Suggestions/8th-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

VOTING ENDED: 22th-Jan-2006

Dossier/Database Experience

Timestamp: 00:59, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: Players with this skill,(Beneath the existing NT skills on the tree) will be able to use a "Dossier" item found in NT buildings. With a Dossier, you will be able to use a drop-down to select a survivor in the room with you. When you use it on them, you effectively look through the palm-pilot style Dossier looking for their listing.

Dossiers of Malton citizens and nearby military officals were compiled by NecroTech before the "Incident" for highly questionable reasons.

This would tell you the player's original character class. (Cop, Zombie, Scientist, etc.) This would allow you to better recognize those around you and their possible intentions. NT Compiled the list keeping track of those who died early in the event, so they thusly can keep track of players who selected "Corpse" as their class. It may also tell you if the target has been scanned recently.

This would require a working cell phone tower to work, since you are able to access the living database through an uplink.

This item needs a better name. Feel free to suggest some.

Votes

  1. SPAM Have you tried clicking on a players NAME in the room? Yeah. You get all that info. So why is this here? Do you actually PLAY the game? Kill I grudgingly admit my mistake. I was reading.. I just wasnt thinking. Thats what not sleeping'll get you. However, this is STILL pointless. People change their intentiosn so much in this game that Original class means nothing at all. Many peopel DONT roleplay and thus their behavior is not at all predictable from their class. Some (like me) roleplay so that they are hardocre Survivor when alive.. but dont seek revives when dead and play as pure Zombie until somehow revived. Its not Spam, you're right.. but it is a Kill. --Jak Rhee 01:02, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Let's play "Find the Character Class"! http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=117245 You're wrong, it doesn't tell you Cop from Zombie. Do you actually PLAY the game? No Problem. -- Amazing 01:03, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • At the top, it says "Level 14 Civilian" Also it says "Civilian" under class. Now, if neither of those are the characters original class, then I accept my mistake and will change my vote to a Kill as this is still pretty much a pointless skill. --Jak Rhee 01:08, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
        • Please abide by the RULES of responding. Original classes include: Cop, firefighter, corpse, etc. AS STATED IN THE SUGGESTION. You have been CNR. -- Amazing 01:10, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Spam - Having them as a contact does, and really usually if you can get their profile you know wether they are zombie or not. If you want to change that it stands out in the profile it might have merit. but not like this suggestion.--Vista 01:07, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT) Edit Check your contact list, you get all the names you have as contact, clickable to see their ID, right next to their name is class, and mentions zombie, military, civilian and scientist. after that comes level, the XP, possible website, and delete funtion. So it does list wether the person is a zombie or not--Vista 01:20, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT) Edit2, look at first died, if it said During the first outbreak he started as a zombie, if it says first died xx-xx-xx he started out as a survivor. and my contacts list their status also on their Id-sheet itself, not only on the contact list along with their times died, but I don't know if that is because they have me also as a contact. also I find this way of editing instead replying annoying and counter productive, but if you rather have it this way, fine. Who am I to ignore the rules.--Vista 11:20, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: It does NOT tell you their specific class. Wrong. -- Amazing 01:09, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Edited into vote, (you may remove this Amazing)--Vista 11:20, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
        • It doesn't tell you if the survivor with you is someone who started as a corpse, and is therefor someone who chose to play a Zombie. God, will you please try to understand this? And DO NOT REPLY IF YOU ARE NOT THE AUTHOR. -- Amazing 03:39, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill I find this pretty useless. Getting Military/Scientist/Civilian information is enough, and higher level characters are all alike anyway. --Brizth 01:09, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Considering that all characters can get all skills regardless of class knowing someone's class is pretty unimportant. --Jon Pyre 01:10, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: To both above, it tells you who has selectively played as a Corpse and all that. If Convict class is added as well it would tell you if they're probably a less moral player. -- Amazing 01:12, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. kill - Once you reach level 10, everyone is virtually the same anyway. I'd want to see meaningful and long-lasting differences between classes before I see meaningful ways to distinguish between them. Rhialto 01:21, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill --Lord Evans 01:23, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - The only thing I can see coming out of this is massive "zOMG teh zombie spieses!" pking. --TheTeeHeeMonster 01:30, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill Everyone has the capability to get the same skills, as Jon Pyre said, so being able to tell between classes is useless. To quote you, "Do you actually play the game?" Next time, don't be so damn conceited. AllStarZ 02:21, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Can you, or anyone with such a poor attidude as you, even step back and act respectable for a split second? If you want to vote kill, vote kill. Don't say something that contradicts the text of