Suggestions/27th-Feb-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

Infectious blood (reworked with better math)

Timestamp: 06:53, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: *Prerequisites: Brain rot (infectious bite could be added as a prerequisite if you know how we could set it up on the skill tree)
  • Story element:

Whether the zombies initially became infected due to disease, radiation, viruses or an act of God(s) or Demon(s), it is unknown. It is known that now the older, the most decomposed, the most diseased of the zombies have become so putrid that their very blood is filled with death and filth. Leaving those unfortunate souls who get too enraptured in the carnage of death tainted.

  • Theme:

I can't count the numerous grade B zombie flicks where zombies have managed to infect individuals just by getting a drop of blood into their victims system. The infections are usually introduced through openings in the victim's body such as their eyes, mouth or open wounds. I.e. 28 days later.

  • What it does: It expands on infectious bite and gives an actual reason to get brain rot. A zombie with infectious blood has a chance of infecting the player that kills it in the same way that infectious bite infects them. It goes with the theme in zombie movies where someone kills a lot of zombies and has a small drop of blood get in a opening and infects them. See percentage below.
  • Possible flavor text:
  • For those infected
"In the heat of the carnage a drop of the zombies blood" 
"made it into an open wound. You are now infected."
  • For the zombie
"The last thing your rotting eyes see before all goes dark,"
"is blood spraying from your rancid corpse."
  • other stuff

What this is intended to do is to add a small element of danger, fear, and best of all paranoia. It will have little effect on players but instead cause players to be a little more cautious and prepared. FAX packs are readily available to any player that searches for them. Most Survivors will have a pack on themselves anyway either to cure themselves or others. And since brain rot is a prerequisite you should never have to worry about one out five zombies infecting you. See percentage below.

  • The percentage

The chance of infection should ideally result in the potential of getting infected with every twentieth zombie kill. The chance should be based on the number of zeds with infectious blood (IB). So if half of the population of zombies has IB then the chance of being infected would only be 10%. Ex. 2(the number of zombies you kill before you kill a IB infected zombie)*10(# of IB infected zeds killed till infection)=20 total zeds killed till infection. So given that the population is like this 50%IB or 25%IB or 10%IB, then the chance of being infected would be 10%, 20%, 50% or 2*10=20, 4*5=20, and 10*2=20

Just like with infectious bite no XP is given to the zombie, only satisfaction at having bled on someone..

If you truly feel that getting infected once for every twenty zombie kills (statisticly) is punishment please vote kill, but I would love to hear comments on ways to get this to work better, thanks. I do expect this to get shot down but I hope to improve it by the use of your comments.

