https://wiki.urbandead.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Janine&feedformat=atomThe Urban Dead Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T01:39:30ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.37.1https://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Malton_Uprising&diff=1294305Talk:Malton Uprising2008-10-14T01:38:58Z<p>Janine: /* DORIS */</p>
<hr />
<div>([[Malton Uprising/Archive|Archive of Old Discussions]])<br />
<br />
==Sorry==<br />
As much as we don't like Multi-Alt policies, PK'ing is a big No-no for us, the [[SMW]]. If DEM we're a PK'er group, things might be different, but we're gonna have to decline your offer. [[User:Apocalyptic doom|Apocalyptic doom]] 21:07, 10 October 2008 (BST)<br />
: No problem. Just to clarify matters, if there was any confusion...not every group involved in the MU PKs the DEM. But as things currently stand, their involvement ''is'' something of a tacit approval (or at least a non-condemnation) of the other groups that ''have'' decided to go that far. So I can understand not wanting to be involved even on that level. And best of luck to the SMW, in either case. (Though...are there even any zambahz in the area to protect people from? ;)) --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 01:57, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== MU alt policy... so, uh, where is it, exactly? LOL ==<br />
<br />
do you people have a strict one alt policy for MU members? because there are a large number of groups under this umbrella, and if a player had an alt in more than just one... well... that'd make you... uuuuuh... ''just like the DEM''!<br />
<br />
i mean, not that i really give a damn, you're insignificant and irrelevant, anyhow, but... i was just, like, wondering and such about your alt policy, y'know? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 21:11, 27 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: Naw, lol. We're not an umbrella group...we're pretty much an "event." About the closest thing we could be compared to is something like the Big Bash, or some sort of PKer extravaganza. And we stick with the same rules as things like that...one alt involved per person. My babah Philosophe Knight is going to stick with handing out FAKs in centers of learning, for instance, until any Uprising/DEM craziness is done. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 21:25, 27 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::So the two alts will be accepted, as long as both aren't fighting DEM members, so they aren't working together. Wow, that sounds a lot like the DEM. Good to know you both aren't breaking the rules! {{User:Lemonhead7t7/Sig}} 05:06, 28 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::The Big Bash was, in effect, a group. Which operated in one area at a time, not several simultaneously. And you could have only one alt involved in it. The comparison is totally inaccurate. And, when PKer "events" take place in one location or area, if a one alt per player policy is not followed, that's multi-abuse. Period. This "event" as you call it involves a large number of groups acting across several surbubs. And, these groups are all fighting the exact same enemy. Which would make their stance on multi-abuse a lot less stringent than that of the DEM, technically... But, if it's as Lemonhead explained... then... yeah... it's pretty much the same as the DEM. Fascinating. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 05:15, 28 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::: Hmm... First she praises our ability to keep our members off the Ronin Gallery, then she parties with us in Stanbury Village, and now she's following alt policies nearly identical to ours... I predict a DEM alt in your future, Jen. :) --[[User:William Told|William Told]] 10:28, 28 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::: Three simple letters, Jen: [[MFU]]. DO EET!! :P -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 14:56, 28 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::: If you're going to Recruitment Spam, do it on brainstock. And the entire post seems to be on of those "I don't like those people; they must be zerging" allegations.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 00:29, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::: Naw, they can try to recruit me here. I don't mind. But...MFU? Blech. No thank you! MCDU or Axes High, maybe...but not the MFU. Or any other part of the DEM core. <br />
::::::: And, naw, it's a bit more serious than "I don't like these people; they're zerging" stuff. They're accusing us of hypocrisy, which IS a big deal. I think they're dead wrong, but they've every right to bring it up. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 00:56, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Because apparently it wasn't clear enough the first time:<br />
* This is a temporary thing. We're calling it an "event"/"petition"/"uprising"/"coalition," not a "group"/"alliance," for a reason. In a month or two or three, it's going to be disbanded, and everyone can get back to their normal lives, which tends to involve killing one another. The DEM is a permanent alliance. I'd say that's a rather notable difference.<br />
<br />
* We wouldn't have a problem with the DEM alt policy if is its members groups actually acted like groups in an alliance, not like sub-groups. If you want to read and join the debates going on about this, get the password to a certain forum on Brainstock. I'm not going to argue this point here, except to say, we DO think we've got a point here.<br />
<br />
* You can only have one alt involved in this. Just like you could have only one alt involved in the Big Bash. Or in a PKer event. Which are the closest parallels I can come up with to this. They may not be perfect comparisons, but they're closer parallels than comparing us to the DEM. Just because the RRF and the MOB were both participating in the big bash didn't mean that you had to officially leave the RRF so that your MOB character could do stuff. It's the same here. I don't see where you're getting the idea that a person can have more than one alt involved, Lemon and Wan, after I specifically said otherwise. <br />
<br />
:If the one-alt per player policy is not followed, that's multi-abuse, period, and we hammer whoever is doing it over the head. If there's other characters contributing information to the same cause, that's multi-abuse, and we hammer whoever's doing that over the head. I'm sitting out anything DEM-related with my other characters for the duration of the Uprising. Other folks, who could potentially have more than one character involved, either directly (killing) or indirectly (scouting, etc.), are doing exactly the same thing.<br />
<br />
* There's a large number of groups, acting across several suburbs, because many of our groups are localized survivor groups. Who aren't just going to up and drop their survivor activities to shoot DEM. And perhaps more importantly...we're spread out because the DEM, who we're attacking, is spread out all across the map. Our spread-out-ness is a direct result of the spread-out-ness of the DEM. If the DEM was in one place, most of us would be in one place. If we wanted to, we could move all our mobile groups into one suburb. Unfortunately, we'd run out of people to shoot pretty darn quickly. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 00:59, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Seconding the above, there were some who posted on the Uprising forum before we got started asking about that and those who had alts in more than one group participating idled out said alts or are putting them to work in something that has NOTHING to do with the Uprising. For those who have multiple alts the ONLY information they are giving us is what that alt in the Uprising-affiliated group is collecting, any information another alt may pick up is ignored no matter how useful it may have been. -- {{User: Garviel Loken/Sig}}02:29, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: I agree that this does not constitute alt-abuse in any way. :) --[[User:William Told|William Told]] 02:45, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:In addition, there's another difference with regards to how the MU and the DEM formed. For someone with an alt in more than one MU group, they were in those groups already when they joined the Uprising, and have now taken steps to ensure they aren't committing alt abuse. The fact that two groups they joined happened to come together for one cause and will then go off again shouldn't force a person to leave a group if they can be in both without both contributing to the Uprising. Now, for those with multiple alts in the DEM, unless every single one of those people had all their alts in the respective groups prior to the DEM coalescing, they've joined the same group knowingly with multiple characters. And even if all of them did meet that criteria, there's still the fact that their policy allows newer people to do the same, as well as those alts who are in the DEM now being contributing, however indirectly, to the same cause. Rather different circumstances. I don't see any way you can call the MU's policy here to be alt abuse unless you're just trying to kick shit up, frankly.--[[User:Panthera|Panthera]] 02:47, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Comparing the alt-policies of the MU and the DEM is an absolute joke. As has been mentioned, the Malton Uprising is not a group. If any such as Wan do not agree with the term event you could call it a coalition, or maybe, ''maybe'' an alliance (although that would actually severely overstate the level of cooperation). To say that groups can't collaborate at all is ridiculous, to say we are organized like the DEM is ignorant, and to say that the MU allows individuals to contribute multiple alts is slander. If someone happened to have had an alts in more than one of the groups that joined the MU (which is very uncommon) they can not use both to contribute to it. Period. If you know of somebody breaking that rule (and I know you don't because you would have cited it) I want to know who they are so they can be thrown out and stuck on my personal KOS list. If you don't, go try to start up trouble somewhere else.--[[User:Allan Friedman|Allan Friedman]] 03:18, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The wiki is not the place for intelligent discussion on this topic.--[[User:William Told|William Told]] 06:42, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Brainstock certainly isn't, so what do you suggest? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 15:12, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Well, the private discussion that's on the DEM's Public Communication forum on Brainstock is locked to everyone who isn't willing to speak reasonably, including DEM members who haven't been granted access. You just have to PM an admin if you want access, which will be revoked if you prove to be unwilling to debate civilly. Aside from that, I don't know. Perhaps the Philosophe Knights should host a discussion. Given your reputation for enlightenment and your participation in the Uprising, who would be better? --[[User:William Told|William Told]] 17:59, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::''"DEM's Public Communication forum on Brainstock is locked to everyone who isn't willing to speak reasonably, .... if you want access, which will be revoked if you prove to be unwilling to debate civilly."''<br />
