|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Suggestion Navigation}} | | <noinclude>{{Developing Suggestions Intro}}</noinclude> |
| ==Developing Suggestions==
| |
| ''This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which '''have not yet been submitted''' and are still being worked on.''
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Further Discussion===
| |
| Discussion concerning this page takes place [[Talk:Developing Suggestions|here]].
| |
| Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general (including policies about it) takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Suggestion_Discussion|here]].
| |
|
| |
|
| Nothing on this page will be archived.
| | ===Ignore based on Radio Broadcast=== |
| | | {| |
| == Please Read Before Posting == | | |'''Timestamp:''' [[User:Khwud|Khwud]] ([[User talk:Khwud|talk]]) 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC) |
| | | |- |
| *''Be sure to check [[Frequently Suggested#The List|The Frequently Suggested List]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots | Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]] before you post your idea.'' There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a '''dupe''', or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. '''These include [[Suggestions/RejectedNovember2005#SMG.2FMachine_Pistol|Machine Guns]] and [[Suggestions/24th-Apr-2007#Rooftops.2C_Sniper_Rifle.2C_and_Sniper_Ammo|Sniper Rifles]]'''. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.
| | |'''Type:''' UI enhancement |
| *Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.
| | |- |
| *It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.
| | |'''Scope:''' Interface |
| *<font color="red">'''With the advent of new game updates, users are requested to allow some time for the game and community to adjust to these changes ''before'' suggesting alterations.'''</font>
| | |- |
| | | |'''Description:''' Allow 'ignore' from radio broadcasts; users are hiding behind their anonymity to allow them to broadcast things that would broadly trigger them to be ignored, if their user ID was visible. Adding their name, or an auto-generated call-sign (it is for a radio, after all) or something so that they could be blocked based on their broadcasts would help user experience. In addition, and broadcasts that get more than a threshold number could get tagged for review, and the user potentially having their (in-game) ham-license revoked. |
| == How To Make a Suggestion ==
| | |} |
| | | ====Discussion (Ignore based on Radio Broadcast)==== |
| ====Format for Suggestions under development====
| |
| | |
| Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header
| |
| "'''[[Developing Suggestions#Suggestions|Suggestions]]'''", paste the copied text '''above''' the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in <span style="color: red">red</span> with the details of your suggestion.
| |
| | |
| <nowiki>
| |
| ===</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion</font><nowiki>===
| |
| {{suggestionNew | |
| |suggest_time=~~~~
| |
| |suggest_type=</nowiki><font color="red">Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.</font><nowiki>
| |
| |suggest_scope=</nowiki><font color="red">Who or what it applies to.</font><nowiki>
| |
| |suggest_description=</nowiki><font color="red">Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.</font><nowiki> | |
| |discussion=|}}
| |
| ====Discussion (</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion Name</font><nowiki>)====
| |
| ----</nowiki>
| |
| | |
| ====Cycling Suggestions====
| |
| Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit.
| |
| | |
| This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the [[Developing Suggestions/Overflow1|Overflow]]-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.
| |
| :'''The following suggestions are currently on the Overflow page:''' ''No suggestions are currently in overflow''.
| |
| | |
| If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the <nowiki>{{SNRV|X}}</nowiki> at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.
| |
| | |
| __TOC__
| |
| | |
| <span style="font-size:1.5em"><font color="red">'''Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.'''</font></span>
| |
| ----
| |
| | |
| ==Suggestions==
| |
| | |
| ===Bulk SMS Messaging===
| |
| {{suggestionNew
| |
| |suggest_time={{User:J.W.}} 03:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| |suggest_type=improvement, flavor
| |
| |suggest_scope=Characters with mobile phones
| |
| |suggest_description=Right now you can only send text messages to one person at a time. This change would allow players to send the same text message to multiple recipients at a cost of 1 AP.
| |
| | |
| The obvious benefit is that it saves survivors AP when they want to send the same text message to multiple survivors at the same time. However, I don't think this changes AP dynamics at all since the same thing can already be accomplished via a radio transmission (albeit publicly instead of privately), and almost every mobile phone can already do this in real life.
| |
| | |
| Therefore, this is really just a minor way to improve in game communication for survivors (and zombies who carry mobiles), hopefully making the game more fun all around.
| |
| | |
| (And this is my first suggestion ever...so please be gentle)
| |
| |discussion=|}}
| |
| ====Discussion (Bulk SMS Messaging)====
| |
| You've pretty much nailed why this can't be passed in your own explanation, mate. SMS works because it's private and so more useful for coordination than the radio. Making it so easy to mass-message people would be an enormous communication buff. It's a balance thing: Radio is AP-efficient but public, SMS is AP-inefficient but private. Edit: You mention that in real life mass-messaging is easy and that is correct, but it also costs money per message sent. In-game the cost is AP. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 16:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I suppose the only way I could see this working in game would be to put an increased ap cost to use it and limit the number of recipients (like 5 ap to message 10 people or something of the sort). Good first suggestion though. Keep them up! --[[User:Johnny Bass|Johnny Bass]] 16:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I like the idea of being able to send the same message to multiple people. Right now this is a pain. I agree, though, that it would have to cost 1 AP for each recipient. --{{User:Lois_Millard/sig}} 17:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Hmm you guys are right, it is probably more of a survivor buff than I thought, so an added AP cost seems warranted, though I don't think it should be too high...The reason being, if a player or group of players wanted, they could set up a twitter feed, or an irc channel, or a password protected forum, or whatever else, to easily get to this level of communication. Wouldn't this change simply reduce the need for meta-gaming that already occurs and bring more of the game play inside the game? Otoh, i guess metagaming does have its place in UD.
| |
| | |
| And thanks for the feedback! --[[User:J.W.|J.W.]] 9:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ---- | |
| | |
| ===Spec Ops training===
| |
| {{suggestionNew
| |
| |suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | |
| |suggest_type=Skill
| |
| |suggest_scope=Survivors mostly
| |
| |suggest_description=''After spending so much time in the military, you have learnt how to use gestures as a form of silent communication. Unfortunately, though, regular folk don't understand a lot of it.''
| |
| | |
| New military skill, survivor-equivalent of Flailing Gesture.
| |
| | |
| In additioned to the gestures available to zombies, a user with Spec Ops training can use specialist gestures (which appear in a second drop-down box to the left of the direction one) to indicate 'hostiles', 'friendlies' and 'assistance needed'. However, unless the other users have Spec Ops training, they will not understand the connotations of such gestures, instead seeing ''[Name] made a complicated gesture towards [direction/building/person]''
| |
| | |
| A Spec. Ops gesture can be made with a direction but no connotation, or with a connotation without a direction, i.e. ''[Name] made the gesture for [friendlies/hostiles/assist]'', or ''[Name] gestured to [direction/building/person]''
| |
| | |
| When compared to speaking, this can designate less information, but to more people (everyone).
