Developing Suggestions: Difference between revisions
| Line 395: | Line 395: | ||
Okay as i understand it, this started with being able to infect buildings, some what of one sided. To permanent infection for zombies. I somewhat of love this idea, I understand most pro survivor players would not get any form of benefit from this, however pro zombies who purchase rot do so in order to stay dead, or at least try. Obviously they still can be revived, but adding the fact that survivors can mass combat revive a power NT and spread out say 20 infected and alive people who generally prefer to be dead, creates a whole new stand point. I think this shouldn't need Flesh Rot as a pre-req however. If you think about it purchasing rot goes a long way as is, getting flesh rot just assures you do not need to have a Flak Vest for those who try to be permanent zombies. However as a pro zombie player, i make a point to get a Flak vest before buying rot (with my rotter) and whenever my zombies are revived i pick up a vest. The skill is nice to have but not needed. This is a whole new area and makes you have to work harder as humans. There should be a way to neutralize it however, say using an FAK before reviving can temporarily cure the infect or it has a 50% chance of curing the infection, this way it balances a little. Having 100% chance that someone will be revived with an infection is going to get shot down without question. --{{User:The Colonel/Sig}} 06:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | Okay as i understand it, this started with being able to infect buildings, some what of one sided. To permanent infection for zombies. I somewhat of love this idea, I understand most pro survivor players would not get any form of benefit from this, however pro zombies who purchase rot do so in order to stay dead, or at least try. Obviously they still can be revived, but adding the fact that survivors can mass combat revive a power NT and spread out say 20 infected and alive people who generally prefer to be dead, creates a whole new stand point. I think this shouldn't need Flesh Rot as a pre-req however. If you think about it purchasing rot goes a long way as is, getting flesh rot just assures you do not need to have a Flak Vest for those who try to be permanent zombies. However as a pro zombie player, i make a point to get a Flak vest before buying rot (with my rotter) and whenever my zombies are revived i pick up a vest. The skill is nice to have but not needed. This is a whole new area and makes you have to work harder as humans. There should be a way to neutralize it however, say using an FAK before reviving can temporarily cure the infect or it has a 50% chance of curing the infection, this way it balances a little. Having 100% chance that someone will be revived with an infection is going to get shot down without question. --{{User:The Colonel/Sig}} 06:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Making it curable in some way is pretty much essential, I would suggest needing powered hospital (and/or NT) for a full cure, FaK for the next 10AP only. In fact I would like to see all infections become impossible to permanently cure except in those 2 locations, that of course is a completely different suggestion though. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 09:31, 26 November 2009
Developing Suggestions
This section is for presenting and reviewing suggestions which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.
Nothing on this page will be archived.
Further Discussion
- Discussion concerning this page takes place here.
- Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general, including policies about it, takes place here.
Please Read Before Posting
- Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. You can read about many ideas that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe: a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles.
- Users should be aware that page is discussion oriented. Other users are free to express their own point of view and are not required to be neutral.
- If you decide not to take your suggestion to voting, please remove it from this page to avoid clutter.
- It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.
- After new game updates, users are requested to allow time for the game and community to adjust to these changes before suggesting alterations.
How To Make a Suggestion
Adding a New Suggestion
- Copy the code in the box below.
- Click here to begin editing. This is the same as clicking the [edit] link to the right of the Suggestions header.
- Paste the copied text above the other suggestions, right under the heading.
- Substitute the text in RED CAPITALS with the details of your suggestion.
{{subst:DevelopingSuggestion
|time=~~~~
|name=SUGGESTION NAME
|type=TYPE HERE
|scope=SCOPE HERE
|description=DESCRIPTION HERE
}}
- Name - Give the suggestion a short but descriptive name.
- Type is the nature of the suggestion, such as a new class, skill change, balance change, etc. Basically: What is it? and Is it new, or a change?
- Scope is who or what the suggestion affects. Typically survivors or zombies (or both), but occasionally Malton, the game interface or something else.
- Description should be a full explanation of your suggestion. Include information like flavor text, search odds, hit percentages, etc, as appropriate. Unless you are as yet unsure of the exact details behind the suggestion, try not to leave out anything important. Check your spelling and grammar.
Cycling Suggestions
- Suggestions with no new discussion in the past two days should be given a warning notice. This can be done by adding {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section, where date is the day the suggestion will be removed.