<br />
:::::"This court will come to order and I shall hold in contempt anyone who says something the defendant doesn't like!"<br />
<br />
:::::-- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 15:46, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Seriously even if you hate the DEM most folks realize that the MU has some real mouth breathers among its membership. If you can't come to some sort of understanding about why we won't just allow any old member to come to our forums and flame away then perhaps you're one of them.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 04:00, 3 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::The problem is that you are the ones who gets to decide without any further recourse, it's a court where the prisoner can have anything stricken from the record if he chooses.<br />
:::::::That and your response is a passive aggressive accusation, "If you don't see why they get banned, THEN YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!", paranoid much? It's this pointlessness which means I'll never post on Brainstock, I've seen enough of your activities on linked threads to have my fill. There will never be anything but a DEM friendly debate take place on that board. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 13:13, 3 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::yeah clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. --[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 11:23, 4 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::It's their board, and as far as I'm concerned, they do whatever they like in their own "home". That being said, there's a reason I categorically refuse to participate in Brainstock anymore, outside of RG reporting. And the problems are on "both sides of the fence"... you know, like, no one faction has a monopoly on what Kristi so eloquently called "mouth-breathing"... Meh... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 21:03, 3 October 2008 (BST) <br />
::::::::I never said the other side had a monopoly on the mouth breathing. I was explaining why so many of Iscariot's friends get banned from the most popular forum in the game.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 11:23, 4 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
What started off as ironic satire (though, like all real satire, it had a serious point)... has turned to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlesque_(literary) high burlesque]... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 05:43, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: I tried to responding to it with a light touch at first. Because the serious point in the mix deserved some response, but the ludicrous comparison deserved a LOL. And if people hadn't utterly missed the point, and proceeded to call us hypocrites, I wouldn't have then written a bloody treatise. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 23:14, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::@Iscariot - They really just revoke access if you troll or flame. --[[User:William Told|William Told]] 03:15, 1 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Have them define 'troll or flame' completely before I consider making an account there. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 13:13, 3 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::Ask DT. He's posted in that topic. --[[User:William Told|William Told]] 20:42, 3 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Malton_Uprising&oldid=1266257<br />
<br />
"Note that no one is to use only and no more than 1 character in the fight."<br />
<br />
This seems to have been lost in [[User:Doudomida|Doudomida]]'s vandalism on the article page.<br />
<br />
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Malton_Uprising&action=history<br />
<br />
{{User:Secruss/Sig}}19:08, 12 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==I have a question for the leader of the Uprising==<br />
<br />
Would you please be able to contact me via email, my email is on my user page. located [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Eric_bessette#Contact_me_by|Here]. I would like to ask a favor of you. --[[User:Eric bessette|Eric bessette]] 22:07, 5 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:We have a leader? And our goal is explicitly to fight the DEM. There are no side quests. <br />
:http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Malton_Uprising/index.php?act=idx {{User:Secruss/Sig}}19:10, 12 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Template ==<br />
<br />
yo... i dunno what the f... is wrong wtih this thing, but uh, it [[Section_13/Wolfhounds | ain't working right]]. check the bottom of the page --{{User:Jack13/sig}} 16:19, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Lessee...is it working now? --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 23:18, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Support from the Wild Cardz ==<br />
So, is there any special channel one would have to go through to support the Uprising, or do we just start killing off DEM members? (because I do that...)<br />
--[[User:Damios|Damios]] 02:20, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: Well...there's the [http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Malton_Uprising/index.php?act=idx sekrit Uprising forum], where there's some basic coordination going on. But that's mainly for leaders of groups to coordinate, there's a bit of a backlog of accounts, some groups don't even have a representative there, and I don't have the power to validate anyone even if I wanted to.<br />
: So...at this point, your best bet would be to just add yourself to the list of groups officially involved, and start killing DEM members in the name of the Uprising. If you want to get involved further, I'll see what I can do. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 23:00, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
: : Excellent. I'll talk to the rest of the group and see how they feel about actively hunting these fellows down. --[[User:Damios|Damios]] 23:26, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Bad representation ==<br />
<br />
When I read the actual article, I thought 'this is a well thought-out, reasonable, intellectual idea'. The discussion page coincidently makes it look otherwise - [[User:Zig13|<span style="color:DodgerBlue">Zig13 - 30/09/2008 at 16:03(BST) </span>]]<br />
: This is the UD wiki. What did you ''expect'' to find on the talk page? ;) --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 22:53, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The people most involved with the event on the front page.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 04:01, 3 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::: Are you really a guy? --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 01:18, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::''"The people most involved with the even on the front page."'' What...like me? Who stops by here to give serious answers to the few and far between serious questions people post? Or like Panthera, and Allen from the FOD, up there?<br />
<br />
::::I don't censor what people post here, 'cause this ain't my page to censor, however much I'd like to. If people want to be idiots (like a certain person directly above me is being, or like Secruss has been, no offense to him (well...actually some, as I disagreed with the whole smokescreen strategy from the get-go), they can be idiots. Any halfway serious discussion has always happened elsewhere, not here. Honestly, though...if it's currently causing more problems than it's worth, I'll see about getting permission from the Uprising proper to separate this into "halfway serious discussion - no trolling plz, or your posts will be DELETED!!!!!" and "flamebait" sections. :P --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 01:48, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Fair enough. BTW. Ya see what scouter up there just asked me? You remember when I mentioned the sort of lieing that MU members were doing about me specifically? I wonder where Scouter got the idea I was a guy.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 07:58, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::: From met. --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 16:53, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Actually Kristi, that could of been from my little April fools joke :D --<span style="cursor:crosshair">Kooks</span> 16:56, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I thought the "Kristi is a dude" was a well known and overused DEM joke, just like Red Rum/DEM puppet jokes. If you're going to use that as basis that we're a bunch of lairs, then you're rather petty. Also, for the record, you spelled <b>lying</b> wrong. xD --[[User:Kikashie|Kikashie]] <sup>[[Dulston Alliance/Newspaper|Read the Dispatch!]]</sup> 19:56, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You meant to say ''a bunch of '''liars''''', right? :D -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 20:03, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::<i>I wonder where Scouter got the idea I was a guy.</i> From me and Kikashie. [[User:Met fan|Met Fan]] 20:06, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::So just as I thought a bunch douche bags are lying about me. Good thing I know where to find them all since you've been good enough to stay on the MU forums.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 21:16, 13 October 2008 (BST) <br />
::::::::Can I say tranny on the UD wiki without being b7'd? Because I just did.--[[User:N00bert|<span style="color: Black">N00bert</span>]] <sup>[[FOXHOUND|<span style="color: Orange">foxhound</span>]]</sup> 20:20, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Oh noobert you can say anything you want on the wiki. I can say go fuck yourself and you can go hang out with that "group" of yours fuckshound all day and think up all sorts of funny stuff to talk about. Nobody will care but still feel free--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 21:13, 13 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Touche. :O --[[User:Kikashie|Kikashie]] <sup>[[Dulston Alliance/Newspaper|Read the Dispatch!]]</sup> 20:31, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::The fact that you're a bunch of pussy liars has nothing to do with anything. Just pointing it out is all. The fact that you sucked that information out of secrusses dick does.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 21:10, 13 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::When the majority of comments from NON-uprising folks have tended to involve exquisite, thoughtful, argumentative eloquence like this, I really don't think you can blame us for not taking this page seriously, and just giving up and letting the trolls have their way with it. I also thought the "Kristi is a guy" thing was a pretty common rumor-joke, up there with DEM pancakes, but whatever. <br />
::::::::But, hey. If you're going to tell us what we're saying on our own boards, I thought I might as well take a gander. So here's the opinions I found posted on the Uprising boards about Kristi, collected from assorted scattered threads:<br />
