Talk:Suggestions/13th-Dec-2006

Hunting Skill

• Re Like scent trail this might not work if you were killed. If this fails I'll revise it with that stated. But this is NOT people radar. It's just an estimate of how tired somebody was based on directly looking at them. No super powers. If someone is red in the face and wheezing you can guess they won't make it more than a few blocks. I should clarify this doesn't tell you how tired they are NOW, just how tired they were at the time of the attack. And it is designed to give you an idea of your odds of finding a person. But it doesn't make finding them easier. I'm not sure how that is a problem. ("Haha, I will triumph over all enemies with my 2% chance of finding them!") --Jon Pyre 16:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Re - You don't even understand the mechanics of your own suggestion. If the person who destroyed the generator less than 1 hour ago has 0-5 AP, then they currently have a maximum of 5AP, meaning that they are guaranteed to be somewhere within a 5-block radius. Assuming they're still alive, and that they're free running, you're pretty much guaranteed to find them in a local indoor grid search. Ergo, radar. --Funt Solo 18:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Re I understand them. I don't mean to deny this would let you know what area an enemy must be in. Just your use of 'radar' implies some sort of power to supernaturally sense at a distance. This is just an estimation based on normal observation. And yes, it would be bad for them to hide within five blocks of where they struck. If they were smart they'd leave a bit more AP and escape further. --Jon Pyre 21:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Re - Your habit of double-Re-ing and Reing just about every single vote (clearly against the spirit of this page, and definitely against the rules as written) really pisses me off. It makes me want to auto-spam all your suggestions just on principle. Just to let you know. --Funt Solo 22:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Clarification I only re when there's a new issue raised or if I'm trying to correct an inaccuracy. I don't try to sway opinion after the first re. For instance in this case you say I don't understand the effects of this suggestion while I responded that those effects are precisely what I intended. So let's not call it a re, let's call it a "clarification" which are allowed. --Jon Pyre 23:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the rules again. Clarification notes are to be added to the suggestion, not the votes - and even then it suggests that the suggestion be removed and re-submitted instead. You're just taking the fucking piss, mate. --Funt Solo 09:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Antique muskets/Museum change

Timestamp:	Danny lee 17:29, 12 December 2006 (GMT +5)
Type:	New items/building change/flavor
Scope:	Humans
Description:	Since it was removed due to editing during poll, I have reposted this, with slight fixes. If you read my previous idea, it is generally identical. The museums will now have 2 search buttons. "Search the exhibition hall" and "search the gift shop". Why? Muskets. Yes, Muskets. Old fashioned, robust, an antique. These will be found in museums all over the city of Malton, abandoned in the display cases in various halls. The percentage of finding a musket should about 10 percent in museums. They will be found in the "exhibition hall" within the museums. The ammunition, called "Musket Cartridge" will be found in the gift shop with a finding percentage of 30 percent, as the gift shop sells cartridges to take home. (In Malton of course, not Real Life. The Ammo should have a high chance of finding because the main gun only holds 1 ammo. So if you want to use it, you want alot of ammo for it.) The reason for having a high percentage of finding ammo for the musket is that the musket will only hold 1 bullet when you reload. It will do 10 damage as the general caliber of the bullet was .70 caliber. The damage is reduced to 8 against flak jackets. The base hit percentage is 5%, and increased by "Basic firearm training" (+25%), "long arms training" (+25%) and "Advanced Long arms Training" (10%). To reload a musket, it will cost 2 AP, as it is a very tedious process. "Musket reload training" will reduce the reload to cost 1 AP.

