Suggestions/20th-Dec-2005

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

20th December, 2005

VOTING ENDS: 3rd-Jan-2006

Blood Lust

Timestamp: 00:23, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This skill would be under Digestion. A zombie with this skill becomes so crazed for flesh that the scent of blood drives it into a frenzy.

With this skill, successful attacks on a survivor cost 0 AP. It's already tougher to HIT someone as a zombie than it is as a human. This has a very low chance of abuse.

Misses and any other movement still have the same AP cost, this would just mean that a successful attack on a Human makes your zombie frenzied and less prone to fatigue.

Votes

  • Kill - No free actions. --Dickie Fux 00:39, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Like dropping items? -- Amazing 02:27, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'd call this just too powerful, really. It's a neat thought, but the numbers are too high. --Drakkenmaw 00:41, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Innate Class Abilities handles it better.Mikm 00:59, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -read the Damage/AP ratios, Zombies have plenty of bite already in the to hit or the damage department. What they might (note that; might, I'm not even sure about that) need is some skills that gets them in the position with more AP to use on their attacks, but their actual combat skills are fine--Vista 01:16, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill - make this be the default state for every newbie zombie whitout Vigour Mortis (or Neck Lurch), not a skill. Once the zombie buys Vigour Mortis this hability is lost, and sucessfull attack will cost 1 AP as normal. --Hagnat 01:33, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If it was just a chance of the attack not costing AP, maybe I could get behind this. As-is, no. -CWD 01:34, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill No way, this gives zombies way too much AP late game. This would let them kill way too many people in a siege. Multiply by a billion. --Zaruthustra 01:46, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Hooray for Warcraft! --ThunderJoe 02:08, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Never played it. No clue what you mean. -- Amazing 02:27, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I want a skill that allows me to fire shotgun shells without spending ammunition. --Jon Pyre 02:18, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Totally unrelated. Zombies don't have ammo. Now if you had said 'fire a shotgun without AP' I'd just tell you a Shotgun has a high damage amount and can be honed to high success rate. ;) -- Amazing 02:27, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Was this actually a serious suggestion, or something aimed at making the game unbalanced in the opposite direction? Rhialto 07:09, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm sorry, so you want zombies to be able to attack potentially an infinite number of times per day? Uh, no. Bentley Foss 18:07, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't Give It Away.--The General 20:03, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • RE: - To all, with the current Zombie situation (IE: The feeling that they are woefully underpowered) I figured I'd propose something that could theoretically put them on a closer level to Survivors in terms of killpower. I guess this wasn't the way to go about it. -- Amazing 06:44, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Zombies need all the help they can get. --Horje 18:25, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Wait woot? Every succesfull attack doesn't take any AP? Talking about overpowered! --Father Gregoriy 17:04, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Triage

Timestamp: 02:31, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Suvivors, Doctors
Description: Isn't it annoying when you're at 49 health and there's no way to heal yourself save to use an entire first aid kit? This subskill of First Aid would be an answer to that. If a suvivor with Triage uses a first-aid kit to heal an injured suvivor that is no more than 1hp below their max health the first-aid kit is not expended. The logical "real-world" explanation behind this would be that the doctor didn't take anything considerable from the kit to heal the suvivor, probably just a tiny drop of anti-bacterial cream. It would still cost 1 AP and would not work if the suvivor did not have a first-aid kit in their inventory. If the extent of injury is greater than 1hp a first-aid kit is used up, even if they're only down 2hp. I don't think this would be overpowering since any lone attack a zombie could inflict would be greater than 1hp and not curable by this skill. This would just be a worthwhile utility skill worth picking up at higher levels.

Votes

  • Kill - Its called beer. Edit: It still heals one hp and is already in the game. - --Fullemtaled 02:35, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Beer is more of a flavor item (no pun intended) than any sort of useful thing. --Jon Pyre 02:58, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Just suck it up and use your First Aid Kit, or wait until you've taken more damage. One HP is not a big deal at all. Bentley Foss 04:04, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - i've gotten much XP for my characters from healing people with FAK's that were at 49 (respectively) hp and nobody else wanted to "waste" their FAK's healing. i have to vote kill because it would cut off a valuable XP source from me...(as everyone with a FAK would just heal the person and not leave them for me to clean up) :) --Firemanstan 04:39, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - That opportunity cost decision is part of the game. Rhialto 07:10, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Faks are so abundant that this solves a problem which just isn't there--Vista 11:09, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - 49 HP? Drink some beer! --Daxx 11:47, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's really a solution looking for a problem.--The General 20:09, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Unnecessary. Just down a Bud and you're good to go. Or wait until you get more damage. --Coreyo 01:26, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Headshot Mach 2.0

Timestamp: 00:23, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill Change
Scope: All
Description: With all the furor over the headshots - which I personally support ambigious and doesn't read properly, serves me right for writing this so late - I don't like the headshots, I support the furor - perhaps it's time to change the mechanics a little.

What I see as justification for the headshot are the large amounts of human players who complain about zombie raids. Which is fine - while sitting around in a house chatting and clicking the "search" button isn't my cup of tea, I'm sure there's enough MUSHers out there to justify some sort of democratic action on their behalf.

So how about, instead of nerfing zombies, change headshot as follows:

After being shot in the head, the poor zombie is dazed, confused, and what one might call "operating on punch-drunk principles". He loses touch with his body almost immediately (ie, the zombie player sees the "you are dead" message instantly - nothing changes). However, while in this trance-like state, unbeknownst to his Puppetmaster (ie, the player) the zombie still wanders lifelessly aboutt he city streets, as the call of the undead still resonates somewhere in the remaining decaying carbon byproducts.

When the player stands up - at the typical AP cost before the latest change - he finds himself in a new part of Malton, no further than X blocks from where he was killed, where X is a number between 25-50 (this should be discussed). X serves as a constraint to make it fair to the zombies and to victims of PK - so, theoretically, a headshot zombie could show up in the vicinity again, but he would have a severe AP deficit - and in the case of a PK using the headshot at a revival clinic, this distance limit will limit the moan and gripe effect).

Now 10 zombies attacking a chat refugee den will sooner or later thin out, and, similar to a combat situation, will have to regroup before going for round two on whatever location they were mass-attacking. The survivors at said location can make use of this extra time to

So as a recap - headshot:

-will no longer nerf the zombie's AP
-will no longer nerf the zombie's XP
-will teleport the victim to a random place within a certain radius.
-will actually work to thin out a horde
-won't cause anybody's numbers to decrease in any way, beyond the "transparent" AP cost of going back to the original building, should the zombie player so choose.

Just a suggestion, as one might surmise from this being on the "suggestion" page.

