Suggestions/8th-Nov-2005

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

8th November, 2005

Dismemberment

Timestamp: 00:23, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivor, adds some game "flavor"
Description: Subskill of Axe Proficiency. This skill grants a 5% chance that the attacker will dismember their opponent with their attack. "Your mighty swing hacks off an arm/leg/hand/foot/lung/etc." When killed, target stands up with -5 HP. Stacks once max for a total of -5 HP. We can safely assume that the process that turns you into a zombie regenerates your limbs when you stand back up...

Much later edit: I'll resubmit once voting ends. I do believe now that I see why everybody disliked this. Misunderstandings, gotta love 'em, heh... I'll clarify much more next time.

Votes

  • Kill Wtf? What if you were revieved? Would you be revieved without an arm? And what did you mean when you said "Other survivors call you "Paul Bunyan" and start chiding you about your love of flannel." ? Wtf? :/ That last sentence was intended as humor... Bentley Foss 00:42, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT) (not the same person who made this "Kill" entry)
  • Move to funny suggestions Funny, but seems like it adds more nonsense than actual flavour. (just think of everything survivors do that needs two arms. Loading guns, building barricades, etc. Not to mention the weird thing when you die/get revived) --McArrowni
  • Kill, this has to be a joke. --LibrarianBrent 01:24, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT) Changed the humorous part of the skill description. Sheesh, can't make a joke around here...Yes, it's a serious suggestion. Bentley Foss 01:36, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, Sorry, but I just can't see this happening.Lucero Capell 02:26, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam, For being a really bad idea, IMHO.--Spellbinder 05:14, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Being killed is already annoying enough. And PKers/griefers would just love it. --Seagull Flock 23:10, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I have a total and new idead for this skill its for LVL 10 Zombies and has the same effect of head shot. In explanation when a level 10 zed kills you its dismbers your body causeing the freshly dead human to loose XP. Ace448
  • Kill - That is so very relavent to the discussion of a totally diffrent skill, Ace. Also, that's REALLY going to make said dead human want to stay zombie, now that he has no xp to buy zombie skills with.--Arathen 22:45, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This could be saved still; make it a Critical Strike that causes double damage but only with Hand-to-Hand weapons - no skill needed, just a slight chance of a Critical Strike happening (like 1-5%, depending on the weapon and the skill of the wielder). --Squashua 15:17, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill When stand up with -5 HP, would you fall down again as you're still below 0 HP? ;) Madalex 16:29, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Bad idea overall, especially with revive in the game.--Novelty 14:48, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Repair Fence

Timestamp: 00:53, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Safe zones, (current) uselessness of wirecutters
Description: Subskill of Construction. Allows players to repair chain-link fences only in squares where they previously existed.. (For those who don't know, zombies can't break through these fences.) Provides a slightly-more-secure safe area (zombies break down the barricade only to find the impenetrable fence) BUT serves as a hiding place that doesn't double as stocking point for useful items. This also gives people a reason to carry around wirecutters once more.

Votes

  • Kill, Seems too powerful with free running. People would make chain-link fences near ressource buildings and hide in them. --McArrowni 8 Nov 2005 Oops. I knew I forgot something. Never intended for that to be possible. Changed skill description. Bentley Foss 01:01, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT) Actually, what I meant was if a junkyard or whatever those buildings that used to have a fence is right next to a ressource building, or a few buildings away, with free running and by closing the fence, one could have a very very nice little base... --McArrowni 8 nov 2005
  • Kill, As the correction noted, this would only apply to Junkyards, Power Stations and I think Warehouses. However, the issue arrises where an infinite number of survivors could hunker down in a Power Station for an indefinite amount of time and there's not a damn thing anyone could do about it who wasn't willing to sabotage the entire thing, at which point the Fencer would just rebuild it right away. In order for this to work, there would need to be either a Zombie Skill to allow them to pass, which defeats the purpose of a Fence, or maybe force builders to have items allowing them to build the fence. I think it's a bit overpowered. Besides, why the heck couldn't a zombie army break down a measly fence in the first place?Wilcox 20:01, 7 Nov 2005 (EST)
  • Kill, although I would like to see this implemented in some form. Currently wire cutters are useless, it might be nice to be able to use them again. However, as has been mentioned, it really needs a zombie counter. Rework it, and we'll see.Lucero Capell 01:58, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, man, wilcox, i was just about to pass this, when you compeatly ruined it with your fancy smancy "logic." Wilcox is right, it needs a balance other then the current PKer cultsts that would ruin the fence.--Spellbinder 03:08, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep could be uselful for lone wandering characters because a group would be too restricted cutting up and repairing fences anytime someone wanted supplies also since the game is becoming inbalanced it needs some easier ways for people to become safe, in addition tho zeds outside the fence should have it so the amount of them outside equals the amount of AP for the human player to leave hence zeds could trap them in there Dignant nov. 10 14:30
  • Keep - with aformentioned zombie counter. A skill, of course, under MoL likely, that allows a zombie to use their teeth and claws as primitive wirecutters. And Dignant, someone with Free Running could come and go as they please, completely ignoring the fence, if they even had any reason to leave; and the "more zombies in a square = more Ap for living people to move" idea has been suggested. Many times. One zombie/ap would be far too overpowered, too.--Arathen 22:52, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • KEEP, This is a good idea and should be implemented since in a city it wouldnt be hard to find tools and supplies to repair a fence especially in a junkyard. --Boron 23:09, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep but someone needs to add a Zombie Skill for Climb Fence. --Squashua 15:19, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I think this would only add more complixity without flavour to the game. Soon after introductions, there'd be zombie spies running around with wirecutters, and a new circle of build a fence, cut the fence would be added to the already existing around barricades. Madalex 16:35, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It would be the ultimate human haven. Not good. Nothing must be zombieproof, or the balance of the game will be lost. I'll change my vote to keep only if there's a z-counterpart (see comment by Squashua). --Seagull Flock 16:59, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Agreed that there should be a z-counterpart, but weren't fenced areas zombieproof before they were all cut? I don't see the huge difference --Donggrip 11:40, 20 Nov*
  • Kill I dont think this will ever fly unless a few modification are made to the zombie side but if it ever does, just think of using generators to make electric fences... man that would be sweet, perhaps overpowerful... but sweet none the less...--ringseed2 3:04, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - On its own it'll just create the ultimate survivor haven. --Novelty 14:49, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Duffle Bag

Timestamp: 02:54, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Item
Scope: Survivors
Description: Found in schools, the mall, anywhere applicable. Posessing this item means you will be able to carry about 25% more items. (give or take!) This means you will be able to hold some extra weapons, first aid kits, ammo, whatever you like. Here's the catch that makes it all even out: You must spend 1 AP to put items INTO the bag, and 1 AP to REMOVE them later. Much like you automatically discard a news paper, duplicate duffle bags would be discarded when you try to put in an item, giving a message similar to: "Carrying two full duffle bags would slow you down. You toss it away."

