Suggestions/16th-May-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

VOTING ENDS: 30th-May-2006

Suicide Pills

Timestamp: 03:03, 16 May 2006 (BST)
Type: New Item
Scope: People wishing to commit suicide
Description: Pretty straight foward. It's a bottle of pills that kills you dead. The coldest. I'm thinking they'll be found in hospitals for a 3% chance? (Negotiable) The idea is that jumping out of a window would be a more efficent way to commit suicide most of the time, but there are certain cases when this could be useful. Like, when everything is overbarricaded and you can't get in a tower or NT building to kill yourself. They're a one-time use item, of course. For realism purposes, they're not actually a "suicide pill" pre-say. It's a bottle of perscription pills that will kill you because you over-dosed. Of course, there's no explaination for why it kills you immediately, but there's no explaination why you spend a few minutes doing hours worth of hard labor then sleep for 23.9 hours either, so I don't think it matters.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. --Rozozag 03:03, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - If you want to die, just throw yourself to the Horde -- Tirion529 03:09, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - Thats what jumping from towers is for. -- Mia Kristos 03:09, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - I'm going to go keep with this one. The idea of a depressed survivor guzzling a bottle of pills in 1 AP makes my inner zombah smile. Sonny Corleone WTF 03:11, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - Honestly, I think you should have the option of committing suicide with your own firearms, too. A shotgun blast from under the chin up into the head? Yeah, that would work, too. -Wyn (talk!) 03:18, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - Plenty of ways already, hell, half of the time I'll wake up dead. Go into the streets, wait an hour. Tokakeke 03:22, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    Wouldn't that be a headshot? Self-pwnage FTW! Sonny Corleone WTF 03:22, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - I think that suicide should be a huge thing in this game. You're out on your own for God knows how long. The horde is on your doorstep. I would take my own life. --ThunderJoe 03:44, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - Too much of a 'ZOMG! ZOMBIE SPIES!' tool. Now instead of breaking down barricades, less moral zombies can just hoard pills while human, get inside the target building, and then do a mass suicide and start clawing their way out. The counter to this would be to A. Kill everyone with zombie skills B. Overbarricade anything important and C. shoot anyone you don't know. It needs some sort of abuse prevention method. With jumping out the window you have to get back inside, with this it's just pop and go. Perhaps it causes ankle grab to not work, or you to stumble out of the building, something like that. Velkrin 03:52, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - Just jump off a building after saying *guzzles a bottle of pills and dies* -Banana-\(o_-o)/-Bear 03:54, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - Velkrin hit it on the nose. Furthermore, everybody knows that if a real survivor wanted to commit suicide, he'd light himself on fire, shoot himself in the liver, then hang himself from the rafters while singing "Come All Ye Faitful". I'm sorry, this just isn't realistic. --Undeadinator 03:57, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - Yes, good idea on paper until you factor in the "zombie bomb" technique of passing barricades. --Mookiemookie 04:00, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - Plenty of ways to kill yourself which are cheaper and easier than this. --Zaruthustra-Mod 05:33, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - Heh. Zombie-gram.--Wifey 05:38, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - I wish this was avalible. My zombie-human character hates being unable to use his newly aquired RANSACK skill, but the baracades just present too much of a problem. Instead of trying to be infected, (too much of a hassle, plus the bullets I find kill quicker) I could use these. Presto, I GK and Ransack killing your chances of finding ANYTHING, plus I killed the baracades with my crowbar, then I call a zombie hoard to you, in the only police station in the suburb. Wow. Screwed. But It could happen. 