User:Zach016

Susgestions currently working on. (cataloged for own storage and use, any points should be included in a seperate section)

Ideas to flush out into suggestion, or need to be re-worked

Wasteland Change (2.0)

Timestamp:	Zach016 20:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Building Change
Scope:	Survivors/Zombies
Description:	This is for Malton only, not Monroeville Two randomly selected Wastelands from each suburb, would be changed to be called a "Ruined(or destroyed) Building" These Buildings would have a descrition as: "A Building that nearly burned to the ground during the initial chaos at the beginning of the outbreak. The remains of the walls are enough to keep you out of sight" Whenever a survivor or zombie resides in one of these buildings, they will not show up on any other users view, unless that user is in that same building Any user in one of these buildings cannot see the other buildings/players that reside behond that destroyed building These buildings are not barricadable, ruinable, searchable, and you enter them just by moving onto its block.

Discussion (Wasteland Change (2.0))

Current Thoughts?--Zach016 20:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mini Fort (2.0)

Timestamp:	Zach016 19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Type:	New Building Type, New Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	my suggestion is to add a new skill under construction called Adv. construction to keep it simple. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20070919_Mini_Fort using this skill, you can build a somewhat mini "fort" (better name later), but of course there are guidlelines that go along with this: 1. it has to be within a four square area 2. This four square area MUST be made up of a car park, street or wasteland (combination of these does not matter) and 1 building to build off of. (their are several areas like this I believe) 3. Barricade level cannot exceed strongly

Discussion (Mini Fort (2.0))

This is actually I think the first suggestion I made here, here it is with one of the two problems of its demise taken away. (the second being Urban Dead was not ready)--Zach016 19:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. so its a way to barricade a building, and 3 empty squares, up to vsb? MY question is, give me an example where this is better than occupying a building? How would freerunning be affected? --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 19:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a garrented entry point (something that normally is in the air), one more "building" zombies have to take down in a suburb, and the absence of searchable items in many would not make it a overly large target on a groups list. Freerunning to and from the building is possible, but it is not possible to free run to, or from one of the barricaded streets.

Currently im playing with the idea that the streets act somewhat as fort walls, where they are not actually crossable from the outside, and can only be destroyed from the inside, but are not enterable (from the outside) as well, only act as LB (inside) and the building has to stay at VSB.

To actually state what the older problem was it was the ability to store items as of sorts. The idea was to "store" a pistol and then that pistol would become findable inside at a low rate, which would provide an incentive, but was voted down.--Zach016 20:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you see people inside the walls from blocks outside the fort?--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Debatable, would you rather they can be seen, or not?--Zach016 20:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wasteland Change

Timestamp: Zach016 03:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Type: Location Change Scope: Everyone Description: Wastelands would be changed into the remains of a burned down building (discription) insead of just being nothing. Whenever a survivor or zombie resides in a wasteland they will not show up on the users view unless they themselves are in the wasteland (hidden among the ruins), although any user in a wasteland cannot see behond the wasteland (view obscured). Its basicly fog on a smaller level and permentant.

Discussion (Wasteland Change)

Just a random idea I had...--Zach016 03:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Before any objections to ninga zombies, I mean the walls would be high enough to obsure the view of the zombie/survivor, (which is the reason there vision is obsured as well). Ambushes could be taken into account although I don't believe myself they would have a very large effect, considering anyone can enter and see them at any time. Possible nerf to infection although thats debatable as they're still on the street and harder to find by FAk toteing survivors. Possibly destroies part of the negative effects of HB suburbs as the survivors would still have a place always open, but then again it raises the chances of a free lunch... Thoughts?--Zach016 03:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC) In the small chance this comes up, even though the walls are high enough to obsure the view, it is not barricadable because there would be several entry points, no barricading material would be readily aviable and taking large enough pieces of equipment would slow you down too much (not to mention you can't carry a chair with you to barricade anyway, and the pipe woulden't cover enough as there are two many EP's)--Zach016 03:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pretty cool idea. Instead of having it work as fog, you could just make them actual buildings that have no doors, can not be barricaded, which negate free running (can't be used as entry points), and which allow you to hear feeding groans. Once inside the "building", you would only be visible to others who were inside, and could not see people who are outside the building. Then again, with all those caveats, the fog effect might just be simpler, but I don't really see why you'd not know what buildings were in surrounding blocks. ‌‌‌ Swiers 03:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

sounds good.--Themonkeyman11 04:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Make it so they have to enter the ruins of the building to not be visible though. --PdeqTalk* 04:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I'm a little worried about how easy it would be for large groups of zombies to move across the city virtually undetected. It would be funny though if there was a mall siege with no zombies outside of the mall (because they were all hiding in the wasteland next door). --Uncle Bill 04:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought about this, but because anyone can enter it woulden't be the same as just any sneaking around (Anyone can find you if they look in the right place) and it gives a purpose to them. It would give survivors a limited place to look but it opens up new tactics (maybe that green burb isen't green afterall). Zombies sometimes look inside ruins for survivors, now survivors might have to do a litle looking themselves some of the time.--Zach016 12:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Uncle Bill, that already happens. MOB members almost always sleep in the ruins they create. That's 50-100 organized zombies that potentially fly in "under the radar". ‌‌‌ Swiers 19:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC) I say yes! - Pardus 09:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this has some potential. I would vote Keep if you took it to voting. --Zombie in Pajamas 19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Weak Keep, cuz it's a good idea. BoboTalkClown 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of making these enterable as if they were still buildings. If that were the case I would suggest making all movement between them use the freerunning mechanism (I don't know how many wastelands there are let alone how many are next to each other so it may be a bit pointless) feeding groans should also still be heard! The whole idea opens the way to real a post apocalypse world with gutted ruins everywhere ;)--Honestmistake 12:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of making adjacent wastelands into a large building / free run network. It just confuses things. It would raise expectations that wastelands could be free-run out of into normal buildings, which would be a very bad thing to allow, IMO, as it would (further) reduce the need for VSB entry points, greatly hurting noobies who lack free running. ‌‌‌ Swiers 21:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC) I like it as it is, just a bunch of ruins that could hide you and stuff. Don't turn it into a building. --Aeon17x 12:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So, to summarise, it's like being in a building for visibility (both seeing and being seen) but is otherwise exactly like being outside? If so, you have a keep from me --Gene Splicer 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was hoping for, yeah. Seems pretty neat. Parks might also work well this way, given that they have gazebos, picnic shelters, groves of trees, etc. Carparks could also work this way, having burnt out cars to hide in and among, or being open air parking ramps. Probably best to stick with just one of the three, however. ‌‌‌ Swiers 21:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC) As in, the "Outside" has "Inside" visibility mechanics, but there'd be no actual "Inside". So not actually buildings, just a standard empty block with funky visibility mechanics. I'd leave the parks be though, for now anyway. Maybe if this gets implimented come back and say "Hey, how about parks too?". The less sweeping the change, the more likely to be implemented --Gene Splicer 22:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC) It sounds a kinda like my carpark idea where survivors could search for cars to "hide" in.--Pesatyel 03:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

hmm, never saw it. This doesn't require a search though, Im not sure what else is different off of that basic description...--Zach016 01:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Cigars V4.0