Votes

  • Kill--Not a really bad idea, but I think about 50 items is already a good amount. Also, seems fairly complicated, requires more memory to store all those items in, and gives very little return. --McArrowni 8 nov 2005
    • Re: 50? I can only carry around 27 items, I think. Am I missing something? I probably am. -- Amazing 06:11, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
      • Re:Re: Firearms count double for encumbrance.
  • Kill What he said: ^^^^^^^^^ --Carfan7 03:24, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill For being a really bad and complicated idea--Spellbinder 05:15, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep As long as it isnt weapons, I see now reason why a person could carry say 50 shotguns and that takes the same amount of space as 50 syringes if this is implemented in that fashion than I support this idea on its next proposal. --THOR 01:24, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I guess Kevan has sized the inventory to 50 items for a reason. I think that if the DB could bear more he'd have increased it himself. --Seagull Flock 23:17, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I have only run into the encumbrance problem once, and I solved it by dropping 4 of my 10 zero-ammoed Shotguns. I just don't see why people would need to carry so much stuff. --Squashua 15:20, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Makes life more complicated, especially for Kevan and the server. --Novelty 15:05, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - 50 is more than enough space. Madalex 21:29, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Shovel

Timestamp: 03:13, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Item
Scope: Survivors
Description: Found in a Cemetery or, I suppose, a Mall. (though Cemetery-only is my personal preference..) You would be able to use the shovel as a weapon not unlike the Bat or Axe, but it would do something really helpful. Using the shovel in an unpaved area (IE: Not on paved streets! No digging indoors!!) would let you dig a hole in the Earth. If there is a corpse on the same block as the hole, all players would see a "bury corpse" button as one would see a button for dumping corpses out of buildings. Digging the hole would cost 3 or more AP, burying it would cost the same as dumping a body from a building. The result of burying a corpse would be that the corpse will need to click a "Dig free" button in the same way a zombie would break down a barrier. This would lend an upper hand to survivors, but consider this.. it will cost you some good AP to dig the hole, and you'll never know when a zombie's going to pop up right next to you! (IE: Good for coordination to set traps.)

Votes

  • Spam Unuseful and unfair to zombies. --Carfan7 03:54, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Bad idea, unbalanced, poor implacion, overly complicated. This is second prize as the ugly fair--Spellbinder 05:19, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam This is not fair to zombies.-- Boron 15:43, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill--Milo 19:11, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --Probably needs tweaking, but I think this is a really appealing idea. Maybe only 1 AP to dig, 1 AP to bury, though. --Biscuit 02:59, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, not quite sure it's spam-worthy, but certainly not plausible as it exists. --Lucero Capell 17:34, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - 1AP to dig, 1AP to move one corpse into one hole would be good. For *all* zombies, it would be 10AP to get up, but they'd wake up with 1/2HP because their body was being decomposed. However: this is only useful if you can drag zombies from block to block, e.g., to a wasteland/cemetary near a resource. --Bcrogers 18:25, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Reduce the penalty for Zombies; heck, I like to kill a couple of zombies in a building, then barricade it from the inside and Free Run out of there. Kind of the same concept if you think about it. --Squashua 15:23, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Breaking through a dirt barricade just so you can walk over to a smash a building barricade would not be fun. Not useful, since most zombies die in front of buildings. --Dickie Fux 05:10, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Doesn't add much to game, a lot more work to add. --Novelty 15:07, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Also, I find the writing contradictionary. Madalex 21:35, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Preying or Hunting

Timestamp: 04:04, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: (This listing has been edited a bit, see strikethroughs.)Zombies can forrage for prey like a survivor would search for items. Certain areas would be prone to giving a zombie an instant-use item. In other words, this would not give the zombie an inventory, but would instead give some benefit should they find something. (EXAMPLES: Pidgeons Rabbits in the park, if you catch and eat one, you regain some HP. Rats in the railyard, you eat and regain lesser HP.) The list goes on. Costs 1 AP per search, with the same or lesser percentage of finding something as Survivors get for finding items. Abuse should be relatively impossible if there is a 1 AP cost for preying on critters, and there is a mediocre or low percentage of actually catching something. (Check out the discussion of Preying for more thoughts.)

Votes

  • Kill Sounds kinda silly to me....A zombie running around trying to catch a pigon? :/ --Carfan7 04:17, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam Then Survivors should be able to get xp for killing pigeons this is obviously unbalanced. --THOR 01:24, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, well, i meen its a new idea. I don't like it, but... its new--Spellbinder 05:21, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Intellectually I want to say good idea, but then I get this picture of a zombie stalking a pigeon, and it flies off at the last moment, leaving a comedically sad-looking zombie, and I blame Carfan7. It's not a bad idea in principle, just don't mention pigeons. And this isn't an XP-farming trick, THOR, it's more like a zombie FAK than anything else. Which is fine, though specifiying an HP level is needed. -- Juntzing 15:28, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This should be under digestion in the skill tree, since it isn't a way to get xp merely "recharge" HP the same way items do for survivors, only much less AP effectively I see no problem, besides, I hate pigions and rats.--Matthew-Stewart 20:24, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Nice idea, but rename to "Feeding Frenzy" or similar, and change concept so that it includes munching on the dead bodies for health (which is essentially the idea you are trying to get across - the zombie scavenges for "food" to heal itself), then you'd have something for which I'd vote Keep. --Squashua 23:32, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This is ridiculous! When have you *ever* heard of a zombie a)searching or b)eating animals? --Biscuit 03:01, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: Shaun of the Dead (zombie catches a pidgeon), Resident Evil films 1 & 2 (zombie dogs half-eaten), 28 Days Later (rats flee the persuing infected), I could go on. It's not rediculous IMHO. :\ -- Amazing 05:25, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
      • Re: Well, okay, those are good examples. Still, I don't like to see a new change like this unless it's necessary, or at least somewhat game-improving.