Votes

  • Keep - Author's bias --DirkDirkly 02:43, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Why let zombie players follow any sort of strategy at all? We could just replace them with teleporting auto-attack NPCs. --Jon Pyre 02:54, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Good point. Maybe we should up the finding percentage for items to something like 75% as well, and give each item different classes and each class different bonuses for various player classes and include megaton zombie-seeking bombs that can completely irridate the entirity of Malton, killing all zombie characters while sparing human players (but, to make it fair, require an extra 100XP to research!!), so human players are placated? I could see this going over real well as the next big change.--DirkDirkly 03:11, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I am strongly in favor of teleportation as an alternative to XP/AP loss. Pretty much anything would be an improvement, and teleportation would actually give a new type of tactical advantage to survivors without making zombies scared of death. --Graaaaaaagh 03:17, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This would really hurt zombie meta-gaming, which is the only thing that's kept the zombies interesting the last few months. --Dickie Fux 03:27, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - "Zombie meta gaming" being...? Remember, all affected zombies would be able to get back to the seige within a day or so - 25 to 50 blocks translating to half a day to two days, depending on whether the zombie has free running and ankle-grab or not.
  • Keep - Well, I was fine with these before. I think that RIGHT NOW is a bad time for it though. --Shadowstar 03:38, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - great, why not just remove zombies from the game all together, while you are at it?Edit: Ya, and if yorus (sic) is implimented (sic) there won't be a point, we will be being teleported everywhere. There are more people with head shot then there are zombies! - --Fullemtaled 03:40, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - So wait, you think this is worse than having 35AP in a day, with a town filled with humans who require about 25AP apiece to kill (assuming you have your claws at 50%/3HP)? What new and exotic hallucinogens have you been huffing? At least with this change, zombie players are more in control of their characters than they would be otherwise. EDIT: You say "we" as if I'm not a zombie player. It makes me wonder if you actually read this suggestion, or merely skimmed through it to get the buzzwords and general gist of it. I, as a zombie player, would prefer the chance to choose whether it's better to continue attacking some mall or to further explore my surroundings in the quest for decent hambargarz--DirkDirkly 03:47, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I can see zeds complaining about this proposed version (if implemented) even more vehemently than the current version of Headshot. 25-50 AP spent to rejoin your horde after standing up, as opposed to the current 5 additional AP to stand up. --VoidDragon 03:42, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - But what of wandering solo zombies? The 25-50 AP you spend is a choice, and it is up to the player to decide whether it's worth wasting the day to keep gangbanging a hambargar hutt, or whether his or her personal pursuits are more rewarding. Spending extra AP just to wake up isn't a choice, and leads to a powerless feeling within the zombie playing experience.--DirkDirkly 03:47, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep First, will all the Zombie purists stop whining? Between syringes, barricades and headshots there isn't a half-way effective human tactic that the horde doesn't want removed from the game. Now personally, as someone who plays BOTH sides, I think that this is a good alternative to the other options for headshot (AP drain / XP drain) as it will give the humans more of a sense of accomplishment without reducing zombie skill progression or play time. After all the purpose of headshot is to give zombies something to worry about, in the same way as survivors have to worry about being killed. The only thing the zombies would lose is some effectiveness during sieges, of which they have lost a total of one during the course of the entire game. ---Rolland CW 05:39 Dec 20 GMT
  • Keep - But I'd make the maximum distance from the origin point 1 block per hour (or part thereof) since the zombie was headshot. That time-related wandering reflects the zombie wandering dazed better than a flat random distance. The original radius is much too large - its about twice what a typical survivor would travel in that time period. Rhialto 07:19, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Let's just see how the new headshot effects the game, shall we? It's been a day since the new implementation, and you already complain again? Falk 10:00, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Teleporting us? How can that be expalined RP wise? It still nerfs our AP, it just does it a different way. --Grim s 10:44, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill First you tell us that we aren't playing right and we need to horde up, and now you want to make that impossible? The only thing that is keeping this game even remotely fun for me is being part of the RRF. If something like this were implemented hordes would no longer exist, friends could no longer play together, the last little bit of fun would be gone.Kashara 10:53, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I can see 'some' merit to this, but it's way to extreme... If you are not on a forum and are trying to run in a group you'd have to spend a lot of time each day trying to find each other again. This would decrease the 'social' aspect of zombies and I think it is clear that a lot of zombies right now are still here because they can run together. --Paddy Fitzgerald 11:06, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Golly, you know what's wrong with this game? Zombies are able to gather together and operate in hordes! Let's scatter them randomly to the wind at all times, every day. Yeah. That would really make them want to keep playing. The day this game makes any of my characters move more than one block, period, ever, for any purpose, against my will is the day I am done with it forever. --Elderdan 11:09, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Besides the fact that it is still way, way too early to see the effect of the new headshot. (besides I'm getting tired of the 35AP line, after level 2 it should be already back up to 44 AP. Level 4 at the most) 25 blocks away from your starting point? way, way too much. Kill the horde in front of you and you've got two days too regenerate before they can launch an assault again. Sieges would become a thing of the past. ferals would be uneffected but they just aren't a treath to survivors anyway. This suggestion makes headshot more powerful and game unbalancing then the original version which took away all XP--Vista 11:28, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I just don't like it. --Daxx 11:48, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Quit whining about headshot. It no longer drains XP--now everybody's in an uproar over a measly 5 AP. That is 5 AP for a COMPLETE HEAL, you know. Just leave Headshot alone! Bentley Foss 18:08, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Leave headshot alone for a while. If this change turns out to be terrible then resubmit this suggestion and I will vote keep but at the moment I think we should wait and see how this affects the game.--The General 20:17, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A) the idea isn't bad, but the distance is WAY too high. 25-50 blocks (ignoring the fact that the zombie would have to run like the flash for this to make any sense) would make Zombie hording virtually impossible. B)Give the new headshot a chance. C) There is no C. --Terrgn33u 01:57, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

You got Dumped!!

Timestamp: 03:45, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Corpse's
Description: When your body is dumped and you are offline you get the message "Your body was removed from the building by X" or if people think it should be anonymous It could be "Your body was removed from the building"

Votes

  • Keep - Maker's vote --Lord Evans 03:45, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - is this really needed? If there's a need for it, I'll change my vote... why would you need this though? --Shadowstar 03:50, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - What exactly is the point of this? If someone is killed in a house, and wakes up outside that house, I figure they could put two and two together and realize they've been dumped. In the case of the first suggestion, it only encourages petty grudges and annoying personal bickering. In the case of the second, it seems to be more a cosmetic change than anything else, and seeing as though there's some serious class imbalance going on, wouldn't it pay to focus on more important matters? (also, the apostrophe (') is never to be used to designate plurals. Weren't you listening in middle school? :-))--DirkDirkly 03:53, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - why? i'm in agreement with Shadowstar. i don't understand why you are proposing this... but if you give a valid reason (that i might just be missing), i may change my vote. --Firemanstan 04:49, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I think this is kind of implied when you wake up outside the building you were in... dead. --Zaruthustra 05:46, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There's no logical reason you'd know who it was, and no particular reason for the message otherwise. Rhialto 07:14, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If you knew who dumped you, wouldn't you be able to follow them with Scent Trail? I suppose it would be a bit wierd to know who dumped you while you were dead, but you perfectly remember who killed you as a zombie too... so I'll chalk that up to remembering the scent more than anything. --Zarquon 07:53, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Pointless, and the person who dumps my rotting corpse out of the building isn't always the person who killed me. --WibbleBRAINS 10:56, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I agree with shadowstar and Firemanstan, why propose this? Right now it seems pointless--Vista 11:33, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You're dead. Why would you know you've been dumped aside from waking up in the street? --Daxx 11:49, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It is kind of obvious if your body has been dumped outside a building. Plus, the title is ridiculous.--The General 20:21, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Whats the point?--Spellbinder 23:45, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This sounds cool. But how about a message like "Your eyes open and you look around. Something is different". --Horje 18:27, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Chalk

Timestamp: 06:33, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Item
Scope: Survivors, Zombies indirectly
Description: Chalk is found in schools. With it you can draw on the ground, but within the confines of a large pre-set list of images within a drop-down. Chalk would have the same or lesser amount of uses as a spray can and use the same AP.

Someone has drawn a chalk outline of a corpse on the sidewalk.

Votes

  • Kill - I just don't see the use for this. — g026r 07:04, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - So its a spray can only.... not. We don't need two tags. --Zaruthustra 07:05, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -I'd amend that statement "We don't need two tags*." (*Amendment: except for zombies spreading gore around) --Contaminated 09:36, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Agree with Contaminated --Shadowstar 11:01, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Agree with Contaminated and shadowstar--Vista 11:35, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Agree with Contaminated and shadowstar and Vista --Zeek 18:07, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - We don't need two tags, though gore-spreading would be good. --DirkDirkly 18:11, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Finding New Ways To Do Old Things Is Bad.--The General 20:27, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This would be less annoying that grafitti, assuming there would be nothing stupid in the drop down, but I don't really see a need for it. --Dickie Fux 20:41, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Killing spree. Thank you General for that linkage--Spellbinder 23:44, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Cholera

Timestamp: 07:29, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Action Change
Scope: Humans
Description: As of right now there are 17,000+ active corpses in the game. In reality this would cause a disease epidemic among the living. As survivors do not eat or drink in the course of the game, I think we could add this reality by adding a 20% chance of becoming infected when survivors dump bodies. The infection would work along the same lines as the zombie bite infection. Think of survivors, wounded or otherwise, with cuts, scrapes, lacerations, etc. handling dead bodies with infected fluids seeping out of everywhere.

