Developing Suggestions
Developing Suggestions
This section is for presenting and reviewing suggestions which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.
Nothing on this page will be archived.
Further Discussion
- Discussion concerning this page takes place here.
- Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general, including policies about it, takes place here.
Please Read Before Posting
- Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. You can read about many ideas that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe: a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles.
- Users should be aware that page is discussion oriented. Other users are free to express their own point of view and are not required to be neutral.
- If you decide not to take your suggestion to voting, please remove it from this page to avoid clutter.
- It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.
- After new game updates, users are requested to allow time for the game and community to adjust to these changes before suggesting alterations.
How To Make a Suggestion
Adding a New Suggestion
- Copy the code in the box below.
- Click here to begin editing. This is the same as clicking the [edit] link to the right of the Suggestions header.
- Paste the copied text above the other suggestions, right under the heading.
- Substitute the text in RED CAPITALS with the details of your suggestion.
{{subst:DevelopingSuggestion
|time=~~~~
|name=SUGGESTION NAME
|type=TYPE HERE
|scope=SCOPE HERE
|description=DESCRIPTION HERE
}}
- Name - Give the suggestion a short but descriptive name.
- Type is the nature of the suggestion, such as a new class, skill change, balance change, etc. Basically: What is it? and Is it new, or a change?
- Scope is who or what the suggestion affects. Typically survivors or zombies (or both), but occasionally Malton, the game interface or something else.
- Description should be a full explanation of your suggestion. Include information like flavor text, search odds, hit percentages, etc, as appropriate. Unless you are as yet unsure of the exact details behind the suggestion, try not to leave out anything important. Check your spelling and grammar.
Cycling Suggestions
- Suggestions with no new discussion in the past two days should be given a warning notice. This can be done by adding {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section, where date is the day the suggestion will be removed.
- Suggestions with no new discussion in the past week may be removed.
- If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the warning template please remove the {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section to show that there is still ongoing discussion.
This page is prone to breaking when the page gets too long, so sometimes suggestions still under discussion will be moved to the Overflow page, so the discussion can continue.
Please add new suggestions to the top of the list
Suggestions
Expert Skills v0.1
| Timestamp: Devorac 21:37, 29 April 2010 (BST) |
| Type: New Skills |
| Scope: Everyone banging their heads against the granite ceiling |
| Description:
Most everyone knows that the game burnout hits at level 41 (43 for zombies) when all skills have been earned, personally I think there should be more to work towards, (other than the tic-tac-toe of defending/destroying suburbs and buildings in the war against zombies/harmanz) a bit more to achieve. Unfortunately there are numerous problems with introducing any new skills into the game, the biggest goes something like this: "All the old players will suddenly get a buff out of nowhere.". That concern is quite legitimate, and previous means of circumventing it (reducing everyone who has 41-43 levels XP to zero, setting an XP ceiling) have been met with hostility and usually something involving EP size. This brings us to my proposal... Expert Skills, or proficiency, whatever you want to call it. What this means is that for most actions there is an additional skill that cannot be purchased with XP, it must be earned through repetition. These are skills for people who do what they do really well, you won't get these for blowing two lvl 1 zombies in half with a shotgun (120 XP) or healing 5 10HP lvl 1 survivors back to full health (100-200XP, 20-40 FAKs). For instance I think that to achieve an expert skill level with FAKs you should have to use about 2200 of them. Yes, twenty-two-hundred. Work out the AP math of that and it is two solid months of AP usage. Two solid months doing nothing but FAK people. Yeah that's a lot but I want these skills to be really cool things that you can be proud of, not just milestones. On the skill tree theses would show up as a third area after zombie skills labeled Expert Skills. The skills themselves are cool things that you will be happy to have, but the won't break the game. This is a current list of all the expert skills, I'll try to keep it as balanced between zombie and survivor skills as I can. Survivor (Many More Coming) Frugal Doctor (0/2200 First-Aid Kits Administered) Not yet Achieved
Waste Not, Want Not.
I don't know what this is, but I bet it'll hurt when it hits you.
I'd be lying if I said this didn't sting like all get out.
Strength comes from the back and legs, use your shoulders on the big stuff and you'll just torque something
You lose yourself in the Rhythm after a while; Raise, chop, recover, raise, chop, recover, raise...
Zombie (Many More Coming) Masticate (0/2200 Survivors Bitten) Not yet Achieved*
OMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOM
Oh God I think he's got me, oh sh- *crunch*
Goddamnit! These bitches just won't die!
Did you hear someth- AUGHH!
Word of advice boy, Don't start what you can't finish... These bastards get pretty angry Additionally I'm thinking of adding a single additional special expert skill for each class to make things a bit more unique. Example: Battlefield Surgery Required Class: Medic Pre-requisite Expert Skill: Frugal Doctor
Bite down on this... try to relax.
I*This may seem over-powered and it may indeed replace grasp, but I really think the Uber zombies should be, well Uber. I**Counts each time you re-grip, crushes don't count. Okay. thoughts? |
Discussion (Expert Skills)
The example skill you gave is incredibly overpowered.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:56, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- 5 every 50? I had originally considered making it 5% but 2-3 additional uses every 50 FAKS seemed a little low for something you've probably spent a year working for. -Devorac 22:12, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- A 10% chance of saving a FAK essentially translates into similar savings as a 10% higher search rate for FAKs, on average. It didn't seem overpowered to me until I put it in those terms. I do like the idea though. There's also the possibility of making class-specific skills at the very high end, which might take measures such as the one you propose here to gain. —Aichon— 22:18, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Fair point, finding a FAK takes about 3 AP at least (For me) so having an additional 5 would translate to 15 additional AP. Alright lowered to 5%, still noticeable and helpful but taken down a notch. -Devorac 22:22, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- A 10% chance of saving a FAK essentially translates into similar savings as a 10% higher search rate for FAKs, on average. It didn't seem overpowered to me until I put it in those terms. I do like the idea though. There's also the possibility of making class-specific skills at the very high end, which might take measures such as the one you propose here to gain. —Aichon— 22:18, 29 April 2010 (BST)
I like the idea, particularly the concept of earning these expert skills through repetition vs. XP. Develop it some more! =D --Maverick Talk - OBR 
404 23:16, 29 April 2010 (BST)
So many people either stop playing or just start a new character that I can only see good things from a well balanced development of this idea... --Honestmistake 00:00, 30 April 2010 (BST)
UPDATED -Devorac 03:11, 30 April 2010 (BST) Okay, going to let the new skills get flamed into balance before I add more. -Devorac 03:36, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- Clamber is quite a bit overpowered. Some of the others are overpowered, but not in game-breaking ways. Clamber really needs toning down though, maybe killing. Otherwise it'd mean 28ap saved every time a zombie entered a building. —Aichon— 03:47, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- Sorry, I was in a rush. Clamber reduced to loosely then? That's 4 AP saved on average. -Devorac 03:59, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- Doorman seems like an awkward survivor skill since survivors do not often need to lower barricades. I still think it's great for survivors looking to remove piñatas, but 20% might be a bit high as well. --Maverick Talk - OBR
404 07:29, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- I like these ideas, however all of the skills should be reduced in power. Nothing should provide any more than a 5% buff. As long as all the skills are dealing in percentages rather than additional HP, etc, then they could be added to the game without breaking anything while still providing players with bragging rights and a tiny little boost to their playing experience.
