Suggestions/4th-Jan-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

4th January, 2006

VOTING ENDS: 18th-Jan-2006

Remove vigour mortis

Timestamp: 02:04, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Stat/skill alteration
Scope: Zombies
Description: It is my opinion that vigour mortis should not be in this game, and that all zombies should have the vigour mortis attack rates as a default. A full explanation of my reasons, as well as a discussion, can be found in this topic: http://zombies.desensitised.net/board/index.php?topic=4710.0, but basically the game was not made to be played without the skill. VM is the only skill zombies are allowed to start with, and zombies without vigour mortis are so pathetic that they'd be better off trying to get XP as a human exclusively by dumping bodies (and would accomplish more there too). Even a level 0 human can effectively heal people and gain XP at a reasonable rate, yet a level zero zombie, which is any survivor who is killed, can do nothing BUT go to a revive point. Thus, since all real zombies have the VM attack rate anyways, the only purpose it serves is to make it impossible for slain survivors to play dead unless they happened to be holding onto 100 XP they didn't want to save. This is part of why there's so few zombies and the main reason for revive points. Additionally, it forces Kevan to not let zombies start with another skill when making a character, since all classes only start with one skill, which makes zombies weaker and harder to level. New players should have a rough time getting powerful at first, but this makes it way rougher than it needs to be for one side and discourages people, especially dead survivors, from playing zombies.

I propose that Kevan remove the Vigour Mortis skill and give all zombies the attack rates of a zombie with VM as their base attack rate. He should instead either make some zombie classes in earnest or start zombies off with 100 XP to spend however they want (note--that choice wouldn't be unfair since at best it would balance out the advantage of humans starting out with a useful item or two that they would have spent part of their first day searching for). Any player who possesses Vigour Mortis at the time of the update will be refunded 100 XP, whether they're currently breathing or lurching, since that is what they had to have either spent it on or what they have to pay to get the skill they should have started with instead. Notice that the range of zombie attacks would be exactly the same as now, with the same rate for starters and the same rate for maxed as right now, but there would just be nobody stuck below the threshold of a decent attack in a class that has attacking as its only action. Edit: Seeing those votes, I feel compelled to point out that this does NOT punish anyone. At all. Anyone who bought the skill is getting a full refund of 100 XP, even if they're now a human, because that's exactly what they paid for it. You could say its helping them slightly since that refund is the equivalent of gaining another level overnight, although I suddenly fear stating it that way will make someone misread it and think this is a huge buff when its actually a recompense. I also must point out that the main effect of vigour mortis is that you CANNOT play a zombie unless you buy it. Even if you had every noncombat zombie skill in the game you'd still be almost worthless. And a revived zombie can in fact play as a human quite easily, he can probably level through healing faster than a doctor. Plus, the mere fact that they can jump out a window says Kevan didn't intend for them to feel obliged to play humans, while the fact that you can't revive yourself says the opposite of dead survivors.

ReEdit: I don't like having to make two edits, but READ THE SUGGESTION BEFORE YOU VOTE. At least half those kill votes are based off an assumption that I said in both the origional and the edit wasn't true, such as that this will hurt people who already have it, hurt newbie zombies or leave them without a starting skill. I don't want to do through and post ten RE comments, so just think of this as the universal RE: reread the suggestion, specifically the second paragraph and first edit.