(Note: Amazing is referring to a deleted post by a multi.)-Re: All you accomplished there was proving without a doubt that you yourself are the brainless one. -- Amazing 23:24, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)

  • KeepWell, seems like a lot of people don't like this for some reason. I don't think Preying is a good name myself, but I can't think of a better one off the top of my head. Maybe Feed or something. This isn't an XP farming trick, tis just a HP recharge tactic. That encourages desperate zombies to prey instead of feeding off of other zombies to regain HP. Basically just a weaker zombie FAK, and I'm fine with that. Though...I'm not sure Pigeons are the best, I don't see why any Pigeons would be sticking around with so many predators trying to eat them. Just my opinion. --Kulatu, 23:27, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • KeepI like the idea, but maby calling it something like "Hunt" would work better. Anyone who's read The Zombie Survival Guide ( randomhouse.com/crown/zombiesurvivalguide ) knows that a zombie outbreak will eventually strip all life from the area. --Zeek 10:46, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Voting for my own idea just to tie up the Kill vs Keep votes. Heh. -- Amazing 00:32, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Make it a subskill of Memories of Life. --Dickie Fux 05:16, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Sounds interesting, would help zombies to heal as well. The name might need to be changed to something better though. --Novelty 15:09, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Although it makes me think more of "Interview with the Vampire" than "28 Days Later", it could be a useful skill. From my limited experience, it doesn't seem like it would be THAT helpful, but could be good for lower-level zombies. Higher-level ones, of course, eating people instead and making fun of the new ones munching on the rats... --User:Patrucio:Patrucio 15:34 (GMT), 22 NOV 05
  • Kill - Zombies only eat human flesh. --Flaunted 15:41, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - There thousands of those tasty humans around, and you want to eat rat? Madalex 21:40, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Extra XP for Extra Healing

Timestamp: 04:15, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Mechanics Change
Scope: Survivors
Description: (First Rewrite for clarity) If Survivors heal more than 5HP with a single First Aid Kit, the XP gained from healing should be higher than 5XP. My suggestion is that there be two possible XP rewards - 1-5HP healed gives 5XP, 6-10XP healed gives 10XP. This requires that the server keep track of the HP healed, but this can be reduced to only four additional instructions per heal. with this system (2 assignments, 1 operation, 1 comparison). This would allow Doctors and Medics to gain some benefit from their starting skills, and continues the tradition of "opportunistic" healing of giving First Aid Kit users more XP on average than the HP they heal.

Votes

  • Spam I'm confused, please write it simpler. :/ --Carfan7 04:19, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re: I've rewritten it for clarification. Is this any better? -- Odd Starter 04:24, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, heh, hell, i even got a little confused on the rewrite, but i get what your saying. if you heal 10 points with the doctor skill, then you should darn well get 10 xp, not 5xp.--Spellbinder 05:23, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • KEEP Makes sense since upgrading zombies +1 to hit gets them an extra XP. --THOR 01:24, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, Makes perfect sense to me. The First Aid skill should not be a drawback, and I might say it currently is for the experience-hungry starting Doctor and Medic. Gothgarion 05:26, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, I get what you're saying, but I think 10XP is way too much. Shadowstar 11:07, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I however do not. xp per hp healed same as per damage dealt. --Alexei Yaruk 12:43, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Agreed, XP matching HP healed would be fair. -- Juntzing 15:30, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, 10 XP is far too much. I actually think 5 is still too much though, so what do I know?Lucero Capell 17:28, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Proposed alternate 1 XP per 1 HP below. Squashua 21:43, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Automatic 10 XP is too much, but I like Squashua's idea. --Arcibi 22:54, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Bravo!!! Finally the stupid First Aid skill would make sense. In this moment, that skill is a complete, incredible, gigantic fiasco. --Seagull Flock 23:22, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep: For the record, why not just write: "Survivors with 'First Aid' skills earn double XP when healing survivors"? Nice and simple, I like it ;). Loads of names have been suggested before for this so, yeah, s'all good. --Kehraus 17:11, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This would now make a use for actualy chosing the doctor as a starting ability. Jedaz 02:44, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep: It would make medics and doctors actually have half a chance of surviving the early game. Jonesy 16:38, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Shadowstar, understand how many APs you use to get FAKs. Best case scenario: All mall skills, in a mall, devoting all your ap to searching drug stores: 1FAK/4AP, and then finding a victim within the mall. 10XP/4AP, 2.5XP/AP, slightly less than attacking with a fireaxe. Does that really sound all that unfair, especially considering worst case is probably more like 10AP/10XP? --Bcrogers 18:58, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill 5 XP is enough for healing. The idea behind First Aid is that you can heal someone faster at the cost of gaining less XP. After all, healing someone after they've taken heavy damage is important becuase they're more vulnerable, so First Aid helps by making them less vulnerable faster. This is becuase with First Aid, at most, you'd only need to use 5 or 6 FAKs to fully heal an ally, while normally you'd need to cough up 10-12 to fully heal them. It's your choice whether to get the skill or not anyways, so if you don't like losing out on the XP, just don't buy First Aid. --Volke 03:50, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - With the scarcity of FAKs, it is only fair that someone who spends his time healing his fellow survivors be rewarded. If you heal someone 10 hp, you should get 10 xp. (But this would be clearer if you just said "healing with the first aid skill earns 10 HP"? What the hell is this about assignments and operations?)--Argus Blood 07:28, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's really not fair that the healer classes get less benefit from healing people than anyone else does. I suppose the rationale could be that they're used to healing, so they gain less experience for each heal, but still. The idea may be a bit overcomplicated as is (just make it so that people with First Aid get XP equal to HP restored!), but the basic concept has a lot of merit. -CWD 20:36, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yes. --Ruckstar 21:19, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Gaining 10 XP for healing 6 HP is bad. --Dickie Fux 05:19, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I think the 5XP for a medic or anyone with the skill is a balance thing. I like this idea, but the way it's written isn't as good as it can be. --Novelty 15:11, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It takes doctors so long to level up. --Flaunted 15:43, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If getting 10 XP for 6 HP healed is bad, how bad is getting 5 XP for 1 HP healed? Madalex 21:42, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Stamina

Timestamp: 05:32, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: AP Boost
Scope: Both high level zombies and high level survivors
Description: Maximum AP increases by 1. This skill is available to both zombies and survivors, and can be bought multiple times. The aim is to give high-level players something to put their exp into.