Windows shading
| Timestamp: Girobu 09:14, 29 April 2010 (BST) |
| Type: New mechanics |
| Scope: all |
| Description: When a building is powered, the light is observable from the street. It attractss zombies and PKers to lit buildings, and makes non-lit ones a little bit safer. But what if we'd have ability to shade the windows with newspapers? The idea is - if you have certain amount of newspapers (different for different building types), you can shade the windows for cost 1 AP per newspaper (NO partial shading!). When building is shaded, it looks like unpowered one from the street, even when powered. When zombie enters the building, he/she can destroy shading for one succesful attack (I assume, that newspapers are not very strong) - there is an option in attacked things list - "shading".
Variants:
|
Discussion (Windows shading)
The added danger is the balance for the huge search advantage a generator gives. No making them invisible. If you don't want to pay the price, smash the generator yourself -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:18 29 April 2010 (BST)
- It makes non-lit building more dangerous, so the price is paid. Plus it paid by amount of AP required to shade building, and just 1-2 to fully deshade it. --Girobu 09:27, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- The danger is displaced or spread around from valuable locations to less valuable locations. Still an advantage. —Aichon— 09:32, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- I think, balance kept (there are advantages and disadvantages for both sides) - and the strategy becomes more interesting for both parties. --Girobu 11:29, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Aichon and Boxy really nailed this one on the head. The light of the genny is the trade-off, AND you're trying to make a RP item (newspaper) useful at the same time. If you want your genny to stay hidden, put it in a ruined building. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 10:14, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Orly?
14:40, 29 April 2010 (BST) - Plus this will really annoy those zombies in Perma Death Cities, searching through the ruins for that single lit building. Oh! and if the genny was destroyed whilst the windows were covered, would the building become Dark? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:19, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Yes, it's good idea (making them dark). And if you want to find something, you must de-shade it. Price paid? :) --Girobu 10:50, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Bad idea. We'd see a lot of newspaper-darkened non-TRPs just to have a safe sleep place, while zombies have no way to dismantle them by ripping away the paper or setting up a gennie. --Spiderzed 14:36, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Now you can cade and power the whole suburb just to have a safe sleep place while zombies have no way... you know. Does it ruin the game? I want just to have another strategy. And - shading is expensive, de-shading is cheap - to keep the balance. --Girobu 15:39, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Bad idea. We'd see a lot of newspaper-darkened non-TRPs just to have a safe sleep place, while zombies have no way to dismantle them by ripping away the paper or setting up a gennie. --Spiderzed 14:36, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Yes, it's good idea (making them dark). And if you want to find something, you must de-shade it. Price paid? :) --Girobu 10:50, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Orly?
- The danger is displaced or spread around from valuable locations to less valuable locations. Still an advantage. —Aichon— 09:32, 29 April 2010 (BST)
As others have already said, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you can't live with being attacked in a lit resource building, destroy the genny, or even smarter yet, go to the TRP only to stock up and then sleep somewhere safer. But don't go and pester Kevan to change the game just because you can't be bothered to endure a trade-off that has been long established in UD, and that most survivor players have learned to deal with. --Spiderzed 14:36, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- No, it isn't. Addition of such possibility won't give you a free cookie, because everyone will know about it, so there is no way to be safe in TRP like in dark bank today. I'd say, there will be no safe dark banks with this suggestion implemented. --Girobu 15:34, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- I didn't see anything in your suggestion that would make dark banks more dangerous. But the criticism brought up by others here is warranted. This would really mess up the game for feral zombies and cause more of them to stop playing. When there aren't any feeding groans, attacking lit buildings is one of the best ways for ferals to try and find a snack. Zombies already have to guess at where there prey is, since they can't see inside the buildings. The newspaper trick would further conceal the presence of survivors all across Malton almost overnight, making the game more difficult and frustrating for all zombies.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 07:59, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- No, it isn't. Addition of such possibility won't give you a free cookie, because everyone will know about it, so there is no way to be safe in TRP like in dark bank today. I'd say, there will be no safe dark banks with this suggestion implemented. --Girobu 15:34, 29 April 2010 (BST)
Zombies > Barricades (When Inside)
| Timestamp: Maverick Talk - OBR 404 06:26, 29 April 2010 (BST)
|
| Type: Mechanics change |
| Scope: Seiges & zombies looking for bra!ns |
| Description: Barricades are a zombies worst enemy, but why should it be just as hard when the zombie is INSIDE the building? One would think that would make it far easier to remove the things blocking the way in so those pesky harmans can't just throw up barricades behind you and separate you from all your hungry friends.
