Suggestions/29th-Oct-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

Call Of The Dead

Timestamp: MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 00:17, 29 October 2006 (BST)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Feeding Groans +1 range with this skill
Description: Call Of The Dead:
  • Zombie skill, appears as a sub-skill of Feeding Groan. Adds no benefits to your human character.
  • As an additional pre-requisite, (and to limit over-use & abuse) this skill also requires your zombie to be at least level 10+ to purchase this skill.

Your zombie's feeding groans have +1 added to their range.

Simple enough, no matter how many (or how few) survivors you encounter when you make your feeding groan... it's base range is increased by 1 when you make it.

Keep Votes

  1. Author Keep Zombie communication is a limited thing, but the dinner bell is easily understood. Not unreasonable considering the co-ordinational benefits survivors now enjoy from radio use. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 00:17, 29 October 2006 (BST)
  2. Keep - What the hell. Its pretty good.--Canuhearmenow Hunt! 00:19, 29 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep' - I could come up with some "useless and underpowered" comment, but maybe i'd just be missing the point of suggestions if I shot down every one. --BBM 01:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Can't see why it's needed, but I see no reason to kill it, either. Blue Command Vic DvB 03:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Yes, ferals need a hand. Consideer making it +2 or +3.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 03:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Re I did the math on another RE, which answers that. +2 range would be decent for a base range of 1 or 2... but taking 6 to 8 would be a very huge radius for just a groan. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 23:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Wobbly like jelly - I like your idea, but i think the range should be just a little larger...--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 06:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Powerful - A 1-square boost covers a 7-square radius - which is another 56 blocks on top of the 169 it usually covers (if my arithmetic is right). --Funt Solo 08:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Re Yeah the math behind it just like that... taking a range 6 groan and making it into a range 7 adds a lot more squares to the hearing audience. I like how it makes a range 1 oe 2 into a range 2 or 3 actually works for calling other zombies! (15x15 is 225 blocks (7+7+1 center) 13x13 is 169 (6+6+1 center) so at max it adds 56 blocks to the audience at max range. You are correct.. (that is why +2 range would be savage, +2 range in all directions out from the center, whoo huge noise! Maybe if your zombie did a death groan after getting hit with a missle...) MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 23:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Keep - As Funt. The boost is powerful enough to actually be worth something. And level 10+ requirement = good. -- Nob666 10:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep - Its good, but does it really need to be a 10+ skill? Its not that helpful to a zombie anyway though must probaably zombies won't buy it until they are over 10+ because there are more useful attacking skills. --MarieThe Grove 10:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. keep - Does for me. It wouldn't bother me if it was not a level 10+ skill, but I'm still voting keep, because it doesn't bother me if it is. The Mad Axeman 10:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. keep - A 100xp for a slightly better range on an existing skil? If it works for "Advanced Pistol" I don't see any reason why not...I like the 10+ aspect as well for numerous reasons including the possibility of abuse. Conndrakamod T CFT 10:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. It's good, but I suggest getting rid of the prerequisite. Firstly, no zombie with any sense would want to get it below level 8 or so, as they'll be too busy increasing their attacks. Secondly, half of all standing zombies are currently over level 10 anyhow. --ExplodingFerret 14:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Works for me Why not? --Reaper with no name 16:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  14. Alright- Sure, why not? Nothing too overpowered, and has some definite use.--Grigori 19:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  15. Keep - Love the name and a reasonably limited skill. Bubba 06:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  16. Keep - Makes sense to me. DeathToSpam 18:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  17. Keep - Improves the skill, especially when faced with one or two survivors. Feeding groan, already a questionable use of XP, could be vastly improved by a stat boost like this. Peter Moran 00:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  18. Keep I wonder that it's usefulness might be limited - I know that I wouldn't travel 11 blocks for a feeding groan that might have already expired. That said, it sounds like a fair and reasonable suggestion. --Garrett Fisher 12:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - Don't get me wrong, I like this suggestion, but c'mon! A measly 1 boost in range. Make it two or three, or it's not worth it. --Officer Johnieo 04:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Re I hear ya, hardly seems worth 100 XP.. but those times you find just 1 survivor in a safehouse that +1 range can get a few buddies all over that guy pretty quick, because normally the range on 1 survivor is meaningless. Didn't want to overdo it, so even pro-survivor voters may vote keep on this one. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 06:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kill - Not a bad idea, really, I just have one problem with it. The range of feeding groan in most instances is kind of adjusted for the quality of the target as I see it. Increasing the range could just lead to more feeding groans being effectively false alarms. I lust don't no of the total effect of this would be to help the zombies following groans, or to hurt them. --Rgon 14:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam?

