Talk:Suggestions/29th-Dec-2006

Outbreak

Timestamp:	01:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Type:	Game Event.
Scope:	Single Suburb.
Description:	As the quarantine stretches into a second year, sanitation is at an all time low. Outbreaks of virulent disease break out in the most run-down suburbs: Once every 2-5 days (determined randomly), one suburb suffers an outbreak of a virulent infectious disease. The outbreak lasts until the next outbreak occurs (ie 2-5 days). Only one suburb at any one time can be suffering from an outbreak. Determining which suburb: The server calculates the 10 suburbs with the most ransacked buildings. One of them is randomly chosen. (This was based on corpse numbers, but that's too easily infuenced by zergers, and anyway - if many buildings are ransacked, it stands to reason that a suburb either is or was crawling with zombies and has or had lots of corpses.) Plague effects: Any of the following has a % chance (listed) of causing a survivor to become infected (as per Infectious Bite). 10%: Any wound caused by a zombie's natural weapons. 5%: Any wound from any other weapon that occurs inside a ransacked building. 5%: Any wound from any other weapon that occurs outdoors. 10%: Any contact with a corpse (ie throwing one out of a building). 5%: Other close contact with a zombie (ie DNA scanning or revivifying, but not attacking). Infection causes the survivor to lose 1HP for each action they perform, except for speech. The infection is curable as normal with a FAK. Notes: Yes, this is a zombie-friendly suggestion. It's supposed to create a zombie stronghold suburb for a few days - but that stronghold will randomly shift every few days. It's a reward for zombies playing to type and taking out entire 'burbs en masse. In the affected 'burb it will punish trenchcoaters and promote defensive play to build up non-ransacked safehouses. The idea is to have disease as part of the game, but limit it so that it doesn't become a game-wide pandemic. This is also supposed to be fun - if your horde infects the 'burb, that's something to boast about. There would be some kind of flavour-text indicating obvious effects of the outbreak. Eg. There are 3 corpses here, bloated with disease. This should make it clear to zombies and survivors that the 'burb is infected. Flavour text would indicate when you've been infected.

Keep Votes

1. Keep, actually He did mention 10% chance.. now when you think about it.. each time you toss a body, smack people with weapons etc.. you could get infected. Or from a zombie claw.. the main reason I'm for it is because we have a radio in the game and humans can communicate (watch out for Ridleybank, there's been a massive outbreak!) So people can avoid or get the hell out of the area, if they can.. could allow zombies a chance to wreck and ransack some more buildings. But hey, could help newbie zombies infect some people. The funny thing, is PKers could literally end up infecting someone (or themselves) just for being there too long.. ironic way to get yourself infected. Seems fair. Look at it this way, survivors have free running.. so.. a little "action" every now and again or having to flee an entire suburb would actually be kind of cool. Should be some kind of XP grant for survivors, like +1 XP if you cure infection on another survivor in an outbreak suburb, if you re-submit this idea. MrAushvitz 09:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
   

Kill Votes

1. Kill Free infections? I don't think so. Infectious bite is perfectly balanced. --Jon Pyre 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
2. kill free infections? yes please, just not quite like this. think the 1 suburb area is too large, make it the 9 or even 25 square area in the suburb with the most bodies and i think it will get my keep! --Honestmistake 01:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Kill - Lower the chance to about 5%, and then maybe. If there is a outbreak going on, survivors already have it bad. Having a high chance of infection would make things unbearable. Survivors will leave until the infection passes, but fewer will do so with a lower chance. --The Surgeon General ^DHPD 02:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
4. kill as written here, but I'll change to keep if my recommendation on the discussion page is implemented. Asheets 02:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Kill - great idea, badly implemented. Percentages should be lower, and other ways of getting infected should be invented. Just average zombie attacks turned into infectious bites? Say ouch to a besieged mall in a ruined suburb. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 03:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Kill - This one has the possibility to be good if it is revised, this requires too many steps and that rate of infection? I don't think so. --Darkvengance 05:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Beyond moving COMPLETELY out of the suburb, can't people do ANYTHING to alleviate the problem? I mean if it based on ransacked buildings, would fixing the ransacks (among other things) cause the problem to go away?--Pesatyel 05:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Kill - Are you trying to give zombies an edge in survivor-dominated suburbs? --Wikidead 06:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Kill - This hits survivors where they're already having a hard time (the most ransacked suburbs)... chances are there's not going to be many survivors in such a suburb anyway. There are some pretty barren areas out there. Make the infection localised (as Honestmistake), and in high survivor population areas, and you may get a keep though -- boxy ^{T L PA DA} 07:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Kill - Free infections? No.--J Muller 08:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    