Simply put, I am suggesting a change to the attack percentages for zombies attacking barricades from INSIDE a building. This is meant to go along with Survivor:Zombie Interference Negation. When inside a building the base chance for a zombie to destroy a level of barricade is 70%. This would be 80% with Vigor Mortis or 95% with Death Grip. Hence, MUCH easier to destroy cades from the inside, although still that small 5% chance of failure. |
Discussion (Zombies > Barricades (When Inside))
Doesn't being inside already give everyone a small boost? Even if not, your numbers are insane. ~25 to 95?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:18, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Yes, apparently it does already give a small boost... but that boost is insanely underpowered (so much so that you cant tell the difference). It really could do with an increase -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:26 29 April 2010 (BST)
The problem with this is that it only makes sense if survivors get a similar boost and that would make it too easy to overcade during an attack and then take em back down to allow entry. Also, as Yonnua says, those numbers are insanely high. --Honestmistake 08:47, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- +1 --Girobu 08:51, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- I don't see why it makes sense to offer the same to survivors. Survivors shouldn't be taking down barricades. Zombies should be. If you want to make the realism argument, I'll counter with the "let's go with what's best for the game and what's fun" argument. For a zombie on the inside, they can attack barricades at points where they're not fortified against attack, enabling them to take them down faster. As boxy said, it needs a buff. Badly. 95% is a bit high, I think, but bumping it up closer to 50-75% seems reasonable to me. —Aichon— 09:47, 29 April 2010 (BST)
The numbers are insanely high for a reason. As I said, this suggestion is meant as a compliment to the one below. Besides, are you telling me that it shouldn't be significantly easier to remove barricades from the inside? As a stand-alone, all I really see this suggestion doing is offering up a new tactics for trans-mortal zombies and dealth cultists in siege situations because right now zeds have nothing to gain by attacking 'cades from the inside of a building. This would provide a new incentive (incredibly AP efficient) and possibly even suggest some new tactics for both survivors and zombies. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 09:41, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- No linking suggestions.--Pesatyel 04:43, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- There is a guideline about not making compound or multi-part suggestions, but nothing about paired suggestions. Besides, analyze each for what they're worth. They do work best together, but each stands on its own just fine. —Aichon— 06:28, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- Do not reference other suggestions not already implemented in the game. :( --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 08:28, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- There is a guideline about not making compound or multi-part suggestions, but nothing about paired suggestions. Besides, analyze each for what they're worth. They do work best together, but each stands on its own just fine. —Aichon— 06:28, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- The problem is that the below suggestion does the exact opposite of what Kevan has been trying to do. And it's retarded. --VVV RPMBG 05:41, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- You're wrong on both counts, and your casual dismissal of an elegant solution does not speak well of you. Barricades are used to balance out the AP spent by zombies, otherwise survivors would be overrun. If zombies are inside buildings though, that's a different matter entirely, and the barricades are now serving a different purpose. Forcing the survivors to split their attention more between putting up new barricades and killing zombies on the inside is good, since it creates more interesting gameplay. Ross' suggestion covers that entire idea in an elegant and simple manner. DIsmissing it offhand with such a rude comment is, well, rude. I know this page has a lot of vitriol on it, but I have a lot more respect for someone who puts up a strongly worded counter-argument than I do for someone who offers a meritless dismissal of a good idea any day. —Aichon— 06:28, 30 April 2010 (BST)
Regardless of the other suggestion below, I'd say make this a standalone change. Decading from inside should be easier than outside. Here's a crazy alternative. Attacks inside building on barricades are not subject to the 50% decrease in accuracy normally associated with barricade attacks. for everyone. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:56, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- I like the simpleness of Ross' suggestion. If you want to go with anything, go with this one. --Spiderzed 14:40, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- +1 14:49, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- +1
- Simplistic, not bad.--Pesatyel 04:43, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- +4 - Send it through. It will pass. --VVV RPMBG 05:41, 30 April 2010 (BST)
What about Piñatas?--Pesatyel 04:43, 30 April 2010 (BST)
- It would aply to buildings regardless of ruin status. Not like any zombie smart enough to make a piñata would be dumb enough to open it. --VVV RPMBG 05:41, 30 April 2010 (BST)
I don't like this at all. The biggest reason being that it would make parachuting ridiculously overpowered, as it would be used to instantly remove any barricades. But I can think of a few other problems too.
Right now, when a zombie gets into a building they can do plenty of damage by eating brains and smashing generators. Currently, if a lone zed feels like being altruistic and de-barricading, then they are making a tactical decision to spend their AP helping others, rather than taking the immediate personal payoff of eating brains. So, in a way, this suggestion would be removing a tactical consideration from the game. Trade-offs are good for the game, because they offer the opportunity to make meaningful decisions, right?
With this suggestion, there's no trade off. So if I'm a zombie in a building and the survivors decide to erect barricades around me, I just bring the barricades down and then start eating brains. Also, this would basically mean that 1 or 2 standing zombies in a building would signal the end game of a siege, rather than a manageable set back, which would in turn make sieges less possible and therefore discourage prolonged conflicts between zombies and survivors and in turn move the game farther away from zombies vs survivors.
However, zombies getting barricaded into buildings is really only an occasional situation. Most of the time, when a zombie breaks in, there are no cades up and they just AP out eating brains. What this really is, is a massive buff to parachuting. The really big problem here is that this would provide a way for 2 coordinating players (or 1 zerger) to instantly remove barricades, the single most important defense that survivors have. I'd never vote for something that could have the potential to so badly cripple the game, and I can't imagine too many other survivors voting for it either.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 08:32, 30 April 2010 (BST)
Survivor:Zombie Interference Negation
| Timestamp: Maverick Talk - OBR 404 06:26, 29 April 2010 (BST)
|
| Type: Mechanics fix |
| Scope: Zombie interference |
| Description: Zombie interference and the beachhead tactic are too powerful. Where there could be tension for control of a building/mall, there is instead a kind of "lost cause" mentality when even a small number of zeds break into a building--regardless of whether there are 4 survivors or 86 survivors. This suggestion seeks to remedy that somewhat while still keeping zombie interfence and the beachhead tactic viable; this is meant to go along with Zombies > Barricades (When Inside).
Zombie interference takes effect when there are two or more zombies in a building. Based on preliminary experiments, current best guess is that it hampers barricade chances by roughly 50%. I suggest that this should be less of an issue if there are sufficiently more survivors present than zombies--10 to 1, in fact. How much of a difference I am leaving up for debate, but I was thinking 15% for every 10 extra survivors with there always being a minimum of 5% zombie interference. Example:
|
Discussion (Survivor:Zombie Interference Negation)
In the genre, how many people hang around when a zombie breaks in to the building? Even if there are a hundred people in a mall with you, when you zombie breaks in, you flee. Currently, I think the game reflects this well.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:21, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Actually survivors don't flee. They cade/kill. This is the reason for beachhead. If they fled the scene then zombies would not have to keep an open door.--Dirty 08:47, 29 April 2010 (BST)
I really like this idea. Interference is currently overpowered and doesn't scale well at all with the number of humans and zombies. Having it scale appropriately would be a GREAT change for the game. —Aichon— 09:49, 29 April 2010 (BST)
Cade blocking is fine as it is now. Not all zombies act in strike teams, some of us prefer to go feral and see it already as a big success to squeeze 3 or so in before the cades are up again. There's anyway already a built-in advantage for the survivor's numerical advantage, as they can shoot down intruding zombies to make the building cadeable again. No need to bolster that further. --Spiderzed 14:44, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- This. Changes based on the existence of organised zombies can't ignore the extreme difficulty of playing as a feral. 14:51, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- How often does a group of 2-3 ferals break into a building with 20+ survivors though? I kept that in mind when setting up the ratio so that the focus is on organized hordes and would have as little effect on ferals as possible. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 21:38, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- I've seen that regularly, especially with timed Feral Movement tactics and/or high-profile targets as malls or fort gatehouses. If you want to leave the ferals alone and only nerf organized hordes a bit, leave the cade-blocking of lower zombie numbers alone (up to 5 or so), and nerf everything above that mark. --Spiderzed 22:27, 29 April 2010 (BST)
I think you just need to suggest a leash that can be applied to survivors only, based on a check of what percentage (50? 65?) of their last, say, 200 AP has been spent on attacking. This can be used to drag idiot trenchies to break-in sites where their bullets will actually do some good. --Mold 05:46, 30 April 2010 (BST)
New FAK rules
| Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 00:54 24 April 2010(UTC) |
| Type: Improvement |
| Scope: FAK's/Healing |
| Description: FAK's in this game are ridiculous. Injuries should heal slower than they are inflicted but in Urban Dead its just the opposite, they heal much faster than inflicted. FAK's are overpowered anyway even if you ignore the rest. So here are some new rules:
1 FAK heals 1 HP. First Aid Skill increases it to 1 FAK heals 2 HP. Surgery Skill increases it to 1 FAK heals 4 HP if in a powered Hospital.
