Talk:Suggestions/30th-Jan-2007

Burning Zombies/Stop Drop and Roll

Only thing worse than undead hordes trying to eat your brain is undead hordes trying to eat your brain WHILE ON FIRE.

Just had to include this here -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 14:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Undead Animals

Timestamp:	Nimble Zombie 23:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Animals
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	Why is it that only people can become zombies? People are animals, and so why can't there be undead animals that would be roaming the streets of malton? They would be a random thing, plus they would work on the storyline well. Like a survivor is running to his safehouse when suddenly he is attacked by a huge, undead dog, full of being dead and fleas. The dog tears him up, starting by sinking its teeth into his leg, then tearing a chunk of flesh loose, devouring it, and then the dog goes for his throat, rips it out, leaving the man dead in a pool of his own blood, his throat still spewing his organs, when the vultures begin to descend. However, even the zombies are not immune to the animals. Crows come to peck at their eyes, and the alligator that escaped from the Malton Zoo is indiscriminate on what it chews on. The animals would be a random thing, again, so you would just have to deal with the fact that when you're outside, you have a chance of being attacked by animals.

Discussion

This will be Duped and/or Spammed to death. --Deras 23:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Same as above. Also, there are already "animals" running around. Check the Malton Zookeepers page. SuperMario24 23:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So? I'm talking about them actually being in the game... --Nimble Zombie 02:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• You're getting a bit carried away with the detail there... wow! Um, anyway... people don't like suggestions with automatic/game generated attacks. This is a player on player game, attacks should come from other players, not randomly generated animals -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 05:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already an Animals In Game on the Humorous Suggestions page. Seriously, animal suggestions do not fit the game ambiance and will get spammed hard up the poop sphincter. Do not break this page with silly ideas.--SporeSore 14:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That one is meant to be stupid. This is a serious view of a similar general concept. --Nimble Zombie 22:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the "Zombie Survival Guide"? It explains why there. Only humans are infected. -Mark 16:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Zombie Survival Guide is set in it's OWN "universe" seperate from any other "zombie" universe. Thus it doesn't entirely apply here.--Pesatyel 05:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

---

ZK Nerf

Timestamp:	Swiers X:00 21:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Type:	balance change
Scope:	makes zk more difficult
Description:	Zombies are very effective killers. With only 3 skills, they can have the best damage / AP efficiency in the game. The only thing that stops them from decimating Malton is that they normally can't spend more than a fraction of their AP hurting survivors. However, organized survivors can easily take advantage of this fact. If they wish to clear a building of zombies (say it is a ransacked mall or NT building) it is very easy for them to send their dead members into the building (which will not have any barricades) and have those members use their highly effcient attacks to ZK. Then the living members of the group come in, dump the bodies, raise barricades, and revive their comrades. The result of this is that any combat buff zombies ever get, in fact works against zombies when they wish to hold territory. And every survivor they kill is actually made stronger in terms of their ability to kill zombies, meaning that killing the local survivors will not help them hold ground. What I propose is that zombies get only half the normal chance to hit other zombies when using claws or teeth. However, the XP they get for damage done to other zombies would be bumped back up to equal the damage done, so that ZKing remains an effective tactic for low level zeds and deceased survivors to earn XP. In fact, this would potentially make it a slightly better way to earn XP than it currently is; maxed claws would yield about .75 xp per attack, vs the .55 they currently do, or the .6 you get for a maxed out bite. This could be justified by saying that zombies don’t bleed much, so superficial damage cause by claws and bites have less effect, while deep wounds from weapons have full impact. The point is that LIVING survivors would then be needed to clean out a building, which would make revive-denial tactics and such by zombie groups more effective. Currently, zombies just have no good way to deny resources to any half-organized group that wishes to reclaim a building.

Discussion

I'm not really sure about this one, the suggestion itself isn't that bad but are you sure Zs have a better damage/AP ratio than a shotguned survivor? Also while it's true that some survivors fight the undead even while undead, not everyone buys Zeds skills (besides Ankle Grab and Lurching Gait) out of fear of being labeled a Zombie Spy. Plus I think most of them shamble to the nearest revive point as fast as they can instead of fighting the undead as undead. --Deras 23:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you count the AP spent searching for ammo and loading the gun, the zombies do more damge per AP. And sure, not all survivors attack zombies when dead- in which case, the proposal does no harm, and might help. --Swiers ^X:00 02:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure zombies do do more damage per AP. Check out MBR, it does the maths, and the damages work out as identical. --Toejam 01:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