Votes

  1. Keep - Author vote. --Brickman 02:04, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - The lack of zombies (which isn't so lacking as before, btw) is due to the tedious and unchanging gameplay that zombies face, not because they're not powerful enough in combat or whatnot. I appreciate the spirit of your suggestion (I honestly do--I like the idea of newly-killed survivors being able to actually pose some kind of threat to their former allies), but I don't think this is the way to go about achieving it. Bentley Foss 02:10, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill I agree, dedicated zombies can start with VM if they want, and those who started as humans quite probably have other inherent bonuses such as discounted human skills if they flipflop, flak jackets, diagnosis, body building, or some stockpiled XP. Early game human zombie play is a little weak but those people do have their own bonuses and the option to seek revives. --Zaruthustra 02:18, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - This change is I feel necessary as a stepping stone towards making zombie classes. Rhialto 02:29, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - What Zaruthustra said. Counterpoint: What of the people who start off as zombie and believe as playing their character as what it is? They're even more fucked with no items and no survivor skills if someone revives them. They really do have no choice but to go back to a Z. --Slicer 02:36, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Zombie hand attack accuracy revision does the same without completely taking out a skill, punishing players who bought it. all around better then this. and is already peer reviewed.--Vista 02:37, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Wow, I think that just ended the debate right there. --Slicer 02:40, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep - Im divided on this. I see valid points on both sides of the issue, so I'm going to vote Keep since I agree with Rialto. HOWEVER, This should ONLY be implemented when Zombie classes are implemented. Kill Vista makes a damn fine point. Thats a better idea and can be implemented right away wihtout waiting for the unfortunately probably far away Zombie Classes. Keep I have been swayed, yet again. Why not let it pass/ Either the other Peer-reviewed version or this can be implemented.. which ever Kevan feels works better. --Jak Rhee 02:41, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Keep - agreed. its enough hard to play with it, its more hard again when you play without it.in adition, normal survivor who are being killed would maybe want to stay zombie beccause of more chance to hit. i dunno for you but when my survivor was dead, it was really pissing me off to be forced to kill human with a 20% hit chance. --spetznaz21 3:00, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - What Vista said. --Signal9 03:17, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep - I've reccomended this game to at least 5 people. When 4 of them died, they left for good as trying to level as a noob zombie is just an excercise in tedium and headshot ensured the game wasn't fun. Perhaps things have changed. Perhaps not. I don't see this unbalancing the game that badly anyhow --krupintupple 22:39, 3 Jan 2006 (EST)
  11. Keep - This is one of the main reasons I head for a revive center everytime my survivor gets dropped. --Arcos 04:33, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - What Signal9 said - Jedaz 04:56, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Give Starting Corpses 100 XP instead to sink into a skill they wish to use. With this suggestion, breathers who die are not particularly gimped. - Siddhant 05:12, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - What Jedaz said --Daednabru 05:33, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - Even though the suggestion Vista mentioned is mine, this suggestion seems more practical. - KingRaptor 05:58, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - As it stands, survivors who are killed are utterly ineffectual as 0 level zombies, turning them off to the concept of zombie play utterly. Petrosjko 06:15, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Keep -- Vigour Mortis is ridiculously redundant and not necessary. furtim 06:41, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - But, I had better get 100 xp for losing it so I can get another skill. - --ramby 07:45, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - --Thelabrat 08:23, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep -Kashara 08:48, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep - As it stands, survivors who are killed are utterly ineffectual as 0 level zombies, turning them off to the concept of zombie play utterly. (Alternately, what Petrosjko said ;-) Difference Engine 19:50, 4 Jan 2006 (AEST)
