Developing Suggestions

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 here. Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general (including policies about it) takes place here.

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Please Read Before Posting

• Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the 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 Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.
• 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.
• 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.

How To Make a Suggestion

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 "Suggestions", paste the copied text above the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in red with the details of your suggestion.

===Suggestion===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=~~~~
|suggest_type=Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.
|suggest_scope=Who or what it applies to.
|suggest_description=Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Suggestion Name)====
----

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 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 {{SNRV|X}} at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.

---

Suggestions

Modified Military Frequency List

Timestamp:	--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:19, 7 June 2009 (BST)
Type:	Flavour improvement
Scope:	Anyone
Description:	Ramping up those other military frequencies, for more spam free broadcasts. 25.90 Fort Overview. Broadcast once daily, alternating daily between each fort, just like a suburb report, but fort only. 25.91 Consumer Watch, random daily update on the state of a mall. 25.92 Devastation Report- Random daily report on building/s with over 100ap repair cost 25.93 Zombie Tracking. Daily report. Reports suburb with the greatest increase in zombie numbers and the greatest decrease in zombie numbers. 25.94 Phone mast report. Daily report on the staus of 5 mobile phone mast buildings in neighbouring suburbs. 25.95 Malton Overview. Daily broadcast, highlighting any change in the zombie survivor ratio, plus random information on a non mall multiblock structure.

Discussion (Modified Military Frequence Use)

Modified a few little bits. No Huge changes. Thoughts? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:19, 7 June 2009 (BST)

---

Melee Weapon Breakage V1.4

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 08:32, 7 June 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement.
Scope:	Melee Weapons
Description:	Melee Weapons now have a level of Quality. This will be indicated in your Inventory next to Weapon name, like so: [Fire Axe (Pristine)]. When weapons are first found they will be assigned a Level of Quality randomly: 10% Pristine 20% Used 30% Worn 40% Battered Melee Weapons have a chance to degrade in Quality any time they are used to attack anything. If a weapon does Degrade it falls one level on the chart above. Example: If a weapon is Pristine and Degrades, it becomes Used. When a Used weapon Degrades, it becomes Worn. When a Worn weapon Degrades, it becomes Battered. A Battered weapon that Degrades is destroyed and disappears from the Player's Inventory. Chances for Degrading are divided between whether the target attacked is Hard or Soft. Hard targets are: Barricades, Generators, and Transmitters. Soft targets are: Survivors and Zombies. The table below shows Degrade chances per attack, followed by the average number of attacks you could expect to make before a Degrade. Weapon Hard Soft Pool Cue 8% 12.5 4% 25 Fencing Foil 4% 25 2% 50 Tennis Racket 4% 25 2% 50 Ski Pole 2% 50 1% 100 Golf Club 2% 50 1% 100 Hockey Stick 1% 100 0.5% 200 Cricket Bat 1% 100 0.5% 200 Baseball Bat 1% 100 0.5% 200 Fire Axe 0.5% 200 0.25% 400 Length of Pipe 0.4% 250 0.2% 500 Knife 0.2% 500 0.1% 1000 Crowbar 0.1% 1000 0.05 2000 Repairing Weapons A Survivor with the Construction Skill and a Toolbox may attempt to Repair a Melee Weapon by clicking directly on the Weapon itself in their Inventory. This costs 1 AP to attempt and has a 2% chance to Upgrade the weapon by one Quality Level. Trying to Repair a Pristine weapon gives the message: "This weapon can be repaired no further." Clicking on weapon when you lack either the Construction Skill or a Toolbox gives the message: "The Construction Skill and a Toolbox are required to Repair this weapon." V1.0, V1.2, and V1.3 can be found here for reference. Contributors: Kamikazie-Bunny,Honestmistake, Adward

Discussion (Melee Weapon Breakage V1.4)

This sounds good. Although I know the RNG will make me lose all those weapons the second I use it. (Once when I were playing... 49 AP wasted, 10 pistol shots, 2 flare gun shots, the rest with a fire axe, and still NO hits!) --Rolfero 08:38, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Yes that RNG can be a bitch. I am convinced that anything under 50% chance is actually lower than it shows, and anything above 50% has a better chance than it shows. That's one thing that makes suggestions a bit harder, you can't really trust the RNG. Maybe Kev just boosts certain actions though. I know my Claws land more often than 50%/60%. So, I can't complain on that end.--Zombie Lord 09:16, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Again, WHAT is the point in having the quality? Does having a used/worn/battered weapon mean it does less damage and/or accuracy reduction? How about this:

• Used: -5% to hit.
• Worn: -1 to damage.
• Battered: -5% to hit.

So a battered axe would be -10% to hit and do only 3 damage while a battered baseball bat would be -10% to hit and do 1 damage. That might be a bit much, so how about this:

• Used: No effect
• Worn: -5% to hit
• Battered: -1 damage (or another -5% to hit).

The main problem with the suggestion (especially with my add ons above) is that it really just further relegates the "non axe/knife" weapons to more non-use.--Pesatyel 08:55, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Actually if the person you hit gets "X the zombie hunter broke a ski pole (or whatever) over your head for 2 damage, you take a headshot and die" style message then it might even encourage their use :) --Honestmistake 13:59, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Because the Quality levels allow me to multiply the longevity of the weapons with out going into even more unwieldy fractions. It also means its easier to tweak the weapons by just adding or subtracting Degrade Levels across the entire weapon spectrum, without shifting % for each one. It also gives a whole new dynamic, instead of every weapon you find being exactly the same, it allows for some variety you could not get with a single "all or nothing" break chance per weapon. What Quality also means is that you can see that your weapon is weakening, but still not be sure exactly how many attacks you have left, adding some uncertainty without your weapon break being a total surprise.--Zombie Lord 09:16, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Additional Comments, point by point:

1.Quality means, the higher the Quality, the longer your weapon will last.

2.While hit %/damage adjustments for Quality sound good, I can't really see how Quality would effect your ability to hit. Damage maybe, but only in some cases, like the Tennis Racket. A Knife is going to hurt pretty much the same no matter how Battered it may be, if it's buried in your gut.

