Closed Suggestions

These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
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.
Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
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

23rd December, 2005

VOTING ENDS: 6th-Jan-2006

Sleeping Zombies

Timestamp:	00:42, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	NO, THIS ISN'T ACTUALLY ABOUT SLEEPING ZOMBIES. The title just sort of fit, I felt. Read on. What it is Survivors are allowed to barricade buildings to protect themselves, so why can't zombies have a method of protecting themselves when they leave for the night? I propose that a new skill is added, titled "Survival instinct" (name is subject to change, based upon opions and reactions to it). Survival Instinct would allow a zombie to lay on the ground, therefore enabling the zombie to be safe from attacks. The zombies would appear as a corpse (dead body) to all who enter the block. To stand up, 1 AP is required. Why? Survival is a primal instinct. Zombies retain most of this instincts (hunger, primarily). Therefore, they would be able to protect themselves when needed. Alternatives 1. Zombie would appear as a corpse (dead body) to all survivors, but as a zombie to other zombies, since zombies seem to be able to identify each other as undead. 2. Zombie would only be able to "play dead" when they have under 3 AP left. When low, a button would appear saying the skill is usable. 3. See Alternative 1, but add in that an attack by another zombie would bring you out of this state. Summary Zombies can "play dead" (. . . Deader), having the same effect as a survivor in a barricaded building. Prototype Skill List Memories of Life: Zombie is able to open doors to buildings. Death Rattle: Zombie is able to communicate through a limited, groaned form of speech. Feeding Groan: If faced with a survivor, the zombie can emit moans audible up to six blocks away. Survival Instinct: Zombie has the ability to lay on the ground, unmoving, as if dead. This is just a basic suggestion. It will be up for change, depending on reactions. Please, in your votes, include some comments on what you think could be improved upon.

Votes

Keep - Author Vote. --Zacharias Cross 00:42, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - This basically makes zombies invulnerable when offline. And I'm sure it's been sugested before. I'll change my vote to spam if/when I find that one. Rhialto 00:47, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- RE: Did you notice the alternatives that allow other zombies to attack them? --Zacharias Cross 00:48, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Suggestions like this one have been made before, and always been shot down. Zombies have much less of a penalty for dieing, and what will survivors hunt if all the zombies are faking death? --Hexedian 00:49, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill It was bad then and its bad now. You're already immortal, what do you want? --Zaruthustra 01:00, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Changing to a corpse doesn't just hinder survivors getting exp, the way barricaded buildings do, it makes zombies impervious while offline, except while you've got the alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 3 would mean you'd have human zombie zergs increase ZKing... either way, zombies become impervious while offline to humans, while humans remain vulnerable to zombies who breach their barricades. --Shadowstar 01:44, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
kill - "The zombies would appear as a corp..." and here you lost my 'keep' vote. This is NOT a new idea. --Hagnat 01:51, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill -undetectable, unhurtable zombie hordes, while survivors are dependend on merciful zombies outing their fellows zombies. Good for balance...--Vista 01:54, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - I just hate the idea of promoting "human spies" and this would make that strategic tool very tempting. --Contaminated 02:53, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - aside from being horribly unbalanced, i don't like the flavor. zombies aren't concerned with survival - survivors are. zombies are only concerned with feeding. --Firemanstan 03:57, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Negative Ghostrider, this suggestion is dumb. Zombies care not for survival, since they cannot die. -- S Kruger
Kill - Um... so if a zombie is being attacked it can "play dead" and hence become impossible to kill. Too exploitable. --Signal9 05:21, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Stealth skills that leave you immune to attack are bad, okay? Bentley Foss 06:31, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- - RE: Okay . . . Did ANY OF YOU READ ALTERNATIVE NUMBER THREE?--Zacharias Cross 06:40, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    - Re:' I read it. I think the chances of zombies attacking their hidden brethren is nil. "Hey, why don't I make my previously invincible ally vulnerable to attack!" No. We all know that won't happen, and this will only lead to invincible hordes everywhere, all the time. No no no. Bentley Foss 05:23, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill I read it, but feral zombies who do this will be invincible since they're going to be alone, and zombies in general don't ZK unless they're really close to a level-up. With this implemented, we'd have to start having survivor spies, and zombies spies are bad enough! --Volke 06:44, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

~~kill now why would a zombie sleep by the way i mean its just a festering corpse.~~ No signature, and not even within the voting space (I moved it back). --Daxx 12:22, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Kill - I think everyone else has pretty much covered this. Invulnerability is bad. --Alcoholic 12:37, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Comment - Zach, you really shouldn't list alternatives in your suggestions. You know that people are supposed to vote on the main body of the idea, and any change votes should be kill votes. Unless you make the alternative the main focus of your suggestion, people will follow the guidelines and vote kill. Sorry mate. --Daxx 12:41, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - This can easily be played to make a Zed virtually invincible. --Reverend Loki 16:50, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - the thing is, zombies can break into the buildings survivors are barricading and kill them, how would survivors kill these zombies?.....--dragonboy218 22:11, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - No ninja zombies.--Arathen 23:02, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - A skill that relies on zombies attacking each other to balance it out is a bad idea.--Robin Goodfellow 23:21, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - The only way this would work is if the harmanz had a skill to detect corpses as living dead, but even that would be dumb, bordering on insane barbariandude 11:21, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Heh, even if the sleeping zombie do not regenerate AP it still won't be fair, for god's sake - it would be like entering vacation mode immediately instead of waiting for 5 days. And I assume you WANT the zombie to be able to regenerate AP? Now, if the zombie goes down while running out of all health AND cost AP to stand (or in other word, suicide), it would still be too powerful, as there is no suicide function for even survivors with a gun... NOW, if you say fine, let the sleeping zombies be hurtable while sleeping, um, what's the point again? Oh, yes, balance between zombies and survivors. Sorry, there should be more elegant ways for balance instead of functionality manipulation. --Liadis 22:30, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Cool Runnings

Timestamp:	00:42, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	RP Element Adjustment
Scope:	Free Runners
Description:	Personally, I'd like to see a little more explanation on the skill of Free Running. How do you bypass barricades? How would you make it from building to building without stepping outside? I move to say that the skill's description include a little more information upon the skill's mechanics. This woulndn't have any ramifications upon the game itself, but it may give the realism elements of the game a small boost.

Votes
~~VOTING IS OVER. IT FAILED. KEPT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE IN CASE THERE ARE ANY DUPES.~~ I have a hard time believing that this is a real comment, considering the rules of the wiki. --RSquared 18:25, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Comment -It was added by the author after a series of harsh "Kill" votes. --Contaminated 22:15, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Plague Bite

Timestamp:	01:16, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	zombie skill
Scope:	zombies and their love bittees
Description:	Skill pre-requisites: Level 10 Zombie Brain Rot Infectious bite Description: The zombies that have reached advanced stages of the outbreak are carrying a stronger form of the disease. A new infection can now be inflicted on humans from zombie bites. Effect Plague bite would infect a human with an infection that could not be cured, but would not carry over after death. The infection could be pushed back through the use of healing items (this would surely make surgery matter since people would REALLY want that 15 HP bonus. It does not stack with normal infection. The infection automatically goes away if the infected survivor uses between 50 and 100 AP without dying. The AP would be randomized each time the player is bit (i.e. if they were bit and it took 50 AP to cure, then they were bit later, it could jump up to 80, it could stay the same, it could jump to 100, whatever. Possible Change: Only a ?25%? chance of occuring, otherwise causes normal infection Genre Justification Most zombie movies, if a person gets bit, they will eventually turn into a zombie. It is possible to sustain life, but in the end, they will die. This fits genre quite well. Game justification/balance With the changes in headshot, zombies having a lasting effect on humans is more important than ever. This would strike massive fear into many humans, as they would not be able to simply cure themselves when they are infected. However, by not carrying over after death, it will not be a permanent death sentence for humans. Since it is only available for rotters above level 10, not every zombie will own it, and no one will buy it that will also be able to switch over. Many people will never buy it because they do not want to buy brain rot. Others will not buy it because they want the current infection which carries over. Personal thought I would have a lot of fun with this, as a zombie. It would really make me feel like I can do some lasting impact. As a maxed out zombie, this would give me a reason to keep playing other than to bring down the barricades for other people. My human character would also love this. I would actually be afraid of even small zombie groups as they could easily infect me and sentence me to death. Game note Difference in game notation as follows: You are Duranna and you are INFECTED You are Duranna and you HAVE THE PLAGUE A zombie bites you for 4 HP. The bite was INFECTED! You lose 1 HP everytime you use AP (except for speaking). Curable by FAK (or whatever it says) A zombie bites you for 4 HP. The bite was INFECTED WITH THE PLAGUE! You lose 1 HP everytime you use AP (except for speaking), until you perish or your body can fight off the plague naturally. The plague lasts for 50-100 APs, randomly. After the plague runs its course, a FAK can be used to remove the infected wounds (before that, it only restores hit points), the player receives the following message: Your body continues to resist the plague, and the fever dies down. You are still infected, but there is hope for a cure. The above is taken more or less from the forum directly. Pseudo-code This section is primarily for Kevan's benefit, to suggest a method in technical terms on how to implement it. yes, these paragraphs are not for non-geeks. yes, they can (indeed, probably should) be ignored in making your vote decision. The skill introduces a new status flag, called plague. When a zombie with the skill bites a survivor, the survivor receives both the infected and the plague flags. The plague flag is also associated with a number value. This value is from 1-100, and acts as a timer. Event on bite: survivor gains infected and plague flags. random number = 50-100 if random number > (current plague timer value), let plague timer value = random number Event on survivor action: survivor loses 1 hp (effect of infected wounds status flag) plague timer flag drops by 1. if plague timer = 0, remove plague status flag and display flavour text noted in above sections. Event on survivor death: plague timer = 0 remove plague status flag Event on FAK used on the survivor: Survivor gains 5/10/15 hit points If (infected = 1) and (plagued = 0) then (infected = 0) Additional thoughts: As written, half of all APs spent during the plague period are effectively lost to searching for FAKs. The exact number of course varies by search location. Given that, the time period is quite a bit too long, as it effectively puts the target out of action. Two changes that should be made are: Reduce the time period, perhaps as low as 25-50 APs. Make it a % chance of causing plague on each attack, perhaps 20%. Attacks that fail this check still cause infected wounds as normal. Rhialto 12:17, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Votes