343 05:52, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  15. Kill - Reading this made me want to take one, just to end the agony :P --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 08:28, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - Easily abused by Zombie players who are revived to bypass barricades and re-zombify. Add a 20-AP penalty and I'd think about voting keep. --Timid Dan 14:36, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill Why rob a lucky zombie of a free kill they'd normally have? And if you really don't wanna wait, windows aren't exactly rare occurances, you know... --Volke 15:31, 16 May 2006 (BST) EDIT: For the record, I did read the suggestion and do the numbrs for it. 33 AP is less than a days worth, so a large group could get some, wait a few hours, possibly a day, walk into a safehouse, use them, and the place goes to hell! 33 AP seems alike a lot, but when a revived horde does it all at once, it can add up too quickly, especially if they're willing to be patient! --Volke 18:22, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  18. Keep - another way to do something, is always good. zombies have to get revived and then spend 33AP to find this, i think that 33AP is enough to descrourage abuse. --xbehave 16:45, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re: - Okay, so, to those who voted "Kill", would you change your vote if there was some kind of fail-safe for the barricade problem? --Rozozag 18:27, 16 May 2006 (BST)
      • Re: - (You didn't reply to my vote specifically, but you said it was to anyone who voted kill, so...) Well, what do you mean by fail-safe? Making it so that survivors who have the pills won't transverse barricades isn't good since that punishes players for having an item they may not even use, and making it so that they can't be used indoors doesn't really make sense, but if you can find a good way to make it work, I'll reconsider (though it'll have to be REALLY good to do so). --Volke 18:31, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  19. Kill - window jumping, 'nuf said--Bermudez 18:34, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  20. Kill - Maybe if you got autodumped outside (like you would if you jumped). Or maybe if you can't use the pills in the presence of other survivors. - David Malfisto 18:43, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  21. Spam - For the reasons stated by Velkrin and others (and the same reasons other versions of suicide that come up from time to time never make it). And no, I wouldn't vote keep even if you put a fail-safe for barricades in. Even from a roll play perspective - having pills available for suicide, but not being able to shoot yourself in the head (which wouldn't work for the same reasons) is just silly. And any stipulation(s) you could put on it further detracts from the purpose and appeal of it. Flying out windows and offering yourself up to your zombie brethren works just dandy. --Blahblahblah 19:01, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re: Excpet for the fact that, recently, everything has been so extremely over-barricaded that even if you have free running it can be difficult to get into these buildings. Just yesterday, my friend's character (who only has zombie skills) was revived, and tried to kill himself. He spent all of his AP trying to go from tower to tower to find that, not only were they all EHB, but all of the buildings around them were as well. Eventually, he just ran out of AP on the street, and was somehow still alive the next day. This is the type of thing I'm trying to avoid. Death shouldn't be so difficult for those who with to obtain it. Perhaps there should just be a "commit suicide" button that can only be used outdoors and costs one pistol bullet? That would make sense to me. --Rozozag 19:15, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re: So, conversely, should we introduce a "Life Pill" that recently deceased survivors can take to avoid the hassle of finding a revive point (that is currently in use, and not abandoned) and waiting for a revive to come along? --Blahblahblah 19:56, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  22. Kill - This is just an unfair way for zombies/spies to infiltrate a barricaded building and then turn. Just rest outside if you can't find a window. --Raystanwick 20:02, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  23. Kill - Yeah, I need more things clogging up my FAK source in hospitals, don't I? Private Oxymoron 20:04, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  24. Kill - What Velkrin said --McArrowni 22:51, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  25. Kill -As others pointed out, this is way to easily abusable. And Sonny Corleone you have to stop REing votes, unless your the author or are responding to the author REing you.-Pesatyel 06:23, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  26. keep - shock value! WEEEEE! *mattiator and 60 0thers in the UD Wiki take suicide pills and stand up and KILL the losers who voted kill on this!* Mattiator 17:18, 20 May 2006 (BST)
  27. Kill - If you want to die just jump or throw yourself to the hoards. There are much better item suggestions that could benefit the game more than this one. - Paradox244 1:55 PM, May 21 2006 (EST)
  28. Kill - Find a building lazy. --Spartan101011 01:42, 28 May 2006 (BST)
  29. Spam - Though this won't change the otcome, I feel like expressing that I would personaly not like to see this ever again. Death comes easy, and this would only serve as a tool to infiltrate safehouses. 100xp for Free running isn't really even a hinder (except for low levels) Death to this, and with it, spiced, canned ham.--William Raker 10:59, 29 May 2006 (BST)

