Suggestions/2nd-Jan-2006

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Revision as of 01:55, 20 January 2006 by Hagnat (talk | contribs) (→‎Yet Another Zombie Bomb Idea)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Closed Suggestions

  1. These suggestions are now closed. No more voting or editing is to be done to them.
  2. Suggestions with a rational Vote tally of 2/3 Keeps over total of Keeps, Kills, and Spams will be moved to the Peer Reviewed Suggestions page by a moderator, unless the original author has re-suggested the Suggestion.
  3. Suggestions under the 2/3 proportion but with more or equal Keeps to Kills ration will be moved to the Undecided Suggestions page.
  4. All other Suggestions will be moved to either the Peer Rejected Suggestions page or the Humorous Suggestions page.
  5. Some suggestions may not be moved in a timely manner; moving Suggestions to Peer Reviewed Suggestions page will take higest priority.
  6. Again, DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. It will be used as a historical record and will eventually be locked.
Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current Suggestions • Suggestions up for Voting • Clothes Suggestions
Cycling Suggestions • Peer Reviewed • Undecided • Peer Rejected • Humorous
Suggestion Advice • Topics to Avoid and Why • Help, Developing and Editing

.

2nd January, 2006

VOTING ENDS: 16th-Jan-2006

Revivication Prequisite

Timestamp: 00:00, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Zombies
Scope: Who or what it applies to
Description: The change from being a rotting corpse to a fully functioning human must not be very easy for the body to handle. This is why I believe a new skill should be added to zombie skills. This skill is required before they can be revived. Otherwise, the result of revivication will be similar to a zombie with brain rot. After a zombie with this skill is revived they lose the skill and must attain it again as a zombie. The reason I suggest that is that survivors, namely myself, have no fear of dying any more because they can go and get revived easily. This skill would require them to go and kill survivors, helping the zombie side, before they can just go ahead and become a survivor again.

Votes

  • keep- I like this, but only if the cost is 25-50 XP. Moving back and forth between states is important, and can't cost that much. A slowdown between returning to human state would be great, as having extra zombies running around sure would make this more likw Zombie Movie. -Bloarg
  • Kill - i want people to stand as zombies by their own freewill, not because they have to gain and/or spent a certain ammount of XP before reviving. --hagnat 00:47, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill -Yeah I agree with Hagnat. --FriedFish 01:28 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Spam - If anything, we need suggestions that make Necrotech more useful - yours makes it useless. In fact, what you're suggesting is that everyone start with once-removable brain rot (making brain rot useless). This suggestion actually disregards most of the Dos and Do Nots section. --Signal9 02:12, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill No. Nobody should be forced to play one side. There is already a stiff enough revive penalty, anyways (the AP cost of the reviver finding the syringes and the AP cost of the dead survivor finding a revive point plus the cost of returning to wherever you were fighting before) --Mikm 02:13, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - I understand that you don't want to be forced to play as a zombie, but then what is the point to a zombie killing survivors? The idea behind this suggestion came from when I was fighting a survivor and I was thinking "this is interesting, it's different than being a survivor because, if I kill him, he will fight on my side," but then I realized that isn't true. I think people should be forced to play on the other side, or else there is no fear of death. And, by the way, I don't think there is much of a "revive penalty," I'm constantly logging in to find myself as a survivor and having to jump from a window to return to being a zombie. If revivication syringes were that uncommon, they would be much more precious. --Horje 21:52, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Spam -got grief? Don't punish the players, don't make skills redundant. don't post suggestions like this.--Vista 02:16, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Le Spam - Especially if you want me to do it without Vigour Mortis. KingRaptor 02:54, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Sir Hagnat The Wise. --dayfat 03:03, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - it used to be 'the drunk' or 'the ugly', fhose fit me best ;) --hagnat 03:11, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - I proposed a similar idea myself in the forums once, but then I realised this is in effect an XP-draining headshot skill for zombies. Rhialto 03:45, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • kill sorry, but all we will have is grumpy ZKers. Survivors feel "punished" when contributing to the one side that makes the game interesting. bbrraaiinnss 4:46 Jan 2 2006
  • Kill What a singularly twisted way to turn off new players. "Congrats! You were a survivor. Now your most potent attack is laughable, AND you have to make it an absurd amount of times." Thumbs down. --B.Z.B. 08:48, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill Revival Synringe, Mark 3.0 is better. --Matthew Stewart 09:54, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - We're trying to make awful suggestions that go against half the rules in the Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots, aren't we? Namely, don't force players to behave a certain way. Bentley Foss 09:57, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Make playing as a zombie fun, not a chore. --Dickie Fux 16:21, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Instead of one week of solid waiting and getting back up for a revive, now it's four!. -- krupintupple 10:08, 2 Jan 2006 (EST)
  • Spam - Damn, this is breaking a lot of rules. By the way, is Bloarg the guy who suggested this? CthulhuFhtagn 01:27, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • keep- SOMETHING has to be done to redress the Zombie/Survivor balance. At the moment dying as a Survivor means nothing, death is no threat at all as revivication is so easy. Thats the whole point of a Survival Horror game shot down in flames right there. People who want to play as Zombies still will, and good for them, but this way, those who do die will have to help the Zombie cause out a little in order to regain their human status. That makes the entire game world more plausible and more evenly balanced. I think it's an excellent idea, and a superb way of redressing the balance and therefore guarenteeing the long term future of this wonderful game. --BorderReiver 02:27, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • kill This doesn't quite work as a skill, per se, but seems more like you're trying to make a pre-req for coming back alive. Like zombies need to consume a certain amount before the drugs kick in and kill them? It makes thematic sense, but not quite in the current context. --MorthBabid 08:52, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Forcing people to play as zombies will simply make them leave the game.--The General 17:30, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Kevan already stated he's not going to implement anything forcing to play a particular side. --Seagull Flock 11:54, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Grapple

Timestamp: 00:06, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombie stratagy
Description: What is more terrorizing than a dozen zombies? A maddened zombie on top of you! This attack would be normally selectable, but but the effects would be devastating. a zombie using this attacks (a sub skill of vigor mortis) has a 25% chance of knocking a target over, and a 15% chance of falling over each calculated separately. This attack would deal one point of damage, and would not cause instant death. While knocked over it costs 2 ap for a human to stand up and 5 for a zombie to stand up, a zombie with ankle grab reduces this cost to 1 ap, and no mater wether dead or alive, you can ‘’’not’’’ do ‘’’anything’’’ other than attack, or stand up. There would be many advantages to this attack causing devastating damage to humans: while a human is knocked over it can only attack with weapons that deal 2 damage or less, for zombies the limit is 3 damage attacks; using grapple again on a creature knocked over has a chance of doing 5 damage with a 20% chance to hit and caries infectious bite for zombies with the appropriate skill, but not digestion; . No bonus xp for knocking a person over is rewarded, and all numbers given are variable.