Keep - I'm technically not the original author, just posting it. But I think it's cool. Rhialto 01:16, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Original author from the forums :) I think this would give a real fear of zombies into the game! --Duranna 08:49, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - I like it. --Stroth 01:36, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - I believe it would be simpler and better if the plague couldn't be be cured except by Death. You could still use FAKs and healing to keep ahead of the damage until you make revive arrangements. --Contaminated 01:43, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - What Stroth said. --TheDood 01:45, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Edit: Where the hell do you get 5000 damage? 1 times 100 = 100. That is 100 damage at the most. --Fullemtaled 01:47, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- devided over survivorsit's 5000 max, read my edit of my vote for full statistics.--Vista 22:53, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Though, please change the description on getting a plague bite to include that it can be healed by surgery so that it's explicit. --Shadowstar 01:50, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- As I understand it, surgery restores 15 hp, but does NOT cure teh plague. Only waiting out the timer and then a FAK (or death) will cure plague. Rhialto 02:50, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
keep - --Hagnat 01:55, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Though the "You have the plauge!" text should state that living for a long enough time will cause the plauge to die down and be curable.--Arathen 01:57, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Good point. I'll edit accordingly. Rhialto 02:50, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
kill - seriously what is it with all these sickness ideas, this is a "zombie Apocalypse" game not a "avoid getting a cold or die!" game. I fear dor the day "getting the sniffels" kills more survivors then zombies do. Zombies should kill people, not cough on them. Infection is already balanced enough. and timed effect grieving, Edit of edit from the zombies perspective. max damage by a zombie: 50AP times 1 plague per survivor times 100 damage= 5000 damage devided over 50 survivors. higly unlikely yes, but already in sieges zombies use infection on as many survivors as possible. instead of max damage. average damage 50AP times 30% bite hit chance times 25% plague chance times 75turns= 281 HP a day. the zombie does on general 5.6 HP damage per spend AP vs the 1.5 HP/AP of claws and 1.2HP/AP of bite. what zobie is going to use an other attack then infection with a plague and move on the next survivor? too overpowered --Vista 02:05, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- My dialogue with Vista moved to discussion - Dangermouse
Kill - I just don't want to spend two days being forced to search in a hospital or die. --Jon Pyre 02:11, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - I like this idea both for its genre basis and its advancement of a skill (infectious bite) that largely has little to no effect.I think I like some percentage for the hit better so that not every zombie encounter results in a plaque. --Dangermouse 02:05, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - A bite that would require a special needle from necrotech would be better (maybe use existing needles) - I just never understood how gauze and ointment could cure a zombie bite. --Jon Hawk 02:43, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep ---Kcold 02:56, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Any bite that can instantly be cured, whether through FAK or surgery or a special necrotech item, will always be a waste of 100 XP, because every player, or at least all of the high level ones who zombies should be trying to kill first, are going to be completely immune. This bite is not super-overpowered or instant death. A survivor with first aid and/or a stockpile of FAKs on hand could probably heal themselves fast enough to not have to worry too much and just be down some AP, a survivor with surgery in a lit hospital could probably increase his supply of kits during the timespan, and the ones most disadvantaged, the non-healing classes, could still probably keep their head above water in a hospital or mall. What it would do is significantly slow them down and put fear back into the humans, because you COULD die from it, unlike normal infections. And I'd say that the advantage it gives first aid is plus as well, since it brings up the least effective human class in its survival abilities. --Brickman 03:25, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill Guaranteed death? Hell no. This is a form of insta-kill IMO. Introduce a new NecroTech-based item to heal it like Jon Hawk suggested, and then maybe.-CWD 06:17, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep Gauranteed death? HELL YES! BARHAH HARMANZ! I think the Church of the Resurrection would LOVE this skill. Hey, to all you survivor players who are too scared to spend a little time as a zombie: U R A N00B. Being a zombie sometimes is part of playing this game. Seriously try it, it's fun. You'll get revived eventually, don't worry. Come on, 70% Humans, 30% Zombies? Is that really fun for you? You can't go forever without dying. Such is true in life and video games. ESPECIALLY when zombies infected with a disease are roaming the streets in search of flesh. And yes, before you ask, I DO have some survivor characters.--Tereseth 11:24 PM, 22 Dec 2005 (Mountain Time Zone)
Kill - There's a lot wrong with this one. All I'll bother with is your math: this plague skill does 1 damage per spent AP. It wears off randomly in 50 to 100 AP. Even assuming the victim can reach a mall and start searching for FAKs before they die, this is pretty much a guaranteed kill. No, no, no. There are (and should be) no guaranteed kills in this game. Bentley Foss 06:35, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- If you are wandering around without a FAK (ie unprepared) and a zombie crops up, you shouldn't be thinking, "oh, I'll pop him full of shotgun pellets then saunter of to find a FAK". You should be fvcking terrified. This is the skill that does that. It is only an effective instakill if you are completely unprepared anyway. If you have a FAK in your inventory to recover the initial hit point loss and can make it to a powered hospital, or even just any hospital/mall with lots of people willing to help, you're safe. This only kills rambo types who don't think they should be scared of zombies. Rhialto 11:20, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill I think its a bit overpowered. Have it not stackable with infection and/or curable by SOMEONE ELSE who has Surgery (debatable whether or not it must be in a hospital) and I'll change my mind. --Volke 06:40, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- By itself it doesn't do any harm whatsoever, the sole purpose of this status flag is to prevent infected wounds from being cured. Saying it can't be stacked with infected wounds just doesn't make sense. Note that it does not cause any damage in addition to that caused by infected wounds. Rhialto 11:20, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  - Apologies, I misread the suggestion. Making it harder to heal I can understand, and I think normal infections could be best if changed so that only someone else with an FAK can heal you, and as for something like this... Well, rereading it shows that it could only last two days at most, so I'm a bit confliced on what to vote... Sounds like a siege-breaker, and I'll consider keeping it if it can allow survivors to still be able to win in a siege every once in a while. After all, whats the fun in a siege if the David can never beat Goliath? --Volke 21:13, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - No. Just no. Read all of the other Kill votes. --Zacharias Cross 06:43, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill, is it just me, or are the suggestions getting worse? --LibrarianBrent 06:50, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill overpowered -- P0p0 08:42, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - All I'd do is tone down the duration somewhat -- say, 30-60, rather than 50-100, just to mollify the people complaining about auto-kills. Otherwise, this is what Infectious Bite should be (as Brickman notes, any status effect that can be instantly cured by a trivial-to-find item is pretty pointless). --Centerfire 09:19, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Very good. My only concern is couldn't survivors simply use up the AP by talking.--The General 09:41, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Good point on the talking to burn APs. Make it any AP use which would also trigger HP loss from infected wounds. Rhialto 11:20, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - 25% chance of occurring seems maybe a little high though. --Alcoholic 12:17, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Log-droppingly scary zombies. What a concept. --Throctukes 13:08, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Sounds fine to me, but the duration should definetly be between 30 and 60AP. It should kill wounded survivors, but not full-health bodybuilders, although the idea of making it require Brain Rot is pretty interesting. --Omega2 14:36, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Have it do like 2 or 3 health per AP. THEN it will be something to fear. And maybe cure-able by a necrotech building or something... or not --Nomadgod 15:40, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Jeez, it's like everyone's afraid of death...not like you can't get revived, pansy harmanz. Trivial (ooh, waste one AP for a survivor who would've had to heal himself of the bite damage ANYWAY) infection skills are stupid - make 'em hurt. --RSquared 16:50, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Surgery should be the only way to heal it, though. --Bcrogers 17:00, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - I like it just the way it is, but I suppose I wouldn't mind if it was toned down to only effect survivors for 30-60 AP --Chumbler 17:49, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - I vote keep because infectious bite is really not very powerfull, however I have one question, Since talking does not make you lose health could you not then just talk for the next 50 turns?? --FriedFish 17:55, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill Monstrously overpowered. This needs a serious nerf. --Zaruthustra 19:04, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Under normal circumstances I'd say no. Notice I'm not saying no. However, I would say the percentage needs to be tweaked. 25% is awfully high. Perhaps something to prevent zombies from using this skill too much (say a set number of uses per 24-hours?) --Lucero Capell 20:05, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Overpowered, though I kinda like the concept. 50-100 AP is a bit much, I think.--Brizth 20:28, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - A suitable skill for zombies to have learned this late in the game's evolution. Humans need to have some more fear of zombies to balance the game out... --DeadSpawner 22:17, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Nice idea. As is, I can't justify a keep vote. --Tyroney 22:26, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Finally, a reward for rotters. --Basher 22:30, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Actually puts some horror back into the game.--Robin Goodfellow 23:27, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Not instakill, helps newbie healers get exp because there will always be wounded survivors running around in need of FAK's as a result. --Grim s 02:31, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Actually pretty weak for this dedicated a skill. But given the shocking amount of kill votes. Its unlikely that something more fitting would pass. As it stands this skill is just what the dedicated Brain rotter could use. Realistically, a zombie will spend 30-10 ap attacking a day. Given that bite is already a 30% chance on hit. The amount of survivors hit by this is low. If its only a 25% chance to proc however, it will only hit 7.5% of the time. This makes the skill silly weak, not that it was strong already. I vote keep, for the dedicated zombie player.--Rhapsha
Keep - No reason not to allow it to carry over after death. Implementable as normal infection with an "incurable" toggle, setting the toggle to false on death as well as when the AP time limit runs out. That way if someone dies from it and comes back, they're just a regular infected recently revived survivor. I dislike this being Brain Rot only, but I see the logic behind it. Would also suggest a higher chance to infect, 25% of 30% feels too low. How about making it cumulative? Requires you to bite an already infected survivor, but a 100% chance of success if you do --Splicer
- Just to clarify, that's pretty much how it works as described. If a plague victim dies, teh plague flag gets removed while the infected flag remains, so he only has a regular infection to deal with once he gets revived. Rhialto 05:05, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Would prefer if surgery in the hospital would cure it outright, but good as it is. --Bloarg
Keep - I like this. A little refinement is needed, but the core is strong. Would certainly add some of the zombie flavor this game is lacking. -- S Kruger
Keep - I know it would make my human steer clear of zombie hordes. It adds an element of fear. -- SCAScot
Keep - Yeah, it somehow needs to be refined, but the zombies really need it! -- ZheAldo
Kill — While it would put the fear of God (Zombweh) into Survivors, I don't really see how it would make the game more fun. Maybe if the chances were 5%-10%. Otherwise it just seems like griefing. — Bartle 05:52, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Plague zombies are almost as much fun as radioactive zombies. Potatojunkie 10:16, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep -- Pretty cool. If the plague goes away after 50 AP are spent, it might not be too overpowered. furtim 10:31, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - putting it under brain rot ensures it is far, far more rare than headshot. I think this is fine.--Jorm 10:49, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Sorry, i have to change this to kill. Liadis raised a very good point. If this xp farming prob was fixed, id change it back again. barbariandude 11:43, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - I too think this or something like it would help make zombies much more frightening. Infectious Bite was great fun until all the humans started carrying 2-3 FAKs each.--Keith Moon 16:19, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Awesome. This would be fun for both sides - the most fun I had with my survivors was when I was scared of dying. -Murgatroid 21:20, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - No. If you lose hp everytime you spend an AP, you can XP farm with a friend. Think about it: You use FAK to heal one damage, and get 5 XP, and then the plague-bearer LOSE 1 hp... And you use another one FAK, get 1 hp, 5 XP, then he LOSE 1 hp... So, um, no. On the other hand, as a survivor with 50 FAK in stock for one of my char? Very yes, since I can abuse it and get 250 XP in a day, and roughly total 300 XP for the course of a full plague over 2 days... *Note: Sarcasm* -Liadis 22:06, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Re: - While this is true, it can be done just as easily with current methods. You hit someone with an axe, they get hurt, you heal them. While it is not as guaranteed of injury, it is still an easy XP farm. I've seen people do it with infection, where they spend a lot of time wasting HP with an infection, then get healed back up to full health.--Duranna 07:02, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep -- Very nice. If the plague goes away after 50-100 AP are spent, it seems not overpowered. And I am sure that there are ways to prevent abuse like liadis said!Jinxed 12:03, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT+1)
Keep -- Great suggestion, and best\most balanced of the Plague variations that have been around lately. --Jack Destruct 13:23, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep -- I've been saying we need something like this for a while now. --Patrucio 23:11, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - This skill is quite good.Death OR 50-100 AP.A hard choice to decide for those infected."Would I jump out a window or get healed as much as I can?" -Penance 02:55, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - I'm always in favor of harming humans and this looks to be right up my alley. -- Ruining 1239 Dec. 29, 2005 (EST)
Keep - I like this one. --Thraun 09:42, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Sounds good and seems well thought out --Kasz 3:09AM, 31 Dec 2005
Keep - Sound very in genre, well thought out and do-able. But using a code that doesn't lower the flag when speech is used would be a good one. --Paddy Fitzgerald 17:54, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - I like it. --Comrade Morgan 22:53, 30 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Nothing special to add, just the vote. --SatansMechanic 2334 31 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Encourages longer term zombie play. --Mardigan 00:23, 1 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Kill - This utterly screws newbies. The rest of us will just carry a few first aid kits and find a hospital to wait out the rest of the plague in. -LtMile 15:56, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Keep - As predominantly human player (admittedly all my chars are dead but that's not the point), I like this idea. I agree that 50-100 maybe be a bit much but that's already been mentioned. I think one thing it would do is place a greater premium on FAKs. As it is, low level chars (or former zombies who are revived) with med kits will be more useful. When a formerly zeds char became human, it took forever to get up the XP to buy a useful skill, all I could do is run around healing people, but that was already done. This skill would make people running around with nothing more than a bunch of medkits far more useful and provide a steady and necessary XP flow for low level and skilless humans, as well making individual zombies a threat rather than a punching bag. --Torin Mai 22:24, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Keep - being a Zed is tough duty when every survivor's running around overpowered in comparison. A stronger version of infection makes sense balance wise, just as firearms can be improved three times a piece too. Mojo 10:06, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Urbanite

