Suggestions/24th-Jun-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

Getting drunk

Timestamp: 00:05, 24 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Fun stuff
Scope: Harmanz
Description: When you drink 5 beers or wine in a row you become drunk. When drunk a few things happen You lose 10% to hit with all weapons due to lack of coridination, But you do one more damage with all meele weapons due to lack of restriant. You also lose the ability to tell the difference between humans and zombies. you lose 5hp right away and all moves cost 2 ap. Being drunk lasts for 20Ap used or 10 moves. When you talk you can only use the death rattle form of speech. When you attack some one they get this message "in a drunken rage Soandso attacks you for 4 damage" you get the message "staggering around you attack a dark figure for 4 damage" Xp for attacking some one is not shown untill after you are sober so you dont know who you are attacking by seeing how much xp you erned. I think this would be a fun thing to have in the game it gives a small buff but is better just for having some fun. So drink away! You also cannot tell people apart you only see "A dark figure" (pardon my spelling as it stinks really bad) Note for clarification: yes dieing while drunk does get rid of the drunk flag. thanks for the keeps guys I think +2 damage would be good but becuase its already been voted I cant change that so I'll leave it up to Kevan.also this was inspired by antiseptics cause beer and wine need more fun. Due to complaints I will resubmit tomarrow with drunk zombies but zombies will only be able to be drunk when they die as a drunk human they get all the same buffs and all the weaknesses plus if you dont have lurching gait it takes 3 ap to move not just 2. They will also not be able to understand feeding groans or use any of the scent tree due to intoxication.