Votes

  • Kill - Could you make something anymore overpowered, and no don't answere that question. --FriedFish 01:30 (GMT) Jan, 2 2006
  • Kill -A zombie tackles a survivor and then forgets how to bite because it's lying on top of someone? --dayfat 01:37, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Mathematically pointless, and don't give us that "variable numbers" crap. Submit something that is meant to work. --Slicer 01:40, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Not well thought out, not thoroughly explained, & badly articulated. --Daednabru 01:47, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill -this isn't guess the numbers. think of what numbers behind the skill add good gameplay, without griefing anybody. and work it out from there. don't just make them up.--Vista 02:27, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Spam- Anything with knocking someone over earns a spam from me. --Jon Pyre 02:57, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - I guess no one ever used a gun while lying prone then. Rhialto 03:46, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Spam/Kill - Your intro sentence made me laugh myself silly. I mean that as a complement since the statement in and of itself is accurate (maddened zombie on me = bad). But I agree with Jon Pyre on this one. Knocking down also = bad. --Thelabrat 05:46, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill Zombies as wrestlers? WWF observations aside, "No." --B.Z.B. 08:43, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - We're trying to make awful suggestions that go against half the rules in the Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots while simultaneously putting up a poor duplicate of a suggestion, aren't we? Bentley Foss 09:58, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Make the chances of not being tripped dependant on their dexterity score! -- krupintupple 10:08, 2 Jan 2006 (EST)
  • Kill Mmm, confusing and worthless. --Zaruthustra 00:25, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Spam - Silly krupintupple, everyone knows avoiding being tripped is dependent on your Strength score. CthulhuFhtagn 01:21, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep It might need a slightly better description and the numbers could use tweaking, but I actually like it. --Nicks 01:50, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Comment - If you don't like the numbers as shown, you vote Kill, not Keep. CthulhuFhtagn 02:14, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Grim Visage

Please skip this and look for Grim Visage 2 below. I wasn't sure if I should delete this or let it stay. I don't want to delete people's votes and re-submit a revision without knowing if that's bad form. -- Amazing (Not sure when I posted this)

Technically, you are the author and are free to do what you want with your suggestions. When a vote is deleted because of spam, everyone elses comments go too. -- Andrew McM 21:46, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Yeah, I just didn't know if it would be looked upon as if I was deleting everyone's thoughts and re-submitting to get rid of them. Thanks. :) -- Amazing 23:21, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Portable Surgical Equipment

Removed by author. 1 Keep vote (by the person who helped me work out the details) and plenty of kills. There's no way to make this both balanced and worthwhile. --Signal9 16:43, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

I hope you go back to the drawing board on this one. I like the basic idea a lot. Maybe down the road when the game has changed again. Thelabrat 08:53, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Grim Visage 2

Timestamp: 06:04, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: Alright, I reworked this given voter concerns. Here goes nothing..

A player would need to purchase Brain Rot before they can buy this skill.

A player with this skill cannot be "recognized", even as a corpse. When a user buys this skill, any player who clicks to see their profile will only be able to see the zombie's skills and "This zombie has decayed beyond all recognition." in their description box. The name at the top of the profile would simply read: "An unrecognizable zombie." Zombie cannot be added to contacts list, because that would basically be useless.

With this skill, Zombies have no fear of being tracked or alerting surviviors to a threat because of their group affiliation. The zombie is so rotted and gore-covered that the survivor cannot tell how many times it has died, or how long it has been around.

All a survivor can tell is what skills it has.

The player who has Grim Visage would still be able to see and edit their own profile as normal while logged in.

Summary:

  • This skill lets zombies hide from anyone who may have added them to their contact list in the past, or would wish to add them in the future.
  • This skill could never transfer to humans because it requires Brain Rot.
  • This skill lets hardcore Zombie players become "A Zombie".
  • Players will still be able to click the name ("A zombie") of a Grim Visage zombie, but will see a VERY basic profile of skills and a Grim Visage message.
  • Players who do a successful DNA extraction would see: "Genetic structure damaged beyond minimum standards due to degeneration." If taking away the ability to do a DNA Extraction seems wrong, keep in mind Brain Rot takes away the ability to revive completely. DNA Extraction would, as shown, tell you that this zombie has brain rot and Grim Visage.
  • Optionally, DNA-Scanning a Grim Visage zombie could give you a "Scanned Zombie" option in the attack drop-down. That way you can "recognize" the zombie you just tagged because it's right in front of you.

Votes

  • Kill - Showing who is present through the contacts list is an interesting little bit of flavour for zombies, who can tell just how much of the horde is part of it. It also provides no meaningful advantage for the zombies. It is my opinion that this suggestion, along with its predecessor, is a waste of bandwidth, and such a suggestion would merely be a waste of code. --Grim s 06:58, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill I like the fun one can see going on in the profiles. We have some rather, um, "unique" players here and there. If someone is concerend about not being seen, then perhaps they shouldn't participate. --B.Z.B. 08:15, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - It was bad then and its bad now. Rhialto 08:26, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - I just don't see a point, really. Bentley Foss 10:01, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - It solves the problem I put forward and is it better then the previous. IT would actually make brainrotters more recognisable thats true. I still doubt that the problem it solves is bigger then the problems Grim s and B.Z.B. put forward and anybody would actually take this skill outside of vanity of having them all.--Vista 12:20, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Say there are two zombies, one with this skill who is attacking me, and one who then goes "Mrh?" I still can't target the one biting my leg and attacking "a zombie" will mean going through the other one first while this one gets a free lunch on me. --dayfat 13:03, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - I wouldn't buy it, but some people might. And it might be interesting. --Monstah 17:51, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep To me, one of the best things about a zombie movie or game is that you are being attacked by a faceless horde of gnawing beasts. As it stands now, you are attacked by "Jim324" and "Doctor Underpants" instead. I wanted to give Zombie players the OPTION of going with the first, more in-genre scenerio.. but if people don't want this then they don't want it. heh Don't worry, there won't be a Grim Visage 3. :X -- Amazing 18:40, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill This was said quite awhile ago, but I'll say it now. If people don't want to seriously name their characters, why should they? Its a free, er, Internet, and people can name their characters and accounts whatever the hell they like. Also, normally you wouldn't try to scan zombies if you have ammo and sufficient skill in firearms, and that means most of the human players in Urban Dead. Also, counterskills will fail to be appreciated 99% of the time. No one will get a counterskill unless there is a serious annoyance by another skill, like how the creator developed Brain Rot for those zombies that want to stay dead, and anyways, DNA Scanning is such a trivial thing, and it only gives survivors xp. I mean, it doesn't hurt zombies now does it? Finally, I would like to add that no matter how much you change your appearance, your DNA structure remains the same. AllStarZ 00:37, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: As you well know, however, there are standards for DNA samples. You can't actually say what being a virus-infected zombie would do to a human body, now can you? -- Amazing 01:35, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is an MMORPG and RP stands for role-playing. Hey if the zombies want to play their role let them buy this skill.--TheBigT 02:42, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - This doesn't really make much sense in terms of theme or gameplay, frankly. And wouldn't this hurt fellow zombies from keeping track of one another and their allies? --MorthBabid 08:54, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - I like it. --Seagull Flock 12:05, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Fire Hose

