Suggestions/4th-Apr-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

Factions

Timestamp: 04:02, 4 April 2006 (BST)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Social Dynamics
Description: Groups allow anyone to join without being confirmed, serving as an indicating of a basic goal or philosophy. Want to occupy Caiger, join the Caiger Mall Survivors. Want to occupy Ridleybank, join the RFF. Anyone who believes in those goals can join. However they don't allow people to set up groups with private membership. I suggest while keeping the current group system as is to allow this confirm-less membership and group-type be added: Factions. A faction would be the same as a group except the original founder of the faction would have to invite people to join, could kick people out, could set up officers also able to invite and expel people, and could pass the mantle of leadership to another. The faction leader would be able to name their faction, though any name currently being used by a group or another faction would be invalid. The invitation system I imagine would simply put an additional drop down menu on the main screen for the leader and executives listing people in the room, "Invite [Player Name]". This would not violate zombie anonymity as they would only appear in the drop down menu if they were already on your contact list. The player would receive a message "Playername has invited you to join The Chudleyton Fighters (Accept)." To reject the invitation just refresh or perform any action and the message goes away. Players would be able to belong to both a group and a faction. A person's faction would be listed in their profile beneath their group. The purpose of a faction would be to have an alliance between members that belong to different groups, or to have a specialized elite unite within a group. For instance the Ridleybank Resistance Front might have 15 zombies that specialize in performing raids on resource buildings. They know each other by name and don't want just anyone entering their elite organization. They choose the faction name RRF Raiders. This would allow special allies that actually perform heavily planned strategic operations to belong to a faction, while groups would be a more general come one come all type of association.
  • Notes: How would a leader's control over faction membership work? I imagine that a group member would have their own faction appear as a clickable link in their profile just to them. Clicking on this link would bring up a list of the names of all the players of the faction. Next to each name a group leader would see three buttons: [Expel], [Make Executive] (or if they were already an executive [Revoke Excutive Status], and [Make Leader]. All three buttons would prompt a confirmation.
  • Notes: In case of a leader idling out/qutting one solution is that factions could be automatically designed to either randomly upgrade a current executive to the leader, and/or an additional button next to current executive names could exist for leaders [Make Replacement] which would allow a leader to select which person/people would be selected randomly first before falling back to ordinary executives/faction members.