  22. Keep - You heard me. Keep. --Jack Destruct 11:32, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep --Basher 11:54, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Kill - I would vote Keep, but for what Vista said. Do you people even bother to read other people's votes before you do so yourself? Vista's vote practically ended the whole debate about this suggestion. A better solution has already been peer reviewed. --Daxx 12:00, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill - What Daxx said. --Omega2 12:04, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  26. Keep - While the suggestion that Vista pointed out is probably more 'elegant', I think this one is better for new zombies. --Alcoholic 14:35, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  27. Keep - What Alcoholic said --Kindie 15:44, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  28. KeepKill - What about people starting out as zombies? What skill are you going to give them instead? Also, how are you going to compensate the people who already have it? If you can think of a good way to deal with this then i'll change my vote. Vote changed.--The General 16:23, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Actually I had a thought on that. For those who are Corpses let's give themn Lurching Gait, that effectively doubles their AP vs a Survivor who dies. --Jak Rhee 16:42, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  29. Keep - for the horde ! --hagnat 16:37, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  30. Keep - I have come to the same conclusion lately. How do you convince people to play zombies when they die, when all zombies can do is attack, and it feels like a waste of time because all you have is a puny 20% to hit attack. It's almost less of a waste of time to get revived. NOT fun. For me it's either this or xp for bringing down barricades, and since that other suggestion has been gunned down, this is a definite keep --McArrowni 16:45, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  31. Kill - I was a human, and I died to become a zombie when I first started the game. From that I found very easily I was able to get up to level 5 - if you can't join a horde. --Norminator 2 16.50, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  32. Keep - It took me 5 days to get my first level when my firefighter was killed. Had I not played as a zombie before, I would not have stuck it out. 20% chance of 2 damage, or 10% for 4? If survivors had to start with that when revivified and could not get XP in other ways, they would keep lists of buildings to jump out of.--Duranna 16:53, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  33. Kill - I agree with Vista. --LtMile 17:10, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  34. Keep - What Kindie said --Frosty 17:33, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  35. Keep - Great idea, zombies need a bit more help and a killed survivor is completely useless. --Freakarama 17:57, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  36. Kill - What Vista said. --Blobmorf 18:53, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  37. Keep - This makes a lot of sense Jorge 19:13, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  38. Keep - Anything to make the transition into death easier. Patrucio 21:17, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  39. Keep - agree --Kcold 22:16, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  40. Keep - I'm sorry that people aren't reading your suggestion. They'll likely not check this skill again to edit their votes, either. I've taken the liberty of bolding some parts. Jirtan
  41. Keep - I like the Name "Rigor Mortis" and would like to get MORE zombie skills rather than less, but I'd much rather people were actually able to PLAY a newly dead zombie Lancensis 23:02, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  42. Kill - Vista. --TheTeeHeeMonster 23:05, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  43. Keep - If Vista's idea doesn't get implemented, Kevan should at least know that this is also liked by majority of people (if it is), so I say keep. It IS a pain to get any XP as a zombie early on, if you didn't start as one. -- Zaknrfama 23:41, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  44. Keep - Making it easier for newly killed humans to play as zombies is an easy painless way to help with game balance. (And the revived zombie situation isn't a good comparison. You don't need any skills to use a first aid kit). -- Robin Goodfellow 23:49, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  45. Keep Would encourage coverts, but I note this should be implemented after the zombie uprise stabilzes or begins to decline due pro-survivor implementations to avoid undue pressure (ie outright extinction) of the survivor population. --Matthew Stewart 00:00, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  46. Keep - Brizth 01:16, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  47. Keep - Playing a zombie without VM is downright impossible, this should be implemented ASAP Ruzkin 03:55, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  48. Keep - Vigour mortis is useless and stupid. My survivor characters would play as zombies instead of tediously tearing ass at 2 AP per to a revive if they could actually *DO* anything. As it stands I have a hard time believing there's any real point to it. If you want to give a corpse a skill to start off with, start them off with lurching gait so they can at least move at 1 AP instead of 2. You could even rationalize it the same way. Zombie longer, thus, walk better. Refund for anybody who has VM is, it goes without saying, just about the most damned sensible thing I've ever seen. Mojo 10:37, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  49. Keep - I'm all in favor of making early game less horrible. Rani 12:06, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  50. Kill - I am in favor of the peer reviewed suggestion of moving 5% of accuracy from Vifgor to starting. - Skarmory 12:44, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  51. Keep - This is needed in order to have the Zombie class more popular, and we always need more zombies! N1person 22:23, 17 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  52. Kill - Good idea; but it goes against the 'theme' of the game: Fresh corpses ain't zombies who have had to scrap about and be knocked around to get to their level of toughness. --MorthBabid 08:36, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Crate Drops