the suggestion or make idiotic remarks, and I won't need to reply. See how that works? Cause and Effect. -- Amazing 02:45, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill As what Pyre said, there's no point since all survivors are indifferent other than the variable XP cost some classes cause, especially once they start hitting the higher levels. And as TheTeeHeeMonster said, people will just end up PKing people who started as corpses, not even bothering to realize that they might be someone willing to play both sides. If there's ever something that makes each starting class in some way unique and distinguishable from each other, and if somehow the mass PKing this would cause was prevented (like not telling you if their starting class was a corpse), I'll vote keep then, but for now... --Volke 02:27, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Keep Adds flavor and an excellent bit of backstory...nothing wrong with that. Might not be the most useful skill around, but heck, I don't see any reason NOT to do it. --Nicks 03:02, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Keep - Riktar 03:33, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - Mikm 05:05, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    Note: Three votes removed for lack of justification. --LibrarianBrent 00:28, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep The main strength is the flavor, even if it isn't particularly useful gameplaywise simply dismissing this ability also dismisses the fun of UD for IC players. The only argument suggesting this will actually do some damage is that it will encourage frantic killings of original corpses, aka zombie spies. Of course, everyone who kills zombie spies IC for ever being associated with zombies already kills based on skills of the characters. Anyone starting as a corpse would have the vigour mortis skill, and anyone who'd kill someone for being a corpse would kill them for having vigour mortis. This would not cause mass PK'ing because the ability to view a player's skills is already an easier way to accuse them of being a zombie spy than using the "dossier". --Lopotousu 6:17, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Somewhat questionable in-game reasoning, only marginal usefulness, may encourage paranoia and PKing (and there's enough of that already IMO, despite some people saying it's in the spirit of the game). I don't like it. -CWD 06:36, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - Original character class has nothing to do with the player's current intentions. I don't believe this information is retained anyway, making it impossible to determine who was originally what. Bentley Foss 07:26, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - I was on the fence in the debate between flavor vs. paranoia vs. profile does currently say dead in initial outbreaks vs. whether or not the system even currently keeps this info (I don't use the contacts list so I wouldn't know). Then I read all of your Re:s. They pretty much decided me. --Thelabrat 15:49, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT) EDIT Your re's decided me because instead of rational explanation of why people's points were invalid you responded with accusation and defensiveness. This to me implies an inherent weakness on the part of the suggestion/suggestor. Perhaps there is something good there. I simply don't see the point beyond a very minimal amount of flavor. --Thelabrat 03:24, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Good to know you vote on other things than the suggestion itself. Should be struck out as being off-topic, but - boo hoo - I don't really care at this point. -- Amazing
  17. Kill What can be done? Sometimes people vote kill because they have a bad day, it happens. However, that isn't why almost EVERYONE is voting kill on this, that is split into two camps; the first camp vote kill because it is a horrible suggestion; The second camp doesn't like you (this isn't a personal attack, it is an observation of other peoples' attitude toward you and how you present yourself). I am voting kill for the first reason. I advise working harder on making suggestions reasonable people can agree with or possibly abstaining from summiting suggestions, and being more gracious and understanding if your ideas are criticized. I hope this advice helps you.--Matthew Stewart 00:46, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Thanks for taking the time to consider all that. I have 7 suggestions approved and 2 undecided, so really I do hit on things people agree with some of the time. As for how I present myself, I'm a product of this environment. I don't reply at all to people who don't A.) Make a claim that isn't true about the suggestion or B.) Act like a jackass in their vote text. :\ This is one of the extremely rare occasions I'm replying for any other reason than those two. -- Amazing 02:24, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill All this does is punish people who chose corpse as starting class then changed their minds/decided to roleplay being a survivor after getting killed. Nothing else. --McArrowni 02:42, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Comment: This suggestion was to create something that let you see ANYONE's character class primarily for fluff and roleplay as well as identifying corpse players. Currently, you can only see death notices when the character IS A ZOMBIE already. Lots of bad points were made, but obviously no one wants this anyway. -- Amazing 18:39, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - Knowing starting class seems useless, especially as it makes no difference for high-level characters. --Mikm 13:16, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill - Since I have to 'justify' my vote: I agree with what others have already said. - Asrathe 10:47, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill - I don't really see the benifit of being able to do this, honestly.--Arathen 03:33, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Kill - What Arathen said. --MorthBabid 09:06, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 2 Keep, 17 Kill, 1 Spam - 19:16, 18 May 2006 (BST)