Timestamp:	02:09, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Suvivors and Zombies that took the skill when alive, Civilian
Description:	Malton is your home. You know the city like the back of your hand. When you see a flare or hear a groan you'd also know the place it is coming from, for instance seeing "A flare was fired 9 blocks to the east and 7 blocks to the north at St. Andrew's Church". This would be useful in prioritizing responses to flare-type messages. If one was launched from a police station I might be more inclined to respond than had it been launched from the street. Also if I hear a feeding groan coming from an important place I'll head over there to help protect it! True one can check the map and count spaces to determine where the message is coming from but that requires extra time, which becomes considerable if you are trying to pinpoint the origin of several beacons. This would also make it easier for groups to signal each other: "Wait until you see a flare from the Blakely Building, that's the sign to enter the mall!" This skill could make flares more than the spam they are for the most part now. In response to vote comments that dislike the name: I think Urbanite is a pretty good skill name. But if that one doesn't suit you how about "Street Smarts"?

Votes

Keep - I'd call it something else, (not sure what.. Home Advantage?) but if you think about it, this makes sense. To Hell with Server Load, if someone fired a flare down the street from me, I'd know it was coming from the Ashlines' home. -- Amazing 02:14, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep This skill should be usable by zombies or survivors just like Diagnosis is. Good idea. --Contaminated 02:16, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - I wouldn't mind this at all if it were implemented. Brainrotted zombies would be rather unhappy that they couldn't take it, though.--Arathen 02:24, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Re - True, but brain rotted zombies shouldn't prevent new skills. If necessary this skill could perhaps be listed under Memories of Life so brain rotters could get it. --Jon Pyre 02:57, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Another skill for brain rots to get. --ALIENwolve 02:26, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Sounds usefull --Lord Evans 02:30, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - i completly agree with that more usefull--Kcold 02:57, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - that's a nice new feature to Civilians, and possible to happen in-character, although I really think Scientists need new skills ASAP, too. --Omega2 12:45, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT) (damn it, I was sure I sigged this one too! Sorry again!)
Keep - Nice idea. I'm tempted to say let this be just a feature rather than require a skill. --Zarquon 04:18, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - "Malton Citizen"? --Hexedian 05:10, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Good Idea. Sounds good for a civvy skill to me.