Votes

  1. Keep - I don't think this is awful. I think it would be fine for everyone except for new players who kill their first zombie, get infected by it, and die not knowing how to get fixed. However I imagine this would be a fairly rare twist of the RNG of fate. Just keep the percentage fairly low and I think this could add some danger and excitement. maybe. -Banana Bear4 07:43, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re thanks, as for new players, since its going to be on average around 20 kills before they get infected they would have about 60xp *20 =1200 xp, so they should no how to get cured before them. Of course when i got infected fromt the bite initially i also had no clue hot to get cured. I just screamed HELP. . --User:ericblinsley 07:48, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - I like it - --ramby Talk 08:45, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - Good idea, human paranoia can only be a good thing in a zombie apocalypse and I cant see any other problems with it. Kripcat 10:45, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Noice idea, but make the infection the result of a "Melee" kill only and I'll change to "Keep". Doesn't make sense if the infection comes from killing a Z with a gun, assuming as I do that I'm shooting a Z from a few yards away. User Don D Crummitt 13:18, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re I thought of that but i figured you could reason it by saying that the splater from the gun especially shot guns is what gets you. You could also reason it as that you got infected the onetime you got to close with the gun this could be possible flavor text for a gun kill. "as you exam the dead zombies corpse, a bit of its rotting blood seeps into an open wound, you are now infected."I am still leaning on the idea of melee only thbough, we will see what others think and i might change it in the next version. --User:ericblinsley 14:48, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - It seems fine now --Lord Evans W! 14:13, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - While I'm generally against "auto-defense" skills this one does only activate at the zombie's death, so I'm somewhat more inclined towards it. While I would love survivors to have an auto-retaliate skill I'm willing to consider the fact that in this case it makes sense for zombies. That said, the whole 20th zombie part is what I have a problem with. First off, I think your percentage chance of being infected should be based on a zombie-to-zombie basis rather than requiring some counter to track exactly how many zombies the survivor killed. Also, you never say if all 20 killed zombies have to be "infected", as what happens if the 20th zombie killed was uninfected? Sure this means that a survivor can be infected after only killing a single zombie, but it's believable and easier to manage. I would suggest giving a percentage chance, say 15%, of infecting a survivor at death. Same odds as a Flare Gun hitting a target, and yes, I've done that. -- Mobius187 9:12 AM, Feb 27 2006 (EST)
    • Re hi Mobius, sorry if i wasnt to clear, i know it still needs work. what i was saying that idealy you would only get infected after your 20th zombie kill. Given that one out two zombies is infected and the chance of being infected by a zombie was 10% then you would have to kill about twenty zombies before statisticly you would kill a zombie that was infected with IB and it got the 10% it needed to infect you. I was also thiniking of making a straight percentage but i dont know what the current population of Brainrotted Zeds are. I was thinking between 25 to 15% if its just made a straight percentage. --User:ericblinsley 00:11, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - Don't penalize players for behaving the way they were intended to behave. --Arcibi 15:49, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Spam - This will ALWAYS violate the above no matter HOW you adjust the numbers. As such I will never consider it passable under any circumstances, so it is Spam. --Jak Rhee 15:57, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - despite the whole "don't penalize.." stuff, I think this has merit. -- Nicks 16:20, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - More fear of zombies is more better. --John Ember 16:40, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - You have managed to convince me. --McArrowni W! 16:43, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill Because it's just a free infection for zombies that automatically means "Hey human, time to waste an FAK". If you can think of a counter to it, maybe. --Jon Pyre 17:14, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re remember its not an automatic infection. --User:ericblinsley 00:16, 28 February 2006 (GMT
  13. Kill i dont think that a survivor should be punished for doin' their job.--RAF Lt.G Deathnut 17:51, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Coooool. --Snikers 18:12, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - I think it works as is, but a possible improvement would be to make survivors susceptible to this infection only if they had open wounds, i.e. less than full HP. That way, it wouldn't punish survivors for killing zombies, but it would make healing more important at all times. --Dickie Fux 19:47, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - It's too close to punishment as is, however - I'd vote keep with the less than full HP stipulation added on (as mentioned above ^). The wound requirement would also make much more sense in terms of "realism". I'd also like to see it as a straight % per kill of infection rather than so many numerical dependents - but that's not a "keep from me requirement", more just a little thing. --Blahblahblah 20:06, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re hi Blah, ill take your idea under advisement, well see if we get anymore recomendations and ill see what i can add to the next version --User:ericblinsley 00:11, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - Realistically, the chance of blood getting into an opening such as a wound or into your eyeballs and getting contaminated by said blood is so slim that you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning. AllStarZ 20:25, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - Kill for the same reasons as the last couple of times--this is zombies getting something for nothing. No matter what the chance of it happening, this still equates to getting in a free Infectious Bite just for standing there and being killed. No. Bentley Foss 21:34, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - You mean getting killed, and probably headshot, is nothing? --Grim s 22:24, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill -more fear because zombies do stuff, yes. More fear for zombies doing absolutely nothing, no. Also I can't count the numerous grade B zombie flicks... different medium different mechanics. The smallest drop of blood making a zombie/hurting a survivor. In movies= dramatic! Good for the audiences fear curve. In games= Annoying! No audience. Please learn people Movie =/= Game --Vista 22:01, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - Why? Because it would work directly against the one man army in a trenchcoat mentality that is so common in the game. It would make survivors plan more carefully, carry a few extra FAK's. The way its geared reduces its effectiveness as the number of zombies with the skill goes up, but increases the risk factor, providing a fear factor for humans that is sorely lacking in the game at present given how easy it is to be revived. --Grim s 22:24, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - I like.--Denzel Washington 22:52, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep - I find myself unable to debate the "movie rules" clearly laid out with such skill ex. 28 Days Later. This skill is another reminder that this is an "Infection", and it is NOT easy to deal with. --MrAushvitz 16:09, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill - As is, I'm skeptical. Add in the "can only be infected if not at full health" line someone suggested, though, and I'm game. --Dr. Fletch 00:41, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re hi DR i value your comment your the secound person to recomend the health issue, what do you think if the chance of infection was increased then to help balance the changing of it to infecting wound players only? --User:ericblinsley 01:26, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: - If you ask me? I'd say make a roughly... mmm... 15-25% range, something in there, of infecting a wounded survivor if killed. Still a small risk, so that new players are unlikely to see it instantly, but a significant enough threat to make you keep an extra FAK around, perhaps.
    • Tally - 12 Keep, 8 Kill, 1 Spam/Dupe
  24. Kill - I was infected no more than 5 times the entire time I have been playing. I have killed way more than 20 zombies too. With this in place I would find myself being infected a lot more. If I hit zombies that are probably offline and won't infect me, why penalize me for playing smart? --TheBigT 20:28, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill - The math made no sense. For simplicity, wouldn't it be easier to just do a % chance with each zombie or something? Also, 28 Days Later is the ONLY movie I know of where this happens and it isn't even a real zombie movie, so it really isn't in genre.--Pesatyel 05:28, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Hi, sorry if the math was confusing. Ill explain it one more time. The math is based on this. Given that a percent of the zombie population has Infectious blood then there is a statiscal chance of you attacking a zombie with IB. So lets say 25% of the zombie population had IB, then you will statsically kill 4 zombies before you kill a infected zombie. Now given that each Infected zombie has a 20% chance of infecting the person that kills it then statistically you will kill about 5 infected zombies before you get infected. So then you multiply the average number of Zombies killed before you kill an IB infected zombie (4) by the number of IB infected zombies killed before you get infected (5) and you get the statistcal average number of zombies a player will kill before they get infected (20). As for Movies youll have to take my word for it that there are several other movies were people get infected from a zombie other than it attacking someone. --User:ericblinsley 13:48, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  26. Keep - ID change it to a fixed percantage that can be changed if needed, id start with 30% as i doubt its gonig to be widly use.--xbehave 05:28, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  27. Kill - Kill this, cuz I don't wanna die from killing a zombie that isn't even fighting back, that's like saying that if a zombie is killing a human while he's sleeping he gets a chance to make it so ur modifier to hit is messed up cuz he broke your hands! Kill,kill,kill!--DicktheTech 03:35, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Hi dick, im afraid you misunderstood this or didnt read it properly. This skill doesnt kill players and after everything there is only about a 5 % chance of being infected once you take into account the number of zombies with the skill, remember the zombie isnt attacking you what happens is the zombies blood splatters on you when you kill it.Since the blood is dangerous this skill reflects that--User:ericblinsley 03:50, 08 march 2006 (GMT)
  28. Keep The changes seem solid and i'm interested in seeing how it would play out in the game. A hilarious change would be to give Headshotters a higher % of getting hit by IB, what with the head containing more infectious fluids of course. Can't wait to see the hardcore ZKers response to that :D --RepublicA
    • Final Tally - 14 Keep, 11 Kill, 1 Spam - 20:47, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Reanimation

Timestamp: 07:09, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Subskill of brain rot. Human flesh has a

regenerative effect on your undead biology. After a zombie with Reanimation kills a survivor the skill Brain Rot becomes dormant allowing the player to be scanned and revived as normal. Brain Rot stays dormant until they have been revived. Once they die and stand up as a zombie again Brain Rot is once again active until they kill a survivor.

  • The $64,000 Question: Why would any zombie want a skill that

causes another skill of theirs to go inactive? Answer: I like to play both sides though I'm usually a survivor. A while back I was killed and decided to play the zombie side. I went to attack a survivor that was out on the street, missed twice, and then they revived me. I had been a zombie for all of five minutes. I wasn't going to go as far as to commit suicide so I continued playing as a survivor but I regretted not having more of a chance to play as a zombie. This skill would be useful to people like me. I would like to play as a zombie without being vulnerable to combat revives but I don't want to abandon the chance to play as a human ever again and I don't want to give up all my survivor skills that I took the time to earn. With Reanimation people after becoming a zombie would have to play as a zombie long enough to actually kill a survivor before they could be brought back to life. It'd make Brain Rot a more attractive skill and cause many more people to take it. Obviously those that only want to play a zombie would not take this skill, they could remain immune to revivification and never have to be a survivor again. For those people Brain Rot would keep working the way it is now. But it would allow people that want to play as both a survivor and a zombie a chance to use Brain Rot too. And even though it would allow players with Brain Rot to be revived after they make a kill I think that in the long run it might help zombies numbers more than hurt them by reducing the number of survivors that are killed and immediately revived, they'd actually have to play as a zombie for a while now. The important thing in all this is that it is OPTIONAL to take this skill. This is just good for players that when killed want to be sure they can play as a zombie for a while before being revived.