Advanced Search and Rage v. 2.0

Timestamp: ShadowScope 03:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Type: Skills
Scope: Humans and Zombies
Description: I have tried to contact Karloth vois on his wiki page, and this suggestion is based on his suggestion on the discussion page. It was a good suggestion, but it never got sent here, so here we go. I hope this is a good idea. This is a revision of a previous suggestion, and all changes are bold.

What I propose is 2 new skills, Advanced Searching (Suriviors) and Experience Rage (Zombies). Advanced Searching is a Zombie Hunter Skill (level 10 or higher), while Experience Rage is a Human Hunter Skill (level 10 or higher). Both skills are 100 XP each.

Advanced Search: For a Surivior, when you are in a non-Mall building, you can click on a button called "Advanced Search". When you click on this button, you spend 100 XP and 1 AP to have your next (and only next) search odds be boosted by 10%. (Example: Surivior is in a PD. He uses Advanced Searching, and then finds a pistol clip.)

What this means? (This is taken from Karloth's justification)

  1. 100XP can be spent per search. It increases that one search odds of being successful by a total of 10%.
  2. This results in an average of merely one in ten searches being affected, for a total cost of 1000XP.
  3. Even ridiculously maxed out survivors (ie ~5000 spare XP) could only use this for one full day's searching, giving 5 less "you search and find nothing" results.
  4. Cannot be used in malls

Advanced Rage: For a Zombie, when you are outside the barricades, you can click on the Advanced Rage button to spend 100 XP and 1 AP to have your next (and only next) accuracy for hitting barricades with your Claw Attack by 10%. (Example: Zombie is outside a PD. He uses the Advanced Rage, and takes down the barricade by one level.)

What this means?

  1. 100XP can be spent per barricade attack, and only makes that one attack be succesful by 10%.
  2. An average of merely one in ten barricade attacks will be affected, for a total of 1000 XP.
  3. Zombies with lots of stored XP (ie ~5000 spare XP) can only use this for one full day's of barricade smashing.

Both these skills help out the Suriviors and Zombies, giving them both powers, but there is a price. They need 100XP to use either skill, and quickly, their spare XP will be depelted (the point of this skill, to give old players a use for their XP). You cannot drop into negative XP, if you click on Advanced Search and Advanced Rage and have less than 100 XP, you get a message saying you do not have enough XP to afford an attack, and do not lose an AP for it.