But it would make sense as a feature,too. --Tereseth 11:38 PM 22 DEC 2005 (Mountain Time)

Keep Should carry over, too. Brain rotters complain? Screw them! They knew they'd miss out on any knew crossover skills after getting it, and they took it anyways! They'll get their compensation one day, but I'm afraid this will just have to be a cost for them choosing to be forever dedicated to the BARHAH! --Volke 07:42, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Actually, Volke, I took Brain Rot holding out the perhaps-naive hope that Kevan would figure out that "crossover skills" are lame. I spent 100XP to get immunity to revive syringes, not to get fscked repeatedly by the addition of new skills in the human tree that could be useful to me, but that are forever unavailable to me. Unless some parallel to this skill is made available to zombies with Brain Rot, not just no, but hell no. --Centerfire 09:32, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Good idea.--The General 09:54, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Very good idea. The name doesn't matter, I'm sure if this was implemented Kevan would come up with something good. Kudos. --Daxx 12:26, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep --Throctukes 13:10, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - I like this idea. --Reverend Loki 16:55, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - I like the name or "Urban Knowledge". --Squashua 19:07, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - i like everything, but the name could be better... maybe "street knowledge", "street adept", or one of the others mentioned in comments. Kevan, i'm sure, would put an appropriate name on it when/if implementing it though. --Firemanstan 19:40, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - i love this --dragonboy218 22:20, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - My principal character is brainrotted, and I don't have the slightest problem with this as a skill. It's neat. It's got flavor. It would be last on a power-gamer's list of skills, but that's fine. It doesn't put my zombie at any real disadvantage. I can use a map if I care that much. Unless I just got to a new suburb I have a pretty good idea where the buildings I would care about are roughly related to me anyway. In any case, as a zombie, I'm unlikely to run 15 blocks over a flare, because zombies aren't tied to resource buildings. A survivor might care that flares were fired at his mall/Fort/whatever as opposed to seeing "9N 15E." --Unlife22:27, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Needs some kind of zombie equivalent. Especially thanks to brain rot but regardless, it just seems a bad idea to hand out more advantages to survivors.
- Re - I disagree, person who didn't sign their vote and will probably have it struck out by someone pretty soon. I wouldn't want suvivors to get an upgrade on an ability that's working fine like "Suvivors can barricade up to Extremely Very Heavily Strong" but this just adds more interesting ways of playing the game. I hardly think it's an unfair advantage, it would just give suvivor flares a small chance of actually being worthwhile. Zombies don't really need this skill and I doubt whether the current brain rotters got it or not would affect gameplay much, especially considering that they have Feeding Groan to find suvivors now. I would also like to point out that this skill would not be important for zombies following Feeding Groans because it doesn't matter what the building is, they know there are suvivors there.--Jon Pyre 22:41, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Damn good idea, and i agree with pyre, the reason i chose to be a zombie was not for advanced tactics, metagaming, and concerted attacks at prime targets, its simply so that i could eat brains. Heres how it works: Zombies want brains, Humans want tactics and new ways to do things (and to survive of course). I coudnt care less if zombies got this skill or not, but it looks valuable to those harmburgerz who get high on tactics. barbariandude 11:52, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Sounds good.--Ben Disraeli 12:32, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Good for determining position. --Penance 02:59, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Why even make it a skill to purchase; just give it to everyone. --LtMile 15:59, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Zombie Skill Cost Change

Timestamp:	02:10, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Game Change
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Players who choose "Corpse" as their starting class are able to get Zombie skills for 75 XP and non-civilian human skills at 125 XP. I picked 125 because usually a penalty in the game now is 150 for ONE skill set. (like 150 for scientific) - 150 for two sets would be a bit much (Imagine being a corpse player, and having to spend 150 XP on two sets of skills instead of one set as it is now for military or scientists) That said, this could easily be hanged to 150. Doesn't matter to me, just seemed more fair.

Votes

Keep --ALIENwolve 02:17, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Goddammit! I submitted this in the afternoon and somehow it dissapeared. --TheTeeHeeMonster 02:18, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Re: - I assumed you retracted it! :O I was like: "Screw that, it was a good idea you nut." heh heh. Plus I added the little bit about survivor skills. I don't recall that part but if it was there before lemme know and all. :X Edit: If you look back far enough in the History you can see someone removed it when posting their own idea. An innocent mistake, I'm sure. -- Amazing 02:23, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - It will help the newbie zombies. - --Fullemtaled 02:20, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep Even though I am very near maxed out already as a Corpse, I wouldn't begrudge something to help the hopeful hordlings out there that aspire to be all they can be. --Contaminated 02:26, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Good idea. It's just fair. Little more to say than that. --Jon Pyre 02:27, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Make's lot's of sense and help's zombie player's learn skill's faster --Lord Evans 02:31, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep, although the non-civilian skills should cost 150, to ensure parity with the Military and Scientific classes. --LibrarianBrent 02:44, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Even though I'm going to feel mighty pissed because I bought all my zombie skills for 100XP when the newbies get 25% discounts on them. :P - KingRaptor 02:45, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - agreed with LibrarianBrent. --Jon Hawk 02:47, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill -the cost of the human skill tree is varied because every one is important to survivors so it cancels each other out. Why would a zombie need human skills? this would reduce the cost of the zombie skill tree to only 1125 XP without any noticible downside. Most Corpses won't go for maxing out the human skill tree, or only very late in the game when it's just vanity. Untill the effect of new headshot are known on Xp gathering I'm not sure this is necessary. It gives a pure zombie player an enourmous advantage. and if it turns out to be unbalacing and I don't see how it couldn't be, It's impossible to undo without pissing every corpse off.--Vista 02:56, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Re: - Zombies buy human skills all the time. Doesn't matter if they max out or not as no one of any other class is required or expected to max out on everything if they don't want to. - Amazing 18:27, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - That's a very good way to make people to actually stary playing as Corpse. Maybe tweak it so it will only happen if the zombie have Brain Rot, so there would be no need for a new flag saying "Corpse". --Omega2 03:17, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - This would be a nice incentive to start out as a zombie rather than as a human and bank up XP. Also, if the suvivor skills costed 150XP (except Civ skills) then Scent Blood would cost the same as getting Diagonsis rather than double the cost as it is now. --Zarquon 04:38, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep Nice. --Hexedian 05:07, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Unless this can be explained to me...maybe I'm stupid, but it looks to me like you're suggesting zombies should be able to purchase human military and scientific skills at 125XP. -CWD 06:15, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Re: - I figured 125 for two would make up for the 150 for one that people have to pay for skills outside their class now. See edits, doesn't matter to me though. -- Amazing 18:27, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep Very good. I'd say make it 75xp for Zombie skills and 150xp for Military and Science (not sure where 125 came from?), and 100 for Civilian just to keep things consistent. This would help young Zombies stay in the game! -- Karen Sanger -7:10, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep Just keep. --funkronomicon 07:36, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep Echo Karen, the numbers can be tweaked up a bit, though. Petrosjko 07:39, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep Helps alot of the newer zombies, that's good Kasz
Kill - This would only discourage survivors from playing zombies. Hardcore zombies players wouldn't care about the survivor skills costing extra, so it's no penalty for them. Rhialto 11:21, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT) Edit: I wouldn't mind the zombie skill trees being developed with more skill so that some zombie skills are cheaper and some zombie skills more expensive. But making any human skill tree more expensive for a zombie is no penalty because they have no reason to get 90% of them in the first place. Rhialto 14:54, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Re: - Not every zombie player snubs survivor skills. -- Amazing 18:27, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  - They wouldn't necessary snub them, but to reach their maximum potential, they don't need to get them. It would essentially make the zombie skill tree far, far shorter than the human one. I might have been inclined to vote differently if headshot still took xp though. This looks like a solution to a problem that no longer exists. Rhialto 00:07, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Only voted kill as a "change" vote. It should stick to the existing class-skills cost scheme (non-civilian survivor skills should cost 150). Other than that, no problem with it as long as the usual purchasing restrictions apply (can only purchase survivor skills when revived). --VoidDragon 14:51, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - If you're suggesting that zombies can buy survivor skills while zombies, that's no good. Actually, even if you're not saying that, 75 XP per skill seems a little low. --Dickie Fux 15:40, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Re: Not suggesting that. 75 XP per skill cost is currently ingame for certain classes. -- Amazing 18:27, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Yay for Nub Zombies! --Nomadgod 15:45, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - i like the sound of it. and you even took care to raise the cost of survivor skills to keep it balanced (though maybe civilian skill costs for them should be raised too, since most dedicated zombies only want "bodybuilding" from the survivor set). something like this might even sooth the players still on strike from headshot... --Firemanstan 19:45, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep -- Velkrin 23:37, 23 Dec 2005 (EST)
Keep - What firemanstan said, but just to clarify things for dickie fux and that lot, your NOT suggesting that a zombie could buy survivor skills in zombie form, are you? barbariandude 12:00, 24 Dec 2005
Kill -- While I agree with the whole lowering zombie skills to 75 exp per for the Corpse class, I think making the skills more expensive for humans who die just discourages them from playing as zombies. If anything, I might make zombie skills 75 for everybody, just to make being a zombie a bit easier. Patrucio 23:15, 26 Dec 2005 (EST)
Keep - I think a 125/125/100 split for Scientist/Military/Civilian skills as a survivor is more balanced. --LtMile 16:01, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Keep - Keep it. --Jack Destruct 11:33, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Keep - About friggin' time. Maybe have civilian skills at 100xp like another voter suggested (since, after all, that corpse probably WAS a civilian). Also to those voting kill on the basis of zombies buying survivor skills while zombies, REREAD THE DAMN THING. That will not happen. Mojo 10:28, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

TRADE function

Ugh. Five spam votes. This idea has continues to be proposed despite the fact that its been suggested more times than I can remember and its clearly in the UD FAQ. The author also tried to work NPCs in which have also been shot down more times than I can count on two hands, and are on the dead in the water section. So lets not suggest this anymore if we could, goit? --Zaruthustra 03:37, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Harman Hunter

Timestamp:	03:54, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Limited to zombies level 10 or higher. After killing a human you feed on the remains and regain strength. A zombie with this skill would upon killing a suvivor regain 5 AP, though not over the 50 max AP limit. Many zombies complained that the new headshot hurt high level zombies because while XP meant nothing to them AP does. Well, here's a way to regain that AP provided you're good enough. The extra AP would be enough to perhaps infect a few more suvivors, slightly weaken someone, or withdraw to safety but would not be enough to kill another suvivor (unless they're knocking at death's door anyway). This would not result in zombies gaining infinite AP because of the limited number of damage 5 AP can be used for. Instead this skill likely would just regain the AP they lost overnight from being headshot, or proactively it would make up for the AP they're about to lose by being killed by their victim's friends. Zombies don't really have a defense against headshot save to hide in Ridleybank, and this would reward undead excellence. I don't believe in zombies and suvivors having identical skills (i.e. zombies with guns) but I think this is very different than headshot while using a similar mechanic.