| |
| | |
| A zombie with Spec Ops training and Memories of Life can also translate Spec Ops gestures.
| |
| |discussion=|}}
| |
| ====Discussion (Spec Ops training)====
| |
| Hey, not a bad idea, but i'm a little concerned about whether its actually necessary... Zombies cant talk so its a useful skill but humans can talk. I understand that only those with the skill will be able to understand it but that won.'t leave much control over who can see it in the long term. Will zombies with the skill be able to see the gestures? Sorry if it was answered above, im wiking via my phone so stuff is limited. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 12:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :just read the end. I actually think zombies with the skill shouldnt understand the gestures, otherwise i dont think this suggestion would be to useful :( {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 12:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| Survivors already have 4 different manners of direct communication within the confines of the game and they barely use them properly. Personally, I don't see a need for yet another form of communication on the survivor side. Nifty idea though. --[[User:Johnny Bass|Johnny Bass]] 14:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ----
| |
| | |
| ===Internal Rot===
| |
| {{suggestionNew
| |
| |suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 00:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| |suggest_type=Skill.
| |
| |suggest_scope=Zombies/Buildings
| |
| |suggest_description=
| |
| Sub-skill of Brain Rot. Costs 100 XP.
| |
| | |
| A zombie with Internal Rot is now so rotted that they can never be Revived again under any circumstances. Furthermore, they are so diseased that their mere presense has a ruinious effect on buildings. They have a new button when inside a ruined building called Infectious Presence. Costs 25 AP and raises the cost to repair the building by 1 AP.
| |
| |discussion=|}}
| |
| ====Discussion (Internal Rot)====
| |
| So that alt zombie characters who don't do anything but keep ruined buildings ruined have something to do with their AP? {{User:Extropymine/sig}} 01:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :That would be one use.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 02:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::Well, what other uses do you envision? Myself, I see two uses for this. The first is to give greater power to the well-established zombie tactic of keeping a number of zombies inside a ruined building and not moving them, to keep the building ruined and to drive up the AP repair costs to a prohibitive level. The "price" a zombie player pays for using this tactic is that the zombie in question sacrifices their utility to do other things: since they cannot afford to leave the building to help attack the rest of the suburb (lest it be repaired while they're gone), they sacrifice their own playtime in order to keep the building ruined. This skill would allow these zombies to additionally use their AP to expedite the ruining process by a magnitude of 2 repair AP a day, per zombie. The other use I see for this skill is to make it impossible for survivors to reclaim an NT using Combat Revives. And while I agree that CRs are annoying, the risk of getting CRed is the risk a zombie runs by standing around in an NT, trying to keep it ruined. I think this suggestion removes the "downsides" to these tactics, and I'm not convinced that any tactic should be without a downside. To sum up, I believe this idea fails the "multiply it by a million" rule: if 10 zombies staked out a ruined building, they could collectively add 20AP of repairs to it per day. If a group the size of the Mall Tour was willing to spend one extra day in a ruined mall before moving on, they could leave that mall with 200AP+ worth of repairs. {{User:Extropymine/sig}} 05:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::I envision Survivors spending all that excess AP they waste when cades are at EHB by just sitting around being used up, yeah. I mean, it would be pretty kick ass to see areas really and truly devastated after a big horde moves on requiring some actual sweat from Survivors to clean it all up.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 08:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::This would make taking Necrotech buildings back a fair bit harder, and totally nerf combat revives. Secondly, it would be a boon for zergers holding buildings - a single person could level up a few alts and give a building with 100AP+ costs in a reasonably short period of time.
| |
| ::::Extropymine makes a good point about multiplying it by a billion, too. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 09:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::So what if we just dropped the whole Ruin aspect. It wouldn't totally nerf CR. Some zombies don't ever get Brain Rot. According to the arguments below zerg arguments "don't count" as you'd have unlimited AP. Can't win here :P--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 09:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::Most zombies that have brain rot won't hesitate in getting this - thus making combat reviving a lot harder when retaking a NT. And, for many survivor groups, that's the ''only'' way they can re-take a NT (try searching for guns when the nearby mall is ruined, and PD's aren't that great search-rate wise.)
| |
| ::::::This also encourages "fundamentalism" - "forcing" players to play for a particular side with no return. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 09:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::You say that like it's a bad thing. :P In a so called Zombie Apocalypse were the Survivors consistently outnumber the Zombies 2 to 1, I think we could use a little Zombie Fundamentalism. And of course no one could force anyone to take the Skill.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| Hows this sound?
| |
| *'''Advanced Decomposition:'''
| |
| *'''flavour''' The body is now so far gone with rot that even in a powered NT it often takes more than a single syringe to revive, not only that but prolonged contact with this walking cadaver risks infection!
| |
| *'''Effects''' powered NT revives fail 50% of the time. Scans, Revive Attempts and Body Dumps have a 50% chance to spread infection (as a bite)
| |
| Pre req is fleshrot so its only going to be the most dedicated zeds that run with this.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 11:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :Very no. With ''no warning'', you try to dump a body (or scan a zed), and you get an infection. ''Maybe'' I'd consider voting "yes" on this if Malls still had high FAK search rates, but right now infection is a pain. --{{User:BobBoberton/sig}} 14:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::Well everyone with the sense to read the game updates would have had some sort of warning but I think perhaps a 50% chance would be a bit too harsh; perhaps 10% would be more reasonable. As for infection being a pain... its supposed to be a bit more than that; its supposed to be life threateningly nasty! Remember too that search rates are constantly tweaked meaning that this could very well result in search rates going up slightly to counter it--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 16:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :50% probably is a bit high, since bites only have a 35% chance to land normally. Maybe 25%. With the way the RNG works, 10% would almost never happen.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I'm really against the infectious presence aspect of this. It'd encourage players to do nothing but stay in one room and click one button twice a day. Additions should encourage players to become more active and make more choices, not streamline their strategy into two clicks. --[[User:A Big F'ing Dog|A Big F'ing Dog]] 14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :The only people likely to do that are the ones running alts to block repairers while they actually play another character. They are doing it anyway so this wouldn't change their behavior. For everyone else it would be a case of play as normal but try (harder) to end the turn somewhere tactically valuable. Without the infectious aspect in some form it would just be a 100xp charge on hardcore rotters to give them more chance to play as they want but without any actual real benefit to them--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 16:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ---- | | ---- |
| | | ===Shrink the map=== |
| ===Infectious Rot=== | | {| |
| {{suggestionNew | | |'''Timestamp:''' --[[User:Uroguy|Uroguy]]<sup>[[Zookeepers|TMZ]]</sup> 16:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC) |
| |suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 00:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| | |- |
| |suggest_type=Skill. | | |'''Type:''' Map change |
| |suggest_scope=Survivors/Zombies | | |- |
| |suggest_description=
| | |'''Scope:''' Everyone |
| | | |- |
| Sub-skill of Brain Rot. Costs 100 XP.
