Suggestions/16th-Oct-2006

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.

Consume Living

This suggestion was found to be a duplicate of these suggestions.--Gage 07:13, 16 October 2006 (BST)

---

Cannibalize

This suggestion was found to be a DUPE with 3 Dupe votes, and has been removed according to the rules of this page. --Funt Solo 13:55, 16 October 2006 (BST)

---

Zombie Strength

This is a dupe of this: Dead Flesh. --Jon Pyre 23:16, 16 October 2006 (BST)

---

Undying Lurch

Timestamp:	Jon Pyre 23:43, 16 October 2006 (BST) Jon Pyre 01:07, 17 October 2006 (BST) Invalid time-stamp struck --Funt Solo 21:22, 17 October 2006 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	This subskill of Digestion is designed to make fighting a zombie a little bit scarier by adding an element of uncertainty. Ever see a zombie movie where repeated gunshots do nothing, despite horrific injury the creature keeps advancing? The zombie would no longer be killed when at 0hp, but actually be able to dip slightly into negative numbers without getting knocked down. There'd be no maximum how far their negative numbers could go but for every point of negative damage they take there's a 25% chance they'd get knocked down. So if you deal 4 damage to a zombie that's at 2hp there'd be two chances for it to get knocked down. Other wise they'd go to -2 (It'd just skip 0 entirely. 0 would only be your hitpoints when you're knocked down). If you then dealt another 4 damage, you'd have another 4 chances to knock it down. Otherwise they'd go to -6. While there's no cutoff the odds of their health going far in the negative is very low. 25% of the time it wouldn't even get to that first negative point. You'd only get to -2 about 50% of the time. -3 would be about 40% of the time. -4 about 30%. -5 about 20%. The zombie should have to work a little bit for this benefit though. Only a recently fed zombie is tough enough to take this kind of punishment. The zombie would have a new status that'd be listed where their inventory would be if they were a survivor: their hunger level. Base status would be "You are ravenous". With each bite attack it'd rise to "You are hungry", then "A little hungry", then "full". Four levels in total. Each time a zombie is reduced from positive to negative health (but not from a negative to a lower negative) their status would drop a level. Each time they successfully bite a survivor it goes up one. When a zombie's at ravenous they would not be able to survive going below zero. To use this ability the zombie would need to "keep it charged" with few bites now and then. So it isn't really much of a buff in terms of a combat benefit. You'd beat the odds just getting down to -3. But it would have a psychological advantage. There'd always be the fear in a survivor's mind that as they battle that zombie it'll be tough enough to go a bit into the negatives. That it'll get that lucky boost and require an extra gunshot. Not particularly more powerful but a little scarier. And hey, even a few hitpoints isn't bad.

Keep Votes

1. Keep A tiny buff that mainly adds fear. There'd always be that scary 1% chance out there of them going pretty far into the negatives. But most of the time it'd be little or nothing. And I know some people will say "Zombies don't need a buff". True they don't need a buff but I support both sides getting skills once in a while to keep things interesting. This would obviously need to be balanced by something useful for survivors.--Jon Pyre 00:06, 17 October 2006 (BST)
2. Keep And the "survivors are the only worthwhile players" mentality comes forth once again. Seriuosly, people. This isn't anywhere near overpowered. For anyone thinking that it doesn't make sense because zombies already "take lots of bullets", well so do survivors. Survivors also survive being bitten and mauled several times. I'm really starting to get sick of the "Oh no! We can't have anything like risk to our precious survivors!" mentality. It's probably why this game is so incredibly dull. --Pinpoint 08:28, 17 October 2006 (BST)
3. I like it - The reason so many people are voting spam on this one is they are always afraid of the idea that a zombie could potentially become invulnerable, even though the odds of a zombie actually going more than a few extra damage is so low that it has virtually no effect on the game. Furthermore, a single extra shotgun blast would eliminate the benefits of this skill most of the time, since it would have 8 chances to bring it down (more than double the average amount of extra HP a zombie would usually get out of this), and 10 if the zombie didn't have a flak jacket. Besides, zombies should be tougher than survivors. Zombies have little need of most organs (which can be considered a "weak spot") . For survivors, well...I think you get the idea. --Reaper with no name 14:13, 17 October 2006 (BST)
4. Keep - Sounds good to me. It'll make survivors think twice before spending that last AP trying to get a zombie to 0 AP. DeathToSpam 14:54, 28 October 2006 (BST)
5. Keep - Reading the above comments/arguments has made me vote for keep. Plus, the idea just sounds like more fun. MTSkull 20:01, 28 October 2006 (BST)
6. Keep - This could become the zombie equivalent of Bodybuilding, making higher level zombies tougher than normal. It's an excellent idea. I would, however, make Bodybuilding no longer carry over when a survivor dies. ConfusedUs 04:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Keep - Sounds interesting. Should add more strategy to the game. UDvanger 18:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Keep - Really cool idea! Pchem 02:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Keep - Odds of this skill becoming overpowering are very small, however it has the potential to make things interesting. --Mikkle 07:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. Kill While I like the flavor of this, to me it has one major inherant flaw - HeadShot. In most movies, they learn pretty quickly that body shots, while capable of bio-mechanically stopping the creature don't kill it, but one shot to the head and they die. If I shoot a zombie in the head, why wouldn't he die? How could he possibly go into negative numbers?--John Blast 00:50, 17 October 2006 (BST)
   • Re The successful shot is a headshot, if the survivor has the skill. --Jon Pyre 01:11, 17 October 2006 (BST)
     • Re I think Karloth best says it. If you could make that change, I will absolutely change my vote to keep.--John Blast 19:23, 17 October 2006 (BST)
2. Kill - Though I like it, I'd definitely vote keep with one change: If Headshot negated the chance of going to negative HP (or gave a much smaller chance, i.e. 50% of KO) --Karloth vois ^RR 01:39, 17 October 2006 (BST)
3. Kill - Though it would work fine if headshot bypassed it. That can be said to be detrimental to new players or be elitist, but it's not any more so than a rotter or a zombie hunter is. I like the flavour and the fun a lot. --Burgan 02:08, 17 October 2006 (BST)
4. I like it, but I think Headshot should perhaps have an increased effect, relative to the skill (especially if you consider thant flak affects headshot). Maybe headshot "adds" 2 knockdown chances to the total?--Pesatyel 03:20, 17 October 2006 (BST)
   • Re What if headshot guaranteed a kill once the target gets to -10? So it'd protect you in case of that less than 5% chance it goes past -10. --Jon Pyre 04:01, 17 October 2006 (BST)
5. I think this fails the mutiply by a million test. With a dozen zombies this adds more than a minor buff to ransack. Even as a zombie I think that its too much. --Heavy Zed ^Socks! 05:43, 17 October 2006 (BST)
6. Kill - Way overpowered. Not needed and zombies already have the effect of standing up from death if they have the AP. Why bother keeping them standing? --Sekoku 14:16, 17 October 2006 (BST)
7. Kill - Like everyone else, I love the flavour, but it would do horrible things with ransack. It means every zombie would have a garaunteed +1 HP (as it "ignores" being brought to zero), a 75% chance of having +2hp, a 57% chance of having +3, and a 43% chance of +4 (continue ad infinitum). Or, an average of just over 3.5 bonus HP, or a pistol shot and a bit. Basically, you have this ass backwards. You don't need to make Zombies take more damage... what we need is a non-game breaking way to make damage to Survivors more realistic. As in, the current 8 shotguns to the chest before it has any impact method is perfect for zombies... it's that this miraculous, innately zombieish ability also applies to survivors. So don't buff Zombie Damage Soak... Nerf Human Damage Soak. --Gene Splicer 18:21, 17 October 2006 (BST)
   • Re In this system it skips 0 entirely. It goes straight to 1 from -1, and risks getting knocked down. 0 would just be your health when knocked down. So no guaranteed point. --Jon Pyre 19:44, 17 October 2006 (BST)
     • Re Fair enough... subtract one from my above numbers. But the rest of my points still stand --Gene Splicer 09:47, 18 October 2006 (BST)
       