Votes

  1. Keep - Streets is drinkin - Deadeye207 00:05, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - If this got put in I would do nothing but drink alll daaaayy looonngg. --Cerebrus13 00:16, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - Zombies should be allowed to drink. Sonny Corleone WTF 00:30, 24 June 2006 (BST) Kill - Will only change back if zombies can get drunk. Sonny Corleone WTF 04:36, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep-Hm...a toxin that could be used to make you more powerful, at the expense of not knowing who you are actually killing. Kill-Change the damage buff to +2 and let zombies get drunk! I mean, zombies can get drunk...see the Drunken Dead? Harmans shouldn't have all the fun.--ShadowScope 00:41, 24 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Look people its not that I dont like zombies I have a hard core zombie char but zombies cant be drunk its just too silly come on now I know it would be fun but drunk zombies? it just dosent make sesne also it would make them too strong with a 50% for claw and 30% for bite to hit 5 or 6 damage thats too much it just dosent work. Deadeye207 04:39, 24 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re-Drunk Zombies...silly? As silly as say, a Drunk Human? Besides, it has an important disadvantage...you don't know WHO you are attacking. You could be accidently killing a fellow Zarman. Drunk zombies would be fun, and it would be useful in UD...after all, it is a game with Zombies and Humans inside. If you don't add this in, I might consider making a similar suggestion with the idea of drunk zombies inside of it.--ShadowScope 04:45, 24 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re Okay fine you guys win I'll resubmit with drunk zombies but the only way to get a drunk zombie is to die a drunk human zombies dont drink they only eat flesh okay everyone happy? Deadeye207 04:47, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - Sure, why the heck not. --Nob666 01:17, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep -GITRDUN!!!!!!!!--LCpl Mendoza 01:46, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep Great, now if this gets implemented along with the old people suggestion, the game will be perfect! HamsterNinja 01:58, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - If we are not allowed to have #Antibiotics, you can least give us some reason to drink. Drunken boxing! --Niilomaan 02:25, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill -While I have no problem with more RP stuff, I think this might be too complicated. Why would anyone really use it since the +1 damage doesn't really compensate for all the penalties (-10% to hit, -5 HP, 2 AP move, death rattle speech, not knowing who you are attacking). I think the damage bonus should be say, +3 (well, maybe +2). Oh and what about drunk zombies? Would dying while drunk cancel the drunk flag?--Pesatyel 02:30, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Keep -GB2NEXUS--Admiral Ackbar U! WTF 03:20, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep- Why not it gives you something to do when no zombies are around. I think there should also be a risk of destroying a generator when a building has one example(stumbling, you fall onto a loud object smashing it), but thats my idea im fine with how it is normally.--Mayor Fitting 03:34, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Spam Totally out of genre, this game is NOT Nexus Wars, so people stop trying to bring NW's features to life on our beloved Urban Dead. And about all this keeps, someone needs to call AA, ASAP!! --Matthew Fahrenheit 03:51, 24 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - I dont even play NW so I dont know what your talking about if this is in NW then I dident steal it from them. Also if I knew I was might Die tomarow I would drink the night away and get totally drunk but thats just me. Deadeye207 04:32, 24 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Still, can you tell me why drunk people becomes so weak that they can't walk right or even talk but so strong that they get an additional 1 point of damage to melee attacks? No sense at all. Also, "drunk" status is really nerfed without enough of an advantage anyways. --Matthew Fahrenheit 04:41, 24 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - they arnt weak they are just disorientated the damage buff is because when you are drunk you dont notice pain as much thus letting you hit harder with out feeling pain Deadeye207 04:44, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - "Sorry drunk zombies is a bit to crazy" [sic]. Yet another act of discrimination against zombies. What about the Drunken Dead? You bastard. Edit: Never said the zombies could get drunk… merely that they shouldn't be stopped from taking a swig. –Xoid 04:00, 24 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Iam not sure but I dont think this is a valid reason I feel that drunk zombies is a bit out of genre Deadeye207 04:32, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - this suggestion should have been Spammed. You have so many multi-step effects and status flags that your suggestion is just plain unworkable. If you're resubmitting it tomorrow, yes allow zombies to get drunk, but more importantly make it simpler. There's no way Kevan is going to implement a tracker for every player to keep track of how many drinks in a row they've had, or how many more AP they need to spend before they sober up. Frankly at that level of complexity I'd rather have an actual game change as opposed to what amounts to a flavor/RP change. --Rheingold 05:02, 24 June 2006 (BST).
  15. Keep - It'd be fun for shits and giggles - but seriously, drunk zombies is completely out of genre - I don't care if one group roll plays it; there's a group that roll plays that they're all cyborgs, should we add a cyborg effect for them while we're stepping out of genre? Zombies can't get freaking intoxicated - consistent nonsense for in game effects, please. --Blahblahblah 05:10, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - Wine really is underrated NecroDVR 05:51, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - mostly complicated and over the top... I doubt being drunk turns you into a beserker. --McArrowni 14:38, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  18. Keep -Baarh an Bra!nz!--Paradox244 16:09, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  19. Kill - Why can't zombies get drunk?!?! Jonny12 W! 16:14, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  20. Keep - why the hell not? --Otware 17:44, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  21. Keep - Hell Yeah! KyleTravis 17:51, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  22. Keep - If that's how you want to spend your AP, why not? –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 18:54, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  23. Keep - I think drink should have an effect. I was going to make a suggestion today along these lines. Drunk zombies are silly though, lets not be hearing any more of that. David Malfisto 19:33, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  24. Keep - I'm only voting "Keep" because I know that Kevan's not going to implement it anyway. --Rozozag 20:28, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  25. Keep - Mmmmm, roleplaying posiblities. --Darkstar949 23:33, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  26. Keep - Like everyone else, voting keep because this is both a hilariously bad suggestion and incredibly fun. --Bachmaner 02:54, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  27. Keep - Sounds cool, but maybe also you don't get as much XP per hit you make, because when you're drunk you can't remember things as well (for instance, if you took a sword training class while drunk, you wouldn't remember a lot of the things you were taught). Think about what experience means outside of games if you don't understand. Qhiiyr 06:33, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  28. Keep Keep Keepity Keep Why wht hell wouldint zeds beable to be drunk? They act it usually anyway. it dosent make sence. This is very well vworked out generally. Yeah Zeds do need to beable to join in tho. Nazreg 10:53, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  29. Keep - Although, I think some changes would be necessary, really. especially, the part about only speaking in Death Rattle. That doesn't make sense. Either a new form of speech or nothing at all (A new form would be easy, lenghthen the vowels, esp. oo and ou sounds, longer r sounds, and remove the occaisional t, etc.) Otherwise, why not? Good idea, after all. --Rgon 06:56, 5 July 2006 (BST)
  30. Kill - Come on... in a city full of zeds shoting head is funner than get drunk ^_^! --danilo r 12:16, 7 July 2006 (BST)