  • Note: Zombies with brain rot of course could still be revived by

entering a powered NT building. This skill is for people that want to play with Brain Rot but do not want to spend however many days/weeks it'll take to break through the EH barricades of a populated Necrotech Building when the power is on and have someone choose to revive you instead of kill you. It allows Brain Rotters to be revived without going through lengthy hassle, encouraging more people to take brain rot and increasing the overall number of zombies.

Votes

  1. Keep Author vote. This skill would allow players to use Brain Rot to their advantage without having to sacrifice playing a survivor ever again. Some won't want it but many would. It'd just good for those that want to fight as both a survivor and a zombie and don't want their power handicapped in either form. --Jon Pyre 07:09, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep interesting, im kinda on the fence on this one, ever since the improvement to Necro tech you can get revived if you hang out and get in a necro lab. --User:ericblinsley 07:09, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re True, but you have to be indoors when the power is on. It's rather difficult to arrange, and bothersome since you'd have to do it each time you're killed. This would allow people with Brain Rot to be revived just by playing as a zombie for a while, and it would be entirely up to the player to take this or not. --Jon Pyre 07:17, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re True, thats why i voted keep. --User:ericblinsley 07:22, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - There is already a way for brain rot to be reversed. "Fidning new ways to do old things = bad" --rambyTalk 07:18, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re There is a way to be revived as a brain rotter but it is inconvenient. I will never take Brain Rot because getting inside a powered NT building and then getting revived by someone with the right skill is pretty much impossible without extensive OOC planning. This way I could play as a zombie for a while, make a kill, and then calmly rejoin the living with little fuss or hassle. --Jon Pyre 07:22, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - There is still a way, and it may be inconvieniant but it makes in game sence, that skill adds little to the game, just finds a new way to do something old and it is out of character of the game --rambyTalk 07:26, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re I think it is in character. It is already established that zombies can regenerate by eating flesh. This skill would encourage many people to play as a zombie longer. This isn't finding a new way to do something old, it's finding a better way, a way people would actually choose. Nobody who wants to play as a survivor some of the time would intelligently take Brain Rot as it currently functions. --Jon Pyre 07:42, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Skills that deactivate other skills are bad. This skill entirely defeats the purpose of brain rot. And as to the "Its hard to get revived" complaint, i find it easy. Break into a powered NT building, eat someone (Optional), and say "Mrh?". Return later and stand upafter the serum has finished its dirty work and go on your merry way, until some idiot uses your brain rot as a justification to call you a zombie spy and pk's you. --Grim s 10:37, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re I'm surprised you're voting kill on this one as it would probably vastly increase the number of zombies in the game. Nobody who has Brain Rot now would take this skill, they want to remain zombies forever. But with this "way out" option a lot of people would take the skill just to ensure they remain zombies after they die though they don't want to remain one forever or have to bash at an NT building for six weeks before they can break in. It's for players that want to help balance out zombie and survivor levels by having to kill 1 person before they can be revived. --Jon Pyre 15:55, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Being very difficult to revive when you want it is the price you pay for not being revived when you don't. Kripcat 10:45, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - It would help the zombie population, moreso if there is a shortage of Harmans :) --Lord Evans W! 14:21, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - The fact that powered NT Buildings can remove Brain Rot pretty much makes this idea useless. Sure it makes it easier on the zombie, but if the zombie player wanted it easy they shouldn't have taken Brain Rot. And for the record, in case someone mentions it, no one accidentally chooses Brain Rot anymore than I accidentally drop fully loaded firearms. Also, I've seen survivors in buildings with Brain Rot listed under their zombie skills so I know they're getting processed and are not just being gunned down. -- Mobius187 9:24 AM, Feb 27 2006 (EST)
  8. Kill - I'd like to see a skill under brian rot.. just not this one. Brain Rot is a tough choice skill - I'd like to see some greater reward potential (skill) added under it, but not an easier/way out skill. --Blahblahblah 15:12, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - It sounds like all this does is effectively remove Brain Rot. You can already get revived if you want - it may be inconvenient, but it's supposed to be inconvenient to revive a 'Rotter.--Norcross 15:18, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re It doesn't remove Brain Rot, it let's people play as a brain rotted zombie for a while and then become a regular zombie again. Let's face it, NOBODY who wants to play as a survivor ever again would ever take Brain Rot. Breaking into a powered NT building isn't that easy especially since they're maintained at EH most of the time and there's a good chance someone will just kill you instead. What this does is it allows someone a guaranteed period of time to play as a zombie before they become a human again. Brain Rot wouldn't be "I WILL NEVER PLAY AS A SURVIVOR AGAIN" but instead "I would like to help balance out the zombie population by playing as one until I make a kill".--Jon Pyre 15:52, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Suck it up. There are no garuntees in Urban Dead. There's no garuntee that a new survivor won't be killed in his first 10 turns, there's no garuntee that a zombie wont be revived in his first 10 turns.. except for Brain Rot. Just Suck it up, Pyre. Quit yer whinin'. --Jak Rhee 15:55, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Whatever Rhee. Thought I'd give Brain Rot a chance of being appealing to others than the minority of zombie players. I guess people don't like the idea of being able to play two sides in a game. --Jon Pyre 16:00, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Non-Author Comment - Oh I love the idea of playing both sides.. but thats what the normal existance is for. Brain Rot is for when you ONLY want to be a zombie. This is making it too easy. Revives are the only real penalty that can be induced upon zombies (as they can't die like humans) and even THEN its STILL easier to become a zombie again than a human. You're ryign to fill a void thats nonexistant. --Jak Rhee 16:05, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Right, Brain Rot is for you ONLY want to be a zombie. Who says it has to be? I don't get the rest of your point, revives aren't a penalty. I like to play both sides realistically. I don't want to leap out of a window for no reason. Why not let people choose to have Brain Rot be a period of time they go through rather than a sacrifice of their survivor skills? This way Brain Rot can be both for people who ONLY want to be a zombie and also for those that want to take an active part in helping out the population of zombies. --Jon Pyre 16:10, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - As I read this, every time a zombie with this skill kills a human his Brain Rot goes dormant? Isn't that really just punishing zombie players for behaving the way they're supposed to? I'd like a way to "turn off" Brain Rot, but this would mean it gets turned off all the time. --John Ember 16:19, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Revival in a powered necrotech building sounds too hard. But this also sounds too easy. Find a decent middle. --McArrowni W! 16:49, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - I read this the same as John Ember; if you are a successful zombie, Brain Rot would always be turned off. --WibbleBRAINS 16:53, 27 February 2006 (GMT) (ps: what's happened to the vote numbers?)
    • Well I've been adding tallies to suggestions with enough votes... --Mobius187 4:42 PM, Feb 27 2006 (EST)
  14. Kill - Seems like the lazy man's powered NT building. Having trouble getting revived is the trade off for not having to worry about combat revives. Velkrin 19:19, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - Necronet and the ability to revive rotters was added for a reason. It was made difficult for the same reason. (The reason is that anything further pretty much negates the Brain Rot skill entirely. Who wants a skill that serves absolutely no purpose?) Bentley Foss 21:36, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill -You choose brainrot for it specific function. It shouldn't be for every one not everybody has to have every skill.--Vista 21:58, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally - 3 Keep, 12 Kill, 0 Spam/Dupe

