs/created players couldnt find syringes in time to revive one guy. While your at it lets make everything harder to find, FAKs ZOMG i can serch 10 times and not find one already lets make it 20 times. Please no more, lets hinder search suggestions if anything we need more give bonus for serching suggestions. --Kirk Howell 14:28, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Revives are far, far too easy to come by. Timid Dan 14:35, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - If a person doesn't have fun playing as a zombie, they aren't going to play as one, no matter how hard you try to force them to. They're more likely to just quit the game completely. If you want a better zombie to survivor ratio, suggest ways to make zombies better, instead of making things harder for survivors. -- Asrathe 14:57, 14 March 2006 (GMT) EDIT: Look again, it plainly says "...and force your average slain survivor to spend more time as a zombie...", so yeah, it IS about forcing people to play as a zombie. The AP spent getting to a revive point (both for the revivee and the reviver) along with the AP spent finding/making syringes makes death mean something. Brain Rot renders syringes useless as weapons (except in powered NT buildings). Yes, when people feel the game is not fun, they stop playing (remember the big strike a while back?). Sorry, my vote stays 'Kill'.
    • Re - It's not about forcing anyone to play as a zombie. It's about making death mean something again. --John Ember 15:20, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Also, it's hard to buff zombies enough to compete with one-hit-kill weapons wielded by characters I could make in an hour. If I tried, I guarantee I'd be spaminated within an inch of my life. Besides, would being dead for two days rather than one really make anybody quit?--Guardian of Nekops 16:55, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - What Asrathe said --CPQD 16:32, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Yes. Death good. --Gfuz 16:32, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - Revivification would still be possible, but it would make NecroNet Access much more useful, as well as make powering the building a high priority. Currently, an unskilled tech searching in the dark will on average get syringes as fast as a skilled manufacturer in a powered building. I would prefer if the search % was higher than 2%, though - 4% would still give an advantage to NecroNet, while not making normal searches useless. --Norcross 19:32, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - Does not go far enough to solve the revive problem. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:03, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - You all do realize that this revive "problem" only exists in certain heavily-populated and survivor-held suburbs, right? Try dying out in the middle of nowhere and see how many weeks it takes to get revived. Bentley Foss 20:51, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - What Bentley Foss said. --mikm W! 21:49, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - Sorry, you are just hurting low level scientists, which will lower even more the scientist rate. My main character started out as a scientist... 2% is just cheap, with that rate it would have taken him forever to get NecroNet Acess. Also, it just doesnt make sense. Now that employees can MAKE syringes, it should be easier to find one. --Certified=Insane 22:51, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Didn't you use your extractor for XP? It's much better than syringes, anyway. If you're on your own and away from rotters, it's even better than guns for low levels.--Guardian of Nekops 23:17, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill- After spending 5 weeks as a zombie floating around Blesy Mall and it's fequent attakcs the last thing i want is for it to happen even longer Drogmir 22:54, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - Normally, I'd vote for something like this, because there IS a revivification problem. However, a stopgap measure like this is not the answer. Dickus Maximus 06:40, 26 March 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 7 Keep, 14 Kill, 0 Spam 21:31, 31 March 2006 (BST)

Triage

Timestamp: 05:34, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Scientist Skill
Scope: Humans
Description: Months of hectic hands-on experience has made competent medics out of the survivors who chose this support role. They can now more quickly differentiate between those who just need aspirin and a band-aid, those who can wait a little longer, and those who need help NOW!

Triage is simply that - getting medical attention to those who need it most. Players with this skill will find that the first-aid kits in their inventory have automatically targeted the most critically-injured person in the area.

Requires the Diagnosis skill.

(As a dedicated medic, this would be very useful. I work in Caiger Mall, and it's been hard scanning the 500+ possible patients looking for the worst-off. I find myself just topping off people's hit points, while I know that there are others who could use it more, deeper into the listing.)