| | |'''Description:''' There are just over 3000 active characters in the game currently likely counting a significant percentage of alts and zergs. Shrinking the map by eliminating the outer first two rings of suburbs would increase the amount of interactions between the remaining characters. This shrink could be increased or decreased depending on future changes to the playerbase. |
| | | |} |
| A zombie with this skill now infects anyone they bite with Infectious Rot. Victims suffer the same effects as a normal infection, but now if a Survivor dies while infected with Infectious Rot, they must pay 5 extra AP to Stand. Zombies can be victims of Infectious Rot, but suffer no ill effects until they are Revived. They won't suffer the 5 AP extra for Standing up from the Revive, but only if they happen to die again before clearing the Infectious Rot.
| | ====Discussion (Shrink the map)==== |
| | |
| If a zombie with Infectious Bite, but not Infectious Rot, bites a Survivor that has Infectious Rot, the victim and the Zombie just gets the normal bite damage message they would if the player was Infected already.
| |
| | |
| Infectious Rot can be cured with a FAK, but there is a 25% Chance of failure, in which case the healer receives the message: "You apply the First Aid Kit, but notice no change". A player successfully cured by a FAK is completely cured of all Infection.
| |
| |discussion=|}}
| |
| ====Discussion (Infectious Rot)====
| |
| Attacks that affect ap are just cruel and don't add anything to the game. By all means improve infection, but do it via HP imho.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :But Headshot is ok? We should get rid of that crap if AP effects are so cruel.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 00:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::I'm sorry you got headshotted. You also get Ankle Grab in the zombie skill tree and you get to stand up at full health. {{User:Extropymine/sig}} 00:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::Survivors get that tree too, so they never have to suffer anything but 1AP to stand. This hypocrisy about no AP effects is pretty lame. Survivors already got theirs afterall, so now we ban all AP effects so it can never get evened out? Besides, Survivors can just Zerg their way around any extra costs by running their Healer/Reviver zergs. And they do.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 01:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Actually it costs survivors much more than 1ap to "stand up", it costs someone 10ap to poke them, approx 7ap to find the syringe and several ap for each party to move to the decided revive point.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Right. the key here is "someone else". Enter: the Survivor Healer/Reviver zergs. No extra cost.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 01:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::Well if you're zerging then you theoretically have unlimited ap, making this discussion irrelevant.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::Kevan just needs to finally get serious about this zerg stuff. Register each character with unique email accounts, send out automated mail to that account each week or something so you have to validate periodically. SOMETHING. But yeah, zergs aside, I see your point.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 02:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::The trouble with that is that whatever Kevan does ''some'' honest player will be caught out. Also, many of us run multiple alts without zerging. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 10:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::This may be splitting hairs, but no, survivors do not get get that tree too; survivors can buy it as a zombie by getting killed. That's not the same thing. That's like saying that zombies have access to NecroTech Employee because they can get a revive, and that's heresy around here these days ;) {{User:Extropymine/sig}} 05:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Oh please, that really IS splitting hairs. AG may as well be a Survivor skill, they get just as much out of it as any zombie. :P I mean it really is a duel Skill that just happens to be in the zombie tree. But anyway, I'm dropping this whole idea. Considering AP expenditure, things do shake out a bit evenly even with the 4 to 1 ratio on barricades if you throw Survivor searches in and all. I suppose.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 08:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| If a newly dead zombie just wants a revive, losing 5 ap is unlikely to stop them from reaching the nearest revive point. Consequently, this skill only really hurts people who will actually play as a zombie once killed. This is a zombie skill that hurts zombies. [[User:The Mad Axeman|The Mad Axeman]] 09:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ---- | | ---- |
|
| |
|
| ===Zerged Barricade Obstruction=== | | ===Action Points=== |
| {{suggestionNew | | {| |
| |suggest_time=--[[User:Johnny Bass|Johnny Bass]] 07:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC) | | |'''Timestamp:''' [[User:Wolldog1]] 10:07, 26 July 26, 2022 |
| |suggest_type=more zerg protection in game | | |- |
| |suggest_scope=Zombie | | |'''Type:''' Action Points Increase Regeneration Rate |
| |suggest_description=Currently, zerged zombie characters can all contribute to barricade blocking rates if they are from the same IP address. Characters tripping the flag should not contribute to this rate in the same fashion that characters from the same IP address cannot heal each other. | | |- |
| |discussion=|}} | | |'''Scope:''' Everyone |
| ====Discussion (Zerged Barricade Obstruction)====
| | |- |
| Sounds very reasonable. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 07:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
| | |'''Description:''' Due to the passage of time with mobile games and other real time action games without restriction, I think that we should address the action points system of the game. This game can only realistically be played for 5 minutes a day. So it's not really a seller for new blood. If we want to see this game survive it needs to evolve into something more exciting than 5 minutes. My suggestion is double the regeneration rate to improve activity. I love this game. I want to play it more. And the die hard fans I'm sure feel the same. More will go on in a day, sure. But that's for both sides. We're ready for it. Let's get this game moving again. We need this. |
| | | |} |
| Agreed. Is their rate of barricading affected like their healing, etc? If not then it should be as well. {{unsigned|The Hierophant|07:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)}}
| | ====Discussion (Action Points)==== |
| :It is believed that success rates for all things affected by chance are dramatically reduced, to 0% in some cases. I agree that the presence of a zerg flag should disable blocking for that character – it's only fair to harmanz.<br>Now, how about making zerging harmanz not block ransack? <tt>:D</tt> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 22:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Not very useful in an active fight (to preventing zerging) because survivors won't know the zombies in question can't stop them from building. If its ground holding that concerns you, well, survivors still have to kill and dump the zergs at normal rates before repairing a ruined building so they can cade in the first place.<br>
| |
| In fact, the main purpose of cade blocking is to allow non-metagame zombie co-operation, by giving zombies who do not co-ordinate actions a chance to keep cades down long enough to do something. Zergers don't NEED cade blocking, and gain little from it. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 17:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :Basically, it would just be another way of removing any benefits that COULD be reaped from having zerg accounts. They may not need it, but it certainly helps them when up against active resistance. --[[User:Johnny Bass|Johnny Bass]] 14:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ---- | | ---- |
|
| |
|
| ===Minimap Class Emphasis=== | | ===Drone=== |
| {{suggestionNew | | {| |
| |suggest_time=[[User:Vince with Shamwow|Vince with Shamwow]] 05:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC) | | |'''Timestamp:''' [[User:Rosslessness|<span style="color: MidnightBlue ">R</span><span style="color: Navy">o</span><span style="color: DarkBlue">s</span><span style="color: MediumBlue">s</span><span style="color: RoyalBlue"></span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">l</span><span style="color: CornflowerBlue">e</span><span style="color: SkyBlue">s</span><span style="color: LightskyBlue">s</span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness/Quiz|<span style="color: LightBlue">n</span><span style="color: PowderBlue">e</span>]][[Monroeville Many|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]][[The Great Suburb Group Massacre|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]]<sup>[[Location Page Building Toolkit|<span style="color: DarkRed">Want a Location Image?]] </span> </sup> 19:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC) |
| |suggest_type=improvement
| | |- |
| |suggest_scope=Humans
| | |'''Type:''' Survivor Item |
| |suggest_description=The background colors for other survivors are very pale and extremely difficult to tell which class they are at first glance. I think they should be made to contrast with each other a little more.