Votes

  1. Keep Author vote. Doesn't detract anything from the current system and allows a second type of more exclusive group. Good for both zombie and human players by increasing social interaction in the game. Different groups could have elite sub-units in the form of factions. --Jon Pyre 04:13, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - I do believe this came up before, not sure if it was here or on the forums, but the main problem was that someone could come along, take the name before the actual leader of that group, and screw over the actual people. There is also the problem of faction members idling out and taking the name with them. Velkrin 04:10, 4 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re You can't give a faction the same name as a currently existing group or faction. You couldn't make a "Ridleybank Resistance Front" faction. You could make it "Ridleybank Resistance Front: Elite Wing" or "RRF Dedicated Rotters" or any one of an unlimited number of names. But it would prevent someone from stealing the group name. And it wouldn't make people more able to subvert group names by inventing similar sounding fakes. Nothing prevents me from currently making a "Ridleybank Resistanze Front" group. As for your second point about leaders quitting I didn't think of that when writing the suggestion and I added a note to the suggestion to put forward a possible solution. --Jon Pyre 04:13, 4 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re: That still doesn't solve the problem of someone coming along and stealing the position for themselves right after the change. Velkrin 04:50, 4 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re What position is there to steal? Once a Faction is founded nobody can steal the name. If a name you want is already taken just call your faction something else. --Jon Pyre 05:07, 4 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - The leader position. Velkrin 05:11, 4 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re How would someone steal the leader position? The original founder of the faction is the leader. They remain so until they give the title to someone else. You can't take it away. If someone preempts you and takes the faction name you want "Caiger Mall Leaders" just choose something else "Caiger Mall Officers" --Jon Pyre 05:44, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill much coding - little effect. Use wiki or other out-of game means of communication--Cah51o 04:57, 4 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re Heck, why have a game at all? --Jon Pyre 05:07, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep Jon's got a point here.. you might wish to invite someone because they're in your area or you know they're doing something useful. In a way in game should have value not just out of game. knowwhattamean? If your in game character lives in a certain part of town maybe that character belongs to a specific group? Based on need. BTW, yesterday I did a "re" to someone's group suggestion... what about uniforms? seriously. What if they could be offered to a character, and when they "accept" they get a uniform (1 item slot added when you accept) and the "leader" gets 1 AP taken off for "distribution" of the uniform (cuz that character might be nowhere near you when they click accept so it's safe to assume they took it, okay). Just an option for your faction. Lets you put something on yer description anyways. --MrAushvitz 00:57, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - One major problem: How does one get the correct leader of existing groups in the leaders position? Couldnt anyone just run in and claim leadership? Only any good at all if it was implimented at the start of the game. As it stands the unaddressed problem here renders my vote as a kill. If you can manage to find a way to ensure that the proper person is placed on the throne of each existing group, i will change my vote, however this would require a resubmission. --Grim s 08:00, 4 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re You can't really make yourself leader of a group, just a faction within that group. I can call myself leader of the RFF or the Caiger Mall Survivors, make a faction called Jon Pyre Rules Ridleybank or Caiger Mall Officials, but nobody would sign up for that. Factions aren't meant to necessarily make a ruling party but more for close knit groups of friends that want a private organization. Of course if a faction builds a reputation for themselves they might command people's attention and people may ask to be admitted. That's the appeal of this idea to me, if you know the "Malton Specialists" are a small faction of expert players that give sage advice, and that they only have carefully selected competant members, you're going to listen to people in that faction. You have to earn leadership, a name alone means nothing. --Jon Pyre 13:06, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Keep - If someone comes along and makes a faction to "usurp" the groups leadership... who cares? If someone takes "Kempsterbank Neighbourhood Watch", then on our yahoo group we can agree to make our faction name "KNW". People already have offsite forums etc, usurping leadership is impossible. DavidMalfisto 11:00, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - This would prevent people like the RedZeko's (search the wiki) to claim the names of other groups (e.g. They put in their group affiliation Paradox, and everyone thought that they were from Paradox) --Abi79 15:09, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - I actually really like this idea..--The General 11:25, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep - I feel that the group system could use a few more rules, and this adds them without destroying the current freeform system. --McArrowni 15:44, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - I like the idea of invite-only groups. But I don't like the idea of having both a group and a faction at the same time. I wonder if a better idea would be an option to designate one's group as "invite-only," thereby preventing others from taking the name without an invite. Obviously you run into problems with groups that already have many members. I dunno. See if it can be simplified. --John Ember 15:55, 4 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re The way I figure it is that a group is a large bunch of people that share a general goal and a faction is a close knit group of people that know each other by name and carefully plan with each other. The faction may exist to practically enact the philosophy of the group. --Jon Pyre 22:31, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep - the idea is good enough as it is, i do however agree with john ember that you should only be in 1 faction or group.--xbehave 17:28, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  12. Keep- A good idea is a good idea. If there are minor problems with it, then they can be fixed when it's actually being implemented. --Rozozag 21:00, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep- My reasons previously mentioned. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Peterblue 21:33, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - I like this, beacause this pretty much prevents spies in the game to pretend to be someone else in order to start a conflict between two groups. changchad 21:50, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  15. Keep - This would keep people from entering groups and then going around PKing people saying that their group is a PKing group. --TheBigT 00:51, 5 April 2006 (BST)
  16. Keep - After including the idea of promotion from within after a leader idles out, I like this suggestion! --Spraycan Willy MalTel 09:07, 7 April 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - Removes a unique and charming oddity of UD and does violence to the metagame. Incorporating this kind of stuff into the game means less chaos and less lawlessness, and removes a disadvantage caused by non-involvement in the game community. Good for many games, perhaps, but not something I would like to see here. --einexile 09:06, 14 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 12 Keep, 5 Kill, 17 Total.--The General W! Mod 20:59, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Disturbing Moans (Revised 2.0)

Had to re-post this suggestion after examining the pro's and con's very carefully. Toned down version 3.0 is available for examination and voting below. Good response though: Keeps 4; Kills 7; Spams 0 (is this one of my suggestions?) --MrAushvitz 02:36, 4 April 2006 (GMT)

Bandoleer 2.0

Timestamp: 11:55, 4 April 2006 (BST)
Type: Item, revision of Bandoleer by MrAushvitz
Scope: Survivors
Description: Bandolier, bandoleer, shell webbing, cartridge belt: many names, same thing - a pocketed belt for holding ammunition. Commonly used by soldiers since the 16th century – a great way to carry loose bullets.

Shotgun shells carried in a bandoleer are easier to organize – so you can carry more. No more rooting around at the bottom of your pack bag looking for shells while you’re having your brain chewed on!