Spam/Dupe Votes
Spam/Dupe Votes here

Discussion

like what you are trying but... its very unfair on survivors in already messed up areas! realism wise it might make sense due to the rotting corpses but game wise it might be the final straw for hard pressed survivors. Might work better in the 'statisticaly' most populated area, lets just say the loo backed up and leave it at that! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HonestMistake (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Yes, the idea is to make one suburb a zombie stronghold - difficult to retake. --Funt Solo 01:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea. It will help keep survivors guessing and too throw a question of whether to spend that AP barricading or killing. --Fullemtaled 04:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to define the time frame. Once per week? Would that be one 24 hour period? 2 hours? I also think 25% is a bit too high. Most people will just stay snug in an EHB building and not do anything (relative to zombies) during the period in question...assuming anyone thinks it a serious situation.--Pesatyel 07:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought that "once per week" did define the time frame. It's once per week, for a week. Just to be extra clear. --Funt Solo 09:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This has now been edited. --Funt Solo 00:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Er... I don't really like the idea, to be honest. I see what you're trying to do, but it's essentially, "Every four actions infects you." -Mark 01:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one suburb would be a really inconveniant place to live for survivors. Gives zombies a real bonus for taking out a 'burb en masse. I know it's a kooky idea. I'm looking for something that introduces the effects of disease without creating a game-wide pandemic. Any changes you'd make for a Keep? --Funt Solo 11:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well... Possibly make it so that with a FAK or something lowers the chances to 10% or so. Of course, the suburb with the most bodies is going to be the most zombie-infested, as well, so I think it's much to heavily swung in zombie direction. Actually, this is what you should do: lower the chances to 10%. Much better, and liveable. -Mark 16:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Rereading this you DO realizes this is BEYOND zergible, not to mention incurable (so to speak). I mean it is dependent ENTIRELY on the number of DEAD BODIES in the suburb. The only way to get rid of dead bodies is to wait for them to idle out. And it wouldn't even take AP for someone to pop in a character, get them turned into a dead body then log them in every 5 days to cause a permanent epidimic. Ridleybank, for example, could, theoretically remain the most "dead body" populated suburb on the map with zerged bodies and being the suburb with the most bodies, it would ALWAYS be plague ridden.--Pesatyel 05:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, changed back to ransacked buildings - what do you think of it now? --Funt Solo 11:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My problem with this is the same whether it is ransacked buildings or number of corpses. This is an anti-survivor shield spell, pure and simple. If someone made a suggestion that there was a new innoculation given to survivors in the most survivor heavy suburb and it had the same effects on zombies as this suggestion has on survivors (gradual loss of AP until performing some complex action, with similar AP costs to finding and using a FAK), you'd be the first to get out the can opener and serve a big old can of spam. Now, that said it is a fun mechanic. I might support this if it only effects the single building with the largest population of dead bodies. So, if the NW corner of Ackland has 350 bodies in it, it is not a healthy place. The stench alone would make a survivor sick. A whole suburb is too big, though. I definitely would support it if being infected made you immune to the plague thereafter, even though it might be unfair to newbies. --Nosimplehiway 16:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still see SOME zerge-abuse potential (but not as bad as the other version). Create a bunch of zerge zombies to "hold the fort" in ransacked buildings. Of course, that is mitigated by the fact survivors can kill/revive the zombies and dump the bodies.--Pesatyel 04:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, Pesatyel, that threat exists throughout the entire game. You could as well say that any new zombie anything is open to zerg-abuse, countered by any new survivor anything being open to zerg-abuse. --Funt Solo 10:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes and people frequently do say just that! I like the idea of it infecting a smaller area but that means it will almost always target a Mall, perhaps if it had a percentile chance of breaking out anywhere with more than 50 bodies equal to 10% of the corpses IE: 65 bodies = 6% chance. That would make it a lot less predictable, combine it with an area effect so it affects the square in question at 25% with 10% for joining sections (by that i mean any area you can get to in 1 move without free-running) As for duration I would say 3-5 days would be best. --Honestmistake 13:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it again, based on the discussion so far. (You can tell which points I agreed or disagreed with by noting the changes.) --Funt Solo 13:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It might work better altogether if the burb is chosen once every 7 days at 0Z, and for the next 24 hours everybody that is zombified is automatically infected and will lose HP upon revive until a FAK is applied. I like the general idea alot, though -- it creates lots of strategy implications. Plus, I think you'll find that this spawns new user groups in the game; one to ransack as much as possible, and another to repair as much as possible. You'd probably want to add to your suggestion an addition to the statistics page listing the 10 "eligible" suburbs at any given time. Asheets 22:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC) }}