The game has become a little too easy for the humans, I think this could help to address the imbalances in the game, and make things a little bit more tense for humans

Note If you agree with this suggestion, but not the percentage I suggested, then plese vote keep and add your preferred percentage in the comment. I can easily change this later

Votes

  • Keep - I'd go along with this. Possibly have a check in case one of the bodies has the infected wounds skill, but given that the disease is supposedly permeating the environment, that shouldn't really be necessary. I'd make the chance vary by the number of bodies dumped, to encourage rapid dumping (and more APs spent). Rhialto 08:57, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Kill - Not an overly bad idea, so it's keep for now until someone persuades me otherwise. Okay, Vista convinced me. --Daxx 11:50, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - True, survivors have it easy right now. But that is because zombie percentages are too low. In order to let the humans sweat a little, the zombie ranks should swell back to 50% or higher. Do that by making zombies more fun to play. You hurt the survivors with an action they must perform. that is just adding grief. It doesn't do enough damage to change the dynamic of a siege. It doesn't add anything to the zombies. so why pester the survivors? It just makes dumping the bodies annoying. And bringing annoying features into a game never helps. New fun features for the zombies does.--Vista 11:53, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I understand your points Vista, and I agree that the most important changes that the game needs are for zombies to be more fun, but I also think the game would be more fun (or at least more interesting) if survivors were forced to work just a little bit harder to survive. This is a minor change, intended to add some more realism and not to grief humans. Personally I like that fact that Malton is chaotic, this is a zombie apocalypse and there are and should be many ways to die. I think this would add a little bit of tension, and perhaps a little bit more of a sense of accomplishment to fall asleep still breathing at the end of the day. --CPQD 16:23, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies do not need free (as in, no AP expenditure on the zombies' behalf) ways of harming survivors. Bentley Foss 18:10, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I didn't mean this to be a zombie post-post mortem attack. I concieved this as more of a survivor vs. the elements idea. I only attached it to dump bodies as a way to quickly and easily incorporate it.--CPQD 19:47, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This imbalance is created a new trend of creating overpowered zed skills to compensate instead of trying to balance them. This would just make people less inclined to dump bodies, as well as being irritating as hell. --Zaruthustra 18:20, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill As Vista said, dumping bodies is a requirement, and having survivors have a chance to get hurt while doing something they HAVE to do griefs them horribly. This is like having a chance of them getting infected while barricading, or while fighting, or healing others. They seem different, but they're related in the fact that they're all required to do in some way, shape, or form! If it was with something survivors could choose not to do, such as using a cell phone, it wouldn't be as big a deal, although many still won't really like the idea of doing something, then suddently getting infected. --Volke 22:05, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I echo the above. It would be the same as having a random change the the building would colaspe and kill you while searching for items. --Terrgn33u 02:03, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Horror (Necrotherium Revision)

Timestamp: 08:36, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Class
Scope: Zombies, Game
Description: I was very pleased to see that many people supported my Necrotherium suggestion. With their comments in mind, here is a revision of that idea—hopefully it is complete and balanced (and fun!) enough to warrant acceptance. You can find the original suggestion here.

The Horror, the Horror

The zombie germ has mutated.

During the several months of the Malton Quarantine, the virus has run virtually unchecked through thousands of subjects. As many of the NecroTech scientists expected (and as a certain few hoped), the repeated cycle of infection and revivification has reshaped the genetic profile the disease. Reports have come in about zombies reacting violently to syringes, and several dedicated scientists have vanished without a trace. Buildings have begun to exhibit weird markings, as if rent by monstrous claws. The streets are strangely empty of corpse and man.

In the wasteland that is Malton, a thunderous bellow echoes through the fog. Something terrible this way comes.

Transformation

Any Brain Rot zombie stuck with a revivification syringe has a 1 in 200 chance of transforming into a Horror. The change is instantaneous, though the zombie loses all its HP and must Stand Up to play as a Horror. There will be a cap on the number of Horrors that may exist at one time; I say 20 is a fair cap. A transformed zombie waiting to Stand Up as a Horror still counts as one. If the zombie goes inactive before it can Stand Up, it loses the Horror "tag" and becomes a regular corpse (though still a zombie).

General Mechanics & Combat

The Horror has lost much of its sensory capability during the transformation, and as such cannot distinguish between survivor and zombie——all players are described as "Meatsack" or some such thing. For example, the area description would read "There is a Meatsack here" or "There are many Meatsacks here" with no HP counts or anything else. It's important that numbers have no definition to the Horror player. When attacking, there will be no dropdown list, just an ATTACK option. All Meatsacks net the same amount of XP, regardless of whether they are Survivor or Zombie. Other players will only see it as "Horror", since it has mutated beyond recognition. Also, the Horror would have little perception of its environment——all locations would be seen as "A building" or "An open space". These rules prevent the Horror player from coordinating with other players, such as a zombie horde. The Horror must be on its own.

Because of its increased mass, the Horror a maximum of 250 HP. It is immune to infection, and revivification, and cannot be healed by FAKs, or use Digestion or items (including any flak jacket defense). When attacking, the Horror attempts to hit three different targets (one for each claw and one for jaws), meaning that each time a Horror attacks, three different players may be injured. If the Horror attacks just one player, it can only do one limb's worth of damage (randomly chosen, though only a Bite or a Claw attack).

For example, a lvl 1 Horror enters a street containing six Meatsacks A-F. It attacks. This is what happens in one turn (assuming the Horror connects each time). Phrases in italics will not show up in-game.

  • You attack a Meatsack (A) for 2 damage (A Horror attacked you for 2 damage)
  • You attack a Meatsack (B) for 2 damage (A Horror attacked you for 2 damage)
  • You attack a Meatsack (C) for 4 damage (A Horror attacked you for 4 damage)

If the Horror attacks again, it will target these same three Meatsacks over and over until they die or leave the block. Then it will go for Meatsack D, E, and so on. The order of the Meatsacks is randomly determined when the Horror enters the block (or is determined the same way zombies are stacked).

The hit percentages and damage caused by these attacks are carried over from the skills of the original zombie. If a Horror is killed, it loses all its XP and degenerates back into a corpse, becoming a regular zombie again. CLARIFICATION: The zombie retains the skills it gained as a Horror but is unable to use them until it is transformed again (unlikely). A non-Horror player that kills one receives 3x the XP it would have gained from a regular enemy kill. OR, if everyone feels it is more fair (and it isn't hell to program), possibly the player might retain (or receive, after losing all XP) a certain amount of XP for every Horror skill it gained. That would reward the player for being a good Horror but not turn the whole thing into an XP farm.

Buildings

The Horror cannot enter most buildings, as its bulk keeps it from using all but the largest of entrances. It is unable to attack the barricades of any building it cannot enter. A random sample of 1/5 to 1/6 of all the buildings in Malton will receive an extra programming tag designating that a Horror may enter that building. Quadrants of Malls and Mansions will be consider separate buildings in this instance——as such it may be the case that a Horror can enter the North-Eastern block of a Mall but not the North-Western one. Once a Horror comes across such a building, the flavor text lets it know this is so. Doors have absolutely no effect of the Horror, and the building is designated "wide-open" after it enters. If the building it wants to enter is barricaded, it attacks the barricades with the same success rate as a survivor with a crowbar and causes them to collapse by 2 units instead of 1 (update).

Clash of the Titans

The sole exception to these rules is the presence of another Horror. Since the Horror is essentially a beast, it is extremely territorial and will defend its turf against others of its kind. As such, it is able to distinguish other Horrors from Meatsacks, and is given a dropdown list when encountering one (or more). When a Horror attacks another, all of its attacks are employed (meaning it attacks the single enemy Horror with all of its Claw, Bite, and Tentacle attacks). It may attack only one Horror at a time. If Horror A kills Horror B, and the B has 2 or more skills that the A does not have, the A gains 2 of these skills in lieu of the XP kill bonus. If B has no skills A doesn't have, A receives 3x the normal XP kill bonus.

Skills

The zombie skills that carry over into Horror play are:

  • Vigour Mortis Tree
  • Lurching Gait Tree

All other skills have no effect until the Horror becomes a zombie again.

Once a zombie becomes a Horror, it loses access to the old Zombie skill set (like when being revivified into a survivor) but gains the new Horror skill set (all skills in italics are not necessary and may be subject to removal or tweaking—that is, they're just ideas and not set in stone, kids). Each of the following skills costs 175 XP (or whatever Kevan thinks is fair):


PREDATION TREE

  • Sprout Tentacle: Gains a fourth simultaneous attack, treated as "Tentacle", dealing 2 DMG with 30% to hit.
    • Extra Mouth: Gains a second Bite attack.
    • Extra Tentacle: Gains a second Tentacle attack.
      • Ravening Maw: Bite attacks deal an extra 2 damage.
      • Deformed Appendages: Claw and Tentacle attacks deal an extra 1 damage.