This suggestion helps out both suriviors and zombies, giving them beniefts that cancel each other out, and encourges more zombie-versus-human attacks (so you can gain XP to use these more powerful Search and Rage actions). I hope this would be a fun suggestion. The changes I made hopefully would make the suggestion more powered and encourge people to use this skill.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep on one condition. In the Buy skills page, it must say that the 100XP is being spent to increase the search odds. I know some noobs would buy this ASAP, and then complain that their XP is going away. Blue Command Vic DvB 03:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep Yes, this is somewhat underpowered as it is. However, to those voting Spam and Kill, I hope you realise that a maxed out survivor can do nothing, absolutely NOTHING with those XP. So you might as well give them something to do with it, no matter how weak. -- Ashnazg 0611, 30 October 2006 (GMT)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill I agree that xp needs to be useful for something besides skills, but I think dropping 100xp on slightly better odds for a single action is kind of ridiculous. Maybe something like 100xp for bonus that lasts your next 25AP. But seriously, how many players have 20,000 xp piling up? --Jon Pyre 04:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kill I was going to write out a whole list of reasons why...but then I realized I didn't have the inclination to do so. Conndrakamod T CFT 05:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. I kinda like Jon's idea. Seems a little UNDERpowered.--Pesatyel 08:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Either the maths is wrong or you're not clear and it's very underpowered. Are you saying that if you had a 10% chance of finding something your boost would make it 11%? That's ridiculously underpowered, and fits some of your figures. Or are you saying that it would become 20%? That doubles your chance of finding, affecting half of all searches. Unless there's something I've missed, or you know something about cumulative search odds in buildings that I don't? --ExplodingFerret 14:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Rediculously underpowered. 10 XP is about right. -Mark 23:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - Trading XP for a boost is bad, no matter how underpowered it is. - Jedaz - 15:41/23/12/2024 04:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spam - I agree with Jedaz --GhostStalker 05:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Spam - Yeh, Jedaz said it all.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 06:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Spam - If you're going to post a revision, it's pretty much standard practise to remove the original suggestion, to avoid voter confusion, I suppose. Also, this is two suggestions, not one. Plus what Jedaz said. --Funt Solo 08:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Spam - Its just such a waste. I now have just got 1000 spare xp but for one extra search? Wasteful, useless and anywway this can be used in NT buildings and you should know how touvhy everyone is about increasing the odds of finding syringes. --MarieThe Grove 10:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Spam - Really, it's okay, we don't have to find a way to use all the extra XP. It's not really hurting anything. --Rgon 14:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Waste - Even the most absurdly XP rich survivor isn't going to waste 1000 Xp for a measly 10 boosts. --Officer Johnieo 17:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Useless- I would never use this. Wasting perfectly good xp for a measly boost? No way.--Grigori 20:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Spam - As Jedaz - 15:41/23/12/2024 said. Bubba 06:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Spam - Preach on, Brother Jedaz. DeathToSpam 18:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Spam No. XP is used only to buy skills. This would set a new precedent for skills affecting XP, like the bad old days of headshot. --Garrett Fisher 12:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ichor Attack

Timestamp: Jon Pyre 06:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: This is an idea for a new zombie attack, Ichor. This is also a revision of an old suggestion so don't dupe because many details are improved. A zombie with this subskill of Infectious Bite is rotting and foul, dripping slime and gore as it moves. This foul mixture can drip or smear on survivors during combat and sicken them with mudane illnesses, seperate from the zombie infection. These diseases do not kill but merely weakens.

Ichor would have a base accuracy of 10%. Vigour Mortis would raise the accuracy to 20% and with a tangling grasp bonus it'd rise to 30%.

A successful ichor ichor would have a 50% chance of giving the victim a new Diseased status (otherwise it does 1hp of damage). A diseased survivor has their maximum health lowered 10 points. If they are above the new maximum their health instantly drops down to either 40 or 50, depending on whether they have body building or not. If they are below their new maximum health when diseased they do not lose any health, they just can't be healed above their new maximum. A survivor can only be diseased once.

QUESTION: Isn't this horribly unbalanced by letting zombies deal 10 damage in a single attack?

While it might seem like this does 10 damage in one hit the math says otherwise. At maximum attack a zombie has a 30% chance of their ichor landing. And their odds of diseasing are only 50%. So on average they'll need around 6 attacks or so to be likely to disease, which otherwise could do 9 damage in hand attacks. Ichor would only do 10 damage from disease. This is only 1hp more for the same AP and there are a few mitigating factors: 1) That this is condition effect. So it'd only give a 1hp advantage during the zombie's entire attack. Once diseased a survivor has little more to fear from Ichor. 2) The damage from disease heals on it's own so assuming the survivor is not killed AP will not need to be spent finding first-aid kits or using them, and the zombie will have spent extra AP for nothing.

