Suggestions/20th-Mar-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

  1. These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
  2. Suggestions with a rational Vote tally of 2/3 Keeps over total of Keeps, Kills, and Spams will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page by a moderator, unless the original author has re-suggested the Suggestion.
  3. Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
  4. All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
  5. Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
  6. Again, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. It will be used as a historical record and will eventually be locked.
Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current Suggestions • Suggestions up for Voting • Clothes Suggestions
Cycling Suggestions • Peer Reviewed • Undecided • Peer Rejected • Humorous
Suggestion Advice • Topics to Avoid and Why • Help, Developing and Editing

Combat Only AP

Author retracted by MrAushvitz. People, lets remain civil, no swearwords and personal attacks. Lets show some level of decorum here.--Vista W! 11:22, 20 March 2006 (GMT)

New Zombie Skills(resubmitted)

I'm gonna get this resubmitting thing right eventually, I swear it! >_< --Cerebrus13 03:26, 20 March 2006 (GMT)

The "Phone Booth" effect

Timestamp: 23:17, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: A "maximum survivors in a building" limit
Scope: One "reasonable" method of dispersing survivors throughout Malton's other buildings.
Description: The 'Phone Booth' Effect

It is simply this: because of the need for air, living space, beds and so forth, all buildings can only accomodate so many survivors at a time. Many buildings are also modified with generators, barricades & barricade-building tools, which reduce their overall regular capacity.

(Zombies break this 'rule' because they don't need air, or beds, or space, just meat!)

This "phone booth" effect, is basically, a new building detail.. that works as follows:

  • A building, which is "Full" of survivors, cannot have any 'new' survivors enter it. A survivor who tries to enter such a building does not lose any AP but gets the message: "You may not enter this building, it is currently full!" This is free information even though it did not cost an AP. It can force "free running" characters to step outside, to find a new place, when all nearby buildings are full.
  • For buildings that will become "over-full" when this comes into effect, it's okay, they can stay for now (they don't get squeezed out), but noone else can enter the "full" building (and if you leave, you can't get back in until more leave, or are killed and bodies dumped out.) Bodies do not count towards the limit, they aren't standing or using any beds.
  • When a zombie tries to enter a "Full" building, it doesn't have any problem (they do not require air, and probably did not use a door) Their inherent lack of need for "creature comforts", as well as the fact zombies tend to "pile in" on top of one another trying to enter anyways is more of an advantage than a disability. In short, zombies can always find a way to wriggle in... if they get past the barricades.


Building Survivor Limits:

(Note: Normally these buildings can hold more people, but as stated earlier have been modified since infection; and barricades, though effective, waste space and functionability.)

  • Smaller Buildings - Can only hold up to 25 survivors at a time: Each seperate area of the city zoo, Arms, Auto Repair Shop, Club, Fire Station (big garage, with nice, but smaller accomodations).
  • Medium Buildings - Can only hold up to 40 survivors at a time: Armory, Bank, Church, Cinema, Junkyard (lots of room, but "beds" are inside cars!), Library, Museum, NecroTech Building (choose lower max. of the 2 limits due to lab space!), Police Department (more room than fire station, for prisoners), Power Station, Railway Station, School, Warehouse.
  • Large Buildings - Can only hold up to 60 survivors at a time:

Cathedral, Mansion, Building, Factory, Hotel.

  • Very Large Buildings - Can only hold up to 100 survivors at a time:

(May seem low at first, we're talking regulars living here) Mall (100 per section!), Stadium, Forts (Barracks!), Hospital, Tower.

  • Caiger Mall - Can only hold up to 125 survivors at a time, (per section)
    • Yes, it is the major killing fields, but it can only house so many survivors if it is to be "fully functional" (capable of housing all while being able to make barricades, provide power, etc.) Don't worry, the zombies outside have plenty of room.


  • Before you say no!

These limits are pretty high, and they won't make a big deal unless local safehouses are getting taken by zombies.. that is when survivors turn ugly "no room at the inn." It adds a game element of "The zombies overran our safehouse, where will we go?"