Timestamp: 06:17, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Item
Scope: Survivors
Description: Found in Fire Stations, of course. This item takes up two item slots as a weapon would. When in a block with corpses piling up outside, a user with this item can click it in their inventory to "Hook it to a fire hydrant". At that point they have a new button that lets them clear the area of corpses by spraying them onto random surrounding blocks one by one. Takes 1 AP to set up and 1 AP per use, one corpse moved per use. This may seem silly or "Humorous" but think about it.. those things are infected with a virus, and hoses are used for crowd control all the time in real life. I hope this can be seen as a reasonably realistic way to clear your doorstep of future zombies. Chance of Griefing is very low because you are spending AP to hook up and move bodies one by one, and you won't know on which block the zombie you moved has been moved to. If you spray the next block over, the corpse may very well end up back where it started.

Hoses would be set up like generators for anyone to use, but can be destroyed as well.

These CANNOT be used inside buildings.

These CANNOT be used on a block without a building on it.

Hoses could of course be easy to destroy so that we do not end up with one massive Slip-N-Slide through the entire city.

Votes

  • KILL - I'm sorry, but this is ludicrous. No "Pied Piper" skills, remember? And a firehose shovign someone a BLOCK? Sorry no. - Jak Rhee
    • Re: This isn't a skill. By your reasoning Dumping Bodies is a pied piper action. -- Amazing 18:18, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Spam - LOLZ! TEH HORDES ARE TEH OVERPOWERESED! Dont move other players around. --Grim s 07:01, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - Uh. Body dumping. -- Amazing 18:18, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill Of the "Pied Piper" suggestions that I have seen (and there has been many), I hate this one the least, it is well thought out, which is better than most suggestions, but the very basic premise of "don't move other people" is still valid. --Matthew Stewart 07:07, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Damn, Einstein, while water hoses are indeed used in crowd control, they don't push people over, let alone fifty meters along the ground! - KingRaptor 07:50, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: - You should try to present your thoughts without being immature. Fire hoses in crowd control do indeed push people over. The corpses are ALREADY on the ground. A continuous blast WOULD move a corpse along the ground. -- Amazing 18:18, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • No non-author replies. -- KingRaptor 07:44, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep --Lord Evans 08:14, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill Where to begin? Okay, let's start with Malton nowhere being described as having an artesian well water supply. So, sans power for pumping, the idea has all the functionality of a dry squirt gun. Then there's the usefulness of seeing a pile of 30 corpses. "Hmm... Might indicate a problem hereabouts." And that's on top of the already noted "Pied Piper." Pardon a Monty Python reference, but we bring out our dead for a reason. --B.Z.B. 08:36, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Malton has not been described as NOT having an artesian well water supply. It's not a Pied Piper skill in anyway, unless you count DUMPING BODIES as a pied piper action. -- Amazing 18:18, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - at least its not a insta-kill for standing zombies, but I think that it should reduce the cost to stand up in compinsation, maybe negate a headshot that was put on the body. - --ramby 08:42, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - The idea of pushing corpses around with concentrated water jets is sound. Unfortunately, there isn't any particular reason to believe that the water services are functioning, and even if they were, the idea of pushing bodies more that a couple of dozen metres is ridiculous. They'd probably smash the corpse apart before they knocked it back a hundred metres. Rhialto 09:07, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT) Edit: as a basic example of where the maths is flawed, if we assume the guy is holding it at a normal standing height, the water jet would have to be going at several times the speed of sound to have that much range. Unless of course you arc the angle of fire, but then it would push the target down instead of across, and so couldn't push anything into the next block. Fortunately, the force of the jet won't quite exceed the tensile properties of human skin, but it's a near thing. Rhialto 09:33, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT) Edit: Thank you whoever it was that deleted my point that water cannon used in riot control do NOT have hoses, thus making me look uninformed. Rhialto 07:19, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: You realize a hose is long enough for you to walk around with it, eh? -- Amazing 18:18, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - We're trying to make awful suggestions that go against half the rules in the Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots, aren't we? Bentley Foss 10:01, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Well, smugness aside, it's not a Pied Piper action in the least. The people are dead bodies and are 'dumped' off the block. The connection your making is slim to non-existant. -- Amazing 18:18, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Spam - No automated actions/moves forced upon other players except dying--Vista 12:23, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Wrong. There's body dumping which you seem to have forgotten or are ignoring to justify an errant spam vote. -- Amazing 18:18, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • No non-author replies. -- Vista 02:31, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Pied piper. --TheTeeHeeMonster 13:15, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT) Edit: No, you seem to lack understanding. Pied Piper moves you out of the block, body dumping keeps you in the same block.
    • Re: - Lack of understanding of what Pied Piper means. -- Amazing 18:18, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - For crying out loud, stop moving people around! --Daxx 13:26, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Multiply by a billion. If enough people did this, a body could be moved several suburbs away from were it died. Imagine logging out at a revive point, getting stuck with a syringe, and being pushed into Ridleybank before you can log back in to stand up. Not something I'd like to have happen. -- Asrathe 13:33, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT) EDIT: There is a possibility of bodies being moved way the hell across the map. Whether this is possible in all scenarios or not is irrelevant, as it is still possible in some cases. (The key issue is that it is possible at all.) You can claim the issue isn't there, but untill you fix it, my vote remains "kill". -- Asrathe 02:16, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: You're ignoring the fact that there are no hydrants on open areas or in buildings. Revive points on either would be unaffected, and if you land on a block with no building, you cannot be moved again. You're totally incorrect. -- Amazing 18:18, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - Yeah guys. Let's take out Body Dumping! It's a Pied Piper action! How dare anyone think they can move a dead body! That never happens in real life. -- Amazing 18:23, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - With the high AP cost and random direction, this is actually pretty well balanced. I agree that there is little griefing potential, and that it isn't a Pied Piper skill, although it is (obviously) a move-other-characters skill. It might need some way of preventing ten survivors from using the same hose at the same time. --Dickie Fux 18:28, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - As long as Michael Richards from UHF is the one who makes them drink from the fire-hose. -- krupintupple 10:08, 2 Jan 2006 (EST)
  • Spam - This is a Pied Piper action. Why? Because it moves bodies out of a block. Dumping corpses doesn't. Understand? - CthulhuFhtagn 20:47, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill Pied piperish, and unneccesary. --Zaruthustra 00:23, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill Amazing. I made terrible suggestions too. And on those rare moments I open my mouth, I still do make terrible suggestions. But you have to learn to think, is this needed? Suggest stuff that is needed. Also, I would like to now point out the flaws in this suggestion. The fact that you can potentially transport a zombie 20 blocks away from where it started is Pied Pipering. Dumping bodies from inside a building is not Pied Pipering, as it is necessary, and it puts them outside the building and not 20 blocks away. AllStarZ 00:47, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep 1st, I'm actually a full time fire fighter and moving a person with a hose is both easy and fun! (maybe not a full block, but enough to count here) 2nd almost any somewhat large building is a large city has a fire pump in it. Change the pre-reqs to include a generator (and yes I know a portable wouldn't realistically have the juice!) and I like it. --Nicks 01:58, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: But surely everyone else on this page MUST know more than an actual fire fighter! (God, isn't sarcasm wonderful?) :) -- Amazing 18:05, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Spam - Right, where shall I start? No Multi Step Actions, Multiply By A Billion, Finding New Ways To Do Old Things Is BAD, No Pied Piper Skills and I suppose you could also say There's No Such Thing As A free Lunch.--The General 20:19, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re: Links one, three, and five have no relation to this suggestion. -- Amazing 18:28, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • Re Yes they do, link one because you have to connect up the fire hose before using it, link three because it's basicaly a more advanced version of dumping bodies, link five is arguable but I put it there because people should not move without using action points. Oh! I missed a link Costly Does Not Equal Balanced.--The General 12:21, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Gas Burst