Timestamp:	Zach016 02:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Type:	New Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Once again, based on http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/PR_Equipment_New#Cigarettes for those of you who haven't seen V.1,2 or even 3. 2% encumberance Found 4% in mansions, 2% in towers, 2% in office buildings Come in a cigar box of four cigars Other players will be informed "player begins to smoke a cigar" - x time Trading Can offer a cigar to another player, although that player must accept the next time they reload their page, or log in. If the player has full encumberance then clicking the button will not give them the cigar and the same message when you search when over the limit. Preforming an action refuses the cigar offer Can only try to hand out cigars to as many people as you have cigars Only one person can try to give a cigar to any other person at one time. If you try to give a cigar to someone who is in the middle of being offered one you get a message and lose no AP Recieveing cigars can be turned off in your profile, as can seeing smoked cigars. The cigar traded is a single cigar at 1% encumberance Message Limits Limit of one "player begins to smoke a cigar" message per player, mutiple cigars smoked by the same player will not produce a message until that player moves at least one square. Only the nearest 8 people recieve this message. Anyone who is smoking a cigar will have it appear in their profile for 2hr after smoking one, in a new slot. Uses: Roleplaying, and the ability to congratuate your group or team members after a large battle. Cigars Arguement

Discussion (Cigars V4.0)

I heavily suggest people take a look here: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion_talk:20080211_Cigars_V.3 and you will find points on talking, unneeded, trading, clothing, and emotes. Please respond after reviewing these and feel free to continue the arguement so I can clear up why talking, clothing etc. is better then this, when it comes to this.--Zach016 02:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There's this thing called "belief". You can effectively argue all you want, and we'll hear you out, but that won't stop those people who have their own belief that talking, clothing, etc. is better than this from killing your suggestion. --Aeon17x 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My only question is why? what makes it better? if you can't answer those questions without a clear arguement back then you should rethink that belief. You can believe anything you want, that doesn't make it true, and argueing over what is true can change those beliefs. Saying your killing off of that is killing for the wrong reasons, saying your killing off of that because... is a valid reason. i want to know the because... before I give up instead of excepting, "This is better cus I said so, so there". Im interested in hearing those opinons, yet nobody wants to give the explantion. I truly find that more things get pointed out in voting, that should have been brought up here.--Zach016 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not being able and/or willing to give an explanation doesn't mean that a person's feelings about an issue are invalid. Why do I like broccoli? Because I do. Why do I like Urban Dead? Because I do. Have I explained myself? No. Is it possible I can't explain why? Yes. Does that mean my opinion is invalid, or that if someone has a well-reasoned argument to the contrary that I should automatically change how I feel? No. While I understand your frustration, the fact is that some people just like things better one way rather than another.

-> "I truly find that more things get pointed out in voting, that should have been brought up here." - is so true. Maybe it's partly due to how the suggestion page vs. the voting page is laid out? While when I first joined I preferred the way the suggestions page is currently set up, maybe having a separate page for each suggestion might be a good idea? Maybe set it up similarly to the voting page, but adjust it to accommodate the many revisions each suggestion is likely to go through. Just a thought. --Ms.Panes 04:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Enough already. -- Iscariot 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since it's essentially a flavor suggestion, every vote is based off of whether they like it or not, although, in most suggestions it's just the keep votes that are, usually without any reason why it should be done beyond "I like it". Double standards are wonderful aren't they?--Karek^maps?! 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What Iscariot said, at the very least please wait a few weeks. And the trading mechanic really has to go, too many complications arise from it to make the suggestion worth reading(if you try to address them) or even able to address them.--Karek^maps?! 04:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Im not saying, because I like it, or because I don't like, it isn't valid, im asking why talking is better, why clothing is better? Thats a bit different. As for the trading, i oppose getting rid of it because thats the point behind the suggestion, and just sitting there doing nothing but smoking these is not even worth the time to bring to voting as its lost all point. Im attempting to adress this here, and want to go further into the matter here.--Zach016 12:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes and if there's a trading mechanic it will be used to screw people over, which has been pointed out in pretty much ever version you've submitted with ways to work around your "fixes" to trading abuses. If you keep trading in you'll need to address each and every one of those and it would more than double the length of the suggestion.--Karek^maps?! 18:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Without it, its the same as the cigarettes suggestion and the trading is what's mainly there to make it different instead of just the name. If those issues must be addressed, well it might as well be addressed sometime so its ready for later suggestions instead of hiding behind a tree everytime it crops up. My only question about it right now is what are its current faults? abuses? and so forth. if you can turn it off and only recieve one at a time how can it be used to screw you over? If it gets too long and complicated then there will be no choice but to drop it. Currently I would like to at least attempt to make it work instead of giving up right away.--Zach016 20:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Medical equiment V.1.5 + more

Timestamp:	Zach016 23:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Type:	skill change/new items
Scope:	survivors and zombies
Description:	This will be a change to infection and two new items that go along with it. Infection Change An infection before death takes 2HP/AP away, infection after revival only takes 1HP/AP FAK's have a chance to cure infection. (55% basic), Using an FAK in a powered hospital with surgery has 95% chance of curing an infection. Any person that makes it to full health yet still has an infection will have an (I) appear near their name. If they do an action or are attacked that causes a loss of HP this (I) disappears. FAK's can be used on any survivor with the (I) present. The flavor behind this is you still don't look well after being fully healed. Medical Equiment New Item Found in Hospitals at about 4% (unlit) Have a 4% encumberance value Allows you to heal an extra 2HP/FAK Gives a +15% chance of curing an infection. This is not added to the percentage when in a powered hospital as these tools would be present. Only useable by those with the skill First Aid(?) Infection Vaccine New Item Found in Hospitals (2%) and Necrotechs (3%), again when unlit 2% encumberance value any infection recieved within a 28HR time period (after injection, does not affect infections before) will not cause a loss in HP/AP. Although any FAK used during this time period to try to cure an infection has a -35% chance in getting the infection. After this time period any infection recieved while the vaccine was in place will take away 1Hp/AP, and will carry over after death, regardless if the vaccine was in effect, unless cured. Survivors can give other survivors a vaccine shot just as if they are giving an FAK Any bite given after the vaccines time has run out, regardless if you have the 1Hp/AP infection will revert it back to the 2HP/AP infection Vaccine times will not stack, and can only be reinjected after the first's time period is up. *Limit of 1-2(?) injections before a death The use of these two items will not provide any extra xp.

Discussion (Medical equiment V.1.5 + more)

Might have forgot some things, numbers may need to be twicked but other then that...--Zach016 23:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Drop the "+2 HP healed". I highlghted the part that doesn't make sense. What "after this time period" period if time?--Pesatyel 01:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Its meant to be a larger set of surgical tools and drugs and such at your disposial, and I do believe it should also heal the extra 2Hp (far from a huge boost nor closes any real gap). As for the time period, the 28hrs the vaccine is in effect after you inject it into yourself.--Zach016 02:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, quite a convoluted suggestion. Overall I quite like it though, helps buff up infections. Still, I have something to clear up - should you include some way to identify a survivor who has already been vaccinated? Like maybe put blue brackets around their HP or something (like the green brackets for infections)? Also, if a survivor tries to vaccinate an already-vaccinated survivor, is the vaccine used up? Will it cost AP? -- Ashnazg 1126, 4 February 2008 (GMT)

A visual representation of the vaccine is debateable, it could have side effects that show, or just be a normal looking person. Each would have its own draws and weaknesses, if it didn't show then only those who asked for it would get one and there would be less chance of everyone in a building having one injected so im leaning towards no. If a survivor tries to vaccinate another survivor already vaccinated survivor im also leaning towards that the vaccine will be used up regardless, again just so it makes it that everyone doesn't end up having the vaccine. But then again this brings in the question of spam and griefers... Might have to.--Zach016 12:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else want to comment on the 2HP healed or making vaccinated survivors visible? How many would kill this and why? Might as well address these issues here.--Zach016 03:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the top part. Vacinee is bad though. UCFSD 14:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reasons so I can fix, or scrap?--Zach016 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions. IS the item consumable or not? I'd kill it if it wasn't. As I read the suggestion, once you inject yourself, you are immune to infection for the next 28 hours. Yet the part I highlighted mentions during the same time period, you are only affect 1 hp/ap. Or does the highlighted part cover some OTHER time period?--Pesatyel 02:27,6 February 2008 (UTC)

Which item, the vaccine? then of course. The medical equiment not so much (because its just that, equiment).