- Suggestions with no new discussion in the past week may be removed.
- If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the warning template please remove the {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section to show that there is still ongoing discussion.
This page is prone to breaking when the page gets too long, so sometimes suggestions still under discussion will be moved to the Overflow page, so the discussion can continue.
Please add new suggestions to the top of the list
Suggestions
Find Injured Zombies
| Timestamp: Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: Gameplay Change or Skill |
| Scope: Zombie/Survivor combat |
| Description: I propose that scanning a zombie now reveal whether it is injured (30-HP) or dying (12-HP), with a possible further addition of allowing people to see infection status. This way, people can more easily attack heavily wounded zombies in a way that doesn't just give them up for free. I also propose that scans now move up through the stack even if all zombies in the area have been scanned, though this is not a necessary part of my idea. What do you guys think? |
Discussion (Find Injured Zombies)
If it was only the "dying" ones that showed up I might agree.... Add in that rotters have a 25% chance for a false result and flesh rotters a 50% (75%?) and I would probably come down on the yes side. --Honestmistake 00:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- There's already a something like 80% chance of the scan failing, do we really need to skew the odds even further? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't see why not. My suggestion would not reduce the current success rate it would just give you a chance of gaining false information... information that you don't currently get anyway. --Honestmistake 08:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the current version of the suggestion (DNA scan reveals a zombie as Injured if it has </=30 hp and Dying if it has </=12 hp), and shows infection status), it's closer to the mark but I still don't like it. Regarding scans moving through the stack even if all zombies in the area have been scanned, that should be disconnected and proposed separately. As long as you're not gaining any XP from scanning already-scanned zombies, it's fine. You are spending AP and encumbrance on gaining this information, after all, it's kind of lame that you can't do it just because someone else got there first. --Mold 04:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Discussion (Attack Injured Zombies)
Please go to your local morgue. Look at 10 corpses. Tell me which has the least amount of hit points. -- 
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Trick question. They're all at 0HP. —Aichon— 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- They might have 50 AP though. Better watch out.--Trevor Wrist 23:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- luLz, funny :) --
Thadeous Oakley 09:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- luLz, funny :) --
- They might have 50 AP though. Better watch out.--Trevor Wrist 23:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that guns leave big holes in zombies, and anyone at 7 HP is probably missing some body parts. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- If that's the case, shouldn't near-death survivors be penalized for doing certain things? Like, y'know, freerunning, aimed attacks, installing gennies, all that stuff that usually requires you to have your body parts where they belong unless you want to fail/suck at it? I'm also very excited about your narrative justification of how those body parts and bullet holes magically grow back after reviving/standing back up/feeding.--Trevor Wrist 00:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
How would this be displayed? We can't see individual zombies, so where would the low-HP indicator be shown? —Aichon— 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- There would be no indicator. He's saying that you would just attack the one with the lowest HP.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Then what was he talking about with seeing the 30- and 12- HP zombies? —Aichon— 22:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- There's an "or" in there guys ;) - User:Whitehouse 23:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks WH, and I was thinking either a catagorization (unjured/dying zombies) or colors. Colors on what? I guess I'll stick with catagorization. You are inside the balls building, a powered balls sign glows dimly over the front testicle. There are two zombies and a dying zombie here (Attack: A Zombie, A Dying Zombie). Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- There's an "or" in there guys ;) - User:Whitehouse 23:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Then what was he talking about with seeing the 30- and 12- HP zombies? —Aichon— 22:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, let's mindlessly buff those poor, poor zombie hunters. And how do you spot a "heavily injured" zombie exactly? Do you compare the amount of limbs still attached? Count the number of bullet holes? And while we're at it, what makes zombie hunters so more special that they would be able to spot "injured" zombies while zombies, who can actually smell each other, can not? Also, I'm pretty sure that this would extremely hurt newbie zombies, y'know, those who can't heal themselves unless they get killed or commit suicide and trenchie zombie hunters love to shoot at for no good reason.--Trevor Wrist 22:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This isn't going to work I'm afraid, see above , and eventually, below. --
Thadeous Oakley 22:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
WHY??? --Honestmistake 23:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Why should survivors have to kill a 60 HP zombie to remove a 5 HP zombie? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because they have that fucking huge advantage called barricades. --