  • This will help zombies, because, some humans WILL get caught out on the street if they can't find a place to stay.
  • Very, ugly, very realistic. Human beings can be just as ugly as zombies when they're protecting their homes.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. Didn't want to put that much, but had to put the building limits up there with the suggestion. A boost for zombies cuz you gotta live, they don't!MrAushvitz 23:45, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Numbers arent reasonable, Caiger should get no special treatment. You are an idiot. --Grim s 06:40, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - I don't like this, Caiger is dull. As an experiment, I will now test your tndencies to delete your suggestions if they receive profane votes. Shi[p], C[a]nt, Fu[n]k, Jesus [B]itty Fu[n]king Tap Dancing Christ Mother Fu[n]king Allah on a Pogo Stick. Science prevails. -Banana Bear4 07:02, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - He might not edit it, but, as a Project Welcome member I have to delete most gratuitus profanities. Sorry :) -- Andrew McM W! 09:33, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • You have set my research back eighteen monthes. We will never be able to synthesize the antidote now. I'll try to keep the scientific profanity down.-Banana Bear4 17:16, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Encourages PKing, completely fucks over newbie survivors (it's already hard to find decent shelter without Free Running, this would make it almost impossible), and Caiger shouldn't be different from any other mall. - Asrathe 07:38, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - As well as the reasons above, this gives zombies a huge advantage over survivors. Think of this: If there is a mall siege going on there can be hundreds even thousands of zombies outside of each section, and if there are only 100 or 125 survivors inside they're completely fucked, no way to survive that one. You obviously didn't think this through --Toast Boy 08:22, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - In response to the vote before mine, I believe that when the Mall Tour or a similar sized group of zeds come to a mall, the survivors should all have run away already. That a siege of that magnitude should be assumed to be survivable and supported in game balance is laughable. However, I can't support this. I get left out in the cold by thoughtless, overbarricading players often enough; arbitrary limits on how many people who can be inside a building before I can't squeeze into the building and out the other side are not helpful. --Guardian of Nekops 08:55, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment Actually it makes perfect sense. 1000 zombies < 2000 survivors. Players don't get to become automatically more powerful than the other side just because they're zombies. Both sides are pretty balanced and the game is designed to find an equilibrium. Zombies generally don't sweep in and kill thousands of survivors just because they're a "siege of that magnitude". --Jon Pyre 16:58, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Why do you continue to breathe?--Mpaturet 09:03, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Will screw over new users without Free Running who have a hard enough time finding a VSB or less building. Will screw over survivors with Free Running since they won't be able to enter a full entry point, such as one often used to defend malls. Survivors will have to leave more buildings at VSB or less, and we'll see survivors bashing barricades from the outside. Will screw over zombies by reducing the potential number of victims barricade bashing results in, reducing their AP efficiency. Ultimately, it makes the game unnecessarily more complicated and less fun for everyone for a questionable gain. --ism 09:47, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Would force survivors to spread out, and would force survivors to be trapped on the streets, and thus more will be killed, balancing out the ratio. But no... it is way to drastic--Private Chineselegolas RAF 10:05, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill -O.k. Lets at least pretend we are civilized, NO PERSONAL ATTACKS OR SWEARING This is a very bad idea. both for flavor and gameplay. This has cropped up before right after Caiger 1. (it's at least a partial dupe, but can't be bother to find it) It was as bad then as it is now. Guardian of Nekops If you you to look at the history conserning warfare and read some books about tactics It's quite natural what happens in-game. If you look past the narative and dramatic set-up it isn't like zombies are garanteed to win in the classic genre either. they usually do, because that makes a stronger story, but we're in a game here, not a story. Some things of the game mechanics are broken, and need to be mended, But the fact that zombies aren't garanteed a victory no matter what, isn't one of them.--Vista W! 11:42, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Numbers are unreasonable. --mikm W! 12:54, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. KillIt looks like it would limit free running too Talos 12:58, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - This is absolutely idiotic. So... we just lock people out of buildings so they can be a feast... you know... because it isn't bad enough that when you only have a couple AP left that the building(s) you go to may be over-barricaded, now we also have to worry if they're too full. Be civil? Please. How about MrAushvitz thinks for once and acts civilly to our moderate degree of intelligence instead of plaguing us with the most random, unbalancing, useless ideas ever thought up since Snakes on Planes, but without the humor valued? If anyone is breaking the rules of etiquette, it's him. Destin Farloda 13:17, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - So, because there were too many survivors at Caigar to win, lets change the whole damn system! This would essentially screw newbies over by denying them the resource buildings they sleep in until they can free run. Oh, and stop posting already. Or since that probably wasn't 'civil' enough, stop posting junk suggestions -Nubis 13:46, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  15. Spam - No amount of tweaking would ever make anything like this viable. This is typical of your suggestions. Timid Dan 14:56, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - NO, at first it seemed ok, but then you want to force Caiger mall to so low survivor level that it could be breached and destroyed. And what about the armoury's, its already hard enough for use to defend them as it is and you want to limit use to 40 defenders, have you ever been in a fort siege? Well I have and its already impossible. The numbers are just to low. Alpha Whiskey 15:16, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - I belive this has some merit. But the numbers are way too low. And no special treatment to Caiger or any other particular building. And maybe not something as drastic as keeping people out completely out, but decreased search odds, harder to barricade, I don't know. But the numbers. At least 5-10 times higher. --Brizth