Timestamp: 12:09, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: Zombies
Description: A zombie skill that enables the Zed to execute a move wherein the explosive gasses that bloat his abdominal cavity project his rotting flesh explosively outwards, striking multiple targets. The festering pus balls strike at 3 people in the survivor list, using the last-active queue used to display names. Each pus ball has an approximately 15-20% static chance to-hit for 4 (or 5, depending on balance issues) damage, and is non-infectious. Because this is a skill and thus requires no ammunition, no reloading, and no searching, the tradeoff is a heavy loss in hitpoints reflecting the lost body-mass of the zombie. Thus a zombie would require 40HP or above to execute the move at all, and would lose 20-25HP total in doing so. Attempting to execute the skill without sufficient HP results in the text "Your hollow stomach gurgles a little, and sends a wiff of noxious fumes out into the air". Could help zombies as a last ditch or opening gambit move during sieges.
Re: Area of Effect -- it seems the "Yet Another SMG" skill got overwhelming approval despite being area of effect-ish. The reason why it's restricted the way it is is because a zombie with digestion can easily make back his lost HP and continue damaging the survivors. Several zombies in a siege have a pretty good chance of loosening up several survivors and then eating them afterwards to make up for lost HP. As for being far fetched, I don't know if you've ever seen what happens to a body after death, but it bloats with gasses and those gases can cause an explosion.
Concerning chances to hit, five zombies have (well, okay, they all would have a 20% static chance to hit, but let's play cumulative percentages here) a good chance to hit 3 survivors for 5 damage before using digestion to make up their lost HP. And so on and so forth. Digestion could be a pre-req (after all, those gases have to come from somewhere)

Votes

  • Kill - Something about area effect attacks. Rhialto 12:25, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill- Duped Spam Edit Maggots Everywhere is one I found. I've look some more, but couldn't find any others. as it is, it's not enough to dupe it on. And being in relatively humbled mood I'll grant that it also relatively new terrain so not spam either for me no matter how silly a zombie with a bad case of gas is.--Vista 12:30, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - AoE attack, zombie bomb, etc. Will change vote when dupe link is provided. --TheTeeHeeMonster 12:54, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Attacks that hit multiple targets are bad. Also, why would anyone sacrifice 20-25HP to do 15 damage (at most) to their opponents? -- Asrathe 13:23, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - If a link is provided, consider my vote a Dupe. --Daxx 13:24, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Seems a bit farfetched to me. Not quite as much as "Zombie's spine comes out of their butt, becomes a razor sharp tail they can whip suvivors with" but it's pretty out there. I prefer my zombies "normal" as far as that goes. Also skills that cost health to use are not good, especially for a zombie for whom health is more or less trivial. --Jon Pyre 13:53, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ewww. --WibbleBRAINS 14:56, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - ... Hey! That's my quote! I would have said "Ewww." If I read it.--ALIENwolve 16:39, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - You did attempt to provide pros and cons to this skill, but it's very restricted in its use, for fairly low hit percentages. You'd be lucky to hit one survivor in the stack. (Yes, I know, I know, the numbers are variable...) Something just doesn't sit well with me. Bentley Foss 19:22, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Yay another exploding zombie skill what's next? Humans with atom bombs stapled on to their backs?Drogmir 21:53, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Right, because this is so much like the others that nobody was able to provide a dupe/spam link. A badly implemented suggestion doesn't make the general suggestion itself bad.
  • RE You want a link? go to the bottom of the page it's an area of attack explosion it's pretty much the same thing execpt the zombie had too many baked beans and exploded....again
Uh-huh, so a suggestion that came AFTER mine makes mine a dupe, right genius? Nice try though -- there was also a multitude of sub-machine gun suggestions, before one was finally accepted on peer review. Uh-oh, guess we better go and peer-unreview it, it's a dupe AND an area-of-effect (because area of effect now means any effect that takes place in an area)! What I see so far is a lot of dupe/spam votes without any links and one person (ALIENwolve) who admittedly didn't even bother reading it. Knee jerks are dangerous to your health, kids. If you want to criticize it, that's good! See what Bentley Foss did? Good criticism. But 1) read it, 2) don't bother assuming that just because you one read something like this that had similar words, such as "of" or "the", it's a duplicated suggestion, 3) area of effect means affecting ALL things in an area, it doesn't mean taking multiple targets. I have a lot of trouble believing these are legitimate votes.
  • Kill One: Amazing, we know its you, because who else loves to respond to every single complaint against his suggestions? You also seem to repeat the same points despite the fact that they are constantly replied to properly. Two: its not balanced. I know you will respond its balanced cause you lose 20-25 hp, but hp means nothing, and I mean NOTHING to a zombie, because the average renegade zombie gets killed on a daily basis. Three: expanding on what I mean is balanced, this is no damn innovation. Go read why that SMG suggestion was accepted. It was accepted because it solved major flaws with how SMGs can be implemented. AllStarZ 00:59, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is Urban Dead, not Myth. - CthulhuFhtagn 01:06, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - The idea has been bouncing around for a while and I see that people just don't like it, I am one of them --Lord Evans 06:59, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'm one of the people who love the idea, but haven't seen a proper execution of it yet. This just is too random and undefined to work. Perhaps focusing on 'active' players and retooling the numbers might help? --MorthBabid 08:56, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - "As for being far fetched, I don't know if you've ever seen what happens to a body after death, but it bloats with gasses and those gases can cause an explosion." Yup, but you'd need a body of the size of a whale to create an explosion so powerful it could harm multiple people at distance. This is UrbanDead, and we're talking about zombies, not Natural Selection and Skulks with Xenocide. --Omega2 16:18, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - And AllStarz, it's not me you snotty, ignorant dip. -- Amazing 18:06, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Spam - It breaks about half of the does and do not's but having just written out the links to most of them on the suggestion above, I can't be bothered to write them all out again for this one. Also, if anyone wants the link then check the humerous suggestions page under 'assorted abilities'.--The General 20:33, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)