Votes

  • Kill, If you could buy a one-time skill I might be for it. As it stands, people could amass terribly high action point limits through not only normal means, but of course cheating. Normally not a huge problem - but in this case it could severely tilt the game, IMO. Amazing 05:38, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)~
  • Kill, Comon guys, leave the AP alone. plz?--Spellbinder 05:46, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Absolutely favours the people playing this game for months over those who recently started. Madalex 14:01, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam Server load reaching critical mass *the building that the servers are housed in implode, forming a rift in reality* Plus there was a very specific play-balance issue that Kevan stated when justifiying the AP limit. -- Juntzing 15:36, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, Sorry, but as has been said, leave AP alone, at least when dealing with it on this level.Lucero Capell 17:30, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't. Mess. With. APs. --Seagull Flock 23:24, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - More AP ideas. Graaaah! Shadowstar 23:39, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Don't! Mess! With! APs! (cha cha cha!) --Biscuit 03:03, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - APs are fine. Leave them alone.--Arathen 22:58, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Level 32 guy with 6000 XP comes along... Suddenly, he moves across the city and back 5 times and kills 50 zombies while at that. "It's a bird... It's a plane... It's superman!!!" --Sauron the Deceiver 02:27, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Let's not forget folks, this is not a suggestion for increasing AP regeneration, just increasing the upper limit. So yes, a high level surivor could buy 600 extra AP (assuming it cost 100 XP to do so), however he would have to spend several days doing absolutely nothing in order to take advantage of it. I don't particularly like the idea, but I certainly think it's worthy of being considered.--Insomniac By Choice 09:30, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - The consistent maximum AP of 50 all around balances the game out. This is for server hit issues as well as a gameplay restriction. --Squashua 15:28, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam -- Will lead to abuse.--Deathnut 04:59, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Functionally unlimited AP is not good. I don't oppose tweaking AP a bit, but this won't work. --Dickie Fux 05:22, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam -- This is the 5th spam - see above for reasons. --Novelty 15:12, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Weapon Harness

Timestamp: 06:26, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Item
Scope: Survivors
Description: Wearable item. Pistols and Shotguns can be placed in the harness only while you are wearing it. During this time they will count for one item slot each. You can remove a weapon from the harness at any time, but must have at least one item slot free to accomidate the resulting extra slot requirement for the gun. Harnesses would hold a specific amount of weapons, POSSIBLY two shotguns across the back, and two pistols on the front or sides. (Alternatively, one shotgun on the back, four pistols on front and sides, depending on what seems most fair.) Helps keep your item slots open, but allows you to carry loaded weapons at the ready.

Votes

  • Kill - Sorry, this isn't something that can be changed - Firearms take up two item slots because one slot is reserved for the ammunition level. Doing this requires significant changes to the inventory data structure. -- Odd Starter 06:32, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, Welp, there ya go. --Spellbinder 06:36, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Another give long-time players another advantage type of suggestion. Also, it doesn't even mention where it can be found etc. Madalex 14:04, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Eh, I'm having no problems toting 6 pistols and 3 shotguns, plus my melee weapons as is. -- Juntzing 15:35, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill It's just not necessary to carry more than 10 weapons. How about you drop some stuff OUT of your inventory if you'res strapped for space? --Squashua 15:29, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - I think carrying ten shotguns is ridiculous, and this just makes it more so. --Dickie Fux 05:58, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam -- Same reason as the dufflebag - it's going to add more bookkeeping into the game with reprecussions for the server --Novelty 15:13, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Rooftop Access

Timestamp: 07:47, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Military Skill, Subset of Free Runing.
Scope: Surviors
Description: This skill will allow players in a building to see the outside of the building. It will also allow them to see the outside of the buildings surrounding their own. The price for this skill is that you will be unable to see inside of the building you are currently in (You will still be considered "in" the building and have all the benifits of being in the building). You can toggle this on and off. While on the roof, you cannot be seen by people outside the building. You are considered to be still in the building, meaning people inside can still see you and zombies inside can still attack you. I figured this is pretty fair because it offers a nice ability, but doesn't really unbalance the current game like most of these AP modification skills do. I figure it also makes sense in terms of the roleplay because you obviously want to be on the roof to survey the surroundings.

EDIT: I do not advocate the whole shooting outside the building with this, this a basic intel skill, not a combat trick. EDIT: I edited this with Madalex's suggestion so its now more balanced and makes sense. EDIT: I made Seagull Flock's suggestion part of the main body.

Votes

  • Keep Shamelessly plugging my own suggestion. --Vellin 02:56, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep if implemented properly. I don't think it would take up much space or bandwidth if you only got numbers rather than numbers; for instance, it would note in the text box (not the map) that "You see 14 zombies and 3 survivors outside" or something like that. I don't know; discuss. Gothgarion 08:20, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Makes total sense there is no reason a player cant be looking out a window maybe also suggest name fire watch since that is more militaristic instead though since it would only update on refreshes this would not suck bandwidth. --THOR 01:24, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep If this were a skill which would allow you to change your view from inside to outside without actuelly stepping outside I'd say Keep, but seeing everything at once? You got eyes on your back? Madalex 14:08, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT) (Edit: I changed my vote to Keep as it was changed the way I suggested. Madalex 21:45, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT))
    • RE: It makes sense to me that a soldier trained in reconnaissance would have pretty good battlefield awareness.--Zeek 07:23, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, As long as the survivors aren't allowed to shoot outside of the building it sounds great. --Pyrinoc 17:31, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - if I've understood the description, shouldn't be difficult to implement: it would be almost the same as the "leave the building" feature. The small differences from the "leave" would be that the person on the roof shouldn't be visible to people outside, and is still considered by all effects as inside the building (he'd be visible to people inside and subject to attack by zombies inside). --Seagull Flock 23:36, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Should be a subskill of "Free Running," where, not only can you get on top of the roofs, you can also scout around up there, and scouts have this skill by default. It should cost 1ap to "scout from the roof," because this prevents all types of complications. --Bcrogers 18:45, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: I already have it set as a subset of Free Running, because you would obviously need the ability to climb over buildings to get to the roof.--
  • Keep "Though might be over-powered when fighting on forts. "Hey Bob! I see 150 zombies coming. Let's Scram." When the zs come, they say mrh? because nobody is there.
    • RE -A: That will never happen. People are always going to not be logged in. People usually forsee the attacks on malls, yet people still get slaughtered. B: You can't argue that it doesn't make sense flavor wise though, honestly, your STUPID if zombies are coming and you don't want to be up on the roof. --Vellin 09:19, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like the concept, but maybe this could be restricted to buildings with multiple floors only? Some buildings could be made climbable, and then zombies with Climbing Skill (proposed in the votes under Repair Fences Suggestion) might be able to get up there. Look out! --Squashua 15:31, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: Why multiple floors? Every building has a roof, be it a one story building or a tower. And I don't like the climbing idea. The purpose of this is to let survivors gather intel without leaving the safety of the building. --Vellin 16:27, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I could potentially see diffrent ways of getting up on the roof for diffrent buildings. Some may just have a staircase leading to the roof allowing any tom,dick&harry to go up easily from the inside, where others might require you to climb up the side of the building; which would necessitate the use of a special skill and possibly equipment (rope, ladder, grapple, ect) and have a higher AP cost, or there could be fire escapes that act like a staircase, but on the outside. The idea that you would be visible and attackable through the roof of the building by those inside seems wrong to me though. You might as well just be sitting next to the window. What might be better is that those inside simply "hear" the generic noises of people/person moving around above them, but have no idea who or how many are up there. You could still be attacked by zombies who manage to get up there with you, either through the use of one of the aforementioned staircases, or with some sort of new climbing skill. Then there's the idea of traveling by moving rooftop to rooftop, possibly through the use of a further subset of freerunning (with a healthy chance of falling to your death doing it).--Zeek 07:23, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Maybe if it cost an AP to look, and only for the building you're in, not the whole neighborhood. --Dickie Fux 05:26, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Some people might argue you couldn't peer out a window if you're barricaded in, so this would take care of that. I could see even maybe limiting the person to looking North, East, etc. if there was a concern about it being too powerful --Amanda J 21:11, 22 Nov 2005 (EST)
    • RE: - I really don't see this being an abusable skill. I mostly just see this as a way to help surviors in high profile buildings survive by having advanced warning of an impending attack. Also note that I don't support ideas like sniping and increasing the view range. Those are unbalanced.
  • Kill -- This would give an advantage to the survivors that might unbalance the game. Currently, survivors inside a building have to spend at least 2 AP to get out and look at the surroundings then retreat back. Removing this 2AP would mean 2AP for other uses, e.g. barricading or searches --Novelty 15:16, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- This seems like a reasonable skill to implement. It could help survivors a bit, but doesn't seem too over-powering. Plus, I just like the idea of someone on the roof getting attacked by a zombie he didn't even know was in the building. --Patrucio 15:41, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It is a pain in the ass when you want to check the status outside and people barricade reentry points up to much and you get stuck outside. --Flaunted 15:45, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • RE: - OH, you very good... I forgot about that. Building at heavy barricaded? Wanna check outside? Pop up to the roof.