Mechanics

  • Found: Can be found in: Fort and Armory 3%, Mall: Gun Store (1%/3%), Police department (1%)

Bandoleers are coded like shotguns (2 inventory spaces, receive shotgun shells), however they cannot fire. Bandoleers can carry 6 shotgun shells and follow the logical reload pattern of shotguns – when you click a shotgun shell first half loaded shotguns are reloaded, then empties, then part loaded bandoleers, then empty bandoleers.

When you click a bandoleer it takes a shot from the bandoleer and uses it to load a shotgun (or another bandoleer if all shotguns are full). There are no limits on how many bandoleers you can carry (other than your normal carry weight).

Why do we need this? We don’t. This isn’t high on the list of “things needed for the game�? but if it shuts up MrAushvitz then it’s a good idea in my book.

How does this help survivors? Well it lets you carry more ammo, and that’s usually a good thing. The shotgun is an AP battery, you “charge�? it by searching for ammo then use it when needed. Think of this as jumper cables.

How does this help Zombies? Using a bandoleer to reload means using twice as much AP – 1 AP to load a shell into the bandoleer, 1 AP to load the shotgun from the bandoleer. AP spend reloading is AP not spent on headshotting you, barricading, healing or searching for items.

Who would ever use this? Basically, this uses a third of the inventory space at the cost of twice the AP. Given that in most cases, Survivors just go into the malls etc to restock on ammo, this item might seem of limited use. It is. It does, however, allow you to stock up on ammo which is useful when you find yourself needing to flee from a siege. From an RP POV, that’s when you’re most likely to stock up on as much as you can carry. The bandoleer is NOT a good tool for going on kill frenzies as you still have to spend as much AP on reloading as you would if using single shells – so it’s still better to have your 25 shotguns and an axe (and unloading all 25 shotguns is 50 AP anyway).

In short, this is a tool to aid survival and role playing. It is not “ninja speed loading�? or a “Munchkin sack of unlimited carrying capacity�?.

Votes

  1. Keep ZOMG! Teh author of this idea is TEH SECKS!1!ONE! I want his babies! I am the author and I am allowed to vote for my own ideas (even if I tend to Kill other people’s) DavidMalfitsto 11:55, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - I think this is pointless and is therfore not needed (like trying to make a gun with only 1 dammage). - Jedaz 12:12, 4 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re Do you play a human? Have you ever played a human? Seeing as most of the other posts claim it would be overpowered I don't see your arguement here. The shotgun's biggest weakness is lack of ammo. The biggest weakness of Human's is the need to constantly resupply. This does something to balance both of those weaknesses allowing you to save up for a rainy day. I'd use it, sure it's my suggestion and I'm about to be turfed out of my mall... DavidMalfisto 12:45, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Keep - These items are pretty standard gear for anyone who uses firearms on a regular basis (hunters, soldiers, cops, etc.). Granted, it's more of a "implement it further down the road" Suggestion, but that's no reason to kill it. --John Taggart 14:43, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - This idea is not so much an improvement as it is a masturbatory fantasy for trenchcoaters. --Mookiemookie 15:54, 4 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re Granted, every trenchcoater and their mother will have one of these in their description. But what we have here is a device that's only useful when you're going to be away from a place you can reload. Otherwise it's not worth the AP, and the item can't let you hold out away from a supply dump forever. If trenchcoaters want to use these to double their AP expenditure then why not let them? It's not an urgent thing to be implemented, but a balanced idea intended to stop people spamming with "shell boxes" every other week. If you have a specific concern, I'd like to address it but I'm not even sure you read my suggestion. DavidMalfisto 12:45, 8 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - "This is my rifle, this is my gun, this one's for shooting, this one's for fun." --MrAushvitz 13:04, 4 April 2006 (BST)
      • Re - <chuckle> --Gene W! - Talk 06:17, 6 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - Trading AP for inventory space? I'll vote for that. Good tradeoff you've come up with there. --John Ember 16:04, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - one of the main reasons shotguns and pistols are equal is that shotguns take up alot more of your inventory, removing this would unbalance the two alternatives, and i like it as it is atm --xbehave 17:49, 4 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Ah but there's the rub, pistols are better than shotguns. Most humans simply use shotguns to give the killing blow as after you factor in the ammo searching the fire axe does more damage per AP than the shotgun. DavidMalfisto 12:45, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Keep - Having muh shells in a nice bandoleer would just me feel that much more like a REAL zombie hunter, and more of a man, yeah! Bandoleer is just a name, like he said these things have been around a long time, modern day hunters use them a lot (they keep your shells close at hand, and your equipment quiet, so you can get a good shot in up close!) You're right though, if it was accepted it would shut me up (for a while..) --MrAushvitz 11:04, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - keep; again... i promise i am not an Aushvitz clone and am going to see a doctor soon. this appears to be the 3rd reasonable suggestion from Mr A in as many days. and i am beggining to worry for my sanity and my judgement! it is not overbalanced in anyway and should work for grenades too if they are ever introduced (that bit was a joke!)--Honestmistake 20:38, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep- I'd never use it, but it still couldn't hurt for those who wanted to. --RedZeko 21:23, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - Don't mess with the inventory limit. Velkrin 22:23, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  11. Keep- Good trade off... AP to amount of inventory space is well balanced.--TheBigT 01:07, 5 April 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - Just not a fan of increased carry limits. Sorry. — g026r 07:10, 5 April 2006 (BST)
  13. Keep - Much more balanced, what with the AP handicap and all. --Gene W! - Talk 06:19, 6 April 2006 (BST)
  14. Tally 8 Keep, 5 Kill. DavidMalfisto 12:45, 8 April 2006 (BST)
  15. Kill - I like the idea because carrying 10 shotguns reminds me of carrying 3000 arrows, but things seems to be working just fine the way they are now. --einexile 09:32, 14 April 2006 (BST)
  16. Kill - unnecessary, and FFSP, "Bandolier." Spell harder next time.--Bulgakov 18:22, 16 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 8 Keep, 7 Kill, 15 Total.--The General W! Mod 21:06, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Disturbing Moans (Revised 3.0, took it down another notch)