<br />
::::::::* Kristi's a he. (Other people: no, she's a she)<br />
::::::::* Kristi's bi-polar (Other people: I wouldn't doubt it)<br />
::::::::* Kristi's a bitch.<br />
::::::::* Kristi's a sucky diplomat. (Other people: Here, here!)<br />
::::::::* Sometimes she's pretty cool, doesn't take herself too seriously, types well...but other times she utterly flips out and tyeps liek this.<br />
::::::::* Kristi is a very stubborn individual. (Other people: to put it mildly)<br />
::::::::* Kristi picked the wrong fight when she started attacking the Knights.<br />
::::::::* Kristi seems to actually want reform in the DEM. (other people: dude, we didn't see any changes for six months)<br />
::::::::* Kristi's stonewalling changes because she doesn't want to see Alphy and Secruss get ANY credit for any reform in the DEM ever in ANY even tangential way.<br />
::::::::* Kristi thinks that because a group became big, they are better qualified to judge the way people play the game. (Unless they're zombies).<br />
::::::::* Telling Kristi to change her operations is like telling God to change the shape of Asia because he made most of it too far from the Ocean.<br />
::::::::* Kristi seems to have forgotten that people were complaining about various DEM policies long before the Uprising. (Or the GN, for that matter).<br />
::::::::*"A Lost Cause; Irrepairable; Unenlightenable"<br />
::::::::* "I bet I'd be banned from Brainstock if I asked Kristi to cook my dinner." (In response to this broadcast by Gerald Thompson (MFD): "We keep the Zombie population in check. We cook your meals we haul your trash we connect your calls. We drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep.")<br />
<br />
::::::::Secruss posted none of the above in any of those threads. And Scouter isn't even a member of the Uprising forums, far as I know. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 00:21, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Simply put I don't really believe anything any of you have to say on any subject. And just to make a point Kikiashie has a membership on the MU forums right? Didn't mr scouter just say it was Kikashie and met that told him? But I'm sure you'll have some excuse on how the uprising isn't in fact full of shitheels and you're all just having alot of fun. And I know you're making shit up Jen or perhaps you couldn't find anything else but you lot have members that have said worse than what you posted above to me on brainstock so seriously drop the we're not assholes line cause most people know it's not true. And the reason you get responses like this is the people you've allowed in your uprising.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 00:37, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::: *shrug* There's assholes involved in this, and there's non-assholes involved in it. There's people with diplomatic skillz, and people who couldn't diplomat the broad side of barn.<br />
:::::::::::As far as I know, Kikashie may said you were a guy in the same way that I go around saying Red Rum is a DEM pancake. I don't have the PMs, I don't know the context. Brainstock everyone can look at. Heck, I'll go look through threads there next (but good lord, there's a lot of them). If I remember correctly, though, you accused us, the other day, of saying horrible nasty stuff about you on our forums behind your back...so I went and looked. The "search" function doesn't work, and google wasn't cacheing old uprising pages today, so I had to do it manually. Maybe I missed the most egregious threads (though did think I covered all the bases, and I think the bitch and bipolar comments are pretty darn nasty). If you have google caches or something of other comments, I'd like to see them. If you want the NASTY comments, they're the ones about Sonny. Or about the DEM as a whole. But those don't go unchallenged, any more than the "Kristi is a guy" went unchallenged.<br />
:::::::::::And...because someone is an asshole, that gives you every right to troll them, and everyone and everything they're ever associated with? --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 01:03, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::Edit: More threads. <br />
::::::::::::*Kristi isn't good at keeping alt information separate. (I think that could count as a nasty thing). <br />
::::::::::::* When it comes to not changing anything until the Uprising disbands, Krisit is "not going to be talked down from that position. We could try for a hundred years, kow-tow to her and spit-shine her shoes, but unless the Uprising disbands, she'll listen to nothing we say." (Which...err...I think is something you'd agree with, no?)<br />
::::::::::::* If the Uprising disbands, Kristi will invalidate each individual group's opinions on the grounds that they're 'not big enough' to be trusted. <br />
::::::::::::* Kristi has stated and shown time and time again that she only trusts the opinions of groups which rival the DEM in size. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 01:11, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::I suppose the key thing here is that I didn't just say the MU forums. I said MU members it could happen on the MU forums or not. None the less it does happen and it's said not in the DEM pancake way you're trying to say it is but as an insult to me personally. You know this to be true, I know it to be true, anyone that has had anything to do with alot of the groups in the uprising knows it to be true. A fact amplified by the fact that your MU membership includes some of the groups it includes and the demands you make are so disjointed as to be unusable. The simple fact is that most of you guys like to grief others. (to be honest I'm surprised you're a member of the CGR Jen because as it stands you're the most reasonable person they've got in membership that I've ever met). A fact evidenced by your actions with AH and such. And it's laughable that the lot of you would come to the DEM complaining about us being bad for the game while at the same time making the sort of drooling slack jawed comments that are so common on this talk page, combined with the awesome targeting of new players and players you yourself have said you have no problem with. In truth it's my thought that the people on this talk page and the people who have pushed the MU the most on the wiki are in fact an excellent representation of what the Uprising is all about. For you Jen that may not be the case...but the vast majority of the MU membership falls under that heading. I mean it's been a month now and the most important thing you've done (or at least the thing you've spent the most energy on) is the big list of kills by the uprising. If you're not about griefing others and bragging about it why even keep a list? I mean I notice you guys continue to add to it all the time. But the last discussion on brainstock from you guys regarding your "demands" was some time ago. And ya know what? It doesn't even have to be about me...it's the fact that you guys sit and do it at all about anyone that's lame.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 02:08, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
I really hate to say this here. But could you be a bit more civil. It might be a new concept to some of you, but things tend to get done quicker. So please tone down the rhetoric and confront each individual person/group as you make whatever claims.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 02:37, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==DORIS==<br />
<br />
DORIS is still willing to join under the condition that the Imperium is kicked out and declared a target. We have over 30 people. Imperium has 8 at best. The Imperium are also fags and eat cock, lots of cock. Oh, and if you reject our proposal and do not send this message to at least 10 other people by midnight an old lady will come out of a mirror and make you a pedophile. Be warned! --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 22:01, 13 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:Jeeze Sonny, don't you ever get tired of this stuff or is your brain just hardwired to a random *chan?--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 02:38, 14 October 2008 (BST)</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Malton_Uprising&diff=1294303Talk:Malton Uprising2008-10-14T01:37:48Z<p>Janine: /* Bad representation */</p>
<hr />
<div>([[Malton Uprising/Archive|Archive of Old Discussions]])<br />
<br />
==Sorry==<br />
As much as we don't like Multi-Alt policies, PK'ing is a big No-no for us, the [[SMW]]. If DEM we're a PK'er group, things might be different, but we're gonna have to decline your offer. [[User:Apocalyptic doom|Apocalyptic doom]] 21:07, 10 October 2008 (BST)<br />
: No problem. Just to clarify matters, if there was any confusion...not every group involved in the MU PKs the DEM. But as things currently stand, their involvement ''is'' something of a tacit approval (or at least a non-condemnation) of the other groups that ''have'' decided to go that far. So I can understand not wanting to be involved even on that level. And best of luck to the SMW, in either case. (Though...are there even any zambahz in the area to protect people from? ;)) --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 01:57, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== MU alt policy... so, uh, where is it, exactly? LOL ==<br />
<br />
do you people have a strict one alt policy for MU members? because there are a large number of groups under this umbrella, and if a player had an alt in more than just one... well... that'd make you... uuuuuh... ''just like the DEM''!<br />
<br />
i mean, not that i really give a damn, you're insignificant and irrelevant, anyhow, but... i was just, like, wondering and such about your alt policy, y'know? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 21:11, 27 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: Naw, lol. We're not an umbrella group...we're pretty much an "event." About the closest thing we could be compared to is something like the Big Bash, or some sort of PKer extravaganza. And we stick with the same rules as things like that...one alt involved per person. My babah Philosophe Knight is going to stick with handing out FAKs in centers of learning, for instance, until any Uprising/DEM craziness is done. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 21:25, 27 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::So the two alts will be accepted, as long as both aren't fighting DEM members, so they aren't working together. Wow, that sounds a lot like the DEM. Good to know you both aren't breaking the rules! {{User:Lemonhead7t7/Sig}} 05:06, 28 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::The Big Bash was, in effect, a group. Which operated in one area at a time, not several simultaneously. And you could have only one alt involved in it. The comparison is totally inaccurate. And, when PKer "events" take place in one location or area, if a one alt per player policy is not followed, that's multi-abuse. Period. This "event" as you call it involves a large number of groups acting across several surbubs. And, these groups are all fighting the exact same enemy. Which would make their stance on multi-abuse a lot less stringent than that of the DEM, technically... But, if it's as Lemonhead explained... then... yeah... it's pretty much the same as the DEM. Fascinating. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 05:15, 28 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::: Hmm... First she praises our ability to keep our members off the Ronin Gallery, then she parties with us in Stanbury Village, and now she's following alt policies nearly identical to ours... I predict a DEM alt in your future, Jen. :) --[[User:William Told|William Told]] 10:28, 28 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::: Three simple letters, Jen: [[MFU]]. DO EET!! :P -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 14:56, 28 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::: If you're going to Recruitment Spam, do it on brainstock. And the entire post seems to be on of those "I don't like those people; they must be zerging" allegations.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 00:29, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::: Naw, they can try to recruit me here. I don't mind. But...MFU? Blech. No thank you! MCDU or Axes High, maybe...but not the MFU. Or any other part of the DEM core. <br />