Malton's Stories

Timestamp: 08:56, 24 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Game events
Scope: Both zombies and survivors
Description: Malton's Stories
  • Introduction

In response to the idea of new objectives or "missions" in the game, Kevan recently wrote:

I've been thinking of something like this, it shouldn't be hard to automate a good range of randomly-generated missions from a stock set of components. Unspecified durations ("be on the dominant side in the Norgan Building when the supply helicopters arrive some time on Thursday") could be an alternative to king-of-the-hill conditions, and would stop people from pouring in during the last few minutes. There's a slight theme problem with how players would find out that these things were happening, though - there could be an otherwise-blocked military/NT radio frequency that announces events, but that's a bit harsh on zombies. Would be good to see some more thoughts on this. --Kevan 03:18, 20 June 2006 (BST)

Here is my suggestion.

  • Story Characters in Malton

At any time during the game, there would be one or two "Stories" running. These would each consist of a nonplayer character with an associated simple backstory and goal. The character would follow a prescripted path (known only to Kevan) across Malton while the "story" was running. When the story was completed, the character would disappear. The path would be precoded - the character would not have AP or anything like that. It's important that the movement of the character would be fast and unpredictable (just like a player), so that many people have the opportunity to participate and so that groups cannot "camp" on a story. Each month, one or two new stories would be announced in the same way as game updates, so that both survivors and zombies are aware of the new story.

At any time, the two sides (zombie and survivor) would each have a way to interact with the character which would move the story forward towards either the success or failure of the character's mission or goal.

When the character's story is completed, there are rewards. All players which interacted with the character (called Story Players) get a Story Badge which goes on their profile page. Each Story Player also gains experience - 100xp for participating on the side that won, or 50xp for participating on the losing side. If you participated on both sides you only get 50 xp (to stop people from "hedging" the outcome of the story).

Obviously all this is a bit vague. Here is an example of a sample story inspired by a suggestion a few days ago.

  • SAMPLE STORY: THE MAYOR OF MALTON

Announcement Flavor Text: The Mayor of Malton has returned from exile and is trying to revive the city's government. However he needs to get to City Hall where some important documents were abandoned during the initial outbreak. Can he make it?

Zombie Goal - Stop the Mayor. If he is killed 30 times before he reaches City Hall, he loses hope and the zombies win. Zombies which damage the Mayor's health are recorded as Story Players for the Zombie side.

Survivor Goal - Help the Mayor by giving him an escort of bodyguards and healers. Survivors who kill a zombie in the same block as the Mayor, or who heal or revivify the Mayor, are recorded as Story Players for the Survivor side. An indirect way to help the mayor is to make sure he can sleep inside (less dangerous!) by only VS-barricading the building he stops in front of each night.

Winning the Story - if the Mayor enters City Hall, the Survivors win. If the Mayor is killed 30 times first, the Zombies win.

Story Badge - "I played a part in the (successful/unsuccessful) return of the Mayor of Malton."

Character Path and Details (known to Kevan only) the Mayor arrives on the city outskirts in Buttonville. Each night he will sleep in a predetermined building in the following suburbs: Dartside, South Blythville, Greentown, Mockridge Heights, Shackleville, Roftwood, Ridleybank. He ends in City Hall, a nondescript building in Ridleybank. While the mayor is travelling, he moves one block every half hour. If his overnight safehouse is too barricaded to get into, he will sleep in the street until it is debarricaded. The Mayor has 50 HP and cannot be Infected. If he's killed, he stands up immediately but does not continue his trip until revived (to 25 HP). The Mayor is always the Mayor, not a survivor or zombie - he is identifiable and targetable whether alive or undead. Kills while undead don't count towards the Zombie victory condition but Zombies can become Story Players in this way.

  • Closing Remarks

As you can see, stories would not be extremely difficult to code (in fact players might volunteer to pseudocode them). The fact that stories are path-based, one-time events allows many players on either side to interact with the story. Additionally this is a good solution to the problem of "camping" the story or swarming in King-of-the-hill situations.

Experience points are a nice reward, in addition to the prestige of collecting many story badges. Finally, the stories themselves are a way to provide new, interesting conflicts between survivors and zombies and add flavor to Malton's history.

This idea is still really only in its developing stages, if you have ideas don't hesitate to bring them up in your votes. Thank you for reading all this!