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 23:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC) - Because it's one of the core advantages of being a (feral) zombie in a larger group. Ever wondered why most newbie zombie guides have "Find a horde" in them? Among other reasons, they "offer" protection by becoming a target among many, regardless wether you're on full health or one attack shy of dying. With your idea, this becomes redundant, if not even dangerous. You're a newbie zombie low on hp thanks to random trenchies (or the occasional fellow newbie zed), but hey, lucky you, you found a fresh break-in nearby and the amount of zeds there seem big enough to give you cover. Oh wait, guess not cause now you're among the first to hit the fan. Enjoy your -15AP. And let's not even start about the idea of automatically getting targetted by every zombie hunter in the building because you've got 1HP less than the other zeds around.--Trevor Wrist 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because they have that fucking huge advantage called barricades. --
I know this suggestion is influenced by mine but I still don't like it at all. It has all the griefing potential but none of the possible benefits for zombies. Trenchcoaters will now target the weakest zombies (probably newbies too) so they can go into the mall and brag about how many they've killed, add more notches to their shotgun barrel etc. Combat revivers would get a buff too because they can kill the weaker zombies and combat-revive the stronger ones, improving their HP ratio. But it's no use at all if you want to heal a specific zombie. And worst of all it's a new skill and new skills almost always nerf newbies. --Explodey 01:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm hearing some pretty big worries about newbies being abused, and I don't want that to happen. Would just having survivors attack the weakest zombie around fix this issue, or do you think that would still be a problem? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- The issue would still be there. Maybe if you changed it so it only affected zombies that are already in your contacts list, and keep it vague by giving the zombies who are at less than full health a * next to their name. This way the survivor doesn't know if the zombie in question has 59 HP, 48 HP, or 1 HP. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 08:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Current proposal: Against, for all the reasons above. But how about: Scanning a zombie with a DNA scanner will also give you his current HP and infection status? I see several advantages:
- DNA scanner becomes more useful
- Trenchcoaters might actually start using scanners, helping NecroWatch
- Revivers will know if they have to slab a FAK on you before hitting you with a needle.
On the whole, I don't think this entire thing is very necessary (if a horde of zombies shambles towards you, you shoot the nearest, not the one with the least limbs. Besides, zombies get up, and they don't really wash their clothes each time they do so, so what exactly is the criterium for a `near-dead corpse'?) but if you want something like this, that's how I'd do it. --Itsacon (Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton) 12:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Yet another attempt at ruining zombie anonymity. The lack of HP displayed is a very important part of that in game function of zombies. Don't nerf one of our more important advantages that actually discourage retarded survivors from shooting zambahz on the streets. --Papa Johnny 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also, if you want an RP reason for this: considering the state of decay of a zambah, you should only be able to tell when they are in 1 of 2 states. State 1 being standing and zombified and state 2 being on the ground. See? Simple. --Papa Johnny 17:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, what if I went with Itsacon's idea and made HP be displayed upon DNA extraction? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a false assumption that this will hurt newbie zombies specifically. Because of zombie anonymity, there is no guarantee that the "lowest HP zombie" will be a newbie. With digestion it is a little more likely, but no guarantee. Unless you kill the zombie or it interacts with you, you won't KNOW if it is a level 1 or a level 41. I like the second option better. I think, at best, it should only work on zombies with, say 9 HP or less. If there are none such in the stack, the attacker would get a message saying "you cannot differentiate the zombies well enough to note severe damage". Maybe it could be called "Aim" or something, which lead me to this for a comparison.--Pesatyel 06:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Newbie zombies have about 17% lower max hp than the more experienced ones, fewer easy options to get missing hp back, and likely don't even have flak jackets or flesh rot to help hold onto what they do have. Any new thing that aims attacks at the zombies with the lowest hp is going to fall hardest on the newbies' shoulders. --Mold 04:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The DNA scan revealing infection is an excellent idea (but almost sure it is an old dupe) Revealing HP is just not a good idea though. At best a scan should reveal a zombie as "wounded" but only if all flesh rotters showed up as wounded on a successful scan. --Honestmistake 09:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Harman Hunter Count for Stats Page
| Timestamp: Explodey 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: User interface |
| Scope: stats page |
| Description: The stats page already shows a zombie hunter count, which gives an idea of the number of mid-to-high-level survivors who are standing.