Votes

  1. Kill - I like the idea, a lot - I'm in the same situation. However, I don't think this should require a skill. I also have one question: generally, FAKs target the last person you healed. Would this re-target a worse-off person or keep targeting him? One additional detail I would like to see is sorting by HP (with numbers visible) in the FAK target list. --mikm W! 13:08, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - It's hard enough to kill people at Caiger as it is. Zombies have to hunt for targets to kill, you should have to hunt for targets to heal. With this skill, people would heal ten times faster. --Cinnibar 13:11, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - great idea. Dont think of anything in this game as 'Faster' there is no such thing, people play 10 minutes a day and are offline the rest. it doesnt matter how long it takes, the person will still do it, this makes it easier, plus it doesnt force the person to do anything. Great idea and not as complicated as your previous versions. --Kirk Howell 14:22, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - I think I agree with cinnabar. Healing is damn easy and efficient AP-wise as it is. Add in this skill, and the large mall sieges tip even more in favor of the survivors. Maybe a keep if it only worked in powered Hospitals or something. Timid Dan 14:38, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - It's just a convenience. Making it hard to heal the most needy is not the way to solve the mall imbalance. --John Ember 15:07, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - In implementation, I would also make it that, if you perform a heal, that person is subsequently at the top of the queue until an AP is spent NOT healing that person. --Reverend Loki 15:31, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Essentially you want to be in a room with 500+ people for the action, but you don't want to deal with the chaos and confusion of being in a room with 500+ people. No --CPQD 15:59, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Humans are already good enough at anti-climatically fighting zombies without fighting zombies, by cancelling, sometimes in advance, what zombies do (barricading, healing 10 hp in 1 AP, revive, etc.). If someone needs healing in a 500+ room, you won't find them more easily with triage. --McArrowni 17:28, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - See the many above kill votes. Bentley Foss 20:52, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - What he said. --Grim s 23:14, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 3 Keep, 7 Kill, 0 Spam 21:30, 31 March 2006 (BST)

Find & Read

Timestamp: 22:22, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: improvement
Scope: Reduse server load
Description: Simple solution to reduse server hits. When you find a newspaper or a poetry book, you automaticly and immediately read it. This will save many server hits, because survivor won't need to drop these itmes.

Votes

  1. Spam - 1) Reading books gives XP sometimes, no auto XP for searching. 2) You can read books many times. 3) It doesn't DROP the item if you read it. 4) Your spelling and grammar are awful. - Timid Dan 22:32, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re What the hell are you talking about? I didn't said anything about BOOKS --EnForcer32 07:13, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: - EnForcer32, you are not a mod, and you are not the author of that vote, ergo you DO NOT get to strikeout anyone else's signed votes. Pull that crap again and I will report you for vandalism. Velkrin 05:31, 26 March 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - Awful grammar though, and apparently what you said isn't clear enough. Yes, i agree poetry and newspapers are lame and they take time to drop and all... really hate those items... Note: He did not mention Books. Edit: The point of auto-reading is to reduce server hits but not corcing us to drop them, thefore removing some stress from the servers. Normals books, no. Poety books and newapapers: lame items you usually end up throwing away anyways.--Certified=Insane 22:56, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Spam - Free actions are bad. It costs an ap to read the things. --Grim s 23:11, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re free actions? What kind of advantage you get when eading newspaper? --EnForcer32 07:13, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Agree for newspapers, but not for poetry books, which can (as Dan said) be read many times. I personally have whiled away many APs reading poetry books out loud. Poetry lame? Have the jocks turned against the nerds? -Oppenharpo 23:15, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Just drop it yourself. Velkrin 23:27, 14 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Well, that's the reason why I made this sugestion. Dropping items will result additional server hits, that's why it will be better if this junk just won't take place in your inventory --EnForcer32 07:13, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill Good idea for newspapers. Bad idea for books. --Jon Pyre 00:02, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re' Only newspaper and poetry books, not books. --EnForcer32 07:13, 15 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 1 Keep, 3 Kill, 2 Spam 21:29, 31 March 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/14th-Mar-2006&oldid=189176"