3.Regarding "further relegates the "non axe/knife" weapons to more non-use". As opposed to now? I can't see how much of anything would further make the lesser weapons less useful. As it is now, once you pick up the Axe/Knife, you make all other non-specialty weapons obsolete for as long as you hold the Axe/Knife. With this suggestion you may find yourself without an Axe/Knife after a break and you just might then use another "lesser" weapon you may have. This suggestion only helps the lesser weapons, not much I admit, but it does help.--Zombie Lord 19:09, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Once more time for the thickheaded: needlessly and annoyingly overcomplicated. UD isn't intended to be one of those convoluted RPGs with pages and pages of combat results tables, weapons stats, "degradation levels", blah blah blah. There is no need, and less desire, for this level of complexity. it doesn't make anything more fun. I still say, a simple percentage chance for a weapon to break when it hits is fine. Make different %ages for different weapons, if you wish. But this as this suggestion stands, it's more like someone showing off that they can code fancy tables in wiki-ish than a workable change. --WanYao 18:44, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Fancy tables? That's a basic HTML table...not exactly "fancy". Heh...you amuse me to no end.--Zombie Lord 19:12, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Breaking melee weapons was fucking retarded in Silent Hill on the PSP and even more retarded in UD. Especially pointless since you can carry like a billion small weapons. Make the guns explode and kill survivors because they have to pack their own bullets and we will talk, but this is dumb. And that's being nice. -- #99 ^DCC 19:27, 7 June 2009 (BST)

---

A Horde Of Zombies

Timestamp:	Rolfero 18:04, 6 June 2009 (BST)
Type:	Zombie Anonymity
Scope:	Zombies/Survivors
Description:	This is very simple. Whenever there is 25 or more zombies somewhere, they should not be listed 25 or 48 or 382 zombies, as how often do you manage to count all of these zombies? "Hmm, okay there is one two three four... six eight ten twelve fourteen sixteen eighteen twenty... twenty five... thirty... hmm... fourty, i think... fifty... aha! Fifty Seven zombies, standing outside Stickling Mall!" Instead, they should be listed as A Horde Of Zombies.

Discussion (A Horde Of Zombies)

Unbalanced and not a good idea. Zombies can see any number of survivors (and their profiles directly, without contacts), and this removes a player's ability to discern between 25 zombies (a fairly large threat) and 100 zombies (a massive, immediate threat). --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:10, 6 June 2009 (BST)

If we would change it, so if there is 25+ zombies there's lots of zombies, and if it's maybe 50 or 75 it's a horde? What would u think then? By the way, please sign all posts. --Rolfero 19:45, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Nah, this is just overpowering.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:13, 6 June 2009 (BST)

So, the simple answer would be to do the same thing with survivors, right? Problem is you can't since survivors are seen individually.--Pesatyel 22:30, 6 June 2009 (BST)

I don't see how this is is strictly overpowering.--Pesatyel 22:30, 6 June 2009 (BST)

At the very least you need a rough count (similar to EMR rounding), I mean you'd have to be thick not to be able to tell the difference between 25 zombies and 150. --  RoosterDragon  00:04, 7 June 2009 (BST)

How about the number shown is always off in a random range within plus or minus 20%. And it recalculates for every Player that loads the page. So, 10 zombies would show up as anywhere from 8 to 12. 100 zombies would show up as anywhere from 80 to 120. Fractions rounded, of course.--Zombie Lord 00:32, 7 June 2009 (BST)

How about the individual number for 1-24, "a mob" for 25-49 and "a horde" for 50-100... Should the need arise anything over 100 would show as "a large horde" Seems fair and clear and adds a hint of worry when the numbers start stacking up. --Honestmistake 01:09, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm... or like a mix between Honestmistake's and Zombie lord's. First, the correct zombie number is calculated. Then it goes off within plus or minus 20%. Then, if this number is 1-24, you see that number, and if 25-49 a mob, and 50-99 a horde, and more than that a large horde. That way you can determine how big threat it is somewhat accurate. Maybe we could lower the 20% to 10% or 15%. Ideas? --Rolfero 08:17, 7 June 2009 (BST)

That might be a bit too much. This game IS pretty simple. All we are really looking for here is a "rough estimate" idea of how many zombies are present, right?--Pesatyel 08:47, 7 June 2009 (BST)

You can't target specific zombies so who cares how many there are? Besides, when you do encounter 100+ zombies it's pretty fucking cool to see that there are a 100+ zombies there. Giving the exact number makes the zombies feel more badass when they win and the survivors actually afraid when they are very outnumbered. You know, like in a zombie apocalypse game... -- #99 ^DCC 19:46, 7 June 2009 (BST)

---

Criminal class

Timestamp:	Brainguard 14:23, 6 June 2009 (BST)
Type:	class
Scope:	survivors, PKers
Description:	In an apocalyptic setting, there will always be looters, crazies, and just plain bad people. So shouldn't there be a class for them? Skills Robbery - increases melee weapons attack against humans Stickup - increases gun attacks against humans Vandalism - increases attacks against Generators and Transmitters Sabotage - increases attacks against Barricades Burglary - allows you to bypass Barricades up to VHB+1. Looting - increases search odds in Ruined buildings. Bootlegging - increases chances of finding Beer at pubs. Illegal brewery - allows you to make Beer for xx AP (similar to NecroNet for syringes). Weapons trade - increases chances of finding weapons at Police Stations Weapons dealing - allows weapons to be found at pubs Unliscenced medicine - increases chances of finding FAKs Unliscenced surgery - same as Surgery skill, however, gives 10% chance of Infection during surgery. Characters Crime Boss Starts out with Mobile Phone, Pistol, and Weapons Trade Starts out in Towers Advantages: ready source of weapons. DIsadvantages: not many skills. Inmate Starts out with Tagging, Spraycan and Knife Starts out in Police Stations and Warehouses Advantages: safe source of XP Disadvantages: few weapons Burgler Starts out with Length of Pipe, Burglary, and Construction. Starts out in residential towers. Advantages: can readily contribute to a cause (or zombie spy). Disadvantages: not many ready sources of XP.

Discussion (Criminal Class)

There is not 1 single redeeming feature to this.... except perhaps that none of it will ever be implemented. I mean really, I do try to be nice and constructive here but this is so many bad ideas rolled into one suggestion that I honestly can't think of anything nice to say about it! --Honestmistake 14:58, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Oh and you seem to have messed up in formatting it too as all those "edit tabs" don't link properly?--Honestmistake 15:00, 6 June 2009 (BST)

fixed. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 17:07, 6 June 2009 (BST)

I don't support human-vs-human. zmobie-vs-human is the way to go. --Rolfero 17:26, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Wow.--Pesatyel 22:28, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Ow. --WanYao 07:06, 7 June 2009 (BST)

As Honestmistake... Strongly. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:53, 7 June 2009 (BST)

---

Infected Slash

Timestamp:	Super Nweb 22:05, 4 June 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Infectous Bite is realistic, but it's not only the mouths of zombies that are infected, what about the hands? They have blood all over them and such, therefore I propose a new skill under the infection tree "Infected Slash" when you attack a human with claws as a zombie there is a 5% chance of infection, this means it would take 40AP to infect someone if you had a 50% hit rate, this obviously is not good odds but it can be one of those things that is rare but can help you without being just Infection 2.