METASTASIS TREE

  • Reconstructive Tissue: Player regains 3 Hit Points every half hour.
    • Terrible Growth: Player has a maximum of 275 Hit points instead of 250.
      • Abominable Growth: Player has a maximum of 300 Hit Points instead of 275.


SHELTER TREE

  • Lair Sense: Player can identify buildings capable of Horror-entry on the mini-map.
    • Destructive Purpose: Successful attacks on barricades cause them to collapse by 3 units instead of 2.


PRUNED SKILLS

  • Predation: Whenever the Player deals Bite damage, it gains HP equal to the damage dealt.


A Horror will also have the option to roar, which would be treated in the same way as a flare ("You hear a terrible bellow x blocks north y blocks west"). Possibly it might roar during its "birth" and "death" for effect.

In Conclusion

I've listened to your suggestions and tried to take the Horror/Necro in a direction that makes things fun and fair. I can provide screenshots if the mechanics need clarification. Let me hear it, people! (ALSO, I'm getting a warning that this page is about 50kb too large——Should I split this suggestion into segments?) — Bartle 08:36, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

UPDATES

  • Predation skill pruned due to RSquared's disgust, and I agree with him.
  • Attacks on barricades cause them to collapse by 2 units instead of 1.

Votes

  • Kill - the changes haven't addressed my original complaint against this thing. Horrors can't distinguish between targets, can't enter buildings, and the only targets likely to be found outdoors are zombies. You effectively turn a zombie into a super killing machine against its own side. Rhialto 08:55, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re — Except that they CAN enter buildings, only a limited number of them. - Bartle 09:11, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • So survivors would just crowd into the other buildings instead. Rhialto 09:20, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
        • Re — When the chances of encountering a Horror are 1/9269, do you really think Survivors are going to stay out of 1/5 of their Hospitals, PDs, Mobile Phone Masts, and NecroTech Buildings? Do you honestly believe that? — Bartle 09:26, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
          • Sure tehy will. It just means sleeping in the neighbouring building, and spending 2 extra APs to go in and out for the search. Distributed Defence is already an established survivor strategy which is in no way weakened and is 100% effective against the creatures described above. It's not even as if survivors would have to do something special they aren't doing anyway to counter these necrotheriums. Rhialto 09:53, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill it is unvoluntary, it doesn't fit the setting, it has unbalanced gameplay, etc, etc, etc. I'd vote humor I'd though you weren't serious--Vista 12:01, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's still a zed-slayer. I made some suggestions on the original's talk page on how I'd balance it...and if you're going to give it 250 HP, it shouldn't have a health-back bite. --RSquared 14:24, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - 1) It's not a zed-slayer, it's an anything-that-freaking-moves-slayer! Survivor, Zombie, Horror - if it moves, it's a target. 2) It's big, and has a lot of hit points - but what if ten or twenty survivors and/or zombies gang up on it? With maxed-out attack skills, they could conceivably take it down in ten minutes or less, so it does need some way to regain hitpoints. Maybe an auto-regenerate (although that might tax the server), maybe some form of digestion . . . but since FAKs don't work on a Horror, it needs a way to regain HP on its own. 3) This sort of thing would make me more likely to play as a brainrotted zombie - scratch that, as a zombie PERIOD. A chance to become a walking nightmare? Lemme at the Brainrot! --John Taggart 15:00, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I would love it if I logged on one day and found out I got to play as a giant monster for a few days. One addition that might work would be if survivors with Headshot got a note on their profile page if they killed one of these things; that would help bring some survivors in contact with it, and make the term "Zombie Hunter" more significant. --Dickie Fux 15:37, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I don't want to like it, but I do. --MaulMachine 10:47, 20 Dec 2005 (EST)
  • Keep - I frickin' love it, and I don't think I can emphasize on that enough. I'd like it to be more pro zombie than killing everyone though, especially as the balance stands now. Make it able to enter any building perhaps and able to identify and enter all big buildings at least. Also, it should get a better barricade breaking rate than that of a human with a crowbar. Or would that be too much? --Murgel 16:17, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Agree with Murgel. Jirtan 17:30, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I would love to have the Horor be more discriptive. I love the idea of an "undead T-rex" or a 10' 5" thing that looks like 2 organic cranes, and a buldozer. Note a tail would be beter than tenticals, at this point. Make all of the litle things o people more dangerous like body hair. --Mr NoName 17:39, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't like it at all. Not only would it be a hassle for poor Kevin to program, but it wouldn't do much for the game itself. --Hexedian 17:43, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I would love to play against one. I can just imagine 10 zombies and 10 survivors mobbing up on it or the common good. --Matson Jade 17:57, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I've actually warmed to the idea since it was first posted. However, there are too many defenses against this as it stands. First, twenty max is too few; increasing the maximum might allow for too many. Allow them to enter all larger-than-one-square buildings (malls, mansions, zoo, powerplant, forts) and, perhaps, buildings that should have very large doors (hospitals spring to mind) and that would be a step in the right direction, instead of the crapshoot "Well I'm walking around as a massive killing machine, I wonder if I can enter any of these buildings?". Do you permanently retain (though they become dormant) the Horror's skills? Also, I'd recommend leaving Bite and Digestion active--you've created identical skills with new names, and I prefer keeping things simple. Also, at least let the map remain colored (though the place names would be removed) for the horror--it'll help when stumbling across malls.Hmm...there may have been something else, but I'm not sure. Otherwise, keep up the work. Maybe revision #3 will work out. Bentley Foss 18:20, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re—1) Allow them to enter all malls and like buildings and the defensive capability of those buildings becomes nil. See #3. 2) I've taken care of the Digestion/Predation problem. 3) I don't think the buildings should be colored or have any recognizable features on the minimap because then the Horror just becomes a bunker buster—they run around breaking down Survivor fortresses and generally making it hell for those players. It's been stated before that even with no area names, a clever player can figure out where he is. That's bad enough. The purpose of this suggestion is FUN, not power. Bartle 09:03, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm looking forward to this getting incorporated into the game. --Horje 23:43, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - A very interesting idea, I'm wondering if a horror would have it's own profile description though? But that aside, even though I doubt this will make it into the game, I'd like to see it survive peer evaluation.--Homunculus 23:53, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm a dedicated human but I think this sounds like a damn cool idea. Keep this. --Coreyo 01:34, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Supper double plus good! The only thing that bothers me is losing all xp when killed... Seems like it would encourgage Horrors to sneak and ambush thier pray (not wanting to be killed by a horde) and for RP purposes the thing should probably charge headlong into anything that moved. Also I might have read this wong but whould it get a total of 6 attacks when leveled? Badass. --Terrgn33u 02:16, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re — The reason behind the "lose all XP" idea is that I don't want the player to commit Horror-suicide in order to utilize the ungodly amount of XP it gained. Possibly the player might retain (or receive, after losing all XP) a certain amount of XP for every Horror skill it gained. That would reward the player for being a good Horror but not turn the whole thing into an XP farm. Bartle 08:25, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - People people you don't get it... yes it's good if you have nothing else to spend and you get LUCKY into getting it. Yes, it is a good perspective and would be cool as you see in zombies stuff, things evolve, people blow it up, they leave the end :D... well anyways 2 things I see wrong with it... 1.) WHY would you want to BUILD skills if YOU HAVE A 1/200 CHANCE OF BEING 1!!! And they're would only be 20 means that it would be little chance for the much loved titans clash. and 2.) this is a LOW TECH game... meaning that this game wouldn't take as much as a complex game.... you know how many lines of information Kevan would have to retype if he had to type for 1/6 of the buildings that a Horror can't enter --Shadow213 04:01, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But allow it to enter more buildings and not lose it's XP when killed.--The General 09:18, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Interesting idea, but me no like. I believe it was Kevan's own argument that making something ultra powerful and ultra rare is not a good way to balance things. Also, this takes the game away from the zombie horror movie 'flavor' imho... if anything I'd like to see zombies roving in large hordes receive some kind of bonus to foster group mentality rather than having ~20 lone super powerful 'ultra-creatures.' --Phaserlight 18:11, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re—From what I understand, he was talking about weapons. And weapons without a number cap. Bartle 09:09, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - WE NEED MORE STUFF LIKE THIS! Sure, it's imbalanced, sure, it's rare, sure, only a few people will be able to... blah, blah, blah. Bottom line is that this provides a much needed "Holy shit!" aspect to Urban Dead. Slicer 01:57, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Definitely awesome. I liked the idea of the old suggestion though where you had to buy a skill (perhaps under brain rot) to be eligible for Horror-ification --Blobmorf 18:08, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re—I figure the easier it is for a low-level zombie to be a Horror, the better. That's why I thought Brain Rot should be the only requirement. —Bartle 09:03, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This suggestion is better than the old necrotherium. --Penance 17:29, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Imagine we're zombies/survivors at a regular siege, and all of a sudden one of these beasts rears up out of a pile of bodies? I'd soil my zombie pants.--WibbleBRAINS 17:40, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - While I can't imagine how much coding this would require, I am simply enamored with the idea of a scientist syringing a zed, only to have it mutate right in front of his eyes. Good times. Dr. Retsnimde 19:47, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - horribly unbalanced, doesn't fit with the genre. -Gtrmp 03:51, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - More fun is good. Just tweak it that it can enter ANY building. (easier to program anyway) I'd see it as the horror simply smashing aside walls/roofs and grabbing munchies. --Jinxed 10:36, 01 Jan 2006 (GMT+1)
  • Keep - I want to see this implemented so badly! I think about this alot. The only thing that needs to be changed, if anything, would be that zombies would get knocked dwn maybe (and always only need 1 ap to stand) so that horrors wouldn't wipe out all the zombies. Either that, or distinguishment between zombies and humans. Plus, it should maybe be a different skill than brain rot, ALTHOUGH that does seem the best possible choice out ot the existing skills. Maybe you would have to be a max level zombie?