Shotgun Spread

Timestamp: 03:09, 16 May 2006 (BST)
Type: Change to existing gameplay mechanic
Scope: Survivors firing shotguns
Description: Due to the spread of the shotgun, using it in a crowded area involves some risks. Areas with 20-50 survivors give a shotgun user a 5% chance of wounding (for three damage) a "nearby" survivor or zombie (the survivor or zed is picked at random out of the stack). Areas with 50-100 survivors get a 10% chance to do the above. This can be beneficial in zed-infested areas or harmful in crowded survivor areas such as malls.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. Tokakeke 03:09, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - I'm voting "Keep" because so many people are going to vote kill for this that it won't matter in the end. Honestly, I don't even know whether it would be a good idea or not. It doesn't matter. I'm not even sure why, but this suggestion is going to get shot down faster than you can say "Oh, crap, my britches are on fire!" You'll probably even get a good number of Spam votes, even though this isn't Spam by any means. Oh well. Here they come. Get ready to call me "Phsycic" --Rozozag 03:13, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  3. WTFCENTAURS/Kill -No AOE--Admiral Ackbar U! WTF 03:15, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    Note removed illegal part of vote--Vista W! 08:03, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - No. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Multiply_It_By_A_Billion --Mookiemookie 03:18, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    Re - The chances are pretty low, and shotgun use is rare in crowded areas for the most part.. Tokakeke 03:19, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    Note Welcome to caiger mall, may I take your shotgun blast in my face-Dick Cheney
    Exactly. And then dealing with the "OMG U PK SON OF A BITCH" fallout would be enough pure distilled retardedness to make the game implode. --Mookiemookie 03:27, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - I, alone, had 10 fully loaded shotguns earlier today. I'd have ended up killing someone and feeling bad about it. I don't wanna feel bad. -- Tirion529 03:24, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - I can see it now. Innocent people being labeled PKers. Sonny Corleone WTF 03:27, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - Yeah, let the real PKers get an excuse. --ThunderJoe 03:46, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Spam - Technically a multi-attack suggestion. Will lead to revenge fests prompting mass PKing (its happened before). Chances to hit are not low, as you said above, when you consider that sieges often have 100+ survivors, and then zombies on top of that. Velkrin 03:54, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  9. WTFCENTAURS/Kill Failure -Banana-\(o_-o)/-Bear 03:55, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    Note removed illegal part of vote--Vista W! 08:03, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - Although the opportunity to scream "IT'S JAST A FLESCHE WOOOOOOND!" sure is tempting. --Undeadinator 03:59, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  11. Spam - AoE, meet spiced ham. I'm sure you'll be good friends.--Wifey 06:11, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  12. Spam - And magicaly when we get 101 people it is no longer in affect. - Jedaz 06:38, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Spam - Multiply by 100,000. SSS. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - W! 08:27, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Spam -So while it's impossible to hit more then one braindead zombie ever, not even in a densely pakked crowd of a 1000 when you're trying,, but as soon as there are about a hundred survivors who know not to get in the way, you're going around shooting willy-nilly? Lets try something we call consistant nonsense--Vista W! 12:14, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  15. Spam - Shotguns do not have a spread. It's a common fiction/myth that you can hit multiple people with a single shotgun blast, and I'm sick of seeing suggestions about it. Effectively, if you're attacking a big zombie stack, it's like getting FREE ACTIONS 5%-10% of the time in terms of extra damage/xp gained. No, No, NO! --Timid Dan 14:38, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  16. Spam -This is a terrible idea. All it does is inspire PKing! --ZedKilla W! 10:14 16 May, 2006 (EST)
  17. Kill Although its cool when games like Metal Slug use this mechanic, shotguns aren't actually meant to hit multiple targets. They're actually designed to inflict significant damage on a SINGLE target! I suppose arguing realism is a bad idea, but shotguns are already balenced as it is, and despite how small 5% or 10% might seem, sieges cause it to add up too quickly. --Volke 15:29, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  18. Keep - Not really AOE, more duel effect, i dont think 10% is that bad. --xbehave 16:45, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  19. SPAM - Just read the Dos and Donts.--Changchad 16:49, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  20. Keep - Not AOE, I think it's awesome. I'd say make it a certain percentage for each person in the area, and then either put a straight cap on the number it can hit and/or make it exponentially less likely to hit succesive people. Let it hit zombies and survivors alike, but award NO XP for this incidental damage. I get XP for practice shooting zombies in the head, not accidentaly hitting my/their friends. Also, shotguns can be spread weapons. I use shotguns for flocks of birds. A short barrel gives spread, a long one gives accuracy, that simple. --Burgan 18:44, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  21. Spam - Zomg! 4 teh winzors! For some reason I think my suggestions that effect multiple targets and rape the multiply by a billion rule will get PRed. SSS. - David Malfisto 18:49, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  22. Spam - I can think of some PKer groups that would cream their pants over this one. --Blahblahblah 19:07, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  23. Spam -- It's AOE, guys. For serious. Also, lame. Also, similar things that are less flamingly retarded have been suggested and killed in the past. You lose at Wiki Suggestions! furtim 02:58, 18 May 2006 (BST)
  24. Spam - Multiply it with million, and divide by zero OH SHI-!--William Raker 11:01, 29 May 2006 (BST)

Increased Tension

Timestamp: 15:16, 16 May 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Basically, what I'd like to see is a higher chance of being able to break down barricades. It highly offends me that I can spend over 70 AP and not get the barricades down-- only to be rebarricaded back to full in less than ten AP from a single survivor. As such, I would like to suggest a skill that increases the chance of collapsing a barricade by five or even ten percent. It would probably be best suited as an upgrade to the already present Vigour Mortis. While this would present a major drawback for the survivors-- it would mean the less populated areas would be a feasible ground for those few zombies in the prowl, no longer requiring masses in the dozens to accomplish such a basic goal.