Timestamp: 12:45, 4 April 2006 (BST)
Type: New Zombie Skill
Scope: Survivors experience search difficulties at same indoors location as your zombie!
Description: Disturbing Moans

This is a corrected re-vamp of yesterday's zombie skill suggestion, as requested by several voting players to instead be given a deduction to search % chances, based on # of zombies invading, and an AP cost for use of the skill.

Appears on zombie skills tree just under "Feeding Groan." Does not apply any bonus to your human character.

Your zombie has a hideously disturbing moan whenever survivors are nearby, especially indoors! Survivors may not easily search at your zombie's current location (they have a hard time turning their back on you, even for a second!) The more zombies moaning at your location, the harder all searching becomes.

  • When your zombie enters an indoors location where there is at least 1 survivor: you have a button available called "Disturbing Moans." If you spend 1 AP any time while you are indoors this location, and there is at least 1 survivor present, this area is now being affected by "Disturbing Moans."

Note: The duration of disturbing moans is indefinite, but there are many ways to cause an end to the moaning, so it will rarely go on for too long.

  • Survivors at this location read: "There is a horrifying moan, making it difficult for you to concentrate on searching!" if more than one zombie adds to the effect the survivor reads "The zombie chorus of moans is rising in volume, it is maddening!" The second message only ever happens once, to prevent players from counting the number of Z's contributing to the interference (maintains zombie anonymity.)

Search Difficulties:

As long as the moans are maintained (explained later) all searching at this indoors location is at a 15% chance of instant failure (before making a search test, this % is rolled, and if it works survivor reads "You cannot concentrate on searching with all this damn noise!", the survivor loses the AP spent on their search attempt, and finds nothing. If that search isn't interfered with, make search attempts normally. This allows a survivor to be able to "measure" the ineffectiveness of their searching if they wish, so they may choose other actions.)

Each zombie past the 1st who adds their moans to the "chorus of the damned" increases the instant failure chance by +5% (each!) However, neither the zombies or the survivors specifically know how high the instant failure % has gotten to (to prevent survivors from knowing how many higher level zombies are here, and because zombies will tend to moan anyways because it's what they do. Also zombies who just entered this location may not know how many other zombies are moaning, if any, or which ones just got up, to be fair.)

There is a maximum search failure of 60% (10 moaning dead total, but only costs them 1 AP each), this allows survivors a "chance" however slim, to tough it out and maybe find something despite all the racket. This skill does not work so well outdoors, because the accoustics really work better with walls and closed spaces. This skill is meant to cause fear and despair to survivors, it is a smaller safehouse's worst nightmare. This moaning does not interfere in any way with a zombie's combat capabilities.. if anything it's a zombie version of a "battle cry" albeit a very slow and loud one.