QUESTION: Wait, what do you mean the damage heals on its own?

Damage from disease does not need to be treated. It isn't a serious enough illness to require medication, it just requires time for the survivor's immune system to work. Once the survivor has more energy and is back on their feet the disease will quickly abate. When the survivor spends another AP their condition would change from Diseased to Recovering. With the first 10AP they spend their maximum health would rise 1hp and their current health would rise 1hp per turn until they were back to normal. This isn't AP wasted on healing, these are action points spent doing whatever the survivor wants. They just recover as they play. When back to normal their Recovering condition would be gone.

QUESTION: So what's the point of the suggestion?

First-aid kits are pretty easy to find, and a single medic can easily heal several people. This suggestion is designed for use when the zombie expects their targets to be healed before another zombie comes. They can temporarily lower their target's maximum health so that they'll be a little bit easier to kill until the next time that player logs in.

Last Question: Is this overpowered?

No. This is weaker on the whole than Feeding Drag, which effectively lowers survivor health by 12 and deposits them outside, or tangling grasp which results in many more successful attacks. You might use the fact that zombies have other good skills as evidence they don't need more but the game gets stale and new skills just makes the game richer and more interesting. The introduction of a new zombie skill is balanced with a new survivor skill and everybody benefits and the game grows.

Keep Votes

  1. Author This is a pretty good attack skill that is designed to weaken your prey for later. I don't think this is overpowered, on the whole it is weaker than other skills like Feeding Drag and Tangling Grasp. Obviously the introduction of a decent zombie skil would require the introduction of a decent survivor skill to maintain balance. This suggestion doesn't claim zombies are underpowered, just that a new attack and ability would be very fun. --Jon Pyre 06:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep "It's so sticky.. augh!" Very well thought out, if you resubmit shorten your description of it (people vote Keep on stuff that only took a minute or less to read.) If anything I love that ichor is a seperate attack.. but it should have it's own skills tree (from starting) that way you can make some add ons to the base skill (ex. Ichor vomit, add ichor small % to claw attacks, etc.. all kinds of disgusting shit.) Post a message on My Talk, we'll see if I can help you "taint" this sick shit to the point they'll vote more keeps. Hee hee.. sexy. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep I think that this might turn out to be a little overpowered - I'd prefer if the survivor spent 5 AP to restore 1 Hp - though it seems more or less okay as it is. Except Ichor isn't a verb XD. -- Ashnazg 0607, 30 October 2006 (GMT)
  4. Itty bitty change - I think it should be 2 AP per HP healed, but that's not enough to kill this. Unfortunately, with the heavy anti-zombie crowd here (and the lack of voters who desire the game to be any challenge to survivors), these suggestions will never make it to PR. --Pinpoint 00:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - I'm all for additional Zombie attacks, even ones that cause 5 or 10 pts of Damage, but Nerfing the FAK? No I dont think so. If a survivor at low HP was both bit by an infected zombie AND hit with this... Absolutly not. Conndrakamod T CFT 10:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Re If a survivor at low hp was hit by this they'd see absolutely no effect from disease. This only lowers your maximum health. If a survivor at 3hp were diseased it would not take away any health. The two effects harm at different times. This skill hurts you when you're not online. Infection hurts you when you are. --Jon Pyre 10:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kill - Maybe I'm missing a piece or two of my brain, but I don't see how this is so overpowered. If you get attacked with this and log back in before dying your fine, and for ten AP the damage caused heals itself. I kinda don't see the point of it really. Maybe I would if I were big on seiges. Oh, also, the word Ichor is a noun. It is not used as a verb. You can't Ichor someone. It doesn't make sense. --Rgon 14:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Re You can't "hand" people either. Or pistol them. --Jon Pyre 06:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Whether this is overpowered or underpowered is irrelavent; this would considerable complicate the game for survivors. I personally would hate to be "diseased." --Wikidead 16:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Badly Overpowered