Knock Back (Revised)

Timestamp: 06:20, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Suvivors
Description: It's possible for a suvivor to kill a zombie and have them stand up again before they can toss them from a safehouse, essentially dooming the inhabitants if the suvivor is out of AP. I suggest a skill to allow suvivors to force a zombie outside automatically upon a killing blow with a bat or length of pipe. In real world terms you'd force the zombie back through the barricades by striking at them the same way you'd be forced backwards if someone hit you with a blunt object (not by hitting them out of the building homerun style). The zombie would still be dead and have to stand up again as normal, but be outside on the street instead of in the building. This would be a useful skill to have if you ever get in a live back and forth fight with a zombie indoors and are worried they will stand up inside as soon as you kill them. This wouldn't save AP since the AP a suvivor didn't spend on dumping bodies would likely be spent swinging twice to make up for the bat's maximum 25% hit rate compared to the axe's 40%. Not something for every situation obviously but could mean the difference between life and death sometimes. I don't think this is unbalancing in the least considering that it only prevents active zombies from instantly rising indoors. P.S. It would not affect any corpses lying on the floor of a building. Killing and forcing a standing zombie outside would not move them as well, those would have to be dumped. Suvivors would also not get any xp for knocking the zombies out this way.

Edit: It would make sense for this skill not to work if the building was barricaded too heavily for suvivors to enter since that would mean there we no body-sized openings.