Of course, IF this were implemented, esisting horrors wouldn't demote to zombies when a new zombie skill came out... Also, of the options listed, I think that horror skills should be kept, but not XP. Then, if the very very unlikely event occurs that somebody becomes a horror twice or more, they would be very powerful. To those voted kill because "this doesn't fit this game": This game evolves. It CHANGES. Look how much your whining has slowed updates. You like an XP farm? It's still 63% Survivors out there. Maybe this will attract more zombie players. Besides, zombies can already communicate. It isn't like resident evil, or dawn of the dead, or Hunter the reckoning. It isn't your personal fantasy. It evolves.To all those that voted kill: You're just afraid! -Tereseth 12:03, 02 Jan 2006 (GMT)

  • Keep - I like that it encourages Brain Rot. I also think each player should be limited to being a Horror only once every 2 weeks or so. All in all, sounds like a fun addition. --LtMile 15:15, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Revert Headshot

Timestamp: 09:01, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: balance change
Scope: Headshot skill
Description: Headshot has been changed. This has apparently upset a great many people. Now, I agree that the overall balance is still against zombies, but it is my opinion that this has helped the zombie cause overall. Along with the on strike crowd, I agree that additional changes are needed to make zombies fun.

Purely as a stop-gap measure, I'd like to guage the amount of support for a simple revert of the headshot skill. Whether or not you want this specific skill reverted, please assume that additional changes in other areas will be made to make zombies more playable when considering your vote.

Edit: Personally, I am abstaining from voting, but I would vote kill if I did. I put this suggestion in response to the significant number of players who have gone on strike, apparently in response to this change to headshot.

Votes

  • Kill Let's just see how the new headshot effects the game, shall we? I personally don't mind losing AP. I get them back. All it does is making the movement skills much more valuable. Falk 10:00, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Losing XP is meaningless if you have nothing to spend it on. Losing 10% of your daily APs is a big deal -fredrickson
  • Keep - I would rather the skill be removed entirely, but having it cripple 53% of the zombie playerbase rather than 19% is just stupid. LEAVE ZOMBIE AP ALONE! We are already losing the AP war because of free running and barricades. My suggestion to kevan is to spend some time lurking on some of the larger forums and see how the players actually feel about the skills, so he can get a better idea of how the game is balanced and the opinions of participants. --Grim s 10:37, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Cripple? Give me a frikkin' break. So a high level zombie spends 5AP less per day. Wasn't your whole thing that you wanted more people to play zombies? This is good for mid-level zombies who otherwise stagnate and probably leave the game, so in fact, you're probably going to see more high(er) level zombies now. Well, once you all stop striking, that is. I only think it needs a tweak against lower level starting zombies without ankle grab, because 16AP is too much. Please, Kevan, please do not revert headshot. --Shadowstar 11:11, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Let's just wait till we see how this change affects the game, shall we? --Daxx 11:51, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Lets wait how it turns out o.k. If the zombie count doesn't go up I'm for a change. If it DOES go up, I'm for mocking all the (high level) zombies who shout so loud now. we need the mid level zeds more then they think.--Vista 12:07, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The old one was broken, the new one is broken. --Unlife 13:18, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - New Headshot just needs to be adjusted so new zeds don't stand up at 15 AP. Perhaps a 10 AP for stand-up cap? --VoidDragon 14:55, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Old Headshot = griefer skill. New Headshot = griefer skill. I say we ditch Headshot altogether until an acceptable implementation is developed by the community. --John Taggart 15:10, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • THIS IS A BADLY WORDED QUESTION--Azzgunther 15:31, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT), and as such the results of this poll are meaningless. Please ask the question clearly, as right now people are voting both "kill" and "keep" when they mean that they want headshot REMOVED.
  • No, it isn't badly worded. I intentionally left no room for other alternatives. If neither appeals to you, abstain. If you really want to be picky, I might point out to you that EVERY vote is essentially structured as a simple yes/no, exactly like this one. Rhialto 22:45, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Oh, this is a brilliant one. Openly admitting that you're suggesting stopgap measures? Great plan. Read Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots and get back with us. Also: quit whining about headshot. It's more fair now that ever--at worst a zombie can POTENTIALLY miss out on 15 XP per day, instead of worrying about flat-out LOSING XP whenever they've been shot. "Waaah waaah waaaah, we spend 5 more AP for a complete heal!" Headshot is fine; leave it alone. Bentley Foss 18:23, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • I'm not the one 'whinning' about headshot. I'm abstaining, but didn't you notice how I said I would vote? I merely recognise that the strikers were willing to play under the old system, and it would be trivially easy to revert the code compared to writing all-new code to make HS do something else. Rhialto 22:45, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill First the hordes say that XP is more valuable than anything else, now they say that AP is more valuable than anything else? MAKE UP YOUR MINDS!!! I like this upgrade because I now no longer need to be a level 6 zombie forever! yes, I get 5 less AP than I did before unless I'm lucky, but I don't lose my XP, which means I can start levelling up again to get those skills I've been wanting, but have been unable to get since headshot took away all my XP! --Volke 20:28, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I don't want to go back to loosing all the xp I have. Darrik 21:12, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I think that changes need to be made, but, for the time being, losing AP is less bad than losing XP. You get AP back; you don't get the time spent on earning XP back. --Kanuri 21:16, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill The new Headshot is no worse than the old (not much better, either, mind you). The correct response would have been to REMOVE THE SKILL. This change doesn't fix the problem, reverting to the old version CERTAINLY doesn't fix the problem --Xaositect 21:17, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Keven shouldn't have changed it in the first place (he bowed to the will of the stupid majority) but if the man wants to change his game, then he damn well has the right to change his game--Spellbinder 23:43, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Zombies are supposed to be slower than humans (i.e. less AP). Have any of these strikers actually seen a zombie movie? Anyway, without headshot, attacking any zombie who has Ankle Grab is purely for XP - it accomplishes absolutely nothing in game terms. unless 01:36, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, because Headshot needs to be fixed, not rolled back to the old, differently broken version. -Gtrmp 02:22, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't Suggest Stopgap Measures and If It's A Bad Idea Don't Post It.--The General 09:25, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Insatiable hunger

Timestamp: 15:02, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Essentially a tweak of Digestion, this skill would allow Zombies to increase their current HP value by 30% above the 50HP or 60HP limit by feasting on other survivors or zombies, however once killed their HP limit would revert to the original value, so when they stand they remain at 50/60HP until they feast again.

So, for example, a zombie with a base HP value of 50 could effectively increase it to 65HP and with the addition of bodybuilding 78HP.