Dupe/Spam/Incomplete - This nerfs FAKs. You've tried to pull the wool over voters' eyes with all this "hey, it only does 10 damage", whilst skirting around the main point of this - it stops healing by other players - which is a key tactic. Imagine a seige break-in - as well as everyone being infected, they now can't heal with a FAK. That breaks this badly - a survivor has to spend 10AP to heal 1HP, by which time they would've lost 9HP to their infection - and then each move is heal 1, lose 1, and they can't use FAKs, so they'll be stuck. If you're trying to fuck up the game for survivors then your recent run of super-zombie suggestions are the right direction. You're right that this is changed from your previous Peer Rejected suggestion - you've made it more powerful, and that one was heavily killed. --Funt Solo 08:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Re Dupe? I wrote the last suggestion. This is a revision and very different. I know you and I disagree on the purpose of the spam vote, but a Dupe is less subjective. That one had a bunch of stuff tying bite attacks into your accuracy, extremely different mechanics. Anyway, onto your objections. I'm not sure what your issue with infection is. If a survivor is infected they'll still be able to heal even if they are at 40hp while Infected and Recovering. Just the first aid kit wouldn't heal past their maximum. And then they'd go to full health on their own. --Jon Pyre 09:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Re - In my opinion, it's a Dupe. The only significant difference is it's more powerful than the previous, heavily Killed version. Plus, this is incomplete - you say it takes 10AP to raise the maximum HP cap by 1 point. Does that mean it takes 100AP to get back to normal? It would take a hell of a lot to convince me that this was in any way balanced / complete / not a dupe. --Funt Solo 10:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Dupe - As funt, this heavily nerfs FAKs.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 09:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Re It nerfs maximum health more than FAKs. FAKs are as effective as ever. It's a one time drop too. Boohoo, people will have to do with 50hp instead of 60hp for a little bit. That's hardly overpowered. --Jon Pyre 09:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - Well, it nerfs something or other and i don't like it.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 12:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Can I Spam and Dupe at the same time? - This suggestion is ridiculous. First off it goes and nerfs body building for however long it takes for this diease to heal itself, so some survivors can't get above 40hp. OVERPOWERED. I can't even type how ridiculous this idea is. You can't get healed by just walking around. And when you say you can't get this more than once does that mean a) you can't have it twice at the same time or b) you can only have it once in the whole entire game? --MarieThe Grove 10:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Other than being overpowered, it's really complicated. Go and look at the skills page and see how long those skill descriptions are. Then come up with a reasonable description of your skill that gives all the information you can't do without. Notice how your description is five times as long as the others? --ExplodingFerret 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Spam Dupe or Whatever - It's just too complicated for this game. --Officer Johnieo 17:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Spam Math is good, kids! It stops you from looking like an idiot on the internet! But I suppose math won't help you there anyway. This would deal more than 10 damage per six attacks-remember, every attack that lands but doesn't disease deals 1 damage. Deal more damage/AP than any other attack and reduce their max health while you're at it? Yes, please, Spamta Claus!--J Muller 01:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Neuro-Toxic Bite

Removed for revision --Funt Solo 10:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Neuro-Toxic Bite v2.0

Timestamp: 10:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Type: New Zombie Skill
Scope: Zombies.
Description: A mutation of this zombie's Infectious Bite, coupled with the poor sanitation of a city besieged for over a year, have caused a unique neuro-toxic reaction:
  • Prerequisites: Level 10, Digestion, Infectious Bite
  • Effect: Any survivor infected by this zombie's bite also lose the ability to speak, until treated with a FAK (which, as normal, cures the infection). However, they gain the ability to use the basic zombie-speak drop-down box ("Mrh?" etc.)
  • Notes: Mobile 'phone comms are okay as the survivor can still text. Radio or speech is via the drop-down "Mrh?" box.
  • Thanks to Conndraka for the zombie-speak part of this.