Grave Misfortune

Timestamp: 09:55, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Zombie Hunter Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: This skill is obtainable after obtaining the Headshot Skill. After a zombie "Stands up" if the zombie attacks a zombie hunter then the Zombie has a -1 HP penalty during attacks. This balances out the infection that zombies use which cripples all players. The penalty lasts until the zombie is killed. Players without headshot would not benefeit from this penalty and zombie attacks would suffer no penalty against survivors without headshot. There is no XP gain to Zombie hunters who purchase this skill.

Votes

  • Kill Unclear. And seems to hurt newbie zombies without digestion too much. --McArrowni 8 Nov 2005
  • Keep Seems to balance out the infection attack that zombies unfairly have as a skill and humans have no way to counter act.-- Boron 15:43, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill It doesn't make any sense. Why are they losing HP? Also, it makes being a low-mid zombie even MORE difficult, which it doesn't need to be. --Pyrinoc 17:34, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam Nonsensical; where is the in-game justification for this mechanic; HOW is the 1 damage per attack being accomplished? Do zombie hunters now carry electro-shock collars for all the zombies they kill? -- Juntzing 15:41, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, muchly, muchly overpowered.Lucero Capell 17:35, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill A -1 penalty to damage is insane, it's almost as bad as the idiot on the old page who suggested a skill which removed half a Zombie's AP. Infection isn't THAT strong... it's only a max 30% chance to hit and easy enough to cure. --Zark the Damned 18:54, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I'm not even sure based on the description what this should do. I guess it should decrease the damage a zombie causes on a successful hit to a human with the headshot skill. Or is it supposed to cause a zombie to loose 1 Hp per attack on a human with the head shot skill? The more often I read it the more I get confused... --Madalex 22:38, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Digestion makes it useless. --Seagull Flock 23:38, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Many of the above, not the overpowered part though. It's no more overpowered than infection. It's more that it targets low level zombies unfairly that I don't like. Shadowstar 23:44, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It IS overpowered in comparasoon to infection. Humans actually have a way to end infection aside from death.--Arathen 23:03, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Unclear, and please remember that zombies and humans are different, and it's o.k. to have one have a skill the other doesn't. --SprngHlJn 02:06, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Have you considered the metagame consequences of this? Headshot drives away enough newbie zombies as it is. All this does is cause more grief. Slicer 02:29, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Sorry, but this is pretty lame. Hunters are awesome because they have skills, not because they have no special powers. I don't care who you are, when a zombie beats you about the face, the zombie is fine, you're not. --Bcrogers 18:48, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM Don't make the game impossible for the weaker Zs.
  • Kill - Incomprehensible Description. --Squashua 15:32, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - If it works anything like I think it might, don't even bother trying to re-write it. --Dickie Fux 05:29, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - More bookkeeping and unbalancing. --Novelty 15:16, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Notched Axe

Timestamp: 15:03, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombie Hunters
Description: Your axe had been with you for quite a while and has been used to dent many a zombie's head because of that it has become notched, able to deal 1 more damage than before raising its damage to 4.

Votes

  • Keep Good skill. Many players prefer only using melee weapons and even some groups require only the use of melee weapons. This makes sense as many groups are dedicated to the axe to begin with. This doesnt seem overpowered.Boron 15:43, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Of course, you could buy the skill even if you didn't have an axe. And a notched axe would be worse than a sharp one--Milo 19:48, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill As a side note, you'd probably have an easier time getting notches into a modern alloy hitting a carwreck a couple of times than human bodies. --Madalex 22:22, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This doesn't even make sense, your axe wouldn't get better by killing a lot of people with it, in fact it would just get dull. If anything, you have brought up the point of why melee weapons don't degrade (besides the fact that it would be a pain to program).
  • Kill, melee weapons almost as strong as firearms? F-F-F-FA-FAILURE. --LibrarianBrent 02:16, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, UHH, do we have to spell it out for you? melee weapons don't require ammo, so when they are used they have higher to hit and higher damage, and the balance is limited amounts of ammo.--Spellbinder 02:30, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - We're talking about ZOMBIES. Which would matter more to them, a hole, or a lop out of them? Zombie hunters being able to use axes more effectively makes sense to me. --Bcrogers 19:03, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is not Resident Evil 4 with modifiable weaponry, and an axe with a notch would actually be less effective. --Squashua 15:33, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - The skill to indicate proficiency with an axe is called... oh yeah, Axe Proficiency. --Dickie Fux 05:34, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Axes needs to have a lower level damage for balance reasons. --Novelty 15:18, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Odor of Decay

Timestamp: 19:45, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)~
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Your smell is so strong that it confuses humans. From any neighboring block, you appear to be three zombies. (So, if you were in a block with two other zombies, the group would appear as five zombies from any adjacent block. If a human actually walked onto your square, he would correctly see three zombies.)