Timestamp: 05:18, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Event
Scope: Supply Crates
Description: There have been too many bad supply crate suggestions. Here's (hopefully) a good one.

Overview: There are three variables considered in selecting supply drop locations: The number of zombies outside, the number of flares fired into the sky, and the number of lit houses. Edit for clarity: There is one crate dropped in one suburb, no way to know where in the suburb. The in-suburb-to-total ratios of flares fired, buildings with lights on, and zombies outside are summed up. The bigger that number, the more likely it is that a crate will be dopped in that suburb.

I am suggesting the following: ONE supply crate is to be dropped every X hours at a random lot/street in a suburb (suburb selection mechanism below). The frequency of supply crate drops (that is, the number X) is left up to Kevan. You're welcome to write down numbers in your votes, but none of them will make it into the suggestion body.

Suburb selection mechanism:

  • The following numbers are calculated:
    • ZT - Total number of zombies outside.
    • ZS - Total number of zombies outside in current suburb.
    • FT - Total number of flares fired since last drop.
    • FS - Total number of flares fired since last drop in current suburb.
    • LT - Total number of lit houses.
    • LS - Total number of lit houses in current suburb.
  • For each suburb, PS = FS/FT + LS/LT + ZS/ZT is calculated.
  • The sum of all PS is 3 (number of categories).
  • The probability for the crate to be dropped in a suburb is (PS/3)*100%