---

Military Districts

Timestamp:	December 29, 1:49, 2006
Type:	Change
Scope:	Suburbs
Description:	This is a suggestion that is not against pking(I however can't stand it)But a solution for those who do not wish to be pked. As time passed by the military began recieving reports of survivors killing each other. They were not worried about it until one day the killers began stealing from them and even killing their soliders. Now they have set up military districts in which they police the area for any of these murderers. They kill on sight because they can see all of which has happened in the suburb with the old news city camera system and police city camera system. Effects: Anyone who is pks in a military district will be hunted down in 2 minutes after the killing unless they leave the district. The military can communicate with each other, they will hunt you down if you re enter a military district if you have pked in one. The military uses their own branch of firepower so do not expect to be able to survive the attack. People finally have a heaven from pkers. Zombies may be attracted to these military districts. Suburbs to become Military Districts- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Currently waiting for suggestions for military district suburbs. Give me some suggestions for the districts and here are the only regulations. 1. Must be in or around the center city 2. Must be in or around the southeastern city 3. Must be in or around the northeastern city 4. Must be in or around the northwestern city 5. Must be in or around the southwestern city Back in the day we didn't have to sign these suggestions so stfu sign whining bitches, heres my signature Afroman. Answers These aren't npc characters, this is an effect, not a character. The military have snipers posistioned on the rooftops which we can't see if you want to know what kills you. Did it say it affected the military class? No it said that anyone pking in a military district will be killed after 2 minutes staying there. The military has the power to completly eradicate the entire city. Somewhere in the game it says that the military's goal is not to eradicate the zombies but to help the survivors escape. So obviously it would be in their best intrests to kill pkers first rather than zombies because pkers can hide in the ranks of the living. Who said they wanted to keep them out of the forts? They are not holding districts, they are watching them for murderers. 2 minutes is enough time to leave a suburb even on dial-up(Which I have)

Discussion You are joking aren't you, whoever you are? --Honestmistake 13:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

NO. 1. You didn't sign your suggestion. 2. There are no NPC characters in this game. 3. One minute is not enough time, and there's no reasonable explaination on how that would happen. 4. How does this effect players that have a military character class? 5. The military can't even keep the zombies out of the forts, how are they going to hold entire districts? 6. Did I mention you need to sign your suggestion? (Geez, I'm cranky today...) --Uncle Bill 19:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule I can find that says that a suggestion must be signed by the author. The template has a space for the date, which many people also use to place their signature, but otherwise, I don't see anything that insists on a sig. --Funt Solo 11:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, signature or no signature, this suggestion is... ummm... how do I put this? Unthinkable. I mean, I dislike Pking as much as anyone, probably moreso, but the means by which this author proposes to deal with it goes against the entire premise of the game. There is no civil authority here. There are no consequences here. You are on your own here. We are all dead, and we are in hell. --Nosimplehiway 14:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Definate Kill' For one umm just no, 2 you didn't sign your post, 3 this is a stupid suggestion, 4 there are no NPCs 5 ummmm just noDarkvengance 03:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