Votes

Keep - Well, this is certainly well-thought out. --MaulMachine 22:59, 22 Dec 2005 (EST)
Keep - ^ - --Fullemtaled 04:00, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep I would note this isn't "just an headshot-counter" suggestion but an actual boost if for some use of strategy or chance you don't get headshot. (Example: You happen belong to the Minions of the Apocalypse, a zombie group who kills headhunters and revivers first, leaving fewer people to revive the headhunters, thus greatly reducing the local headhunter population capable of launching reprisal attacks.) * (*Disclaimer: Statement in Italics is a blatant recruiting ploy, but is no less true.) --Contaminated 04:31, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - I kind of feel that was the point to why Headshot was changed to its current state in the first place: it affects all zombies equally now. Also, I'd rather see skills for zombies that save them a few AP here and there rather than give them AP directly. --Zarquon 04:43, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - It might be an anti-headshot skill, but it's still good and not overpowerful. --Hexedian 05:05, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Ankle Grab comes along, Headshot gets changed to partially negate Ankle Grab, this partially negates Headshot, when does the arms race end? -CWD 06:13, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - It's useful but pretty clearly not overpowered. Certainly worth Kevan's consideration. --Sindai 06:30, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Very satisfying skill, here. Jirtan 06:31, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill, reduces racial identity. Original ideas, please. --LibrarianBrent 06:48, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Promotes zombies working together to *kill* all the breathers in the room. Very theme-appropriate. -- Karen Sanger 07:04 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because you hate on harmanz skill doesn't mean that you should create a skill that pretty much negates it! This is almost completely indifferent from Mind Munch in terms of purpose! --Volke 07:35, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep It's not AP draining the humans, and it's a high-level skill equivalent to headshot. Petrosjko 07:37, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep Basically everything is said Kasz
Keep This skill is prefect! it doesn't take from anyone and it out measures the old headshot skill! --Shareyja 08:34, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep Anyone talking about Head Shot here is an idiot. This is not an arms race, and has nothing to do with head shot. They "neutralize" each other about as much as Bodybuilding "neutralizes" rend Flesh. I have no clue what Cap'n Whine was talking about "racial identity" for, this is very Zed-like. Call it something more descriptive if you'd like, "Death Blow" or "Follow Through"... something to emphasize that this is momentum gained by crushing a Harman skull and slurping out the brains. A max level zombie should really be a significantly scarier killing machine than a level 5 zombie. Currently, the only difference is that the max level zombie can mumble longer strings of zombie speech, and see survivor hps. Finally, any skill that encourages more brain rotters is good.Azariah
- Re - Yeah, Harman Hunter is a joke name really. In actual application something like "Cannibalize" would be more appropriate. It's just that... kind of embarassing really, my character is a suvivor and I've never gotten to say Harman. And I wanted to. --Jon Pyre 09:08, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Just the sort of thing zombies need. --Alcoholic 12:26, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - This is the first well thought out skill for level 10+ zombies I've seen, ever. Good job. --Daxx 12:28, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - This suggestion sounds a bit weird at first, since I thought zombies ran out of AP when their dead brains couldn't stand doing more subsequent actions, but, at a second thought, it's a good idea. --Omega2 12:50, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - This is a great idea and as a survivor, I see no problem with the enemy having this. --Hanabishi 12:59, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Excellent, Smithers --Throctukes 13:14, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Hurray Contaminated! --Monstah 14:32, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Considering how infrequently even high-level zombies get a kill, this isn't overpowered, and it works thematically. Nice. --Dickie Fux 15:45, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Oh yeah. --John Ember 18:40, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Any AP manipulation beyond a penalizing cost is improper. --Squashua 19:21, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Re - WTF are you talking about? How many people said that a "zombie flare" would be improper. Now it's in the game. You're just another survivor whiner who no-votes every zombie skill.--Alundra
Kill - i would vote keep if it was a HP bonus instead of AP. personally i agree with Volke's comment. as presented this just (basically) cancels headshot for experienced zombies that already would have ankle grab, and where i think the new headshot may need adjustment is for new zombies (certainly those below level 10) that dont have ankle grab yet. --Firemanstan 20:00, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Re - This has nothing to do with headshot..--Alundra

you yourself specifically mention headshot repeatedly in your suggestion... --Firemanstan 20:14, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

- Re - My suggestion actually. I figure this is balanced with headshot since most suvivors can kill a zombie with their day's AP while most zombies will not kill a suvivor with their day's AP. And I don't think it's a counter because while it is the mirror image of headshot it isn't cancelling out headshot or making it as if headshot were never implemented. --Jon Pyre 22:27, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
kill - to close to a counter skill.--Vista 22:02, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - I like the idea of zombies getting buffs, humans getting griefs. It's...fair. --RSquared 22:21, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - I disagree with such silly seeming back-and-forth. I'd look for a different mechanic, not something that simply negates an existing one. --Tyroney 22:35, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - I like it. That and it could very well keep the peace, because all going back and forth (e.g. Then: Without XP we're worthless, take our AP/ Now: Without AP we're worthless, take our XP again.) isn't getting us anywhere. And considering the fact that most zombies get a headshot or two a day (I usually do), it's not like the extra AP would be a game breaker, they can't go over their max. Most zombies are rarely active throughout the entire day, so most will hit max AP before they log in again. --Arcos 23:00, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep --Basher 23:10, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep I like it, gives a player a reason to be zombie. :) --Zombie1313
Kill - Tyroney is right, we need something to balance headshot, but not simply a negator. Id prefer something more elegant than this, this seems pretty ham-fisted to me. barbariandude 5:26, 25 Dec 2005
Keep - I like it a lot except the name. But I could unlive with that. --Jinxed 12:18, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT+1)
Keep - LtMile 16:03, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Computer Use

Timestamp:	05:44, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Within the city of Malton many of the civilians have learned to use computers well. Within a powered building while in a suburb served by a powered antenna mast these citizens are able to make (limited) contact with unquarantined areas -- and spread their cries for help far and wide. Scientists are renowned for their use of computers and have better chances -- and better efficacy of sending their requests out This suggestion encompasses four things: Searchable computers in housing developments. Computer Use skill as part of the Civilian skillset. Advanced Computer Use skill as part of the Scientist skillset, requiring Computer Use as a pre-requisite. Use Computer action available to players carrying a computer with either Computer Use or Advanced Computer Use -- while in a building with power and a suburb with a functional antenna mast. Successful computer use will increase the chances of the suburb recieving an airdrop by helicopter -- perhaps at the cost of airdrops which would otherwise be dropped in surrounding 'burbs.

Votes

Keep - I like it. Jirtan 06:34, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT) Edit: Mikm's suggestion is preferable. Jirtan 08:49, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Maybe not a computer, but something more primitive (e.g. a ham radio) and only in a building w/ a phone mast. Mikm 06:36, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT) Addendum Only one skill should be needed.
Keep - Oh my, we need to make a HAM Radio suggestion, now.--Zacharias Cross 08:16, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Two skills and ONE new action for those skills? I think this idea needs more work before resubmitting. Also, so far all scientist are of the bio/necrologist type. Having a computer geek in the scientist group isn't consistent nonsense. Rhialto 11:24, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Whilst having computers makes some sense (though not much, I wouldn't want to run one off a portable generator), I don't think you'd be able to use them to attract supply drops. Also, you don't need two skills for them, when they have only one use. Resubmit with something better as the focus and I might vote keep. --Daxx 12:31, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill Massive AP and XP sink for some vague reward that you might get maybe. --Zaruthustra 19:00, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill -why this proposal? what does it do? what is the need?--Vista 21:58, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep --Lord Evans 22:19, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - What? Are you emailing the army? A radio would make much, much more sense. And both skills should be Scientist skills, since they're both completely advanced knowlege of computing.--Arathen 23:10, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Um, right... --Brizth 01:25, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Watches

Timestamp:	06:48, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Everybody with a wrist
Description:	Watches! We could certainly use them in Malton. Watches would tell the time the same way GPS units tell your location. These would be useful for synchronizing strategies. Sure you can tell your allies to attack at midnight but what if in real life they're in different time zones? This way people could coordinate using Malton time, which would progress normally 1 second in game to 1 second real world. These could be found in mall tech stores and perhaps elsewhere as well. Easy to implement, simple, and useful. I'd like a watch.