Infection Restistance

Timestamp: 15:21, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors / Zombie Hunters
Description: The Zombie Hunter has started developing a resistance to the Zombie infection.
  • Limited Resistance - When infected with Infectious Bite, the player will still lose 1 HP per AP, but will not drop below 1 HP (ie, the infection can weaken him, but not kill him).

(This does not totally nerf Infectious Bite, but does provide some protection to the player - as well as RP potential and a way to spend some XP).

  • Resistance - When infected with Infectious Bite, the player will only lose 1 HP per 2 AP spent, and will not drop below 1 HP.

(This still does not totally nerf Infectious Bite, but allows the player to keep fighting for a while even without a FAK.)

  • Limited Immunity - When infected with Infectious Bite, the player will only lose 1 HP per 2 AP spent, and will not drop below 25 HP.

(Infectious Bite will still have an effect, but the player basically doesn't have to worry at this point. They can focus on killing the Zeds first, and getting cured later. It makes them effectively immune if they are already badly hurt, but I wanted to keep it simple and if they have that much damage the Zeds have a good chance of taking them down anyway.)

  • Full Immunity (I was really tempted to add this, but I won't. Obviously it would totally counteract Infectious Bite, which doesn't seem fair to the Zombies - eventually everyone would get it!)

Votes

  1. Spam - Despite your claims to the contrary this DOES nerf Infectious Bite. No, just no. Here's what we need people: Entirely new skills. Not skills that counter skills already in existance (so all those barricade/infections bite/brain rot suggestions are out), but ENTIRELY new and original skills. Thats what the game needs. EDIT Ember's right.. this IS Spam. Well thought out Spam, but Spam in that its horrible and will never be anything usefull. --Jak Rhee 15:53, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill Infectious Bite is a lot less effective if all it can do is injure, not kill. --Jon Pyre 15:57, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Spam - Leave other people's skills alone. --John Ember 16:02, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Again, I understand the whole "Don't nerf other skills.." but this seems to have some merit...I think it might be too over powering, but if it gets some discussion going, it's worth it. -- Nicks 16:25, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - A poor idea to start with, brought over the top to boot. The point of infectious bite is that it is lethal--McArrowni W! 16:45, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - A pure and simple nerf that isn't needed. --WibbleBRAINS 16:47, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - I'm pro-survivor, but the moment you make a skill that reduces the effectiveness or neutralizes an opposing existing skill, that's nerfing. Would I like it if there was a new zombie skill that dropped my Pistol accuracy? No. I have to say pass on this. --Mobius187 12:00 PM, Feb 27 2006 (EST)
  8. Kill - Just carry a couple of FAKs around with you. --mikm W! 17:43, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. KeepI only like the Limited Resistance part though. Unsigned vote. Remove the strikeouts when you sign --Blahblahblah 18:22, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Infection already only (generalization) kills newer players who don't know to carry a FAK on them. Don't dumb it down more. --Blahblahblah 18:11, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - new high level skills, thats cool. This isn't the way to do it. Bites aren't an issue after your first one. -Banana Bear4 18:47, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Nerfs Infectious Bite, which isn't that powerful, anyway. Anyone experienced enough to buy this knows how to get healed quickly. --Dickie Fux 19:57, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill If you get infected and you don't have a med kit, sit your ass down in an occupied building and wait for someone to heal you. AllStarZ 20:29, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - John Ember beat me to it. Bentley Foss 21:37, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - So you're saying we can remove your vote? ;) --John Ember 21:50, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - No nerfing the hickey of doom. Velkrin 21:45, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill -Infection isn't a big deal. But it also isn't as useless as some people make it out to be. but these two skills to counter act it nerf it entirely. And whould make it as useless as most people think it is.--Vista 21:52, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep - Maybe your character needs time to find an FAK, or they're just "too damn tough" to turn zombie as quickly. Seems balanced to me. --MrAushvitz 16:14, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill Everyone else beat me to my valid reasons, so let me fall back to saying "this is crap."--Mookiemookie 01:00, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill In addition to what everyone else said, is this suggestion for a skill TREE? FOUR different skills? Pick one of the four or all of them? Of all of them only the first one (limited resistance) is any good. I don't see a problem with the infection ending at 1 HP.--Pesatyel 05:35, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill All but the first one nerf the Infectious Bite skill!--DicktheTech 03:41, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 2 Keep, 16 Kill, 2 Spam - 20:46, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Pool Cue

Timestamp: 15:31, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Item
Scope: Survivors
Description: Base attack 10 %, 2 Damage. Lowers hand-to-hand attacks on user by 15%, but has x% chance of breaking when it does so, where x =(damage dealt by attack)x5. Found in pubs and mall sports shops.