Discussion (Infected Slash)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 5

Infectious bite is already a tad weak as a skill, give claws the ability to do this too and you are making the bite redundant. --Honestmistake 23:45, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Infection is the only reason to use bite in my opinion. Otherwise claws tend to do more based on the RNG's asshole-ish-ness.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:50, 4 June 2009 (BST)

---

Drunkeness

Timestamp:	Brainguard 00:37, 4 June 2009 (BST)
Type:	Item change
Scope:	Beer and Wine
Description:	Alcoholic beverages should make the player take half as much damage during their Drunkeness. However, all actions during that time cost twice as many AP, and accuracy is halved. The Drunkeness immediately ends when 90 minutes of real time pass or 5 actions are taken

Discussion (Drunkeness)

FYI, you should put your suggestion at the top when you first place it. Much better chance people will see it. :)--Zombie Lord 19:53, 5 June 2009 (BST)

So what does everyeone think of this? --Brainguard 20:34, 6 June 2009 (BST)

The effects are too strong. Half the damage is like too good, and double AP is very "wtf" :(. With 5 actions, does you mean it ends after 5AP or after... well, five actions? Halved accuracy is also :(. --Rolfero 20:40, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Being drunk shouldn't be a good thing and this could make Beer & Wine even less used than they are now. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:43, 6 June 2009 (BST)

First of all, this has been suggested before. Secondly, what does it take to get drunk? What about "tolerance"?--Pesatyel 22:47, 6 June 2009 (BST)

---

Survivor and Zombie reading change(REVISED)

Timestamp:	MrCarver 20:49, 3 June 2009 (BST)
Type:	Gameplay and Logic
Scope:	Zombies/Survivors
Description:	Zombies should not have the ability to read spray painted messages. Messages spray painted by survivors should only be readable by survivors. This could add a more realistic sense of how public messages are relayed between survivors and change the game play slightly. The idea of a higher eduction zombie's ability to read graffiti or hasty written message is a bit of a stretch and should be removed. In place of removing the ability to read spray painted messages, I suggest zombies gain a similar skill to leave messages on/in buildings. In place of a proper skill name I will refer to the skill as "blood smear". Blood smear is no different than spray paint, except survivors can not read zombies messages. Zombie messages should be clear to the zombie player and should not translated into Zombie speak. When a zombie sees a spray painted message from a survivor the message "Vaguely familiar symbols litter the wall" appears. When a survivor sees a blood smear message from a zombie the message "Blood and flesh coat the wall." Zombies can only leave messages on/in buildings where a dead body lays at. This is in place of finding a spray paint can. Ripping an organ or body part out of a cadaver to leave a message adds a bit of zombie flavor. Use of the body to leave a message is similar to use of a spray can or replenishing health from a dead body. Overtime a body can no longer be used. Lastly, zombies and survivors can overwrite each other messages; just to be clear on the matter. I'd like to thank --GANG Giles Sednik CAPD for the additional idea to balance out the inability for zombies to read with a zombie's form of messages.

Discussion (Survivor and Zombie reading change)

Uh, they can use weapons crudely. They're in the drop-down menu. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:02, 3 June 2009 (BST)

See I had a brain fart, I was thinking one thing and typing something else. I'll correct--MrCarver 21:18, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Also you have to remember that zombies are players too. While I don't bother with graffiti as a zed, others probably do... anyway the next step after this would be to suggest that zombies don't get to see what the buildings are cos they shouldn't care and that (while very canon) is also very shit!--Honestmistake 21:11, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Well that's a tough call. Many landmarks such as buildings offer familiar surroundings. How many time have you gotten and given directions based on buildings and not street names? I would suggest then that zombies without the memories of life, not see the building names until they got that skill. Basically they are lost, dazed, confused, and terribly hungry. --MrCarver 21:18, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Well, even that is not quite canon, Honestmistake. In DOTD the zombies were specifically attracted to the Mall because, "They just know they want to be in here". So they did have some understanding of building types. So I could see no reading without having to push it into not recognizing buildings and the like.--Zombie Lord 21:38, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I always assumed that they were drawn by memories of life... and the smell of course :) --Honestmistake 21:44, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm, yes. Then again, Bub in DAY seemed to understand speech to some degree, and he even glanced over a book. Hard to say whether he could read or not...he also used a gun though...And I guess the movie never really makes it definitive on "why". Just speculation on the part of the living.--Zombie Lord 21:48, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Of course if we are being reasonable about things we should consider that once zeds do find a survivor hidey hole the survivors are trapped and invariably die when the zombies finaly get in... to that end we should bar free-running when there are more zombies outside than survivors inside, we should also have survivors who leave their safe little cades have a chance of being driven back in the same way zeds stop cading. Just running past any significant number of zeds should of course cause shed loads of damage. Oh hang on, this is a game and that wouldn't be much fun for the survivors. Now I am not trying to have a go at you in particular but all this type of suggestion saying "Movie Zeds can't do it so neither should UD zeds" basically boil down to screwing players for no actual balance reason, as such they pretty much always fail horribly. --Honestmistake 23:03, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I'm all for making it hard to move through masses of Zombies...I can't remember if I sent that one to Voting or not...--Zombie Lord 23:10, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I like this suggestion. It makes a lot of sense. Reading is definitely a higher brain function, and zombies aren't known for their higher brain function. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 21:23, 3 June 2009 (BST)

No. And a quick question, have you or Giles ever played a career zombie character? Honesty please.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:29, 3 June 2009 (BST)

nope --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 21:53, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Yes, my id is id=1392383 for you to see. I play as a dedicated zombie playing in rotter mode. I'm just burning "extra" XP to increase my overall level with survivor skills. Nothing else to do other than that. --MrCarver 21:58, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I'd support this suggestion if it became: Zombies can't read, without memories of life. With MoL, they should be able to.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:12, 3 June 2009 (BST)

That's the only way this idea would work and, to be honest, I like it. It makes more sense to me. But beyond that, just saying "no they can't read anymore" is stupid. I'm guessing the author doesn't really play zombies much.--Pesatyel 02:39, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Also, MoL would mean more. Right now, you can open doors. Normally, you're either attacking the barricades, or someone else has finished them, and the door's already open. Normally, MoL isn't much, but adding this to MoL would make it a much better skill.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:43, 4 June 2009 (BST)