Votes

  • Keep - I like the sound of this idea. It would be excellent for sieges, if you're low on health, then bite a survivor for some HP boost. --Matson Jade 17:59, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No, sorry. Fighting zombies who are Digesting you at the same time you're shooting them is quite hard enough already. Add a flak jacket into the mix, and even with shotguns, one has to get lucky to kill the thing. Bentley Foss 18:25, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - HP Overdrive anybody? This makes zombies too big with no real setbacks, sorry. --Zaruthustra 18:27, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Thanks for the comments, first I don't think that an 18HP increase can be described as HP overdrive, second even a flak jacket wearing zombie with 78HP can be taken down in 15AP by a shotgunning survivor and third don't you want zombies to offer some threat? Increasing max HP is one way of achieving it --Braindamage 19:00, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Do you killers realize that due to it being like digestion you would have to bite the survivors to get an increase? With a 30% chance of 4 extra hp you can't call then overpowered. --Qwako 20:11, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill It says "zombies" up there, so that means you can ZK each other to gain the extra HP! Its not fair that zombies should get to have more HP, I mean, while dead, they're still only human, they just push the body to its limits! Zombies need to be more interesting to play, not totally beefed up! --Volke 20:31, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But I'd make it so HP above your base upper limit can only be gained by eating the flesh of the living, not z-z love bites. Rhialto 22:47, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Increasing max HP is a stopgap measure, as soon as the zombie population reaches normal levels again this would be way to powerful. zombies don't need to become better fighters, they need to be more fun RP playing. This doesn't do that. (btw you'd have to spend quite some Ap to find enough shotguns to fire 15 times, you have to count that too Braindamage)--Vista 01:14, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I think you mean IF the zombie population ever reaches parity, look we can argue about roleplay but the main reason people have stopped playing zombies is because they are so weak, At the moment it takes as many AP to ZK as it does to PK, this is at odds with the mythos, zombies should be able to take more punishment than the living. Sure it takes alot of AP to find ammo, big deal, it takes alot of AP to break barricades and then on average between 30 to 40 to kill one survivor for a zombie, so unless a zombie metagames it's almost impossible to get kills. How difficult is it for a single survivor to kill a zombie? --Braindamage 13:43, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But I'd make it so HP above your base upper limit can only be gained by eating the flesh of the living, not z-z love bites. (yes; blatantly copied from Rhialto)Jinxed 10:42, 01 Jan 2006 (GMT+1)
  • Keep - Zombies always are shown as being all tough in the movies. This would be a good step toward representing that. - Tereseth 12:00, 02 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Robber

Timestamp: 15:04, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Class
Scope: Survivors
Description: The robber was a thief before the zombie ourbreak. He (I'll go with "he" for simplicity) is a master of the streets. To represent this, he only needs 75 XP for Civilian skills. He needs 150 XP for all Scientist skills, which both balances the bonus and represents his probable lack of formal education. He starts with a crowbar and Free Running. (That can be tweaked if a better set is suggested).

Votes

  • Kill - The game does not need every single possible starting skill/equipment combination. This is only marginally different from a Scout, at best. Bentley Foss 18:26, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - See the "Convivct" Suggestion in the peer reviewed. This is very similar to it Mattiator 20:48, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Why? what does it add? a robber is a civilian with an unorthodox job. Choose a civilian (or a scout, if you really want free running), put a nice flavor text in the description box, and roleplay it.--Vista 01:20, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill He just seems like a civy scout.... And the entire point of civilian classes is that they're supposed to be versatile. You really gotta sell new classes, and this aint cuttin it. --Zaruthustra 02:28, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - A pointless subclass of civilian. Howzabout civilian lawyers, or traffic wardens, or estate agents? I wouldn't mind eating a few of them ;-) --WibbleBRAINS 16:29, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Destructible Melee Weapons

And dupe it is (and heavily rejected, it seems). Thanks to Zaruthustra for locating the original. --Brizth 20:16, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Brain Rot Modification

Timestamp: 20:12, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: balance change, improvement
Scope: Zombie skill: Brain Rot
Description: Zombies are underrepresented in this game, and this suggestion is made in an attempt to make playing a zombie "More Fun" and attract more players. I suggest that we give the Brain Rot skill the ability to have a percentage chance to not be effected by the "Head Shot" skill. Even with the recent changes to Head Shot, it is still a pain to many zombies, especially since so many survivors have this skill now, and since Head Shot is always on and does not have any percentage chance to miss. If you feel this may make the skill Brain Rot overpowered, or just think that too many abilities are tied to one skill, then I would propose removing the ability to make DNA scanning more difficult from the Brain Rot skill. That ability does not really help the zombie, and only serves to make things more difficult for scientist survivors - in such a way, almost borders on "griefing".

In play, when this skill successfully avoids a Head Shot AP penalty, the survivor would see the familiar "Your head Shot dents a hollow skull" message or something similar, while the zombie would see the message "You were killed by a Head Shot, but luckilly it didn't hit anything important".

Votes

  • Keep - Author vote. --Reverend Loki 20:12, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Jirtan 20:50, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Don't make skills just to negate skills in the game. Headshot already got overhauled. Also I'm almost certain this is a dupe of things done a bunch of times, but I'm not going to go look for it. --Zaruthustra 21:48, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE - Isn't that also the point of flak jackets, to partially negate gun shots? A percentage chance makes this a partial counter, not a complete negation. About it being a dupe: I did do a quick search of past suggestions, and a bit better search through frequent suggestions, and didn't find this myself. Besides, that would be a reason for a "Dupe" vote, not a "Kill" vote. --Reverend Loki 22:08, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - EDIT: On second thought, I agree with Zaruthustra. Headshot no longer griefs anymore, and while hordes complain that it slows them down, they don't seem to realize that that's the point behind it. --Volke 21:57, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - too early to change the dynamics of headshot again. but nice of you to think of the scientist. (besides, IMO the people hurting, if you want to go so far as calling it that, by headshot right now are the 1 and 2 level zombies, who wouldn't buy headshot.)--Vista 01:25, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Geez, quit whining about headshot. It just got changed. Bentley Foss 05:13, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • RE - This isn't so much about headshot, as it is about encouraging people to play as Zeds. Is "Headshot just got changed" your argument? This format does not allow for time context - it gets shot down now, it WILL be shot down next time as a dupe. EDIT: Sorry, forgot to sign this comment when I made it. --Reverend Loki 16:51, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If headshot targets the head, and brain rot has already ruined the head, it makes sense that there's a chance it wouldn't effect the zombies. It makes Brain Rot a useful skill, and makes Headshot no longer the 'slam dunk' it's been. -Slitterst 19:40, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This sure would make Brain Rot a useful skill, instead of the only permanent choice in this game why very rarely anyone takes it. -Jinxed 10:45, 01 Jan 2006 (GMT+1)
  • Keep - LtMile 15:19, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - Zombies walking around with pieces of skull missing are nothing new to zombie lore. After parts of your brain have rotted away, it only stands to reason that if you get shot in a non-essential area, it won't affect anything. -Ghettovenger 23:20, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Send message to: all

Timestamp: 21:20, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: improvement
Scope: Mobile phone, survivors
Description: I was using the mobile and sending messages to people in my group and used 10AP this way. So I was thinking couldnt the mobile phone have a button for sending a text to everyone in the contact list in stead of having to use one AP per person, it would make things simple and would save a lot of AP. If this were possible we wouldnt have to repeat the process of sending then writing again and sending.

If this has been suggested before I am very sorry.