W! 15:49, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  18. Spam I generally vote kill not spam for serious suggestions that are merely bad. But for crying out loud, you specifically reference Caiger Mall with this suggestion! Caiger is just a mall. The only reason zombies haven't taken it is because a significant portion of survivors are there! It's the same reason zombies control Ridleybank. All those humans at Caiger mall means the rest of Malton is that much more dangerous for humans that don't go to Caiger Mall. Caiger Mall isn't a triumph of humans over zombies or overpopulation, it's just when several thousand players go to one place they tend to hold that place. --Jon Pyre 16:49, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - I think Grim said it best. --Bermudez 17:10, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - I think this suggestion is good... limit how much survivors can be on the same building at the same time is something that comes to my mind sometimes... but the numbers you suggested... they are completly wrong. Thanks, MrAushvits, for destroying a good suggestion and giving it dupe rights. --hagnat talk 17:16, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - Oh come on, this is a good idea and is badly needed. I especially like how it encourages survivors to actually stay in a large group in a mall during a seige. The current system where 200+ survivors hide in the Quik-E-Mart accross the street, jump over the heads of the zombies, crash through the roof of the mall, empty a few pistols into the horde, and then fly back to the safety of their impenetrable barricade does get old. --Norcross 17:22, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - Id like the limits a bit higher 50,75,100,200 mabye but im sure if the limits affect the game too much they can be tweaked --xbehave 17:46, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - I rather like this. I expect survivors would coordinate to keep populations below max capacity in order to prevent others from getting turned away at the door. I suppose the mall limits could be a bit higher, but in general it all seems pretty reasonable. --John Ember 18:41, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • How does no more sieges sounds reasonable? survivors need at least one and a half times the number of zombies and some organization to withstand a zombie siege for more then a day. Do you really want that zombie victories aren't only meaningless, but also non excistant? this would mean the end of the large zombie hordes through the fact that every zombie would become bored with nothing to do. do you want every siege to be like Dowdney Mall or would you like something like Giddings also? easy victories are meaningless.--Vista W! 21:25, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Sieges are boring for both sides. I wouldn't miss them. --John Ember 21:55, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • A couple of thousand people think otherwise, the game is big enough to have more kinds of play then just one. Why force it upon people? You don't have to go to caiger if you don't like it. Hell you can still find suburbs where you can play the game almost how it was at the start, where finding other players was the real difficulty, or for a real slice of zombie Apoc, you can go to a zombie controlled suburb. Etc. Etc. Easiest way to deal with both the threnchcoat and survivor surpluss problem: let them stay at caiger and ignore them.--Vista W! 22:09, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - No, those couple thousand people sit around and complain about how boring the siege is. My human has been hanging out at Caiger for a while. Nothing happens. Meanwhile the hundreds of zombies outside give up and abandon the entire game because spending 10 AP to get one good hit on a barricade and then seeing it shoot right back up to XHB is enough to drive anyone to tears. --John Ember 23:15, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment I'd like to point out that the hundreds of zombies are vastly outnumbered by the humans within. Meanwhile my zombie character is on the other side of Malton attacking another mall where zombies vastly outnumber the humans within. I usually manage to break in once a day with the help of the horde I'm with and that siege is going much better. You can't expect 1000 zombies to defeat 2000 humans when both of them are well organized. The game would be broken if players weren't counted equally. Zombies don't need to be made more powerful than humans, they need to be made more fun (although my zombie really is having a fun time breaking in and eating a survivor on a daily basis). --Jon Pyre 01:30, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  24. Spam - This suggestion is game breaking and would effectively give the Mall Tour 06 easy victories everywhere. Gamebreaking suggestions like this should not be implemented --Lordofnightmares 20:53, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill - I'm going to vote no with the current numbers. I can see more than a mere 400/500 people in my local malls on a SLOW day, and if we're all inside the stores, that's even more room. Besides, how many hotels (motels, maybe) do you know of with so few rooms only 60 people will fit in? I'd think they'd be able to store much more than that. So, until the numbers better match something you could pull of COMFORTABLY, even, in reality on this suggestion, no. --Dr. Fletch 21:05, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  26. Kill - I actually really like this idea. It needs some tweaking, though. The mall numbers are too low, and Caiger shouldn't be treated any differently from the others. Hotels, too, house too few. Still, this could be a good idea.--Wifey 21:39, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  27. Keep - I'm not nutes about the numbers, but I like the idea. - Nicks 01:32, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  28. Kill - This has been discussed. Realism takes a backseat to fun. Velkrin 01:52, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  29. Kill - But a weak one. I like the idea of limited numbers, but these are way too low to even be realistic, much less balanced. Looks like maybe you're getting a better handle on suggestions. --Pinpoint 02:12, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  30. Kill - I like the idea, but the numbers are too low. And, as stated above, Caiger doesn't deserve special treatment.--Pesatyel 04:35, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  31. Kill - The idea sounds good, but I think the numbers are too low to be fair. As as previously said... why does Caiger get special treatment? --Angela 07:04, 31 March 2006 (BST)
  32. Kill - Would never work well, if players are limited to n/building and zeds aren't, then x*n zeds could simply pick and choose which buildings to wipe, there would be no chance to defend especially if zed hoards take advantage of full buldings by grinding everyone down to 10 or fewer HP before finishing people off, sort of like one of those self refilling dog bowls. --Lehk 09:41, 1 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 3 Keep, 26 Kill, 3 Spam 18:46, 7 April 2006 (BST)