The highlighted period covers the same 28hrs after you inject yourself. What I mean is that when the time period (the 28hrs) fully runs out, and you were infected during that time period (Your not immune, it just doesn't affect you for that period) then afterwards you will lose 1HP/AP instead of the 2HP/AP proposed. It also mentions that if the 28Hr's after injecting yurself hasen't run up, yet you are infected, killed, and then restand and are revived, you will still lose 1Hp/Ap used. Hope that answers your question.--Zach016 05:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Afterwards? After WHAT?

1)any infection recieved within a 28HR time period (after injection, does not affect infections before) will not cause a loss in HP/AP.

Which I read as, for 28 hours after injection, you are effectively immune to infection.

2)After this time period any infection recieved while the vaccine was in place will take away 1Hp/AP.

Which I read as, from what you told me, for 28 hours after injection, you take 1 HP/AP (instead of 2 HP/AP).

So which is it? Or is it that, if I'm infected during the 28 hour period, I don't take damage but at hour 28:01+ I'm still infected but I only take 1 HP/AP? Because if it is, that ISN'T the same "28 hour period".--Pesatyel 07:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

any infection recieved within a 28HR time period (after injection, does not affect infections before) will not cause a loss in HP/AP until this 28hr period is over, where you will lose 1hp/AP instead of two which is what is effectivly said in 2). your not immune it suppresses the effects, at the cost of easyier healing early.--Zach016 12:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So, in other words, 1) and 2) do NOT cover the same "28 hour period". For 28 hours after injection, you do not take HP per AP damage. After that 28 hour period, then you take 1 HP per AP. That is until cured or killed or reinfected (which sends it back to 2 HP per AP).--Pesatyel 06:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they're in relation to that 28 hour period, that same 28hr period applies to both 1) and 2). Sorry I must have worded it terribly.--Zach016 15:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Forward Lunge

New attack, If there is a survivor outside then the zombie can click a button that lunges them over a space to them (basicly attack and move rolled into one Ap instead of 2), with a percentage of hit. Flare odds, does not work if x zombies are present.

Shoot Bodies

Flavor

Possible ways:

1st shot makes zombie stand with 5HP less, no xp to shooter, 5% chance blood splashes and infects the shooter (regeneration as explanation for blood flowing). Does not stack. Bullet still used and player is not informed whether they were the first to hit or not.

^Possible adition, These shots can be heard, so they can be used as a decoy, yet as an indication of survivor activity in the area as well.

Infection Detection V2.0

Timestamp:	Zach016 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Item Change/mechanic change
Scope:	Who or what it applies to.
Description:	Seeming as my last version of the I.D.D. was ruled unworthy, Im bringing this under a rehaul and proposeing changes to certain mechanics as well currently in place. DNA scanner gets an upgrade Any scan get gives whether the speciman is infected or not When it preforms a scan now two buttons show, normal revive(10AP), and heal infection/revive(11AP) If clicking the second button an FAK is used up from your inventory as well as a syringe. Now into some of the mechanics change: FAks now cost 2AP to normally use on a zombie (restrain and use) FAKs now have a 25% chance of healing an infection, when used on a zombie. With this scan it has a 75% chance of healing the infection in the zombie (know the quantity of different drugs to use) This is to promote not using zeds as an xp farm by healing, a bit of a boost with a counter to infections in this process, and survivors to make an attempt to heal infections before the person gets up. For those of you who do not believe their is any way of detecting an infection in a zombie, I will include iscariots and mine arguement over the last, and my own crackpot theory on the subject.

Discussion (Infection Detection V2.0)

I was actually referring to whether or not they died of infection (and will still have one when they're revived. --Uncle Bill 01:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How the hell are you going to get a portable device to differentiate between the active virus that reanimated them and the minute amount of the same virus, that's also active, that killed them? Magic?

How do people survive several(4-5) shotgun hits, ignore their injuries with beer, or turn into zombies? BoboTalkClown 20:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably let this go as an upgrade to Scanners inside a powered NT, just like syringes get a boost inside powered NTs, but on a permanent basis on a portable device? No. -- Iscariot 01:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If it was limited to powered NTs, that would be completely useless and not worth the time it takes to suggest it. How do you feel about limiting it to use on survivors only? --Uncle Bill 02:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My (immediate) problem with this isn't the game balance, it's the flavour behind it. For all we know the virus is present in all characters in Malton, just it requires death to suppress the immune system long enough for it to take over and reanimate the body. Limiting it to survivors (i.e. alive survivors) would cure (potentially) some of the flavour problems, but is still an obvious survivor buff, it will have a hard time passing. Even if you made another piece of equipment (paying for the ability with encumbrance), I can't see it getting through. Though it's one of the better survivor buff we've seen on these pages for a while. -- Iscariot 03:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So wait it can't differanciate between a virus that you can still cure while they are undead? Not even counting the fact that not everyone wakes up with an infection in the first place unless bitten, even though they've been undead with that virus for a week and a half. Its pretty safe to say that the infection used against survivors is a mutation if not a whole different infection that went along with the rotting corpse thing they have going on. A survivor killing you with bullets turns you into a zombie, not nessicarly this infection all the time, so it could very well detect this infection, no one said it was the same virus.--Zach016 02:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"pretty safe to say" - Where did you get your qualification from then, Doctor? This goes back to the flavour behind the outbreak, which we don't know therefore your speculation is worth precisely nothing, especially since as it doesn't address your own example of why survivors that are shot turn into zombies rather than just die. My personal theory (which as it addresses these hole could be seen to more valid until His Lordship Kevan The First rules on the matter) is that the virus was released by NT intentionally. It is present in the system of every character in Malton. Death (by shooting, suicide or zombie) puts the metabolism into a state of arrest that allows the virus to take hold and reanimate the body (the time to take hold being the stand-up cost). Syringes are calculated by NT to reduce the virus level to the point where the immune system can fight off the virus and allow the body to resume its normal functions (again, the stand-up cost). Infectious Bite gives the same virus, but at an increased dose that damages the immune system and metabolism (represented by the damage per action) which therefore shuts the body down to the point the virus can take hold. As a syringe is carefully calibrated to the standard rate of infection, someone who has been infected by IB has an increased amount of the strain in their system that remains and continues to do damage after revivification. This is why I'd support this idea in a powered NT, as like the syringes, the system of NecroNet would be able to kick in and alter the scanning parameters as the dosage of syringes is increased now. -- Iscariot 03:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"which we don't know therefore your speculation is worth precisely nothing", as is yours. It could still very easily come along with the territory, yet be a completly different virus, making your arguement against it being against the flavor, screw itself over. Plus under your reasoning it could be calibrated to search for the increased count of the virus in someones system, zombie or human, therefore falling under your logic and still well do-able. It could very well be a device created by necrotech through pleminary studies of the infection/virus and its effects.--Zach016 17:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlike your explanation, mine encompasses survivor deaths unrelated to zombies, yours has large holes in it. Regardless I'll now spam this to death using Hel characters as justification. -- Iscariot 18:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This made no sense... The orginal virus could still be there all the time, but needs sufficent quanties to produce the virus that infects (my logic), and I covered under your logic as well. I neithier see the holes, nor how having technogly makes this a hel character justification. If you would like to point out how mine had holes while considering the whole story I will agree with this justifaction.--Zach016 18:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And of couse my own full crackpot theory:

We all know the zombie virus is always present, my hypothesis is that the viral cells are in fact going through the lysogenic cycle (they're pretty much dormant in cells) while the survivor is alive and only located in certain types of cells, but when the survivor dies the conditions become right for the viral infected cells to mass produce a seperate virus that takes the specialzation and distribution of function away from all the other cells where the orginal virus is not present, as well as creating a small amount of "stand by" orginal viral particles that float free throughout their systems, otherwise somewhat following the lytic cycle to a degree. This secondary virus does not do the full job to the advanced cells in the brain which is why headshot causes a longer/tougher regeneration (Just to note, the specializtion and distribution of function between different cells is one of the main reasons we can't regenerate). These secondary viral cells also produce energy in the cells they infect causing the infectee to "raise" from the dead, and the infected brain acts more on impulse then thought. The infection itself is a bacterial infection of oppertunity, and the undead state gives the right conditions for it to reproduce wildly in the sliva of the zombie, and negativly effects human blood cells, but the zombies blood cells regeneate at a pace faster then the infections destruction, which is why an infected zombie is not affected, even when infected and can be cured.