Votes

  1. Kill The first of many, so predicts I. This is broken, complicated and just no. Blue Wild Angel 15:41, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill No more melee weapons. We don't use the ones we HAVE. --Jak Rhee 16:01, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Spam - So every survivor will get one and be 15% less susceptible to zombie attacks? You're killing me here. --John Ember 16:16, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Sorry, but Jak Rhee is correct. We already have melee weapons we don't bother using... why add one that's like a Knife in damage, but doesn't have as high a hit rate (with Knife Combat) and can break? While it's colourful, that just won't sell it to survivors since it's not practical. A better idea would be to suggest fixes for the Knife that would let survivors find a use for it. --Mobius187 11:34 AM, Feb 27 2006 (EST)
  5. Dupe See riot shield, which is being killed. This is the same, except the effect is 3 times worse, and masquerades as a melee weapon. I believe this counts as a dupe. To the author: you have no idea how this kills newbie zombies. --McArrowni W! 16:38, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - I guess he liked the Shaun of The Dead pub scene. --WibbleBRAINS 16:49, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Spam - The lower hand attacks by 15% is broken. You are not a ninja, and if you were going to use any item to successfully ward off zombie attacks, it wouldn't be a flimsy wooden pool stick. Without that, it's just another melee item that would never be used beyond a select few roll players dedicated to a specific weapon. --Blahblahblah 18:16, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Spam This suggestion is so retarded it makes my face hurt (among other things). AllStarZ 20:23, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - For many of the reasons listed above. Bentley Foss 21:38, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill -Oh, boy. this just isn't a good idea.--Vista 21:49, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - I agree with Jak, I hardly ever use melee weapons due to the fact that my pistol is so much more acurate and does more damage, I keep an axe out of habit. Whitehouse 22:56, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Why not be a man and just say it: "nerf zombie attacks by 15%?"--Mookiemookie 01:02, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  13. Spam - Aw, hell no. Don't nerf zombies. - CthulhuFhtagn 01:45, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    gurgle - This sucks.--Denzel Washington 01:49, 28 February 2006 (GMT) Not a vote. Velkrin 20:46, 26 May 2006 (BST)
  14. Kill - I would love to have a pool cue, just not this version of it. Personally, I'd rather have a pool cleaning rod with a detachable net, but a pool cue would suffice. --Pool Cleaner 08:02, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - It's just another useless, piece of junk!--DicktheTech 03:45, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 0 Keep, 10 Kill, 4 Spam, 1 Dupe - 20:46, 26 May 2006 (BST)

New Science weapon,class and skill(redone)

Timestamp: 17:51,19:44, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: New character clas weapon,skill and building Item
Scope: the science class
Description: New Science class: Necrotech security guard. NecroTech is to secret to be bothered by the police they need there own secret security force. Starts with NecroTech employment flak jacket, Taser and .

New Science skills Anti-Intruder training. Raises the percent chance of hitting with the Teaser from 20% (start) to 40% (numbers can be changed). "You have been working with NecroTech for some time and know how to deal with those pesky Intruders"

New skill Advanced Anti-intruder training. Raises the percent chance of hitting with the taser from 40% to 55%. You have reached a level of mastery and you give meaning to the Phrase NONE SHALL PASS.

New NercoTech Building Item Taser Recharge station. This station is to recharge Dead Tasers It runs the same as a portable generator and needs fuel cans to work anyone in the building can use it to recharge There tasers for 10AP. The message would be "you plug in your Taser to the recharge station you have full power" or "you plug your taser into the recharge station but its already full". Zombies would be able to destroy these generators and humans with the barricade skill could fix them. This would make the NecroTech stations targets for zombies so humans Could not damage the zombies with their Tasers. These would not be "Found" but be a permanate Fixture in the NecroTech building. "There is a Taser recharge station it is running" "there is a Taser Recharge station it is out of fuel" "there is a taser Recharge station it is almost out of fuel"

New sciences skill Taser reconfiguration. With this zombie out break you have reconfigured your teaser to attack the zombies flesh more aggressively but there is a price... When you purchase this skill two things happen you Percent chance to hit a Target (human or zombie) goes down by 10% second the damage values flip Doing 6 to zombies and 3 to humans.