Firm Grip (Version 3)

Timestamp: 16:14, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This would be a sub-skill of "Tangling grasp".

A zombie with a firm grip holds its victim tighter, while maintaining a tangling grasp, making it harder for the victim to act.

Mechanic: Gaining or regaining the Grip: A zombie who hits with a claw attack has a %50 chance of gaining a Firm Grip. "You gain a firm grip on Character." "A zombie...and gets a firm grip on you."

Effects: While a Firm Grip is in effect, the victim's chance for success in certain actions is reduced by 20%, but never lower than 5% (or 2.5% in the case of a flare attack). This applies to attacking, healing and barricading. Examples: Max Jill Survivor tries to shoot her shotgun at a zombie, but is held in a firm grip. Her normal chance to hit is %65, but becomes %45 because of the grip. Min Joe Survivor tries to shoot a zombie with a shotgun while in the grip (base chance %5) but still has the %5 chance to hit. Healing, which is normally a %100 chance to succeed action, becomes %80.

The failure rate also applies to manufacturing a syringe, but a failed manufacture costs only 1 AP. A victim who tries to search while in a firm grip also has its chances of finding something cut in half. (For instance, 5% chance to find X-item becomes 2.5%, and so forth.). If I knew exactly how Kevan has coded searching, I would have something more concrete on how the search would be affected.

If the zombie loses its tangling grasp (which is a prerequisite for this skill) then the firm grip is also gone.

The victim would see underneath the room description: "A zombie holds you firmly in its grip, making it harder for you to act."

An action button: "Loosen Grip". Losing the Grip: The victim can press the "Loosen Grip" button, which would cost 1AP in order to break free and be in a normal tangling grasp. The zombie sees this message, "Your grip on Character loosens."

Note 1: I would love to suggest that a victim held in a firm grip would have a %20 chance of failing to move to another block, but I believe a similar suggestion (Immobilisation), with a smaller %-chance of failing for the movement, was shot down, so movement has not been included.

Note 2: In a live combat situation, which is the only place that this skill would work, and assuming both the zombie’s victim and the zombie enter combat at 40 AP and they are acting at the same relative speed (click+refresh rate) and they engage in live combat: A maxed zombie will have a tangling grasp for roughly 22 AP (on average) and a firm grip for about 11 AP. This will translate into roughly 2 more failures on the part of the victim. Firm grips that happen on %100 of tangling grasps would result in 4 failures attributable to this skill.