| | |- |
| |discussion=|}}
| | |'''Scope:''' Survivors |
| ====Discussion (Minimap Class Emphasis)==== | | |- |
| The colors are quite easily distinguishable on my display, so it could be you just need to calibrate yours. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 11:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
| | |'''Description:''' Portable drone, found in mall tech stores, which are pointless as we all know. Encumbrance is 10%. When activated for 15ap they provide an image of a 10x10 grid centred on the survivor, showing the current outside status of all blocks including zombies, survivors and dead bodies. Like DNA scanners, Drones are multi use. |
| :Hmm, I've tried adjusting it but I can't seem to get it to work. Oh well, if it's just me I guess it's not a big deal.--[[User:Vince with Shamwow|Vince with Shamwow]] 14:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC) | | |} |
| I wasn't aware you could see the class of others...(well without looking at their profile).--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 00:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
| | ====Discussion (Drone)==== |
| :You're not alone. I recently discovered this, and I've been here over 2 years. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 01:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
| | Would there be a message displayed to the players to the effect of "there's a drone buzzing overhead", similar to a flare? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 02:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |
| ::news to me. Strikes me as somewhat useless at any rate...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ---- | | ---- |
|
| |
|
| ===Trail Blood=== | | ===Backpack=== |
| {{suggestionNew | | {| |
| |suggest_time=[[User:A Big F'ing Dog|A Big F'ing Dog]] 17:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC) | | |'''Timestamp:''' [[User:Wild Crazy|Wild Crazy]] ([[User talk:Wild Crazy|talk]]) 20:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC) |
| |suggest_type=Skill | | |- |
| |suggest_scope=Zombies | | |'''Type:''' New item |
| |suggest_description=I suggest adding a skill to let zombies allow other zombies to know where they are. The Trail Blood skill would put a new button on a zombie's interface: [Trail Blood]. | | |- |
| | |'''Scope:''' Survivors |
| | |- |
| | |'''Description:''' This will be a new item found in schools with a 2% find rate and sports stores with a 4% find rate. The low numbers are because, like a flak jacket, once you find it you have it forever. It increases you encumbrance by 30%. However, you can't use an item that is in your backpack until you remove it from the backpack. It costs one AP to add an item to your backpack and one AP to remove an item. An item affects your regular encumbrance until added to the backpack. Items such as GPS, radios, cell phones, and flak jacket do not work when in your backpack. Items in your backpack will not be shown in your inventory, but the backpack itself will be shown in your inventory. There will be a drop box next to the word backpack that shows all the items inside. When you click on an item in that drop box, it removes it from your backpack (1 AP). |
|
| |
|
| Clicking it causes your zombie to ooze and drip blood and bile as they move. This doesn't have any effect on the room description because the amount is relatively small, but it makes a zombie far more fragrant. If you draw attention to yourself by speaking it allows zombies with Scent Trail to track you.
| |
|
| |
|
| Here's how it works. A zombie has Trail Blood activated. They speak, doesn't matter if they have death rattle or not. Zombies with Scent Death that hear the message see this:
| | Q: Wouldn't this buff survivors, since they can carry more bullets and kill more zombies? |
|
| |
|
| :<b>A zombie said "Hrmmmm harman" (now 3n1w)</b> | | A: Since it costs an AP to add and remove an item, it wastes a lot of AP to put bullet clips in your backpack if you are planning on using them right away. |
|
| |
|
| A useful way of gathering fellow zombies to you. If you ever want to not be trackable you'd be able to press [Stop Trailing Blood] to switch back. Switching either way would cost 1AP.
| |
|
| |
|
| Each time a zombie speaks when Trail Blood is active there would be a 10% chance of losing the ability to leave a trail (they don't lose the skill, just the button). They've just run out of gore to drip. Killing a survivor replenishes this gruesome supply and restores the button. This ensures that only effectively muderous zombies would be able to keep calling allies.
| | Q: If it wastes AP, what is the point? |
|
| |
|
| This skill would be useful in areas with limited feeding groans, or where survivors heavily outnumber zombies. Experienced players could call others to follow them - if a high level zombie or one in a reputable group is trailing blood, they may have a smart target in mind. Even more useful would be the ability zombies would gain to follow their contacts and stick together.