New item NecroTech teaser. NecroTech security guards use this taser to give a "mild" shock to anyone who is not a NecroTech employee.NOTE This is just the discription it does not mean that the sole purpose of these is to PK It does 4 Damage to any human with a 20%(start) chance of hitting it only does 2 Damage to zombies with a 20%(start) chance of hitting due to there dead and rotting flesh. all of these would be in a new skill branch. When a Human is Hit with the teaser It would show "You zap ___ for 6 damage" When you zap a zombie it would be "you zap a zombie for 3 damage it doesn't seem to slow it down" when hit with a teaser it would be "___ has zapped you with a teaser For 6/3 Damage" A taser would have a battery that has Approx 12 shots in it (would work like a spray can giving more or less shots depending on how lucky you get) once the shots run out it is useless and can be discarded or recharged at the station for 10AP. Tasers can only be found in NecroTech buildings.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote --Deadeye207 19:46, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Too complicated. Taser and .??? Many, many holes in this.Timid Dan 20:22, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Please show me the holes and I will try to fix them.-Deadeye207
  3. Kill Uh... What? The best pieces of advice I can give you are to consult your MLA handbook and to return to primary school for a much-needed lesson in grammar and spelling. AllStarZ 20:28, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    Re As for you get a life oh no I spelled things wrong its the end of the world THIS IS ABOUT THE IDEA NOT MY SPELLING-Deadeye207
    Let me simplify and clarify what I said. WHAT THE FUCKING HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I CAN BARELY READ THIS SHIT. AllStarZ 02:20, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Heres my attempt at a fair grade. I'm not voting kill because you have bad grammar, or it being complicating.(my brain can work through the complication and the lack of grammar) Here goes nothing. The entire class seems a bit useless. Basically its a class that revolves around a weapon.(A broken weapon at that, but i'll get to that after.) If fact there really isnt a need for the class, i guess you could argue for the weapon. It almost seems like you're trying to sneak in a bad weapon with the cover of a bad idea. As for the weapon, 6 damage at 55% WITHOUT reloading is too much. Even if its 10AP to recharge. What people would do is grab like 10 considering their probable small inventory space. They'd run it out of juice and discard it. + Re As for you get a life oh no I spelled things wrong its the end of the world THIS IS ABOUT THE IDEA NOT MY SPELLING-- Also i was wondering how a taser does more damage than a bullet. Rather how a "'mild' shock" does more than a chunk of metal fired from a gun. I was very honest here, because i feel thats what we should be when voting, honest.--Uncle Willy 20:40, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    Re Thank you for the fair grade I had not thought of the possibility of having more than one I suppose you should be limited to one also the taser does 6 to humans becuase it shorts out brain. And interups heart beats and could kill you. When it has been reconfigured it does more damage to zombies becuase it has been adapted to there anatomy.as for the reloading part maybe with a 5-10% chance of shorting out and become useless it would be more balanced-Deadeye207
  5. Kill Burst damage possible with this is way too high. 10 AP recharge means the chance to find one would be insanely low to make recharging more attractive than searching for a new one. A science combat class is a walking contradiction too. People would just use it for PK characters since it has such a good low level PK weapon and the ability to pick up diagnose on the fly. --Zaruthustra-Mod 21:01, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill Changing one minor thing about your suggestion does NOT give you the right to delete my vote. Especially when I said there was more than one freaking thing wrong with it. In those cases you freaking Re the guy telling him you changed, or choke on it because no one likes edits once the votes are out. (and what Zarathustra said is right too)--McArrowni W! 21:08, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Sorry I forgot and clicked "save page" I dident mean to earse your vote and I dident know how to message also I apperantly suck at making suggestions so you wont be hearing from me again -Deadeye207
      • Re Sorry, it didn't occur to me it could have been unintentionnal (and I should have thought about it, since I saw it happen like that before. Heck a mod once deleted my vote by mistake once). As for making suggestions, it's not a question of sucking or not... it's just a question of knowledge/experience in both the game and design/development (of games in general). You might come back in a few months (or years), with more experience and make very good suggestions (or not, life is a bitch sometimes). You are right however that generaly, when someone finds their suggestions constantly killed, they should probably take a break for awhile (and it's good to see someone who is able to acknowledge that, it's not always the case). Sometimes it's a matter of waiting for more experience and sometimes it's a matter of just trying too hard, or too fast. --McArrowni W! 21:33, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Spam For removing votes and retooling the suggestion after submitting. Next time, resubmit instead. --John Ember 21:22, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - For many of the reasons listed above. We don't need more ways of attacking things (i.e. weapons that deal every possible damage amount), we need different ways of attacking things (i.e. the peer-reviewed SMG, Ransack, etc.). This is just a very, very complicated suggestion, and complicated is generally bad. Bentley Foss 21:41, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - As a dyslectic writing in a foreign language I can understand that you don't like the fact that people seem to have more to say about your spelling then your suggestion itself. However they do have a point, like it or not, if you want to pass a proposal or, in this case, a suggestion in real life or on the internet, you have to win people over, convince them that your suggestion is a good idea. If your suggestion has a lot of spelling errors people will also assume that the actual mechanics will be flawed as well. Their trust in you as a suggester will only be minimal before they even start reading it. You might argue that that is unfair, but it is you that want something from them, namely, their input and approval. For that you have to do the extra work, make sure that your suggestion is not only well thought out but well presented also. Simply proof reading and putting it through a spell checker would have removed many of the mistakes. Also explaining why the format and grammar aren't perfect (first time suggester/speaking in a second language if applicable) would've helped people look beyond the flaws. That is purely about the trappings of your suggestion. It doesn't help that your suggestion in itself rather ambitious, not very well balanced and leaves a lot wanting flavour wise. A Taser does less damage with a lower to hit percentage then an axe. And as it does damage by disrupting the working of the organs it would be utterly useless against zombies. You don't give the HP/AP which is rather high (1.5HP/AP when maxed out against zombies, 1.4HP/AP when maxed against survivors. that would make it one of the strongest survivor weapons in game.) You remove the entirely military character and skill tree by making it less effective then your suggestion. Etc. etc. etc. I believe you put a lot of work in this, But my advice to you is, suggest something a lot smaller next time. Some of the best suggestions have been the simplest, those suggestions that didn't seem to do a lot still changed the game enourmously. check out the peer reviewed page and especially the suggestions that are implemented. Try to style your suggestion after those that made it. and the easier your suggestions are the easier they get peer reviewed. And if you want to ask for help checking a suggestion try asking some members of Project Welcome for help, or use the suggestions talk page.--Vista 21:44, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - What he ^ said. It is a rather ambitious suggestion - and suggestions with many layers have many aspects for people to consider, and are not surprisingly much harder to get through peer review. I think people tend to forget that English is not everyone's native language, and that some people suffer from disabilities that make things like that very difficult - so don't read too much into those comments (however, spell check is gods gift to everyone). Every person who suggests things has suggestions that suck from time to time, so don't give up just because you haven't been successful thus far. --Blahblahblah 22:24, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    I haven't, but then again I made one suggestion in the three months I've been here. but at least I can brag about my 100% pass rate :P--Vista 23:06, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - I think "tasers" should be able to find/recharge at police stations as well however (yes, cops carry them too!). But the idea of NecroTech 'Secret Police', oh, that's just too cool to pass up!. --MrAushvitz 16:20, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - What they all said. --mikm W! 23:37, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 2 Keep, 9 Kill, 1 Spam - 20:44, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Simple New Use for Wire Cutters

Timestamp: 20:18, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: New item use
Scope: Change to wirecutter usefulness
Description: Here is a simple little idea. I have noticed that there is a chain-link fence around junk-yards, and some additional properties.. Make the wirecutters useful for reducing the barricade level on chain-link fences. Most fenced-off areas that I have encountered are extremely well barricaded. The wire-cutters would reduce the barricade at a higher likelihood per use than your usual attack. It would simulate cutting a hole in the fence, which would work better than smacking the door. Then wirecutters would finally be useful.

