Suggestions/20th-Feb-2007

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

Fire!! 20. February

Timestamp: Rolo Tomasi 01:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Buildings
Description: Malton has an abundence of Firemen, and fire stations, but no fire trucks or running water. Trash is most likely piled up, papers from abandoned and ransacked buildings blow through the streets. Survivors are often syphoning gasoline to run their generators, and those same gennys are running 24/7 until they get destroyed. Also,as no taxes are being collected from the dead the infrastructure is probably the worse for wear. I propose that each week in each suburb a building at random 'catches fire'. This is done in every suburb each week. A building is 'on fire' for 24 hours, and 'burned out' buildings stay that way until repaired.

After a building catches fire is is temporarily unenterable, un-barricadable, and unsearchable. To 'repair' a 'burned out' building is like repairing and Ransacked building, but a bit harder. Instead of 1 AP to fix, a building that has burnt requires 10 AP. Any number of survivors can use AP to repair a burned building. 10 peeps can use 1 AP each, 2 people can use 5 each, or 10 folks 1 AP each. All people repairing a building must have the Construction skill. Wastelands can not burn, but parks can (wildfire). Multiple block buildings(malls, churches, forts) can only have 1 square affected. The other locations function normally. Buildings that are 'on fire' or 'burned out' may not be entered or exited with Free Running. Only 1 building per suburb each week can burn.

A building's chance to to burn each week starts with a base percentage of 1% The chance of catching 'on fire' goes up by the following factors:* Unpopulated(No active survivors) + 0%; *Occupied +1% (for every 10 survivors or zombies inside); *Ransacked +4% (Zombies might have damaged wiring, maybe knocked a oillamp over, etc.); *Active Generator +2% (Re-fueling accident, overheating, improper installation...).

Anyone (human or zombie) may stay in an 'on fire' building if the desire, but each action costs 1 additional AP than usual due to smoke, heat, blocked passageways ,etc. (Most actions 2 AP, combat 2AP, reviving 11AP, standing from Headshot 16 AP w/o Ankle Grab)and any action other than leaving a burning building will do 2 HP damage (FAK CAN heal this damage).

When a building catches fire, the first time a character logs on or refreshes a page they see a message like "You see smoke drifting though the air X blocks north/south and X blocks east/west"... or "The building you are trying to enter is on fire, it is too hot to enter or pass through, you must go another way." Any barricades or equipment (generators, Christmas trees, lights, or radios) would be destroyed during the fire, but could be replaced after the building is repaired.

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep - Tough, but fair...just like me. Modified from previous day's 'removed' suggestion. Rolo Tomasi 01:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Why not? Dosn't exactly help or harm anyone. FriedFish.ca 01:46 February 20, 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep - Christmas trees are also fire hazards. It's February, people... take them down already! Also, the reason you haven't seen any fires yet is because of the kick ass job the Malton Fire Department has been doing despite all the zombie arsonists running around. --Uncle Bill 04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep - this would definitely add some variety to the game. Monkeylord 07:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep - Because I am a pyromaniac. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 09:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep - Because we need more environmental effects that work like this one. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 11:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Burn, baby burn! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 12:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Keep I really enjoy the idea of Malton in flames, for some reason. Be fun to have to "evacuate" your safehouses from time to time. Survivors have radios, what the hell. Kevan could make a little flame thing on the building visible from the street/binoculars. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 13:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep - A random event would be fun, though I'm not sure how Kevan would announce this change: "Survivors have begun noticing the big feth fires that have been burning down their houses..."--Lachryma☭ 14:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep - Discourages mall-oriented gameplay. Although there should probably be an upper limit for how much the % chance can go up due to population. --Reaper with no name TJ! 17:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Keep - Random events are fun!--Blood Panther 19:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Keep - The possibility of turning Malls upside down, and disrupting the free-running network? Sounds great!--Labine50 MH|ME|'07 23:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep - I agree with Lachryma's opinion that this would be a fun random event that would change the rut most characters have fallen into. (IE:kill, heal, revive, kill, heal, revive...etc) A very stong keep. Doc Garden 04:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. Keep - I like this idea. It helps keep the game dynamic and fits well with the genre.Melo Daday 15:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  15. Keep - Good idea, firefighters should fight fires as well as zombies. ZombieCrack 19:21, 21 February 2007
  16. Keep - I like. it'd add an entirely new aspect to the game, and enrich the entire experience. --Fistycuffs 20:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  17. Keep - Yes please! Especially if it affects malls. Would make the game more spontaneous and interesting, plus would give fireman roleplayers something in-character to do. --c138 RR - PKer 20:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  18. Keep - Throwing my vote in with the keeps for this one. Sounds interesting, and would present a new challenge to survivors. --Gateking 22:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  19. Keep - If you don't think buildings full of squatters catch on fire frequently, talk to the NYFD. People need to keep warm, they need to cook food, they need light- and so they use fire. More people = more fire. And no, one little portable generator isn't gonna provide for all that. --S.Wiers X:00 01:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  20. Keep The randomness will certainly make things a little more interesting. Vancouver Smith 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  21. Keep That'd be tight. -Rocker820 03:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Keep FEUER! -DinkyDao 01:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC) - Vote posted after deadline. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes
Against Votes here