A Zombie Skill (Don't know what to call it)

Timestamp: 16:26, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill
Scope: zombie,maybe human
Description: This is a skill for high level zombies only. Each time a zombie kills a zombie hunter, he gets a 2% more chance to hit someone with the attack he killed the survivor with. IE: claw attack is at 30% but after a zombie hunter is killed, the attack percentage rises to 32%. The total percentage cannot exceed 75% and if the zombie dies all the accuracy he earned is lost. To avoid potential exploiting, it will be impossible to earn accuracy by killing other zombies.

Votes

  • Kill - author vote, another bad idea, one day i will got a good one!!! tanks for your input --spetznaz21 16:26, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT) (GMT)
  • Kill - I've never seen one like this before but still, we don't need no stacking bonuses --Kryten 16:37, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - I would like to see zombies get some kind of reward for killing Zombie Hunters, but not this. --Dickie Fux 16:49, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Agree with Dickie --LtMile 16:53, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Almost completely pointless, encourages individual zombies to hit and run, and will frustrate some players who lose all their hard-earned accuracy when someone eventually blows their head off. Although it would theoretically be nice to have, better just to leave this out. --Slicer 16:57, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - I also agree with Dickie. --Daxx 16:58, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - If you don't know what to call it that might be a good indication that there's no justification for a mechanic change that keeps with the theme of the the game. -Torfin 17:06, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Also agree with Dickie. Spetznaz21, see if you can come up with an XP bonus -or a 'Zombie Hunter-Hunter' flag ;-) -instead, maybe that'll be more popular.--WibbleBRAINS 17:10, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Torfin, he doesn't speak English primarily. It's not a lack of intelligence or thinking through, it's a lack of vocabulary. But no stacking attacks. Sorry. It seems like a nice idea, but I just don't think it has a place in the game. I also edited it up for a you a little (grammar and such). --TheTeeHeeMonster 17:11, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • 'Re' - I didn't say lack of intelligence or mean to imply it.
  • Kill - I agree, maybe ine where you kill a zombie hunter you get 10 additional xp. - --ramby 17:12, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Do not take this personally, but if you know it's a bad idea, don't suggest it. Refine your ideas before you post. Bentley Foss 19:23, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't doubt that you will.--Vista 22:53, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - What do we do if the author votes Kill again? - CthulhuFhtagn 00:44, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Personaly I think that if the aurhor votes Kill the suggestion should be removed. (Killing for reasons above) - Jedaz 03:22, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill Sheesh, if the bloody author says the idea should be killed... --B.Z.B. 03:39, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - What Kryten and Bentley Foss said. --Seagull Flock 12:09, 5 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Bonus XP for Killing Zombie Hunters

Duplicate suggestion. 3 Dupe votes. --Daxx 17:35, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Air Drop

Timestamp: Jan 2cd 12 noon EST
Type: New item, New skill, Flavor, etc
Scope: Humans
Description: This would be a new skill and item called "Air drop". This skill would be found under science after purchaseing "Necrotech employment" and "Lab Experience" (I figure Necrotech would be the ones out side w/ the helicopters).The item would be called "Secure Necrotech Radio Transmitter', and would be a one use item found in a "Necrotech" Building.

This skill and item would work from the same mechanics that the supply crates now use, except that they could be controlled. With this skill, "Air Drop", you would be able to find the item, "Secure Necrotech Radio Transmitter". Only when you have the skill, can you find it, and even then it should set at a very low percentage, maybe around 2% chance.

The way that you would use them would be simple, just push on the item button, and you would call in a "Air Drop" from your bosses out side the city (lucky them) and they would send you supply crates. There would be a random number of crates sent, any where from 1 to 4, that would be dropped off in the immediate vicinity of your postion(the nine blocks around you) with in the next 12 hours. The only catch is that there must be at least 50 humans in that same vicinity and there is only a 40% chance of your request being approved by the head of the corporation (He is some what cheap). The idea being that "Necrotech" is trying to help it's employees and other survivors during a large siege.

To sum up, to use this you would need:

  • Skill "Air Drop"
  • Item "Secure Necrotech Radio Transmitter"
  • Location "An area w/ at least 50 survivors in it"

Notes: Again the exact numbers are open to discussion. Wether it is less survivors needed to call it in, or the number of crates, or hours. Also I considered this under military skills, and to find the radio's at the fort...but there did not seem to be a appropriate skill tree for it, and there are not many forts around to find the radios (But that might be a plus).