| | A: It will be useful if you want to carry around an extra stash of items, such as FAKs and Revivification Syringes, or if you are going far away from any resource buildings and need some extra supplies. |
| |discussion=|}}
| |
| ====Discussion (Trail Blood)====
| |
|
| |
|
| What do you think? I'm trying to make something gross but plausible. Just a little dribble of blood from the zombie's mouth, or oozing from bullet holes in their side. That tiny residue is enough for zombies with enhanced scent to track them. And as a game function, I think it would prove fantastically useful. I think it remains balanced since you can't tell other zombies about targets, nor send them elsewhere, but merely convince them to follow you. --[[User:A Big F'ing Dog|A Big F'ing Dog]] 17:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| What's the range on this? 15 squares, I presume? And do we need another zed-gathering skill since we already have feeding groans? --{{User:BobBoberton/sig}} 17:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
| | Please give your thoughts. |
| :15 spaces does seem like a decent range. Feeding Groan is useful if you don't know anyone. But it'll quickly disperse a gathering of zombies as they log in at different times and go after the most recent groan. This would be useful for zombies that know each other, or want to keep working together based on past success. Zombie groups could even operate without metagaming mostly. The leader just groans, and the pack follows them to the new location. --[[User:A Big F'ing Dog|A Big F'ing Dog]] 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::I like the idea, but I think 15 spaces to be too large. You can hear a loud groan from a ways away, but your nose won't be that good. I would suggest a range of 10 squares. Because this is more versatile than groan (they can find you at block without survivors present), it should have a shorter range. --{{User:Maverick Farrant/sig}} 02:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| Well just make it 10 squares like Scent Trail. As for "replenishing" the gore, it would make sense that if the zombie is damaged they would get replenished also.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 03:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
| | |} |
| | | ====Discussion (Backpack)==== |
| ''"They speak, doesn't matter if they have death rattle or not."'' I'm unclear why this skill should allow a zombie without death rattle to talk.{{User:Extropymine/sig}} 06:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :Zombies without Death Rattle ''can'' talk, it's just limited to the pre-defined choices. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 11:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::Oho, I misunderstood what was written. I guess using the "Hmmmm Harmanz" example mistakenly got me thinking that having this skill would allow zombies to talk, circumventing death rattle. So it might be '''Hmmm Harmanz (1w2n)''' or it might be '''Mrh? (1w2n)'''. I understand now. {{User:Extropymine/sig}} 00:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :Yes, that's what I meant. Either type of zombie speech would work. --[[User:A Big F'ing Dog|A Big F'ing Dog]] 03:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| Range of 10 seems better to me but i also think the mechanic needs work. If this was called something more like "Rotting Flesh" and allowed you to show up in some noticable form on a scent map as a contact i think it would have a lot more merit. Say on a scent death use you had an indication of where any of your rotting contacts are?--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::I want to keep it voluntary though, don't want to let people track enemy group leaders just by having them in their contacts. Also, requiring the leader to speak signals that they want people to track them. Maybe a zombie doesn't have a good target in mind. It would be a waste of people's time to seek them out. This way, when a zombie has a plan, that's when they can speak before a crowd of zombies and get them to follow. --[[User:A Big F'ing Dog|A Big F'ing Dog]] 16:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ---- | | ---- |
|
| |
| ===Lay To Rest===
| |
| {{suggestionNew
| |
| |suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 10:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| |suggest_type=Skill.
| |
| |suggest_scope=Zombie survival
| |
| |suggest_description=
| |
| Zombies can now purchase the skill "Lay To Rest" for 100XP with the following properties:
| |
| *A zombie can now "Lie Down" for a cost of 1AP
| |
| *A zombie that is lying down cannot perform any action except standing up in the normal manner and at the cost of 1AP (regardless of ankle grab).
| |
| *When a zombie is lying down it cannot be seen from adjacent squares (from a distance it appears as a dead body), it can however be seen/attacked/pricked by any player occupying the same square as if it was a normal (standing) zombie.
| |
| *A zombie that is lying down cannot be seen through Binoculars and is not included in External Military Reports.
| |
| *If a zombie lies down in a building it cannot be dumped (if your in the building you are in the same block (large buildings they must be in the same block to be seen) so it acts as a normal zombie).
| |
|
| |
| Effects:
| |
| *Helps to increase zombie survivability,
| |
| *Gives more of a purpose to walking the streets as opposed to free running everywhere,
| |
| *Practically useless to zombies in hordes because the sheer amount of activity means they are likely to be discovered by people going to and from the scene,
| |
| *Useful to feral/lone zombies in quiet areas because they are only likely to be discovered by chance/people searching for zombies outside.
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| |discussion=|}}
| |
| ====Discussion (Lay To Rest)====
| |
| Pointless. At the moment it has no advantage other than costing 1AP more (to lie down and get up) as it does currently to simply die, and THEN get up. Also, it could be manipulated to prohibit survivor xp, by lying down to stop a survivor from getting the xp-gaining last hit. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 10:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :The advantage is it reduces the chance for a zombie to be spotted, potentially saving them from the AP they would lose from a headshot and I don't see how it would stop a survivor gaining XP because the zombie can still ''"be seen/attacked/pricked by any player occupying the same square"'' this would actually be more useful to lower level players because they could lay down and reduce the chance of being spotted then get up later for a total of 2AP as opposed to the 10/15AP they would have without ankle grab. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 10:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| No. Zombies are predators, not prey. And no ninja zombies! {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 11:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :Zombies are predators, but how often (in the genre) do you see a zombie playing dead/still alive amongst the bodies that only attacks when a victim gets within range. This allows zombies a better chance at survival which is crucial for newbies, it also means I can't pop my head out and get a reading for 9 blocks as accurately, if a scout wants accurate data they'll have to check each block. This hopefully makes it easier for low-level zombies and more interesting for high level survivors. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 11:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::Newbies won't have this skill though. It's absolutely useless for gaining XP, and would only serve as a red herring. As for rising from a pile of bodies, we have this handy little skill you may have heard of called [[Ankle Grab]].<br>The mere fact that people are proposing a skill that lets ''zombies'' hide from ''survivors'' speaks volumes as to the sad state of the game's current population balance, or more to the point, ''im''-balance. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 11:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::Doesn't that mean that all the rocket launcher suggestions speak volumes to how hard it is to kill zombies? :) {{User:Extropymine/sig}} 02:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::Also, I'm pretty sure this would be duped many times over if brought to vote. This is not new or original. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 11:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| I'm not opposed to the idea... Just a few questions. If this were used inside a building, would the survivors be able to dump the zombie outside like with a corpse? How does this affect binoculars? Is accuracy increased when attacking a dead body (since, you know, they don't move...)? Will this influence the External Military Reports? It's a good idea, but it needs some work. More details, mostly. --[[User:LaosOman|LaosOman]] 19:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::The idea of the suggestion is it stops zombies being seen from a distance, up close they function just the same as any other zombie. So... No to dumping, Binoculars can't see them, and they are not included in radio reports. Attacking the zombie would have the standard attack % as well. Update to description to include these details. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 01:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| I don't understand the utility of this... if it is to hide zombie numbers in an area, then it hurts zombies just as much as it helps, because they would not see one another at range and that makes it tougher to horde up. If it's to prevent being "hunted," then... why? Since this is a skill, you are asking a zombie to buy THIS rather than, say, Ankle Grab. If they had Ankle Grab, it is easier to just get killed and hop back up again. So... how do you envision this being used? {{User:Extropymine/sig}} 02:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| This has been suggested a lot before and this is probably the WORST itteration I have ever seen. You cannot use "normal" zombie genre logic in this context because the game is much too simple for that to work. Do you have ANY idea how this could be abused? Obviously not. This is not about "zombie survivability". That is already factored into the game by the ability of a zombie to stand at full health. Your argument, first of all, is confusing. Either the zombie is "lying down" '''OR''' it is standing. With this suggestion, you have them doing both at the same time. I have several other issues, but you have to clear THAT one up first.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 05:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| I can't see this being implemented. It doesn't matter if the zombie dies it only costs 1 AP to stand up (6 if you include Headshot) Apart from nerfing headshot, this serves the zombie very little. .--[[User:Ricci Bobby|Ricci Bobby]] 12:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ----
| |
|
| |
| ===Vomit===
| |
| {{suggestionNew
| |
| |suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 10:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| |suggest_type=Zombie Attack
| |
| |suggest_scope=Zeds&Victims
| |
| |suggest_description=
| |
| "It has been observed that some zombies have become so bloated from consuming the living that they have began regurgitating on their victims prior to consumption... whether this is to aid digestion, create room for fresh meat or if the zombie gains some form of pleasure from this torture remains unknown. Survivors of attacks describe the vomit as 'an intense burning sensation' however the real threat is if the fluid gets on the victims face and in their eyes, the fluid effectively blinds the survivor for an extended period of time or until they can rinse it out."