Votes

  1. Keep – Author vote. --Greymattergourmet 16:14, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep — g026r 16:46, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill So every time a zombie hits you if you don't spend an additional 1AP to escape your combat accuracy is shot to hell, and you can fail at using a First-Aid Kit on yourself to stop infection. This is more than a little overpowered dontcha think?--Jon Pyre 16:53, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Whoa, "every" time? I don't think you understand how Tangling Grasp works, or you didn't see the 50% chance in the suggestion. Getting a Firm Grip would be something more like a 25% to 30% chance, depending on whether the target is already Grasped. --John Ember 20:18, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re My bad. Still I don't like the idea of skills being nerfed this way so my vote remains the same. --Jon Pyre 22:23, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill Considering active combat isn't very common, I just don't see the point. -Nubis 16:57, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill Zombies need a new skill (or 3). This is not it.--Bermudez 17:12, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Spam I think we need a new category of Spam - "Suggestions which prevent characters hit by Tangling Grasp from doing anything". There's a new version of this suggestion every other day. --Norcross 17:25, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - It's a fun idea with good flavor. The cost to survivors has been nerfed in this version to the point of being pretty minor. Yeah, live combat situations aren't the most common, but they do happen. This will make such fights that much more intense for survivors, without resulting in tons of wasted AP. Really, what's not to like? --John Ember 18:09, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment Flavor good. Mechanics terrible. What also works flavor wise is when a survivor is caught in Tangling grasp all their firearms attacks doing three times as much damage because they're firing at point blank range. But good flavor with bad mechanics is bad. --Jon Pyre 18:27, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - I think that it should just cut hit rates for the survivor in half, though. This way it's not a big deal for someone with maxed firearm skills but renders low-level characters mostly helpless. --Sindai 19:09, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - I may be doing this for the wrong reasons, but the above vote convinced me that this is a bad idea, low level characters don't need to more helpless. -Banana Bear4 19:13, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Spam - Another horribly unbalanced tangling grasp suggestion. This is unbalanced in favor of the Zombies. The way to fix the zombie human difference is not this way, besides the fact this is just a horrible suggestion. --Lordofnightmares 20:45, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Horribly imbalancing? I wonder if you guys have read point 2? The poor high-level survivor (who gets utterly imbalanced by this skill according to some) will hit the zombie 20-22 times @ 5 hp damage instead of 24, and probably will still take 5 AP off of the zombie. Frankly, I think survivors get away with way too much when a zombie is tearing them to shreds in real time. What? a %20 chance of failing to apply an FAK while being clawed and chewed on by a zombie? Zombies on the other hand need to be very aware that if they get knocked down, they'll probably be getting back up with 6 fewer AP, equivalent to applying 6 FAK's with First Aid. Balance that in real time combat. Infectious bite some may say? Well, maybe that balances the fact that a survivor has a %65 chance of taking off 5+ hp vs the %50+ chance that the zombie has for taking off 3hp (which is easily undone by an FAK, which thereby wastes 6 of the zombie's AP, by healing 10hp... It only takes 3 AP for the survivor to take 10 HP off of the zombie) This could use tweaking, so it doesn't make low-levels squirm badly... I agree and recognize the point about low levels. The "floor" for the to hit should be raised. And/Or straight half-off the "to-hit" percentage for things that aren't %100, with 20% failure on the "previously guaranteed". --Greymattergourmet 21:11, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - I'm starting to think that people shouldn't suggest things for their own character class. The best suggestions usually come from a player why primarely plays the other side. Strangely enough zombies are better in prolonged battles and survivors are better in short fights. In the end zombies have the better deal already. It's better to stop with the combat buffs and start with the diversity buffs. BTW, I feel I should apologise for the last time I voted on your suggestion. All the AP-penalty skills by both sides were getting on my nerves I think we should have less of them instead of more. I meant it against everybody not specifically to you.--Vista W! 21:45, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - No problem. Fyi, I started as a dedicated survivor player with a couple of zombies on the side, but after a few months that switched. When I was drafting this idea, I was thinking Zombie Hunter vs. High-level zombie for balance purposes. Silly me, didn't look at the rest of the spectrum. Currently, all zombies have to go with is combat, plus dealing with AP draining barricades and headshots, and having their work undone very rapidly. Zombie players are getting tired of being faced with humans who basically run in, harvest XP from active zombies and run away with little to fear.--Greymattergourmet 01:43, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - im a zombie player and i think that your idea is to unblanced for survivor with no challenge a game is very dull --Kcold 21:40, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - Almost got my vote but just missed it. This is interesting but overpowered--Mpaturet 23:07, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - I hate -20% to success chances. Nerfs newbies to no end, as well as melee combat. Remember that 45% chance instead of 65% chance is much different than 5% chance instead of 25% chance. The first case is a loss of 31% of your attacks, the second one is a loss of 80% of your attacks. Can you say ye-ouch? Many will have no choice but to stand there doing nothing, or pay that 1 AP to get free... only to very possibly get gripped again. --McArrowni 00:01, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 4 Keep, 8 Kill, 2 Spam 18:44, 7 April 2006 (BST)