Discussion Er... overpowered. 15% base, plus shotun equals 75% maxed out. Plus, your search percentages are way too high. The added search buttons are useless. -Mark 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Stupid. There would probably be about 3 working antique guns in the entire city. --Funt Solo 09:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• (Stupid) x 10⁹⁹ - Please don't make suggestions anymore.--Gage 09:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Gotta tell ya... I don't think this particular comment was called for. But for some reason, I think somebody is trying to impersonate Gage here. Asheets 21:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Workable. Give it the same accuracy as other firearms, if it'll help. and Funt - how many pistols and shotguns do you think would really be in the city? this isn't so much about reality as something fun to have. --Gateking 10:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I know it's not reality - there are zombies. However, within the confines of the logic of the game world, this doesn't even make sense. It might be cool, if you were the only survivor in a movie, to find an antique musket - but half the players are survivors - that's too many muskets. Now, as for the pistols and unlimited ammo, that can easily be role-played as production lines being set up, or a black market from the military cordon. Custard pies would be fun to have, but I'd vote spam on those as well. --Funt Solo 09:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So your vote against is just for RP purposes? Okay, I get that. But I know myself and quite a few of my friends who play would love having this in game - RP excuses or not. So my question is: with the new changes made (to balance the weapons out), would you have any problem with a majority voting this in? --Gateking 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that find rate is more than a little high. It would be cool to be able to find an antique musket occasioonally but not at 30%. I'm thinking half a percent. Also, flak jackets should reduce the damage by a lot more than 2...probably make the gun do 2 or 3 damage to a flak jacket, since muskets wouldn't have nearly as much power as modern guns. Against exposed flesh, of course, a lot of power makes sense, because those muskets were brutal weapons. This is a great idea, and I think it should be modified and sent back out. Add in antique swords and then you're cooking with a fueled generator (or, really cool, have an "Oriental Museum" with a .0005 percent find rate of Katanas-although I should probably put that in "Humorous Suggestions")--I am 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Changed the find percentage. If we lower the damage to 3 against flak jacket, what about zombies with flak jackets? I think it'll be better as it is. ")--Danny lee 17:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Eat Flesh

Timestamp:	Nimble Zombie 02:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Type:	Zombie health, skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Following my Throw Bone idea, I have come up with a variant, one that is more logical. Even with Digestion, a Zombie can still have a lot of damage and be very low on AP. So, I suggest that Zombies can eat the flesh of corpses. I know, some will think ZOMG READ THE FSI!, but this is different. The zombie is able to eat the flesh of a survivor who they have JUST KILLED. If they did not kill the survivor, they can not eat him or her. This will only come into play if there are 2 or more survivors in one area. When the zombie kills a zurvivor, the zombie eats the flesh of their victim, and is bloodthirsty for the next one, so they eat some of the flesh of their freshly slain victim to gain a TEMPORARY 5 extra AP. Once they have killed all of the survivors in the area, they LOSE 4 AP for each 3 AP gained. This is optional, and is a sub-skill of Digestion for 100 xp

Discussion Hmm...different. But your numbers don't add up. I'd have to KILL 3 survivors for it to even out. Would it round up or down? I would lose 8 AP in addition to the combat AP. I don't think individuals would use it. But for hordes, this could be devastating. You get a couple of zergers who wittle some survivors down to 1 hit kills then the main zombie comes and racks up tons of extra AP.--Pesatyel 03:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC) The game doesn't usually remember things like how many people you've just killed. --Jon Pyre 07:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• So you're adding an ability where zombies can gain AP without waiting a certain amount of time. No. -Mark 16:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

absolutely not a chance, it isn't even well presented here but the gist tells me all i need to know! i would vote yes if gnawing the flesh healed the zombie but that would probably be killed cos its too like digestion!--Honestmistake 17:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you not do all italics? Plus, zombies are such a AP wasting class, it evens out.--Nimble Zombie 03:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Playing with AP (especially when it gives someone more AP) is usually a bad idea, and this illustrates that. First off, this still doesn't make sense because there's no reason a zombie would care who killed the survivor, as long as they are dead and still fresh they would want to eat them. More importantly however, what happens if they don't kill all the survivors in the area? They get free AP, that's what. And just because the math balances out doesn't mean that the effect does. They may end up with less AP at the end (though they could end up with more), but they still end up being able to kill survivors that they ordinarily would not have been able to because they wuld have run out of AP. To sum it all up, getting AP loans is bad. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 21:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, no. Use your common sense. If they leave the area, its the same as if they killed all the survivors. Just because it's not literally written in doesn't mean that it wouldn't be there.

Actually, if it ISN'T literally written in, it means it ISN'T in there, regardless. No assuming.--Pesatyel 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

---