Keep Votes

  1. Author --Funt Solo 10:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep - As I said in the previous version of the suggestion- Since it doesnt do any additional damage, I can get behind this even as a pro-survivor. Not overpowered and gives a little more flavor to the game. And the level 10 requirement helps eliminate the possibility of abuse (at least to some degree). Conndrakamod T CFT 10:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Abi79 AB 12:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. I like it. Not entirely sure about the zombie talk thing; I'd have been happy with not allowing them to talk at all (seriously, someone using twenty APs screaming "I'M INFECTED!!!22" is annoying; considering I don't think I've ever spent a night in a reasonably occupied safe house without being healed), but I guess we'd end up assigning meaning to "Mrh?" soon enough (obviously it's going to be Mrh?...) --ExplodingFerret 14:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. OK Not that big a difference, but makes sense. --Reaper with no name 16:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Shutup about it - Let's face it, how many of use even talk that much to begin with. It's not like this skill stops medagaming. It seems like a cool idea. --Officer Johnieo 17:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Zombies are SERIOUSLY deficient in the things they can do and remain in genre, even if you consider these are, technically, INTELLIGENT zombies. But I digress. The "this hurts newbies" argument is kinda week because EVERYTHING hurts newbies the most. As with Infection, add a note when it happens to let people know the results. The only real consideration might be making bite have too many "special" features (infection, digestion, damage, and this). Maybe, instead, the attacker could choose to use this OR Infectious Bite, but not both simultaneously.--Pesatyel 19:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. "Swollen Tongue" say, silence is golden Zombies would have the power to shut up radio spammers, annoying yappers and the like. Since zombies lack communication, it is very reasonable to be able to take away the communications advantage from survivors.. well, ones they don't quite have the AP to kill. There are a number of real world infections that make speech difficult if not impossible especially allergic reactions: that's why some people wear medic alert bracelets, they can't tell the doc what is wrong with them. =MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 23:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep Okay, as long as it's a different attack than infectious bite. Maybe you see a lone survivor, don't have the AP to kill him. Close his throat up, and he can't warn the rest of the survivors about your nearby horde. Seems fine that zeds, who receive the short end of the comm stick, can take away communications from survivors.--J Muller 01:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Keep - Its not that powerful and gives my zombie more interesting things to do. Bubba 06:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Killeth (Weak) - I don't like the fact that you can't talk, (Well that was obvious seeing I voted here and thats the main part of the suggestion but anyway) and with zombie speech it would get confusing between real zombies Mrrrh?ing and survivors. What if it was you still lost hp for talking because for newbies leveling up- healing is the best path but without diagnosis they rely on us telling them when they need healing. Does this make any sense whatsoever? --MarieThe Grove 12:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    Re - I thought it would be fun - mess with people's heads a bit - especially if the character was called "a zombie". --Funt Solo 13:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    Re - Actually that would be quite funny :) --MarieThe Grove 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    Kill - This is kinda pointless, isn't it? --Wikidead 16:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    Re - No. Just like headshot inconveniances a zombie by causing it to spend extra AP standing up, this inconveniances a survivor by stopping them from saying "I'm infected - please FAK me". --Funt Solo 18:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    Re to Re: Ok, I see; however, if this were to be implemented, it should have be a filter similar to Death Rattle rather than drop down commands (as per John Pyre's comment). Albeit my refusal of support, I've decided not stand in the way of your suggestion. As such, I strike my vote from the record. --Wikidead 06:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (Is it just me, or did they change from BST to UTC? Sorry for getting off-topic, but that's what I do.)
  2. Kill I don't think it should be the basic commands, just the Death Rattle filter, and just at low health. --Jon Pyre 17:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Underpowered - I think it's funny that anyone would consider this overpowered. Who doesn't keep an FAK for emergencies? This wouldn't do anything in the game. Completely pointless. --Pinpoint 00:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    Re - I'm used to Kill votes, but this isn't pointless - if the survivor wants to communicate, they're forced to use that emergency FAK - which means they then have to spend time finding another one. From a zombie POV, that's not pointless. Please, lay off the bullshit wine. --Funt Solo 00:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Re - Considering they'd be healing damage and ridding themselves of an infection at the same time? Also considering the fact that FAKs are insanely easy to come by? I'm sticking with my argument that this wouldn't do crap. --Pinpoint 05:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Kill - A neat idea for an ability, and I do agree that Infectious Bite needs a subskill, but I fear this could REALLY screw over newbie players. --MorthBabid 20:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - Bites have enough power as it is, this could be bad news to newbies whom will confused by their sudden limitations in their vocab.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 12:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    Re Yes, those poor, stupid newbies ;) There could be a message telling them what just happened. Anyway, I think you're spamming on the bite power thang, so I'll shut up now. --Funt Solo 13:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    Re Indeed i am, i just don't think bite needs anymore buffs...--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 17:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Spam - Seems kinda senseless, and this is really pretty harsh on new players, both those affected by the infection, and those who could be healing it. --Rgon 14:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Consume Living (unrelated to my past suggestion of the same name)