Votes

  1. Spam - Standing up inside is our equivelant of barricades at the moment, and the ONLY way we zombies can waste human ap. Change your strategies to fit the game, not the game to fit your strategies. Besides, this would be a free action, which is in the Do nots section of the Do and Do nots. --Grim s 06:31, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. KIll Im not sure Spam applies, but I do think that Standing up is the xzombeis major answer to barricades. If we gave Survivors this, Zombies should have a way to occasionally walk through barricades --Jak Rhee 06:40, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Grim S, why exactly are you voting spam? If you think the suggestion is unbalancing or unfair vote Kill. Spam means "I don't want anyone to read this, this is graffiti" not "I don't like this suggestion". Save Spam for "Zombies Can Pee To Dissolve Barricades." If Spam means "I think this suggestion is not good" then Kill has no purpose at all. As to your point: 1. This is not a free action. Suvivors force the zombie out with their attacks. It does not cost less AP. This is not a free action the way digesting flesh after a bite attack is not a free action and aiming to hit a zombie in the head is not a free action. 2. Zombie strategy involves swarming a building and overwhelming the opposition. If you think it also requires standing up instantaneously and immediately negating a kill that is your opinion. Fair enough, but I would argue otherwise. --Jon Pyre 06:44, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Dont give it away is why. --Grim s 08:00, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
        • I like how we're quoting the wiki guide as biblical canon. I also like how author only Re rules don't exist. That said, this doesn't give anything away for free. You're forced to use an inferior weapon that deals less damage and has lower hit percentages. The AP expense is the same. It makes sense as you can use blunt weapons to force enemies back opposed to sharp ones that chop into them. And you still don't answer why you voted Spam. --Jon Pyre 09:15, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. kill - The only time this would reasonably happen (a running fight in which the zombie is pushed back and beaten outside) is if there are no barricades standning, in which case it becomes irrelevant. Rhialto 07:11, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Sometimes it happens. Just take it as it comes, and hope another survivor wakes up soon. Bentley Foss 07:27, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - In a realistic sense, you also decapitate a zombie with headshot and a shotgun. But this being a game, having your head blown off would render your account useless. But I digress. If a survivor misses the easily notable message "there is a body here" and also the easily seen action "Drag body outside," then it sucks to be him and the sleeping people in that safehouse. --Natural Life 07:49, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Asrathe 08:54, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT) Edit: Adding 'justification': You should either have to kill the zombie, or run away. - Asrathe 10:51, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Spam - with Grim s this time. There is no such thing as a free lunch. --hagnat 09:14, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - It isn't free if it costs AP. A freebie would be if this applied to any kill made, that would simply save suvivors from moving out bodies. This requires a worse AP-eating weapon be used and requires a skill be purchased. There are comparable situations that aren't freebies, for instance... First-Aid, having medical knowledge and curing an extra 5hp isn't a freebie. Rend Flesh, dealing an extra 1 damage isn't a freebie. Headshot, aiming for the head isn't a freebie. Ankle Grab, standing for less AP isn't a freebie. I don't have a problem with people voting against this but I dislike how the Spam vote is being used. --Jon Pyre 09:17, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re Ok, want another reason ? Do you know how strong a man would have to be so he can knock a corpse over layers and layers of barricades ? Just think about it and youll see that it doesnt make sense. --hagnat 09:22, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
        • Re I'd say it would make sense that this skill would not work in buildings barricaded too heavily for suvivors to enter and I will amend the suggestion to reflect this. Still doesn't qualify as spam. --Jon Pyre 09:25, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Spam - You want us out, kill us and dump us - --ramby 11:37, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Kill - A survivor shouldn't be able to spend a few AP to make a newbie zombie have to stand up for 10. --Dickie Fux 15:01, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - If you don't think the survivors in your building are capable of repelling the attack you need to cut your losses and run. Punishing a zombie by taking away his ability to react to an attack by giving yourself an automatic "dump after kill" is not going to feel good to the zombie. I'd also vote kill on a "paralytic embrace" which prevented you from shooting back at a zombie or using a FAK, or any of those other wonderful things you can do to increase your advantage. -Torfin 17:21, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Good reasoning. See, Torfin made a reasonable and good argument against the suggestion and voted kill to indicate his opposition to it. That's Kill folks not Spam. Spam is not a strong kill. Let this suggestion die, I don't really care, but Spam and Kill are different. Spam does not mean "I hate this", Spam means "Someone is posting graffiti on the site by not seriously proposing a suggestion" --Jon Pyre 17:54, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill Too unfair to our undead friends. The chore of having to dump after killing is there for a reason. --Volke 18:34, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - I understand the reasoning - it should take more than 5 seconds for a zombie to be fully healed and stand up - but your implementation is flawed. And for those Spam voters, let me just point my opinion : it should ALWAYS take less time to dump a body outside than it takes for a zombie to stand up. --Hexedian 18:36, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Keep - Makes sense. Skills for both sides exist to make game life gradually easier for yourself and harder for your enemy. Where did we forget this fact? -- Amazing 18:39, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill -Hexedian has it right.--Vista 20:02, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Spam - This is ridiculous. You can't hit that hard. Think about it, the average human weighs about 150 pounds, right? So think how fast you would have to swing to make them move more than just to regain their balance. And even if you did, remember, every action has an opposite and equal reaction, so if you were to hit something hard enough to get pushed out the front door, you'd end up just about pushing yourself through the back door. --Horje 20:06, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Spam It's been suggested and shot down before and this isn't improved. It's probably close enough for a dupe but I can't be bothered to find the link. It just doesn't make sense, plus in zombie movies if you knock a zombie down it will get back up. What do you expect?--The General 20:31, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill This is not spam-worthy. The suggestion is not perfect, but it has merit, most of you are just reading the word "knockback" and gunning it down, thinking it's autokill. It's not. Read the damn thing. In fact, what's the chance to it with those weapons again? Even if the zombie has 1 hp left, an no one kills it before you do... What are the odds of losing your AP anyways because you missed... That said, this is a bad time for this, but it may eventually become useful after a few more pro-zombie suggestions and there is no assurance that the game will ever reach a point where it would be a good thing, so I change my vote to kill--McArrowni 02:48, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - I don't think this is a dupe. THere was a recent suggestion that was similar that I liked better (it still got kill voted with a fury) that may still be up for voting. --Thelabrat 11:54, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Keep - Because it uses a bat or a pipe, people! Riktar 00:49, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill Go play 'City of Heroes' instead. --MorthBabid 09:07, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 13 Keep, 2 Kill, 5 Spam - 19:16, 18 May 2006 (BST)

Dismember

Timestamp: 09:10, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors, Zombies
Description: Idea shamelessly lifted from Guild Wars.

First I'd like to propose that we add a new item, the Sledgehammer, which would be IDENTICAL to the current fire axe, with its own prerequisite skill that gives it a boost (identical to axe proficiency but renamed to hammer proficiency) So 10% base hit rate, to 25% with basic hand to hand, to 40% with hammer proficiency. Findable wherever you can find axes.

Now, we modify the Fire Axe. I propose that Axe Proficiency, instead of raising the hit percentage by 15%, raise it instead by only 5% with a new chance of inflicting a 'dismembering' wound on whatever you're attacking. Whatever's been dismembered takes a -10 penalty in maximum HP, with their health at the time never exceeding their max (ex: dismember a survivor at 50/50 puts them at 40/40 instead of 47/40.) Dismembers can only stack twice (so minimum max hp would be 30), and upon a successful dismember an additional 3 exp is yielded. The chance to dismember on an axe attack is 25% of every normal attack, so thus with a 30% hit rate with the Fire Axe you would execute a dismember 7.5% of the time. Note that a dismembering attack still does normal damage also (-3 to health, -10 to max health).