Votes

  • Keep I probably shouldn't vote for my own suggestion, but zombies could use a flavor skill like this, even if the RP is kind of messed up.)--Milo 19:47, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Interesting idea, doesn't adversely affect game balance, gives maxxed out zeds something to buy. Also the idea (as I understand it) is the stench from the next block would lead you to assume there must be a lot of zombies there. How you you me able to visually see every zombie is the next block, it must be a collection of all indicators, not just vision.--Matthew-Stewart 23:14, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Makes no sense that somehow it blinds survivors. --THOR 22:31, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Based on the asumption that this will only get implemented when its implementation won't cause a too high increase in server load. --Madalex 22:31, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, I like this idea. Jirtan 23:50, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep It's not like we know WHICH zombie is WHICH anyway. --Squashua 23:51, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep,Edit: as a skill equivelent of making yourself look larger to scare off a wild animal, i agree.--Spellbinder 23:57, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, cool idea. Maybe a new name, though... --LibrarianBrent 03:49, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill This doesn't really seem that useful. Plus, it could easily be overpowered if high-level zombie hordes start lurching around looking three times as large as they are. There's a big difference between 20 zombies and 60 zombies in the way players act. --Ethan Frome 04:53, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep "There's a big difference between 20 zombies and 60 zombies in the way players act." - Thats the idea.--DarkRyNo 19:19, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I don't really see why a zombie would suddenly appear to be three zombies when I am looking at them from down the block. Is the smell that bad that effects my vision, but it gets better when I get closer? Doesn't make a lot of sense.--Perikles 19:37, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Doesn't make sense. The way I understand it, blocks are pretty big, making it hard for a human, who doesn't have good noses in the first place, to count zombies by smell at this distance. McArrowni 02:53, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I'm sorry, I don't mean any offense, but this just strikes me as dumb. See reasons better articulated by other kill votes. --CWD 20:40, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Dumb idea. --Deathnut 05:03, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I like the idea of zombie stink doing something, and I like the number confusion idea, but the two don't fit together. Make a new skill for the name, and make a new line of reasoning for the skill. --Dickie Fux 05:38, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The flavor and name of the skill, as well as the overall game function of a suggestion is up to Kevan, afaik. However, the basic game function is what is suggested. This would make a good addition, if we could figure out a way to make it fit in the flavor... --Zarquon 04:39, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I like this one, it's funny. --Novelty 15:19, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I like the skill as an idea. Would also help feed into the paranoia of not knowing exactly how many zombies are out there. --Patrucio 15:45, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - AP takes forever to get as it is...why make people waste it? --Flaunted 15:48, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - cuz it's fun ^_^ --RSquared 23:57, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Crazed Runner

Timestamp: 21:22, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Skill - Subskill of Lurching Gait
Scope: Zombies
Description: Crazed Runner Skill simulates a running Zombie (per 28 Days Later / modern Dawn of the Dead). For every 2 consecutive movement actions, Zombie can perform 1 additional action (attack, move, speak) without spending an Action Point.

With Lurching Gait 1 Move = 1 AP
With Crazed Runner 1 Move = "potentially" .66 AP.
Conceptually, 3 actions by at Crazed Runner costs 2 AP.

Zombies in the recent flicks have this incredibly scary run, much faster than the traditional Romero lurch. In order to not upsed the balance of action points vs. speed, the "zombie run" could be simulated as approximately 1 move = .66 action points where the first two actions must be movement-based. This would require tracking the last 2 prior actions of a zombie and might be tough to implement (see proposed pseudocode solution below).

As stated above, the "free" third action, though originally conceived as movement (and could optionally be limited as such), might not even need to be a movement; it could be an attack, simulating a rush forward and then instant attack, not costing the extra AP as long as the prior two actions were spent moving.

Remember that the zombie doesn't just "jump" 3 spaces away (assuming the third action is used for movement). He still has to travel the intervening blocks, and it's his choice to move that third space. This is not a benefit to zombies that are stationary or don't choose to travel. "Crazed Runner" skill could be a foil for the "Motorcycle/Car" proposals.

Code-wise, this could be implemented thusly:

 // - zombies initialize move_count to value of MIN_RUNNING
 
 constant var MIN_RUNNING = 0;
 constant var MAX_RUNNING = 2;
 constant var MAX_RUNNING_AP = 1;
 
 perform-action(zombie, action) [
   
   // Running - movement tracking
   if (zombie.hasSkill("running")) [
     
     // if movement is at maximum count; reward zombie
     if (zombie.move_count == MAX_RUNNING) [
       zombie.move_count = MIN_RUNNING;
       if (action.point_cost <= MAX_RUNNING_AP) [
         action.point_cost = 0;
       ]
     ] else [
       
       // alter movement tracking
       if (action.type equals "move") [
         
         // if zombie is moving; increment
         zombie.move_count++;
       ] else [
         
         // if zombie is doing anything else; reset
         zombie.move_count = MIN_RUNNING;
       ]
     ]
   ]
   
   // end running section
   ... continue code
 ]

Votes

  • Kill I think Lurching Gait already is the crazed movement as with it they are as fast as Survivors. --Madalex 22:25, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Crazed does not increase their speed; it simulates the zombie endurance to maintain a pace through consecutive actions. --Squashua 22:46, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, rather overpowered, and upsets the survivor/zombie balance. One of the central ideas of Urban Dead is that Survivors are on the run, zombies running along behind. Lurching gait gives zombies a chance to keep up with humans. This skill would give zombies an advantage speed-wise, something contrary to the spirit of the game. Zombies are (near) unstoppable juggernaughts, slower but inexorable (big word!). You really can't see this skill throwing that balance off? I realize you don't see this as a "speed" increase, but in reality (or as near to it as we get), that's exactly what it ultimately it. --Lucero Capell 23:12, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, Nope, as was said Lurching Gait is all the movement bonuses that zombies need. --Spellbinder 23:33, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, Not a bad suggestion, but personnaly I don't like it. Urban dead is a zombie genre game. Not every zombie genre movie/game put into one. Choices like these have to be done, and mine is to kill it. --McArrowni 8 Nov 2005
  • Kill, outrageous. --LibrarianBrent 03:48, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill: No new age, MTV pseudo-zombies please. --Kehraus 18:22, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - You did some impressive work there, but I like slow zombies. Might work as a new zombie class, though... --Dickie Fux 05:42, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Way too complicated? This is supposed to be a low tech game?. --Novelty 15:20, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I agree with whoever said that Lurching Gait already represents zombies that can run well enough--Patrucio 15:48, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Your pseudocode won't work for the scripting in UD. State-based ideas are problematic. --RSquared 23:58, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

XP Gained Equals Healing Performed

Timestamp: 21:52, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Mechanics Change
Scope: Survivors
Description: For each HP healed by a Survivor, one XP is assigned. This would allow normal aid pack users to to gain 1-5 XP per transaction, while those with First Aid would gain 1-10 XP per transaction. This gives First Aid a slight benefit, though there is always the potential for gaining less than 5 XP per transaction.