Pro for Survivors: Low level players will have a lot more chance for XP gain. |
Discussion (New FAK rules)
Fuck, he's alive. Also how would this affect xp gain? 01:02, 24 April 2010 (BST)
- I didn't think about that. Could make it too easy to XP whore if it remained 5 per I suppose. Suggestions?-- | T | BALLS! | 01:04 24 April 2010(UTC)
- XP equal to HP healed. 01:06, 24 April 2010 (BST)
- XP equal to HP healed.
Healing does need a nerf, but this makes the game less fun by increasing search time overwhelmingly. I think and appropriate change would be that there is a limit to how much healing can be done to one player in each half hour (AP regen) period. You can still apply FAKs, but the healing wouldn't take affect until the next AP tick. This would mean that survivors couldn't heal quicker than a zombie can attack. Nothing lamer than watching the survivor you are attacking miraculously gain full health in the time it takes you to claw at him a couple of times -- boxy talk • teh rulz 01:09 24 April 2010 (BST)
- I agree completely. Healing is ridiculously overpowered. Dropping the HP healed isn't the answer, but this would work great. No added 'omg, more searching!?! so boring!' but the removal of 'Kill the medic, not the heavy!'
- Also here are HealthyDude (60HP), HealingDude (34+15HP), and HurtDude (46HP) --VVV RPMBG 04:51, 24 April 2010 (BST)
- My original idea was along these lines but I thought people would get all K.I.S.S. on me. Then there is the healing someone who already has their heal for the half hour and how that works. I guess there could be a new color for that. One fix for doing it my way would be to increase search rates for FAK's so they are easier to find. I like that better because it limits the total healing potential that a single Survivor could carry at once. Instead of a Survivor being able to carry 50 FAK's at once for max 250/500/750 possible healing potential (just looking at those number makes me sick) it would be 50/100/200. A lot more sane. Increased Search Rates would make Hospitals a great Resource Point as well! As Survivors could cycle through their FAKs like mad as long as they had patients to treat. Anything that puts more focus on the "lesser Resource Points" over those Malls is a plus in my book.-- | T | BALLS! | 08:10 24 April 2010(UTC)
- I could certainly get behind VVV's idea of only 5 HP-worth of healing getting applied every AP tick, as long as you could still apply multiple FAKs to the same player (they just wouldn't take effect right away). So now I suppose I'll just wait and see if that idea ever shows its face for voting... --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 06:38, 28 April 2010 (BST)
- I could certainly get behind VVV's idea of only 5 HP-worth of healing getting applied every AP tick, as long as you could still apply multiple FAKs to the same player (they just wouldn't take effect right away). So now I suppose I'll just wait and see if that idea ever shows its face for voting... --Maverick Talk - OBR
Or you could make the FAKs simular to a fuel can, in that you find 1 that weighs a shit load, the number of 5/10/15HP heals it deals are limited to the amount of medical equipment inside the kit. keep the search rates the same all over the place. i dunno, just tossing ideas out. but i agree with the basis of this suggestion.--Dirty 03:01, 24 April 2010 (BST)
How bout scotty don't! --
03:24, 24 April 2010 (BST)
- F.A.K.K.² --
Arthur Dent BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 09:24, 24 April 2010 (BST)
It changes game a little - I've just have to spend more boring time searching. --Girobu 14:09, 26 April 2010 (BST)
- What if you found more at one time? Say when you search you could find 1 to 3 each search.--Pesatyel 02:08, 27 April 2010 (BST)
- So what? This guy wants play zed without nerf, his next suggestion will (I think) - "New cade rules - one attack to destroy all cades around" :) --Girobu 09:44, 27 April 2010 (BST)
- What?--Pesatyel 03:37, 28 April 2010 (BST)
- The plain balance shift, I meant --Girobu 07:40, 28 April 2010 (BST)
- Again. What? The suggestion was to reduce the healing power of an individual FAK. The main argument against it is that it means "more mindnumbing searching". While I think I like Honestmistake's idea better, as far as THIS suggestion goes, what about increasing the number of FAK you find in a search to compensate for weaker FAK themselves? Or, how about the ability to manufacture a "more powerful" FAK?--Pesatyel 04:29, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- make each single FAK weaker, but easier to find? And what the reason? The first suggestion is bad, but I can, at least, understand why it's made. --Girobu 08:46, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Again. What? The suggestion was to reduce the healing power of an individual FAK. The main argument against it is that it means "more mindnumbing searching". While I think I like Honestmistake's idea better, as far as THIS suggestion goes, what about increasing the number of FAK you find in a search to compensate for weaker FAK themselves? Or, how about the ability to manufacture a "more powerful" FAK?--Pesatyel 04:29, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- The plain balance shift, I meant --Girobu 07:40, 28 April 2010 (BST)
- What?--Pesatyel 03:37, 28 April 2010 (BST)
- So what? This guy wants play zed without nerf, his next suggestion will (I think) - "New cade rules - one attack to destroy all cades around" :) --Girobu 09:44, 27 April 2010 (BST)
I think that zombies healing is just a powerful. I mean 1 AP to restore 4 HP no item needed, and bodies are found everywhere. You need to keep the game balanced.--V darkstar 13:46, 27 April 2010 (BST)
- I think, the FAKs shouldn't work on zombies, just because medicine doesn't cure dead. Let's write new suggestion on this? --Girobu 08:54, 29 April 2010 (BST)
How about 1 FAK heals 1HP immediately and continues healing 1 HP per AP tick until it reaches its current total (IE 5/10/15) depending on all the factors. That way the FAK still heals the same amount, it just doesn't do it instantly. --Honestmistake 21:40, 27 April 2010 (BST)
- I like the idea.--Pesatyel 03:37, 28 April 2010 (BST)
- You think, that AP equals to hour, ninute or so, but it's not true. AP is a single action. What you're saying is just bad. Cutting AP's for no reason makes game boring, not interesting. Boring game = less gamers= much more boring game. --Girobu 07:39, 28 April 2010 (BST)
- You obviously don't understand, read it carefully and you might realize that I am not suggesting that using the FAK cost more.... just that each tickover that restores an AP would also restore a HP. Put simply if "total noob" uses a FAK he would no longer restore 5HP instantly, instead he would restore 1 immediately and 1 more every half hour until either the target is fully healed or the full 5 are regained (2 hours) In no way am I suggesting that "noob" needs to stay and keep clicking, just that the "patient" no longer gets the full benefit in one single lump.--Honestmistake 23:45, 28 April 2010 (BST)
- Try not to say "I want FAK to work another way", but: "I want add the ***** to the game". What this change will add to the game? Nothing, as I can see. Just more AP wasting for the same result. Let's just ask Kevan to cut daily AP from 50 to 30 - the same thing. --Girobu 08:39, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- OK, obviously English is not your 1st language so I will try and make this as simple as possible for you.