This is a shit idea. Zombie in-game communication is very difficult anyway, and this makes it worse - for example, I spray up recruiting graffiti for my zombie group, and that's screwed if zombies can't read it. This doesn't add any fun, and nerfs the side that has to work harder. Shit idea. Billy Forks 09:06, 4 June 2009 (BST)

This doesn't "nerf" zombies in any way. It's a perfectly logical decision, and if this was changed so that MoL gives them the power to read, then it would be pretty much perfectly fair. And in my opinion, Zombies don't have to work harder even in the slightest. Both sides have different things about them which make them as good as each other.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:57, 4 June 2009 (BST)

A nerf is something removed from one portion of the game making it harder for one side of the game to play. Making it to where zombies can't recruit via graffiti would be a nerf. And that in my opinion is not fair. Quite a few zombie groups use tagging as a way to get in touch with newbie ferals, removing their ability to see them at low levels would make it harder for them to get anywhere.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 19:04, 5 June 2009 (BST)

A nerf would effectively nuke the possibility of success. This would definitely not.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:23, 6 June 2009 (BST)

wat? A nerf is just one aspect of the game being made harder in some way. We even have a page on nerfing. This would definitely nerf newbie zombies looking for a horde to strike with. Why? Because it forces them to gain up enough xp on their own to buy MoL to try and find a link to a decent group. Not to mention how hard it is for a newbie zombie to get that XP from the start. Oh, and lets not forget how hard it will be for them to get back up to 100 xp again if they can't find a group to roll with. You last played a newbie zombie in 07? Methinks someone has forgotten how hard it is to start a zombie, and how even something as tiny as this can cause multiple newbie ferals to leave the game.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:16, 6 June 2009 (BST)

As the page you linked to says: "A nerf is something that effectively minimalizes (or even eliminates) an item or skill's effectiveness." This weakens, it doesn't nerf. And now, it doesn't even do that! All it does is mean that survivors have to spend 1 more AP when they retake a building, spraying over graffiti they can't read. And I actually last played a new zombie late last year. I started with my zonmbie in ridleybank, couldn't level because there was nothign there, so stopped playing it for a while. Then, in 2008, I started playing again, went to Blythville, and started gaining XP. I reached level 42/43 about New year. However, during this time as a zombie, I realised that most zombie player's claims of "unbalance" and "barricades being zombie nerfs" are unfounded, and that I could take down in one day with a newbie zombie.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:34, 6 June 2009 (BST)

I was just thinking about the logic of zombies not being able to read. I hadn't considered the balance issue there. So for the sake of balance perhaps zombies could communicate basic things with their blood smears that humans couldn't read. So they could post links and speak in zombie tongue via blood graffiti. So the justification would be that the smears contain smells and stuff that only means something to a zombie. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 20:24, 4 June 2009(BST)

__REVISED!__ Based on this comment, it offers a solution without losing the original idea. Gaining the skill MoL and then being able to read survivor message is to easy to overcome. It took me very little time to max out my zombie skills and MoL was one of the first. That would add little value to the overall game play. But a separate message system would be clever.--MrCarver 23:24, 5 June 2009 (BST)

I now hate this suggestion.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:23, 6 June 2009 (BST)

I second that. He just keeps making it worse. While realism should be a part of every suggestion, it should be there to help make the game MORE fun, not less.--Pesatyel 22:23, 6 June 2009 (BST)

---

Zombies can rip off clothes

Timestamp:	Kolechovski 22:28, 2 June 2009 (BST)
Type:	logic improvement
Scope:	zombies
Description:	Currently, zombies have no way to change into or out of their clothes while dead. Well, why not change out? Sure, they lack the dexterity to remove clothing normally without damage, but why couldn’t they just rip it off? Brush off those glasses! Tear off that shirt! Smash those shoes against the rubble! If a zombie can select a piece of equipment and drop it, I can’t imagine how hard it would be to grab an article of clothing and tear it off. What could be more fulfilling than seeing a zombie stripping in front of you?

Discussion (Zombies can rip off clothes)

Why would anyone not twisted in the head want to see a zombie stripping? Thats nightmare quality. I don't like it, simply because of the fact that some idiot will use it to be an idiot and harass people. Sorakairi 22:58, 2 June 2009 (BST)

"They're zombies." "No, they're strippers." *Cocks shotgun* "They're zombie strippers!" --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 23:28, 2 June 2009 (BST)

(Hey. You bought this up and I couldn't resist the Zombie Strippers! quotes.) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 23:31, 2 June 2009 (BST)

As Sorakairi. What about making zombies rip off clothes without other people being able to see it? --Janus ^talk 23:42, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Or we could just make it toggable. If someone wants to see it, let them. If someone doesn't, turn it off.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:47, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Goddammit; as the sole remaining member of "Slaves of the Mistress" I demand this be visible to anyone nearby!!!!!!!!!

or to put it another way... I like zombie strippers and I applaud this suggestion! --Honestmistake 00:42, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Slaves of the Mistress? Wasn't that the group started by MrA with like 5 of MrA's characters in it? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 01:20, 3 June 2009 (BST)

well it was a group started by MrA but there were a few of us in it and they can't all have been him. Most of them didn't bother signing onto the wiki though and I am pretty much the only one still active. Come visit, I'm inside Caiger waiting for the snacks to come home. --Honestmistake 09:58, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I approve of this suggestion only if survivors get it too.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:29, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose?--Pesatyel 03:40, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Not if it shows up in other peoples events list: "SexySurvivorGrrl ripped her clothes off" I don't really think we want to go down that route though so perhaps limiting it to just zombies would be best. --Honestmistake 10:02, 3 June 2009 (BST)

That's what I mean though. I was referring to Sorakairi's idea to allow zombies to do it without anyone else seeing. What would be the purpose really? Self satisfaction? Given that, the zombie player could just as easily pretend they are tearing off their clothes since nobody but them would "know".--Pesatyel 20:38, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Opps, should have realized what you were refering too. --Honestmistake 21:12, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I favor any suggesting that enables zombies to perform a strip-tease, lap-dance, or sexual favor. You have my vote, sir. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 21:29, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Toggability (definitely should also be a word).--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:31, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Going to have to go with No on this one. Enough humanizing zombies. They should be interested in food, not taking off their clothes. (Another reason Zombies should not be allowed to attack each other...maybe some day)--Zombie Lord 21:55, 3 June 2009 (BST) This suggestion would give reason to use spam, but not as a strong kill. It's spam.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:14, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I believe this is a dupe of Suggestion:20081125 Depants --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:17, 3 June 2009 (BST)

not even close.... this one only effects the zombies own clothing while the dupe link is an attack to steal survivors clothing!--Honestmistake 23:05, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Oh no, Honest, it has the word clothing in there! Both authors also use periods in their sentences! Obviously a dupe! ;)--Zombie Lord 23:12, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Now now, no need for sarcasm :) --Honestmistake 23:34, 3 June 2009 (BST)