I suggest we add something similar for zombies. Something that zombies are likely to get around the same level (11). Possible skills to use: Ransack, Feeding Drag, Feeding Groan, Infectious Bite. |
Discussion (Harman Hunter Count for Stats Page)
What if it just listed them from the point they reached level 10?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
If I'm a committed full time zombie, those aren't the skills that define my commitment to maintaining my zombieness.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually mine is ransack, and the last character I bought it for was level 10. That's why I listed it first. You will notice that I avoided brain rot. The reason for that is a few zombies buy it very early and some dedicated zombies never buy it at all. I chose those four because they are the least likely (other than brain rot) to be useful to a Mrh cow or life cultist. --Explodey 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Use level. Some people will buy these skills early.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm with Ross on this one. Use Brain Rot. A full-time zombie isn't likely to grab Headshot because s/he won't be killing people (necessarily) as a harman. Similarly, most survivors won't take Brain Rot because it shows a desire to remain a zombie. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 23:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
My dual nature dood shows up as a zed hunter cos i have headshot.... I spend waay more time as a zombie though so its pretty misleading. Perhaps a totally pointless skill like ZL's Permanent infection would serve to identify the harman hunters.... if not then brain/flesh rot seem a good compromise!--Honestmistake 00:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- From what I recall, characters with Headshot only show up as Zombie Hunters on the stats page if they are currently a survivor or are being revived. Zombies do not add to the count, otherwise it would doubtless be much higher, due to all of the max level characters. As for the question at hand, Brain Rot is the only logical choice. —Aichon— 05:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are correct.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Harmanz care about statistics and numbers, zambahz are not as conceited. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Other than those in the 10K society ;).--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- One group sub page compared with harmanz on the stats page with Zombie Hunters, that's before we get to the made up awards you lot give yourself, fucking hell between the DEM and Zombra's Pub Rangers you lot must all be walking around with more bling on your chests than Idi Amin. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- One group sub page compared with harmanz on the stats page with Zombie Hunters, that's before we get to the made up awards you lot give yourself, fucking hell between the DEM and Zombra's Pub Rangers you lot must all be walking around with more bling on your chests than Idi Amin. --
No closing doors in ruined buildings
| Timestamp: Explodey 20:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: buildings |
| Scope: buildings |
| Description: This was suggested before but was unpopular because ruin had then only recently been introduced and we did not yet know what its effects would be. With this change, doors in ghost towns will tend to stay open once opened, babahz will get vastly more feeding opportunities but the increase in danger for any individual harman will be relatively small. It makes sense flavour-wise too. Please don't say dupe. I've already pointed out that it's a dupe, and IMHO a legitimate one. |
Discussion (No closing doors in ruined buildings)
epuD i don't care if its a dupe its a good idea that should have been implemented already! --Honestmistake 20:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd vote for it. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 21:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand the logic behind it and agree with it, but I think having a small % chance of actually being able to close the doors would be a better fit. Something like a 5-10% chance of success. On a failure you would get a message similar to You try to close the doors, but they swing back open. Or maybe even just saying that once the cost to repair hits a certain threshold (say a 20 AP repair) then it is impossible to close the doors. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 23:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- That could get complicated. What happens when you try to close the doors of a ruined building in real life? If you're lucky they close but will open again with a gust of wind or someone leaning on them. If you're unlucky the door splits in half or falls off the frame. It's not like you can keep trying over and over until you succeed. And it wouldn't have the same effect as doors in a non-ruined building (confusing zombies that can't operate the handle.) --Explodey 23:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- It may be a little less realistic that you have a chance of either failing completely, or creating a barrier that's completely impassable to babah zambahz, but I think it's functionally better. The kids do need to eat, but the new breathers should be able to manage some (hopefully false) sense of security. I say set it at a base success chance of half the chance that a zombie gets to hit a barricade level with Vigour Mortis only (too lazy to do the math myself just now), and have that fall off as the ruin decays, to a minimum of 1% chance of success. --Mold 04:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Right, let me get this straight, you suggest something, find a valid dupe and then still expect this to succeed? Put it to voting, the time it takes me to get Chatzilla running will be as long as this lasts. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Are you really that petty? Look at the vote count on the last one, 12 of 13 kills specify "too soon" as their justification and the other 1 has no justification! The only real against votes were the 3 SPAMS If ever a suggestion deserved a retrial this is surely it? --Honestmistake 09:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm just not keen on this idea. I don't have a detailed explanation of my reasoning in this case; I simply don't like the idea. Also, the justification is poor, since ghost towns are already supposed to be nearly devoid of survivors anyway, so bahbahz shouldn't be getting loads more XP from those suburbs, as the description suggests. And if they were, then it contradicts the statement that immediately follows (the lack of increased danger for survivors). —Aichon— 05:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
DEFEND
| Timestamp: --Honestmistake 12:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Type: new action | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Scope: survivors and Zombies with MoL | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Description: There are always certain folks you just don't want messing with the radio/generator/safehouse/revive line. Currently you can't do much to stop them if you are not online so I am suggesting a new option that would be available through the settings page. If implemented this would allow you to designate a single action that you wish to protect against; once set it would remain until you came back to change it.