  1. I don't see the difference from the last version and, other than the zombie stand up cost, you didn't counter/discuss any of my other points on the discussion page.--Pesatyel 05:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re:In my book the chance of a minor change is better than the same thing day, after day, after day, ad infinitum, ad absurdo. Will you offer an alternative suggestion? Please do, no animosity, I'm curious to see what changes other people would like to do that won't throw the entire game out of balance. Rolo Tomasi 07:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    That's why I suggested leaving this on the discussion page longer. You didn't even, as far as I could tell, acknowledge any of the idea/points I made (other than the "stand up cost" one).--Pesatyel 03:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill What's the point of this? To force people to move next door because the random number generator decided their safehouse will catch on fire? To force people to waste AP fixing buildings that zombies may have not attacked for the past week? --Jon Pyre 06:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re: One point is variety. Currently the game is survivors hide in buildings, run out, shoot at a zombie or revive a dead clannie then run for cover. Zombies stand around a building they hope to break into. The big thrill is, "Did we get 6Zs or 8Zs in tonight against the 22 people that cower in there 24/7 ?" There is no force on earth to cause any change unless it is thrust upon them. Fog, air drops, fort changes, etc. Second, whatever change occurs MUST be random to be fair. If 'Arson' was a skill, it would be a griefer's paradise.Rolo Tomasi 17:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    Let us suppose a Free Running nexus point is burnt, the survivors will have to plan around that to get to their supplies. Zombies that are camping outside that building for extended periods of time will have to decide on another target if they want to 'eat' that day. Survivors will have to open another access point if they want to get around w/o leaving risking the streets. These are all good things which provide a varied gaming experience. These changes are all temporary, so neither side is drastically altered to nerfed permanently. Nobody has to agree with me, that is why everybody's vote is different. Instead of just telling me my idea is dumb, I urge others to present ideas of their own. Rolo Tomasi 07:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    This would actually annoy both survivors and zombies. Imagine a fight just getting good when the building catches on fire and everyone disperses. WHO WINS THE EPIC BATTLE FOR CAIGER? Nobody, it catches fire and everyone just wanders away. --Jon Pyre 16:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kill - It will pretty much always be malls burning - 200 survivors in building = +20% chance to burn. –Ray Vern Pig.gifphz •T 08:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re: Heaven forbid we go somewhere beside a mall! Even if one corner burns the other 3 are fine, plus no one can go through the fire anyway. Also, there is what, 20-25 malls in Malton? There are 100 suburbs. get your heads out of your... malls, people.Rolo Tomasi
    • My chars don't tend to hang around in malls. I don't like the Mall-centered nature of the game. That doesn't mean that having fires in every Mall every other week is a good idea. Maybe you should even out the probabilities a bit. (Further re:s on this should be on the discussion page. Also, watch the formatting...you keep breaking it - and be wary of RE: abuse). –Ray Vern Pig.gifphz •T 09:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - this is all over the place. No. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 10:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. kill I like the idea of burning buildings very much, however i do not like the numbers! as was pointed out Malls would be prone to spontaneous combustion on a far too frequent basis. If this can be fixed then it will get a keep from me!--Honestmistake 12:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re: I appreciate and understand your point here. I'm hoping to get his sugestion implemented at all. Tweaking the percentages after it is implemented might be the better way to go.Rolo Tomasi 17:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - I'm pretty sure that I've seen this suggestion (or something very much like it) before, and it's still a bad idea. Consider the types of buildings that would catch on fire - resource buildings, mainly. Besides, if there are tons of people in a building, isn't it less likely to catch on fire, not more? --Saluton 14:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. kill - Change the numbers, so unpopulated buildings catch fire easier than populated ones. I think we can assume survivors put out small fires if they see them. - BzAli 15:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Re: In 'real life' abandoned, unpowered buildings catch fire mainly due to arson. The idea behind this suggestion was that human or zombie activity in an occupied building accidentally causes some flammable event. I can understand your argument also though.Rolo Tomasi 17:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Kill - I think: Populated buildings should have only a very small chance of catching fire. The more heavily populated a building is, the less chance there should be of a fire starting. I think there should be a random element involved in the repair. For example, there should be a tiny chance of complete repair on the fifth repair, a small chance on the sixth, a moderate chance on the seventh, a moderately large chance on the eighth, a large chance on the ninth and a certain full repair on the tenth repair. Fires should start small, then grow bigger. There should be a one-use "fire extinguisher" item that can be used to extinguish small fires. It could be found almost anywhere. It could also replace the wire cutters for firemen. After a certain point, fires should become unextinguishable. Flavour text for fires! "There is a small blaze in the corner."; "Part of the room is on fire."; "Half the room is ablaze."; "The flames have claimed most of the room."; (shown outside from this point onwards)"The building is blazing wildly"; "The fire has engulfed all but the roof."; "The building is alive in a huge inferno."; (shown after the fire from the outside after a large fire)"The building appears somewhat scorched."; (shown after the fire from the inside after a large fire) "The building's rooms are devastated. There is barely anything left but ashes." --Anotherpongo 16:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Kill - You'd basically encourage people to NOT group together for their own safety. And yes, it's nonsense that a building with 200 people in it, would become a bonfire that easily.--Jay Clarke 00:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Hiss Of Challenge

Timestamp: MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 13:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: You recognize a survivor from your contacts list!
Description: Hiss Of Challenge

Appears on zombie skills tree as a sub-skill of death rattle, adds no benefits to your human character.