ZKing is a very effective, but slow, way for new zombies to gain XP. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And this proposal would make it a (very slightly) more effective method of gaining xp. Any problem? --Swiers ^X:00 02:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not the reality of how most survivors fight zombies. Most career survivors have very few zombie skills (things like ankle grab and lurching gait), and are very ineffective fighters while dead. On top of that, you can't dump bodies if you're a zombie. --Uncle Bill 01:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If that's not how survivors fight zombies, this proposal (at most) has no harmful effect, right? And yes, zombies can't dump bodies- but they can kill them and then let survivors come dump them. --Swiers ^X:00 02:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this would just hurt newbie zombies (ESPECIALLY "converts") more than it would help. a "0 level" convert would have a 5% chance to do 4 damage and a 13% chance to do 2 damage. Even a level 1 Corpse would be at 10%/18%. I don't believe the trade off is justifiable.--Pesatyel 03:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How does it hurt them? They hit vs zombies half as often, but earn twice as much XP when they do hit (actually 3 times as much if they have hardened claws). That means they can actually earn the same XP just as quickly without being as likely to killing a zombie and need to find a new "victim", making things EASIER if they want to earn XP from ZK's. Vs survivors, of course, nothing would change, so there is no harm there either. --Swiers ^X:00 04:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you ACTUALLY READ what I said? A significant number of starting zombies ZK because getting to the fresh meat is more the difficult (ESPECIALLY as a convert). If the zombie can't hit it doesn't matter squat they get more xp per attack. The MBR for bite (for a convert) would only be 0.2 and claws 0.26. PUNCH is 0.25. Corpses fair a little better (0.4 bite, 0.36 claw). I actually believe ZKing to be a bigger benefit to newbie zombies than a hinderances to your suggested survivor tactic.--Pesatyel 09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read what you said. As I wrote, the proposal keeps the XP per AP ratios exactly the same, or slightly increases them in cases where claws do 3 damage. It might be discouraging to miss more often but get more XP per hit, but math is math- it works out to the same XP on average. --Swiers ^X:00 17:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your right, my bad. I STILL see more "harm" from a CONVERT having even LESS of a chance of hitting than any potential "benefit" to countering pro-survivor zombies who ZK. What do you think is one of the reasons most converts become Mrh?-Cows? They can't hit shit. Basically, speaking, I believe there are MANY more "good" ZKers than "bad" ones.--Pesatyel 05:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Being killed by a ZKer isn't a problem, it's actually better than standing around waiting for a hunter to give you a headshot. Do ZKers get the 10XP (or 5XP half) bonus for the finishing blow? This would make it less likely if they do -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 05:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Being ZKed is a BIG problem if you are trying to occupy a ransacked building. Your corpse can be dumped outside, and then the building can be re-barricaded. And honestly, there are MANY times I;ve been attacked by zombies until I had 5 HP left, and THEN took a headshot. At least this way, the survivors would be the ones killing zombies. And yes, this would make kill bonuses to XP less likely for ZK, but again- with those going back up to 10xp, it would work out to the same net gain on average. --Swiers ^X:00 17:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Most ZKing does benefit zombies. Also if ZKing is going to be made harder it would be hypocritical to not do so for PKing as well. --Jon Pyre 06:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

ZK'ing like PK'ing or GK'ing for that matter, is a legitimate form of game play. IMO the only illegitimate form of game play is zerging.--SporeSore 14:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It would still be legitimate game play- the XP earned works out to be on average the same or higher. It just wouldn't be quite as easy to use as a "house cleaning" tactic. Many changes have already been made to the game that alter what is / isn't an effective tactic. --Swiers ^X:00 17:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but as a zombie when some idiot combat revives me and I am infected, I infiltrate safehouses and GK or RK(Radio Kill) until dead and then rise and attack. This is analogous to a zombified survivor ZK'ing inside a building. Seems balanced enough to me. Counterargument?--SporeSore 15:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Zombies don't have another way to fight survivors other than by "converting" them. Survivors do. I've never really thought of this problem, but it could very easily be exploited by any survivor group with sufficient metagaming to help clean out a building. Just go in with your slain comrades, take a few potshots at zombies, dump bodies, and when the opportunity presents itself (after every enemy zombie has been dumped and the friendly ones leave) repair/barricade. This suggestion would prevent that from ever becoming an issue without affecting the XP element. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 17:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Whack-a-Zerg

Timestamp:	c138 RR - PKer 17:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Combat adjustment
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	If there is another player within a 10-block radius with the same IP address as your target, your attacks on them deal double damage, and flak vests have no effect. Alternatively, revivification syringes don't work on someone whose last IP address matches that of someone else within 10 blocks radius. It would return a message similar to a brainrot revive attempt.