Votes

Keep - Actually this would be Item not an Improvement which is why it is different from Clock. --Contaminated 06:54, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Re - Right. Changed it. --Jon Pyre 06:57, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - It's like some bad horror movie . . . "Synchronize watches and meet back here at ___." --Zacharias Cross 08:14, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - And hey, I like bad horror movies. --JeffL 08:54, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Hey, I'm all for survivors clogging up their inventories with more useless crap and less guns and ammo. --Centerfire 09:25, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - See what Zach said. Might get it into people's heads that Malton is in England if it used GMT (which I'm guessing it would). --Daxx 12:33, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
~~Keep ya thats kool maybe there could be a like a rolex perhaps?~~ No sig. No vote. --Daxx 12:34, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - One more thing to clog the search rates in malls and stuff... heheh, I like this idea! --Omega2 12:55, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - One important point. If the Watch and the Day/Night cycle suggestion were both implemented they could seriuosly screw each other up, as the day night cycle suggestion was working on 1 day= 12 hours. -- Andrew McM 14:02, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Comment: Actually it was based on a 48 hour cycle, 24 of "day" and 24 of "night", if you converted to real days, you'd be correct, but you don't have to. It doesn't need to be real it only needs to be constistant. Alternatively simply slow the watch speed to reflect "Malton Time". --Contaminated 14:09, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Keep - People have suggested an interface clock before, but I don't think it's been suggested as an item. Probably more useful than the GPS, actually. --Dickie Fux 15:48, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Fantastic way to impliment a game clock! I wonder where all the "You are lazy, check outside the game for the time!!" type people went. heh heh -- Amazing 18:31, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Time is good. Don't cell phones come with clocks though? =) --Hexedian 18:38, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Make mine a Rolex. --Squashua 19:08, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep, although the Watch probably shouldn't use any inventory space. However, I doubt that can really be helped. --LibrarianBrent 19:26, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill -Amazing, here's one... "You are lazy, check outside the game for the time!!" :P--Vista 21:57, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep --Lord Evans 22:21, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - i TOTALLY agree with this... --dragonboy218 22:24, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Though people should be able to get a rough estamate of the time when outside. "You are standing outside some random building, a drab grey structure. The sun sits right above your head in the sky, at high noon."--Arathen 23:13, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - i've always wondered why there isn't 'malton time' on the play screen already. this works for me. --Firemanstan 01:18, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Change - There is no point in this at all unless its set to malton 48 hour clock, if that suggestion is implemented, otherwise there is ZERO point in this. barbariandude 5:28, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Ankle Bite

Timestamp:	10:35, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Moving Bodies is currently a single action anyone is willing to make to make a safe house safe. This skill would turn Moving Bodies from a simple one click action to a dangerous chore for survirors. This skill would be best implimented if Moving Bodies required one click per body in the room. A zombie with Ankle Bite never truly dies. Even when killed, their body is dangerous. Moving the body of a zombie with Ankle Bite causes the person to be bitten and recieve a point of damage. This isn't much but can become very serious if you are looking at a dozen or more bodies in the room. If Moving Bodies is changed to one AP per body, a breach in the barracade force the survivors to move to a new safe house instead of clearing out the existing one.

Votes

Kill - I like the basic idea, but I think that there should only be a small chance for each Ankle Biter to do damage when moved. Clearing the room should still only take 1 AP. Changed to Kill as per the rules. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.--Alcoholic 12:30, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - I agree with Alcoholic. (Also, kill vote should be used if you want to change something in the suggestion.) --Daxx 12:35, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Same as Daxx. --Omega2 12:59, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - 100% auto-hit with no AP cost...gee, I can't seem to figure out why it's a bad idea. --VoidDragon 14:41, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - I agree with the sentiment, but any activity that happens automatically is bad. --Dickie Fux 15:50, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - i agree whit alcoholic--revoso 16:04, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - No automatic attacks. No free attacks. Bentley Foss 17:32, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill 100% chance to hit uber attacks rock the house. --Zaruthustra 18:58, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill, automatic infections for clearing bodies? NO. --LibrarianBrent 19:58, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - a penalty for a forced action, never a good idea.--Vista 21:30, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill But I agree it should take more then 1 ap to clear a room of corpses. - --Fullemtaled 00:32, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Skills that allow players to get kills for free, even without getting xp, are all terrible in my opinion. barbariandude 5:29, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)

The Living Hand

Spaminated by three (uncontested) spam votes. Ridiculous suggestion. --Brizth 13:41, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Next AP

Timestamp:	15:03, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Game Mechanics/Helpful Information
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	Sometimes, wether by design, or circumstances beyond your control, you run out of AP with unfinished business that still needs to get done. This usually involves being one (or several) AP shy of safety. This necessitates you logging in/out or viewing contacts until you get that one AP necessary to enter safety (or do whatever). Upon running out of turns, have the 'time until next AP earned' displayed at the bottom of the page. Reduces server load.--Nessola 15:02, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Votes

Keep - Author vote. --Nessola 05:23, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT).
Kill - Just wait 30 minutes. --Dickie Fux 15:52, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - good idea --revoso 15:57, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Not every computer is sinchronized with the server's minute counter, so I think it's a good idea to give people ways to know when they'll be able to use that much-needed next AP to enter/leave a building or to strike a last attack. --Omega2 16:07, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Guess what? Learning to count (there's a wonderful map out there, linked from the front page of this wiki) and spend your AP wisely is part of the game. If you get left outside, deal with it, and come back in a couple of hours. Bentley Foss 17:34, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill, pointless. --LibrarianBrent 19:25, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep -pointles if you pay attention.--Vista 21:32, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT) edit, damn that comment smarted. I'm used to hit people over the head with that one. It's not supposed to be useable on me... you've got your keep...(and earned it, when you're right you're right)
- Re - Doesn't matter if it's a function you won't use. Take the few that will, apply Multiply It By A Billion rule, and reduce server load. --Nessola 23:03, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT).
Keep - I like it. --Basher 23:13, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep I do that recheaking alot as a zombie, mostly when I want to get to a horde to be safer from ehadshot. --Fullemtaled 00:29, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - what omega2 said. barbariandude 5:31, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)

[EDIT] Someone broke the table - fixing now.. --Nessola 05:59, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT).

Keep - Presumably easy to implement and reduces server load. --LtMile 16:07, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Keep - I know I would find a use for this --Brizth 01:30, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Advanced Bite

8 spam votes, a new world record. And the crowd goes wild! A version of infection that does 3 times as much damage, takes twice as much AP to move, and takes 10 AP (of something never specified) to heal. Can anybody say spaminated? --Zaruthustra 07:12, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Elongated Fangs

Timestamp:	17:06, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Balance Change
Scope:	Zombies w/neck lurch
Description:	+15% to the accuracy of the bite attack. Survivors get 65% hit for 10HP attacks, and 45% chance of a hungry creature biting a human is still a little underpowered, but, as it takes no ammo, 45% should probably be the highest it can go. --Bcrogers 17:06, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Votes

Keep - I think this would be a fair modification the game. --Bcrogers 17:06, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - No. That instantly turns hand attacks worthless except for the breaching of barricades. A 45% chance to deal 4 damage, heal 4 damage, and infect survivors? No, no, no. Survivors get 65% to hit with shotguns because most of the time it takes them days to find the ammo. Bentley Foss 17:36, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Agree with above. --Brizth 18:14, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill Balance? We don't need no stinking balance. --Zaruthustra 18:55, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill --Dickie Fux 19:00, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Spam, ridiculous. --LibrarianBrent 20:02, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill ~~as per LibrarianBrent's quality explanation.~~ I mixed this one with the one above, and it's bad, but not THAT bad. Thank you however for giving us dupe ammo for next time. --McArrowni 20:26, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill What everyone else said save the author... --Volke 20:58, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - read the AP/HP statistics Zombies already have the best attacks. a survivor has to spend a lot of AP preparing before he can make that attack.--Vista 21:50, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - The further away you are, the more balanced it looks. Unfortunately for this suggestion, I'm less than a foot away from my monitor. --Arcos 23:07, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Damage is for bite. Accuracy is for claws.--Arathen 23:20, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep As is with harmanz you can get enough ammo to wipe the floor with one zombie in less then one day. and there are over 2 times as meny humans as there are zobmies. Then add headshot, this has my vote - --Fullemtaled 00:26, 24 Dec 2005 (Gmt)

Keep-love it --revoso 01:24, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Kill - Unless claws also get a boost, this would remove any reason to ever use a claw attack again. Rhialto 02:03, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - 45% Bites? Yeah, that's absurd. Next. -- S Kruger
Kill - This looks ridiculous to me, and im a ZOMBIE player.barbariandude 12:33, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep Wow talk about an overreaction, I take it that people here have trouble with simple math! Even with this increase the average damage a zombie would do would be 1.8HP per AP, which is only a 0.3HP increase, so it would still take 28AP to take down a 50HP survivor, hardly worthy of this hysterical reaction. Anyone would think you'd suggested giving zombies shotguns or something. --Braindamage 13:09, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - This is more powerful than combined firearms searching from a mall gunshop with bargain hunting. Firearms are estimated at 1.8HP/AP with all skills in a mall, and this also does infection and digestion with it. Have a look here: User:Argus_Blood --Kryten 14:42, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Horribly unbalanced. --LtMile 16:09, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Strangle Hold

Timestamp:	18:47, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	This is a skill that gives Zombies a little boost when fighting a human who is online (aka, not asleep). This skill would reside beneath death grip on the Skill tree. When a zombie lands a successful hand attack on a surivor, there is a 50% chance that the zombie will wrap its gnarled hands around the survivor's throat. During this time the Surivor will lose 2 HP per action UNTIL they land a successful blow on the Zombie to "Fend it off" or they leave the block and the Zombie behind, which would be considered "Breaking loose and running away". Once the Zombie is strangling a Survivor, any action the Zombie takes will cause them to release their grip. This is useful for zombies fighting "Awake" humans because it is akin to landing a successful hand attack with each action the human takes before they run away or land an attack on the undead fiend. This is not unbalanced because the Human can get out of it, and the zombie is effectively frozen in that Strangle grip until it's broken or the zombie itself breaks it. This is not on par with Infection in that it is not going to sap a ton of HP away from a human being. It is instead a quick middle-of-the-fray tactic that will cause your enemy to flee a safehouse (or wherever) or lose HP for each missed attack or weapon loading, etc.