Zombies get a change to Rend Flesh. Rend Flesh does not execute its +1 damage bonus all of the time. Instead, there is a 25% chance that a successful zombie Claw attack will inflict a dismemberment in the same way that I've already stated, instead of a +1 damage boost. The same 3xp boost applies here.

To cure dismemberment? Zombies will regenerate their lost limbs upon eating people - every successful 'digestive' attack will remove one condition of dismemberment. Thus if a zombie has been dismembered twice but left active it can bite a survivor twice to restore itself. Survivors have it a bit less lucky, as they will have to find a powered hospital for Surgery to be performed to remove the status (note however that Surgery would remove all 'dismemberment' conditions in one go). Of course, both can simply die and have the dismembered condition erased.

Please comment on how this can be improved if you feel it has some merit.

EDIT: I could have sworn I 'filled in' the scope and type entries.

Votes

  1. Kill - and i dont see a way this can get better to fit in the game. --hagnat 09:18, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Kill - Suggest only one thing at a time and not three (The sledge hammer, axe percentage increase, and dismemberment). We don't need another Axe, the Axe is alredy ballanced with other weapons and we don't want characters running around without arms. - Jedaz 09:31, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT) Edit - Sorry read it wrong, its a decrese to axe percentages - Jedaz 09:33, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Then this would be in violation of "linked suggestions" or whatever it's called. --DirkDirkly 12:26, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Well the sledgehammer is meant to be an axe replacement, as I felt that only modifying the axe would probably excessively hurt the melee game. FireballX301 09:52, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Spam - No, i do not want by already underpowered zombie having its hp cut almost in half - --ramby 10:06, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - Attacks that would normally drop an opponent to 47HP would instead drop them to 40HP, and if attacked twice, they would drop to 30HP instead of 44HP. That's 14HP extra damage, or (a minimum of) 5 AP you saved by not having to attack. Also, an axe does not require searching for ammo to use it, that's why it does less damage than guns. If this was implemented, it would do the same damage as a shotgun (or more than a shotgun if the survivor was wearing a flak jacket), and more than a pistol. Additionally, this weakens diagnosis. HP is shown as 'XX', not 'XX/YY'. Since you would never really know if someone at 30, 40, or 50HP is at max HP or not (unless you wasted an AP trying to heal them), healing them would be a gamble for survivors that don't have Surgery (or are not in a powered Hospital). I don't like it. -- Asrathe 10:56, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT) Edit: Reworded some for clarity.
    • Re - Valid points, but keep in mind that pulling off two successful dismemberments on the same character requires a LOT of AP. Given that I've reduced the axe hit rate by 10 percent, the Axe would hit 3 times out of 10. So on average you would already spend about 14 AP to hit 4 times, with only one of those shots being a valid dismember. The low hit rate, I believe, balances out the stacked damage. FireballX301 20:21, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - Even if it's unlikely to happen, a bit of luck with the RNG should not make the axe that powerful (even for just one or two hits). Ignoring that, the effect on survivors with Diagnosis still makes me vote 'kill'. - Asrathe 05:29, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - It's only a flesh wound. Rhialto 11:36, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill Yeah, its only a flesh wound. What is there bad about losing an arm? Or two? AllStarZ 14:48, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill - What are you going to do, bleed on me? --Mikm 16:24, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Get back here! I'll bite your legs off!! --MaulMachine 11:38, 08 January 2006 (EST)
  9. Dupe - Go see Dismemberment from November 8th. People, can you at least do a text search in the "Previous Day's Suggestions" page before you post? If a -5 HP effect won't pass, a -20 HP effect is dead. This is just wrong. Bentley Foss 16:42, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - Not a dupe since this also applies to zombie claw attacks and delineates a way to cure the dismemberment. FireballX301 20:12, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - Right, we'll call it a draw.--Vista 20:08, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Even beginning to start on why this suggestion is retarded isn't worth my time. Kill, not Spam, solely for the Monty Python fun it's generated. --Slicer 20:13, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill - So now there is going to be an attack that effectively does 20 damage if you're lucky, as in lost max HP total. I really don't think we need something like this. --krupintupple 16:49, 8 Jan 2006 (EST)
  13. Kill - A rather horrible idea. I would rather not have to spend my time at a hospital waiting for a doctor to come, which could then end up with the hospital being besieged. Not my idea of fun. And what about the Low Level Zombies W/O Digestion? They get thwacked with an axe and have to vainly attempt to level up in order to restore their max HP. Bad Idea. --Natural Life 23:05, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Any suggestion that requires modifying two existing skills and one existing item, then adding a new item to replace the modified item, is too complicated. --Dickie Fux 01:02, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Dupe/Spam - There WAS a way to regrow the limbs for the nov 8th version (it happened when you died), and you didn't even bother to address some of the concerns over that version! For a newbie, this is WAY more likely to happen than surgery/digestion. Digestion is not a starting skill for zombies, neither can it be used on others. Low-lvl zombies don't need to have another skill to purchase to be effective (this otherwise makes time between headshots shorter). This skill is unbalanced (25% of hits cause dismemberment, excuse me?), griefing (especially for newbies), is just plain weird (I'm a master of the shotgun, look, no hands!), and really doesn't deal with the problems of the nov 8th suggestion. To add insult to injury, this almost puts the WCDZ's suggestions to shame, and ours are conscious efforts. (oh yeah, and are you even using the suggestion template? Where are our "vote over this line" and "vote under this line" lines?)--McArrowni 03:50, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - You know what would be even better? If, like, you had an axe, and had fifteen different buttons to attack at different angles, so you could end up using another syringe (only in a powered building) to grow a chia pet from the stump if it was cut at the right degree. You know what would be even better than that? If this was a MIRV axe that exploded and did 45HP damage to everything in a 9 block square radius. You get my point. --DirkDirkly 12:26, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill - 'Tis but a scratch!--Arathen 03:43, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill Couldn't you technically do this with any weapon, given enough time, regardless? Just a flawed mechanic from an...sorta okay idea. --MorthBabid 09:08, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 0 Keep, 15 Kill, 1 Spam, 2 Dupe - 19:16, 18 May 2006 (BST)