Votes

  • Keep - Author vote DarthMortis Jan 2cd 12: 30 pm EST
  • Kill Undecided - I might consider voting keep if you changed the mechanic such that drops are not automatic (a low find chance for a radio is irrelevant, you may as well consider that everyone has one since with enough searching any item can be found). Not as it stands. Okay, well one problem solved (I think). But there's another: couldn't you just sit there and hit the button repeatedly? How about crate spam? Okay, well it's the best of the air drop suggestions I've seen so far. I'm a bit undecided as to whether to vote keep or not now. --Daxx 17:33, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE I hadn't thought of that. Good Idea. Changed it to 40% chance of your request being approved. DarthMortis Jan 2cd 12:45 EST
      • RE It is a 1 use item. If you had more that one, yes...but you can also use your shotgun 10 times if you wanted to. DarthMortisJan 2nd
  • Kill Utter nonsense. In most cases, 50+ survivors in one location only occur during a siege, which would mean that you're airdropping into a huge load of Z's. If not, well, 50+ survivors not under a siege really don't need the help! --Slicer 17:36, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Actually, I think there are too many buildings with 50+ survivors inside. Maybe if you limited it to Necrotech buildings, and just made it a slight increase in probability, rather than an instant guarantee. --Dickie Fux 17:40, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep I had a similar idea, which you might want to mix in with this: Mine was that when you hear helicopter sounds, you can fire a flare gun into the air, and the helicopter sees it and drops a crate somewhere in the vicinity.The downside would be that you're also attracting zombies, so if you don't find it quickly, you're gonna have zombies all over you. nycase, you could have the radio-beacon only work when you hear helicopter sounds, instead of only when there are 50+ people in the area.--User:Sevrn Chalus 19:03, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill -Am I the only one who thinks that the gameplay suffers from goodie-packs? If you want something search for it. A big part of the fun is that as a survivor you're left behind to fend for yourself. waiting for mana from heaven takes away from the gritty realism.--Vista 18:26, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - I don't know, there's something about this one I just don't like. Maybe that people would set up an alt to use 50AP a day purely searching for this transmitter thingy. At 2% chance they'd get one every day, and at 40% approval the building would get 1 to 4 crates of goodies roughly every two days. --WibbleBRAINS 18:32, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - This one isn't a good idea. Bentley Foss 19:24, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - 50 survivors in an NT building, 50AP each, with a 2% search success rate would result in 50 radios being found in that building in a day. 40% chance of each radio being successful means 20-80 crates per day per necrotech building in a 9-block square. Hell naw. 22:24, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT) EDIT: There are 208(ish) necrotech buildings in Malton. Your idea could result in up to 16648 crates being airdropped a day. McDave 13:57, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - When we called them "Uber Crates of Doom", we weren't implying that they should be made into "Uber Crates of Doom" - CthulhuFhtagn 01:31, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Why are people so despererate to make what kevan has said was a temporary easter egg for survivors into a directable occurance. For fucks sake, you already have a 35% find chance in malls you lazy bastards! Any regular crate droppage would irredeemably shift the balance so far towards survivors that zombies would simply stop playing, unless, of course, you gave us all rocket launchers with which to shoot down the helicopters. --Grim s 03:25, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • RE - I did not make this to get more supplies. The fact is, with a horde of Zeds surrounding a area, and a random chance that the crates will fall around any of the nine blocks in the vicinity, and that it would happen in uncertain timing. The truth is most of the crates would fall to Zombies. I do think it would add flavor and a reason for the humans to peek their heads out, and search for the crates vs. just jumping out and whacking away at the local undead. Not looking for "rocket Launchers" and such, just some spice! DarthMortis Jan 3rd 2:00 am EST
  • TALLY - 11 TOTAL VOTES - 2 KEEP - 8 Kill - 1 UNDECIDED as of 00:10 7 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Stairs

3 Spams, no Keeps. It's gone. CthulhuFhtagn 00:40, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Blood Lust

Timestamp: 19:55, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: XP earning modification
Scope: Survivors who turned to zombies
Description: You are alive. You meet a zombie. A zombie meets you. You are dead. Your sight turns red, you have a desire for blood. Evertything in front of you is nothing but a giant pile of fleash and blood, just waiting for you to serve yourself.

Basicly, the idea here is: when a survivor dies, it doesn't matter if it is a survivor or a zombie in front of him, every single point of damage he causes will earn him the same ammount of XP. This will last until a) he is revived b) he buys any zombie skill, marking that he get used to the idea of being undead and now knows where the fresh blood is.

Votes

  • Keep - Authors vote. -- hagnat 19:55, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - No thanks. -- krupintupple 10:08, 2 Jan 2006 (EST)
  • Kill - Why do you hate zombies? --Jon Pyre 20:11, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - i dont hate zombies. i think this would make it easier for people to get used to the idea of playing as one. --hagnat 20:15, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep - Considering that zombies with no skills can't do much anyway, this seems like an ok XP boost. --Signal9 20:39, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep --Lord Evans 21:28, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep A small change which doesn't cause any harm, but might help players to appreciate zombies more.--Catwhowalksbyhimself 21:37, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill- So you're saying you want to make a world where new zeds just want to eat everything and not make friends until later. Even though they're eating dead flesh of undead zombies? sorry it just doesn't make sense to me Drogmir 21:45, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Bad idea. Zombies will just go to res points so they can get really easy XP from their fellow zeds. Imagine a level... five zombie, with Lurching Gait, Ankle Grab, Vigor Mortis, Death Grip, and Rend Flesh. He gets revived, then goes to chow down on the readily available zombies nearby. He gains XP at the rate of 1.5 XP per AP, and no last AP to barricades, locating enemies, et cetera. --Elijah 21:54, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re This bonus will only affect characters without ANY zombie skill. I think it was clear when i suggested this :\ --hagnat 22:36, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - This is an incentive for recently deceased survivors to carry on killing zombies ( (easily found outside), rather than survivors, and bank the XP until they are revived. --WibbleBRAINS 21:59, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Well, in the beginning of the suggestion i said that "Evertything in front of you is nothing but a giant pile of fleash and blood". This would refer that everyone will appear as 'a shadow' or 'a corpse', so the new zed wouldnt be able to tell one from another. I think i forgot to make this clear. --hagnat 22:36, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - everything that promotes ZKing or PKing shouldn't really...--Vista 23:08, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Promote zombie players by making zombies have to worry about both suvivors and other zombies? Eer...no. Bentley Foss 00:10, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - I would vote keep if this bonus expires as soon as the character has a pool of 100 XP. Otherwise, it's way too vulnerable to banking exploits. Rhialto 00:33, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill What is it with all the really crappy suggestions today? Survivor Tard: "Wow, if I die, I get to keep attacking zombies for full exp!" --Slicer 00:51, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill a kill vote, just without the noobish comments --Nicks 02:30, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - The whole point of being a zombie is to attack SURVIVORS not fellow zombies! Plus, the whole point of the game is for zombies and humans to fight each other not zombie vs zombie or human vs human. --Daednabru 02:45, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - I would vote keep only if you had 1 or more Zombie skills then you wouldn't get full XP for Zombie kills. Because otherwise a fully powered Zombie could come back to life, die and then kill other Zombies for full XP. - Jedaz 03:26, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Fear Factor

Timestamp: 19:55, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Improvement
Scope: Survivors
Description: You look around and see your friends dead. You see a horde of zombies in front of you. You are alone. Your hands are shaking. You want to run, but you have lost control of your legs. You scream in terror.