- Currently 1AP + 1 FAK = instant heal for 5, 10 or 15 HP depending on skill and location.
- My suggestion is that 1AP + 1 FAK = 5, 10 or 15 HP added over time.
- That time will be measured by the AP tick. The AP tick is the mechanism that works out when your character should regain any spent AP, I am not in anyway suggesting something that would make healing cost extra AP. I am not in any way suggestiong that the healer must do anything more than he/she already does (ie click to use a FAK for 1AP) the wounded person also does not have to do anything. The server does all the additional work with no help (or interference) from the players. Is that clear?
- Try not to say "I want FAK to work another way", but: "I want add the ***** to the game". What this change will add to the game? Nothing, as I can see. Just more AP wasting for the same result. Let's just ask Kevan to cut daily AP from 50 to 30 - the same thing. --Girobu 08:39, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- You obviously don't understand, read it carefully and you might realize that I am not suggesting that using the FAK cost more.... just that each tickover that restores an AP would also restore a HP. Put simply if "total noob" uses a FAK he would no longer restore 5HP instantly, instead he would restore 1 immediately and 1 more every half hour until either the target is fully healed or the full 5 are regained (2 hours) In no way am I suggesting that "noob" needs to stay and keep clicking, just that the "patient" no longer gets the full benefit in one single lump.--Honestmistake 23:45, 28 April 2010 (BST)
- It's perfectly clear. Please, explain, what it will add to game process? I must do 5-10-15 actions in order to heal myself before sleeping. Nice. Cool. Can't wait when it comes true. 5-15 stupid actions for just healing. Let's also add "physical exercise" (or just "do something stupid") to list of possible actions :) Finally, it comes to simple AP cut, as I've said. No beauty. --Girobu 09:26, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Dude. You wouldn't have to do 5-10-15 actions, they would happen automatically, it's just that the HP would be added over time instead of all in one hit. Just like in R/L, the wounds would take time to heal, rather than instantaneously as soon as you applied the bandage -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:30 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Wait 5 hrs to heal 10 HP? Wait 15 hrs to full healing after revive? Please, finally, answer - what it would add to the game, besides "realism"? --Girobu 10:47, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- It adds balance. Being able to fully heal another survivor in a fraction of the time it takes a zombie who is right there to kill is ridiculous. But you do make a good point about survivors coming online, having to wait for full health before venturing out. Perhaps self-applied FAK should be immune from this -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:02 29 April 2010 (BST)
- As I can see, zombies kill survivors with good rate. And zombies almost un-killable by design. Also note, that in "real life" we do not sleep so long, but do many things doesn't implemented in game. So "real life" isn't a reason. And I'm strongly against auto-FAK - it removes some nerf from the game. And in most cases auto-FAKed survivours will act like terminators. --Girobu 11:18, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- It adds balance. Being able to fully heal another survivor in a fraction of the time it takes a zombie who is right there to kill is ridiculous. But you do make a good point about survivors coming online, having to wait for full health before venturing out. Perhaps self-applied FAK should be immune from this -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:02 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Wait 5 hrs to heal 10 HP? Wait 15 hrs to full healing after revive? Please, finally, answer - what it would add to the game, besides "realism"? --Girobu 10:47, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Dude. You wouldn't have to do 5-10-15 actions, they would happen automatically, it's just that the HP would be added over time instead of all in one hit. Just like in R/L, the wounds would take time to heal, rather than instantaneously as soon as you applied the bandage -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:30 29 April 2010 (BST)
- It's perfectly clear. Please, explain, what it will add to game process? I must do 5-10-15 actions in order to heal myself before sleeping. Nice. Cool. Can't wait when it comes true. 5-15 stupid actions for just healing. Let's also add "physical exercise" (or just "do something stupid") to list of possible actions :) Finally, it comes to simple AP cut, as I've said. No beauty. --Girobu 09:26, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Now, what will this change? Very simply this will make it much easier for zombies to kill 'sleeping' survivors in a live fight because 1 FAK will no longer undo the work of 6 or 7 zombie AP (not to mention the break in cost!) It would also open the way to more skills as survivors who specialise in healing will want ways to tell who is already under the effect of a FAK. --Honestmistake 09:10, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- I think that the first FAK applied should still heal the full amount of HP (depending on the healers skills), and only subsequent FAKs should be added over time. Stopping the bleeding, and giving medication will improve the health immediately, followed by a slow healing process -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:10 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Actually I was thinking that A FAK should heal 1point without skill, 2points with skill and 3points with skill and power then 2 hours (4AP ticks) later the system should add the appropriate outstanding amount (4/8/12) depending on the current status (ie power and your current health) that gives a neater system but still slows the healing rate to a manageable level. --Honestmistake 16:52, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- I think that the first FAK applied should still heal the full amount of HP (depending on the healers skills), and only subsequent FAKs should be added over time. Stopping the bleeding, and giving medication will improve the health immediately, followed by a slow healing process -- boxy talk • teh rulz 10:10 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Now, what will this change? Very simply this will make it much easier for zombies to kill 'sleeping' survivors in a live fight because 1 FAK will no longer undo the work of 6 or 7 zombie AP (not to mention the break in cost!) It would also open the way to more skills as survivors who specialise in healing will want ways to tell who is already under the effect of a FAK. --Honestmistake 09:10, 29 April 2010 (BST)