PKing is too powerful but autokilling people if they don't move is way way way overpowered. --Jon Pyre 05:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You just keep telling yourself that about Pking. Wont make it true, but if it makes you feel better, who am i to judge? --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 05:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Burn Bodies

Timestamp:	FireWarlord 04:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Type:	Zombie Hunter Skill
Scope:	Allows humans to do something with dead bodies besides dumping them on the doorstep
Description:	With proper care and the right equipment, bodies of the recently dead should be burned to prevent them from rising again. This would be a Zombie Hunter class skill allowing zombie hunters to burn dead bodies without causing damage to surrounding buildings. Using a flare gun and a fuel can a zombie hunter can spend ten AP to burn up to five dead bodies in a block, the flare and fuel can are used up in the process. Bodies that are burned are placed in a cemetery at least ten blocks away where they can safely rise again. The text that could accompany this action could be "You drag X body/bodies into the street and douse it/them in gasoline. You step far back and fire your flare into the body/bodies and watch it ignite the fuel, burning the body/bodies.". If you lack the fuel can when trying this it would say "The bodies are too wet to be ignited by the flare gun alone, you'll need to add fuel.", lacking the flare it would say "You'll need a source of fire to ignite the fuel and burn the bodies.". Text for the burned characters could say "USER the Zombie Hunter has burned your lifeless body, however, A mystical force pulls your soul towards a nearby cemetery where a new body awaits." Bodies can only be burned outside of a building.

Discussion

Moving people great distances is a big no-no. --Jon Pyre 04:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it would have to move a certain distance, zombies are too strong right now. What would be a fair distance? --FireWarlord 04:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A 'mystical force'? Huh? And why would one use XP to burn bodies? And wouldn't the bodies in a cemetery be too decayed to rise again? Why do survivors need even more buffs? They already got guns, barricades, and first aid kits. Finally, being able to send 5 zombies at a time 10 blocks away would completely ruin the whole "Zombie vs Survivor" game thing. This suggestion has a vague amount of potential, but it also has more gaps then a loosely barricaded building.--Lachryma 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Survivors don't have buffs, it's impossible for them to win a siege aside from the zombies getting bored, which is damned impossible. Being able to push the dead bodies a few blocks away would at least be a slightly better detterent than the retardedly weak "headshot". If a human dies they have to shamble several blocks to get a revive point and another human has to spend many ap looking for and using a revive needle. not to mention aditional ap for the revived body to stand up a second time. Pushing a dedicated zombie corpse a few blocks away still isn't even half as bad as what the human side still has to go through to come back. And I meant to say 10 AP--FireWarlord 07:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I said mystical force because it doesn't cross into any known religion and I was trying to avoid leaving someone out and offending them.... okay? --FireWarlord 07:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

DUPE from PEER REJECTED. Teleporting people is BAD (dumping bodies not withstanding). Don't like have a "lot" of zombies outside? Move somewhere else! Nobody says you have to live in the mall or other resource buildings. And what about burning bodies at the cemetaries? Do they go to another cemetary? Also, this isn't Nexus War where your soul inhabits another body. A lot of players like the idea that their character stays the same.--Pesatyel 06:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So what? the zombies can just camp out at the mall or other important building forever whilst the human has to look around for a revive? That's not very fair. Sure, the humans have guns but it takes lots of searching for that. All the ap used in killing zombies barely takes away from what they spend to recover. Burning bodies in a cemetery would give a sacred ground error message saying you cannot desecrate the dead here.--FireWarlord 07:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the balance between survivors and zombies is extremely delicate, and something like this would totally upset it. You say that survivors can't end a seige unless the zombies get bored - but do you realise that you need four times more active zombies than survivors to get a break-in? You say Headshot is weak - but the AP penalty is a lot for zombies without Ankle Grab. You say guns need a lot of searching, but that's why they're so much more powerful than anything that zombies have. You say that the AP spent killing zombies isn't worth it - that's perfectly right, and that's why survivors don't bother killing zombies outside a building unless they need XP or they're retards. Being able to teleport five bodies at a time over a great distance would seriously upset the balance. -- Ashnazg 0014, 30 December 2006 (GMT)