| |
|
| |
| Zombies will now gain the following:
| |
| *A new attack "Vomit" which causes 1 HP damage and has a base accuracy of 15%
| |
| *Upon a successful hit vomit has a 50% chance of causing 1AP damage.
| |
| *Vomit receives the bonuses of Vigor Mortis and Tangling Grasp (Acc. not Grasp)
| |
| *Gastric Acid (Subskill of digestion) - Doubles the HP and MP damage of vomit.
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| |discussion=|}}
| |
| ====Discussion (Vomit)====
| |
| dont.mess.mit.meine.AP! >=[ {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 10:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :Vas vaiting for dat.... Anything useful to say rather than just quoting the wiki? --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 10:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::Don't fucking touch my fucking AP, you fucking fuck. Also, we don't have Mana Points. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 10:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::It's not mana, it's MAGIC points, mana is the stuff it is made from. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 10:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::We still don't have magic points. And don't mess with our AP. --{{User:BobBoberton/sig}} 21:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::I'll add some things wrong with the suggestion. Firstly, in AP efficiency, this is sorta useless, because the small chance to deal 1 ap is not sufficient compared to the zombies, current damage potential. Also, all that with ''just'' an AP destroyer, and even then, 50% chance, isn't sufficient enough to use it as a tactic. Of course, with the bonuses, these chances become a bit better, but even then, theres no logic to hand-melee-related skills giving bonuses to mouth-related attacks, else it would affect the bite also. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 10:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::AP efficiency is meant to be low, if it was higher players could completely destroy survivor AP stocks by metagaming and dedicated tactics. This way a full supply of Z-AP is only more effective than headshot when maxed out (nearly all attacks are useless at low levels). I did not want it to be so that a lone zombie could demolish a players AP supply, only that they could hinder it in a similar fashion to headshot. I'm not sure why your complaining about the bonuses though V.M effects all non-weapon Zattacks that includes the bite and so does tangling grasp (effectively by grabbing the survivor for better aim). Whoops, forgot to sign! --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 11:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::When a new feature is introduced, people tend to expect it to be a buff or a nerf, else it is useless. If a new skill is introduced, it is expected to be useful in some way. If it isn't AP efficient like this skill, I'm afraid people just see a potential skill that they won't wanna use. And Blake has got a good idea down there. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 04:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| I'm sorry to say, we need more requisition before we can implement such an ''unbelievably'' good skill.--<font face="Rage italic"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel,</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 10:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| no. gb2 [http://www.l4d.com/ l4d]. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 10:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :Actually, perhaps this suggestion could work well if it 'doubled' the scent value of a survivor in terms of Scent Death? Zombie puke would ''smell rank'', and as such would be picked up by nearby zeds. Plus, a marker to same-area zeds to show who's been coated.--{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 03:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| I think the AP loss would doom this suggestion as it stands. I could see vomiting being used to infect survivors, though. Make this a skill that requires infectious bite. Vomiting would hit at 40%, do 1 damage and cause infections. There would be no hp gain from vomiting, and also less damage caused or experience acquired. [[User:The Mad Axeman|The Mad Axeman]] 11:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| Blake has something of an idea. Under normal "tracking" rules, a zombie can only track a survivor if the survivor interacts with the zombie (ie attacks or whatever). With this, the zombie can puke on the survivor and thus intiate the same tracking ability (maybe even for OTHER zombies too).--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 05:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :This whole thing feels to much like the boomers from Left 4 Dead. -[[User:CaptainVideo|CaptainVideo]] 05:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::You're not the only one to think that… *points at his comment further up* {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ----
| |
|
| |
| ===Barriers===
| |
| {{suggestionNew
| |
| |suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| |suggest_type=improvement
| |
| |suggest_scope=everyone
| |
| |suggest_description=
| |
|
| |
| New Item: Lumber. Found in Factories, Junkyards, and Warehouses. 20% Encumbrance.
| |
|
| |
| To build a Barrier you need the Construction skill, a Toolbox, and at least 1 Lumber.
| |
|
| |
| When outside you have a new button: Build Barrier, if you have all the above requirements. The buttom will have a drop down menu with the options North, South, East, and West.
| |
|
| |
| Clicking the button costs 10 AP and builds a Barrier along the side of the block you are in along the direction you picked in the drop down menu. Now as long as the Barrier is in place no player, Zombie or Survivor, can cross the barrier, directly or diagonally.
| |
|
| |
| Barrier Levels: Barriers come in 5 levels. You can keep building on an existing Barrier up to Level 5, but each level costs another 1 Lumber and 10 AP to build.
| |
|
| |
| L1: Weak Barrier
| |
|
| |
| L2: Barrier
| |
|
| |
| L3: Strong Barrier
| |
|
| |
| L4: Heavy Barrier
| |
|
| |
| L5: Extremely Heavy Barrier.