Basicly, everytime the survivor is in a sittuation where the number of zombies outnumber the survivors, there is a penality for doing anything the survivor wish to do. Attacks will have less chances to hit, searching for itens will fail more, FAKs will heal less. For every 0.1 in the ratio zombie/survivor (above 2.0) your chance to hit/find will decrease 1% (up to 50%). Example: Your chance to hit is 65%. There is 2 survivors and 9 zombies outside. The zombie/survivor ratio is 4.5. You have a penality of 25% on your chance to hit, leaving you with 48,75% to hit. If you have 40% chance to find anything, you will only have 30% chance to find.

Votes

  • Keep - Authors vote. -- hagnat 19:55, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - I could be wrong, but if you dropped search chances by over 25% wouldn't that effectively make them 0%?. -- krupintupple 10:08, 2 Jan 2006 (EST)
    • Re No. Its a proportional penality. Its 25% of 40% (at malls). One hability to shoot and/or search is only halved at a ratio of 7 zombies per survivor. Greater ratios wont cause any harm then. --hagnat 20:13, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Why do you hate guns? --Jon Pyre 20:10, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re - i dont hate guns. I only dont think one would be able to use them like it should be while in front of a mob of hungry zeds. --hagnat 20:13, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - The more there are, the better the chance of you hitting something. I think by this point most survivors are battle-hardened and are used to the death. --TheTeeHeeMonster 21:22, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - We don't want to make survivors unplayable, now do we? Besides, there's something called adrenaline and another called survival instict that would come into play here. --Catwhowalksbyhimself 21:22, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re They wont be unplayable, they will only have to start hording zombie hordes in order to avoid penalitys. --hagnat 21:51, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - ok so basicly if you were in a zombie seige you're pretty much screwedDrogmir 21:43, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re This example you just said will make a 2.0 zeds per human ratio, therefore there will be no penality for your to hit chances. Read the suggestion again. --hagnat 21:51, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - This would make huge zombie hordes too powerful.--Brizth 22:18, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill -Don't punish the players--Vista 23:15, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - We're trying to make suggestions that break half the Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots, aren't we? Bentley Foss 00:11, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - You're not outnumbered, you're in a target-rich environment. Rhialto 00:31, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - What Rhialto said. I'm fairly sure people have made suggestions leaning in that direction, too. Bottom line is that anyone trying to get in some shots against a large group (where the ratio is ONE active survivor to a LARGE HORDE) will be fucked over. Wait, let me correct myself- if we're doing this by ratio like your math, even someone trying to drive off the seven zombies outside the PD will be fucked. Die! Die! Die! --Slicer 00:34, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Ok, so I step outside of my safehouse, shotgun in hand, several notches in belt... there's a grand total of two zombies in front of me. All of a sudden I'm too scared to do squat, even though I've got the element of suprise, a shotgun, pleanty of ammo and all the skills? No.--Arathen 02:13, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - It's a good idea (adds flavor), but it kinda breaks down because anyone above level N would be able to cope or would be dead, and anyone below level N has enough trouble and doesn't need this to deal with...It's a nice try!--Nicks 02:50, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Free Running Modification

Timestamp: 19:55, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill Modification
Scope: Free Running
Description: You are inside a building. In the main door there is dozens of survivors barricading the door. There is a mob of zombies outside, in the street. You can't go out, but you want to leave this building. You carefully search for a way to reach the nearby building. After a while you find a window that leads to an open window in the building you want to be. You jump through the window and land safely.

The idea here is, it ain't that easy to move from one building to another while not going outside. It's not like walking down the street. One would have to watch for back entrances, open windows and rooftop entrances to enter. Thus, it should cost 2 AP to move while free running from one building to another.