::::::: And, naw, it's a bit more serious than "I don't like these people; they're zerging" stuff. They're accusing us of hypocrisy, which IS a big deal. I think they're dead wrong, but they've every right to bring it up. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 00:56, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Because apparently it wasn't clear enough the first time:<br />
* This is a temporary thing. We're calling it an "event"/"petition"/"uprising"/"coalition," not a "group"/"alliance," for a reason. In a month or two or three, it's going to be disbanded, and everyone can get back to their normal lives, which tends to involve killing one another. The DEM is a permanent alliance. I'd say that's a rather notable difference.<br />
<br />
* We wouldn't have a problem with the DEM alt policy if is its members groups actually acted like groups in an alliance, not like sub-groups. If you want to read and join the debates going on about this, get the password to a certain forum on Brainstock. I'm not going to argue this point here, except to say, we DO think we've got a point here.<br />
<br />
* You can only have one alt involved in this. Just like you could have only one alt involved in the Big Bash. Or in a PKer event. Which are the closest parallels I can come up with to this. They may not be perfect comparisons, but they're closer parallels than comparing us to the DEM. Just because the RRF and the MOB were both participating in the big bash didn't mean that you had to officially leave the RRF so that your MOB character could do stuff. It's the same here. I don't see where you're getting the idea that a person can have more than one alt involved, Lemon and Wan, after I specifically said otherwise. <br />
<br />
:If the one-alt per player policy is not followed, that's multi-abuse, period, and we hammer whoever is doing it over the head. If there's other characters contributing information to the same cause, that's multi-abuse, and we hammer whoever's doing that over the head. I'm sitting out anything DEM-related with my other characters for the duration of the Uprising. Other folks, who could potentially have more than one character involved, either directly (killing) or indirectly (scouting, etc.), are doing exactly the same thing.<br />
<br />
* There's a large number of groups, acting across several suburbs, because many of our groups are localized survivor groups. Who aren't just going to up and drop their survivor activities to shoot DEM. And perhaps more importantly...we're spread out because the DEM, who we're attacking, is spread out all across the map. Our spread-out-ness is a direct result of the spread-out-ness of the DEM. If the DEM was in one place, most of us would be in one place. If we wanted to, we could move all our mobile groups into one suburb. Unfortunately, we'd run out of people to shoot pretty darn quickly. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 00:59, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Seconding the above, there were some who posted on the Uprising forum before we got started asking about that and those who had alts in more than one group participating idled out said alts or are putting them to work in something that has NOTHING to do with the Uprising. For those who have multiple alts the ONLY information they are giving us is what that alt in the Uprising-affiliated group is collecting, any information another alt may pick up is ignored no matter how useful it may have been. -- {{User: Garviel Loken/Sig}}02:29, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: I agree that this does not constitute alt-abuse in any way. :) --[[User:William Told|William Told]] 02:45, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:In addition, there's another difference with regards to how the MU and the DEM formed. For someone with an alt in more than one MU group, they were in those groups already when they joined the Uprising, and have now taken steps to ensure they aren't committing alt abuse. The fact that two groups they joined happened to come together for one cause and will then go off again shouldn't force a person to leave a group if they can be in both without both contributing to the Uprising. Now, for those with multiple alts in the DEM, unless every single one of those people had all their alts in the respective groups prior to the DEM coalescing, they've joined the same group knowingly with multiple characters. And even if all of them did meet that criteria, there's still the fact that their policy allows newer people to do the same, as well as those alts who are in the DEM now being contributing, however indirectly, to the same cause. Rather different circumstances. I don't see any way you can call the MU's policy here to be alt abuse unless you're just trying to kick shit up, frankly.--[[User:Panthera|Panthera]] 02:47, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Comparing the alt-policies of the MU and the DEM is an absolute joke. As has been mentioned, the Malton Uprising is not a group. If any such as Wan do not agree with the term event you could call it a coalition, or maybe, ''maybe'' an alliance (although that would actually severely overstate the level of cooperation). To say that groups can't collaborate at all is ridiculous, to say we are organized like the DEM is ignorant, and to say that the MU allows individuals to contribute multiple alts is slander. If someone happened to have had an alts in more than one of the groups that joined the MU (which is very uncommon) they can not use both to contribute to it. Period. If you know of somebody breaking that rule (and I know you don't because you would have cited it) I want to know who they are so they can be thrown out and stuck on my personal KOS list. If you don't, go try to start up trouble somewhere else.--[[User:Allan Friedman|Allan Friedman]] 03:18, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The wiki is not the place for intelligent discussion on this topic.--[[User:William Told|William Told]] 06:42, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Brainstock certainly isn't, so what do you suggest? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 15:12, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Well, the private discussion that's on the DEM's Public Communication forum on Brainstock is locked to everyone who isn't willing to speak reasonably, including DEM members who haven't been granted access. You just have to PM an admin if you want access, which will be revoked if you prove to be unwilling to debate civilly. Aside from that, I don't know. Perhaps the Philosophe Knights should host a discussion. Given your reputation for enlightenment and your participation in the Uprising, who would be better? --[[User:William Told|William Told]] 17:59, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::''"DEM's Public Communication forum on Brainstock is locked to everyone who isn't willing to speak reasonably, .... if you want access, which will be revoked if you prove to be unwilling to debate civilly."''<br />
<br />
:::::"This court will come to order and I shall hold in contempt anyone who says something the defendant doesn't like!"<br />
<br />
:::::-- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 15:46, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Seriously even if you hate the DEM most folks realize that the MU has some real mouth breathers among its membership. If you can't come to some sort of understanding about why we won't just allow any old member to come to our forums and flame away then perhaps you're one of them.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 04:00, 3 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::The problem is that you are the ones who gets to decide without any further recourse, it's a court where the prisoner can have anything stricken from the record if he chooses.<br />
:::::::That and your response is a passive aggressive accusation, "If you don't see why they get banned, THEN YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!", paranoid much? It's this pointlessness which means I'll never post on Brainstock, I've seen enough of your activities on linked threads to have my fill. There will never be anything but a DEM friendly debate take place on that board. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 13:13, 3 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::yeah clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. --[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 11:23, 4 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::It's their board, and as far as I'm concerned, they do whatever they like in their own "home". That being said, there's a reason I categorically refuse to participate in Brainstock anymore, outside of RG reporting. And the problems are on "both sides of the fence"... you know, like, no one faction has a monopoly on what Kristi so eloquently called "mouth-breathing"... Meh... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 21:03, 3 October 2008 (BST) <br />
::::::::I never said the other side had a monopoly on the mouth breathing. I was explaining why so many of Iscariot's friends get banned from the most popular forum in the game.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 11:23, 4 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
What started off as ironic satire (though, like all real satire, it had a serious point)... has turned to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlesque_(literary) high burlesque]... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 05:43, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: I tried to responding to it with a light touch at first. Because the serious point in the mix deserved some response, but the ludicrous comparison deserved a LOL. And if people hadn't utterly missed the point, and proceeded to call us hypocrites, I wouldn't have then written a bloody treatise. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 23:14, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::@Iscariot - They really just revoke access if you troll or flame. --[[User:William Told|William Told]] 03:15, 1 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Have them define 'troll or flame' completely before I consider making an account there. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 13:13, 3 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::Ask DT. He's posted in that topic. --[[User:William Told|William Told]] 20:42, 3 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Malton_Uprising&oldid=1266257<br />