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Barriers exist on the line between two blocks, so you can't "double up" a barrier by building along one blocks South border and the block belows North border. Only one Barrier can exist on this line, but you could build on this Barrier on either side.
| |
|
| |
| Attacking Barriers:
| |
| Barriers can be attacked, if a player is on one side or the other. Barriers have HP equal to their level times 15. Only Hand to Hand Weapons or Claws effect Barriers. Guns and Teeth have no effect. Flavor text changes to reflect the new levels as a Barrier loses its HP to attacks.
| |
|
| |
| Barriers inside buildings:
| |
| You can build a Barrier inside a building, but in this case it only blocks FreeRunning.
| |
| |discussion=|}}
| |
| ====Discussion (Barriers)====
| |
| They have way too much health, for starters. 10 AP barricading only gives 10 HP cades, at most. And what about diagonal movement? Blocking Free-running is also a big no-no. It's basically a way to make something non-ruined a ruin with spies or whatever. Not only that, getting into EHB and Barrier'd buildings would be impossible, say, Malls for instance, right? --{{User:BobBoberton/sig}} 22:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :1. I was thinking Barriers would be attacked using regular combat. So, no "half attack value" like barricades, but you would just chew threw them normally. So a zombie would need to land five Claw attacks at normal hit rate to take it down one level, or 25 successful hits to bring an Extremely Heavy Barrier down to nothing, so at 50% thats about 50 AP, vs the 50 AP that a survivor would need to put them up. Not including searching for the Lumber.
| |
| :2. A Barrier would block direct movement and diagonal movement. So if facing a Barrier to the North, you couldntt move N, NW, or NE.
| |
| :3. I didn't think about Big Buildings, but I think you would only be able to build Barriers along the outside of those, like only the N and W of the NW Square of a Mall, only N and E of the NE square of the Mall, and so on. As if it were one big Block instead of four separate ones. You could still freerun into a building like that though as long as no Barriers were built inside. But then youd need to build Barriers along 8 different sections and with no Lumber inside as a resource that would be hard to keep up. I'm assuming you can Attack "inside" Barriers from adjacent buildings.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 00:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| Unless used with setting up 4 barriers around each side it is useless. And when it does get barriers blocking each side it becomes over powered. Probably a dupe aswell, good thinking thou --[[User:Athur birling|Athur birling]] 23:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :Well, not so much 4 sides of one block, but think if you strung a line of them up along several blocks, on only the West side lets say. You'd have a wall that would have to be smashed through or gone around. You could set up "fences" around areas. Not so useful for a single player, but Groups could organize fence lines around as large an area as they think they could maintain. --[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 00:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| The last think this game needs is more barricades (which is all these are), especially insanely overpowered ones like these. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :Insanely? come on, you need 10 AP AND a resource item that weighs 20% just to get 15 HP worth of Barriers. 15 HP that can be taken down with 5 Claw attacks at 3 Dmg. It would let Survivors block off sections from each other more than anything.
| |
| :And Barricades isn't "all these are". Check my response to Athur.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 00:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| OK. 1: Lower their health. 8 HP should be fine (2 axe swings). 2: You can only block diagonal movement if you have barriers on both the directions involved (to block NE, barricades are N and E for example.) 3: Extra levels add a fraction of the original's health (4 HP) --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 03:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :Isn't 8 HP three axe swings, with 3 damage per swing? I think Zombie Lord also need to clarify whether this gives XP like doing HP damage (lots, easily) and whether or not crowbars get the bonus here as they do when attacking cades. --{{User:BobBoberton/sig}} 04:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| This has been suggested before. This is a wee bit better than in the past, but still significantly overpowered. Imagine you enter square A to find a barrier with '''75 HIT POINTS'''. Then square B with another....on and on for several squares. Maxed out survivors would have little reason not to do it. Why? Nothing else to do and many like screwing with others. There are also some zerge issues. 200 XP is NOT that difficult to acquire for a character to create zerge barricaders. Most of all, this would just hurt zombies and newbie players without Free Running.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 04:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :I guess. Still, one 75 hp barrier is going to cost 50 AP and 5 Lumber (plus the AP to find the lumber). You'd have to make an assload of zergs to make any real progress like that. The bigger groups in the game could make use of it if they really organized. I think you'd have to use it carefully too. I mean, you'd be locking some zombies IN, just as much as others out. If used in combo with the inside barriers, Survivors would have a way to actually claim territory and defend it from other Survivors. Which is the real point of this whole suggestion. Maybe there is a better way to go about it though?--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 06:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::That's just it, your going to have a LOT of maxed out characters with nothing to do as it is and a lot of areas where they will be able to set up multiple barrier becuase it ISN'T difficult. It just takes finding the "lumber". These things will, literally, pop up all over the city because there is no way (other than Ransack) to stop them from being built, regardless of the number of zombies. And, while I'm at it, isn't it possible to trap players IN this if you build one on each side? Technically speaking. Imagine you log out and when you come back you have 75 point barricades on each side of you because it can and will happen. Because people are assholes. And you wouldn't even, yourself, be trapped inside becuase you could just FREE RUN out. Maybe even Free Run IN to update the barrier if none of the trapped players have breached. And, no, zerging wouldn't be that difficult either. It would just take earning the 200 XP needed to get Construction then this skill (not really THAT hard), then a few APs worth of searching to find lumber.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 00:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| Yep, we've seen this one several times before. See [[Suggestion:20070914 Build Barrier]] for one such '''dupe'''. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 10:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :Blah, blah. Different mechanics, not a real dupe, etc, etc, blah blah--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 06:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::That was just the first one I found; there have been plenty more, I suggest researching them and pointing out the differences if you don't want this to be duped right off the starting block.<br>That being said, I see this being spammed ruthlessly. I'm betting you don't even play a zombie if you can't see how hideously unfair it is to those who already need to spend an average (often much more) of 40 AP taking down VS barricades.<br>Nexus War has [http://wiki.nexuswar.com/index.php/Barricades barricades] which work somewhat like this – the difference being that all high-level characters are incredibly powerful and can either easily bypass or rapidly obliterate them. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 22:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| The problem with this kind of idea is that it just hurts zombies and newbies. Survivors can Free Run around these, for starters. Secondly, barricading still has a 4 to 1 advantage (unless something changed recently) for survivors that they don't need something this dramatic. It sounds like the idea is, basically, to give zombies "other targets" and/or to waste zombie AP on stuff other than attacking survivors or the main building barricades. That isn't a bad idea itself. It just doesn't work this way. The argument that "zombies are players too" may be a little overblown, but it IS something that can't be ignored.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 00:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :My theory is that Survivors need more ways to screw with each other. That's kind of missing in this game besides PKing/GKing and those are almost pointless. There really is no way for Survivors to get REALLY ugly with each other, like blocking off resources as "their own", claiming territory, and all that. If the game gave Survivors real ways to hurt each other they might spend a lot more AP on stuff like that, instead of putting it into fighting zombies. To get to see how petty and greedy Survivors would really get in this kind of situation would help zombies in the end. Isn't that the whole point of NOTLD? Maybe there is a better way to go about it though. Limited resources that needed to be fought over would be a really good one. This game needs SOME kind of shot in the arm to kick it out of the rut of the same old endless circles.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ----
| |
|
| |
| ===Dark Building Anonymity===
| |
| {{suggestionNew
| |
| |suggest_time=[[User:LaosOman|LaosOman]] 00:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| |suggest_type=Building change
| |
| |suggest_scope=Survivors in dark buildings
| |
| |suggest_description=<i>With the lights out, you can hardly see anything.</i>
| |
|
| |
| So how is it that you can still identify other survivors when in a dark building? I propose that instead of <i>Also here are <person X> and <person Y></i>, it will read <i>There are two survivors here.</i> If a person is in your contact list, you will be able to identify them, since you know them well enough to know their voice - <i>There are four survivors here. You recognise two of them as <person Y> and <person Z>.</i>
| |
|
| |
| If the persons are not in your contact list, and it's really important for you to know their identity, one could use Feeding Drag as a zombie, or install a generator as a survivor. Any interaction with you that they have in the darkness, (with healing being the most obvious example), will show <i>A survivor healed you for 10 HP</i>, with a link to the profile in <i>A survivor</i>.