Votes

  1. Keep - AWESOME. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 09:00, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Author Keep - executive summary: nonplayer character moves in precoded secret path across Malton. Survivors and zombies interact with character, racing to complete respective goals. Side which wins get XP, prestige. --Rheingold 09:04, 24 June 2006 (BST).
  3. Keep - But I was thinking more on the line of Kevan (or someone else chosed by him) actually playing those characters, to make their movement as random as possible. Also, the stories should be related to the military or Necrotech, and the XP received shouldn't be too big. 50XP for the winners, and for the losers 25 XP. (or even nothing) --Abi79 AB 09:48, 24 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - you know, I really like the idea of players actually "puppeting" the characters, as it would cut down on the need for coding. However some characters would have special powers that Kevan would still need to code (for example, characters shouldn't have zombie anonymity, etc). I was also thinking about ideas outside of Necrotech/military, such as a fleeing refugee, etc. I'm sure everyone will have lots of creative suggestions for stories. --Rheingold 10:25, 24 June 2006 (BST).
  4. Keep - Very nice! Question: how would you deal with players acting "against the flow" (e.g., PKers, ZKers, etc)? –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 09:59, 24 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - well, the goals are crafted such that survivor-zombie conflict is encouraged (in the example, only Zombies killing the Mayor count towards the 30-kill victory condition). Of course there's no way to stop death cultists interfering, they might just kill the Mayor repeatedly anyway to slow him down, etc. I don't see it as a big concern. --Rheingold 10:25, 24 June 2006 (BST).
      • Re I meant, hypothetically, how would they be involved in the rewards? Say there is a PKer, who attacks the survivors helping the mayor. The zombies fail, meanwhile, and the mayor succeeds. Does the PKer get 100xp, 50xp, or none at all? A dilemma along those lines. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 10:30, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - Wow, quite nicely thought out suggestion. --Nob666 10:12, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - I don't like NPC's at all --EnForcer32 12:31, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - I don't like EnForcer32 at all. Should also add goals for people to work to, of which the current lack is what i see a lot of people losing interest over. Sitting in a mall may be safe, but sure as hell aint fun. --McDave 13:41, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - Makes NPCs a lesser evil. Well thought out --McArrowni 14:50, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Kill-But the last Mayor of Malton HAD lost hope. See Mayor McDaniels, last mayor of Malton and member of the RRF, who was elected to the job as Mayor of BARAHville. ;) But seriously, it adds little point. But seriously, I don't see the point of it. Sure, it looks cool...but you have NPCs, unless Kevan contorls them. But all you do fight this NPC...for what? For some mere EXP? The missions does seem contrived, and what if the Zeds said, "You know, Mayor's brain tastes no good! Let raid everything that the Trenchies decide not to guard because they are Trenchies who want to defend the Mayor!" Besides, this is a PLAYER-Driven game, not Kevan-Driven, not NPC-Driven. If the players decide what they want to do, then they won't get bored and angry.--ShadowScope 14:55, 24 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - There are plenty of other non-player-driven game events in Peer Review, such as Weather, and Kevan even implemented one (crate drops). I don't think the sample scenario is particularly high-quality, but that's because I wrote it, and I'm no creative genius ;) --Rheingold 23:48, 24 June 2006 (BST).
  10. Kill - This isn't WoW. There aren't supposed to be missions like this. Survivors are supposed to work together and survive. Zombies are supposed to make sure that survivors have it difficult. We're not supposed to have NPCs. Not supposed to have missions. It's supposed to be simple. The Players create the game. Sonny Corleone WTF 16:04, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - This is a great idea! Jonny12 W! 16:13, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - at the beginning, I was quite ready to spam this into oblivion, but I really like this suggestion. --GageRRF 17:42, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - why not - makes the game more interesting KyleTravis 17:54, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - I've never been so close to voting kill. I hate NPCs. No NPCs! But this idea offically rocks. I just can't vote down something as classy as this. Also, is it just me or does someone play KoL? David Malfisto 19:36, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep I don't see why not. --Rozozag 20:24, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep Kudos to the author. This idea could easily have been ruined, but you did a great job Ybbor 20:43, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill- I hate quests, which is why I don't play WoW. Father Monday