Once bitten, a survivors blood cells becomes the new home for this bactera and it does untold damage to them causing death in a short period if not otherwise treated. This would explain the percentage to bite attacks (need to pierce the skin) and why an FAk with antibiotics (ineffective against a virus because it resides inside living cells) can easily clear it up. The revive syringe itself begins more rapid regeneration with the unspecialzed cells, brings back function to those cells with a third virus that overides or replaces the secondary virus in the cells DNA and causes the survivor to come back "alive". The viral particles of the first virus that were created but left around then infect the newly made cells and restart the process once again. The bacterial infection of opertunity dies off in the sliva because the conditions in the mouth are no longer fitting, and it does not have an access to the blood, while the bacteria in the blood continues to feed off it.

The DNA scanner would allow an infection detection of the zombies blood and look for the infection that way, if you accept my theory. The percentage to heal the infection would reflect both the amount of antibiotic, and the resistant factors that are bound to develop against the antibiotics.

Memories of life could represent the viral cells doing an even worse job on the brain as its cells grow resistant against it, while brain rot could represent the secondary virus becoming resistant against the virus used in the revive syringe--Zach016 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Woah, epileptic trees much? Lol. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EpilepticTrees.) Anyway, I personally always thought that the infection from Infectious Bite was just a general bacterial infection, you know, an ordinary infected wound (thanks to tooth decay in the zombie or something, I dunno, lol). After all, monitor lizards deliberately let masses of bacteria fester in their teeth to kill things they bite. As for your suggestion...personally I don't really see what's wrong with it. Helps the newbs without buffing the older survivors too much (since most of the latter carry FAKs almost all the time) I think it's a good idea. -- Ashnazg 0814, 6 February 2008 (GMT)

heh, I said it was my crackpot theory and i'll stick to it. "just a general bacterial infection" Thats actually pretty much all I was getting at, just trying to explain why it developed in the zombie, but those who could pass it on don't have to be affected by it after revival.--Zach016 16:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it as given that you've tried to sort the flavour problems until someone with a doctorate comes along (I got bored two lines in). Still, spam on account of Hel characters and nerfing infection. -- Iscariot 21:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't try to sort any flavor problems, I gave a background around the infection. To be fair antibiotics, the ones that you would find in a drug store don't kill viruses, simple as that. Why? viruses intrigrate their DNA or RNA into the DNA of your own cells. If an antibiotic was killing the virus, it would kill you as well. Read the susgestion again, and you'll find it actually hardens the ability for it to be healed, even if detected. It isn't a hel character, because quite frankly, bacterial infections are detectable through tests, and if both dangerous enough, and wide spread a function deicated to this could be made depending on the infection. My theory may just be a theory, but don't think I made it all up out of nowhere, the basics of it are based on fact, only the actual way the virus works and is treated is speculation. Go learn some background on the subject, and then we'll talk hel character.--Zach016 22:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Iscarot, why don't you actually tell me both why this merits a hel character justification in your opinion, and how exaclty it would nerf infection to any "real" (as in noticeable) degree. I would rather hear the why? behind it then just the vote itself here.--Zach016 23:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

CCTV system

player gains camera and a moniter, 10% moniter, 5% camera (come together)
camera can be set up inside of a building, moniter in building within two buildings
both camera and moniters can be destroyed
camera shows movements, though is not specific
mutiple moniters can be set up in the same building, connected to other cameras
one camera per building
If mutiple moniters, gives direction of building camera is in
hook up to gene.

Adapted from motion sensors below and http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/PR_Equipment_New#CCTV

Infection Vaccine

Basics: - found in hospitals, necrotechs - 2-5% encumberance - covers for so much time - Cannot be reinjected for so much time - less chance to recieve infection, but those who do lose 2Hp per move - Useful for going into red suburbs

Undead Barricades

---The Main Suggestion (Undead Barricades)---

- When zombies ruin a building, debris is made through this process which from then on hinders survivors and zombie's alike from entering the building until the debris is cleared.

- Survivors with a tool box can clear this debris for 2 AP, zombies can clear this debris for 3AP and survivors without a toolbox can clear the debris for 4AP. Once the debris is cleared by a zombie or survivor, it is gone from that building until it is repaired and then ruined once again.

-The number of zombie's inside the building cannot reach a number over 3 at the exact moment when the building is ruined, in order for the debris to block entrance into the building. (Explained in messages)

-Zombies do not have to clear the debris to leave, although they do have to clear the debris to re-enter that building

---Message's Given---

Once leaving, the zombie gets a message like this “you leave through a small hole you made, but falling debris closes it behind you”

If there are more then three zombies inside once it’s ruined “rubble fall’s in front of the entrances, but a fellow zombie accidentally pushes it back out of the way”

Once a survivor/zombie is outside an affected building, they receive a button to clear the rubble and the message “rubble blocks the entrances inside, and will have to be moved before you can enter”

And of course once a zombie ruins the building they receive the message “Rubble falls in all the entrance’s, blocking the way inside”.

---Explanation's---

Why a zombie does not have to clear the ruin to leave, but must do so to get back inside: During the ruining process each zombie happens to make a small hole some where in the building’s walls (look at the piece of text you receive sometimes when trying to free run into a ruin, it's something along the lines of "you are stopped by a collapsed wall" this already is in place in a certain form, but is of no use to anyone involved). Due to the amount of debris it looks covered on both sides (i.e. why survivors don’t see it) but the zombie remembers where it is (they made it, and are smarter then the average zombie). Once they leave through the hole, debris falls and fills it behind them making it unusable.

Why the number of zombies cannot reach a number over three inside the building in order for the debris to block the entrance: This is just so there cannot be 80 zombie alts inside a police department, on top of having this in place. This makes it so a lone zombie can hold a building longer without needing such a massive number, and give them more confidence in moving on to another suburb to do more damage.

Why the AP is set where it is: This is just because those with a tool box would have better tools to do the job, and zombies would be able to do it better then a person without, as they would not care as much to damaging there body in the process. Even gloves make a difference.

---Issue's---

"In a Ransack/Ruined building, the Zombies ARE the barricades"

Let me explain why, although right, this shouldn’t be the only way, and why I forced it to three or bust.

-less fun, as zombies can't expand outwards to create more damage, and can't ruin multiple building's themselves, (big problem with the current system) as they can only stay and maintain one. That and the ruin would go no where’s as the zombie player's can only go 23 AP outwards and then have to come back, and that's without doing anything. Were supposed to be surviving something here, not sitting around laughing because half the zombies are stuck half of Malton away.