Votes

  1. Keep - Authors vote. -- hagnat 19:55, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  2. Keep - It does make sense and it wouldn't ruin free running. -- krupintupple 10:08, 2 Jan 2006 (EST)
  3. Kill Why do you want free running to only work to bypass barricades? Free running would be pointless in areas barricaded at very strong. --Jon Pyre 20:13, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  4. Keep - Makes sense. Maybe now people will actually walk outside once in a while. --Signal9 20:44, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  5. Kill - Part of the purpose of free running is to be able to stay inside. --TheTeeHeeMonster 21:23, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  6. Keep --Lord Evans 21:30, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  7. Keep --It encourages surviors to go out onto the streets. Eh. -- Andrew McM 21:37, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  8. Kill - Renders the point of FREE running pointless Drogmir 21:41, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  9. Keep -- It's not going to cripple free running, but you shouldn't be able to run around safely without paying for it somehow. 2 AP does not seem to be too much. -- Catwhowalksbyhimself 21:41, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  10. Kill - --Asrathe 21:52, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  11. Kill - Pretty much nerfs Free Running totally. Strikes me as a "Let's randomly screw survivors in the name of game balance" skill. Justification is based on "realism." -CWD 21:53, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  12. Keep - Because as it is humans only go outside for attack runs or get stuck having run out of AP- everyone buys free running early on and then can just leap around from building to building with very little risk of zombie attack, unless sleeping in a high-profile building. Hopefully this'll get some fresh brains on the streets. -McDave 22:11, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  13. KILL Keep - It may require a name change from Free Running to something like Window Leap, but all in all it would help out the zombies a little by making free running harder to do. Let's not forget that Zeds have to spend 2 AP just to walk without lurching gait (another justification based on "realism" and use of AP as time units, by the way) so it doesn't unbalance much. Volke raises a good mathematical point that I hadn't thought of at the time. Mojo 22:54, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  14. Keep Free running is still the perfect name, however as much as I want to disagree it makes two much sense. This would give a reason to go outside (on street level) again. This technically is a "Skill Alteration". --Matthew Stewart 23:02, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re Changed. --hagnat 23:06, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  15. Keep - Jirtan 23:18, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  16. Kill - CWD has it right. Right now it seems that all it does is griefing survivors. Hagnat, why does game balance need this? why should a large amount of people give up a lot? It's a game, why suddenly nerf something, pissing up to 30.000 people off without good reason?--Vista 23:24, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re With more people wandering outside the game will change for the best. Managing AP to make a long run, trying to flee from a zombie pursuiting you. One of the best adventures i had when i played UO was when i was fleeing from a PK from Minoc to Britain. The adrenaline of being hunted and managing to survive was something i will hardly forget --hagnat 23:50, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
      • this isn't UO, this is turn based, I've hunted and been hunted on this game, and thrust me your adrenaline doesn't get flowing. You miss your attacks because your target has left without you noticing it. You spend an assload of AP trying to keep up and never gain any XP. as for being hunted, you go in a bolthole (wich you always make without problems) and wait five minutes. it's not enough to nerf a skill over and thus grief so large a group. the other skill nerfs were because headshot was screwing up balance so seriously it was destroying the game.--Vista 00:38, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  17. Kill Free Running is hopping from rooftop to rooftop according to Kevan, not jumping from window to window! All this does is ruin the point to free running, as it's supposed to be used for quick escapes! After all, last time I checked, survivors are supposed to flee in terror from the power of the undead! --Volke 23:27, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT) EDIT: Also, becuase you can't choose to not free run, this makes it impossible to walk outside and enter another building normally without first leaving, making it cost 3 AP altogether. That's not inlcuding how far they have to walk normally to get where they want, and hope that it isn't Extremely Heavily Barricaded! This basically just turns Free Running into an anti-Lurching Gait since survivors can't choose whether or not they free run once they get it, forcing them to exit and move normally to avoid the anti-Lurching Gait penalties from it, essentially turning the skill into a waste of AP, which in turn makes it a waste of XP! --Volke 23:41, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  18. Kill I hate this. It won't encourage going onto the street- it'll just put more pain on survivors. Pissing people off is not the way to balance things. --Slicer 00:08, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  19. Kill - You DO understand that the point of free running is just that--survivors CAN leap from building to building, clamber up drainpipes, manage seemingly-impossible jumps, and all that sort of thing, right? Go to wikipedia and search for "free running" to see exactly why this is an awful idea. Bentley Foss 00:13, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  20. KILL - Nerfs Freerunning --RAF LT. General Deathnut 00:15, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  21. Kill A massively irritating nerf just to get people to go outside. Theres better ways to do this. --Zaruthustra 00:17, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  22. Kill - Volke hit it on the head.--Arathen 02:16, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  23. Keep - Because I am tired of eating newbies who have not taken scout. - --ramby 02:26, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  24. Kill - This would NOT make survivor players "free run" less. It would just make them play the game less! (because of less AP to use on their characters!) --Daednabru 02:36, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  25. Kill - Totally ruins freerunning and turns it into a skill that would cause more problems than solving. You buy skills to make the game easier. --TheBigT 02:52, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  26. Keep - Movement should not be something undertaken as lightly as it is now. My pker likes this idea. --Grim s 03:21, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  27. Keep - Would want a 2 AP way to exit a H barricaded building, but otherwise is a reasonable change and would reduce the incentive to overbarricade (which is good!). After all, zombie movement has been messed with since the beginning of the game - why not play games with survivor movement? --RSquared 03:38, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  28. Kill - I wouldn't be opposed to nerfing Free Running a little, but this makes it completely worthless. --LtMile 05:28, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  29. Kill - Not a good idea to force people outside in order to move properly. --Velkrin 06:35, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  30. Kill - I've never had a problem using Free Running as it is now; it only takes some foresight. The bigger problem is puny newbie Consumers getting trapped in constantly over-barricaded buildings, if anything. --MorthBabid 08:59, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  31. Kill -Nerfs too much, and would make Scout very hard to level-up. Why not make prerequisite for it, which would make it somewhat harder to get. Or, if you have free running, it doesn't cost anything to exit a building. --Xiad 9:02, 3 jan 2006 (GMT)
  32. Kill - Bloody stupid idea. I can't choose not to free-run, so this is actually costing me AP. --Daxx 14:25, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  33. Keep - I like it... Jorge 14:59, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  34. Keep - I think survivor movement is too powerful and as a survivor only player I don't see slowing us down a little as a bad thing. maybe a little TOO big a cost to double movement, maybe put a 35% chance of it costing an extra AP? Stoy Winters 11:17, 4 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  35. Kill I think a chance to fail would make a lot more sense for any reason then a flat AP cost increase.--Homunculus 00:48, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Re You see, the problem with 'random chance of failing' is that one cant quite schedulle how much AP he will spend by moving from Place A to Place B. By setting a defined value for the move, everyone knows how much AP he will spend to move. --hagnat 00:57, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)
    • Tally 35 votes, 14 keeps, 21 kills --hagnat 00:57, 6 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Feeding Frenzy

Timestamp: 19:55, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Type: Skill, Zombie
Scope: Zombie bite
Description: You desire more and more blood than a regular zombie. You want to drink it, you want to taste it, and you want it now !

This goes under Neck Lurch. You cause 1 extra point of bite damage, but you lose 5% on the chances to hit with bite. This increases bite XP/AP to 1.25.

Votes

  • Keep - Authors vote. -- hagnat 19:55, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Bite doesn't need to do more damage. That's what hand attacks are for. --Jon Pyre 20:14, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - I'd say something about bone dentures +5, but then i'd just sound like a dick. No. -- krupintupple 10:24, 2 Jan 2006 (EST)
  • Keep - It helps regain HP. --Signal9 20:49, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Flak jackets would negate the extra one point and this skill would just end up making you weaker in the long run. --TheTeeHeeMonster 21:24, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep --Lord Evans 21:32, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - I thought zombies ate brains not blood. Isn't that vampires? Drogmir 21:40, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill -bite has already got a lot of extra's countering the relatively lower HP/AP, it's already a powerfull attack--Vista 23:29, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - I feel this actually makes bite less worthwhile for its main role for high-level zombies, which is infection. --Sindai 23:47, 2 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - All the reasons have been listed above. Bite is painfully difficult to land as it is, and you want to make it even harder to hit? No, no, no. Bentley Foss 00:14, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill Bite is for status effects, not damage. This would almost hurt bite more than help it. --Zaruthustra 00:15, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill What Sindai said. Mid-level zombies will regret getting this, and they won't be able to sell it back. It's not like Brain Rot where the down-side is clear. --Slicer 00:36, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill While they might be undead, THIS game is about zombies, not vampires. --B.Z.B. 04:00, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - Unnecessary, and flak jackets would render it mostly worthless anyway. --LtMile 05:30, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)
  • Kill - What Zaruthustra said. Bite is not for damage. --Daxx 14:27, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Yet Another Zombie Bomb Idea

This "bomb" lived up to its name. Spaminated with 3 spams and a crapload of kills. CthulhuFhtagn 02:24, 3 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Well, this idea was spamminated and the one who did it forgot to add it to the Peer Rejected Suggestions page. well, i have a backup of that in here in case anyone wish to see this stuff. --hagnat 01:55, 20 Jan 2006 (GMT)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Suggestions/2nd-Jan-2006&oldid=140561"