Votes

  1. Keep - Because I'm tired of people not working things through. --Signal9 05:18, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill Keep - Explain what all that means and I may change my vote.--RAF LT. General Deathnut 05:35, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - I was afraid that might happen... Okay: 1 crate per suburb drop, no way to know where in the suburb. The in-suburb-to-total ratios of flares, buildings with lights on, and zombies outside are summed up. The bigger that number, the more likely it is that a crate will be dopped in that suburb. --Signal9 05:45, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT) Edit above, but I think you knew what I meant --Signal9 05:54, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - That's an awful lot of maths to give possibly a single survivor per airdrop calculation an easter egg that was only ever put in the game in the first place as a sop to all those who would be upset over losing headshot's uberpower. Rhialto 06:12, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Not for a computer, especially since it is rare (only happens every X hours), and since there are only 100 suburbs. It's not a lot of code, and it's not a lot of server load. --Signal9 20:09, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Theres been a l;ot of debate over Crate Drops. Ive heard they are still occuring. Ive also heard they only occured that one day and havent since... that it was a one time 'event.' Until I have OFFICIAL confirmation that it was more than a ONE time event, I have decided to Kill all Crate Drop suggestions as beign irrelevan./ --Jak Rhee 06:24, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Still sick of crate drop suggestions. Try again in a few months. CthulhuFhtagn 06:27, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Comment - A few days after the big 'crate drop' day I had the 'black helicopter' message on login, though I didn't get the crate. My anecdote, so I think the crates are still dropping. FireballX301 06:43, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - The WCDZ is not in favor of such things at this time. Bentley Foss 07:21, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. SPAM - Crate drop = Autospam vote due to its wildly unbalancing nature. --Grim s 07:37, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Comment - Could someone please put some sense in his head? He's just acting like a hot-headed fool, for little problem. Wildly unbalancing? Hah, OK. --Omega2 10:36, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Note: Trolling vote removed by moderator, defend on talk page. --LibrarianBrent 00:07, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - I heart math nerds. If Kevan decides to make crate drops a recurring event, I would hope he uses one this well thought out and also does'nt do them very often. --Thelabrat 08:26, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Kevan gave you a Christmas present and you have to keep trying to make it permanent. What an ungrateful bunch you are.Kashara 08:50, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - I really don't know if Kevan did this a present. I'm pretty sure he planned something like that for background reasons. The city is in lockdown since months, no one could possibly survive for so long without extra supplies, hence the drops. This math sounds OK, and adding this kind of probability calculation in a .cgi-system is easy. However, I can't think on how would more localized crate drops be useful to anyone, since I don't know anyone who have found a crate. To me, crate drops are pretty useless except for flavor value, but they might work if used in the right way. --Omega2 10:36, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill --Basher 11:56, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Best crate drop suggestion yet. Oh, and in case you missed it, Crates are not just a Christmas present from Kevan. They could be an actual addition to the game if they're handled properly. --Daxx 11:56, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep - Well thought-out --Mikm 12:54, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - I don't mind more or less random drops, although I hate all of the other ideas which has appeared. The way zombies have been tearing the city up after the recent changes, and way the numbers have begun to reballance, I do not mind humans getting a few new game system benefits, so long as the zombies coninue to get new skill and new benefits too. Zombies got large buildings, humans get random, and fairly rare, crate drops. --Catwhowalksbyhimself 13:48, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE = I feel I need to comment on this. Why do you feel that just cause the numbers have started to adjust that we now need to give mroe stuff to Survivors? If we finally just got to a point that has begun a rebalancing of numbers then giving survivors more will negate that change. The numbers will STOP changing. I'm sorry but you're not thinking things through, your acting like a young sibling "well she got something, so I want something too" It don't work that way, sweetheart. Zombies get stuff until they are at least equal to humans all around. Humans dont get squat until the game is fixed THEN we can very carefully start adding human suggestions along WITH zombie suggestions so the game STAYS balanced. --Jak Rhee 14:54, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Jak Rhee, sweethart, your reasoning is wrong. ever heared of overshooting? what if the numbers of the zombies go beyond merely fixing the game? in just 2 weeks the zombie count went up with +4000 zombies and increased their total share with 10% and still shows no sign of slowing down. you have to introduce things to the survivor side in order to make sure the zombie counts has a break stopping it at balanced. If you just keep adding stuff to the zombie side untill their number are balanced then they'll get overpowered, Because numbers trail changes so they'll overshoot enourmously breaking the game more then it is now. Then the survivors side needs to get things untill we're back to square one. an eternal see-saw. Nope you need to time a slowdown at the correct time. with the 40% zombie count now. It isn't a bad time to concentrate on survivors again. in two weeks it is likely that zombies are up to 50% that is already a bit late to start that slowdown. Besides with the amount of zombie suggestions in the pipeline that are on its way to peer approved we've got a buffer anyway. --Vista 17:22, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE = Acutally, I only play zombies. I have never, ever player a human character at all, so your assumption that I am a human player acting like a crybaby is wrong. My concern is that the numbers are swinging so quickly. I want the game to be ballanced, not being unballanced the other way. Crate drops should be relatively minor, and, if you read what I said zombies still need a number of new skills before humans get any. I do not think that humans need to be buffed up, I think that both sides should get improvements equally.--Catwhowalksbyhimself 1:21, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep -I Think this is the first good Crate drop suggestion i ever realy heard, even though i have never actually seen a crate. Also, I Just have to vote good on something after my Fast Reload was trashed.--Argus Nole
  17. Kill -perfect suggestion all around. never had better numbers, a lot of work in to the game mechanics. excelently thought out. I'd voted keep if I didn't think thatthey are an automatec action, and subtract from the selfreliance feeling that is in the game now. And are all-around a bad idea, no matter how well thought out. Sorry (and the Grand Inquisitor of Suggestions Bentley Foss of the WCDZ has spoken, we all obey)--Vista 14:30, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Keep - What's NOT to like in this one? - Skarmory 17:31, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - Whoop-dee-doo! So a handful of survivors get about half a day's worth of supplies for going outside and spending AP to go find it. This isn't unbalancing. Brings people out for the zeds to eat and gives them a reward if they make it back. Grim, you should look at what is found in the crates before screaming "CRATES OF DOOM BAD! ME SMASHY BOOM BOOM!" --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:31, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - --Kcold 22:18, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Keep Because I like well thought out math. --Matthew Stewart 23:52, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Keep. --LibrarianBrent 00:12, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - Dickus Maximus 00:46, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Keep - Nice --Brizth 01:13, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Keep - Makes perfect sense. I don't see why not. Rani 12:06, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Let's Change Free Running!