Actions you may select (via a dropdown) would include:
Once an action is selected you then choose a target:
Finally you would choose a weapon... any weapon including newspapers.
What Happens: Once set up, a new action will appear in the normal game panel, For a cost of 5AP (more/less?) you can activate your selected "defend" criteria. Should anyone from your target list attempt the action you are currently defending against you will then make a single attack with the chosen weapon. If this attack causes damage the action defended against will fail (1AP/IP hit no item loss, free running fails should be subject to potential falling damage as if falling from a ruin though!) the target will receive a message saying something like "Arson Lover tries to prevent you damaging the radio by attacking you with an axe, they hit you for 3HP and foil your action" or "Arson Lover tries to prevent you damaging the generator by attacking you with an axe, they miss and seem winded by the attempt!" While "Defending" you may not regenerate to above 45AP. "Defense" will end when it is triggered, when you spend AP on any other action or if you are injured. All players defending a given action will be triggered by it but regardless of actual numbers no player will be reduced to less than 1HP and it is only the action that triggered the defense that will be prevented.
Discussion (Defend)A heavily reworked take on a previous discussion.... I take all the blame though :) --Honestmistake 12:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I suppose it might be advisable to put a limit on how many folk can be defending at a time though as 50+ folks watching a generator might be a bit OTT :) --Honestmistake 13:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Doesn't this effectively give people more knowledge than they normally have? For instance, normally, people can weaken the barricades without others in the building knowing who weakened them, so long as the barricades aren't actually broken through. Or they can attack the generator in the same way. As for ruining, people already stop that simply by being in the building, so I don't see a reason to have it as an action you can defend against. —Aichon— 15:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Auto attacks are bad mmmkay? --
I see you've addressed some of the common problems with auto attacks (AP spent while logged off etc.) but the result is that it's too complicated. --Explodey 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
As Honestmistake said, they are GUIDELINES, not set in stone rules. That is what these discussions are for. I don't think the "attack" should do damage. Your just stopping the person from performing the action. Thus no "weapon selection" would be needed exactly. Or, at best it could require a melee weapons (maybe it could be a "special" ability of the hockey stick ala the pipe or crowbar?). The only problem is Free Running which, I agree, is overpowered. If the point is to impede the action, either the person falls outside or doesn't make the "run" at all. In that case, maybe the person attempting the free running gets the message "someone is blocking the window, you cannot see a way past them at the moment".--Pesatyel 05:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey HM; your suggestion sucks zombie balls, and everyone here knows it. Either take your frills down and listen to us or take this turd to voting, but don't pretend like you're actually using DS. This suggestion is fundamentally flawed, and deep down, you know it. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Virulent Blood
Discussion (Virulent Blood)Kind of screws over infectious bite, doesn't it? I mean, who would use normal infections but newbies, who don't buy bite until late in the game due to its lack of EXP-gain? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't like it. It's dramatically excessive.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC) This would be very bad news for The Big Prick. They would have to choose between carrying just as many FAKs as needles, or getting only 3 revives per day instead of 5. I won't go into whether that's a good or bad thing :-) --Explodey 22:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't think this is a very good idea. It is both unnecessary and slightly overpowered. I say to just make infectious bite take 2-3 FAK's to heal or 1 with the first aid skill.--Winman1 01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
oh, I didn't look it up. disregard the last statement.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winman1 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time. Think about whom this will hurt.