Votes

  1. Kill This fails "multiply it by a billion." With this, a horde would shred barricades too easily. I can understand that its annoying to spend so much AP to break barricades on your own, but zombies are meant to be horde creatures, really... Any kind of direct increase of even the smallest % would cause a horde to easily become overpowered! --Volke 15:25, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - What Volke said. This vote may (and probably will) change as other people add their opinions. --Cyberbob240CDF - Arb - U! 15:27, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  3. Spam - 1) Fails the multiply by a billion. 2)Incomplete suggestion (five OR ten percent?) 3) Leave Barricades alone. 4) The only way to get 70 AP in one session is by zerging. Stop zerging. --Timid Dan 15:30, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - He never said he used 70 AP in one session. Don't fly off the handle, sparky. Maybe the suggestor came back later in the day and used the 20 APs they had built up on something that hadn't been rebarricaded? At least give the poor guy the benefit of the doubt before you throw zerging accusations around. EDIT: Check that...if you do the math you can come up with the same 70 AP number he did. 17 levels of cades with a 20% chance of knocking them down is actually 85 AP to take down a fully EHB building. Now quit being a jerk. And now for the suggestion, I agree that barricades can be frustrating but this would allow coordinated hordes to tear through cades like a hot knife through butter. Maybe if there was a way to "feeding groan" barricades...say if they were at lightly or less...in order to get non-metagame players in on the action...but a flat percentage increase is too unbalancing. --Mookiemookie 15:35, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    Notice - Doing the math, I don't come up with 70 AP for knocking the 'cades down. Nor do I come up with 10 AP to rebarricade from nothing to EHB. --Timid Dan 16:02, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    If you spend your whole allocation of APs to bash barricades at a 20% success rate, and a fully EHB barricaded building takes 17 successes to bring down to unbarricaded, the math looks like this: X * .20 = 17. A little quick algebra gives us 17/.2 = X, which works out to be 85 APs to take down a fully barricaded building. At a 25% success rate, thats 68 APs to bring down a fully barricaded building. --Mookiemookie 16:21, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill...even though I think this passes the multiply it by a billion rule - a zombie horde with a billion members wouldn't be stopped by barricades anyway. --Toejam 16:11, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - I agree with what Volke said. --Abi79 The Abandoned 16:13, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - For one reason only. Not enough information. You never say where you'd like the skill to go, just "probably" under Vigour Mortis. Also, decide on a percentage. If you said 5 or 6 percent, I'd be okay, but 5-10 is too big a range. Now, as far as the multiply by a billion, ehhh... not really. I mean, we could use that to talk about shotguns, if we wanted to get technical at this level. I don't think this would break the game that badly. As to "Leave the barricades alone", that's not even a valid spam reason. Maybe, just maybe a valid kill reason, if you think that barricades are the utmost in perfection (here's a hint, they're not!). I think they could use some work. --Pinpoint 16:16, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Spam - Barricades offend you? --Ron Burgundy 16:44, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Spam - No details --xbehave 16:45, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Spam That's why two zombies work together, taking down the barricades so the other 10 zombies there can march right in. --Jon Pyre 17:17, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  11. Spam -Times a billion + gratuitous barricade nerfing. I've spent 30 AP getting a barricade down, then gone on to enter, groan, and kill a survivor. You don't even have to make friends with hordes or anything, just go where zombies are, knock the barricades a bit and wait for some of the others to help.--Burgan 18:47, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  12. Spam - "That's why we should work together, Three of a kind, Birds of a Feather, Now and Forever!" You want an easier time knocking down 'cades? Go and horde. Leave barracades alone. - David Malfisto 18:55, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Spam - Skill: end game. Description: By clicking a button, you kill all survivors in Malton. That's basically the same as eliminating barricades, so why not do it with style? --Dan 19:06, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Spam - Ahhh, this reminds me of the good ole days of the WCDZ, when the spam-o-mattic guns were kept shinny and polished and well used. Has this return to the ways of spamination been going on for a while - or am I just peeking in on bad days? --Blahblahblah 19:16, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  15. Kill - Zombies work best in hordes. It is possible to go lone and take the easy picking in zombie-ravaged suburbs, but it can be hard in suburbs under lockdown. If you simply must go solo, check out metagame resources like the Feral Undead forum and the Suburbs section in this wiki to find where the buffet line starts. Oh and listen to Feeding Groan...even if it jerks you around a bit, it usually shows you where zombies are congregating. I do agree with MM that there ought to be a feeding-groan equivalent for barricades going down. I actually remember a suggestion for it some time ago (can't remember name/too lazy to look up) but it had a tough time (because users fear the message-spam) so I'm not sure if it made it. Final note: upping attack percentages is a lazy stopgap solution to in-game problems. Try for more creative solutions...--Xavier06 19:25, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  16. Spam - That's the point of hordes. -- Mettaur 22:31, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  17. Spam - Mostly because it's incomplete. Specify either "5%" or "10%", rather than "5% or 10%". You make the choices, and we vote on them. Otherwise, I'd not vote at all, or vote keep. We don't need better barricade slamming now, but it seems like the next balancing factor to tweak if the harmans get as strong as they were for, like 75% of the game's existence (if not much, much more)--McArrowni 22:58, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  18. Spam -- All the cool kids are doing it. Also, barricade suggestions suck. And it does fail the billion rule. With mild coordination, zombies don't have much problem getting inside all but the most secure safehouses. If a significant number of them had a boosted to-hit against barricades, we'd be slicing through them like butter. I don't know about you, but I want a balanced game, and that's not what this suggestion gives us. furtim 03:05, 18 May 2006 (BST)

Degenerative Contamination

Timestamp: 17:36, 16 May 2006 (BST)
Type: Zombie skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Okay, I actually dreamed this suggestion up as I slept last night. No, really. So if flies like a lead balloon, we can blame my subconscience. The thought that my slumbering mind produced was a way to make Infectious Bite more powerful without penalizing new players.

A survivor with the Bodybuilding skill is hardier, but his vigorous circulatory system tends to pump nasties through his system at a much faster rate. A zombie with the skill Degenerative Contamination can bite Bodybuilders to afflict them with an infection that robs the survivor of 3hp per AP of non-speaking action.

If a zombie with this skill bites a survivor without Bodybuilding, the infection imparted is of the generic, 1hp/AP variety.

Note: this skill would have Infectious Bite as a prerequisite.