Breaking The Moans

The computer keeps track of which zombies have "paid" for the moan, and adjusts the search failure % for this building accordingly, as more add to the moan or are removed from it.

A zombie is "removed" from the bonus whenever:

  • They are killed (even if they stand up, it has broken their contribution.)
  • The zombie moves away from this indoor location.
  • They are successfully hit with a "flare gun" (fire breaks the "rhythm" in a way even an axe can't, or if they are "revived" (no longer a zombie!)
  • If there are NO survivors left at this indoors location anymore, it ends the moan for all zombies at this location (yes, if they run away, it ends. Survivors have free running, by all means use it.)

Note: This effect does not apply if your zombie is a dead body, only while standing does this skill interfere. This skill only applies if you are at the exact same location as a survivor (indoors at same exact location as the survivor(s) you are harassing.) Once your zombie has paid for the moan, provided you are still standing it doesn't matter if you are online or offline, it still continues. In all likelihood your zombie will be killed because it is inside a building interfering with searches, so this continuous effect has it's price: it continues if you pay, and you stay.

  • This zombie skill is intended (for game balance) to allow zombies to "cancel" a survivor's most crucial game advantage if possible: Items, weapons and equipment! Survivors will be forced at times to have to "deal" with the zombies rather than ignore them while taking other actions, this may allow for and require different seige tactics for both sides. Smart survivors will now have to protect their best resource buildings from zombies, short term and long term, or lose the advantages they provide.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author Vote. Opposite of Emmero, kicked it down a notch... BAM! But seriously, pro and con made several good points.. we have to be fair to both "species" in Malton. But if the zombies pour into your building, it makes sense that that is not the easiest time to get your hands on arms and ammo you didn't bother to find earlier, because you're a bit busy! Caught unawares, and unprepared, the most basic element of any horror movie. Read the duration please, indefinately until broken, so no votes about "how long does it last?" cuz I won't respond. --MrAushvitz 13:55, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Spam - Horribly complicated, confusing mess. --Cinnibar 19:23, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Spam The great thing about yesterday's suggestion was that it was short and to the point. This is no longer short and carries so much excess baggage (and random boldface and pointless "quotes" around random words) that it becomes difficult to understand what the suggestion even IS. You've added so many extra points and clarifications that the original idea is now lost and the whole suggestion is spam. You were doing much better when it was SHORT and SIMPLE. Timid Dan 19:26, 4 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Only to someone who glanced at it without reading anything, sorry, it's pretty specific and to the point. I did nothing random, all deliberate. I use bold text on the lines I definately want read before people render a descision, skim over it if you will, but read the bold please. --MrAushvitz 19:25, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - A little on the complicated side, but I think survivors searching unimpeded while thirty zombies mill around makes no sense, so I'll keep it. Does a single moan function as both a feeding groan and disturbing moan, or are they two separate actions? I'd favor combining them, basically upgrading Feeding Groan, rather than another ability. --Dickie Fux 19:28, 4 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Good idea, but not what I'd intended with this post. Feeding groan is a seperate ability, which you can use if you wish seperately. Taking any other actions does not break this moan unless they're the ones listed on this skill (ex. moving away from this location.) You can do both, attempting to get all zombies nearby to come to this locale and help out, chances are some of them would have this skill and add to the noise. --MrAushvitz 17:55, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Keep - Humans in a zombie-infested building should fight the zombies or get the heck outta there. --John Ember 19:40, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  6. keep - first i agree that this is badly presented and confusing to read, but... get past that and i think we have possibly Mr A's first really good and useful idea. Personally i would make it %5 per moaning zombie rather than a base +5 but otherwise it sounds good to me, i also agree that it should be an extension of feeding groan!--Honestmistake 19:49, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Kill - I just don't like messing with search rates. Velkrin 20:26, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Keep - Fight or flight. --Mookiemookie 21:03, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  9. Keep- The people voting "spam" seem to be referring to how well the suggestion was presented rather than what the suggestion actually is Sure, the presentation was a little lacking, but you can still get the drift.--Rozozag 21:16, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - searcing _not in malls_ is difficult already. --EnForcer32 22:06, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill I'd also vote against a skill that allows survivors to shoot flares into the air to distract zombies and lower their attack percentages against barricades. To fight effectively survivors need items. This takes them time to search. Zombies don't need items to fight effectively. In exchange though they need to take time to break down barricades. This is called balance. --Jon Pyre 22:34, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - Leave search rates alone please. - Asrathe 01:03, 5 April 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - Searching already takes a couple days for one to get fully stocked. Don't hurt it even more. --TheBigT 01:10, 5 April 2006 (BST)
  14. Keep - Fight of flight, like MookieMookie said. However, note that Timid Dan had a point: you always needlessly complicate your suggestions --McArrowni 01:25, 5 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - I hear ya, but if I don't get specific that can cause a lot of confusion & voter doubt too. I guess I give too much background information. --MrAushvitz 18:55, 4 April 2006 (BST)
      • Tally - 7 Keep, 5 Kill, 2 Spam, 14 Total. --MrAushvitz 19:15, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  15. Spam -- Enough already, any skill that hinders the abilitly to search or the search rates is evil. zeds dont even have to search, if zeds needed to find some resource to play the game and there was a suggestion to hinder that you would all be screaming "our ;ifeblood thats unfair" well this is the same thing. This suggestion failed twice already and all the re-makes wont fix it. --Kirk Howell 03:10, 5 April 2006 (BST)
  16. KillWhile the idea itself isn't bad, I feel there are more important "search" ideas necessary (like making more buildings useful than just Malls, PDs and Hospitals) first. Plus, would a Zombie Hunter be able to mitigate the effect of the moan?--Pesatyel 21:29, 5 April 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Maybe a nice macho zombie hunter skill that lessens the effect of all zombie fear based skills.. or a set of earplugs. --MrAushvitz 18:55, 6 April 2006 (BST)
  17. Kill - Might be a nice idea paired with a "Panic" skill enabling survivors afflicted by Disturbing Moans increased search odds. --einexile 09:53, 14 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 7 Keep, 7 Kill, 3 Spam. 17 Total.--The General W! Mod 21:02, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Terrorise