Votes

  1. Kill -- Then wirecutters would finally be useful... Choose one of three relevant responses:... For humans only. ...Rarely. ...Very pointlessly, though Andrew McM W! 20:25, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - No. Just NO.Timid Dan 20:32, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill -Problem with that is that was what happend in the beginning. the chainlink fences were areas were zombies and suvivors without free running couldn't get in. You needed free running or you cut open the fences with wirecutters and every could get in for ever. took a couple of weeks before all were opened up and that was before people grasped the idea how usefull eareas that were inexcessible to zombies could be. (doesn't matters as a 'roleplaying' 'Deathcultist' would've opened them up later anyway, and the safety would've turned boring really fast) So your idea doesn't work for two reasons. One, they are around the block, not the building itself and thus not part of the barricades. Two, they are all already to shreds (and hence the uselessness of wirecutters to begin with).--Vista 20:44, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Zombies can't use them, so meh. And do we need to make junkyards worse? They're already at about the bottom of the list for desirable safehouses. --Zaruthustra-Mod 20:54, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - Basically, you want a second crowbar. It would at least make that item a bit useful. It shoudn't be useable by zombies, IMO, but I don't really care. In any case, any idiot sleeping in a hardly defensible place like a junkyard in a zombie apocalypse deserves to die. --McArrowni W! 21:15, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - What's been said. --Blahblahblah 21:30, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - As above, if you want something that damages barricades better, get a crowbar. Bentley Foss 21:42, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - Makes sense, if wirecutters are used on fenced areas for more damage. --MrAushvitz 16:23, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - Andrew McM for the win! this would help me grief... so maybe I should vote keep...or...no. -Banana Bear4 03:56, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - I'm with you, it makes sense but like, it doesn't!--DicktheTech 03:53, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 3 Keep, 7 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:44, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Changes to Knife

Timestamp: 22:02, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill modification, item modification
Scope: Survivors, Kitchen Knife
Description: We have kitchen knives. Why not add forks? Kidding. Think about it, only a deranged survivor would try to cut a zombie apart with a pretty blunt kitchen knife. And soldiers aren't training for killing people with kitchen knives. Please read everything before you mark this as dupe or else! First, change the item's name to Combat Knife. Combat knives are used by real soldiers and they are trained to use them, too. It's base accuracy could be 20% and we would move the skill tree around to make the knife skill have some sense. It would go like this:
  • Hand To Hand Combat - Player gets +15% to hit with melee weapon attacks or fists.
    • Melee Weapon Training - Player gets +15% to hit with melee weapon attacks or fists. Firefighters would start with this skill.
      • Knife Combat - An extra +10% to hit with a Combat Knife.

Basically, the Combat Knife would become a more accurate weapon and replace the fire axe as the best melee weapon, without overpowering it. It would be useful in a situation in which you are out of ammo, and all you need is to hit that zombie a couple of times more but you just don't trust your fire axe with that 30% chance to hit. The Combat Knife should be found in a Sports Store (A combat knife is like a hunting knife and hunting is a sport.) and Armories. Optionally, Scouts could start a Combat Knife instead of a flare. (It makes sense: starting scouts would get XP scouting their surroundings, attacking nearby zombies in a hit-and-run style, still being able to return to safety)

Votes

  1. Kill - Compliments on a well-written suggestion. Now the bad stuff: I don't like the idea of removing the kitchen knife completely. The percentages are also a bit high... even at 55% to hit it would still be good (for finishing blows and stuff). IMO, this totaly removes the importance of the fire axe, except for low-level firemen, unless you happen to only have 1 AP and the ennemy has exactly 3 or 4 hp left. Still, this is good enough that I will probably check back in case I changed my mind... you are really on the fence, and I realize I'm being picky here. --McArrowni W! 22:08, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I actually intended to replace the fire axe. Being Malls and Armories the only two places in which you can find the item, it would become a hard-to-get item. The numbers can always be modified, but if you remove all the fanciness from my suggestion, it is basically making the kitchen knife a useful item by raising it's accuracy levels, turning it into a good weapon for quickly disposing of weak enemies without wasting valuable ammo.--Tom Hartinger 00:36, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - While I like the idea of the name change, I'm still a little confused about how firefighters got nerfed a little bit on this one with the skill change. Is there no longer an Axe skill? Does the weapon damage change on the knife with the name change?Timid Dan 22:25, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I don't think an 'Axe Proficiency' skill is really fitting in the game. If you check the skill tree I suggest, the total accuracy for the axe would remain unchanged. Please note, I don't intend to change weapon damages at all.--Tom Hartinger 00:36, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Keep - But I'd say a Combat Knife is a different weapon than a Kitchen Knife, but I'd agree with the right training the Combat Knife is a better weapon for killing, faster anyways. --MrAushvitz 16:27, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - So, we shuffle around the skill trees all to accomodate this, and why? For an extra 10% to do 2 damage? No thanks. Bentley Foss 01:03, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - No mister, the melee weapons training would raise the hit of both fire axe AND combat knife by 15%, then 10% for knife. Basically, you have 60% accuracy total, which, if too high, can be lowered to keep it balanced. --Tom Hartinger 01:10, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Axe proficiency is very fitting - Firefighters - Axes yes, it's in their job, their training wouldn't translate to wielding other melee weapons with the same degree of proficiency. I agree 100% with changing the name of kitchen knife - just a generic "knife" would suffice for multiple forms of roll play. Other than that, there's already a suggestion in Peer Review that gives knives a 10% to hit increase. --Blahblahblah 01:31, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - It would give the game some more flavor. Also, the use of axes doesn't belong to Military training. You hold axes, baseball bats and lengths of pipe the same way as well, and even if a Firefighter somehow find these other melee weapons, the fire axe would prevail for its damage.--Tom Hartinger 02:25, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - This is a swell idea in many ways. However, I do not like the idea of making the fire axe next to worthless, and the knife so uber. I think you could pull something fun out of this though. -Banana Bear4 04:01, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 1 Keep, 6 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:43, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Item Seeding v2

Timestamp: 22:18, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement to search and drop functionality
Scope: Mostly survivors, but zombies play a part too
Description: We know that Kevan is reluctant to introduce item trading, and for good reason. At the same time, though, wouldn't it be great if you could donate your unneeded inventory to help out the less fortunate? I believe this suggestion could make that possible without breaking the game.

The idea is that dropping an item in an area slightly increases the chance of finding that item in that area, within certain boundaries. This would only work for certain items, and only when the item is dropped inside a building where it could normally be found anyway.