Its too late for something like this. If it had been possible to destroy zombies from day 1 then maybe, but in this game it is fundamental that your body is the one you are in regardless of living state. If a zombie body is destroyed so is the survivors and that will not work here as we have a supposedly finite number of bodies. I prefer to imagine each zombie as being the bright one in a pack leading the others on which explains why it takes so many shotgun rounds to fell one, this also explains why you don't get to destroy them... there is just not time! --Honestmistake 13:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Firewarlord, that Zombies have a much easier life cycle. And, on the surface, it seems tremendously unfair to most newcomers, but the bottom line is that there is little support on these suggestions pages for anything that assists Survivors. IMHO, back in the day there developed a belief that zombies were weak and screwed because back then they were. Now that they have been buffed up a bit (more expensive revives, ransack, feeding drag, gestures, only dumping a single body at a time, etc.) the immediate reaction of "zombies are underpowered as it is" still holds sway. That belief is not going to change any time soon, and so, unfortunately, no matter how good this suggestion is, and it does still need work on its own merits, it will never pass.--Nosimplehiway 14:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You'd be much better off implementing a "body drag" suggestion that forces the dragger to use lots of AP for lots of dragee movement. Otherwise, you could potentially move a body 20 blocks or an entire suburb away for the low cost of 3 AP. Asheets 17:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think zombies are overly powerful. But even if they were this would completely ruin their ability to lay siege to a building. They'd have to waste a bunch of AP each day lurching back to their target, plus whatever headshot cost them. --Jon Pyre 17:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't play with matches. Burning bodies with fuel and flares would be cool, but not cool enough to move the bodies. The "mystical force" thing is also out of character with the game (where crucifixes do nothing). If burning bodies did anything in the context of this game, it would make them do more damage to people and buildings, but slowly drain their HP (the way infection does to people). Sorry, but I have to say no. --Uncle Bill 18:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, but there needs to be a compromise. The player should only be able to burn one body at a time, The body doesn't get taken by a 'mystical force' to a cemetry, but they have to spend an additional ( debatable ) amount of AP to stand Magsmagsmags 02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving bodies = No. "Mystical force" = No. In short, absolutely not. -Mark 19:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think its a good idea. Holding out against a zombie horde you probably have a low chance that the zombies are going to get bored and walk off. This would provide an ample deterrance for the zombie player to just return. Sure, nothing stops the player from coming back and hitting the mall, and all it would do is waste about 10-20 AP coming back. No big deal, it almost balances out the searching for FAK's, weapons and anything else. This isn't perma kill, and people should stop critising on wording. If Firewarlord had put "And God brings their bodies back" how would any religion or state of mind which doesn't believe in God feel? Also, those who feel this couldn't work because the bodies have been destroyed, it was used in the film Return of the Living Dead, where they did indeed butn the bodies, but the chemicals got into the rain, rain pours on graveyard, and the zombies rise. With a bit of tweeking and imagination this would be fine. I mean, we're playing a text based game...Imagination is all we have. --Emanikufesin 02:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There are easier ways to deal with a zombie horde outside. Like NOT sleeping in a mall/nt/resource building. Zombies go where the food is and they KNOW there is always going to be food in the mall/nt/resource building. How often are, say junkyards and motels hit by zombies? FireWarlord is also forgetting about the "safety in numbers" that a mass of people represents. If 200 people are in your square in the mall, even if a large horde breaks in, the odds of them getting to YOU are less (and killing YOU even less). But the main problem is how would YOU feel if you spent all that time getting to where you were just for some asshole to teleport you across the suburb (say your in Stobbard Walk PD in Darkerstown you would get teleported TEN squares to the cemetary on the OTHER SIDE of the suburb!). Plus this would be HELL on newbies who already have a 2 AP move. Imagine your trying to get a revive and someone teleports you and you have to spend 16 AP OR MORE just to walk back! But this is still overpowered. 5 bodies is A LOT! And Return of the Living Dead was special circumstance. If, by burning the bodies caused all the survivors in the square to turn into zombies or something, then it would be applicable. Here it isn't. We don't really need to be greifing zombie players just to make our own (survivor) lives easier when a little PLANNING will do that for us.--Pesatyel 05:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Balances out the searching"? The balancing for searching comes in the fact that survivors can actually use what they search for - guns, FAKs, syringes - most of which are better than anything the zombies have. There's also the fact that zombies need four times more AP to break down barricades than survivors need to set them up. Balance already exists in the game, and further tweaks must be very carefully carried out to avoid disrupting it. Possibly this suggestion would be accepted if it coincided with a zombie buff. -- Ashnazg 1809, 30 December 2006 (GMT)