-still open between use age, survivor barricades never automatically fall down

-as it's been stated many times before, 1. Survivors are in the majority 2. More good benefits to survivors then zombie player's

-encourages massive amount's of zed accounts just so the player can move on, if the player wants full coverage.

The current system is broken, but not in the way most proclaimed (statement three of mine). What is a zombie player supposed to do if, in order for 100% most effective use, they can't move at all? This is the biggest AP killer this game has in use, as it makes players use 0 AP 24/7. Survivor’s complain about a high cost to get back a ruin with 80 zombie's inside, that's 80 zombies using Ap only to fight the unluckily sap who goes inside, and that’s 80 zombies who survivors on the streets should be running from. Who is losing more AP here, those using 150 AP to take back a building, or the zombie only using AP to attack survivors inside, but can't move away for maximum coverage? Answer that question (beyond the stupid, obvious answer) and I’ll accept that piece of argument.

"never try to make it harder for zombies to hold buildings"

This actually makes it easier for lower amounts of zombies to hold a building, but in order for it to be fair; it must be kept at a low number. Larger amounts of zombies would not be affected by it in the lest. The 3 AP to get back inside, but also clearing the debris in the process is a trade-off for the player to decide to make.

Suggestions with no huge problems yet to be seen, mostly ready for submission

Zombie body building

{{suggestionNew |suggest_time=Zach016 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |suggest_type=Skill |suggest_scope=zombies |suggest_description= A new skill for zombies,able to be purchased at level one if you so desire. It is meant to take the place of body building on the human side. As normal the zombie will gain 10hp, but when they are beaten/shot down to 10Hp they "crumple to the ground" (message: "the zombie crumples to the ground with its wounds, but continues to fight")in turn making them harder to hit (only around 2%) but have slighty better accaurcy (+1% to +5%) on hand attacks and possibly +2% for bite. To counter this movement would cost 2AP (with lurching gait) or 3Ap (without lurching gait). This would make them more effective if they died inside of a building, but less effective outside.

A new button would appear named "sucumb to wounds" at a cost of 5Ap (this senerio) or 6-7Ap(*will describe why later) which lets the zombie fully die then stand back up, but at the zost of a head shot. Anyone around a zombie who clicked this button would get the message "a zombie sucumbed to its wounds". The kill xp would be split up into two halves, one half just by getting the zombie to the floor, and one half by fully dispatching the zombie.

in this senerio the zombie would leave a puddle of its blood on the floor, which would enter the buildings description (would only work inside buildings). At 2% per action the survivors could become infected, but anyone could clean it up for 1-2AP.

Of course neither this skill or bodybuilding would carry over to the other side, and to attempt to cut down on zombie groups killing each other for the extra killing power (still less HP) it would not work if one zombie killed another zombie.

- Another possible adition is for it to remove the effects of a flak jacket on zombies, and add the HP saved on top of the 10hp when on the ground.

Over all this would make humans think twice about fully killing a zombie inside of a building if they don't have the AP, and would make zombies somewhat more effective on occasion at lone building combat if they get inside, to try to balance out the effect cades have on zombies.

Discussion (zombie body building)

Stupid, over-complicated, pointless, un-balanced? any critism is welcome, any message susgestions are welcome too, obviously I made them up on the spot.--Zach016 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's over-complicated, the concept of zombie body building isn't new and the flavour doesn't really make sense to me. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious, isn't buying this skill effectively forcing the zombie who took it to take a headshot or suffer movement penalties. Two options arise upon being "killed (forced to their knees)":

Suffer the 5AP penalty for having been forced to crawl because of a skill they bought (which they might not have had to pay as not every survivor has headshot).
Crawl about at a cost of 2AP per square (and wait to be killed so they can move freely).

Essentially it nerfs the veteran zombies. - Whitehouse ^T 16:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You missed the fact it made them slightly harder to hit and gave them a boost to accaurcy for weapons(None of my percentage values or Ap values are concrete, feel free to suggest different values). The reason why i kept it at a headshot amount of Ap is because everyone would take that to:

avoid a headshot.
strip other players of their xp bonus.
imediate re-stand in the middle of a building when not even fully dead.

As for the flavor, its just to show that zombies:

can take more damage to systems without showing pain, even when forced to crawl through injuries
fight to the last dying breath
really don't want humans to win
to be different then just randomly gaining 10HP, even while decomosing for 2 years.

As for the other zombie body building susgestions, those are very different as they are just a copy of survivor body building, for zombies, this attempts to bring a different perspective to it, nor does it even have to be called a form of zombie body building, because the extra hp can't be used in "normal" form. The only thing I can't really counter is it being over complicated, feel free to sugest dropping certain sections, add others and such. Don't forget that certain parts that include the * first don't even nessicary have to be a part of it.--Zach016 17:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I also though about it giving a small boost against cades as well(2-5%) because they are able to hit the lower parts,although i didn't figure this would fly.--Zach016 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It still doesn't make up for the AP loss. If you crawl you would quickly lose a high amount of AP, which you would also lose by waiting to be killed so you could move freely. And the succumb to wounds part is to expensive, the only way to get rid of your move restriction is to suffer a penalty similar to headshot, or wait and get killed and waste precious AP meanwhile. Survivors would be well off by just knocking the zeds outside to below 10HP and leaving them to suffer. It would only help when inside a building, and zombies get killed in the streets a lot. - Whitehouse ^T 19:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the fact that it brings the other point of view on zombies.As far as I know, there are 2 approaches on the subject : the headshotted zombie remains dead, or the parts of it that are chopped off remain mobile and try to grab harmanz in their own crude way.This proposition of yours, suggest the latter concept, and is a major change in the UD's mechanics.It's not a problem for me, as it's interesting, but I fear that this, and the complicated ways of standing up with various options won't help this suggestion to appear ingame :( --James beckerson 21:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Whitehouse, if you would like, the AP loss per movement could fade off at a percentage per move, or the zombie could then take xhp damage per movement(only movement, not attacks/speaking etc.), and scrap the "kill yourself" button, as it would still "sucumb to its wounds", and possibly make it a little less complicated without that extra feature, building off of one in place against survivors.--Zach016 23:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What about 2 moves at 5hp per move? this would allow a move into a building, but would mean a quick death otherwise, heavily limits their combat effectiveness from building to building, (the problem with a cheap kill yourself button, you could hit three buildings simutansly with hightened accaurcy and then get up and walk away) but it would also allow them to die easier (bigger boost to attack/cade %?)--Zach016 01:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Infectous Blood

Timestamp:	Zach016 01:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Type:	skill
Scope:	zombies
Description:	purchased after infectous bite this would cause any kill caused by a firearm indoors (due to its limited space) to spray blood around the room itself. It would then enter the buildings descrition and a new button would appear "clean up" for 1-2 Ap. With each action their would be a 5-10% chance of becoming infected. Anyone can clean up the blood. does not stack with normal infection can be cured with one FAK (*possibly the infection could be 2hp per action, instead of the normal 1hp, to reflect the fact that it would not affect everyone as often as a normal infection.