Votes

  • Kill, I think we're already trying this idea here. I didn't like it then, I still don't like it now. --Lucero Capell 23:04, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Similar, but ultimately different concept; this is a 1 for 1 which balances out neatly vs. the 5XP for 1-5, 10XP for 6-10. --Squashua 23:10, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - I prefer this idea. It's easier to implement (doesn't have to query the HP healed), and the difference between the suggestions affects only wounded above 41 HP (or 46, if the healer doesn't have First Aid). --Seagull Flock 23:45, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Reducing the reward will reduce the behaviour - If the XP guarantee is not there, there'll be far less incentive for people to heal others if they're not going to get the optimum XP. -- Odd Starter 23:52, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Because 10 XP does look like a lot, but given that you must find a first-aid kit and someone missing 10 hp, in a world where people will want to heal others more, I think it's ok. And I like this better than the other suggestion because it makes them work for it. --McArrowni
  • Keep, Given the disadvantage scientists have this makes sense and should have been the way it was from the start. --THOR 05:54, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's hard enough playing healers. Don't begrudge us an extra few XP here and there. Trust me, we level slowly enough as it is, with all the first aid kit searching. (My healer is level 4 vs. my firefighter who is level 10, in the same month of playing time. My firefighter even spent a week as a zombie, whereas my healer has done nothing but find a hospital and search, search, search for first aid kits...) Bentley Foss 12:06, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill I saw another idea like this earlier, though this one is fundementally different. However, I think that we're fine having a fixed amount of XP gained from healing, rather than letting it go by how much we heal. I think that 5 XP is enough for healing, whether it's just 1 HP that is healed, or even the full 10. More is too much, while less is too little. --Volke 04:00, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Similar to something already proposed, but I'm in favor of any idea that remedies the problem of healing classes getting less benefit from healing than anybody else. --CWD 20:42, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- I like this idea better but perhaps it should be tied to a skill instead so that those without First Aid will get 5 XP per heal and those with first aid will get 1 - 15 XP per heal. Or maybe that should be capped to 10?
  • Keep - This seems like a no-brainer to me. --Dickie Fux 05:47, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Like Seagull Flock, I prefer the previous version. Madalex 21:48, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

XP Reduced for Healing Zombies

Timestamp: 21:52, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Mechanics Change
Scope: Survivors
Description: Other than having Survivor/Zombie teams, I know of no other benefit to healing zombies than to use them as XP farms. XP from healing zombies could be altered to provide 0.5 XP per HP healed in the same manner that a Survivor harming a Survivor (or Zombie harming a Zombie) gains less XP.

Votes

  • Keep, Zombies should not get faks at all they ahve digestion for that if they want more HP. --THOR 05:54, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep --McArrowni 23:09, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Of course, adding this would help establish this fix. Squashua 23:23, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Or none at all, of course. --Spellbinder 23:31, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like this, makes sense. Of course, afaik we still don't have a fix for the bug with attacking a named zombie yet, so I'm not sure that this would really work. Shadowstar 23:50, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Reduces the viability of cultist, something to be strongly encouraged. --Alexei Yaruk 12:53, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I don't mind cultists, but this idea just makes sense. --Dickie Fux 05:49, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- What everyone said above --Novelty 15:25, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Ditto --Patrucio 15:49, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - ditto --Flaunted 15:51, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep 'Nuff said. Madalex 21:49, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Oh, right, like patching up someone who's undead teaches you less about anatomy. --LouisB3 23:31, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Container Buckets

Timestamp: 22:15, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Mechanics Change
Scope: Survivors
Description: An immobile depot for items. "Buckets" act like the treasure chests in Resident Evil games; Survivors can drop items off into a Bucket or take items from a Bucket - it is a handy place to leave Flak Jackets and extra guns, etc; and solves the trading dilemna. This requires a list of items on a per-location basis, or we can turn the bank vaults into Container Buckets. More intellectual Zombies can raid these buckets and steal/destroy the items, as can jerky Survivors. This is the same as dropping an item but might cost an AP.

Votes

  • Kill As currently written it's too easily abused. The idea has its merits, but needs further clarification where "caches" of items might be, e.g. I like the idea with the bank vaults. --Madalex 22:30, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This is an excellent solution for trading. Madalex, be more specific when you state "too easily abused"; cite examples and make suggestions. --Squashua 22:44, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This seems feasable and would make the game more enjoyable when you dropped your 10 extra vests in a "bucket" instead of dropping at random.. --User:Dusty Quad 6:42, 8 Nov 2005 (EDT)
  • Kill ah, well actualy such discussion belongs on, you know, the Discussion page, but i'll take the part for Madalex on this one. Character one spends 45 AP searching, drops off all his ammo into the bucket. So does two. Three comes over, and picks up nothing but ammo out of the bucket, and carrys on blasting his thru town. Trade is something we want, don't get me wrong, but again its PEOPLE that ruin ideas like this.--Spellbinder 00:14, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Listen to SpellBinder, this has been discussed in the earlier suggestion pages. --McArrowni 9 Nov 2005
  • Kill - I don't usually use 'ease of abuse' as a reason to kill an idea, but here it seems overwhelming. --Dickie Fux 05:51, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Great idea, but again, I could see someone come in, take everything from the bucket, and then maybe deposit it in a Bucket no one knows about for their multis. (There are people who'd take stuff just because.) Maybe if taking from the bucket cost 3 AP, since it's saving you from having to search on your own, and might cut down on the hoarders. --Amanda J 21:21, 22 Nov 2005 (EST)
  • Kill - What's it with people and containers? I don't like the idea see reasons for dufflebag, etc. above. --Novelty 15:26, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Potential for abuse. --RSquared 00:00, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Fire!

Timestamp: 22:42, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Type: Event
Scope: All
Description: Firemen. Fire Axes. Fire Stations. Apocalypse. Where is the fire?

This concept can be molded by voting suggestions. This event establishes fire as an in-game event. Fires can "start" at the unused power transformers or can be created by individuals. Each building has a damage percentage (0-100) noting how much it is currently damaged by fire. Every time interval (half hour), each flaming building increases in % damage based on the percentage of damage it currently has sustained. In addition, buildings (not cemetaries, streets, etc.) in squares adjacent to a flaming building can catch on fire each time interval based on the percentage of fire in adjacent buildings. Buildings two squares away are affected at a 1/2 percentage chance (so a flame can jump a street, just like in real life).