The size of the buff to zombies required for this would be along the lines of giving them a Missile attack that they can use to shoot into building through barricades instakilling a person at a time. That aint happening, and neither will this. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 02:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So I guess that means you're against the Zombie Rocket Launcher? --Uncle Bill 04:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No. No i am not. So long as they are restricted to shooting down helicopters. --Grim s-^{Mod U!} 04:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no magic. Magic is bad. I've thought of similiar things before (like a sort of "permanent death" where you would die but then the player would take control of someone else in a different area who just happened to have the same skills and items), but I've rejected each one of them for various reasons. But the voters here are vehemently opposed to anything that moves their characters against their will (unless it's already in the game, of course...). --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 03:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Artillery Strikes

Timestamp:	--Lachryma 20:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Type:	Game Mechanic
Scope:	Every player in the border suburbs
Description:	Okay, when a survivor meets these criteria: Has the Radio Operation skill Willing to spend 10 AP Is in a powered building with a radio transmitter Is in one of the border suburbs of Malton (like Dakerstown or Dulston) Then they can spend 10 AP and broadcast on a new, special channel (could have its own button) to request an artillery strike on their position. This could only be done once per day at each building. Players attempting another strike would receive a message and lose no AP. Anyway, this artillery strike would have the following effects: Up to 15 zombies outside would get damaged for 10 HP, but those with 11 or less HP would be unaffected. Survivors inside would receive a message (as this is once per day there wouldn't be much spam) The barricades would lose at least one level and there is a high (60%?) chance that the entire barricade would be demolished. Concerns Yes, this does allow attacks through barricades, but as your 'cades are probably going to be demolished, it balances out. Griefing would be a problem...except the once-per-day limit should cut back on that. Also, survivors in the suburbs affected could work to destroy radio transmitters if griefing became a major headache. The mass damage is not going to be popular, but as no zombie will die from this and I think most zombies will welcome trenchcoaters trying to hurt them and, in the process, destroying their only protection. Role playing reason Well, the military has been trying to help out with the forts, and now they want to aid desperate survivors in artillery range. The only reason hardcore survivors would use this would be to annoy zombies outside before leaving an almost compromised safe house, but PKer groups and Death Cultists would a ball with this, adding to UD's danger and fun. The low damage and zero chance of zombie death is explained by explosives not really hurting zeds, unless shrapnel happened to shred their skulls.