Discussion (Infectous Blood)

Stupid, over-complicated, pointless, un-balanced? any critism or suggestions are welcome--Zach016 01:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ever taken forensics? If you shoot someone, the blood does not spray all around the room. It sprays the area where the bullet exits the victims head. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 01:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand this, but in the interest in a fun way of partaking it im looking over this fact, to attempt to add something new and interesting. Urban Dead isn't about full realism.--Zach016 01:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, many survivor players on this wiki would be voting spam or kill. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 01:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(dam edit conflicts) Also who knows how bullets affect a zombies anatomy? The changes that the body could possibly for-go? They could have a completly different effect then on a human.--Zach016 01:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Zombie blood is coagulated. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 02:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

said's who? technicaly it could be overproducing and then rapidly dying and absorbed by changed cells, with most organs shutdown save a barely functioning heart (slower then any human could possibly withstand) and very limited brain function, and no breathing. They would still technicaly be dead, hense a zombie. Zombies don't nessicarly have to act or function in the same ways as a human, and Urban dead could have its own twist on them if it so desired.--Zach016 02:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the spirit behind this suggestion but think it could do with some significant tuning. Zombie blood is traditionally coagulated in most films (Resident Evil specifically has this as a dialogue point) however one could potentially argue that as modern zombies aren't corpses reanimated by magic that they'd need some sort of circulatory system (UD sort of implies this with the syringe mechanics). The in/out of genre jury will remain out on this one. -- Iscariot 02:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, zombies are people. dead people,but people still. And when a person dies their blood cogulales. Just saying--GunFox13 02:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

zombies are far from your average dead person.--Zach016 02:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No duh. They're undead people. Which is still a dead person. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 02:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I be pedantic? Dead - meaning not alive. Un - a prefix that negates the root word. Therefore undead actually means 'not dead'. ;) -- Iscariot 02:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In no way, shape or form does an undead person's body have to go in the same way as a normal dead body. Just the fact thats it walking makes your arguement pointless by trying to compare apples (humans) to oranges (zombies). Don't think of them as the same thing, they're not, they're only based on each other, think evolution sped up.--Zach016 03:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually to drive my point home on how they can be different, go read world war z and the survivaul guide, then read the book autumn.--Zach016 03:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Zombie Survival Guide only PARTIALY represents a zombie virus, in that it is intrinsic to the world within the book. In other word Solanum might not be "the" virus in Malton.--Pesatyel 04:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I just realised that this whole arguement over how much blood gets sprayed around the room was the most pointless endaveor. I overlooked the whole point. It isn't the amount of blood that gets sprayed ground the room, its what the presense of the blood puts in the air, hense why its only inside buildings (contained space)and not outside, and those that enter are threatened by it as well. Drafts, small movements near, and just evaporation would put molecules of blood in the air, and the virus that would most certainly be potent within as well. Dam im just extra stupid at times.--Zach016 04:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC) I kinda like the thought of OTHERS getting "sprayed" as Axe Hack mentioned. Maybe when a zombie is killed a certain number (up to 4?) of other survivors have a chance (say 20%) of getting "sprayed with gore". Each would have like 10% chance of an infection (20% of they are wounded and 30% of they are "dying").--Pesatyel 04:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Pesatyel, no. Just no. That amounts to suicide bombing and AoE at the same time. And we all know what that means... ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 12:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

@Pesatyel, I was using the zombie survival guide as an example of different takes on zombies, when compared to the book autumn, i didn't mean that was the type of zombie, it was to drive homw that zombies are not always like human corpses in every since, and neither do they have to be.--Zach016 17:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Heightened Senses

Timestamp:	Zach016 01:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	zombies
Description:	A new skill that would give a +2-5% accaurcy to zombie hand attacks in a "dark" building. A dark building is any building without a fueled generator. In addition to this generators would recieve 2-4x their current HP, as they are currently targeted quite a bit as the first things to go. The flavor is that humans just can't see zombies as well in a dark building/are mistaken for friendly survivors. (possibly this only works before the cades move/down two levels, the flavor behind this is that the survivors are more observant of what is happening around them after the close encounter with the current zombies. (possibly under Memories of Life skill tree.

Discussion (Heightened Senses)

Stupid, over-complicated, pointless, un-balanced? any critism or suggestions are welcome--Zach016 01:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Night vision goggles for zombies! Now we need one for survivors... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 01:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In movies, zombies are typically more dangerous at night/darkness. Yeppers from me.-- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 01:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

@axe hack So your telling me a zombie that can smell which direction a survivor went, woulden't have an advantage in "night" combat?--Zach016 01:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Survivors can have an advantage in night combat also. There's those Spec Op groups that specialize in night combat...without use of night vision goggles. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 01:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Its safe to assume that 99% of Maltons population are not spec-ops(elite units were probably elimated early,sent to the most heavily infested zones, and thats not even counting their limited numbers, they are only elite against a conventional enemy, zombies don't use conventional tatics), and because of this fact certain things must be overlooked, especialy when you think of things like people getting shot don't show up until they are dead.--Zach016 01:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Zombies don't use tactics? How wrong is that? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 01:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

He said conventional tactics, not that they don't use tactics, just that people wouldn't exactly be trained for combating them.--Karek^maps?! 19:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats the point, stealth has no meaning, cover is useless, silenced weaponry has little purpose, night is not their friend anymore, ambushes are impossible. All things that against a human could be deadly, used against a zombie, are worthless (with the exception of silenced weaponry, that has a possible effect, although game wise woulden't make a difference.--Zach016 02:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ambushes are not impossible. It's just that no one bothers to set one. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 02:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Its impossible to set an ambush against an enemy that gets right back up after a certain period of time, and any noice would probably draw many (which is the effect i meant silenced weapons would be pro-for, but even this would be limited against a moaning enemy)--Zach016 02:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Limited Vision

Timestamp:	Zach016 01:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Type:	realistic(trying in a fun way) improvement
Scope:	humans
Description:	In this any zombies outside the survivor's main square would have a chance of not showing up on their map/vision. This is to simulate the zombies that would be behind the buildings, and would have a maxium of 3-5 at 5-10% each. EDIT: forgot to mention, this would not affect zombies because A. what would be the point? most survivors should b indoors anyway except for the occaniol one, B. they can smell out survivors. Also the less zombies present, the less chance of them not showing up (to make it so one zombie can't hide) with it starting at 6 zombies.--Zach016 01:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (Limited Vision)

Stupid, over-complicated, pointless, un-balanced? any critism or suggestions are welcome (last one from me for awhile, I swear)--Zach016 01:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Some survivors may be color blind, and color blind people see a lot better in the dark. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 01:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Scratch that. Didn't read the suggestion right. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 01:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

When you added that edit, it just became spam. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 01:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand taking away the zombie bits from it ( I just added it in as an after thought, they were not an orginal part of the susgestion) as i figured it was way too open, but the survivor shoulden't be able to hide.--Zach016 02:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

don;t like the edited version tell me to disregard the edit, want a variation of the two, state so.--Zach016 02:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait... so if there's one zombie in the square, you always see him, but if there's 6 or more, you don't see all of them? This would just lead to confusion and false information. "Did six zombies just enter the square when I did, or were they there already?" You'd have people panicking thinking there's active zombies when there's not, and people ignoring active ones because they thought the one that suddenly appeared was just hidden, and people PO'd all around because they expect a game to not arbitrarily lie to you.

Now, the basic idea of zombies hiding, you might be able to do something with, but these particular mechanics don't set right with me.

Now, my question is, what are you trying to accomplish with the hiding mechanic? What do you like about the idea? What's the problem you're trying to solve? Maybe we can go from there. --Ms.Panes 05:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is the misinformation. Obviously zombies are always seen swaying slighlty, so zombies could be mistaken for being active, and active zombies can be mistaken for unactive ones. This is to simulate the ones behind buildings that you woulden't be able to see, yet i kept it at starting at six so there would always be at least one on the map, instead of a full hide, this of cousre can be abolished (like i said, it was an afterthough) but it's to give the sense that they are everywhere even when you don't see them, and there are always more then what meets the eye.--Zach016 17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Zombie free running/ruin change

Timestamp:	Zach016 19:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	zombies
Description:	First i would just like to mention, yes this idea is not new, but using the past ones, and Swiers suggestion below, I hope this is a differnt version then what has been put across before. Basicly a new skill, possibly bought after lvl 10, that allows zombies to "free-run" from a tall building into another building whose cades are Lightly barricaded or less. The zombie falls from a window on the top floor into the other building, and the cades just don't cover the window enough. If possible it would also act the same as 1 sucessful hit on the cades This would: give a reason for zombies to ruin,or at last certain buildings give a bit more incentive to survivors to repair ruins allow a situation behond the invurability of cades, without directly affecting them. As well ruin would cost 2AP to fix, but the toolbox would drop 2-4% of its encumberance. One further possibility would be for it to do damage to the zed itself (it is falling, and going through some not so greatly set up cades).