Votes

Kill - EDIT: Okay, I misunderstood but as the zombie you'd need to keep refreshing to see if the survivor was struggling or not (each time being a server hit against your IP limit) before deciding whether to make another attack. In a real time game it might work but I don't think it does here. --Bfgsteve 18:53, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Re: No, the survivor loses AP per action while being throttled, not as you described. If you are asleep you are not performing any actions. -- Amazing 19:03, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Kill Ham fisted and in no way necessary. --Zaruthustra 18:54, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Re: I'd be interested to know how a 2HP attack that is broken by walking away could be ham fisted on the Discussion page. -- Amazing 19:03, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Keep - Considering that the survivor can escape by successfully attacking or by just running away, I don't think this is overpowered. --Dickie Fux 19:05, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - How can anyone possibly think this idea is overpowered? It's a nice addition... --Reverend Loki 19:14, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Largely unnecessary, I've never lost an active-time battle with my zed. Also, overly complex and not all that useful - why bother doing 2 damage per his action(maybe) when you can do 3 or 4 per yours? --RSquared 19:27, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Re: To save AP and clear buildings, obviously. -- Amazing 22:02, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - I agree with the vote right above me... beside what's the point of having it if they person has a 65% chance to attack and/or can just run away? It's too weak to make any effect (kind of like the knife bonus skill for humans -_-)--Shadow213 19:52, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Zombies don't need a boost in real time combat. They already shine at hit, with infection and digestion. --McArrowni 20:23, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Interesting concept and name, but suggested implementation and mechanics need work. --Contaminated 20:30, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Good concept, but the zombie gets something for nothing, which I don't agree with.--Declan 20:48, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill -whats with all these suggestions nowadays that makes the survivor kill themselves and the zombie just a passive partner? don't the zombies like shredding survivors anymore? Zombies should do the work, not let the survivor do it for him.--Vista 21:46, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Re: Like Infection? -- Amazing 22:02, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  - see the Plague suggestion or Advanced Bite if you want to know my opinion about deceases in general, <\shudder>--Vista 04:00, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Because what if another zombie came and the suvivor could not longer hit the right one? I think it's overpowered too. 2hp per action in addition to possible infection? That's a bit much, it's like chopping yourself with an axe every time you miss. --Jon Pyre 22:33, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill What Jon said. Also, this would requie two status flags, no problem there, but those status flags would have to track each other and be on different characters. I don't know about how that might strain the server, but I do know it would be no fun at all to code. And given survivor hit rates, this wouldn't really have a lot of effect anyway. Rhialto 02:06, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Could've sworn I'd voted on this already.... Active Zombie vs. Active Survivor fights are quite good enough as it is. Assuming you both have the same response time from the server (meaning one person doesn't lag behind while the other gets in five extra actions), zombies can hang in a fight a very long time. Digestion + Infection is a pain to fight. You can barely kill the zombies even with shotguns. And if there's a flak jacket involved....ugh. So, no. Bentley Foss 05:30, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - This isnt overpowered, overbearing, its not for free, or strenuous on the server. What it IS is INTENSELY IRRITATING for both the human and zombie! barbariandude 12:39, 24 Dec 2005

Ankle Grab Alteration

Timestamp:	21:15, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Skill Alteration, Zombie
Scope:	People with Ankle Grab getting Revived
Description:	As a zombie skill it makes little sense that Ankle Grab allow you stand up as a survivor with greater ease. This skill represents an undead tenaciousness which shouldn't be present in the recently revived. This skill being used by the revived weakens its unique worth to zombies, and is inconsistent with genre flavor. I suggest when standing up after getting revived that Ankle Grab does not lower AP cost. Not unlike how Headshot only affects zombies, so too should Ankle Grab. Anticipated Counter Points & My Rebuttals Counter Point:It would harm zombies who are combat revived. Rebuttal:Not as much as the current form helps high level humans, whom are even less phased after a zombie siege because of this skill. Combat revivification is far less frequent than survivor death, thus currently it helps high level survivors more than zombies. Counter Point:It wouldn't be �fair� for all zombie skills to be useless for survivors because some survivors skills are useful to zombies. Rebuttal:What is fair is best judged by consistency. While some may argue it is inequitable if zombies benefit from talents they had in life, and survivors didn't from talents they picked up as the undead. I point out the greater inconsistency that conceptually it doesn't make sense that survivors should benefit from undead talents, yet they do currently. Counter Point:It is �unfair� because of the survivors who already bought it and expected to benefit from it. Rebuttal:This is a difficult one, but let me ask you this: Does it make sense given the flavor of the skill that they should have expected to benefit from it? Also they still do benefit when they die, just not when they get revived.

Votes
Kill -actually it doesn't "represents an undead tenaciousness" Ankle grap just as easily represents the fact that you've learned to stand up in the right way after you've been downed. and yes it makes sense that should have expected to benefit from it. It makes more sense than a zombie with diagnosis or a flack jacket. besides it really looks like a solution to a problem that isn't there. The 150, 20+ level characters my necro has in his contact list, very, very, rarely die,. there are more zombie revives overal then high level survivor deaths. there aren't many sieges compared to the amount of people in the game. --Vista 21:38, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

RE:150 20+ character easily fit within a single mall, and is a poor cross section of Malton. My horde kills more high level characters than that every few days. As to your flak jacket example, it doesn't make sense to benefit less from a flak vest when undead than when alive. Also for your Diagnosis example to be valid the assumption that zombies in UD are stupid would have to be true which, given the history of zombies in UD, is just silly. Also if Ankle Grab was just "the fact that you've learned to stand up in the right way after you've been downed" it'd be a civilian or even more appropriately a military skill. --Contaminated 22:01, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

- nope, it isn't a civilian or military skill but a zombie one because zombies get downed (killed or needles stuck into them) more often, and thus more familiarity with it. (strange that every cross-over skill that benefits zombies are totally fits "genre flavor" and cross-over skills that benefits survivors do not...)--Vista 03:37, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep --Basher 22:19, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - I figure that whatever resilency lets you stand up in death would also apply in life, the same way strength from Bodybuilding crosses over. --Jon Pyre 22:29, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Actually, survivors should get up without penalty, Ankle Grab or not. They might be dizzy for being revived, but I'm sure it doesn't take them half of the effort (both mental and bodily) a half-rotten zombie would have to spend just to get up. --Omega2 22:43, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - This just makes sense. Rhialto 02:09, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Agreed. --Phaserlight 02:30, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Ankle Grab was originally implimented in this manner, and was changed because it just plain sucked, since combat revives are far more damaging to a zombies ap. --Grim s 02:55, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - You're technically still a zombie when you press "stand up" after being revived. This requires special-case code (which, in my book, is bad) and really, do you think the 9 extra AP per survivor is the deciding factor in active sieges? It's all about timing, organization, and coordination. Just leave it alone, you know? Bentley Foss 05:36, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Groan Modification

Timestamp:	22:49, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Skill Alteration, Zombie
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	As a zombie skill it makes little sense that Feeding Groan be a major beacon (bigger than a flare!) for the 70% of characters that are survivors. All this does is decrease zombie mortality to zero on a shorter time scale than otherwise. As mentioned by a survivor in On Strike, hearing a feeding groan attracts harmanz. Delete this suggestion if Kevan has already thought of this (I haven't seen a groan on-screen with my human characters yet), but feeding groan should only pinpoint the location of the groan to zombies. Survivors in the listening vicinity only see "You heard a low howl that chills your bones emanating from somewhere nearby." to prevent them from ganging up on zeds. In this way, zeds get their horde-inducer, and humans get an idea of the number of zombies around, but not a laser pinpointing where they are getting their meal. As mentioned, if this is how it was implemented ignore me...if it isn't, well, it seems like a pretty worthless skill.