Votes

  1. Keep - I gotta go with my subconscience on this one. I like that it makes Bodybuilding a skill with both pros and cons, and it provides zombies with that more powerful infection they've been wanting without annihilating newbs. --John Ember 17:36, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - Bodybuilding over. Infectious Bite=very yes. --Legom7 18:10, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - I like it! --HerrStefantheGreat 18:13, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - No! NO! And NO!!! This skill actually punishes people for having a skill that is supposed to make you more durable! With this skill in place, Body building would just no longer be worth it. (Don't forget the the "multiply by a million" rule.) Eventually, any skilled zombie would have this ability, and anyone who has already bought body building will wish they hadn't. Those without body building would probably be glad they didn't have it and would never buy it. When I vote "kill" I normally tell people what's wrong with it and suggest that they go back to the drawing board to fix it, but this is completely broken. There is no way to fix this one. Try something else. --Rozozag 18:18, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Do you find yourself that frequently infected? Of course Bodybuilding would still be worth it. The point is not that Bodybuilding suddenly becomes disadvantegous, but that this way zombies can get a more powerful infection skill without griefing the new players. Bodybuilders can take it; newbs can't so much. --John Ember 18:36, 16 May 2006 (BST)
      • Re - Yes, actually I do find myself that frequently infected. I guess I just operate in a more dangerous area than you do... The fact is, a common zombie tactic is, if they don't have enough AP to finish off an entire building, infect everyone you don't have time to kill. I should know, I use this tactic with my death-cultist characters all the time. The fact is, if this skill were created, I would no longer want body building. It just wouldn't be worth it anymore. It would only take 5 moves until my "major" hp advantage was completely removed, and anything after, that, I'll just be suffering for a skill that I bought a long time ago and never expected to have a disadvantage. Completely unreasonable. Body building isn't even a very powerful skill to begin with. If you want to nerf something, nerf skills like Ankle grab or Free Running which are often complained about as being far to powerful for a mere 100 xp. I'd vote for something like that. --Rozozag 19:23, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill- ^^--xbehave 18:21, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill Nerfs a skill that doesn't need to be nerfed. Plain and simple! --Volke 18:28, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - There's no nerf. It's a new zombie skill that causes a stronger infection. It just so happens that newer players are less susceptible to it. --John Ember 18:36, 16 May 2006 (BST)
      • Re - I still think that it punishes players for getting something that's supposed to help them... If they want higher HP, why force them to take more damage to make up for it? Besides, last time I checked, working out helped REMOVE toxins from a person's body! --Volke 18:40, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - Nice idea, but it totally nerfs all high level survivors. Maybe something (trying not to make it too tricky) along the lines of doing 2 damage per AP for the first 10-15 AP (to negate the bodybuilding), at which point their weakened body no longer pumps faster. Body builders have better circulation, yes, but half dead body builders are pretty soft. This way it helps zeds and leaves newbs alone. Would also make high level characters more attractive targets, further protecting newbs. 3 damage is just way too much, there's not enough AP left to get to a hospital and find a FAK. --Burgan 18:53, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Spam - Leave my skills alone. No retroactive penalities. - David Malfisto 18:58, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill - Yes, you definitely get bitten often. Quite often, the first thing they do in a mall break-in is go through and bite every survivor. And imposing a disadvantage retroactively on a skill people have already bought is a big no-no. --Dan 19:27, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Spam - It flies, indeed, like a lead balloon. 10 hp for assured death when bitten? No thanks.--Wifey 19:32, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  11. Danger - Anyone having dreams about Urban Dead needs to unplug immediately. --Ron Burgundy 20:03, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    • ;P The thought had occurred to me! --John Ember 20:10, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - Brilliant - survivors with bodybuilding get the shaft, while zombies with bodybuilding are left unhindered. --Blahblahblah 20:15, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - Its an interesting idea, but I have to vote kill because 3 HP for each action is overpowered. It would mean that 4 actions later you'll wish you never got bodybuilding because you just lost 12 HP rather then 4 all because you got a skill to add 10 to your HP. (if that makes scence). Also... You're dreaming about UD? I really have nothing to say aout that. But you may want to take a break and try something else for a bit :) --Teksura 21:24, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Spam - As retroactive penalty on a skill. -- Mettaur 22:30, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  15. Kill - no retroactive penalties on a skill please. --McArrowni 23:49, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - What McArrowni said. --Karlsbad 00:45, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - Actually someone in shape has a lower heart beat than someone out of shape, even at rest so this logic is flawed. --Steel Hammer 05:18, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  18. keep - time to slaughter those little bastards who buy Body Building! MEHEHEHEHEHEHE HARMANZ DLE! Mattiator 17:23, 20 May 2006 (BST)

Swarm/group tactics

Author requested this to be retracted --Vista W! 22:04, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Viral Recognition

Timestamp: 15:06, 16 May 2006 (EST)
Type: Skill
Scope: Humans and Zombies
Description: Players, either alive or undead, with this scientist skill have studied the undead and been around them long enough that they can spot players who have been infected or are infectious from a distance.

A ! symbol is placed next to the names of players who are infectious or infected within the 9 square surroundings.

To get this skill the player be alive and must have a combo of both Diagnosis and Lab experience. The cost of the skill its self I am not sure about and would like to talk about what seems like a fair price.