Timestamp: 05:45, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill change
Scope: Survivors
Description: So I went on Google video today and looked up 'Parkour'. Some awesome clips there of crazy ninja stunts and stuff, but there were also a few clips of 'missteps'. Such as missing a cat jump and falling on your arse in an alley. Or mistiming a jump and ramming your head into a metal bar. That sort of deal.

So lets put it into UD. Free Running would have a ~10% chance (this is NOT necessarily the number I'll go with, I just threw 10% as a placeholder) to fail, the survivor takes 2 or 3 damage and is tossed out into the outside of the building he was attempting to free run into. Obviously not applicable inside large buildings.

That's the suggestion, but some other ideas I came up with was increasing the percentage chance to fail if the building was more heavily barricaded, decreasing that chance if the building was powered (better visibility), etc.

EDIT: After 5 minutes of thought I decided that the chance to 'fail' free running would be split into 2 sub-chances - 50% that you fail completely and are knocked out of the building as per above, 50% that you hit something and get a boo-boo but you still manage to get into the building you're going after. So a net 5% chance of either occurrance.

Votes

  1. Kill - That would be very funny to see but dont mess with freerunning. --RAF LT. General Deathnut 05:49, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - That would be very funny to see. Jirtan 05:51, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill - Most people just aren't that agile. I see free running more as climbing up pipes, shimmying up narrow gaps, and walking on window ledges than parkour. Of course, exceptional people can do that parkour stuff but the fact that 99% of the survivor population has free running suggests that it isn't quite in the same league to me. Rhialto 06:15, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. kill Parkour newbs messing themselves up: funny. Freerunning failing when you're in an area with every building barricaded to heavy: not funny. --Zaruthustra 06:17, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Sure, but considering that one suggestion making Free Running cost 2 AP passed, I believed this one would be a reasonable alternative. This penalizes people who do little but hide in buildings, while giving zeds a decent window of opportunity. FireballX301 06:37, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Comment - Actually it didn't pass yet, it's still under review. Sorry. --Daxx 12:17, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Comment -With more Kill then Keep votes as well.--Vista 17:44, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
        • Re:Re: - At least with a better keep/kill ratio :P --hagnat 23:48, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill Leave Free Running alone. --Jak Rhee 06:27, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - While you're at it, make sure Lurching Gait sometimes fails to kick in, costing zeds 5 AP for that movement...and sometimes they trip, bite, and infect themselves. Oh yeah, sounds like we've got two great skills cooking here! Bentley Foss 06:34, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - So I put this suggestion down about 22 hours after I put down my last one. Oh noes. Please direct comments toward the proposal and why it's good/bad, exactly, rather than random inane sarcasm. FireballX301 06:38, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re: Anything further goes to the talk page. Anyway... That was sarcasm. This is a bad idea for the very same reason that having Lurching Gait fail randomly is a bad idea. This had nothing to do with your other skill. The purchasing of a skill represents the time and effort one has spent training and honing their reflexes. Those who purchase the skill are no longer "newbies"--they're professionals. That's the premise of the skill system, see? For the record, I despise that 2 AP Free Running idea. Bentley Foss 06:51, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill -- Stupid. furtim 06:42, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill nothing funner that seeing a kid try to jump to the next roof top misses and falls into the gaint pit filled wtih zeds. Funny but not practical Drogmir 06:44, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill -- I'm on the borders; kill for now. Maybe ditch the whole "Your ass is now stranded outside of a heavily barricaded city block", and I'd vote for keep. If free running has a chance of failure, people are going to want to see guns start jamming and axe handles snapping. krupintupple 03:02, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)