The point has been made before that a single Action Point represents a single action - building a barricade, or walking from one building to another would obviously take more time than whipping out a newspaper and slapping someone in the face with it. The action point spent using the FAK represents the time it takes to crack that bad boy open and apply some magical healing salve. A tendency towards realism in a game like this makes it less fun for everyone - especially those trenchies who run around with ten shotguns stuffed in the waistand of their trousers! Sage|Carr Cobra 21:44, 27 April 2010 (BST)
- I'm not sure what your point is exactly. Did you read the suggestion?--Pesatyel 03:37, 28 April 2010 (BST)
Too strong of a nerf. FAKs go pretty quick as it is. I can't imagine rebuilding a suburb or maintaining a conflict against any kind of zombie presence if it took 8 or 9 FAKs to fully restore 1 survivor. This would hasten the end of the game as we know it.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 12:32, 28 April 2010 (BST)
- Thats the point, you should not be able to cure 300HP in one day.... that gives you the advantage, that makes taken a suburb into zombie hands almost impossible.--Dirty 18:39, 28 April 2010 (BST)
- Look at the map - good zombie players take suburbs, bad players - not, no matter how FAKs work. --Girobu 08:48, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- coughridleybankcough* Seriously, this game isn't about realism. I like Honestmistake's idea best here, that way survivors lose their advantage of healing in live combat (while zombies still have a chance of boosting health with a successful bite), and the FAK does not become horribly useless. Seriously, 1 HP? That makes a FAK beer with infection healing. --Enigmatalk 01:31, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Here is a ricola, now keep in mind the massive amount of zombies in ridleybank. There is a reason it is red. It is the home to the largest zombie group in malton. Even then its not hard to stay alive in ridley bank when you have 40 faks. feeling better now? --Dirty 04:56, 29 April 2010 (BST)
- Look at the map - good zombie players take suburbs, bad players - not, no matter how FAKs work. --Girobu 08:48, 29 April 2010 (BST)
Gravedigger
| Timestamp: Matias Gray 20:37, 21 April 2010 (BST) |
| Type: new survial skill |
| Scope: survials on dead bodies |
| Description: I think the game needs an opportunity to bury bodies in the ground, cemeteries and flowerbeds. Dragging them (after all, zombies can) up from the ground, burying them with a shovel, spending 10 AP on undigging.(instead 20)
Shovels can be found in cemeteries (2%) and malls (5%). Moving the body to a neighboring cell - 5 AP |
Discussion (Gravedigger)
How would Ankle Grab affect this? 20 AP, as I am sure you are aware, is almost half of the maximum capacity. This would seriously impede someone's ability to perform - especially a feral. -- Rahrah is not too happy about another dead lexicon. 20:46, 21 April 2010 (BST)
20 ap becouse survial spend some ap to drag the body to cemestry and to bury.
20 ap becouse survials spend 20 ap when revive (use syringe and stand up)
but, ok, 10 ap is fine too.--Matias Gray 20:56, 21 April 2010 (BST)
Massively unnecessary and overpowered.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:04, 21 April 2010 (BST)
Headshot is bad enough as it is. I want no armies of shovel-toting trenchies in front of gatehouses who dig me in additionally, just to grieve me. --Spiderzed 21:18, 21 April 2010 (BST)
+5AP for standing up instead of 10AP digging out.good idea in fact.--Ed Readman 21:19, 21 April 2010 (BST)
This influence only on really ded bodies- like headshot, but requires more ap and give more fun&roleplay--Matias Gray 21:21, 21 April 2010 (BST)
- *less fun.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:17, 21 April 2010 (BST)
I think, this ability must work like Headshot skill: Zombie gets +5 AP penalty to the revive cost. And body transportation cost must be lowered, 2 AP per move. Marten265 21:26, 21 April 2010 (BST)
You can already dump our bodies out of buildings, and recade to ehb at the cost of about 30ap. now you want to bury us. i dont dig --Dirty 22:54, 21 April 2010 (BST)
No dragging bodies to new locations, even without the burying them bullshite. If I get killed, and thrown out of a building, I should be able to lie there until I choose to stand up -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:21 22 April 2010 (BST)
- When you're dead, you should not be able anything :) --Girobu 15:59, 23 April 2010 (BST)
Massive tool for griefing. Im a pker, I head shot your character, then bury him outside. without ankle grab thats a 20ap penalty. All this does is further hurt new players. The game should be more fun, not less.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:24, 22 April 2010 (BST)
- +1 22:58, 23 April 2010 (BST)
Do you realise how long it takes to dig a grave in real life? In a locked down city crawling with zombies, how many people are going to spend that amount of time in the wide open digging graves? No-one, because it's just a slow and painful suicide. Chief Seagull squawk don't mess with the Seagull! 09:27, 22 April 2010 (BST)
As mentioned above, it's bad enough already with headshot. - User:Whitehouse 13:44, 22 April 2010 (BST)
It's good, especially body dragging must add more fun! And gives survs a way to defeat zombs. Yes-yes-yes! --Girobu 15:56, 23 April 2010 (BST)
I'm a pro-survivor and I think this way over powered. I do wish there was a better way to get rid of zombies rather than spending 20 AP to reduce their AP by 6, but this is to much.--V darkstar 17:07, 23 April 2010 (BST)
1. What the hell is a "Survial" and why are they "on dead bodies". 2. Please for the love of God/hookers/Bacon/country/whatever-the-hell-floats-your-boat write you suggestion more clearly. The first time I went through it I thought you were saying that the survivors could bury themselves in the ground and have zombies dig them up for 10-20 AP. 3. As has been said this is massively overpowered, we do not need more mechanics to hurt new zombies. Playing a zombie char for the first time is akin to bashing your head into a brick wall for a while, even with experience it is extremely unpleasant until you get a few basic skills. Screwing them over will not make the game more fun. -Devorac 17:45, 23 April 2010 (BST)
- I mean that it will be possible buried not only zombies, but but also survivors(who just revived) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matias_Gray (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.