<br />
"Note that no one is to use only and no more than 1 character in the fight."<br />
<br />
This seems to have been lost in [[User:Doudomida|Doudomida]]'s vandalism on the article page.<br />
<br />
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Malton_Uprising&action=history<br />
<br />
{{User:Secruss/Sig}}19:08, 12 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==I have a question for the leader of the Uprising==<br />
<br />
Would you please be able to contact me via email, my email is on my user page. located [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Eric_bessette#Contact_me_by|Here]. I would like to ask a favor of you. --[[User:Eric bessette|Eric bessette]] 22:07, 5 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:We have a leader? And our goal is explicitly to fight the DEM. There are no side quests. <br />
:http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Malton_Uprising/index.php?act=idx {{User:Secruss/Sig}}19:10, 12 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Template ==<br />
<br />
yo... i dunno what the f... is wrong wtih this thing, but uh, it [[Section_13/Wolfhounds | ain't working right]]. check the bottom of the page --{{User:Jack13/sig}} 16:19, 29 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Lessee...is it working now? --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 23:18, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Support from the Wild Cardz ==<br />
So, is there any special channel one would have to go through to support the Uprising, or do we just start killing off DEM members? (because I do that...)<br />
--[[User:Damios|Damios]] 02:20, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: Well...there's the [http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Malton_Uprising/index.php?act=idx sekrit Uprising forum], where there's some basic coordination going on. But that's mainly for leaders of groups to coordinate, there's a bit of a backlog of accounts, some groups don't even have a representative there, and I don't have the power to validate anyone even if I wanted to.<br />
: So...at this point, your best bet would be to just add yourself to the list of groups officially involved, and start killing DEM members in the name of the Uprising. If you want to get involved further, I'll see what I can do. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 23:00, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
: : Excellent. I'll talk to the rest of the group and see how they feel about actively hunting these fellows down. --[[User:Damios|Damios]] 23:26, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Bad representation ==<br />
<br />
When I read the actual article, I thought 'this is a well thought-out, reasonable, intellectual idea'. The discussion page coincidently makes it look otherwise - [[User:Zig13|<span style="color:DodgerBlue">Zig13 - 30/09/2008 at 16:03(BST) </span>]]<br />
: This is the UD wiki. What did you ''expect'' to find on the talk page? ;) --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 22:53, 30 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The people most involved with the event on the front page.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 04:01, 3 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::: Are you really a guy? --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 01:18, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::''"The people most involved with the even on the front page."'' What...like me? Who stops by here to give serious answers to the few and far between serious questions people post? Or like Panthera, and Allen from the FOD, up there?<br />
<br />
::::I don't censor what people post here, 'cause this ain't my page to censor, however much I'd like to. If people want to be idiots (like a certain person directly above me is being, or like Secruss has been, no offense to him (well...actually some, as I disagreed with the whole smokescreen strategy from the get-go), they can be idiots. Any halfway serious discussion has always happened elsewhere, not here. Honestly, though...if it's currently causing more problems than it's worth, I'll see about getting permission from the Uprising proper to separate this into "halfway serious discussion - no trolling plz, or your posts will be DELETED!!!!!" and "flamebait" sections. :P --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 01:48, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Fair enough. BTW. Ya see what scouter up there just asked me? You remember when I mentioned the sort of lieing that MU members were doing about me specifically? I wonder where Scouter got the idea I was a guy.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 07:58, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::: From met. --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 16:53, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Actually Kristi, that could of been from my little April fools joke :D --<span style="cursor:crosshair">Kooks</span> 16:56, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I thought the "Kristi is a dude" was a well known and overused DEM joke, just like Red Rum/DEM puppet jokes. If you're going to use that as basis that we're a bunch of lairs, then you're rather petty. Also, for the record, you spelled <b>lying</b> wrong. xD --[[User:Kikashie|Kikashie]] <sup>[[Dulston Alliance/Newspaper|Read the Dispatch!]]</sup> 19:56, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You meant to say ''a bunch of '''liars''''', right? :D -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 20:03, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::<i>I wonder where Scouter got the idea I was a guy.</i> From me and Kikashie. [[User:Met fan|Met Fan]] 20:06, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::So just as I thought a bunch douche bags are lying about me. Good thing I know where to find them all since you've been good enough to stay on the MU forums.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 21:16, 13 October 2008 (BST) <br />
::::::::Can I say tranny on the UD wiki without being b7'd? Because I just did.--[[User:N00bert|<span style="color: Black">N00bert</span>]] <sup>[[FOXHOUND|<span style="color: Orange">foxhound</span>]]</sup> 20:20, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Oh noobert you can say anything you want on the wiki. I can say go fuck yourself and you can go hang out with that "group" of yours fuckshound all day and think up all sorts of funny stuff to talk about. Nobody will care but still feel free--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 21:13, 13 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Touche. :O --[[User:Kikashie|Kikashie]] <sup>[[Dulston Alliance/Newspaper|Read the Dispatch!]]</sup> 20:31, 11 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::The fact that you're a bunch of pussy liars has nothing to do with anything. Just pointing it out is all. The fact that you sucked that information out of secrusses dick does.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 21:10, 13 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::When the majority of comments from NON-uprising folks have tended to involve exquisite, thoughtful, argumentative eloquence like this, I really don't think you can blame us for not taking this page seriously, and just giving up and letting the trolls have their way with it. I also thought the "Kristi is a guy" thing was a pretty common rumor-joke, up there with DEM pancakes, but whatever. <br />
::::::::But, hey. If you're going to tell us what we're saying on our own boards, I thought I might as well take a gander. So here's the opinions I found posted on the Uprising boards about Kristi, collected from assorted scattered threads:<br />
<br />
::::::::* Kristi's a he. (Other people: no, she's a she)<br />
::::::::* Kristi's bi-polar (Other people: I wouldn't doubt it)<br />
::::::::* Kristi's a bitch.<br />
::::::::* Kristi's a sucky diplomat. (Other people: Here, here!)<br />
::::::::* Sometimes she's pretty cool, doesn't take herself too seriously, types well...but other times she utterly flips out and tyeps liek this.<br />
::::::::* Kristi is a very stubborn individual. (Other people: to put it mildly)<br />
::::::::* Kristi picked the wrong fight when she started attacking the Knights.<br />
::::::::* Kristi seems to actually want reform in the DEM. (other people: dude, we didn't see any changes for six months)<br />
::::::::* Kristi's stonewalling changes because she doesn't want to see Alphy and Secruss get ANY credit for any reform in the DEM ever in ANY even tangential way.<br />
::::::::* Kristi thinks that because a group became big, they are better qualified to judge the way people play the game. (Unless they're zombies).<br />
::::::::* Telling Kristi to change her operations is like telling God to change the shape of Asia because he made most of it too far from the Ocean.<br />
::::::::* Kristi seems to have forgotten that people were complaining about various DEM policies long before the Uprising. (Or the GN, for that matter).<br />
::::::::*"A Lost Cause; Irrepairable; Unenlightenable"<br />
::::::::* "I bet I'd be banned from Brainstock if I asked Kristi to cook my dinner." (In response to this broadcast by Gerald Thompson (MFD): "We keep the Zombie population in check. We cook your meals we haul your trash we connect your calls. We drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep.")<br />
<br />
::::::::Secruss posted none of the above in any of those threads. And Scouter isn't even a member of the Uprising forums, far as I know. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 00:21, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Simply put I don't really believe anything any of you have to say on any subject. And just to make a point Kikiashie has a membership on the MU forums right? Didn't mr scouter just say it was Kikashie and met that told him? But I'm sure you'll have some excuse on how the uprising isn't in fact full of shitheels and you're all just having alot of fun. And I know you're making shit up Jen or perhaps you couldn't find anything else but you lot have members that have said worse than what you posted above to me on brainstock so seriously drop the we're not assholes line cause most people know it's not true. And the reason you get responses like this is the people you've allowed in your uprising.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 00:37, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::: *shrug* There's assholes involved in this, and there's non-assholes involved in it. There's people with diplomatic skillz, and people who couldn't diplomat the broad side of barn.<br />