| |
|
| |
| Diagnosis would no longer work in dark buildings, since names are not portrayed. Healing will be done like DNA Extraction, but if you heal a survivor who is not yet at full health, they will still be next up for healing. Attempting to heal a person with full health or bringing a person to full health will move the stack.
| |
|
| |
| If a zombie has Scent Fear, the attack order will be grouped in "dying, wounded, normal", but order within those categories is random. A zombie with Scent Blood has a more advanced attack order, with the least healthy survivors getting attacked first. If a zombie does not have Scent Fear, attack order will be determined like with other zombies.
| |
| |discussion=|}}
| |
| ====Discussion (Dark Building Anonymity)====
| |
|
| |
| I appreciate the realism but dark buildings were enough of a pk buff. This is too far.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| How would interacting with non-contact-listed survivors work? Like zombies? Or would it work at all? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 09:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)<br>
| |
| <b>Re:</b>Interaction would work the same as with zombies: <i>You heal a survivor for 10 HP.</i> The Diagnosis skill would not work for obvious reasons, but if you heal somebody who had full HP, the next person in the stack will be the next to be targeted. Attacking order is determined as usual for survivors, you just don't see the dropdown box.--[[User:LaosOman|LaosOman]] 14:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| Zombie identity can be revealed by scanning and this would need some sort of similar process. A torch might work for this purpose:
| |
| *"You shine your torch into the dark corners of the building and reveal 'survivor x'"
| |
| Preferably this would show the description from their profile page and the link so you can see skills or add them as a contact. It could work really well but I have to ask what it would add to the game other than making it harder to hunt down PKers? --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)<br>
| |
| <b>Re:</b> Survivors can already be identified by fueling a generator or by using Feeding Drag on them (takes them outside into the light). If they interact with you, for instance with attacks or healing, the <i>a survivor</i> in <i>a survivor healed you for 10 HP</i> will be a link to their profile, like with zombies.<br>
| |
| As for your second question: this adds only "realism" to the game. Or rather, more logic. As side effects, PKers may become harder to hunt down, but one can simply add known PKers to a contact list to avoid that.<br>
| |
| ...I actually think this may shift balance to the zombies more than to pro-survivors or PKers. A zombie with Scent Fear will attack in order of "dying, wounded, normal", while a zombie with Scent Blood will actually attack the survivor with the least HP first (they work with scent, rather than sight, so naturally it still works in a dark building). Basically, this makes dark buildings just a little less attractive to the survivors, who are generally considered as the "overpowered" side.--[[User:LaosOman|LaosOman]] 14:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| I like this. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 13:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| Wow! This seems like a great idea, and besides, why would you wast ammo on a Pker hiding in a dark building? While some will say no, I think this is a necessary evil for the sake of flavor/realism, and also, you could just as easily hide from PKers there too! Kinda. Keep! --[[User:S1leNt RIP|S1leNt RIP]] 05:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| Are pkers not already hard enough to kill in a dark building? I don't know how many times some has asked me to drop a genny in some bank--[[User:Athur birling|Athur birling]] 09:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :'''Re:''' It's not going to make PKers any harder to kill - accuracy will still be halved, just like it always was. And if you've had no previous interaction with the PKer (and thus, won't have him among your contacts), why would you want to kill them to begin with? --[[User:LaosOman|LaosOman]] 19:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ----
| |
|
| |
| ===Rubble Usage===
| |
| {{suggestionNew
| |
| |suggest_time==[[User:Col Noonan|Col Noonan]] 11:38, 6 March 2009 (EST)
| |
| |suggest_type=Improvement
| |
| |suggest_scope=Humans
| |
| |suggest_description= I had the idea for a quick and easily available weapon for humans that I read was used in a four hour long skirmish in Stalingrad. Add a brick to the weapons list. It would have to have a low accuracy rate and damage dealt, so that it isn't too cheap. It would be available in EVERY square, and would deal one more damage than a punch, with a little less accuracy rate. It's just for those that, say, run out of ammo and absolutely need a weapon.
| |
| |discussion=|}}
| |
| ====Discussion (Rubble Usage)====
| |
| I'm not arguing against your suggestion exactly, but your logic. When you "run out of ammo" that is what tennis rackets, baseball bats, pipes, knives, axes, hockey sticks, fencing foils, cricket bats, crowbars, golf clubs, and ski poles are for. As for the suggestion itself you really need to be specific with your game mechanics. "A little less accurate than a punch" is too vague.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 04:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :Either way, it's a [[Suggestion:20090227_Bricks:_Blunt_Ranged_Weaponry_for_the_Rest_of_Us#20090227_Bricks:_Blunt_Ranged_Weaponry_for_the_Rest_of_Us|dupe]]. {{User:Blue Command Vic/Sig}} 07:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::And humans, by definition, means zombies too. Man, I'm such a perfectionist, I even make myself proud. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 10:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::Since I created the entry being cited above, you have my endorsement if this makes it to Peer Reviewed. Bear in mind, however, that you'd have to satisfy the critics when I couldn't. -[[User:CaptainVideo|CaptainVideo]] 04:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ----
| |
|
| |
| ==Suggestions up for voting==
| |
| *[[Suggestion:20090301 Skyscrapers as Navigation Landmarks]] is up for voting. Discussion moved to [[Suggestion talk:20090301 Skyscrapers as Navigation Landmarks|here]]. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 10:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *[[Suggestion:20090302 Basic Character Visuals]] is up for voting. Discussion moved to [[Suggestion talk:20090302 Basic Character Visuals|here]]. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>¦[[User talk:Midianian|T]]¦[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]¦[[Suggestions|SP]]¦</sup></small> 18:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| *[[Suggestion:20090310 Direction With Most Group Groans]] is up for voting. Discussion moved to [[Suggestion talk:20090310 Direction With Most Group Groans|here]]. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 11:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ----
| |
|
| |
| [[Category:Suggestions]]
| |