- I think this is a great idea. I always dreamed to bury the deceased's body deep in the soil can not harm me or my ilk again. Fortunately, this feature is that I am very hurt again a buffer between the living and the dead. Suggestions continue to make these types.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 23:34, 24 April 2010 (BST)
- You sir are a sarcastic twat :) --Honestmistake 01:55, 25 April 2010 (BST)
- I think this is a great idea. I always dreamed to bury the deceased's body deep in the soil can not harm me or my ilk again. Fortunately, this feature is that I am very hurt again a buffer between the living and the dead. Suggestions continue to make these types.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 23:34, 24 April 2010 (BST)
Scent Hunt
| Timestamp: Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:15, 20 April 2010 (BST) |
| Type: Skill Change |
| Scope: Zombies |
| Description: Currently, Scent Blood and Scent Trail are two seperate skills, both subskills of Scent Fear. this suggestion would propose merging them in to one skill, Scent Hunt. Details below.
Current System: Scent Fear:
Each costs 100XP. I'm proposing that instead of 2 skills, they become one zombie skill, in the same position. Although both offer a significant tactical advantage, I don't consider that they give enough of an advantage to warrant costing 100 additional XP. As such, I'd suggest that they are joined, as Scent Hunt, giving both skills for only 100XP. Everybody with both would now only have the one skill, and would be refunded 100XP. Everybody with one would now have the full skill, and would not recieve a refund. Everybody without either skill would be unaffected. Thoughts? |
Discussion (Scent Hunt)
So, for the cost of one skill, we not only get the equivalent of a super-Diagnosis skill (since it can track infections too), but we also get a homing device? I think you can see where I'm going with this. I think we already get our money's worth on those two skills as it is. —Aichon— 19:18, 20 April 2010 (BST)
- Have you ever used Scent Trail?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:19, 20 April 2010 (BST)
- Yep. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:39, 20 April 2010 (BST)
- Would you say it's worth spending an additional 100 experience on?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:43, 20 April 2010 (BST)
- Yes. Say you're an organised horde, perhaps maintaining a ruin, if a group of survivors were trying to evict you over a few days, you would have multiple sources of information telling you exactly where they were holing up each day. Then you could organise a timed strike and eat them all. Or if you were in a perma death city, its an absolute must have. Those survivors in Borehamwood don't even go near a zombie unless they know they can kill it. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:56, 20 April 2010 (BST)
- Excellent point on the death cities. I guess I didn't consider the co-ordinated strike side of it because I feral as a zombie.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 20:12, 20 April 2010 (BST)
- Yes. Say you're an organised horde, perhaps maintaining a ruin, if a group of survivors were trying to evict you over a few days, you would have multiple sources of information telling you exactly where they were holing up each day. Then you could organise a timed strike and eat them all. Or if you were in a perma death city, its an absolute must have. Those survivors in Borehamwood don't even go near a zombie unless they know they can kill it. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:56, 20 April 2010 (BST)
- Would you say it's worth spending an additional 100 experience on?--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:43, 20 April 2010 (BST)
- As Ross said, yep. While we don't do it often, there have been times that I've been DNA Extracted on my MOB alt and have been able to point out the building for our strike team to hit when we get done with our scheduled target for the day. Other times, I've followed the trail and found a building that was already opened up by the MOB's feral cloud. There's nothing quite so satisfying as demanding your DNA back in zombie speak, before eating the survivor's brains. —Aichon— 20:21, 20 April 2010 (BST)
- Yep. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:39, 20 April 2010 (BST)
As ross and aichon. I just don't think putting the two skills together would be such a good idea. It feels slightly off balance (powerwise) to have them roleed up into one skill. but I get your drift. --Jack Kolt Talk|Chars 02:32, 21 April 2010 (BST)
It's not really worth quibbling over how many XP peripheral skills cost; such skills don't all need to be "worth" the XP they cost, because by the time you buy them, you are3 earning XP pretty quickly. By peripheral skills, I mean ones that don't directly increase your ap spent / xp earned ratio. Some periphery skills act more "level padding" than anything else; even if people never use them, they still buy them!
Zombies would gain a great deal of playability from making Vigor Mortis a free skill (and giving starting zombies a new "class" skill) because they NEED Vigor Mortis to even make it to level 2. But by the time you (should be) buying scent skills above Scent Fear, you are already earning a lot of XP. Plus, as others noted, the effect of Scent Blood alone is easily worth the (by the time you buy it) low cost. 
Swiers 02:52, 22 April 2010 (BST)
Improve Diagnosis
| Timestamp: V darkstar 13:31, 20 April 2010 (BST) |
| Type: Skill Improvement |
| Scope: Evreyone |
| Description: We all know that you can't diagnose a survivor in a dark building, however I recently discovered that you also can't diagnose a survivor OUTSIDE a dark building. I suggest that anyone with diagnosis can see the health of a survivor outside a dark building. |
Discussion (Improve Diagnosis)
Bug. - User:Whitehouse 13:45, 20 April 2010 (BST)
As Whitehouse, this is a bug regarding the tagging of locations as dark. Kevan will get to it in time. -- 
. 
. <== DDR Approved Editor 13:46, 20 April 2010 (BST)
yeah right...--
Arthur Dent BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 14:35, 20 April 2010 (BST)
Caffine Pills
| Timestamp: BlackDragon2026 23:35, 17 April 2010 (BST) |
| Type: New Item |
| Scope: Survivors |
| Description: Similar to beer or wine, except that this consumable item, found mainly in mall drug stores or police and fire stations will give an AP increase, while your health decrease slightly every time you take a pill. Each box of caffine pills can have 5 to 10 pills, and each pill, which takes no AP to digest, will increase one AP and decrease one health. Drug stores would have these for sale, while EMS personnel at fire stations and police officers on night shift would have them in their lockers. |
Discussion (Caffine Pills)
My death-cultist would gladly pack some. Health degradation not just for free, but for extra AP? Amazing parachutes could be done by that... --Spiderzed 23:40, 17 April 2010 (BST)
- My thoughts exactly. A pack of 5 or 10 of these, as you say, plus an infection, halves the amount of AP expended dying in a parachute. I like it but it's powerful. Gain 1 AP, lose 5 HP, doses found individually (flavour it as taking several pills at once, rather than finding individual pills), then they'd probably balance out more. I'd vote for them in a watered-down form, as I'd find great use for them. 23:44, 17 April 2010 (BST)
Could allow for massive AP usage in a single burst. Overpowered. - User:Whitehouse 23:41, 17 April 2010 (BST)
Upon use: Gain 5AP, doesn't take any to eat. The next five AP using actions: Nothing unusual. The next five AP using actions: Costs double the normal AP. It all stacks, so if you eat four pills, you get 20AP, make 20 Normal moves, and then have the hangover last for 20 moves. But of corse, it would never work, like anything that afects AP. --VVV RPMBG 00:23, 18 April 2010 (BST)
If this was implemented, I would stock up my inventory half full with these, and half full with bottles of wine. Then, for the next month, I'd play non-stop, Using the extra AP from this healing the 1HP cost.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:28, 18 April 2010 (BST)
- 00:34, 18 April 2010 (BST)
- You might want to image ark that somewhere. :/ --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:36, 18 April 2010 (BST)
- Done. Ain't nobody deleting mah Belushi. 00:49, 18 April 2010 (BST)
- Done. Ain't nobody deleting mah Belushi.