Votes

Kill - Groan cannot be seen by Humans within safehouses. That is security enough. If it were only veiwable by zeds, it would make both flares and feeding groan not as fun as they are. Part of the fun side of these tools is trying to interpret the enemy's movement, adding a sort of strategy. -- Andrew McM 23:14, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - The hell? I said the same thing, now my vote isn't here? --Omega2 23:43, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Re - Don't look at me. I didn't touch a thing. -- Andrew McM 23:59, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Techincally, this is different from how it already is implemented. I'd like survivors (and zombies) to hear the groans when indoors without direction. It would just add atmosphere and cool'ness to the game. At that, the more um.. "vigilant" survivors would be dragged to the streets looking for the source of the groan too, so more victims on the street! --Zarquon 23:44, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - I think it's fine as is. Only suvivors out on the street will hear groans so it'll only call the small number of active players that are roaming (and maybe without the AP needed to respond) while it's going to call EVERY zombie out on the street. It isn't telepathy after all, just noise. You get a very small disadvantage compared to a very large advantage from this skill. Balance, same reason power is visible from outside. --Jon Pyre 00:24, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - I remember when people used to wait five minutes to see the effects of a new game additin before clamouring to change it. Rhialto 02:12, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - This is a good point. --Phaserlight 02:34, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill -"I have no idea yet how feeding groan works, yet I want to change it already!" (just a hint, if you want to change something in a game, KNOW WHAT IT DOES PRECISELY!)--Vista 03:41, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Why should survivors not be able to pinpoint sound (that's what having 2 ears does)? Should we make it so zombies can't see flares?--Declan 05:20, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT) -Moved to right suggestion- --Kryten 14:50, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill Hard to take this suggestion very seriously. If you're that angry I recommend going on strike again. --Zaruthustra 07:06, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Resilient Strain (Modified)

Timestamp:	22:56, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT), modified 03:25, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	High-Level Zombie Skill
Scope:	Available to Zombies over level 10 (perhaps they also have to have been revived at least once, to add to the flavor), affecting Survivors killed by said Zombies.
Description:	The main problem I find with the game is that death means nothing to survivors. I often see the same people I've killed one day alive and well the next. The reason that zombies are comparatively underpowered is because they're the ones who shouldn't fear death, yet thanks to Ankle Grab and the ease of being revived in most suburbs, death can hardly even be called a minor inconvenience to most survivors. Some have suggested making Revive Syringes less common, but after playing as a Necrotech, I think they're uncommon enough. So, I suggest that as time has passed and the virus has been adapting, it has gained a resiliency to revivification seperate from Brain Rot. However, this resiliency is only possible for 48 hours or after spending 75 AP after death, before the body deteriorates too much to support it. For this time period, the zombie only has a 25% chance when being revived, but the strain has also advanced to the point of granting a temporary percentage boost equal to Vigor Mortis (if the zombie doesn't already have it), and 1 bonus XP per attack. After the allotted time period/spent AP, all effects wear off. This would encourage survivors to actually role-play as zombies, if only for a little while. Naturally, it would only activate for a survivor when that survivor is killed by a zombie with the skill, not when a survivor with the skill jumps from a window or is PK'ed. It has to be "refreshed" by a zombie carrying the strain every time to activate. Also, if you don't like this skill, would it be more acceptable if it was only attainable after purchasing Brain Rot? Technically, it doesn't even have to be either lost gametime or "forcing" someone to change sides; they could still use the time to attack zombies if they didn't mind making a little less XP than attacking survivors. The point is that survivors have some sort of penalty for dying, and at the same time gives the possibility of helping the weak, outnumbered zombie side.

Votes

Kill - It won't do any good. Survivors will just create new characters or play their others, not play as their obligatory zombified characters for two or three days. Even Vigor Mortis can't help it, in the experient survivors's case. Maybe it'll bring more newbies to the zombie side, but it'll be too much of an annoyance to other players. Also, isn't there something about not giving out free skills for people? --Omega2 23:01, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

RE: - Well, not necessarily the actual skill, but an equivalent boost to percentages as long as Vigor Mortis hasn't already been purchased. Besides, it's only temporary. And even if all it leads to is survivors not playing with their zombified character for 2-3 days, I'd be happy with that.

Kill - somthing about forcing people to play on a side they dont want to..... --dragonboy218 23:09, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Forcing players to change sides and/or taking away their gametime is a Bad Thing. And yes, I do know about Headshot, and I STILL want it axed.--Arathen 23:26, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Anyone who wants to player a survivor will just switch to their other guys for the 2-3 days. Rhialto 02:13, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill -Why do you want to grief survivors? this just says, "I want survivors to be pissed off when they die." this is a game, keep your suggestions fun. Besides I'm sick of hearing how weak the zombie side is. Lets do a quiz, name TWO sieges won by survivors.--Vista 03:46, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

RE: - No, the point is to have some sort of repercussion for survivors dying, yet give them practically no reason to be pissed off since they could still gain XP. Have you ever tried playing as a zombie? Anyone who has recently has lost 2-3 days of gametime plenty of times thanks to the old Headshot, and just when I thought the days when that mattered were over, I've lost 5 AP every day since it was changed. So don't even mention "griefing" to me. And okay, every single siege that my horde of 20 zombies has ever tried since its formation at the start of October has failed, even if there were fewer survivors than zombies. Often we were killed by the same survivors we had already killed, who'd already been revived, came back and brought others with them. The numbers of survivors in the building would only increase, making our efforts more and more futile.

Kill - Yet another variant of the "let's FORCE people to play zombie" ideas. I'm game, if and only if, you also introduce an idea that forces revived zombies to try playing as (non-PKing) survivors before takeing a leap out the nearest window. After all, if survivors have to play as zombies when killed then zombies should have to play as survivors, after all if they don't want to be revived they can grab brain rot. --Rolland CW 05:10 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - No matter how many times this gets suggested, it just doesn't become a better idea. Learn from that. About four people in the world like this idea. Not everybody in the game is clustered around a mall and heavily populated revive point. Think about all the people out on the fringes and how sucktacular this would make their lives. Bentley Foss 05:43, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill Its not forcing people to play zombie, you just punish them if they dont. Awsome. I have a zombie and he kills people. --Zaruthustra 07:04, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - I honestly do not see a problem with this suggestion. --Deathwalker 02:01, 25 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Feeble

Timestamp:	23:40, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Recently Revived Survivors
Description:	Right after a player is revived and they stand up they stay feeble for a day, meaning it takes two AP to walk and their attacks do less damage. This helps the weak zombie side because it means less people will want to instantly get revived and when they do they are more likely to become a zombie again.

Votes

Keep - This doesn't change the fact most survivors will still be revived ASAP, although it DOES weaken them a bit. Sounds reasonable, and gives some of the edge in sieges the zombies have been screaming to get since Caiger... --Omega2 23:47, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep But it should reduce accuricy with guns, as it is nto a person pushing the bullet like with an ax. - --Fullemtaled 00:20, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Zombies aren't weak. They're just outnumbered. We shouldn't have skills that would become unbalancing should the ratio of players change. No stopgap measures. --Jon Pyre 00:20, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Yes, zombies are weak, if you look at stats you will see humans beat them in every area. No, this is not a stopgap, and will not be unbalanced when the numbers change. How often do you die and get revived, after all? Anyways, it will only have a significant effect on balance if that day is almost as much as or more than the actual time it takes to be revived, or else really its effect is negligable since it adds a small ammount of time to the process. You won't be more likely to die after it, you just will be drained a bit more walking AP and will have to spend that first day back getting more supplies instead of attacking, which you would have had to have done anyways. --Brickman 01:59, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - I like the general idea, probably better than my own Resilient Strain suggestion, but the problem is that only the extra AP spent in walking will affect survivors as it is. Survivors will just spend the day restocking items, and increasing the AP spent in searching would be going too far. If it were changed so that in addition to/instead of reduced damage, search probabilities were slightly decreased, I'd change my vote to a Keep. --StarmanDX 03:51, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill -Why do you want to grief survivors? this just says, "I want survivors to be pissed off when they die." this is a game, keep your suggestions fun. Besides I'm sick of hearing how weak the zombie side is. Lets do a quiz, name TWO sieges won by survivors. (gee I got to use the same vote twice) Brickman, when zombie count is back to 50% they'll already kick humans in the nads at every statistic.--Vista 03:46, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Keep - Author's vote, sorry I took so long. --Horje 04:22, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Why would blasting a zombie in the face with my shotgun suddely do less damage than the last time I did that? All this'll do is ensure even greater survivor numbers during sieges, because everyone will be aware that those who die will be nearly useless for a day. Think about that for a while. This can very easily have the opposite effect that you intended. Bentley Foss 05:49, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Re - I don't understand why it would. --Horje 18:10, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill I oppose anything that weaponizes syringes. This would gimp zombies so bad. --Zaruthustra 07:01, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- Re - I think you misunderstood the suggestion. Please re-read it. --Horje 18:10, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Kill - Remember, in adition to slowing down survivors, this will slow down revived zeds looking for a place to get their dosage of deceleration trauma.--Arathen 19:46, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Suggestions/23rd-Dec-2005

Contents

Closed Suggestions

23rd December, 2005

VOTING ENDS: 6th-Jan-2006

Sleeping Zombies

Cool Runnings

Plague Bite

Urbanite

Zombie Skill Cost Change

TRADE function

Harman Hunter

Computer Use

Watches

Ankle Bite

The Living Hand

Next AP

Advanced Bite

Elongated Fangs

Strangle Hold

Ankle Grab Alteration

Groan Modification

Resilient Strain (Modified)

Feeble

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

General

Search

Resources

Wiki

Toolbox