Discussion

Just an idea. Tell me what you think.--Lachryma 20:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't have much to add at the moment, but I'll give you this link from Peer Rejected.--Pesatyel 21:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...that one is vaguely different, but I see your point. I probably won't suggest this, unless I get a lot of positive feed back or something. Thanks for finding that.--Lachryma 21:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the military would want to waste ammntion because some Private, Scientist or Civilian says "Hey, gimmie an artillery strike!" They wouldn't waste a good, expensive missile or shell to damage a few zombies. Good premise, I just don't like the fact that anyone who can operate the restricted channels is allowed to direct military fire that a commander or a General could probably only order. Seriously, who would an artilley fire for? A General or some lowly buck private stuck in a city full of zombies? The General, that's who, because he's the high rank. Until we're allowed to have ranks on military people and everyone else, this idea is just not going to happen Kaylee Hans 22:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think artillery shells are that expensive. Or if you like, you can think of this as mortar rounds, which explains both the border suburb restriction and the military's agreement to help anyone on the radio. If you're going to stick to utter realism though, imagine you are a soldier enforcing the quarantine of Malton. Besides leaving your citizens to be eaten alive, you also hear almost constant pleas for help on the radio. Wouldn't you want to help civilians however you could?--Lachryma 22:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you were a military General, outside of the city, safe from the zombies and with a good supply of tea, would you listen to some report from a private saying "Hey I need an artillery strike!" I wouldn't, because I'm the General, I'm safe and I don't think a shell would be wasted on such a building because some Private who can't hold his ground wants it. Perhaps if a scout asked for it, I'd consider lifting a finger, but no, artillery strikes are used for high level commanders and they don't need privates and scouts and civilians going around asking for strikes at certain positions, when we can see what's going on with satellites and radar.