Timestamp: Reaper with no name 16:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: In most zombie movies, when a zombie kills a person they will proceed to gnaw on the body a little and then leave them to turn into a zombie. This suggestion is supposed to go along those same lines. It's a subskill of Digestion, and has no effects for survivors.

The gist of it is, if a zombie kills a survivor with a bite attack, the zombie gets twice as much HP than it would have gotten otherwise (in other words, 8 HP instead of 4 HP). It's a pretty small boost and won't happen very often (unless the zombie specifically chooses to continually use the less effective of it's two attacks), but I think it would be a nice touch to the game nonetheless. Plus, it gives slightly more reason to use bites.

Keep Votes
For Votes here

  1. Author Keep - Just makes sense in terms of flavor. --Reaper with no name 16:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. I like it. Not a big boost and requires the KILL be by BITE.--Pesatyel 19:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Doesn't eat ass Unless your zombie is into that sort of thing. Victory bonus for gakking a survivor, handy in a safehouse seige but hardly overpowering, just buys ya a little more time. MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 23:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Keep - Seems like a pretty good idea, and makes sense. --Rgon 04:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - What stops the Zombie from getting the survivor down to 3 Hp using claw attacks, and then swooping in for one bite attack?? --Officer Johnieo 17:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - Nothing. But then again, the same reasoning can be applied to bites in general. Plus, 8 HP doesn't mean that much to a zombie when they can restore all of their HP for 6 AP when standing up. --Reaper with no name 17:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - True, but overall Hp doesn't matter squat as soon as you get ankle grab. --Officer Johnieo 21:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Kill - No, this will be a massive advantage to near death zombies whom breached a safe house. If they keep up their attacks it'll be very hard to kill them.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 17:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - All this does is give a zombie 4 extra HP when it kills a survivor with a bite. 4 extra HP is hardly enough to save a zombie from axe or shotgun-wielding survivors, and will have very little effect. Furthermore, this will actually slow down their killing of survivors slightly, since bites are less accurate than claw attacks, and this only works if their last attack is a bite. --Reaper with no name 01:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Revise Almost there - but UNDERPOWERED, not overpowered. By standing up, a zombie gets at least 3.33 Hp per AP. With this, it gets 30% x 8 = 2.4 Hp per AP. As you can see, it's still inferior. I suggest increasing the Hp gain to something like 12 to 14 Hp, hence giving 3.6 to 4.2 Hp per AP. Unfortunately, I greatly suspect it'll then get shot down for being overpowered, even if you stick the math under people's noses. -- Ashnazg 0543 (GMT), 30 October 2006
    • Re - That's exactly why it's weak; so that it has a chance of getting into PR. And it's mostly one of those "common sense" suggestions I make all the time. --Reaper with no name 15:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Kill - Good idea, but needs work. Was this on the Talk page, I didn't see it? Perhaps making this an option after a kill (Akin to the DNA Extractor's button to revive an extracted player) and spend AP to gnaw would balance this? --MorthBabid 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Flavour - In my imagination, the zombies don't eat their prey - they just kill them. Oh, and please, change the name of this suggestion to Consume Living v2 or something, because stupidly long names make nested menus too wide on the suggestion pages. --Funt Solo 17:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Re - This isn't the zombie so much eating them as taking a few bites out of their corpse, which happens in just about every zombie movie ever made. As for changing the name, am I actually allowed to do that without a revision? If so, I'll do it. --Reaper with no name 01:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Attack Name