Midgets and Midget Zombies

Spaminated due to being poorly thought out and a bad attempt at humor. Recieved 3 keep votes (all invalidated by LibrarianBrent) and 12 spam votes --Mikm 23:17, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)

plus short people got no reson to be undead
  • Keep. Could be even better if they were NPC Midget Monkeys! --DirkDirkly

Ninja NPC Midget Monkeys for all! Catriona McM 21:53, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT) 12:27, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Enemy List

Timestamp: 20:17, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors
Description: I suggest that a list be added to the game that has the names of other survivors who have attacked you when you were a survivor.

Information

  • When another survivor attacks you (when you are a survivor) their name is added to your list.
  • You may then remove their name whenever you want.
  • Survivors on your list show up with a some kind of marking next to their name in room descriptions.

Possibilities

  1. Attacking an Enemy provides full XP gain, whereas it would ordinarily provide none.
  2. The list of Enemies also includes where it was that you last saw each one.
  3. Zombies with the memories of life skill could have access to this list.
  • When voting, please indicated which, if any, of the possibilites you like or if you think some could be added or changed.

I think this list makes sense because I think it adds realism to the game. Many evolutionist scientists now believe that creating reputations is a means of survival in groups of social animals, namely humans. So I think this would discourage grieving no more than it encourages it. I believe that humans fighting is an important part of a zombie outbreak, as shown in the movie 28 Days Later that could be developed a little more in the game. I think that this will make people consider the consequences of their actions more seriously, but I also think that this will make some interesting character interation.