Votes

  1. Keep - This is my Author vote, as I've had others say this isn't that bad of an idea.--Savat 15:10, 16 May 2006 (EST)
  2. Dupe - Prognosis Velkrin 20:16, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  3. Dupe - Prognosis --Zaruthustra-Mod 20:17, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - This isn't an exact Dupe, look under notes to see the changes.--Savat 15:21, 15 May 2006 (EST)
  4. Kill - Prognosis is better - being able to spot an infection in someone from a block away doesn't really sit well with me. That's the only real difference I can see... (unless you mean making it a symbol.. which is already included in the notes and not needing a whole new suggestion for it)--Blahblahblah 20:32, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - Good idea, but I think the 9 squares is a little much, maybe make it just on the one square? Seems a lot to be able to see someone's sickness from a block away. Very handy skill though. Depending on how the skill tree is implemented though, it might be just as well to only make this need diagnosis, which I think is enough. Kill - Prognosis does it sensibly --Burgan 20:37, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - 9 Squares is too much. Prognosis is balanced.--Mookiemookie 20:57, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - Prognosis is more balanced as it is only 1 square. It is not like someone can be so good at spotting infected people, they can see it a long distance away. --Changchad 21:09, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - Prognosis is good enough. --Dan 23:38, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Dupe - I want to carry Prognosis's children --McArrowni 23:56, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Advanced Infection

Timestamp: 20:51, 16 May 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: I propose yet another variation of "let's make infections

nasty". This would be non-nerfing to existing skills, however, and is relatively lower powered. The concept is that an advanced infection is difficult to shake by a wounded survivor and requires full healing to eradicate.

"Advanced Infection" appears below Infectious Bite in the skill tree and has a prerequisite of Level 10.

Mechanic : A survivor who is currently infected (currently carries "infected" tag) bitten a second time has the infection tag replaced with an "advanced infection" tag if bitten by a zombie with the skill. Additional bites do not cause additional infection levels. An Advanced Infection inflicts the same exact damage as a regular infection (does NOT stack with a regular infection, replaces it only).

A "Advanced Infection" is curable with a standard FAK, but only if the resulting heal brings the player to FULL HEALTH. This represents the requirement that the player be fully healthy for them to have fully shaken off the infection. To reiterate : Any FAK application bringing the character to full health heals the infection instantly and removes the Advanced Infection tag.

Obviously, based on current maximum bite damage, a player bitten twice (infected -4 hp from bite, advanced infection -4hp from bite) is still readily healable of the infection by a player with first aid (5hp from FAK, +5 from First Aid) on the first application of the FAK if they recieve no other wounds.

Flavor text will reflect the infliction of the advanced infection to both predator and prey. A FAK attempt on a character with advanced infection will reflect the status and result of the cure.

IE : New flavor text (Heal + no cure) -- "You heal XXX for 10, but they remain infected."