Timestamp: 21:54, 4 April 2006 (BST)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Terrorise: When in the same square as a survivor, if the zombie successfully hits they force the survivor to take 2 AP for every action except moving, and survivors shoot at -5% to hit. This means with a gun and not an axe. This is still applicable even if the survivor walks away and returns. This is not completely unbalancing, but is not completely pointless, either.

Possible Flavor Text:The more experienced zombies in the city are learning what terrrorises their prey. This could include illegal corporate practices.

Votes

  1. Keep- Author Vote. I'm entitled to puff myself up. Peterblue 21:58, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - Its pretty unbalancing. It would make for no real time combat -Banana Bear4 21:59, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  3. Spam - So with one hit, I permanently disable a survivor? Way too harsh. --Dickie Fux 22:06, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - Emasculates survivors.--Mookiemookie 22:14, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  5. Spam - How does one lose the penalty? -Nubis 22:18, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  6. Kill - Besides the lack of usefulness in normal attack situations (mostly offline targets), I don't like messing with the hit rates. Velkrin 22:20, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  7. Spam "This could include illegal corporate practices." Wait...are you suggesting terrifying Enron zombies? --Jon Pyre 22:36, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  8. Kill - Horribly horrible. You are pretty much killing any real time combat between zombies and survivors. --TheBigT 01:12, 5 April 2006 (BST)
  9. Spam - Consider this an "illegal corporate practice". And no more -X% to hit... it kills kittens --McArrowni 01:28, 5 April 2006 (BST)
  10. Kill - I've seen better-developed suggestions along these lines. --John Ember 01:48, 5 April 2006 (BST)
  11. Kill - Fear effects caused by zombies are good, but take a careful look at how they work and if it totally screws the survivors. Perhaps "Terrify" could work like this: If you make 3 hits in a row on a survivor, and you have this skill their hands begin to shake.. all ranged attacks from this survivor are at -5% to hit you while you're still standing. --MrAushvitz 19:25, 4 April 2006 (BST)
  12. Kill - Damn to Zombies and their money laundering, now I can't use my shotgun as well! - Jedaz 13:55, 5 April 2006 (BST)
  13. Kill - Egads! Mr. Aushvitz is against it!?! That's like sighting the Horsemen of the Apocalypse! Kill it! Kill it NOW!!! (Sorry Mr. Aushvitz.) --Gene W! - Talk 06:27, 6 April 2006 (BST)
  14. Spam - Flamebait. --einexile 09:56, 14 April 2006 (BST)
    • Tally - 8 Kill, 5 Spam, 1 Keep, 14 Total.--The General W! Mod 13:49, 18 April 2006 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/4th-Apr-2006&oldid=1064607"