Votes

  1. Kill - Couldn't you just do this with a paper and notepad? Or add them to your contact list? It's a kill because I don't think revenge PKs should yield full exp as this will result in a rash of PKs and counterPKs and such. FireballX301 20:25, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I thought about that for a few days before suggesting (the part about the paper). I was hoping that possibility number 1 could give the list a bit of purpose. --Horje 20:29, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re - Do keep in mind that you always get 1/2 exp for hitting someone of your own faction, so I'm just saying that full exp would be a bit much. FireballX301 20:33, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. KIll - Agree with all things Fireball said --Jak Rhee 20:27, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Kill -anything that promotes Pk'ing is bad.--Vista 20:34, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Kill - It encourages PKing. Anyways, I don't think it will change the PK element of the game. Those that want to PK will do so anyways. How the person they PKed will respond is not likely to change either. --Mikm 20:36, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Keep - --Frosty 20:45, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    Note: Vote removed, justification required. --LibrarianBrent 00:03, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep - this is a brilliant idea --Frosty 00:39, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Spam - This is a survivor vs. zombie game - if you want to take vengence on PKers, don't expect the game to have features that help you with it. --Signal9 21:04, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - (This definitely does not deserve a spam vote. A spam is not a "strong kill.") As you've pointed out, PKing is a "reality-based" aspect of this game; certainly in a real Zombie Apocalypse a few people would go crazy and shoot anything that moves. Eliminating the XP gain for attacking your own team doesn't work for me, sorry. That's griefing right there, as the only consequence of a PK would then be to "zombify" the other guy. A pen and paper black list will have to do.--Carnival H 21:38, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Spam If I recall correctly, there is a rule against ideas that encourage and/or justify PKing! Just because it can happen doesn't mean we should encourage it and/or make a reason for it! --Volke 21:47, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - I personally don't care if I get PK'ed or not; those who do should keep track of it on their own. --Dickie Fux 21:48, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill Getting xp for killing humans: Bad. What works better is the Contact Category suggestion to allowing seperating your contacts into a Neutral, Ally, and Enemy lists.--Jon Pyre 21:56, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill The full XP encourages perpetual revenge wars. What Jon said. Guys, this isn't Spam- it's not completely retarded- it's just a bad idea. --Slicer 22:00, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - Getting full XP for killing one of your own is A Bad Idea. It's supposed to be zombies vs survivors.--WibbleBRAINS 22:12, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - Anything that promotes PKing is a Bad idea --Natural Life 23:15, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - Though this could be useful in a minimal amount of cases, just keep track yourself and if need be use the Profile Database. -- Amazing 23:18, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill Despite the reasons why this would be used, it's still PKing. AllStarZ 23:28, 8 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill Having the system log everyone that caused harm to me on a Enemy List would be a good idea. But the 'gain full xp' part is broken. --hagnat 01:54, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill - I would prefer to see the ability to use your contact list a little more fully. I can't recall if it is a reviewed suggestion or something Kevan had mentioned somewhere, but one idea I liked better is to allow you divide your contact list up into two or more categories (presumably friends and foes). Definitely nix the full XP for enemies factor though. That just cries out for PK abuse. And as amazing said that profile database is pretty helpful for the moment. --Thelabrat 12:02, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. SPAM I'm sure i've seen this before... Mattiator 18:14, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - If you think it's a dupe, then find the link and vote dupe. If you think it's spam, then justify your claim by providing a link to the guide-to-suggestions rule that it violates, or explain further. If you don't like it, or think it's stupid, or think it will never work, then vote a simple kill. Kill/keep are the only votes you don't need to explain. Spam and dupe must be explained. Too many people are using spam arbitrarily. intx13 05:13, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    Note: This is incorrect. All votes must be explained at present. --LibrarianBrent 13:10, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    Note: Oh, ok. Is that new, or am I just clueless? :) Intx13 17:13, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    Note: Nah, just a new policy. :) --LibrarianBrent 23:35, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill - Pathetic, just useless and ENCOURAGES a REVENGE PK. Where's Ghandi when you need him, to point out that an eye for an eye leaves the world blind? --November7 04:06, 11 Jan 2006 (EST)
  21. Kill - We have this. It's called a Journal. Embrace the metagaming. --MorthBabid 09:10, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 1 Keep, 16 Kill, 3 Spam - 19:16, 18 May 2006 (BST)

Death Bite

Deleted By maker DarkSnake

Padlock

Found to be a Dupe of Suggestions/28th-Nov-2005#Repair_Kits_and_Padlocks, with three dupe votes and no non-author keeps. --Matthew Stewart 08:01, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Booby Traps

Duplicate of these (check the first one). --Brizth 00:47, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Impale

Removed for a being hidden excuse to troll. Don't use your own suggestion to flame other people.

ALIENwolve, sign your removals please. I don't even know if this removal is valid. --Signal9 03:17, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
It isn't. It was more of a plot. He was a noob to the wiki so I didn't sign it so he would think it was a mod. It worked but he still didn't stop being abusive. --ALIENwolve 03:26, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Discussion moved to Talk page. --Signal9 06:53, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Barricading Prevention

Timestamp: 4:00, 8 Jan 2006
Type: improvement/skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: When zombies attack in a group they have to spend a large number of APs collectively to remove the barricades. Before opening the doors and letting the hungry hoardes in.

This is good and adds a nice bit of teamwork to the game. Unfortunately it can easily be undone by one survivor who can barricade the building while zombies are inside, often leaving the remnants of the attackers behind. This is in an imbalance in the number of APs spent for attacking/defending.