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote. I believe this is a relatively low-powered implementation of an advanced infection skill. I hope that the prereqs (prior infection) and lack of additional damage increase keep this from being overpowering. --Timid Dan 20:51, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - Seems to work for me. --Mookiemookie 20:58, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - I think I get it. Just wish I would have to scroll to read the whole thing. Sonny Corleone WTF 21:01, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - This technically will not kill the game, this is simply making healing infections slightly harder, also the infection HP lost is not changed. This gets a keep from me.--Changchad 21:06, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill and let die for the love of god. It took me two months to get someone to heal me from my last infection... every time someone would revive me, I'd die before getting that all-important hard-to-get first aid kit. And now, you want new players to die even IF they can find one or get someone to heal them? Kill it with fire. Almafeta 21:13, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - What? 10 AP to find one in a hospital? I've pulled that off tons of times. Sonny Corleone WTF 21:14, 16 May 2006 (BST) Non-author Re. --A Bothan SpyMod WTF U! 11:10, 29 May 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - Is this possible? An Advanced Infection suggestion that isn't over or under powered? I actually really like this idea, expecially because it's nothing to someone with First Aid if they're bitten twice and left alone. -- Tirion529 21:24, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - I really like how it clearly says to the healer that the person is still infected. That will allow the person healing to know instantly that the infected person needs more healing. It doesn't seem too over-powered, I'll have to start keeping a good amount of FAK on me at all times if this gets into the game. --Teksura 21:29, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - I like; a good way to improve infections without having an issue of a person being topped of on HPs and still infected (such as the "missing" FAK suggestions) --Karlsbad 21:41, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - Excellent. --John Ember 21:44, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Keep - Holy shit, this doesn't suck. -Wyn (talk!) 21:47, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - Other Infectious Bite suggestions over. Advanced Infection = very yes! --Legom7 21:56, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - Nice, although I don't think it needs to require level 10 to buy, as it's not nearly as powerful as Headshot. --Dickie Fux 21:57, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - six months and this is the first time somebody thought of that (or my korsakov is kicking in and I simply can't remember.) As this is the only lets improve infection that doesn't give me cold shakes, red glowing eyes and a murderous lust for the suggesters bloody hart to be crushed under my foot. for this once, although I still think its dismal, I'll let it slide--Vista W! 22:14, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Fortunately, I don't own any deer. --Timid Dan 22:23, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - Although levelled survivors invariably carry FAKs to deal with infections, infection is already a death warrant for a new character who doesn't have Free Running, Bargain Hunting et al to get FAKs easily. For those without First Aid as well, this is going to make playing a low level survivor so much more painful. -- Mettaur 22:21, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - I really like this. As currently exists, Infection is a joke. In the movies, a zombie infection is almost as scary as the zombies themselves. This makes Infection something to actually worry about, without making it an overpowered Zed germ warfare nuke. --Reverend Loki 22:23, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - makes sense. Also resembles real infections.--Cah51o 23:01, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  17. Keep - ALTHOUGH I think a little piece should be added. This level of infection shouldn't remain after death. Currently, survivors only have half health and retain infections after dying. This new level of infection would make coming back to life so much more difficult if it stayed. I also think that the requirement for a cured infection should be 50 hp or above + FAK so that players aren't nerfed for having body building, but are instead given a slight advantage. These concerns aren't enough for me to vote kill, however, since, they can be addressed before being implemented. --Rozozag 23:14, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  18. Kill - Have to go against the majority on this one. Low level survivors get toasted on a fairly regular basis with the current infection unless they happen to live in a VERY survivor friendly burb, and if you are there you dont see many Zombies to begin with. Conndrakamod T W! 23:26, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    SUGGEST - Could it be made so that Advanced infection doesn't carry over from revives, therefore reducing the griefing characteristic? --Karlsbad 00:41, 17 May 2006 (BST) SUGGEST is not a valid comment type. --A Bothan SpyMod WTF U! 11:12, 29 May 2006 (BST)
  19. Keep - Congrats, Timid Dan. I don't think it would toast new characters, either. If I healed some newbie and saw they were still infected, I would spend the extra FAK to finish the task. --Dan 23:35, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  20. Keep - Adds to the tension of the game, and the zombies need some more high level requirement skills. --Darkstar949 23:55, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  21. Keep - I don't play zombies but I like this idea. It will make players actually carry around FAK's of their own instead of always depending on others to take care of their heals. A little more planning would be involved before they set their foot out the door, so to speak. Good Job. --Steel Hammer 05:22, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  22. Keep I like it.--Pesatyel 07:12, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  23. Keep -WOW, just WOW. This is pretty simple its nice. Its funny no one has gome up with it before instead of making infection deal +1, +2 or +3 damage. nice workNazreg 10:17, 17 May 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 20 Keep, 3 Kill, 0 Dupe, 0 Spam, 23 Total. --Timid Dan 14:42, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  24. Keep Simple, usable, not over powered and gives you a reason to visit your local hospital. --Etherdrifter 18:48, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  25. Keep -- What Wyn said. However, Rozozag's concern is well-founded. An Advanced Infection shouldn't carry over after death/revive. furtim 03:09, 18 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - If it makes it to peer reviewed, we'll add it to the voting notes/comments section. I don't want to see it carry over either, but I'm reluctant to alter the original suggestion text at this point. I think the advanced infection would probably revert to a standard infection tag on death or revive, which would be consistant with the existing infection rules. I'm not quite sure what the rules are about adding notes mid-voting, but that would be the intention. --Timid Dan 22:04, 18 May 2006 (BST)
  26. Keep - why not. --Bulgakov 07:33, 18 May 2006 (BST)
  27. Keep - I like it. --Seagull Flock 15:55, 18 May 2006 (BST)
  28. Keep - Not too overpowered, but persistent. I like it.--Ky 22:33, 18 May 2006 (BST)
  29. Keep - Shouldn't carry over after death. Other than that, me like. David Malfisto 23:24, 18 May 2006 (BST)
  30. Keep - I'll add the the Holy Shit group. An infection suggestion that finally is just right? Awesome. --GuavaMoment 00:28, 19 May 2006 (BST)
  31. keep - All hail, King of the Losers Suggesters! Mattiator 17:28, 20 May 2006 (BST)
  32. Keep - Would also stop people from being so asshollish about First Aid and Surgery, not getting them because they heal more with same XP. Newsflash people, doctors are supposed to help the sick, not themselves. Also, ZOmbies need some loving too.--William Raker 11:08, 29 May 2006 (BST)

Sawed-off Shotgun

Timestamp: 23:27, 16 May 2006 (BST)
Type: New weapon
Scope: Survivors
Description: There seems to be some interest in multi-target shotguns, so I'll see if I can salvage the concept.

Sawed-off shotguns would use ordinary shotgun shells. They would be found in pubs (1% base find rate) and junkyards (5% base find rate). They would displace worthless items from the find list. They would be found loaded or unloaded, at the same relative rates as ordinary shotguns.

A sawed-off shotgun would have a much wider spread than a normal one, so it would have a higher chance of hitting the primary target, a base chance of 25%. But it would only do half damage against the main target (i.e. 5 without flak jacket and 4 with) because a lot of the shot would miss, and some of the shot could hit the person on either side. (That's the next two zombies in the stack if you're shooting at a zombie, or the next two survivors on the list if you're shooting at a survivor.) For each secondary target, the damage is 3 and the to-hit percentage goes 10, 15, 25, 30 as you increase from no skills to advanced shotgun training. If there aren't three targets in the list/stack, you just lose the chance at secondary-target damage.