Votes

  • Keep I'm down with that, phones are nearly worthless as opposed to meta game anyhow. --Zaruthustra 21:46, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Here's to making phones actually somewhat useful! -CWD 21:50, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I can't help feeling that phones were implemented as a subtle way to waste survivor APs, not to be something genuinely convenient. Rhialto 22:49, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You know, phones are really not useful, except maybe for RP purposes. Even there, I think I'd walk the distance. Don't worry about making it more useful. Just don't use them. --Shadowstar 23:04, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Would make this a rather useful feature. I like it. --Reverend Loki 23:13, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Great idea. Keep this one. Also, in case this hasn't already been put in, you should get a notice when you log in that you have a new message instead of having to check your phone. --Coreyo 01:20, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -the survivor communication and organization level is already very high when compared by zombies. Developing that rift even more would hurt the game balance further. Good suggestion, nice flavour but as long as survivors are the majority in the game, too unbalancing, Later... perhaps--Vista 01:31, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Lord Evans 01:47, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I agree that the phone (like the book or newspaper) is a waste of AP. Therefore let anyone who is bored/stupid enough to waste thier AP on it do so. --Terrgn33u 02:25, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep ---Kcold 14:11, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think it's a good idea. It might spare us alot of AP, aswell as clearing things up and help keeping better control on things. Very important for group leaders!---Spartan nr116
  • Keep - Author vote. --Whitehouse 21:09, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Allow grouping in the contacts list. Send to: Group. Tereseth 12:17, 02 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Discord at the Barricades

Timestamp: 21:31, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance change, improvement
Scope: Barricading success rate
Description: Add a "discord" failure rate to barricading, one that becomes more onerous the larger the survivor stack. Currently, with no discord penalty to barricading, there is every incentive for survivors to pile together inside for mutual defense. The Caiger siege is only the most extreme example, with stacks approaching 300. Combined with the large construct/destruct imbalance for barricades, large survivor gatherings can make themselves virtually immune to even the largest-scale zombie incursions. As has been mentioned widely, a discord penalty is closely in line with the fictional downfall of the large survivor bastions in the zombie-apocalypse movies. Keeping the over-potent survivors from becoming complacent in large bastions (and thus spreading themselves more evenly throughout the city) is a good thing.

How exactly the penalty should be applied (and its mathematical formula), are delicate matters. Perhaps the simplest and most natural implementation would be a direct failure-to-attempt-barricading probability. This would be compounded with whatever usual failure rate is associated with the current barricade level -- so even low-barricade levels (say, above loosely) would have a positive failure rate when trying to barricade in a crowd. Instead of the "but you can't find a place for it" message, one would get a "but another survivor gets in your way" message.

Such a discord failure rate should also not scale linearly, as we all know that discord goes up much faster than linearly as a crowd grows. One clever way of implementing this is via a fixed "discord probability" with every other neighbor -- say 1%. So the reduced-success multiplier "D", caused by discord pre-empting a barricade attempt within a stack of N people, is simply 99% raised to the N-1 power:

D = 0.99^(N-1)

This formula has the attractiveness of negligible impact for small stacks -- under 10 survivors or so. With too many people around, though, larger stacks actually become *less* effective at maintaining barricades as the stack grows. With a 1% "discord" probability per neighbor, this turnaround occurs at roughly 100 survivors -- when the stack can only maintain barricades as well as 37 independently-acting survivors.

The formula also has the attractiveness of a gradual but inexorable tail-off in barricading effectiveness at larger populations. By 200 survivors (I've seen almost 300 in the Caiger siege), the mob can barricade only as effectively as a 27-survivor stack does now. With the probability of successfully reinforcing reduced to 13.5% by this point, the zeds outside will gain the advantage in the barricade struggle. And thus stagnant indoor crowds would be self-limiting. There would be a natural and RP-rich tension between wanting to park oneself in a barricaded bastion, and not wanting others to do the same. A literal Tragedy of the Commons, for those into game theory.

Note that this change solely affects the barricade success rate. All other actions in a crowd (talking, healing, shooting, etc.) would be unhindered. And this change can be easily phased in gradually, for example by raising the neighbor-discord rate by 0.25% each week until it reaches 1%. This would avoid a jarring increase in the barricading failure rate for currently-existing survivor mobs.

Votes

  • Keep - This would make another large siege possible, from a zed perspective. --funkronomicon 21:44, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Author vote. As a corollary effect, this change would also discourage zed spies from over-barricading populated safe-houses. --udfanboy 22:11, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - But it would encourage zed spies over-populating safe houses to get in more easily... --Shadowstar 23:06, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT) Edit: I will keep as long as loosely is left out of the calculation.
    • Re - In my experience, the number of zed spies inside is never >10% of the number of zeds in the assault outside. The effect would be negligible, unless zed spies are the majority of survivors inside. In which case barricade discord makes perfect sense, anyways. --udfanboy 23:16, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Sure, no problem with "loosely". Tweaked the suggestion text accordingly. --udfanboy 17:58, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Adds a nice extra layer to the game. I'd say this should be effected by more than just # of survivors - 30 Military should be more organized than 30 Civilians. Player level can have an effect to - a high level survivor in a leadership role of sorts can improve group organization. --Reverend Loki 23:21, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill its my civic duty to kill complicated suggestions. but i haven't voted in days just because i'm getting burnt out killing all the stupid suggestions--Spellbinder 23:41, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -this reeks of "zombie mobs don't work anymore, let's nerf survivor mobs" Caiger was one seige, untill zombie mobs are routinely beaten this isn't needed.--Vista 01:36, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Barricades work pretty well. Zeds need a boost but use your imaginations people. We get these ideas every week and it just fixes a mechanic that isn't really broken. --Zaruthustra 02:01, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Also known as "really complicated suggestion that fixes something that works just fine." I agree with spellbinder, all the bad ideas hurt my brain. Bentley Foss 05:14, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - What's with the refrain about "complicated suggestion"? Unless I'm sorely mistaken, Kevan *already does this* with the barricade success rate decreasing as the number of barricades already in the way. There's absolutely no more complexity to my suggestion than checking also how many *survivors* are in the way. Let's get serious with the criticisms, people, and vote this up or down based on its merits. --udfanboy 05:46, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Sorry, but I'm afraid that those who say this is overly complicated and that barricades are fine as-is are right. --Volke 06:10, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill The zombies have lost a single battle over the course of the game, this is NOT proof that the humans are too powerful. Why mess with something that is working fine at the moment? Besidess, if changes need to be made to barricadeing there are already better ideas out there. --Rolland CW 08:25 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I say it would add a realistic touch to the game. Afterall, you can't build a barricade with very little energy spent. And that 70/30 ratio needs improving anyway. --Chevelle07:58 PM21 Dec 2005
  • Keep - I think this is a natural, realistic feature to implement, and would help out the Z's a little more.--JediMastaYoda 02:33, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Barricades are broken, this should help to fix them. --Katthew 02:13, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Anything to help the zombies.-Tereseth 12:24, 02 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Any "incentive for survivors to pile together inside" is countered by the incentive for zombies to get at huge groups of survivors. --LtMile 15:24, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Viral Breeding Grounds

Timestamp: 12:00, 20 Dec 2005 (PST)
Type: improvement
Scope: Survivors
Description: One of the major problems zombies face is that it's virtually impossible to assault large human clusters. Caiger Mall is a perfect example of this, but I can tell you with certainity that it's not too hard for even smaller settlements to remain basically impervious to zombie infestation. That got me thinking. People in the winter get sick more often not because of the temperature, but because we spend more time cooped up indoors with other folks, which increases our chance of spreading viruses. The citizens of Malton should face similar risks. What I'm proposing is a very small random chance of survivors getting sick and turning into zombies, with that chance increasing (perhaps even exponentially) as you share space with other survivors. Survivors should feel very nervous about spending the night with more than 15 other players or so. It would certainly clear out areas like Caiger.