Take the hypothetical Arms building with around 1% chance of finding a shotgun in a search. I propose that every time a survivor drops an unneeded shotgun inside that Arms, the search percentage be incremented by 1%. However, there would be a cap on the increase -- say, 10% max. At the same time, every time a survivor successfully finds a shotgun inside the building, the percentage is knocked back down by 1% -- until the minimum search rate is reached. There would thus never be a 100% or 0% chance of finding any item, but survivors would be able to "seed" buildings with their unwanted inventory in order to assist other survivors.

Items that could be seeded in this way would be limited to shotguns and shells, pistols and clips, flak jackets, first aid kits and Necrotech syringes. Again, the increase in percentage only applies if the item is dropped in a location where it could normally be found. Dropping a Necrotech syringe in a police station would have no seeding effect. For reasons of technical complexity, the amount of ammo stored in a dropped weapon might not be factored in. (I'm unsure which would be easiest.) In that case seeding a shotgun would increase the chance of finding any shotgun, regardless of ammo loaded. It's not perfectly realistic, but then having only a percent chance to find an item in a building stocked with an infinite supply of the thing is not exactly realistic either.

I don't think this would help zergs overmuch, as losing an item to only slightly increase the chances of finding that same item is not an especially attractive collusion strategy. Really, it just allows survivors to be a bit more generous with their accumulated wealth.

Votes

  1. Kill - Im against. There would be an almost constant 10% to find flak jackets in police departments, and as well as that, i just dont like the concept. --Grim s 22:48, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - You're free to dislike it, but note that not every item could be seeded up to a 10% max. In fact, some of the listed items are already that plentiful. Some would get up to a higher max, some to a lower. I wouldn't want 10% flak jackets either. --John Ember 22:53, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill It's easy enough to find most items. --Jon Pyre 23:07, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - I like the fact that you listened to the comment on the first one. also I believe it is a good call to ignore the realism aspect I brought up on Item Seeding 1 It is a game, realism should be a tool not a hinderance. that said I'm a bit on the fence here I honestly believe searching is fine right know. on the other hand your suggestion has less impact then the (temporary) changes Kevan sometimes make in the search rates. Is the increase in the total find rate or the distribution rate? either way, at the moment it's kill.--Vista 23:18, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - There's a find rate and a distribution rate? I thought you just had x % chance to find the item, where the specific % depended on the type of building... --John Ember 00:42, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Why not? Although the "weaker weapons" should be included too (hand weapons like the crowbar, bat, etc) Then newbies have a chance of finding something they need sooner to get prescious XP. --MrAushvitz 16:30, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Item rates are fine the way they are. We don't need even incidental item trading such as this. As for any further comments, please see whatever I said on the last version of this suggestion. Bentley Foss 01:05, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill It stunk then, it stinks now. It's watered down item trading and searching aint broke, so don't fix it.--Mookiemookie 01:09, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I'd submit that it's an attempt to fix dropping rather than searching. I like the idea of making the Drop feature more strategic. --John Ember 02:36, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - It just seems unnecessary --McArrowni W! 14:10, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - But Shopping and Bargain Hunting and go to a mall!--DicktheTech 03:59, 8 March 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 1 Keep, 7 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:43, 26 May 2006 (BST)

Zombie Medkit

Timestamp: 23:53, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
Type: New "Item"
Scope: all zombies
Description: Zombies need to heal too even low levels with out digestion.I suggest that when a zombie kills a human character they have a 20% chance to "rip a chunk of meat off of the corpse". Once this chunk has been "removed" it goes into the zombies invantory. Then it can be Ingested for 2ap for 5hp. A zombie can carry as many chunks as he or she wants (up to fifty) but there is a catch. If a zombie has a chunk in its invantory and has not used it for a 4 days it rots and becomes useless (zombies only like fresh meat). The fact that it only heals 5hp and can only be optained from killing a Human makes it not nerf digestion. The text would read "you mual ____ for 3 damage and rip off a chunk of his still fresh corpse" or for humans (now corpses) "A zombie muals you for 3 damage and tears a chunk of of your corpse as you fall to the ground" This would add alot of flavor to the game and it would not be to over balanced. Also think of zombie groups outside of a mall chewing on the dead they have already claimed. You might say "gee why cant zombies just eat corpses?" well think about it zombies only ever eat the living or else they would just eat each other. (yes I know they do in this game but thats not the point). Also zombies would not be able to give the chunks to other zombies (zombies dont share!) Give me your votes this is my last submission for a while.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote. --Deadeye207 00:34, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill- We already have digestion i don't believe having medkits is the way to go Drogmir 23:56, 27 February 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - I see dead suggestions. Same general idea, and this is worse. Its has such a bad AP/HP ratio and chance to proc that most people will probably just choose death, especially after ankle grab. --Zaruthustra-Mod 00:56, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re so your saying that if it healed 10hp for 2 Ap youd like it I think that sounds better-Deadeye207 01:18, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - The above link is close enough for my tastes. Really, how often do injured low-level zombies kill survivors? Is it often enough to even remotely make a difference, especially considering that you get a full heal anyway for 1-15 AP? Bentley Foss 01:07, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill My zombies care not for their HP status. That's what ankle grab is for.--Mookiemookie 01:08, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re In a heavy combat situation it might be nice to heal and keep on fighting especially if you dont have ankle grab and Iam sure that some low level zombies would like to not die so many times-Deadeye207 01:13, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
      • Re That's what Digestion is for. And if you don't have it...tough. That's one of the benefits of being a higher level zombie who does--Mookiemookie 02:02, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Re re This might be useful when there are no humans around such as during intermittent parts of a mall tour or when you are being attacked and some one else steals your kill-Deadeye207 02:07, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill Zombie don't heal, they stand up. I don't know if it's still accurate in these days of the new headshot, but the events in which I logged on to be damaged and not dead are few. I also dislike the idea of a zombie inventory--McArrowni W! 01:13, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill Entirely pointless. Digestion already exists. Far more AP-efficient just to die and stand up than use these "items" Timid Dan 15:02, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - I don't like the idea of zombie inventory, either. --Dickie Fux 15:38, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - every time something like this is suggested, it gets shot down. What, is immortality not good enough for you zed players? --Arcibi 16:32, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Healing is meaningless to zombies. I doubt you've ever even played one. - CthulhuFhtagn 18:37, 28 February 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 1 Keep, 9 Kill, 0 Spam - 20:43, 26 May 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/27th-Feb-2006&oldid=264043"