Seriously, if a Civilian or a Scientist asked for a shell to be dropped on their position, would you do it? They are not in the military, they are a civilian and they want support. A General does not take orders from civilians. Ok, so this suggestion is bad in respects of what it does to the enemy and that, it's not realistic, in the sense that, in a zombie apocalypse, military Generals don't order artillery strikes because a Civilian wanted one. Kaylee Hans 08:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a point, but you have to consider the psychological factor. If I was a general, warm and safe in my bunker, and I heard people getting eaten alive on the radio every day for more then a year, I bet I wouldn't too happy with doing nothing. Also, I imagine some generals would have a lot of respect for civilians fighting the walking dead with only pistols and shotguns, so they'd be willing to help those they considered their equals. However, you have real point about the military and its pride.--Lachryma 23:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh hell yes! Caiger Mall and trenchies here I come! Erm. A tad unbalanced, methinks. --The Supreme Court ^RR 23:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This breaks several no-nos. It's elitist (border suburbs only & 1 per day per building), it shoots through cades, it's an area of effect weapon. Trust me - it'll get spammed. Heavily. From orbit.--Funt Solo 23:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I figured as much. Thanks for the input. I thought it all balanced out, but oh well.--Lachryma 23:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember, if you have to balance an ability by making it only available to a few players (ie one per building per day, only in the border suburbs), it's probably overpowered. Also, area of effect weapons are generally a no-no because one player could get to do an amazing amount of damage - here 150HP damage for only 10AP - which is 15HP per AP - nothing else in the game can touch that. Also, there's a question to it's use - so 15 zombies go down by 10HP - zombies keep telling me they don't care about losing HP because they just stand up again with full health - meanwhile you might have brought your own 'cades down. Pointless. --Funt Solo 23:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The restriction weren't so much to balance it: they were more about flavor. I understand why area-of-effect is bad (Let's kill 'em all with rocket launchers! Wait, there's no more zombie players...). Sure it's pointless for a gung-ho survivor to use this, but it would make life a bit more...interesting in safe suburbs and the such. I don't know, that's just my point of view, but I definitely see where you're coming from on this. --Lachryma 23:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to think up a way of doing something similar. My idea is to require radio operation to call in a helicopter strike, 25AP to use, and 10 zed:1 human ratio on the block where the radio is. The helicopters would show up to do a recon sometime in the next 12 hours, and only attack if the ration was still in place. All zeds/humans outside during the actual attack would lose an individually-calculated amount of HP. It wouldn't slow down a mall seige very much (in fact, I figure that the 10:1 ratio wouldn't be met very often), couldn't be used as a griefing weapon (again, the ratio and the fact that you'd have to get a lot of humans outside for some reason). And a way to prevent it would be for a zed or spy to kill the radio/gen. Asheets 03:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Something else I was thinking about with the discussion: Experience. Does the person calling the strike get it all? Get none? That's of major importance to a game like Urban Dead where, for the most part, gaining experience is the end-all-be-all of existance. (Granted I don't think that SHOULD be the case but, currently, it is).--Pesatyel 05:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, for one main reason. Getting up in a zombie's face and sticking it with a needle teaches you a lot, but watching your 'cades get blown down and seeing the zeds outside stagger a bit from the explosion wouldn't really teach you much about anything. So no, no experience. That's my take, anyway.--Lachryma 06:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen a zombie movie that had artillery strikes, but I've seen zombie movies with assault rifles and machine guns. If those are out of flavor, then this definitely is. And the fact that it's really only useful for PKers is also against the do's and do not's. There's also the whole rank thing that others have mentioned. And finally, if the military had any intention of actually trying to eliminate the zombies (rather than quarantine them) they would have dropped the bomb on Malton a long time ago. Clearly, they either A) have interest in the zombies, B) are being bribed by someone else who does have interest in the zombies (coughNecroTechcough), or C) don't want to upset the public by firing on civilians. It's an interesting premise, but it wouldn't be a good idea. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 18:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever read World War Z? Artillery is mentioned to an extent in there, and I've always been intrigued by the concept of using artillery to combat zombies. This suggestion doesn't help PKers (how would it?), it helps zombies as well as providing a bit more war torn flavor to Malton. I don't think of this as a military measure to eliminate zombies, but more as the military is feeling a touch guilty about what they've done. Anyway, thanks for your comments and time.--Lachryma 19:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Really overpowered. You're letting thousands of survivors call in military strikes daily you know... --Jon Pyre 00:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but for one thing, damaging zombies doesn't really stop them or anything. Also, the constant damage to barricades would be kinda...bad for those thousands of survivors. Then again, that would probably increase the server load a decent amount...--Lachryma 23:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Karloth, Caiger, is not in a border suburb. I would vote keep, but take the area of affect down to 5-10.--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^P 04:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just made up 15 or less. 5 zombies affected would work well. Wow, someone said they'd vote for this!--Lachryma 23:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest making a mega skill which only veterans can perform so this doesn't get abused, make it something like artillery caller or something and make it available only to the zombie hunters(lvl 10+)and make it cost 2000 experience or else the zombies and make it so that you have to send the coordinates through the channel or something. I'm for this since I live in Dulston and Rhodenbank. Oh and one more thing, there should be at least one zombie outside for the military to agree with the strike.Afroman

Make your idea a bit more clear, flesh it out, and slap it up on this page. It certainly has merit, though I disagree with the requirement of a zombie outside. That lets people see through barricades (It wouldn't let me call in a strike, so I should be safe here!) and the idea of a misplaced strike destroying the barricade without touching a single zombie is very entertaining.--Lachryma 23:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see this cost XP too, but less than 2000. Maybe 300? --Toejam 04:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehehee, that misplaced strike thingy was kinda funny. But seriously, Afroman said some stuff that made sense (by my standard, anything does), so what about usable by level 40s or something, or level 42s, 'cause there are so few survivors with brain rot (I only know George Bush,) that these would be rare, and so every level 1 in Dulston isn't artillery striking a lone zombie they saw, or a EHB building to destroy cades so they can get in. Cap'n Silly ^GUGG!02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to have, once per day, a completely random airstrike that damages both humans and zombies that are outside, and damages all barricades within its radius. Think of the fear factor on both sides. You hear an incoming whine and then your world explodes...--SporeSore 18:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

---