The first group will get hit the hardest. It would be newbies. Your basically telling all "virulently" infected survivors they will stand with 15 HP AND be infected. That hurts too much. And repairing could be a death sentence.--Pesatyel 04:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC) One issue: if it doesn't display any differently after the initial message, and it doesn't behave any differently except in case of multi-AP actions, this could be very bad. Someone might not remember if they have a regular infection or virulent infection, and there'd be no indicator for them to determine which it is. They could very easily CR themselves to death, or, even easier, repair themselves to death especially in the case of extreme repairs. I'd say that you definitely need some text that alerts the player to which type of infection they have. —Aichon— 04:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who goes on a repairing spree while infected is clearly taking the piss anyway, pretty much the same could be said of revive runners. Infection is supposed to be scary instead its "Ooh, i think i ate something a bit funny... well let me just finish what i am doing before i wander off and look for an asprin!" The only good criticism I see of this is Pesatyel's point about newbs awaiting revive. Easily solved though as it would be best to just make this drop to a normal infection upon death! --Honestmistake 08:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC) This suggestion would once have left me on -301hp. That is all. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I like this, it's a reasonable response to the 100% hit ratio that syringes get. -- As Aichon above, there really needs to be some way for the infected individual to differentiate between having a regular infection and the virulent infection. That aside, I like the idea and would look forward to the applications. --Maverick Talk - OBR Toxic Rot II
Discussion (Toxic Rot II)The Toxic ruin bit is overpowered. As for the infection bit, how would this benefit survivors / zombies?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
It still sucks, just like all of ZL's other ideas; I'm positive he doesn't intend to take it to voting, and is only posting it to cause flame wars, drama, and trolling opportunities. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Template:Zl I for one think the idea has fucking merit.-- SA 01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC) The first part is good. The second part is pretty far out of whack. --Papa Moloch 02:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC) First part. What is the benefit? How is this an improvement or make the game more fun? I'm not attacking. I'm asking a legitimate question. Getting a rotter revive is, generally, difficult enough. Why would I want to make it, effectively, harder? Not to mention Dual Nature players kinda get screwed. Second part. Almost completely overpowered. We hear plenty of stories of 100+ AP ruins. IF there was a ruin cap, this might be better, but until that, its over powered. The other part of it, the 10% chance of getting infected, isn't so bad. If you limit how much time you have to GET infected (say 6 hours after the ruin?) that might not be so bad.--Pesatyel 04:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
However I could certainly go with making virulently infectious rotters have a chance of infecting anyone stupid enough to try reviving them. --Honestmistake 12:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this technically a multi suggestion anyway? You don't necessarily need an "uncurable infection" to blight the building.--Pesatyel 05:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Okay as i understand it, this started with being able to infect buildings, some what of one sided. To permanent infection for zombies. I somewhat of love this idea, I understand most pro survivor players would not get any form of benefit from this, however pro zombies who purchase rot do so in order to stay dead, or at least try. Obviously they still can be revived, but adding the fact that survivors can mass combat revive a power NT and spread out say 20 infected and alive people who generally prefer to be dead, creates a whole new stand point. I think this shouldn't need Flesh Rot as a pre-req however. If you think about it purchasing rot goes a long way as is, getting flesh rot just assures you do not need to have a Flak Vest for those who try to be permanent zombies. However as a pro zombie player, i make a point to get a Flak vest before buying rot (with my rotter) and whenever my zombies are revived i pick up a vest. The skill is nice to have but not needed. This is a whole new area and makes you have to work harder as humans. There should be a way to neutralize it however, say using an FAK before reviving can temporarily cure the infect or it has a 50% chance of curing the infection, this way it balances a little. Having 100% chance that someone will be revived with an infection is going to get shot down without question. -- 06:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Astronomical telescope
Discussion (Astronomical telescope)No. Stop obsoleting zombies, plzkthx. Did you read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots? EXP from non-gameplay sources=bad; also, this will probably get shot down in flames for being completely worthless. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 19:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Misanthropy conflicting my edit? It's more likely than I think... Attacking zeds. DNA extracting. Traditional FAKing. Whack-'n-FAKing. PKing. All of these are available methods for low level survivors to gain significant XP, which is already easy, as it is. Survivors don't need any more help gaining the lower levels. There are lots of other issues with the suggestion too. —Aichon— 20:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC) What. The. Fuck?--Pesatyel 04:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC) What next?