But it was a bad thought on Ross's part. Way too far apart for a dupe. now, there may be other suggestions that could dupe this, that one isn't it though.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:14, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Balls. Misread. Dupe retracted. Sorry. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:48, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Actually i meant that this is a stupid suggestion...Not that no one could see it...but Thats a good idea....I'm Confused....Sorakairi 01:13, 5 June 2009 (BST)

Zaggzah zambah zr!bbarz! GRAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!! --WanYao 07:16, 7 June 2009 (BST)

---

New Skill "Rapid Infection"

Timestamp:	Yessir 12:18, 2 June 2009 (BST)
Type:	Realism.. it matters.
Scope:	Infected Humans
Description:	In most awesome zombie movies something along these lines happens. A human is scratched, bitten.. they have come into contact with a zombie. Now the suspense here builds knowing that it is possible that the person has become infected. Several moments later theyre sinking their teeth into their best friends` faces. It`s ridiculous that this cannot happen in urban dead. A zombie should have a 100% chance of infecting a human if it has "infectious bite" however, if they possess the sub-skill "Rapid Infection" then there is a 5% chance that the human will very quickly become a zombie with little warning (much like in awesome zombie movies). If a human is bitten by a zombie with Rapid Infection.. you`ll still lose 1HP per action point (because of infectious bite) but 10 AP later it will say surprise the player with, "your vision becomes hazy and you struggle to think clearly.." and 1AP (or very, very soon) after that.. "the virus has overcome your mind and body and you have an overwhelming need to feed on human flesh". You flat-out turn into a zombie on the spot, retaining your remaining AP without "dying", (dying: a slow and very anticlimactic way to become a zombie) with the option of feeding on your former friends. Also, just a balance issue - perhaps Necrotech employees should be able to recognize that a human is infected. This would work similar to the way that diagnosis works, i.e. JoeSixPack (26) (Infected). That way survivors have a better chance of dealing with infected people who may become zombies if appropriate precautions aren`t taken. This may also make the "bite" attack more appealing. Being bitten by a zombie is supposed to be a big deal and I think these changes would make the game more exciting, suspenseful and dynamic. If it sucks, by all means shoot it down; I know it would be a big change but I think it has potential.

Discussion (New Skill "Rapid Infection")

It's not very fair at all to have any chance to suddenly become a zombie. That's not fun or fair from a player's point of view. Seeing infections as a survivor is a touchy topic too, if I recall. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 12:21, 2 June 2009 (BST)

I'd vote for this except for a few very important flaws:

1. It would make it ludicrously easy for even semi organized zombie groups to get past barricades.
2. Almost every survivor carries a FAK and would cure this well before 10AP let alone more.
3. Would this "rapid infection" remain after death... ie if you get it and turn then get revived would it work again?

Even if you could find work arounds to some of these I think that too many survivors would scream blue murder if this gets suggested. It would certainly be an interesting twist for the next new city though. --Honestmistake 13:41, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Wow is that overpowered. I could see, maybe, after X amount of time you suddenly get hit for 2 (or maybe even 3 HP) for an action.--Pesatyel 03:44, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I'm also with Pesatyel on this one. And I understand what the author is driving at, but even in zombie canon (ala Dawn of the Dead) the infected person still actually dies before they become a zombie. So the idea of the infection growing worse and dealing more damage over time if not cured makes more sense. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:27, 3 June 2009 (BST)

If you change it to 2 or 3 health lost, then not only is it overpowered, but it's probably a dupe, and if you suggest it, then said dupe shall be found.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:32, 3 June 2009 (BST)

A flat change to 2 damage per action would be a dupe but working in a mechanism that allowed the infection to become more virulent (after 10 actions) and thereafter cause 2 damage would be a big enough change from anything I remember. Actually if this requires a new zombie skill and only works in a low % of attacks then it might even be possible to make it so a FAK only cures damage and resets the infection to normal rather than clears it completely once you get into the 2 damage per action zone. --Honestmistake 10:07, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I've seen a suggestion where there are two levels of infection, where one does 2 damage, then when you cure it, it gives you the original. So, that would be a dupe. I think it was plague, and it wasn't too long back. Not to mention the fact that that would still be completely overpowering.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:02, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Dupes: Number 1, Number 2, including taking two FAKs to heal.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:15, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Actually I WASN'T suggesting changing it to a flat 2 damage. The author was suggesting that when survivor gets infected, after 10 AP of activity, they IMMEDIATELY become a zombie. That's uber overpowered. What I was saying, instead, was after X amount of AP is spent (without the infection being cured) the survivor takes a hit of 2 HP (or 3) instead of just the normal 1 for that action' then it would return to the normal 1 for subsequent actions (maybe a nother "flare up" to 2 or 3 occurs later).

• Example: Bob gets infected and can't cure it. He loses 1 AP per action, as normal. But upon spending his 6th AP, he loses 2 (or 3) HP instead of the normal one. He then spends his 7th and subsequent AP which are back to the normal 1 HP loss. When he spends his 11th AP, he has another "flare up" where he loses 2 (or 3 HP) instead and his 12 and subsequent AP spendings are back down to the normal 1 HP per.--Pesatyel 20:46, 3 June 2009 (BST)

So you suggest that survivors should have no idea when they will be dealt more damage, and should therefore be left unawares to when they'll be dealt a massive heap of damage? No. Still don't like it.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:17, 3 June 2009 (BST)

2 HP instead of 1 HP is "massive heaps" of damage? Did you even read what I put? If you go by what I put, a survivor, by the time they've used 12 AP, they would be down 14 (16 at most) HP. Hardly massive over the 12 that would normally affect them, especially since it is spread out. And, no, I'm NOT strictly suggesting players not know when it happens. That's what I was thinking, sure, but that's not how it has to be. I'm not even suggesting it has to happen more than once. Do you know how often survivors ACTUALLY die of infection? It doesn't happen very often unless the players is like level 3 or lower. Most survivors carry at least 1 FAK on them just in case they are infected. Or they can pretty easily find someone to heal them for XP. Why do you think so many of us hear complain about infection being "weak"?--Pesatyel 02:58, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Have you played as a survivor? I have to ask, because normally, after getting up from being revived it takes about the same amount of health to find a FAK than you get healed. Now with malls gone, it's even more screwed. For those survivors in a swing-suburb, this suggestion would erase every survivor in the suburb. Instead of ending up at 30, they'd be at 25, and a zombie would kill them two or so attacks earlier, which is often all it takes.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:48, 4 June 2009 (BST)