:::::::::::As far as I know, Kikashie may said you were a guy in the same way that I go around saying Red Rum is a DEM pancake. I don't have the PMs, I don't know the context. Brainstock everyone can look at. Heck, I'll go look through threads there next (but good lord, there's a lot of them). If I remember correctly, though, you accused us, the other day, of saying horrible nasty stuff about you on our forums behind your back...so I went and looked. The "search" function doesn't work, and google wasn't cacheing old uprising pages today, so I had to do it manually. Maybe I missed the most egregious threads (though did think I covered all the bases, and I think the bitch and bipolar comments are pretty darn nasty). If you have google caches or something of other comments, I'd like to see them. If you want the NASTY comments, they're the ones about Sonny. Or about the DEM as a whole. But those don't go unchallenged, any more than the "Kristi is a guy" went unchallenged.<br />
:::::::::::And...because someone is an asshole, that gives you every right to troll them, and everyone and everything they're ever associated with? --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 01:03, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::Edit: More threads. <br />
::::::::::::*Kristi isn't good at keeping alt information separate. (I think that could count as a nasty thing). <br />
::::::::::::* When it comes to not changing anything until the Uprising disbands, Krisit is "not going to be talked down from that position. We could try for a hundred years, kow-tow to her and spit-shine her shoes, but unless the Uprising disbands, she'll listen to nothing we say." (Which...err...I think is something you'd agree with, no?)<br />
::::::::::::* If the Uprising disbands, Kristi will invalidate each individual group's opinions on the grounds that they're 'not big enough' to be trusted. <br />
::::::::::::* Kristi has stated and shown time and time again that she only trusts the opinions of groups which rival the DEM in size. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 01:11, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::I suppose the key thing here is that I didn't just say the MU forums. I said MU members it could happen on the MU forums or not. None the less it does happen and it's said not in the DEM pancake way you're trying to say it is but as an insult to me personally. You know this to be true, I know it to be true, anyone that has had anything to do with alot of the groups in the uprising knows it to be true. A fact amplified by the fact that your MU membership includes some of the groups it includes and the demands you make are so disjointed as to be unusable. The simple fact is that most of you guys like to grief others. (to be honest I'm surprised you're a member of the CGR Jen because as it stands you're the most reasonable person they've got in membership that I've ever met). A fact evidenced by your actions with AH and such. And it's laughable that the lot of you would come to the DEM complaining about us being bad for the game while at the same time making the sort of drooling slack jawed comments that are so common on this talk page, combined with the awesome targeting of new players and players you yourself have said you have no problem with. In truth it's my thought that the people on this talk page and the people who have pushed the MU the most on the wiki are in fact an excellent representation of what the Uprising is all about. For you Jen that may not be the case...but the vast majority of the MU membership falls under that heading. I mean it's been a month now and the most important thing you've done (or at least the thing you've spent the most energy on) is the big list of kills by the uprising. If you're not about griefing others and bragging about it why even keep a list? I mean I notice you guys continue to add to it all the time. But the last discussion on brainstock from you guys regarding your "demands" was some time ago. And ya know what? It doesn't even have to be about me...it's the fact that you guys sit and do it at all about anyone that's lame.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 02:08, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
I really hate to say this here. But could you be a bit more civil. It might be a new concept to some of you, but things tend to get done quicker. So please tone down the rhetoric and confront each individual person/group as you make whatever claims.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 02:37, 14 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==DORIS==<br />
<br />
DORIS is still willing to join under the condition that the Imperium is kicked out and declared a target. We have over 30 people. Imperium has 8 at best. The Imperium are also fags and eat cock, lots of cock. Oh, and if you reject our proposal and do not send this message to at least 10 other people by midnight an old lady will come out of a mirror and make you a pedophile. Be warned! --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 22:01, 13 October 2008 (BST)</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Secruss&diff=1294083User talk:Secruss2008-10-13T18:32:47Z<p>Janine: </p>
<hr />
<div><div class="usermessage"><div class="plainlinks">You have '''<font color=002BB8>[http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?Secruss new messages]</font> (<font color=002BB8>[http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?Secruss last change]</font>).'''</div></div><br />
<br />
[[Image:Signposts.gif]]<br />
{{Signature}} <br />
{{Discussion}} <br />
<br />
=New stuff at the top, Level 2 heading. Thank you.=<br />
<br />
== A Little of Column A and a Little of Column B ==<br />
I guess you can decide that for yourself.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 19:32, 13 October 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Collaboration? ==<br />
Collaboration? You have my attention... --<font face="arial black"><span style="background-color:#000000; border: 1px solid red">[[User:Haliman111|<span style="color:White">/\'''Haliman'''/\</span>]]</span></font><sup> [[User_talk:Haliman111|T]] | [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]] | [[Project Welcome|W!]] </sup> 01:26, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== WHOZ Protection==<br />
If you could put in a request on [[A/PT]], then I can lock the page from editing (because of red tape and such). --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 03:15, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==I definitely invited the PKA==<br />
<br />
I did! And I even sent you two U2U messages personally Secruss (as your former group mate Sarah)! Didn't you get them? Bring on the CDR! --[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:00, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
[http://z7.invisionfree.com/Pker_Alliance/index.php?showtopic=890 PKA Posting on PKO]<br />
<br />
==Kill in the Spam==<br />
Just wondering, you voted Kill in the Spam section on [[Suggestion:20080830_Lithe|this]] suggestion. Was that on purpose or an accident? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:28, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:<small>The following comment was moved from [[User_talk:Midianian]] by [[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> at 18:08, 31 August 2008 (BST):</small><br />
:I don't think I meant to. Thanks for pointing that out. {{User:Secruss/Sig}}17:34, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::You're welcome. But since you're not going to read the rules of my talk page, I'll say the most important thing here: '''{{c|red|If I've started the discussion on your page, I'd appreciate if the rest of the discussion took place there (I hate having one part of the discussion on one page and the other part on another page).}}''' Please do that next time. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 18:08, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I suppose I can't figure out your talk page then. Sorry. {{User:Secruss/Sig}}18:38, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==The Idea==<br />
It's still in its formative stages, obviously, but I've had somebody contact me about other interested parties already. If something such as that were to be formed, would you be interested in participating, even if the DEM were also participating members? (keeping in mind that this would in no way restrict your right to shoot DEM members, so long as it wasn't done under false pretenses). --[[User:Father Thompson|<span style="color: Black">FT</span>]] <sup>[[MCI|<span style="color: Black">MCI</span>]]</sup> 04:24, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Well, in my particular conception of this idea, it's not exactly a 'closed' council. It would have to be open to all who had not been shown to abuse it, a public council- so preventing the DEM from participating would be contrary to what I hope to achieve. Still, I have yet to contact the others I've been told are thinking of similar ideas- if any of them has something amenable to your anti-DEM requirements, I'll let you know, and it can be discussed further. Also, if you have any specific suggestions as to how other DEMers could be excluded without compromising the idea of free and open coordination, I'd be interested in hearing them- though I expect not to agree with most of them, given my obvious bias on the matter. Also- while I'm open to discussion, I'm pretty loyal to the DEM, so reconsidering your exception might not be ill advised. If you are enemies of the DEM, I do still count you as my own enemies, in so far as I recognize your opposition to my organization- even if I find discussions with some of you rather pleasant.--[[User:Father Thompson|<span style="color: Black">FT</span>]] <sup>[[MCI|<span style="color: Black">MCI</span>]]</sup> 22:29, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== List of RG Mods and Their Affiliations ==<br />
When somebody didn't list a profile, I went off other stuff in their signature. I took the liberty of highlighting DEM members.<br />
*Roy Banes - The [[Spartans]]<br />
*Raharu - [[FANNY]]<br />
*Ashate - "Lesbian Pirates"<br />
*b3ardo - [[DORIS]]<br />
*{{C|green|Myers MD}} - [[Malton Marshals]]<br />
*Ciscokitty - [[The Saints]]<br />
*Kieran Valentine - Freelance Bounty-Hunter<br />
*Akule - [[Cannibal Corps]]<br />
*Black Mask - Unknown (PKer)<br />
*Jennifer Thrush - Unkown (PKer)<br />
*Sgt Beebus - [[Rouge Heart Aces]]<br />
*tuttle freely - Unkown (PKer)<br />
*{{c|green|Fatherthompson}} (Not listed) - [[Malton Central Intelligence]]<br />
<br />
It turns out that 3 of the non-DEM actually aren't active, but 11 is still larger than 2.--{{User:Labine50/sig}} 04:14, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I am no longer an active mod, actually. As a former moderator, I still sometimes give opinions in discussions, but have no authority there, so in fact Myers is the only DEM RG mod at the present time.--[[User:Father Thompson|<span style="color: Black">FT</span>]] <sup>[[MCI|<span style="color: Black">MCI</span>]]</sup> 04:22, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::So... Wait, let me figure this out... Uh... Well, if I've done the math right... 11 > 1. My Main argument still stands.--{{User:Labine50/sig}} 05:07, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Voting==<br />
If you're not going to justify your votes, you might as well not vote at all, because they're going to get struck anyway. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 11:33, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:<small>The following comment was moved from [[User_talk:Midianian]] by [[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> at 23:16, 25 August 2008 (BST):</small><br />