  18. Keep - I like the overall approach to questing you've come up with, but I'd like you to think a little more about the specific scenario, particularly the PKing factor. Surely if Kevan introduces a unique character like this, the killers are going to come from miles around to grief him into oblivion. Edit: Vote changed following clarification; since PKs can't sway the victory conditions, it should be okay. --Ember MBR 22:22, 24 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Good points. See above, only zombie kills count, and only while he's alive. Still useful to kill him if these conditions don't apply, just to slow him down, but it doesn't go towards the Victory Condition. --Rheingold 23:42, 24 June 2006 (BST).
  19. Keep - Oh gawds yes. This idea is like hawt eye secks.--'STER-Talk-ModP! 23:06, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  20. Kill I don't like NPCs. Especially one that will get killed a bajillion times by PKers. Or should I say, NPKers? Interesting idea though. --Jon Pyre 23:17, 24 June 2006 (BST)
    • Tally 14 Keep, 6 Kill. It seems some people don't like the sample scenario, which is OK since I kind of thought it up on the spur of the moment. I'm sure I'm not the most creative thinker here, and others will have ideas for Stories where the zombies have more to do than just eat targets, etc. Some people don't like the idea of NPCs on principle to which I say: this isn't really an NPC at all, it's just a victory condition that moves. It's just like the idea of "hold this building for x hours," except it's mobile and one-time only so it can't be camped. This vote is so close (currently 70% keep) that if it fails I will probably resbumit with corrections. So if you vote Kill, please tell me what (if anything) I can change to make it a Keep for you. Thank you. --Rheingold 23:42, 24 June 2006 (BST).
  21. Keep Very creative, would give high level characters something to do besides PK each other. SmartyMart 23:47, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  22. Keep - Excellent. Dissenters would do well to note this is only an example mision. --Bachmaner 03:01, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  23. Keep - No one said you were locked into doing the story or mission or quest or whatever. You'd be perfectly free to give everyone the finger and storm Caiger while everyone was away. And the NPCs are just an example. I do like the idea though. --Mookiemookie 04:55, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  24. Keep - Though I really don't much care for the Retarded Mayor concept. I really can't comprehend why any survivor, NPC or not, would ever sleep outdoors. Likewise for him perenially ditching his bodyguards. Why wouldn't he tell the people trying to keep him alive what path he was going to take, or at least what his next step would be? From the sound of it, it also doesn't seem like you were thinking of any missions where zombie got to play a proactive rather than merely obstructive role. Still, as has been noted, this particular story is just an example, and I think the basic idea that's being voted on is very, very solid. A definite Keeper, if you'll forgive the pun. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 06:09, 25 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - the number of ways zombies can interact is sadly limited to chewing on characters and chewing on barricades; survivors are limited to killing, barricading, and healing. I wish that for this suggestion only, Kevan might code a way for survivors and/or zombies to give items to the character, that would open up new interactions. In addition if the character were being "played" by a real person, another way to interact would be to speak with the character (such as finding the answer to a riddle/puzzle and telling the character). Basically I want to move creatively beyond the "make sure this character is alive/dead before the week ends" mission stereotype. --Rheingold 10:37, 25 June 2006 (BST).
  25. kEEP - iM TOO PISSED TO BE BOTHERED READING THE OTHER VOTES. bUT I LOVE THIS IDEA, IT ROCKS. wORKS VERY WELL WITH WHAT KEVAN SAID AND ANSWERED ALL MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SUGGESTION IN THE MECHANICS PART.
    edit REALY SORRY CAPS LOCK IS PLAYING UP. :) i THORGHT IT WAS BE CAUSE I WAS TOO PISSED TO HIT CAPSLOCK BUT MAYBE ITS CAUSE I SPILT STUFF ON MY KEYBOARD. AH YOU KNOW. ANYWAYS WHO CARES Nazreg 11:45, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  26. Keep - Adds flavor and gives high level characters concrete goals. --Rdk 03:11, 26 June 2006 (BST)