New Zombie Skill

Timestamp: 20:11, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: *Digestion
    • Projectile Vomit - Zombies gain the ability to literally puke on their attackers. Bizarre chemical reactions after death give this a highly corrosive power. Base of 25% to hit. Base 2 damage. If hits, opponent loses 5% on all attacks. If hit two more times, opponent loses 10%, and if hit yet another 2 times, opponent loses 15%; simply, if hit 5 times, opponent loses 15% to hit on all attacks. Zombies can only "store" enough vomit for 4 attacks at a time. A successful bite restores one attack, and it restores itself naturally once every 4 hours. Loss of accuracy can be removed in 10% increments by FAKs.
    • Infectious Bite
      • Disgusting Upheaval - +15% to hit on Projectile Vomit. Opponent now loses 5% for every hit, the limit still being 15% loss, but in 3 attacks. Gives PV a 5% chance to infect target every successful hit. Zombie can now store 5 attacks. Same attack regeneration applies. No damage boost.

Votes

  1. Keep Author vote. Putting this up while I work out the crap for the other two skills. --Cerebrus13 20:11, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Needs a way for survivors to rid themselves of the hit percentage modifier. -Nubis 20:38, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • It's already in there: "Loss of accuracy can be removed in 10% increments by FAKs." (So 2 FAKs to remove the full 15% modifier.) — g026r 20:45, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
    • RE - Edited in while I was trying to connect with the server or something. I'd rather see the FAKs remove in more 'matched' increments, like 5% per FAK, or one FAK to remove all modifiers. -Nubis 21:06, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Make one FAK heal all of the % decrease and it might be keep worthy. Not thought through though, the vomit regens too fast. Still somewhat unbalanced. --Lordofnightmares 20:48, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - hum vomit is a good idea but something wrong with your skill... first i think regenerating must be more than 4 hours..maybe 6 or 10 hours can be good... well all the rest of your idea is good so keep good work --Kcold 21:34, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  5. Spam - It's hard to believe this is a serious suggestion. -15% to hit is overpowered, and requiring the zombie to bite first is hardly a limitation. --Norcross 21:37, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  6. Spam - Yeah. This is obviously a serious suggestion...--Wifey 21:42, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill Hmm...it's not terrible and I like the idea of storing vomit as ammunition, but it's pretty overpowered. The mechanics are good, you just haven't explained why zombies should get the ability to lower attack percentages. --Jon Pyre 21:50, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill -Skill that nerf the other side are annoying, lets not add to them.--Vista W! 22:16, 20 March 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill Extra calculations/variables stored on the part of the server for little return, would need QA'ing to ensure bug-free. Vote not signed. Remove strikeout when you add your signature. --Grim s 02:02, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill I need to start a discussion on adding "Don't put a reduction on someone's chance to succeed to hit" to the do's and don'ts. It nerfs newbies more than anything. -15% chance to hit on a lvl 1 fireman's fireaxe removes more than half of his chances to hit, whilst a maxed gunner loses 15% out of 60%... much less --McArrowni 00:15, 21 March 2006 (GMT)
  11. kill - debuffs are annoying in continuous action MMO's, they would be annoying^2 in UD. maybe having a more powerful successor to infectious bite would be cool, maybe something which must be activated as another attack method and hits less often, but does more damage per turn?
    • Tally - 1 Keep, 7 Kill, 2 Spam 18:44, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/20th-Mar-2006&oldid=191006"