:First time I ever heard or seen anything like that. {{User:Secruss/Sig}}22:49, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Since you also appear to have [[User_talk:Midianian#Rules|other reading problems]], it's not that surprising you missed [[Template:SugVoteBox|this]]. Also, the last image in your sig is [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy#What_wouldn.27t_be_allowed|too tall]]. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 23:16, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Now, I wasn't kidding about the image. It's fucking with the line spacing. Resize it or remove it, or I'll report you. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:37, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Warning==<br />
[[Image:Stop_hand.png|left|35px]]Please do not spam talk pages with advertisements for events on this wiki. Continuing this behaviour may lead to your editing privileges being revoked. <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 03:22 21 August 2008 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
==EMLN/Talk Archive==<br />
Since you created this page I will ask you. What do you want done with it? Alphy removed the content, but from my understanding you two are in the same group right? Do you want this deleted? Please let us know. Right now it is just sitting in the uncategorized page list. Thanks.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 20:53, 23 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Lol==<br />
<br />
Well, what can I say? I liked it a lot, and I agreed with it fully. I don't really like either of them very much, but McCain has experience. And that's what counts right now. [[User:Ioncannon11|Ioncannon11]] 04:35, 12 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Ashate crush? Really?==<br />
I noticed earlier that you were flying Ashate's flag. Now, far be it from me to call into question the virtues of my favorite brainstock admin... but I was under the impression that you had a bit of a tense relationship with the whole crowd? Was it the shared opposition to FMB that swayed your opinion, or... wha?--<br />
<br />
'''[[User:Father Thompson|<span style="color: DARKORANGE">FT</span>]] <sup>[[MCDU|<span style="color: DARKORANGE">MCDU</span>]]: [[The_Black_Knights_-_MCDU|<span style="color: black">Black Knights</span>]]'''</sup>01:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:You were indeed, sir- which is what makes this whole business a bit confusing. You use the following on [[User:Secruss/Part_Two|page two]] of your templates:<br />
{{Ashatecrush}}<br />
:Perhaps you meant to use <nowiki>{{CrushAshate}}</nowiki>? <br />
<br />
'''[[User:Father Thompson|<span style="color: DARKORANGE">FT</span>]] <sup>[[MCDU|<span style="color: DARKORANGE">MCDU</span>]]: [[The_Black_Knights_-_MCDU|<span style="color: black">Black Knights</span>]]'''</sup><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Suggestion Category thing==<br />
Just thought I let you know, your user page just so happens to be under Category:Current Suggestions. Not sure why, but maybe you should fix it. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
==laptops==<br />
<br />
i cant seem to post on the talk section of your suggestion idea. anyway. its not consistent at the moment. surely the necrotech you're accessing needs to be powered AND in a suburb with a powered phone mast?--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Thanks for your vote==<br />
I appreciate you putting your "wait" vote in the keep section (Weighed Down). I hope Kevan has the wisdom not to make too many updates in a short time period, but your note is appreciated. --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 20:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[First Ruining of Fort Creedy]]==<br />
You probably have much better info on zed and PK'er numbers than I do, and the groups involved on both sides. So please, feel free to contribute, and tell me how I did on my user talk page. {{User:Nalikill/Sig}} 02:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
==Danger Report==<br />
Only time I'm going to do that, please don't VB me, but, I'm asking you, please, let this guy's danger report stay. It's relatively unbiased, it's relatively good, if you want to update it, please, try to keep it at least a little unbiased. And pardon my language I used in the note when I reverted it. {{User:Nalikill/Sig}} 21:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
Not quite a stalker. I'm addicted to Recent Changes. :D {{User:Nalikill/Sig}} 21:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Pissed Off ==<br />
A CGR guy just shot me dead at the Morrish NT, where I was heading the defence. His name was Ahzid. What gives? --[[User:Blanemcc|Blanemcc]] 16:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
:I lol'd. Killing is generally what PKers do. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 16:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
1st off, silence you DORIS ass hat. Pluto is not a planet. 2nd, if it is a rummer Secruss ill have to deal with him. We can't be busy fighting PKers while BB2 is tearing up the 'burb. --[[User:Blanemcc|Blanemcc]] 19:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Whoa! Hold on! ''Don't'' insult Cyberbob. He's a raider, as am I. So back off Blane. And PKing is what PKers do. There's no point in arguing with it.<br />
--{{User:Secruss/Sig}}20:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
{{Ohsnap!}} --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 20:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I apologise, one oof his tags is DORIS so....meh? Its hell on earth though. --[[User:Blanemcc|Blanemcc]] 05:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::I'm in DORIS as well as CGR. The two are not mutually exclusive. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 07:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==PKPC template==<br />
Your [[Template:PKPC|template]] used to link to an image ([[:Image:Pub.jpg]]) near the end, unfortunately, due to the way you linked to it, and because it was never included on a page, it seems to have been deleted because it showed up as unused. You may want to upload another. If you do, can I suggest you put it on a page somewhere (either your user, group, or talk page) so as to keep it off the unused images list <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 02:00 26 December 2007 (BST)</small><br />
<br />
==[[Team Zombie Hardcore]]==<br />
Thanks for the template. Any press is good press. How about you guys try being men and making your own enemies rather than being everyone else's bitch? Balls To The Whalls Mother Focker!<br />
--[[User:Duke cage|Duke cage]] 13:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
:Obi gives him our token of awesome<br />
{{Balls in our mouth}}<br />
[[User:ObiFireFighter|ObiFireFighter]] 22:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
We're at war with the DEM, Project TIME, Paradox, and Red Rum. And I have killed ObiFireFighter. Let it be know as well, that the [[Silent Night Slaughter]] went over well despite our apparent "pwnability". --{{User:Secruss/Sig}}<br />
<br />
LOL, he used an neutral alt (non CGR) to kill me... How noble was that? A group that has a Nazi on his team, uses dirty tactics and and note the irony claims that *cough* fights facist,zergers ect... must be pretty retarded to have members like you, despite your group's apparent "fight against zergers and facists".<br />
Btw you still have a long way to go to catch my body count dude...<br />
[[User:ObiFireFighter|ObiFireFighter]] 00:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Oh no! [[Template:zergrushkekekekeke|Zerg rush]]! KEKEKEKEKEKEKE. I saw your name and recognized it. In fact... this shall be the inspiration for my next piece... Perhaps [[LNTVC|Grunny]] simply likes hunting unsophisticated [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=clod clods].--{{User:Secruss/Sig}}00:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
:It still is a cheap kill... I inspire everybody...looking foward to that piece... [[Template:Zergrushkekekekeke2|cheap shot!]] [[User:ObiFireFighter|ObiFireFighter]] 11:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks for linking [[TZH]]. I guess you're not so useless after all :P -[[User: Shirly Logan|Shirly Logan]]<br />
<br />
What's your deal, Secruss? Have we made you angry in some way? I believe we were fully in the right to tell one of the people who were hired to kill us to 'fuck off'. And anything made that is Anti-tzh is also fair game to assault. I like your template collection, seriously. Nice work, but the Anti-tzh crap is grounds for an eternal assbruising by team whalberg. A simple apology and we'll quit, if not let the hammer be dropped. Balls To The Whalls!<br />
<br />
== RE: Trenchy Comment ==<br />
Yes, which is why I said it was nearly impossible. Unless it was a trenchy armed with lucky clovers, rabbits feet and the whole doo daa --[[User:Blanemcc|Blanemcc]] 23:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: We are in the Pitneybank area for now yes. Currently we're at war with the PKer group [[IRATE]] and we are losing due to the fact we can't locate the slippy sons-of-guns from day to day. --[[User:Blanemcc|Blanemcc]] 09:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: We've checked. They are just very good at sending out a few socuts. Reporting enemy locations. Whacking them. Retreating. --[[User:Blanemcc|Blanemcc]] 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I am familiar with the tool but see it as a waste of time. <br />
I would never join the AoFC, too trenchy for my liking.<br />
As far as unsecure forums go, we try to keep ours secure. As soon as I figure out how to set up proper validation we will be pretty darn secure.<br />
<br />
Merry Christmas --[[User:Blanemcc|Blanemcc]] 10:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
: No offence meant. You know yourself what type of guys hang around in Creedy.<br />
<br />
I already have masks in place. When people join our forums they are allocated as members. If they PM me showing they are a group member or ally I change their group on the forum so they have access to our private sections :) --[[User:Blanemcc|Blanemcc]] 12:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==ambitions gone wild==<br />
[[Template:Kill BlackReaper|Quite sad behavior]] Secruss, quite sad! Welcome to the bottom of Maltons PKer community! Although I doubt that you can call this, let´s say "man" a murderer because he has hardly ever killed anyone. It is hard to believe that you are really helping this '' utterly creative genius''. After all it seems like as if the Rummers were right and you guys just don´t have any style at all. Slap me in the face if this was meant to be sarcastic! --{{User:Wasted wallaby/sig}} 13:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[Talk:Suggestions#Constant_Pest]]==<br />
Please feel free to use any of the text from this suggestion idea; its based on your work after all. Alternately, I could submit the idea with included credits for you. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 19:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==PK==<br />