Discussion (Zombie free running/ ruin change)

I realize the last section about it costing 2AP, but dropping 2-4% is probably not proportionate to each other (I.E. the 2-4% drop would be worth more then the 2AP fix), just mention any problems, laspses in logic etc.--Zach016 19:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you want to do here, but free-running zombies are not the way to do it. --Druuuuu ^OcTRR 19:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Its a very limited, and cut down form of survivor free-running, so it can't be truely called free running, as it is far from free, and timing would be everything, and even with coordination it would be limited.--Zach016 20:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually if it took down a zed's health to say, halfway, it would have some very large upsides, and downsides to it. zombie players may not care about their health, but the lower it is, the faster they can get rid of you with AP left over, which is why I included this possibility as it would give a choice, and I would very much so like it to be a part, but what would be accepted numbers to all of this.--Zach016 20:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a horrible idea. I (sort of) see what you're trying to get at, but I think you're getting bogged down to mechanics and forgetting the concept. I can't quite see how 'falling-out-of-windows-and-ooo-look-who'd-have-thought-it-I've-got-behind-the-barricades-AGAIN-what-a-coincidence' really fits together as a plausible skill. --Ben McArdle 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats where the tall building, damage to cades and damage to a zombies health all comes in, yes I didn't include those for the hell of it, although they are only "possiblys" because everyone may not accept it with them.--Zach016 21:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Oh @ 'falling-out-of-windows-and-ooo-look-who'd-have-thought-it-I've-got-behind-the-barricades-AGAIN-what-a-coincidence' consider this:

oh yah headshot, 505th in a row
man I climbed like, 20 buildings yesterday, didn't even fase me
first aid healed those twenty bullet wounds like they were nothing, good thing the janitor randomly knew what to do, when the seasoned doctor didn't, he can hit a zed at 500000000 ft' though.
Gese these twenty generators are heavy, oh well i'll have to come back for those 15 transmitters

and the mother of them all, 2 years later, you found "a pistol clip", thank god those trenchys didn't find this one.--Zach016 21:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that Free Running has nothing to do with it being free, it's a style of some weird type of walking that an absurd amount of people on this wiki lie about having the ability or know how to do.--Karek^maps?! 21:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it involves a lot of leaping, running, and bouncing off walls, and takes quite a bit of skill. But apparently Malton is home to a very large population of extreme athletes. --Pdeq^Talk* 21:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well defined it it. Yes Parkour can be one source, but its also could be grappling guns, sliding down wires, knowledge of certain routes or secret ladders. All different roleplaying ways.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, neat, I didn't even think of those other options. I'm taking some grappling hooks next time. --Pdeq^Talk* 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Good try, but I think there are some significant problems with this. How can you know if the barricades in a different block are light or less? And if you guess wrong, or if somebody puts some barricades up in the meantime, you've lost 3 AP. Plus, you essentially need to have a tall, ruined building next to your target for it to work in the first place. Also - 2-4% encumbrance? What the hell. It might be on the high side right now, but survivors really don't have a problem with it - or at least, my character never does. 100 points of encumbrance goes a long ways. - Grant 21:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he means it would drop *by* 2-4%, not *to* 2-4%. So, a tool box would go from 16% to 12-14%. --Ms.Panes 22:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

yes thats what I meant ms. Panes, @Grant there has to be downsides to it, it still leaves it quite open for a short amount of time (longer then an open door), and those of you defining free running, proved my point about why this isn't actully "free running" but a different version with different mechanics behind it.--Zach016 23:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, can't we scale it up a little, though? Why not at least from any ruined building? And even if it's only a 2-4% reduction, I'm not sure it belongs in the same suggestion. Although I do understand the desire to toss a bone to wiki-persons who are difficult to appease. - Grant (talk) ON STRIKE 06:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Originaly I thought from any building, but the fact is the lapse of logic, they're basicly falling from one building into another, there would have to be the required amount of distance between to get through the cades, and what about buildings that would be very small? Plus it would be a garentee spam, if you look at my suggestions you'll see they all have limits placed on them so they can provide a boost, but never 100% of the time, making it so it doesn't always elavate them above newbies--Zach016 00:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As was mentioned earlier, that's only one interpretation. They could be falling, if it's a tall building. But they could also be using boards and ladders, or some other method. As I say below, these tactics are quite prominent in Resident Evil 4, and the abilities of zombies with MOL would suggest that climbing a ladder wouldn't be much of a stretch. I don't think that this suggestion needs any limits of this kind built into it. - Grant (talk) ON STRIKE 07:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion to dwarf barricades…well, where do I begin? First, zombies lack dexterity, so there’s still no way they could really get enough speed going to reach the other building across from them. Second, this isn’t like a survivor free running, where it can easily grab onto every little object once it reaches the other side and make its entrance work. Third, you can assume that any fire exits are already blocked off the main way, so zombies can’t simply go through a door there. This is a quarantine, and buildings are already pre-blocked a certain amount, so such obvious areas would have been sealed. Now a survivor who can climb could climb and jump around to nearby windows on the fire escape, but a dexterity-lacking zombie likely can’t.

In addition, zombies already have very good reason to ruin. Survivors lose functionality in ruins, so they already have good reason to repair ruins (else all buildings in Malton would be ruined), and the cades already have lots of invulnerabilities.

The ruin change already has something similar in peer reviewed, IIRC.--Kolechovski 17:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not true at all, zombies have absolutely no good reason to ruin, everything about it benefits survivors and nothing about it is better than a basic ransack. And yet still the game actively supports zombies ruining anyway.--Karek^maps?! 21:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"lack dexterity, so there’s still no way they could really get enough speed going to reach the other building across from them.", this is where the tall building comes in
"this isn’t like a survivor free running, where it can easily grab onto every little object once it reaches the other side and make its entrance work." ummm tall building to crashing through a window with only light cades, possibly causing damage to both cades and zombie, yep covered.
"can assume that any fire exits are already blocked off the main way, so zombies can’t simply go through a door there." fire exits? Im talking windows through light and only light or less cades
"quarantine, and buildings are already pre-blocked a certain amount" It was a quick quarantine around the whole city, not in individual buildings.
As for zombies having good reason to ruin, trust me im laughing all the way to the bank as they:

- -waste Ap - -give me a free home around the caded buildings - -give me a free entrance - -allow me a free recruitment spray and claim over the building - As for "The ruin change already has something similar in peer reviewed", can you give a link? Iw ould like to see how simular because I don't remember a sugestion quite like this (as in, go through cades with limits) although I do remember ones that allowed zombies to move from ruin to ruin. dam edit conflicts--Zach016 21:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The best part about that last one is I'm pretty sure there is only one ruin suggestion that even got close to peer reviewed and it was removed early because it was implemented before voting ended.--Karek^maps?! 21:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as many players have different interpretations of 'free running' for survivors, there can be other interpretations for 'free running' for zombies. If you played Resident Evil 4, you probably noticed zombies breaking through windows, climbing over fences and even finding and using ladders. Zombie 'free running' could be boards, ladders, or any other sort of platform being placed across the gap between buildings. If zombies with Memories of Life can open doors, gesture, and talk, then I don't see why this should be automatically out of consideration. - Grant (talk) ON STRIKE 06:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I have with the Resident evil 4 logic is the fact that survivors without free running would be able to cross that gap, as well as zeds in "any" non-ruined building. Plus I dought everyone would agree that the whole city has been set up with planks to each and every building.--Zach016 02:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Planks, ladders, whatever you want to call it. The point I'm making is that these things are not entirely out of genre. The most important question is "mechanically, is this unbalancing?" Questions of flavor can be dealt with later, or not at all. - Grant (talk) ON STRIKE 03:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Uber Xray Motion Sensors