Mutually Exclusive Branches of Skills

Spaminated with 8 spam, 2 kill, and 1 author keep. Most voters thought that the suggestion was underdeveloped. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 21:47, 24 June 2006 (BST)

Could you move it to the "discussion" area then, please? I'd love to see why "underdeveloped"="Spam"="not worthy to develop". "Underdeveloped" doesn't sound like it needs to be shot out of existance, but like it needs more work to be made viable. The "spam" vote should not be used for underdeveloped ideas if they have any potential. Falk 12:30, 25 June 2006 (CET)

Getting drunk now with drunk Zombies

Violated suggestion template.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 20:17, 24 June 2006 (BST)

Crushing Grasp

Timestamp: 17:33, 24 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: With 100 XP a zombie is able to buy Crushing Grasp, a skill under Tangling Grasp, so in the skill tree it would be as:
  • Vigour Mortis
    • Tangling Grasp
      • Crushing Grasp

A zombie with this skill would cause 1 HP worth of damage every time a survivor is writhing in the zombie's grasp, as the zombie has learned to use Tangling Grasp more efficiently. And just to clarify: grabbing, losing the grasp and hitting and biting while holding a grasp are not affected.

Votes

  1. Kill - you would do damage for missing? That's really cool. --GageRRF 17:46, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - Needs work. --Otware 17:47, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Spam - No. This is waaay overpowering. Zombies need a buff, but not one that is this powerful. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 17:49, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Spam - Respect the slow pace of the game please. We don't need to have better attacks for either side. Especially not as stopgag balancing measures. --McArrowni 19:01, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Spam - Damage for missing? No. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 19:02, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - The average damage thingy would be far too high. Maybe a percentage chance of doing 1 damage? David Malfisto 19:42, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill No, when you miss you miss. --Jon Pyre 23:18, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill I thought those were cuddly zombie hugs... *tear* --Rheingold 00:00, 25 June 2006 (BST).
  9. Keep - Provisionally. I'd like to see what the actual MBR increase for this would be first (I'd work it out myself, but math is Not My Thing). If it's not massively unbalancing with regards to that, then I think this would be a good idea. No, zombies don't primarily need Yet Another Combat Boost, but as combat boosts go, this is a good one, as it fits well both with the tone of the game, and seems like it would be fun to use. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 06:14, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Spam - Rheingold convinced me that this was unsalvagable. –Xoid 10:59, 25 June 2006 (BST)
    My previous vote, and the ensuing discussion with Rheingold moved to the talk page. –Xoid 10:59, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Spam - What? You can do damage for missing? I( must be some kind of Physics-Retarded, because that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Tangling Grasp is a strong enough skill anyway, I think. --Rgon 07:08, 5 July 2006 (BST)

Talk to Nobody

Timestamp: 21:18, 24 June 2006 (BST)
Type: minor change
Scope: everyone
Description: the other day I PKed someone, but dumped their body before taunting them unmercifully. "No problem" I thought "I will just step outside and taunt their rotten corpse there." Apparently not. I went outside and to my disgust discovered that the "speak" button dissapears when there are no "standing" characters in the block. Since death is temporary in this game, I think we should be able to talk to a pile of dead bodies, if only just to taunt them.
Note - this would include making dead bodies able to hear, if they can't already.