If your zombie enters an indoors location, and sees a survivor from their contacts list.. you may make a "Hiss Of Challenge"

  • The hiss of challenge itself, is a button that is available: If your zombie enters an indoors location and there is only 1 survivor present on your contacts list.
  • Clicking the hiss of challenge button, costs 1 AP to do (and the survivor you targeted gets a message "A zombie just hissed threateningly at you, it seems to "know" you..")
  • Your zombie cannot make the hiss of challenge if there are more than 1 humans they recognize, because that just blows your ability to "focus" on 1 victim.

Bonuses/Limitations:

  • You have a +5% bonus to bite attacks on this human survivor!
  • If you kill this survivor, you gain an additional 5 XP for the kill!
  • The hiss continues indefinately until someone "breaks" the challnge in some way. (Your target could log on, and kill you, breaking the challenge.. gives them a chance to hit back, and settle the score.)
  • If you or your survivor target leave this location, or die.. the challenge is ended. Also, if you attack any other target other than just this survivor (even objects like barricades, generators, etc.) the challenge is ended.)
  • If you have made a hiss of challenge it "suspends" your ability to make feeding groans whilst you are at this location with your target. (Even if 4 other survivors suddenly show up.. no feeding groan even if it would be sweet.)
  • If another survivor who is also on your contacts list enters this location, that "breaks" the hiss of challenge. (You get a message "another human you recognized distracted you!)

Keep Votes

  1. Keep I'm a big fan of hissing, spitting zombies, as well as the moaners and groaners. Makes the battle a bit more personal. More biting, if you're looking for some more XP, or just for RP purpouses.. is all good! Can cut down on unnessesary feeding groans. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 13:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep I like spitting zeds too. Allows a little bit more RP for carreer zeds. I can just feel the Kill votes coming though... --SporeSore 14:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Useless. Just useless. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kill - Pretty useless. The 5% bonus doesn't make your (maxed) bite better than (maxed) claws, and its not a skill newbs would gain from- they would have to kill 20 challenged survivors to pay for buying the skill. Its only benefit would be for experienced zombies in "live" combat. Live combat is pretty rare and in combination with the the special contact list conditions- well, the skills utility is just to low to bother with. Also, I can see some potential for zerg abuse; the extra XP is pretty pointless to most players, but might be useful to folks who set up their own targets. How about changing this so its an enhancement to tangling grasp- if you hit a survivor who is on your contact list, you get a better bonus, and the survivor gets a special message saying the zombie who grabbed them seems familiar, and angry... That would benefit almost any zombie, and also doesn't require creating new "state" conditions (IE, would be much easier to program). Mind you, this would just result in zombie with the skill contact listing folks before they attack, so its still kind of silly. --S.Wiers X:00 14:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. kill A zombies enters a location. The zombie adds a survivor in location to contact list, the zombie hisses... For 1 AP (the hiss) you have +5% to hit and +5 XP for the kill. - BzAli 15:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kill - It doesn't seem to be a useful skill if you are only getting +5% to attack and 5XP for the kill. --ZombieSlay3rSig.png 16:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kill I dislike suggestions that are just straight accuracy or damage boosts to existing attacks. Zombies are already good at attacking. This kind of thing doesn't make the game more fun. --Jon Pyre 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kill - You shouldn't get a combat buff for having someone on your contacts list. --Reaper with no name TJ! 17:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Kill - a straight buff, hidden behind no real limitations. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 18:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. A Kill voter just hissed menacingly at you, it seems to have just added you to its contacts list to get some bonuses... -BzAli took the words right out of my mouth. --AlexanderRM 9:06 PM, 20 Febuary 2007 (EST)
  9. Kill - Zeds are not snakes. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 09:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Kill - Although I can't wait for "Zombies On A Plane". If you couldn't add contacts to abuse this, it might have some merit. --Gm0n3y 21:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Kill - Note to self: Enter building, nearly kill someone with claws, then add to contacts, hiss and bite to death for some cheap extra exp.--Jay Clarke 00:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. *Adds MrAushvitz to contacts* *Hiss of Challenge* *Kills MrAushvitz* No, sorry, this suggestion is just to easy to exploit. --Anotherpongo 18:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Kill - Pongie has a point. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 23:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
No spam on the menu today...

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/20th-Feb-2007&oldid=1880361"