Discussion So you will punish people on dial up just for not having broadband? you obviously have never logged on at 5 past midnight to find someone else has already used all the ISPs hits for the day... Believe me its bad enough without being automatically labelled a zerger and killed!--Honestmistake 17:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Disconnect/wait 10 mins/reconnect. Problem solved. That's the reason why I'm jealous of dialup. --c138 ^{RR - PKer} 19:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Same IP address and location doesn't always mean zerging. AOL users may both be in the same region, or brothers and sisters on the same comp. So, bluntly, its not fair. -- TheDavibob ^LLL 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically this could aid zergers smart enough to switch IP addresses by letting them make zerg-flagged characters for their real characters to level up on twice as fast. --Jon Pyre 04:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Hindered Passage v3

Timestamp:	--SporeSore 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Type:	Game mechanic
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Implementation - Survivors leaving a building by any means except suicide will incur an AP penalty based on the number of standing zombies present and the ratio of survivors to zombies. This penalty will also apply to movement within buildings larger than 1 square. This is an indoor effect only. The penalty scheme: 0-4 zombies = no penalty,5-50 zombies = +1AP, 51-150 zombies = +2AP, greater than 150 zombies = +3AP. However, the penalty is also adjusted by the ratio of survivors to zombies as follows: equal number of survivors and zombies -1AP, twice as many survivors as zombies -2AP, three times as many survivors as zombies -3AP. Of course, a negative penalty is ignored. Example, 78 survivors and 55 zombies in a building. The base penalty is +2AP, but because there are at least as many survivors as zombies(but less than two times as many survivors as zombies) the penalty is adjust by -1AP. Any survivor either leaving or moving within this building will need to spend an extra 1AP to do so. Free-running from the building would incur the same penalty. Upon entering a building the penalty to leave/move within the building will be displayed e.g. "There are so many zombies it will cost an extra 2AP to leave this building". Purpose - To simulate the difficulties of recon and attack for survivors in buildings with zombie presence. To heighten the atmosphere of fear of the unknown when entering unfamiliar buildings(stumbling across zombies lurking in the shadows or sitting on the toilet). Reasoning - Survivors actively try to avoid zombies since the slightest nibble may infect them. Zombies actively try to surround survivors each vying for their pound of flesh. Think of any zombie movie you have ever seen where people try to escape from a building with zombies in it. Someone inevitably perishes. It is assumed there is enough space outside to always sneak past a horde. Remember that the penalties have to represent the average of different buildings that in reality would be much different in size, from as large as a mall square to as small as a club, bank or auto repair shop. Possible Counter-Arguments and (Attempted)Rebuttals Q- Isn't this a dupe of the peer reviewed Crowds Slow Movement? A- No. The penalisation scheme in that suggestion is applied randomly. There is no other such random AP usage in the game. I believe that AP usage per action should be absolute. This suggestion also applies only inside buildings whereas Crowds Slow Movement applies both inside and out. Q- Isn't the minumum number of 5 zombies a little low? A- This is balanced by the survivor-zombie ratio rule. The minimum of 5 is chosen so that it can benefit ferals. Q - Isn't this overly complicated? A - There must be at least two competing factors contributing to the penalty scheme or else it is imbalanced or unrealistic. Since the cost will be displayed in game, the complications will be transparent to the player Q- Couldn't this be abused by zombie zergers/metagamers? A- The same could be said equally for survivor zergers/metagamers. (I find zerger/metagaming arguments pointless since they can be made against any suggestion ever made.)

Discussion

You have altered this a fair bit after all the negative comments and i think this is a very fair compromise! I would add that over 30 zombies should either prevent free-running or at least present a significant danger (50% chance of losing AP but not moving or even taking damage) but otherwise i like it! The added danger to free-running would make big seiges more interesting as people start to flee earlier while it is still safe to do so leaving the brave and the stupid stranded!--Honestmistake 18:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid to add anything else. This suggestion will get spammed even as it stands now. I think that if there are enough survivors then they should have no penalty, or this will never pass. What I might do instead of the 2x rule is make it so that if the ratio is 1.0 then -1AP, 2.0 = -2AP, 3.0 = -3AP. --SporeSore 18:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"0-4 zombies = 0AP". Rephrase this to "No penalty", or else a lot of idiot autospammers hasty readers will think you mean it costs 0ap total --Gene Splicer 22:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've made significant changes and incremented the version number. I took a good look at tables to see that this one is okay. I will prepare a figure to help the arithmetically challenged.--SporeSore 00:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Kinda complicated, thus leading to whines of server load/"I don't get it", but I'd vote for this. Anything to add some danger to wandering around zombie-infested buildings.--Lachryma^☭ 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it is a bit complicated, but I don't know how to simplify it. There must be at least two competing factors contributing to the penalty scheme or else it is imbalanced or unrealistic. Since the cost will be displayed in game, the complications will be transparent to the player. --SporeSore 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I get that. I was just saying...--Lachryma^☭ 00:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)EDIT: AAAA, I can never save! Stop editing this so much!--Lachryma^☭ 00:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Don't worry. This is my final version. I didn't want to clutter this page with v3 while v2 was still on it.--SporeSore 14:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how having lots of survivors necessarily negates the penalty. It could be argued that they wouls ADD to the penalty. As I see it there are just SO many bodies there, it's hard to move strategically.--Pesatyel 04:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I toyed with the idea of having both survivor and zombie movement hindered by total numbers present and having each dead body counting as a half. The advantage of this would be that survivors would be forced to disperse a little in malls. However, I felt it would get spammed and that it would be hard to find a balanced implementation.--SporeSore 14:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have suddenly thought of a much better idea. This one should be archived.--SporeSore 17:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

---