Timestamp:	Zach016 01:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Type:	new item(s)/skill
Scope:	survivor/zombie(limited)
Description:	New item found in mall electronics stores, warehouses, factories and manisions at 1-2% find rate. Encumberance of 10%. can be placed inside (only inside) of a building, shows up like a gene. the amount of AP used reflects how long it will work (I.E. 1AP = 1hr, 45AP= 45 hours etc.) and is then a dead device or it runs out like the gene. and the batteries can be replaced (second new item) or it runs off a gene. or has a chance of running out of batteries everytime it "detects" something 30% chance it won't detect what passes, destroyable by survivors and zombies alike, only relays information if within three blocks of the device (if choseing a runtime choice above other then #1 then its five AP to place, making it more efficient to check yourself). So what it actually does: detects any survivor or zombie that enters the building where the device was set until it runs out, one way or another. only one such device can be set up at one time by any one survivor, trying to set up another will turn the first into a dead device (just sitting there doind nothing). messages will still be recieved if the zombie who set it up is within range. only the survivor who placed it recieves the messages limit one per building. Uses: -bait buildings -close by resource buildings -EP's -buildings you expect to fall The AP cost of more then checking yourself is the price of imediatly seeing the information New skill: (insert name here) allows you to tap a current motion sensor set up so it also relays information to you. Messages: if it is destroyed or survivor/zombie moves out of range. "The signal fades on your motion sensory devices, you will no longer be imformed if something is detected" when it is set up. "You set up a set of motion sensors in the entry points of the building, anything passing will be relayed to you" If trying to set up a 2nd. "you set up a set of motion sensors, your first device loses its signal" when one is found. "you find enough parts to put together a set of motion sensors, these can be set up in any building to relay movements to you" and when someone trips the device: "Your sensors detected motion" x time

Discussion (Motion Sensors)

Probably way too complicated or unnessicary. remember it is an early stage idea so feel free to pick it apart and suggest changes all around or specific. With my luck I forgot a part as well.--Zach016 01:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally like the idea, but i can see how people are gona say its unbalanced or something.--Themonkeyman11 04:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats why I tried to leave it open, yet close potential holes--Zach016 05:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's new, I admit that. However, what's the point? Survivors and zeds can both get in and out. It doesn't tell you much. If a zed gets in, it would appear the same as though a survivor got in. Also, it seems a bit overly complex. -- Quizzical Quiz Speak 15:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Whats the point?, I could set this up in the local indoor revive point, if it doesn't go off, then I don't need to check and can focus on other things, limited, small but useful. Its not meant to tell you much, how would it distingwish between a zombie and survivor anyways? its just telling you if something passed by your decoy building, your indoor revive point, your entry point in a rather deserted burb.--Zach016 16:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I didn't think of that. It's definitely an unorthodox suggestion, and probably out of genre, but I'm on board with the idea. -- Quizzical Quiz Speak 17:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The costs to put it in place vs. how long it works and how far away you can be are a bit high. Also, if you step out of range, and then get back in range, will the device relay information to you again, or is it now useless? --Ms.Panes 11:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should relay info to you again (as long as you didn't set up another), and the time it works, and cost to tap into a system set up by someone else is very well in the air and debatable. It could have a high set up, but then a lower cost for others to use.--Zach016 18:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Headshot Change

Timestamp:	Zach016 23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Type:	skill change
Scope:	survivors/zombies
Description:	Simple, to make it more logic sound the player would gain a new button after the zombie was killed by them simply saying headshot. Once clicked (using 1AP) the closest loaded weapon to the top of your inventory would be discharged into the zombies head then causing the headshot effect. Accuracy of this would be 100% (The zombies not moving). Reloading or any other action removes the button. Problems: ?rise command shoulden't be limited to when they're down, people are special forces snipers 100% of the time Unwanted nerf

Discussion (Another Headshot Change)

This would make it cost 1 more bullet and 1Ap more to do the headshot,this would also allow some to be missed because they were not paying attention and some to not happen due to poor ammo management or priority for ammo. it makes sense logic wise in that getting a headshot every kill you make while the zombies still moving just ain't going to happen. There seems to be a few suggestions here to change headshot so I figured I would add my own two cents and small nerf.--Zach016 23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would you need a loaded weapon to make a headshot? My character I'm playing with doesn't use guns at all. And I like crusching zombie heads with my fireaxe so it takes longer for them to stand up. --Johaen 23:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And why does it have to be "the closest loaded weapon to the top of your inventory"? I most certainly wouldn't want to waste a shotgun shell just for a headshot. But I do support making Headshot a voluntary action. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 23:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

the closest loaded weapon was for simplisity and to make ammo a priority (hense, do I want to use this shotgun shell or save it), it can of course be any weapon that you choose(I didn't realise melee weapons gave headshot, never purchased it)--Zach016 23:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So a drop down menu connected to the headshot button with your weapons listed deal with those problems?--Zach016 23:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. To make it more interesting, perhaps the zombie should be told what weapon they were headshot with? Could give some use to all those otherwise useless weapons. Even though it'd still only be flavour, at least using those weapons in this situation wouldn't be any less effective than using the "better" weapons. So, instead of "You took a Headshot from <name of killer> the Zombie Hunter!" it could read "<name of killer> the Zombie Hunter gave you a Headshot with a <weapon>!" --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 00:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Tis all fine. Any other problems?--Zach016 01:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What happens if the zombie's body is gone before you get a chance to click that headshot button? This could happen if the body is dumped, or if the zombie stands up. I'm guessing you'd get a message saying the target moved away, as you do with others, at no AP cost? That's nice for the zombies, as is the extra AP cost to administer the headshot. Its not gonna cost any ammo though, because for a weapon, you can just use your fist; yes, you can currently headshot using your fist.
An alternative that would better keep the current balance is just to let people "turn off" the headshot skill via the settings page.

Swiers 04:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What about just having the headshot effect have a % chance of occuring with a kill?--Pesatyel 06:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This kills the advantage during sieges/combat with an active zombie. If you are fighting an active zombie, and are in a siege, you knock him down and he rises before you get to perform the headshot. I'm not saying it's an all negative thing, it means you might have to choose between dumping the body or headshotting it and hoping that you just took it to negative AP. - W 13:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

@swiers, yes you would just miss it as normal, and a turn off button would be nice although it still leaves a slight lapse in logic, and would still make it an effective 100% of the time in was in motion. This aims to make it so you can miss your chance in the urgency of the situation, or choose to just not do it,effectivly close to the turn it off button, but continues further for those who have it on in a situation they want it off. This way you don't have to bother changing it every couple of days.

@pesatyel A percentage is possible but I believe I know someone else who is working on one like that only taking it a bit farther. My only problem with it is what's an acceptable percentage? Technicaly this way it can still happen 100% of the time, but requires more user input into the matter based on the situation.

@whitehouse, this just brings in a sense of priority, yes it does take some off of the advantage of siege combat, but in a tight quatered space fighting a zombie trying to rip you to pieces killing it with a headshot would be a hard ordeal--Zach016 15:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)