- You might want to image ark that somewhere. :/ --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:36, 18 April 2010 (BST)
Dupe --Explodey 00:35, 22 April 2010 (BST)
No. This suggestion adds up to an increased ability to store AP for later use, but only for those who play at least part of their time as a survivor. More AP for survivors, less for dedicated zombies -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:33 22 April 2010 (BST)
Ridiculously overpowered. Consume 5, use a FAK, and you still have 4 AP left to use. Also tilts things too much in favor of survivors. Q. JuliusTBH 21:29, 22 April 2010 (BST)
Serum Scentsativity
| Timestamp: Swiers 16:28, 17 April 2010 (BST)
|
| Type: zombie skill |
| Scope: zombies |
| Description: A scent-tree skill directly under Scent Fear that allows zombies to pick up the scent of Necrotech facilities, allowing them to see them on the map as if they had NecroTech Employment. Skill would allow zombies that buy Brain Rot early in their career to be fully equal to level 43 zombies. Would be a trans-mortal skill (mainly to make coding easier, as it could use the same code as NecroTech Employment); if revived, the character could still identify NecroTech buildings, but would NOT be able to revive zombies or use a DNA scanner. |
Discussion (Serum Scentsativity)
I was considering making this a sub-skill to Brain Rot, since its mostly for use by rotters, but Scent makes more sense, and there's no reason to NOT put it there, that I can see. Swiers 16:29, 17 April 2010 (BST)
- There was something similar mentioned here maybe two weeks ago. I had suggested that it label NTs on the map and replace NecroTech Employment's flavour text with something scent-based, such as "You are standing outside the Muller Building. A harsh chemical smell hangs in the air." I'd be all over it being added. 16:34, 17 April 2010 (BST)
I think this is a dupe of something Iscariot suggested a while back, but under a different tree.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:39, 17 April 2010 (BST)
- Here's the link.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 00:18, 18 April 2010 (BST)
My time machine works, it's 2009 all over again. Time to place bets on Brawn and Button! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:20, 17 April 2010 (BST)
I like this idea, maybe the zombies have evolved to be able to smell that "funny smell" coming from the NT buildings and thus it would be either shown on the death map, or it would be worded in the description box. --Dirty 23:55, 17 April 2010 (BST)
I'd support it, navigation ability should be equal for both sides. - User:Whitehouse 00:12, 18 April 2010 (BST)
- It should, but it does look like an exact dupe of Suggestion:20090201_Scent_Enemy. Anyhow, its such a minor tweak (very few zombies don't get the chance to buy NTE) that it's probably not worth voting on again.
Swiers 03:01, 18 April 2010 (BST)
I like it. Zombies would definitely be able to sniff out NT buildings after spending so long in the city. Q. JuliusTBH 21:29, 22 April 2010 (BST)
FAK'S as Weapon's
| Timestamp: User:Scvideoking 22:42, 15 April 2010 (BST) | ||||||||||||||||
| Type: skill | ||||||||||||||||
| Scope: Survivors. | ||||||||||||||||
| Description:This would be a skill that allows you to actually use a FAK as a weapon
I know this sounds crazy but hear me out.A FAK is common so this would basicly give 2 damage with a 10% chance of hit And other skills like melee proficency will also help attack percentage by the same amount they do general wepons. This would not cause DSR and pretty resonable and after about 15 succeful hits the kit would break. The KIT not anything inside it What do you think?--scvideoking Discussion (FAKs as Weapons)What I think is that you are not Swiers.
A down-powered dupe of knife, which (if found in an Infirmary) can be described as "a large scalpel". 01:03, 16 April 2010 (BST)
Yeah sure, you can have FAKs as weapons. Provided of course that my death cultist gets to use empty syringes as weapons, air in the blood stream and the survivor in question drops dead of a brain embolism some time in the next 50AP. Obviously these can't be fixed with FAKs and it doesn't work on zombies. Sound fair to you? --
this is intresting, maybe if your infected and you use a fak on another survior it infects them? that could possibly be game breaking though.--Dirty 21:54, 16 April 2010 (BST)
In L4D, you can kill infected with a medkit. That is because you have to "hold" items and if attacked you can swing it as a weapon. That doesn't work in Urban Dead because you don't "hold" items. And, even if you DID, I don't see a medikit doing more damage than a newspaper. And 15 hits is too much.--Pesatyel 17:38, 18 April 2010 (BST) Metal box + Head = bad day-- Sure, as long as you break all the containers inside the FAK on the first swing and the next time you try to use that FAK you stab yourself on a broken bottle of xylaject (Large wildlife Tranq) and go limp and drooling for the next 6 hours. -Devorac 15:57, 21 April 2010 (BST) Scouting skill
Discussion (Scouting Skill)Yes, if this went to voting, I'd work up some sort of visual representation of the "view" effect. I like it, but i would use the phone masts for scouting rather than any tall building, also I would kill the percents or make them like 75%-125% closely centered at 100%--V darkstar 16:10, 15 April 2010 (BST)
I really like this idea. I would just want to see a visual so I know that you mean the same thing I'm thinking. And definitely the phone mast buildings for this skill. --Maverick Talk - OBR Cannibalism
Discussion (Cannibalism)IMHO pretty tasteless (and tasteless beyond the usual scope of the genre), and also of most use to PKers, as they rarely carry many supportive/healing items and could partially circumvent this deficite with this skill. Also, you haven't made clear yet if this heals infections. (Not every healing item does - see beer and wine.) --Spiderzed 09:32, 15 April 2010 (BST)
Re-theme it as either looting (regardless of what the victim was carrying, have a first aid kit be found and used), or as an adrenaline rush (in which case I'd reduce it to 2-3HP and have it apply to all kills made, regardless of who is or isn't alive). Then I'd be all over it like DDR on Vegemite.
Make it a skill which allows survivors with digestion to use a less effective version on corpses. 1AP eating restores 2HP but has a 5% (or even 10%) chance of infecting the canibal per day the corpse has been there. It's not really overpowered and Death cultists etc are an accepted part of the game. One thing tho, you should automatically get covered in gore while doing this --Honestmistake 14:28, 16 April 2010 (BST)
Food
|