I propose adjusting barricading so that a building can only be barricaded while no zombies are inside. Alternatively allow there to be a skill for zombies who are inside a building to easily dismantle barricades. This provides a proper reward besides the feasting on survivors to an attacking hoarde. It also means that a building will have to be properly cleansed before it can be used as a safe house.

Although this gives an advantage to zombies and nothing to survivors I believe it will help with the flow and balance of the game.

Votes

  1. Keep - Sounds reasonable. --Reverend Loki 06:21, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Comment: - New suggestions go at the bottom of the page. No vote on the suggestion because I can't decide if it is overpowered (probably is). Your "Alternative" is a dupe. --Signal9 06:23, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  3. Comment I'm not sure if this is nessecary anymore. Maybe it is, its too soon to tell. However, if you look at the game lately, Malls and other buildigns have been dropping like flies. Survivors are on the run. Its wonderful. Now, maybe this is all temporary due to enthusaism and this skill WILL be needed... but like I said.. its too soon to say. As such, Im not voting on it.. not now --Jak Rhee 06:33, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Dupe - help me with this but is sounds just like another suggestion. --RAF LT. General Deathnut 06:55, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Easy enough for Zombies to get in already. This would just make it exceedingly unfair to Survivors. -- Amazing 07:01, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Kill - Too many suggestions rolled into one.--Pesatyel 07:22, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Kill -Yes there is a baracading imbalance attacking/defending, Ap wise in the game. there is also a revive AP imbalance in the game. The barricading imbalance is I believe 5 to 1 to revive imbalance can get up to 22 to 1. Yet survivors get revived easily enough and zombies get through barricades easily enough. not every thing has to be changed to have an almost equal cost for the game to be balanced. With feeding groan cracking human safehouses is easy enough.--Vista 07:50, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - If there was a greater chance to destroy baricades from the inside maybe, but if you look at the stats page, the ratio has moved to 59:41. The zombies seem to be doing fine by themselves with the latest changes --RAF Private Chineselegolas 08:31, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep - Wow, first time i've voted keep in a while!--The General 09:02, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Dupe/Kill - Alternative a Dupe as Signal9 said. Pretty sure the main part is also a dupe but I haven't found it yet. Otheriwse I generally agree with Jak Rhee although I am voting on it. --Thelabrat 12:32, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill --Mikm 12:52, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Kill This would make things WAY to easy for zombies. Once a few zombies are inside, the barricades will never go up, so more would just keep coming, and they barricades would never go up, etc. On the other hand, giving an auto-success to destroy barricades from the inside seems fair, but this suggestion only lists such an idea as an "alternatively"- not enough to net a keep, IMO. --Swiers 13:46, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. Kill - This basically makes sieges impossible to defend against. --VoidDragon 15:51, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Kill - It isn not spam, but it is not keep either, maybe if they had a constant chance of failling, like with past VS except starting at loosely and going up at ever incressing percents. Then i might vote Keep, and preferably with an incressed chance of knocking down barricades from inside by both survivor and Zombies, maybe add a skill to nutrilize the first effect in the military section with Barricading with a pre-req. Then yea, I can see myself voting keep on this. - --ramby 16:34, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Kill - Barricades work just fine as they are. The proper reward for horde behavior is feasting on the survivors, after they've gotten through barricades. Bentley Foss 17:02, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill "Help balance"? This would destroy any incentive to defend a point. --Zaruthustra 17:24, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill It's hard enough to keep the barricades up and killing zombies at the same time Drogmir 22:46, 9 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill Although I'm pretty sure that both parts have been suggested before... Also, as stated before, it would remove any point in defending a cracked safehouse since the pouring in of the undead can't be stopped without barricading before killing the ones already inside. --Volke 01:30, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill Absolutes kill this suggestion. If it would just reduce the chances of successfully barricading, instead of just no chance at all, it would be better. However, it's a nice try, and probably deserves more than one keep vote... just not from me. --McArrowni 03:07, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. Kill I feel that this is a bad idea due to the fact that if by chance a person is killed inside a building and stands up a zombie the people inside have no way to secure themselves without attacking the zombie who could have been an ally. --John Rove 08:44, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill You haven't given a good reason why survivors shouldn't be able to do this. It's a barricade, not a savory ham. --MorthBabid 09:11, 18 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Final Tally - 1 Keep, 16 Kill, 1 No Link Dupe - 19:16, 18 May 2006 (BST)

Diehard

Removed by author.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/8th-Jan-2006&oldid=251510"