Votes

  • Keep - I'm the author and I get to vote once on my own idea. --SafetyMonkey 20:13, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the concept, especially if you can spread zombie infections. It'd make the zombie skill a lot better. I'm sure this will be followed by lots of whining survivors, like all suggestions are. --Alundra 20:15, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Only if a) There is an infected person in the room or b) there is a dead body in the room. And definately not exponentially for chances. Maybe a 5% chance every half-hour cycle per infected person/dead body that one person in the room will become infected, with the maximum chance reaching 65%. And it has been scientifically proven that being cold and wet increases your chance of sickness, not just being couped up. I can provide the article link if you doubt me. Edit: Also, after re-reading, I see that you're suggesting an insta-kill, that one survivor will drop dead immediately with no warnings or prior health loss.--TheTeeHeeMonster 22:47, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - Your suggested changes make this proposal absolutely useless. People are rarely infected for very long (especially in the major strongholds like Caiger) because there are SO many folks with medpacks, and when was the last time you saw a body in a building for longer than 10 minutes? The idea here is to reduce the incentive for 1000 humans to clump together, which is one of the major effects that breaks the balance of this game. "Exponential" may have been a bit of a stretch (I declined to include math on purpose, relying on folks better than I to flesh it out), but you've done nothing to explain why this is a bad idea. --SafetyMonkey 22:55, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Why should survivors not be grouping together? I know if there were a zombie attack right now (man, that's funny to say), I'd be with a huge group of people, unless I felt like I was the chosen one and needed to go out and find the Necronomicon or something. And why should it be easy to assault places with large survivor populations? It's one thing if someone is already infected, or dead in the room, but... Caiger is ONE LOSS. Zombies won at Tynte, Creedy, Giddings, Hildebrande... etc etc etc. --Shadowstar 23:13, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It seems perfectly logical that survivors packed together in one place will spread disease to one another. Although exponential growth, realistic as it might be, would probably cause some issues with game balance.Edit: When I originally read this, I thought it meant the spread of infection in a crowded group, random death without warning seems kind of lame and out of place.--Homunculus 06:57, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Randomly turning into a zombie? No thanks--Spellbinder 23:36, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Basically like one of those auto-attack things. Besides, if there were as many people as in caiger mall, they would kill the zombie and dump his corpse outside. AllStarZ 00:22, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -What is it with diseases that is so popular? this is a zombie survival game not get a "catch a cold and have chickensoup game" Death should be by zombie, hard and brutal, not by getting the sniffels. besides letting somebody drop dead without any action by anybody is just griefing. (a max of 15 survivors in one place? just because the zombies need improvement in the fun department doesn't mean you have to destroy all the survivors fun)--Vista 01:47, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill seriously guys, can't anybody think of a better mechanic than "you randomly fall over dead"? For all the complaining zombies do about griefing people sure love to propose super grief skills against survivors. --Zaruthustra 02:03, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Let's not put insta-kill's in the game--Lord Evans 02:05, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Caiger is not a defence for suggesting an insta-kill! A church I was defending recently had 5 people in it and it fell to a small group of about 7-10 zombies. Minor skirmishes are easy for zombies to win at becuase survivors can't really stay organized on suprise attacks! Caiger was a one-time thing, and won't be happening again! I garuntee it! The harmanz only get organized like that once in a blue moon, and I tell you, one loss out of 6 months of sieges is not a bad record for the zombies! I mean, where's the fun in zombies ALWAYS winning major sieges like that? I see nothing wrong with us brain-eaters taking a loss every now and then! --Volke 02:34, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)EDIT: Oh, and before I forget, that was a VERY clever strategy you had! You worded it so that it sounded like people in a crowded room would catch the infection others have, but if read well like a few of us did (most notably TheTeeHeeMonster) you'd see that it's an insta-kill suggestion! I must say, you got me for a minute there, but thankfully, the Monster managed to save me before I voted! It wouldn't have made a difference really, but from now on, I read suggestions more closely! --Volke 06:56, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Caiger held because the survivors were very well organized. Deal with it. Zombies had an unbroken string of victories up until then. One human win doesn't mean survivors need to be turned into zombies at random. Bentley Foss 05:16, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - If you feel like combieing this with an equal (or greater given the difficulty of going from zombie to survivor as opposed to the reverse) chance of random zombies in a group suddenly becomeing human I'll change my vote. Otherwise this sugestion is just a way of unfairly handicapping survivors. --Rolland CW 08:34 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - because Harmans already havfe a way fo insta-killing us. --Fullemtaled 08:40, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • kill - what about every AP spent while infected (with Infectious Bite) has a chance (like, 5%) to infect someone else ? --Hagnat 15:17, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - One of the main causes of the Black Death is that people were afraid of foreign invaders, so they built walls around their towns. After a little while their populations increased so much that they had to build houses on top of houses to stay inside the walls. That many people cooped up together caused diseases to spread like crazy, killing one in three Europeans. The same thing would happen in Matlon, this is a great suggestion. --Horje 18:31, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm tempted to vote keep, but I agree to make it corpses instead of survivors. -Tereseth 12:27, 02 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Zombie Search

Duplicate of this peer reviewed suggestion. --Brizth 23:16, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Sword

This idea was spaminated for being a Machete duplicate, albeit wildy out of keeping with the general game ethos. --Zaruthustra 02:06, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Starvation

Timestamp: 23:34, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type: Balance Change
Scope: Survivors
Description: A lot of people are now wondering how to make the game more balanced for zombies. My plan is that people need to eat food to survive. Here is how I think it should work:

1) In the area that say "You are ___. You have __ HP and __ AP" it will also say how hungry you are. Hunger will be based on scale such as this one: - Hungry - Quite Hungry - Very Hungry - Starving

2) Humans are required to eat food. If a human goes for 3 days without eating he or she will move up on the scale of hunger (this does not happen if the account is innactive).

3) If a human goes beyong "Starving" on the scale they die and become a zombie.

4) Food must be found. Food will be relatively easy to find so you won't starve just because you're unlucky while searching. Food is easiest to find in bars and hotels. When food is found it is added to your inventory as a button that says "food". If it is clicked on you eat it and move down a notch on the hunger scale.

5) The new crates won't just carry weapons as they currently do because that makes the game unbalanced. Instead, they will mostly carry food (seeing as that's what the millitary would probably be dropping into a situation like this) as well as some weapons.

Even though I'm not sure if this exact idea will be incorporated into the game because I feel that it helps balance out the game because, first of all, it will cause some people to die and become zombies, increasing the amounts of zombies, and will cause some people who don't want to have to put up with the burden of searchin for food to stay a zombie when they die rather then just going to get revived.


Edit: If the zombie strike thing is a success the game isn't going to be fun for anyone, not even survivor players like myself. Because there are so many human players it's obvious that the suggestion page is going to have a strong survivor biase. What we need now is not new, all powerful survivor classes or a new form of headshot, but instead a few suggestions to make the game a little more balanced. Even if you don't accept this suggestion, just keep in mind that you should try to think and vote like a zombie player might.

Votes

  • Keep - I suggested this so I'm going to vote keep. --Horje 23:37, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Welp, at least i know now who not to respect. For the record: i like my game simple--Spellbinder 23:38, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - And I also want survivors to have to spent APs defecating, and die of constipation if survivor characters can't find a toilet in time. Oh, and the toilets need to be in a powered building so the pumps can get water in so the toilets can be flushed. Oh, and I want a pony. Rhialto 23:42, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Re - I think you're missing the point. --Horje 23:45, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - No, his point is valid. K.I.S.S. --Hexedian 23:49, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - One, how is this different from the supply drop suggestion on this page? And two, who wants to spend their time eating? Booooring. --Shadowstar 23:53, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT) ... and leave politics out of the suggestion page, please?
  • Kill Look, lets not make it too rp-like. We can assume they eat so that we can devote more of our time to combat. AllStarZ 00:19, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - this suggestion is in effect the reason why [this] suggestion is failing peer review. i understand what you are going for, but i don't think this is the way to achieve zombie/survivor balance. forcing people to do mundane tasks is no fun for anyone. --Firemanstan 01:42, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill -Keep it simple, but more importantly, Keep it fun--Vista 01:55, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Big suggestion guideline is don't argue realism. We could also have a bathroom function, where if you don't answer nature's call every couple hours you start to bleed internally. Or a sleep function where your survivor needs to get their eight hours. Or a social function where they get lonely if they don't talk to other survivors! In fact lets just make this the sims with zombies! --Zaruthustra 02:09, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - As I said above, I enjoy the concept of food but this on is seriously flawed as well. Food if implemented should be a comunal thing like generators, and any suggestion that has the side effect of an instant kill (even if the person is warned it might be comming) is almost bound to die.--Terrgn33u 02:38, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't want to waste my game time forcing my players to do mundane things like eat and use the bathroom, thanks. Bentley Foss 05:17, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This would reduce the overall "fun factor" and give more realism to the game than it actually needs. Basically, same reason everyone else voted kill. --Volke 06:17, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This page has a ridiculous pro-survivor bias. Hey, guys, while you sit here sneering and ranting, the zombies are on strike! --Frosty 14:43, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Er... but shouldn't trying to find food be part of the survivor Experience? It wouls stop PD/Hospital camping, force survivors to brave the streets more often, and also gives Zombies the added feature that they don't *need* to eat. Being Zombies and all. So if you want to just slay stuff, be a zombie. That's what they're for. Survivors *should* have more things to concern themsleves with. --Throctukes 16:22, 21 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Hurricane katrina showed how mportant food is, and how short of a time people can last without access to fresh food. Food SHOULD be more important than ammunition, and would give people more reason to inhabit pubs and malls. PLUS, zombies have to eat, so why not surviviors? -Tereseth 12:31, 02 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/20th-Dec-2005&oldid=139913"