Votes

  1. Keep - author vote --GageRRF 21:18, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Spam -Huh?--Paradox244 21:20, 24 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re Habla ingles? Puede leer?--GageRRF 21:27, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - Sure. Why not? –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 21:23, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - Yeah. Makes Sense. Even in a nomal world, people like yelling out to the world, even if there is no one listening.. --W3c 21:27, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - YES! I hate it when that happens. Kill someone, but are unable to taunt them... --Niilomaan 21:34, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - Some people might actually anjoy talking to themselves - or to a pile of corpses. --Nob666 21:58, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - You know, this has never actually happened to me, but I would be appauled if it did. Me likey. --Rozozag 22:11, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - Though I'm sort of unclear on whether the bodies could hear what you say. --Ember MBR 22:18, 24 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - if they can't now, they would have to be for this suggestion to work--GageRRF 22:24, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - I didn't even notice that it went away, but it shouldn't Jonny12 W! 22:29, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  10. Keep - About John Ember's doubt: yes, DEAD BODIES ARE LISTENIN'. --Matthew Fahrenheit 22:39, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - I'm pretty sure that you cease hearing things after you are killed. While this idea has merit, I believe that bodies that aren't standing shouldn't earn the intel attached to speaking. --Darth Sensitive talk • W! 22:52, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - AA What he said. (Those are up arrows.) Dead people don't hear. None of you have noticed this?--'STER-Talk-ModP! 23:09, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - I happen to like saying "BANG! Headshot!" to zombies. --Darkstar949 23:30, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - you know, this deserves a Kill on realism grounds alone (dead bodies can hear?) yet the potential for trash talk means I have to vote keep. Plus I can go around to piles of corpses and tell them where the revive point is now, instead of spraying it... hmm.... this might be a tiny bit overpowered... --Rheingold 23:56, 24 June 2006 (BST).
  15. Keep - Very cool Hell Yeah! KyleTravis 00:36, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - Are you sure bodies can't hear? David Malfisto 03:29, 25 June 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Honestly I am not sure, but I know that I can't speak to them if there isn't some standing character in the block--GageASS 03:34, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Keep - Ah hell, why not? It could be fun to bend the rules of realism a little for the sake of fun--Mookiemookie 04:51, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  18. Keep - I'm virtually positive that dead bodies can hear people, by the way. It's either that, or my memory is shitting with me bigtime, because I distinctly recall being taunted after being killed more than once. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 06:17, 25 June 2006 (BST)
    • Keep - Who says people talking to themselves/their dead opponents isn't real? The game should be changed to allow this. - unsigned vote; Not sure who --GageASS 09:08, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  19. Keep - You can argue that the moment somebody is killed, they become an undead zombie who is just lying on the floor. As such, they can hear. --Otware 11:03, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  20. Keep *Bang!* *Bang!* And Stay Down! *Bang!* --J Z D 13:25, June 2006 (BST)
  21. Keep - Good stuff. --Swmono talk - W! - P! - SGP 17:52, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  22. Kill - Taunt someone before you PK them you if you have the AP to get away with that. Taunting the dead seems to easy 'I already did something bad to you' thats just to late 'I'm about to do something bad to you' Thats scary for speaker and spoken to. Otherwise your just being glib. --Max Grivas JG|T 05:17, 26 June 2006 (BST)
  23. Keep - Absolutely. And, aside from the stated purpose, it's good for people who are grieving, and those others who are crazy! Sweet! --Rgon 07:10, 5 July 2006 (BST)

Rotted Since

Timestamp: 22:13, 24 June 2006 (BST)
Type: Profile addition
Scope: Zombies
Description: Taking Brain Rot is a pretty big event in a zombie's career. It's the point of no return, and signals that you are wholly committed to the zombie way. As such, I think the event should be recorded for posterity.

Currently profiles contain dates for "Joined" and "First died." I'd like to see the addition of a third date, "Rotted since," which would display the date the player purchased Brain Rot (if applicable).

Votes

  1. Keep - I suggest this because just today I found myself wondering how long I'd been a rotter. --Ember MBR 22:13, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - fine by me--GageRRF 22:25, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - although it's not the point of no-return anymore! (There's some stupid survivors around though: you break into a NecroTech building, start Mrh?ing and all they do is shoot you!) Jonny12 W! 22:29, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - I personally wouldn't care either way, but there's no real reason why not. --Mookiemookie 22:36, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - It wuold be cool. --Matthew Fahrenheit 22:54, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep Not a bad notion. --Jon Pyre 23:19, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - Nice idea, would be nice if I knew what "First Died" was for though. --Darkstar949 23:31, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - Sounds fine. –Bob Hammero T•W!•P! 23:39, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - excellent idea. --Rheingold 23:57, 24 June 2006 (BST).
  10. Keep - No reason why not. --Otware 23:59, 24 June 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - Interesting --McArrowni 03:06, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep - See all of the above. David Malfisto 03:30, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - Would be cool; only problem is that implementing it would not give anybody who already has Brain Rot a date, as chances are that data was never stored. --Vuredel 05:01, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - Nice little interface buff. --Jimbo Bob ASS•U! 06:18, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - I think that this might be a dupe, but unless someone provides a link, I say this should be kept. –Xoid 12:20, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - Nice. --Nob666 14:39, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  17. Keep - I. Like. Stats. --Swmono talk - W! - P! - SGP 17:53, 25 June 2006 (BST)
  18. Keep - Not enough of an issue to vote Kill, but what would you do with all the brain rotten zombies that don't have their dates stored already? --Rozozag 02:17, 4 July 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/24th-Jun-2006&oldid=315678"