Spam/Dupe Votes

1. Spam - Overpowered. Your mathematics of probability are wrong. When the HP are gone, the zombie should die. (Plus, this is your second suggestion in a single day, which breaks rule 12.) --Funt Solo 00:33, 17 October 2006 (BST)
   • Re Where is my mistakes? The odds of surviving to -1 are (.75). Odds of surviving to -2 are (.75 x .75) which equals (.56). And you're right, I accidentally submitted this a little early because the wiki's time doesn't correspond to time where I am. Hell, I was all of seventeen minutes early. This was the next day for me. If anyone really objects I'll withdraw the suggestion and put it up exactly the same with a new timestamp.--Jon Pyre 01:07, 17 October 2006 (BST)

   Re - What this actually does is provide approximately one fifth of all the zombies in the game with an extra 5HP, which I think is overpowered. Potentially, any given zombie is unkillable - survivors are being actively punished for managing their attack in such a way as to kill the enemy. (Probabilities go (rounded) 56, 42, 32, 24, 18, 13, 10, 8...) --Funt Solo 09:29, 17 October 2006 (BST)

2. Spam - Again, overpowered. Besides, 50 health = 10 bullets = round after round into a zombie without them dying. -Mark 00:47, 17 October 2006 (BST)
   • Re Odds of it getting to -15 are about 1%. Odds of it getting to -50 are microscopic. This really isn't that overpowered. It'll come out to 2 or 3 extra hp most of the time. It only seems overpowered, the same way the lottery seems like a guaranteed get-rich scheme. --Jon Pyre 01:10, 17 October 2006 (BST)

   Re - That is not what I said. I said that with the health going from +50 to 0 still reflects pumping rounds of lead into a zombie. -Mark 15:27, 17 October 2006 (BST)

3. Spam - This suggestion should Burn, I HATE it.--Canuhearmenow ^Hunt! 00:49, 17 October 2006 (BST)
   • Re People in glass houses... --Jon Pyre 01:07, 17 October 2006 (BST)
4. The ticker - Watch out Canuhearmenow, all the caps lock is bad for the ticker. But serioulsy, this is way over powered. --Officer Johnieo 01:09, 17 October 2006 (BST)
5. Spam- Way overpowered. I see where your coming from, but the fact that they are already invincible (to an extent) makes this completely unnecessary.--Grigori 01:13, 17 October 2006 (BST)
   • Re I can understand someone thinking it's overpowered, though it really seems stronger than it is. I just wish the Spam vote hadn't completely taken over the place of the kill vote. Maybe we should just get rid of kill since almost nobody seems to use it anymore. --Jon Pyre 01:17, 17 October 2006 (BST)
6. This suggestion is full of crap. Next suggestion... --Axe Hack 02:00, 17 October 2006 (BST)
7. Spam - Overpowering, same as above.--Mr yawn 15:55, 17 October 2006 (BST)
8. >:-[ (Whatever an angry face looks like) I started reading this and I thought well it could be interesting making it more sacry but I pictured auto attacks which this thankfully didn't have. But zombies with minus health? Unfair, unbalance and bloody fucked up. This can't be saved. --Marie^{The Grove} 15:58, 17 October 2006 (BST)

---