I play a dual nature and I only have 1 character right now. WHICH suggestion areyou talking about when you say "this suggestion"? Yesser's "Rapid Infection" or my side idea?--Pesatyel 03:51, 5 June 2009 (BST)

I believe they are the same suggestion.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:32, 5 June 2009 (BST)

In what way? His IMMEDIATELY turns you into a zombie after 10 actions. Mine tacks on an extra 2 HP of damage over the course of 11 actions. Wow. EXACTLY the same. Why didn't *I* see it?-Pesatyel 22:19, 6 June 2009 (BST)

---

Headshot variation #1

Timestamp:	Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:30, 31 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	People with headshot.
Description:	Now, before I begin, I'll say that I have two different suggestions for this whole thing. I'll post them here seperately, so that you can comment on them seperately. In the end, I'm only gonna post one, or maybe none, we'll see. In addition, I've checked the suggestions logs, and I'm almost certain that these aren't dupes, so I'll save you the trouble, Iscariot. My first proposal is that we change Headshot in to two skills, headshot and improved headshot, or something of the like. The first would be exactly where the current one is, and would cost the same XP. The only difference would be that it gets rid of 3AP for the zombie, instead of 5AP. This way, there would be less newbie survivors running about with headshot, causing problems for zombies. But, to ensure that survivors can still have the same level of headshot skill, there would be a second skill off of this, the advanced headshot thing, which would cause the zombie to lose 6AP when it stands up. Hardly enough to cause game obliteration, but enough to warrant a second skill.

Discussion (Headshot variation #1)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 4

I like the current system as it is, thanks. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 16:31, 31 May 2009 (BST)

There is already a system in place to prevent "newbie survivors" from running around with headshot. You need 10 levels to purchase it. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 19:49, 31 May 2009 (BST)

I meant a better one. Saying you can get it at level 10 makes newbies WANT to get it at level 10. This way, it isn't quite as good, so they are more likely to leave it to a more appropriate level.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:15, 31 May 2009 (BST)

How do you "advanced headshot" something, you either shoot it in the head or you don't... --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:17, 31 May 2009 (BST)

More accurate or something. I'll work on the flavour before I actually suggest it.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:21, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Actually, kamikazie makes a good point. I don't get the need for an "advanced" version anyway. Comparatively speaking, there really isn't anything wrong with headshot. The problem lies more with the base standup cost and Ankle Grab.--Pesatyel 00:12, 1 June 2009 (BST)

But if we manipulate the rate at which the regular standup and ankle grab work, then it will cause too much of a knock-on effect, all at once.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:24, 1 June 2009 (BST)

What do you mean knock on effect?--Pesatyel 05:48, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Currently, the zombie hordes decimate the whole city roughly twice a year. Each time, they have new strategies to make sure that it gets easier, and has a larger effect, every time. Afterwards, the survivors take it back to level equally overpowering for themselves, because the zombies get bored, and can't hold that much ground. If we made it so that the base standup was 5AP lower, then we'd likely end up with the zombies rising again, far too quickly, and being able to swarm malls and buildings with only newbie zombies, whereas currently, it takes at least one powerful zombie to take down a building's defences. If we changed ankle grab, so that it cost more AP, then survivors would have an unfair advantage. Despite what everybody thinks, the game is in a good balance now. Changing anything too drastically would not solve anything.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:28, 2 June 2009 (BST)

So, with that argument, your nullfiying your suggestion here.--Pesatyel 03:48, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I'm saying that there's no need for new implementation in to the game. But since everybody things there's some massive problem with the game, is it not better to make small suggestion than overbearing ones?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:38, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Well the basic "problem" is the stand up cost. But Headshot and Ankle Grab both modify it. So, in order to affect the stand up cost, you'd have to deal with ALL three together.--Pesatyel 20:49, 3 June 2009 (BST)

---

Gameplay Change

Timestamp:	--Rolfero 11:04, 31 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement of Gameplay/Skill Change
Scope:	Zombies and survivor
Description:	I suggest... I suggest we lower the AP cost of standing up to either 5 or 1 (if taken down by headshot this changes to 10 or 6). (Please tell me what you think is an approtiate number). As we change the AP cost, the Ankle grab should also be changed. If we change the AP cost to 1, we should remove the skill Ankle Grab, giving every player with this skill 100 XP. If we change the AP cost to 5, we could either keep the skill, or remove it (giving every player with this skill 100 XP). What does you think? I'm open to suggestions. In fact, unless everyone like the suggestion, i suggest you either say that there is no way you can make this good, or come up with a way to make it better. :D

Discussion (Gameplay Change)

I'm trying not to be offensive about it, but, there's no way to make this good... Because it's just pointless, 100xp isn't to hard to get, and ridding of it just getting rid of a challenge of being a zombie. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:05, 31 May 2009 (BST)

This doesn't help zombies, it helps survivors. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:06, 31 May 2009 (BST)

How does this help survivors? Please, fill me in. --Rolfero 11:28, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Think about it this way. There are two players, one is a survivor who didn't get any zombie skills, and one is a zombie who didn't get any survivor skills. Both of these are semi-legitimate pathways to go for characters. One dies. Which one gets hurt more? The survivor. He pays 10ap to get up, and then has to spend another 10ap to get revived. And that's if they don't get killed/headshotted again whilst waiting for a revive. The career zombie? Just 1AP, or 6AP, depending. Implementing this would help survivors more, because as I would say to that idiot Zombie Lord in response to his opinion below, Getting Ankle Grab is one of the top priorities of a zombie, and survivors too. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:34, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Okay, changed in the description. Now the AP cost would be changed for ALL players. Happy? BTW, Iscariot still said this helped survivors more, you said it hurt them more. --Rolfero 11:38, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Flip a coin I guess. It really doesn't matter to either of them. They just like to see their words up there. On your other point, I assumed you meant it would apply to both Survivors and Zombies equally, so yes that change is good.--Zombie Lord 11:43, 31 May 2009 (BST)

It feels like people usually don't check the developing suggestions, only the current suggestions. Guess I'll need to put it there to get more points of views. Unless other people came to look here. :P :/ --Rolfero 11:46, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Unfortunately, yes, not many people look in here, and about 90% of the ones that do aren't here to actually help anybody, but rather to troll, show off their "game knowledge", and generally talk down to people. It won't get much better over at Current though.--Zombie Lord 12:25, 31 May 2009 (BST)