  10. Comment - It seems that a lot of people are disliking the 'oh noes I'm in the middle of a zed horde with 3 AP left' part. So how would you guys vote if the 'fall out of building part' was completely removed, and the chance was only that you could take damage? The damage should be increased to reflect that, of course. FireballX301 08:10, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Ever thought how popular a skill is going to be that does damage if you use it? why not submit a suggestion that says lets remove free running, and limit barricades to very strong because that is the effect of your suggestion.--Vista 14:47, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - I practice parkour, and I know you must have quite a lot of sense to avoid making a bad jump. If you take your time (and AP doesn't mean time), you'll never miss a jump except something REALLY bad happens (the floor is not solid enough, something distracts you, and so on). A fall from a gap jump (from one building to another) would lead to a very painful death, easily. The effect would be much like falling from a window, but involuntary, So, unless you want to kill most freerunners in UD, I think it's a kill. I really like the threat value of that, though. It would keep the survivors on their toes. --Omega2 10:46, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill I think it damages free running too much. Survivors are supposed to run, not stand and fight (which free running penalties would encourage). Also, free running is a skill, suggesting considerable expertise in the art. - --Norminator 2 11:19, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - What Omega2 said. --Daxx 11:53, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill This isn't a blooper reel. --Mikm 12:52, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill -How about we don't change free-running. If I read something along the line of "negotiable number" I break out in a rash. severe allergic reaction. that means that you have no reason for that number and just pulled it out your ass. that You didn't think about how it would affect gameplay, balance and fun.
    1. why is this needed! 2. why did you get this percantage ! 3. Why fuck with a skill that +30.000 people have if it doesn't unbalance the game in the first place! Ever since feeding groan was implemented I've found more survivors with my zombie then zombies with my survivor. the fact that somebody else has a proposal that changes it (that's in the process of being shot down)). doesn't mean you have to propose more. This suggestion has no merit what so ever. --Vista 14:44, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Keep - but it has to be changed to not hurt people or it'll just be an annoyance for all humans, however if changed to just giving a chance to fail it would be much better --Freakarama 18:06, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - No. Free-running is fine. --TheTeeHeeMonster 20:28, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - Because sometimes you have to freerun out of a building, and that shouldn't make you bleed. --Signal9 21:35, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - While you don't say it, it seems your argument for this skill is realism. Not to mention that you fail to consider how hard it is to get into a building in the first place with the rampant barricading thats been going on. You missed a bit in the Dos and Do Nots: Don't Punish the Players. --Velkrin 22:30, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Keep - It's a nice way to put a small dent in an otherwise overly powerful skill without totally nerning it.. --Nicks 22:56, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - I appreciate the sentiment, but in essence the effect of this skill would be the same as giving survivors a random chance of injury when they log on. At the moment, it's only possible to be injured through the actions of another player. And this game is, after all, a PvP game, so it should be kept like that. -- Robin Goodfellow 00:10, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill - I didn't pay 100XP for a skill that will fail randomly, for no good reason. Bodybuilding dosn't sometimes give me +10 max HP, Diagnosis dosn't let me sometimes see if another is wounded, why should Free Running sometimes allow me to cross into another building, AND hurt me when it dosn't?--Arathen 01:09, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill - This would be a keep if it merely took hp. Failing and landing outside seems like a bad, bad thing. --Tyroney 03:10, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Kill - Why would I want to pay 100XP for a skill that REDUCES my chances of effective movement and randomly steals my HP? Bad, bad, bad. -- Ruzkin 03:59, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Generators in Pubs

8 Spam, 1 Kill and 1 non-author keep. Moved to Humorous Suggestions (here). Below is the single non-author keep:

  • Keep -That is the funnyest idea ever, and I'm voing for it to either be kept or at least go to humorus suggestions.--Argus Nole

-- Brizth 00:37, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

More complex hit point system

Spaminated with 4 Spams, 4 Kills, and no Keeps - not even the author. Cited for lack of clarity and consistant changing of the suggestion itself after itd been made. --Jak Rhee 04:44, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/4th-Jan-2006&oldid=139991"