How about we stick to suggestions that at least have something to do with zombies and trying to survive them? --Honestmistake 12:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Someone make me a die in a fire template that I can use on this. -- Alt Proximity Warning
Discussion (Alt Proximity Warning)
Good idea. I've often wished I had a tool like this. I have 6 characters in Malton and some of them by their nature tend to spend more time in the central suburbs, so they often do get too close without me noticing (though I've never noticed my attack or search rates decrease as a result.) Woo! Reading that was a rollercoaster. The initial idea was brilliant, but your counter-counter argument kind of made me more against it. At the end you picked it up. You've got a Keep from me.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Not sure how many people deal with this kind of thing, since I think those who have multiple alts generally know where they all are. But it certainly can't hurt. You've got my support too. --Maverick Talk - OBR
Why not? My one question is whether this warning pops up on every action inside the range, or just one that makes you enter it? I'd kind of like to know when I leave the range in case I just need to speed through on the way to somewhere else. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, possible griefing if you know the target's email, but still a relatively minor flaw.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
No one really understands all the anti zerging countermeasures that are in place, and I feel it should stay that way. I feel its a lot easier to force people to play it safe, rather then pushing the nearness of characters to its limit. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I know it is a poor reason, but I had suggested something similar to Simon, and the response was "too many database checks". And not everyone has set an email, what of those people? -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I would make one change to stop this feature being used to locate other characters (in the rare cases when you know their email address.) Include a built-in delay, so you only start getting the warning message 4 days after you update your email address. But the other player (whose address you matched) probably set their own e-mail address months ago, so they start seeing the message immediately. 4 days gives them time to react or idle out. --Explodey 23:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
What about for those people that didn't include an email address when they started a character?--Pesatyel 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not reading wall of text, though a skim shows this idea has already been brought up. It's a radar system for me to find people to grief them. This could work as a personal add-on, recording where your characters are and giving you the option of seeing their proximity on a map, however as a game update it's pointless, I can have two characters 11 suburbs apart and breaking the rules, having numbers in the actual game about these things just gives certain groups a licence to zerg more. --
I've changed my mind after reading some bug reports. I now think the player should be warned when they have triggered the real zerg flag, based on their IP address. Revealing more about the zerging countermeasures would reduce the bogus bug reports by people who think they have triggered the zerg flag but in reality just had an unlucky run of attacks/searches. These would be replaced by real reports of the zerg detection function being broken, which it is. Players who are determined to get away with zerging already can and do (by setting up a private proxy) so I don't think this would do any harm. --Explodey 16:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Pinning jump
Discussion (Pinning jump)Just god awful; not only is your wording shot to hell, but the basic idea is ridiculous. So, for 2 AP, I can pin a 50 AP survivor and make him waste on average 10 AP to get me off, assuming the RNG doesn't crap out on me? How in the bloody hell is that balanced? Not only that, you've said nothing about attack targets on either side; can someone knock the zombie off or kill it? Can someone attack the survivor? Try reading the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots next time. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
So, you want to add the Hunter's ability from Left 4 Dead, essentially? No way. It works in that game, since that game is all about team dynamics. It in no way works here, because this game is definitively NOT about team dynamics. Teams play a role, but people should not be required to be a part of a team or else get picked off, as they are in L4D. Also, as was pointed out, you haven't adequately addressed the mechanics, but I don't think that will help anyway. This idea goes philosophically against the design of the game. —Aichon— 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Terrible. Assumes that all combat between the factions is in real time when 90% of the time it isn't. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Multiply it by a billion (there's a reason why Hunters are "special" zombies in L4D) and imagine the havoc it could create if it would fall into zerg hands.--Trevor Wrist 15:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC) I like the general idea. I think I'm going to take the gist of this concept and rework it a little, actually. However, as is, it stands to be a griefing tool in the wrong hands. Overpowered and convoluted. Compare to Tangling Grasp. First, why can't survivors get attacked? Why would you have an 80% chance to hit the zombie instead of the "normal" chance? Second, if the zombie is pinning, how are they pinning that they can only attack with their claws? By comparison, Tangling Grasp limits it to BITE. Why would a survivor have such a pathetic chance to escape? Your talking life or death there.--Pesatyel 03:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Collapse Barricades IIMoved to user space for further development -- boxy talk • teh rulz 07:02 26 November 2009 (BST) Suggestions up for votingThere are no suggestions previously discussed here up for voting |