If you don't know how to use a shotgun, you do more damage with a sawed-off than a normal one. But you're still better off just not using a shotgun until you know how. If you have enough skill to be using guns at all, you don't gain any damage by having the shotgun be sawed off. For comparison with the shotgun, the numbers are tabulated here.

Votes

  1. Keep - Obligatory author keep. --Dan 23:27, 16 May 2006 (BST)
  2. Spam - It's a pistol with 2 shots that spreads. Whoopie. Sonny Corleone WTF 23:48, 16 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re A pistol that uses shotgun shells and does about as much damage as a shotgun. Iow, a pistol that's nothing like a pistol. SS"R": seriously stupid "reason". I'm not attached to this idea, just taking on the challenge of trying to salvage the multi-target shotgun idea someone else posted. I almost didn't post my author keep. But dang, what a SS"R". --Dan 00:03, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - Your math looks solid, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and give this one a chance. Let's see how many others feel the same. --Rozozag 00:10, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  4. Spam - Did you not see the AOE shotgun suggestion just above that got spammed/killed all to hell? AOE just doesn't work --Mookiemookie 00:11, 17 May 2006 (BST)
    • CNR - Did I not see? Hello, I said I was responding to recent attempts. As for not working, let's see you tell me what doesn't work about it? Unless you think "doesn't work" means nothing more than the fact that a bunch of CNRs vote against it. --Dan 02:02, 17 May 2006 (BST) CNR is not a valid comment type. --A Bothan SpyMod WTF U! 11:13, 29 May 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - homestarrunner reference over. Sawed-off Shotgun = very yes! --Legom7 00:16, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  6. Spam - Listen to Mookie -- Tirion529 00:27, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - If only because I don't like the idea of 85% accuracy, regardless of actual damage output--McArrowni 00:34, 17 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Aw c'mon, it's a sawed-off shotgun, pellets going everywhere, how can you miss? Or rather, you're guaranteed to miss with half of them. ;) Seriously, it's a fair reason. --Dan 02:02, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  8. Spam - No area of effect damage. --Grim s-Mod 01:12, 17 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - This is multi-target, not AOE. AOE affects all within the area, so it automatically fails "multiply it by a billion". Multi-target doesn't have that problem. --Dan 02:02, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - Even leaving multi-target damage aside (which honestly doesn't bother me as much as it does some), you've effectively created an 85% accurate pistol. The pistol is already the most overall effective weapon in the game, so in order for me to vote for something even more effective there would need to be some significant drawback involved in using it. --John Ember 02:12, 17 May 2006 (BST)
    • Re - The drawback that you're using up shotgun shells that could do more total damage if you used them in a normal shotgun. It's not as good as the shotgun, so how can it be better than the pistol while still having the pistol be better than the shotgun? --Dan
    • Re - D'oh! Yes, I had a major mental misfire there. Okay, here's my math based on pre April 29th search rates: about an 11% chance of finding a single shell in a mall with Bargain Hunting. Works out to be 9 AP per shell. Add 1 AP for load and 1 AP for fire; total is 10 AP per fired round. Each round has an 85% chance of doing 5 damage plus a 30% of 85% chance of doing 6 extra damage -- 5.78 total average. Thus, overall average damage is 5.78 hp per 10 AP, or 0.58 MBR. Less effective than the shotgun on average; you're giving up overall damage in order to get the multiple-hit effect. Which is very reasonable, so I'll Keep. --John Ember 05:29, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - Again, I don't play zombies but this is just wrong. If you had made the percentage lower and then threw in a percentage that the user had lets say a 25% chance of throwing their shoulder out from the increased backlash from a shotgun and not be able to use "any" weapon in that hand due to severe pain I might think about it. --Steel Hammer 05:28, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  11. 'Kill -Lower the % to hit. Significantly. Even though the damage is decreased, your still hitting more than 1 target. A lucky hit would give you 41 XP if you managed to kill all 3 zombies. Also, only make it hit TWO zombies total.--Pesatyel 07:19, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill 85% is way too much, especially for a game where every person and zombie you attack is controlled by another player! Hitting about 8 out of 10 times overpowers this, and that's ignoreing the fact it hits multiple targets! This essentially makes it a pistol that rarily misses and hits more than one enemy at once, and lets face it, anything that makes the other two guns obsolete is a bad idea! --Volke 19:58, 17 May 2006 (BST)
  13. Spam -- Fuck AOE suggestions. furtim 03:12, 18 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep -- why not.--Bulgakov 07:32, 18 May 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - I think it's because I'm tired... but this actually makes sense to me... David Malfisto 23:26, 18 May 2006 (BST)
  16. keep - give it a chance. [Another SMG]. Mattiator 17:33, 20 May 2006 (BST)
  17. Keep - This is a great idea, but I would make the chance of finding even lower, ie make it a rare item. --Spartan101011 01:40, 28 May 2006 (BST)
  18. Keep - Could be good. Also, Spartan, rare doesn't mean balanced. But if this is balanced with a Zombie skill (as the updates usually are, two updates, one per side) I don't see why this should not be a keeper.--William Raker 11:14, 29 May 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/16th-May-2006&oldid=268441"