No, I was specifying the current situation that Malton is in, when it comes to standing. Now imagine that scenario, and take away all AP costs for survivors at level 1. There's no longer a cost of dying (which was 10ap) and getting revived (also 10ap), whereas a Zombie achieves that at level 3 already. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:27, 1 June 2009 (BST)

I would vote Keep on lowering the AP to Stand to 1 and getting rid of Ankle Grab. As I have said before, Ankle Grab was just a bad band aid fix and as it is now the 10 AP to Stand only hurts newbies in a ridiculous manner, and means nothing to the older players.--Zombie Lord 11:11, 31 May 2009 (BST) Keep Ankle Grab and lower the default stand up cost to 5 so you have 1/6 & 5/10, better for the newbies and experienced players don't get affected keeping them happy... --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:20, 31 May 2009 (BST)

I fixed up your suggestion a little to make it a bit clearer. I don't think your going to have any luck getting rid of Ankle Grab. Bad skill or not (and it could stand to be "fixed"), people aren't going to like having it taken away (refunding the XP or not). So you'd probably do better to go with the 5 AP cost version. This has also been suggested before and didn't make it to Peer Review, so you might want to slog through Peer Rejected and Undecided.--Pesatyel 00:00, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Okay, I'll probably suggest this. If anyone got anything to say, say it as quickly as possible. The suggestion will be that all you do is that you lower the stand up cost to five. --Rolfero 16:24, 6 June 2009 (BST)

---

Zombie Items

Timestamp:	Necrofeelinya 05:18, 26 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Zombie toys
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	A heavily modified version of Kamikazie-Bunny's Ravage Corpse idea. Feed On Corpse now would provide more than just HP to zombies, it would also serve as a search which could reveal a selection of organs to serve as items in a zombie's inventory. The items would be as follows in order of rarity, with most rare at the top: Brain - When eaten, you gain 5 HP and your next 5 successful attacks gain double XP. Also, gain Memories of Life for the next 5 moves. No added bonus for multiple brains eaten. These would be rare, but valuable since they are the focus of the zombie's obsession. Heart - When eaten, gain 5 HP, -1 damage modifier to attacks against you for the next hour. No added bonus for multiple hearts eaten. Bone - When used, your next 5 attack attempts w/hands get a +1 damage modifier, bone is then auto-dropped. Liver- When eaten, gain 3 HP and the Infection ability for the next 5 moves. Lung - When eaten, gain 4 HP and the Feeding Groan ability for the next 5 moves. Eye - When eaten, gain 1 HP and for the next 5 moves gain the Scent Blood skill and ability to recognize NT buildings. Spleen - When eaten, gain 1 HP and the Death Rattle ability for the next 5 moves. I assume Kevan would choose a specific encumbrance and search % for each of these, so I haven't suggested anything exact for that. Zombie items would only be found on non-reviving corpses, of course. This way, the zombie has good reason to want these in its inventory, and zombies become more fun to play for those who tire of just 'cade bashing. And of course, since AP has to be spent searching for these things, the benefits are offset by the time spent looking for them, like with firearm ammo for survivors. The zombie FAK and defense aspects aren't that big of a deal, except for those who want to avoid being killed while using Scent Trail so they don't lose the scent of their attackers, but because of the way Scent Trail works they're still relevant. And an "all organs" option could be added to the Drop Item dropdown menu for revives, or they could just fling the body parts at others for no damage. It would give zombies a zombie-relevant inventory and add interest. And baby zombahs get the opportunity for temporary high-level skills by finding items, adding to their playability.

Discussion (Zombie Items)

I changed the effect of "Eye" because the binocular effect was a little far out, and I toned down the effect of "Brain", which may have been too strong, while adding an effect that would benefit baby zombahs. I didn't want to get over complicated with "Bone" by adding meat to it, so we're left with what's above. I figure the best part of it is the usefulness for less experienced zombies... most older zombies will see most of these items as just light FAKs, but younger zombies could get real use out of them. Sorry about swiping your idea, Kamikazie-Bunny, but I also wanted to shift it away from the notion of destroying a corpse and just incorporate it into the whole "Feed On Corpse" concept. I've deliberately left the notion of how characters might throw organs at each other after revives vague... I figure that would make a separate suggestion if this were to get implemented, or Kevan would implement it however he wants with this. I did a couple of quick searches for Dupes, and didn't find them, which surprised me. So let's see if this thing bucks the trend and gets a positive response. Whaddya think?--Necrofeelinya 05:18, 26 May 2009 (BST)

I like the idea, but I haven't played a determined zombah. So while I think it sounds fun and even interesting for low-level zombies, I want to hear what some more career-zombie players have to say. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:28, 26 May 2009 (BST)

Other then the "FAK" proprties associated with the body parts, older zombies would not really bother with any of them. They already have all the abilities listed, effectively.--Pesatyel 03:12, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Except for Brain, Heart and Bone, which all provide benefits for older zombies, although maxed zombies would probably be most interested in Bone, maybe Heart. Also, the FAK value shouldn't be underestimated. It's possible that zombies could benefit from healing to keep Scent Trail functional. You lose a harman's trail if you or the harman are killed, so avoiding death can sometimes be extremely important to zombies, if rarely.--Necrofeelinya 08:06, 27 May 2009 (BST)

I wasn't underestimating the FAK value. That's the ONLY "good" thing about this suggestion for older zombies. Older zombies don't need the "brain" benefits. If they aren't already maxed, they can acquire XP much eaiser then newbies who do need it so that's canceled. How does "bone" confer a bonus? Is it a melee weapon? And "heart" is way overpowered.--Pesatyel 02:21, 28 May 2009 (BST)

I think the fact that older zombies won't get as much use out of this to be a plus. They get to actively choose whether to pursue these items or not. It may not be in their interests, depending on the % chance of finding something useful. Maxed zombies are already powerful, baby zombahs need help. Bone confers a bonus by added damage if you successfully hit with one or more of your next 5 attacks. When you choose to utilize it by pressing the button in your inventory, it modifies a hand attack with +1 damage for the next 5 attempted attacks. If you miss all those, you get nothing. Heart only confers a -1 damage modifier for 1 hour, so I don't consider that overpowered. It isn't cumulative with additional hearts. It's far less powerful than a flak jacket. It won't save a zombie from a determined effort to kill it, even with a standard 50 AP.--Necrofeelinya 07:50, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Your not listening. HOW does the bone "confer a +1 to damage"? Magic? Just saying it grants a bonus doesn't mean realism is irrelevant. And, yes, the heart is overpowered. Flesh Rot and flak jackets have restrictions, this does not. A -1 damage against ALL attacks? That's pretty powerful. And an hour is a long time considering that all the other effects are limited to "the next 5 actions". And how DOES it interact with flak? Does it mean that a pistol only does 3 damage? EVERY zombie would be "powering up" at the beginning of any attack (especially if a concerted effort).--Pesatyel 03:51, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Two questions, how will noob zombies (who is the only target audience of this suggestion, really) going to know the difference between a dead and non-revivifying body? Also, what happens to these items when a survivor tries to 'eat' them? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:44, 27 May 2009 (BST)