Certain squares have a higher chance to be set on fire (parks, warehouses), while others have less chance (fire/police stations). Other locations have a natural resistance to having fires being fought (a junkyard fire may take less damage).

Fire can be fought with a fire axe or with different means by adding new equipment that can be found at the fire stations. Firefighters can start with a Firefighting skill to aid them, while others may acquire the skill. Zombies can be set on fire. Those INSIDE a location with fire have their % chance of searching reduced by the % of fire, and also have a % chance per AP of taking 5 HP damage (Firefighting skill or subskills may reduce this to 1 HP).

Like the great Tire Fires that continually burn, Fires will not permanently harm buildings, but they renter them uninhabitable as long as the % of Fire in the building is greater than 0%. Meaning, if there's a fire in the building, put it out before you perform any other action there.

Votes

  • Kill, if only for server load reasons (and that's not the only problem I see with it). --Lucero Capell 23:14, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep This might become a killer juggernaut (like that plague that hit World of Warcraft), but then-again it might not; and let Kevan worry about the server problems - many server load problems are easily taken care of with proper coding - cite your different issues. --Squashua 23:26, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, I don't know how kevin would inteplement it, but i agree a fire event would be good.--Spellbinder 23:36, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, This would be great if the power stations did something other than nothing. --THOR 23:14, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - At the design level, this is interesting. --McArrowni 9 Nov 2005
  • Keep I liked the previous version on the Other Ideas page a bit better--one change from this to that I strongly suggest: no user started fires. It's far too open to abuse. There should be some number-crunching going on for the chance of any building to catch fire randomly, involving building type, # of people inside, whatever. Other than that, great as is.--'STER 00:53, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill Look to the future, guys- unless fires don't permanently affect buildings, Malton will become one big pile of rubble. It's just like junkyards and wire cutters. Slicer 22:07, 12 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Re I added a note about keeping buildings persistent that should alleviate your apprehension. --Squashua 19:50, 13 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I'm VERY guardedly in favor of this. The whole thing makes me nervous, but it's too interesting an idea to dismiss out of hand. Only thing is that it makes no sense for the fire axe to be used as a firefighting tool. A fire extinguisher item would have to be added or something. --CWD 20:45, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Re - But... why do real life Firemen have fire axes for fighting fires? :-) Axes provide access; I wouldn't worry so much about implementation. --Squashua 04:36, 19 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I think events in general would be cool, and this one doesn't seem too world-altering, and it makes sense. --Dickie Fux 05:56, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is Urban Dead, where survivors battle zombies, not Urban Firefighting. --Novelty 15:27, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Actually, survivors try to survive, and when a fire breaks out I'm pretty sure they'll deal one way or another with it. Madalex 21:53, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Mind Munch

This got FOUR unopposed spams and no-one removed it? - KingRaptor 06:21, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Hey, we got a life too. :) --Seagull Flock 10:29, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Last Rites

Timestamp: 12:43, 8 Nov 2005 (EST)
Type: Zombie Hunter Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: This skill is a new twist on the other suggestions made for zombie hunters. This skill affects only zombies who have ankle grab. This causes zombies who have ankle grab to have to use 10 ap to stand up. There is no additonal XP gained from having this skill. This skill balances ankle grab and keeps the balance of the game on a level playing field. This skill is good for high level survivors looking for more options to spend xp on that make the game more fun and inventive.

Votes

  • Kill/SPAM Ankle Grab doesn't need nerfing. It was put in the game specifically BECAUSE Zombies had such a hard time with AP. Putting in a skill specifically to neutralise it. This reeks of 'OMG MY SURVIVOR SHOULD BE UBER AND AUTOKILL ALL ZOMBIES PLZKTHX' --Zark the Damned 19:06, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • SPAM, Don't make abilities that cancel out other abilities. You might as well just suggest not having ankle grab, it's the same thing. --Pyrinoc 22:22, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ankle Grab has been introduced for a reason. No need to nerf it. --Seagull Flock 22:40, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - THeres not enough zombie hunters to nerf it. Get a grip and try not voting kill on everything that isnt a zombie skill. --THOR 22:40, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - "Ankle Grab doesn't need to be nerfed", my ass. A horde of zombies with that skill basically has infinite HP, and therefore can do whatever they want. Maybe this shouldn't work 100% of the time, but something has got to be done. --Arcibi 22:52, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill - We are voting for the skills as written I believe. As written, this skill will eventually make ankle grab, in 80% or more of cases, useless. There shoudn't be skills to make other skills utterly useless. If you want to nerf ankle grab, don't remove the whole bonus. McArrowni 23:15, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)McArrowni 8 Nov 2005
  • Kill, I'm getting very annoyed with the false timestamps. don't you idiots relize that there is a server time stamp on it?--Spellbinder 23:40, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill. If Ankle Grab is a problem, deal with it directly. Jirtan 23:57, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, As written, no. You can't nerf it like that. Ankle Grab needs a counter, yes, but this is far too strong. (As all of the counters to it I've seen have been so far.) Shadowstar 23:59, 8 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Kryten 10:24, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill, Ankle Grab might need a little revamping, but nothing this drastic. --Lucero Capell 17:45, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill. Might be okay if it made them take 3 or 4 AP, but negating the skill would put it back to the days before Ankle Grab. Jonesy 16:43, 11 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill We already need to buy ankle grab, when the game first started it used to be just one AP to stand up. Zombies are already underpowered and they would be put back where they were (1 for every 3-4 humans iirc). Zombie hunters also make up about 1/3 - 1/4 of the human population, check the stats.
  • Kill - Kind of useless since a Zombie Hunter does not know whether a Zombie has Ankle Grab or not. Make it more generic so that it costs 3 AP to use and causes a +5 AP penalty to get up (Ankle Grabbers use 6 AP, and regular zoms use 15 AP) and maybe I'll think about it. Of course, at the point this would be applied, the target would already be just a "body" and you never know if you're doing Last Rights to a revivified body, which would thne not work. Too much bookkeeping to be useful. --Squashua 15:38, 14 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - negates the reason for ankle grab.--Deathnut 05:10, 17 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam Zombie standups started at one AP and then got nerfed up to ten. Ankle grab removes that nerfing, why in gods name would Kevan add a nerf to a skill that removes that nerf? --Stroth 23:10, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam - Turning off someone else's abilities is no good. --Dickie Fux 06:03, 21 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Spam -- Ankle Grab was added for a balance reason. Negating it is a bad idea.
  • Kill Deal directly with your perceived issue. Madalex 21:57, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/8th-Nov-2005&oldid=286548"