Timestamp: Wikidead 16:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Type: Minor Game Mechanic
Scope: Gameplay
Description: My suggestion is a relatively insignificant tweek to the game: whenever you are dealt damage, you are given the mode of attack, ie "RANDOMCHARACTER dealt 5 damage to you with a pistol... and again... and again... You die" or "RANDOMCHARACTER killed RANDOMCHARACTER2 with a pistol." Now why would this be important? After all, you can tell 1 damage is a punch, 10/8 would be a shotgun.

The reason this is important is because the Urban Dead reports character's status at the time you're reading it, not when the event reported occured (or at least I believe this is so; if I'm wrong, be sure to tell me). If the mode of attack was given, you would be able to tell whether a character attacked you as a zombie with its hands or a survivor with a fire axe (or tell apart a bite from a pistol attack), filtering out a few misinterpreted PKer claims.
Whether I am wrong or right about the character status report thing, a few people I know say they would like a little more information about how people attack each other and say that this could not possibly subtract from the quality of gameplay. However, I don't think many people really care to know how they were attacked. So in a way, this is more of a poll than a suggestion (unfortunately, there is no "poll section of Urban Dead Wiki," so I posted it here.)

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote --Wikidead 16:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Keep - Makes sense to know what its making those deadly wounds into you.--Mr yawn Scotland flag.JPG 17:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Keep I believe there was a suggestion similar to this but it only dealt with flavor. You make an excellent point about knowing whether you were PK'd or not I think prevents this from dupage. --Jon Pyre 17:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Not A Dupe, just complimentary, and therefore a Keep. --Funt Solo 17:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. As Funt said.--Pesatyel 19:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Sure- It makes sense for people to know their being shot. Perhaps even more flavor in the form of-*You hear a loud boom from a shotgun and feel a sharp pain; You take 8 damage... again... and again...*--Grigori 20:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Keep - Sounds good. --Officer Johnieo 21:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Your ass got hit with a bat So for some weapons it would matter, you might come to know certain enemies as "That guy who uses that weapon" and it's more fun, for everyone. =MrAushvitz Canadianflag-sm.jpg 23:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Keep - I like it. --GhostStalker 23:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Keep No reason not to vote keep. And to Marie, the difference between this and Funt's link is that in the linked-to one other players don't see what you were killed with, whereas in this one you do. This will help clear up some false PKing claims. --Reaper with no name 01:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Keep It will make reading about how I got murdered more interesting. Bubba 06:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Dupe - Funt Solo has the link. Personally I can't see the difference between that suggestion and this one- I presume there is one- what is it and then I'll change my vote.? --MarieThe Grove 20:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Keep - Now I understand the difference I'm voting keep. I like the idea but what woulkd the point of having 2? if it were a dupe? As it isn't its a great idea and adds a little colour into the murders. --MarieThe Grove 15:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    Re: The key difference between my suggestion and "Killed With a (Blank)" is that my suggestion focuses on damage, rather than just kills. Also, Reaper with no name pointed out another difference between the two suggestions (honestly, even as the author of this suggestion, I didn't notice this difference, so I compliment Reaper with no name for his ingenious perception). --Wikidead 06:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    Re - Thanks for making it clear, I just wasn't sure but now I am so lets chnage this thing. --MarieThe Grove 15:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kill Votes
Against Votes here
Spam/Dupe Votes
Any Spam/Dupe Votes may go here

Evacuation

Mod Spaminated with 5 Spam votes because it allowed for massive griefing.--Gage 01:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/29th-Oct-2006&oldid=1880403"