I believe the game already accommodates discerning between dead and non-revivifying bodies. Don't you get a message when trying to feed on a revivifying corpse saying that it burns your mouth and you spit it out? At least I believe that's what it says elsewhere in the Wiki. And survivors wouldn't have the option of eating them. Just drop or throw, unless you want to add a suggestion where things get really gross, and which I would support wholeheartedly, of course.--Necrofeelinya 08:02, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Interesting. But I wonder how does the encumberance would work on these body parts...--Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 23:53, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Like I said, I figure Kevan will determine encumbrance as for normal items. I didn't want to set a specific number knowing he'd just choose his own anyway. But organs would be just like other items as far as encumbrance is concerned... they'd have a percentage, and you could only carry so many. If your zombie was already encumbered to the max, it couldn't pick up organs. It'd have to drop something.--Necrofeelinya 07:50, 28 May 2009 (BST)

I'm of the view that the MORE information you put into a suggestion the better it is "received" by Kevan. Whether or not he chooses to change the numbers is irrelevant. Without the information, you will be getting lots of "incompletes"....if you put this up for voting.--Pesatyel 03:51, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Older zombies aren't going to bother with this, they already have these skill effects, except for the NT identification (why is it they get this through eating bits of harmans that may not even have NT Employment?). Newbie zombies aren't going to take this because Digestion is one of the last two trees normally taken by zombies, claws or movement first, the other of that choice second. Rot might come as a third tree if CRs are a problem in that area (and they are, even if you're stood on a street) or Memories. The Scent tree is more attractive that the Digestion tree. The Digestion tree is only not going to be the final tree on those characters wanting to play the other side at some point, death cultists or dual natured players, Rot is more useful to actual zombie players and is bought accordingly.

Newbies aren't going to use it, older zombies have better things to do, what's the point? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:05, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Newbies may choose Digestion earlier because of this, much as zombies that previously avoided Brain Rot at all costs now choose it to get to Flesh Rot. I think Digestion is much more appealing than Rot anyway. What's a zombie without the ability to infect others? Right now newbies waste time on 'cades (usually missing), XP farm each other (dull and uninspiring), or chase hordes in the hope that someone drags a harman into the street to feed them (also not the biggest thrill). They could be empowering themselves with organ meat and gaining limited access to skills that otherwise would take forever for them to obtain. Older zombies can use the bonuses of Heart and Bone, they apply to everyone. NT identification as a feature of eye consumption implies temporarily improved perception... maybe they notice a sign zombies wouldn't normally notice. And honestly, I've never cared to get Rot. Just get bodybuilding and a flak jacket as a human. If someone CRs you, PK them. Not that the merits of Rot really matter to this discussion anyway.--Necrofeelinya 19:11, 28 May 2009 (BST)

What to take apart first? You are never going to pick Digestion before claws and movement, and you'll need Memories if you're going to be a feral. The wasted AP to get the items will be.... wasted in a half decent strike team or horde environment. As a feral I'd much rather have the scent skills to score kills for more XP rather than spend time on this picking up and using body parts malarkey.

The idea that newbies waste AP on cades is fallacious, all zombies must take down cades at some point and it takes a single skill (on top of VM) for a newbie to be just as effective at taking down cades as a fully levelled zombie. Any strike leader worth their title has newbies throw into the cades after a single skill in order to free up AP for the rest of the team to feed the newbie. Zombies more efficiently level and attack in a horde, but this idea doesn't fix it for ferals. It just forces them to by a substandard skill that doesn't help them level anywhere close to the standard way.

The point about zombie should be able to infect people is all well and good in fiction, where they get that skill from the outset, but they also get the useful skills in fiction like AG and BR from the start as well. Unfortunately in the game the ability to infect people costs 200XP and gives no return on increased hit or damage. It means that there is no decrease in the time between levels or the frustration in playing the game in that low levelled turgid manner.

This is a discussion about the merits of BR over Digestion, as it's a debate over how useful any skill tree is, and Digestion is simply the most pointless.

As for increased perception through eating eyes, go to your local fishmonger and butcher today and test something for me. Buy some fish eyes and some cow eyes and then eat them raw. Then look about and see if you can spot water and grass respectively more effectively. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:20, 29 May 2009 (BST)

I prioritise Digest&Infect over claws all the time, every zombie I've had feeds on the dead and digestion is a big part of that. From a purely numerical view point D&I is fairly pointless but most people are playing the game for fun, they're not 'trying to "win" at at the apocalypse'. Granted there is a small portion of people who play to win (they appear to be doing well...), read guides and adhere to them to become the 'best' player but I think it's safer to say more people use them as guides and play their own way and learn whilst having fun even if it's not ideal. We have Trenchies and Spammers shooting stuff and broadcasting pointless/entertaining messages all the time, I enjoy biting survivors, you appear to enjoy criticizing suggestions. It may be pointless but we enjoy it. --Kamikazie-Bunny 23:39, 30 May 2009 (BST)

I like the idea of zombies finding parts on their victims but if zombies have items they can use you get numerous problems:

• Zombies will now have to see their inventory in the main view (I have no problems with this but I bet some ass does),
• How to identify what is a zombie/survivor item (separate inventories with shared encumbrance/colour coding/trial and failure),
• I'm sure some one out there will bring back the whole 'Hel' argument (of which we'll see 'Hel' everywhere cause people want to sound smart using it) of zombies doing something a survivor can (searching/using inventory).
• Balancing of zombie items in the game, they we're designed not to need items so any items giving bonuses have to be very carefully balanced,
• And I just know some shit stirrer is thinking about the "Future impact on the wiki" argument where they use the fact that because zombies will now have items people will suggest items for zombies which will undoubtedly be spam and spoil their prettywiki.

Solve those middle 3 problems and I'll be happy with it. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:57, 30 May 2009 (BST)

• How about zombies just are allowed to search buildings, and can find these items? Also, what if an Animal Corpse item is added, which heals xx HP when eaten? --Brainguard 02:58, 6 June 2009 (BST)

---