I do not appreciate you killing me or my group. [[Umbrella]] and I are '''not''' allied with [[Project: T.I.M.E]]. or any other PKer group. I have many comrades/allies and I can be revived very quickly, so I suggest you save your ammunition and AP for someone that actually deserves it. -[[User:Wesker|Wesker]] 02:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Your Sig ==<br />
Do you want the timestamp to be a certain colour or something? The code for that is <br />
<br />
<nowiki> <span style="color:#777"> {{{{{subst|}}}LOCALTIME}}, {{{{{subst|}}}LOCALDAY}} {{{{{subst|}}}LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{{{{subst|}}}LOCALYEAR}} (BST) </span></nowiki><br />
<br />
which should produce <br />
<span style="color:#777"> {{{{{subst|}}}LOCALTIME}}, {{{{{subst|}}}LOCALDAY}} {{{{{subst|}}}LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{{{{subst|}}}LOCALYEAR}} (BST) </span><br />
<br />
I trust you already know how web colours work. There's no shame if you don't, though. :P--{{User:Cap'n Silly/Sig}} 07:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
:Anytime. --{{User:Cap'n Silly/Sig}} 08:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Suggestion%3A20071129_Use_Up_That_10%2C000xp_By_Training%21&diff=919343&oldid=919339 Fix it], or don't use it <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] • [[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • 12:19 30 November 2007 (BST)</small><br />
:Remove the last span tags, that should solve the problem.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 16:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==indeed agreed==<br />
Dear Sir, ''"this is awsome"'' you agreed to on our talkpage and all I say is: agreed! I really love your new template, not to speak of the splendit humour ir represents. I believe we definitely should work together one day I just don´t feel capable of hating the DEM, they´ve done so much for our kind.<br />
What would we be without the Rogues Gallery? Nobody, indeed Sir! I wish you a jolly good time with whatever you´r doing right now! Your [[User:Wasted wallaby|Wasted wallaby]] 22:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Your Ad==<br />
You need to sign your Recruitment ad again, so people know you are still around. Otherwise, it will be deleted.--{{User:Cap'n Silly/Sig}} 03:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
:Anytime.--{{User:Cap'n Silly/Sig}} 07:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Nirvana Fan Association==<br />
Yea i would like to have you make a template-[[User:Yodae god|Yodae god]] 11:28, 24 September 2007 (BST)<br />
:Me too.<br />
Thanks for the template -[[User:Yodae god|Yodae god]] 10:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Private Eye ==<br />
<br />
Got a job for me? Leave a message and information at the beep. --[[User:Secruss|Secruss]] 21:44, 8 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Current Suggestions==<br />
Ooops, be less crude when you take something out of the Current Suggestions page, the <nowiki><noinclude>'s</nowiki> are there for a reason! I fixed the minor error you made, no big problem.<br />
<br />
And your suggestion can't have been too bad, it's already in Peer Reviewed after all. Great minds think alike, and all that. [[Talk:Suggestions|&#39;]][[User:Armareum|arm]][[User_talk:Armareum|.]] 03:06, 27 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Geez==<br />
You were a bit harsh on that Mutating zombies Newb weren't ya? Though I suppose he deserves it for making three sugesstions in one day. I really hope he doesn't turn out to be like [[User:MrAushvitz|Mr A]]--{{User:Suicidalangel/Sig}} 01:57, 22 June 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Recruitment page==<br />
<br />
Hello, I see you placed an ad on the recruitment page. I need you to timestamp it. You can do this by adding <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> or<nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> to the bottom of your ad. - [[User:Whitehouse|Whitehouse]] 21:24, 14 May 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Your Suggestion==<br />
<br />
Don't feel bad, It was better then most other suggestions.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] <sup>[[Signature_Race|+1]]</sup> 11:34, 28 May 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Assuming Vista & I are talking about the same suggestion-<br>Firstly, bad idea. I'm sorry, but it just is. Ransack was ''really'' bad for survivors when it was introduced, it became worse when it was changed, so let's not make it worse yet. Secondly, I think you might be thinking that free-running involves bridges. Well, it doesn't. Wikipedia has an article on it, you should check it out. Third, I admire the amount of thought you put into your suggestion, and hope to see you on the suggestions page again soon.--[[User:Labine50|Labine50]] <sup>'''[[Malton Hospitals Group|MHG]]'''</sup><nowiki>|</nowiki><sup>'''[[Malton Emergency Medical Service|MEMS]]'''</sup><nowiki>|</nowiki><sup>'''[[DHPD]]'''</sup> 23:01, 29 May 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== YES ==<br />
<br />
Got it!<br />
<br />
--[[User:REHUNK|REHUNK]] 00:03, 19 August 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== GANKED ==<br />
<br />
Headless Gunner just ganked your discussion page! Muahuahuahua! --[[User:Headless gunner|Headless gunner]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 18:45, 5 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Good Evening ==<br />
I do believe that you and your friends would be interested in [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Performance reviews reviewed|this policy]]. I feel it would give the users a way to repeal sysops who are abusing their power, not around, or behaving in an inappropriate manner. --[[User:Akule|Akule]] <sup>School's in session. </sup> 23:45, 12 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== [[MMS]] ==<br />
<br />
Hello, this is the Head Administrator of the MMS, you contacted us concerning the Alliance of Fort Creedy. I am honoured we have been asked into this alliance however, before we can be of any use we have to be all revived first, then we all have to regroup and collect together again. This will take some time, the MMS have been trying to hold back the spreading red and as a result, we are now scattered and divided and have been severely tested. We wish to be a "group" once again so that we can bring something more that just a random bunch of survivors. I will be in Mrh? umm..contact. ''Head Administrator, GreenWing''.--[[User:Sunil|Sunil]] 09:24, 14 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
=== Staff Requirements ===<br />
<br />
There isn't a written set of formal requirements for staff (as I haven't gotten round to it yet) however, all persons wishing to join the Staff must:<br />
* Be pro-survivor<br />
* Not have conflicting ideals (eg. be also a member of a Pk'er or zombie group)<br />
* Not have zerg characters or automated bots (eg to check chades) or spy with alts<br />
* Not have another character in the same suburb<br />
* Not combat revive<br />
* Recognise the Head Administrator and that his word is final<br />
* Work together and remain in contact<br />
<br />
Virtually all of the Staff we take on board are very new players and so are unlikely to have engaged in some of the activities in the points above. Constant tutoring and advice (when we are together) mean that Staff stay on the straight and narrow. Our virtues have even made a PK'er group temporarily turn pro-survivor to help us, a zombie group move out because we "are just too nice to keep killing" and some zombies turn into survivors because they just wanted to hear our comedy (in game talk - for which we are famous for).<br />
<br />
I will get round to writing a formal set of requirements, but these will give you an idea of the high level of quality and integrity that I demand of my Staff. ''Head Administrator''.--[[User:Sunil|Sunil]] 09:24, 14 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
=== Initial Decision ===<br />
<br />
Sorry there has been some delay; RL has been hassling me. Anyway, after some background reading and initial thinking it may be that the [[Malton Medical Staff]] have to refuse your offer of joining the Alliance of Fort Creedy due to possible conflict of interest.<br />
<br />
AoFC members are compelled to protect the Fort should it come under attack, the MMS are part of the [[Roftwood Coordination Center]] and ought to help in Roftwood when it comes under attack. Our own mission is the protection of VSB+2 Hospitals to keep new survivors as survivors. One can see that the MMS can be pulled by both sides in some circumstances (eg when both Roftwood and Fort Creedy are under attack etc). Fort Creedy is also a considerable distance from Roftwood.<br />
<br />
I hope you see these will need to be worked out. ''Head Administrator''.--[[User:Sunil|Sunil]] 11:15, 23 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==51st WAD==<br />
<br />
Hello! I am here on behalf of the 51st Welsh Armoured Division, and would firstly like to say, thank you for considering my groups mebership. The additions you requested to out Rules and Regualtions were made and we hope they are up to your satisfaction :) Also we wish to thank you for symplifying our links. Just as a footnote, yes i am into Warhammer 40k and a large part of my command structure and rules are based upon the Imperial Guards! <br />
<br />
Thanks<br />
<br />
Lord General Militant Matthew Mainwaring .--[[User:Trooper Matthew|Trooper Matthew]] 4:22, 17 September 2007 (GMT)<br />
<br />
== Targets of Opportunity ==<br />
<br />
Secruss,<br />
I enjoyed the spontaneous killing spree we had the other day, and must say that we should be sure to coordinate future devivication of Valkyries as often as possible.<br />
<br />
Tommorrow is an ammo day, so hopefully I'll be ready to do some good work on Friday. Please text me in-game or feel free to contact me through other means.<br />
<br />
Sincerely, --[[User:Stephen Colbert DFA|Stephen Colbert DFA]] 21:53, 17 October 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Loss of Life==<br />
I just hopelessly lost 5 minutes off the span of my life reading all your templates when I should be studying for a Microbiology test. If I make an 89 on it, you'll be hearing from my attorney, Harvey Carlson. Also, if some of your templates mysteriously appear on my User page, I'm blaming it on a member of Red Rum. --[[User:Headless gunner|Headless gunner]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 19:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Pker Alliance==<br />
<br />
The SS would be gald to join with fellow Pkers for a Xmas massicare where do i sign? <br />
<br />
-Thanks i just joined the PKA fourms.<br />
[[User:Super Six One|Super Six One]]<br />
<br />
==Thank you==<br />
For talking on the above guy's page about when the Silent Night Slaughter was going to be. I'd seen the page, saw the poster, read your post... I put 2 and 2 together, and you see the result on the [[Fort Creedy]] page. {{User:Nalikill/Sig}} 22:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Slient Night Template==<br />
Hi there, <br />
I like the templates that you have collected on your userpage, and the ones that you have created.<br />
I made a tiny change to your Silent Night Template basically changing <pre><nowiki> This [[PKA|user or group]]</nowiki></pre><br />
to <pre><nowiki>{{{1|This [[PKA|user or group]]}}}</nowiki></pre><br />
The ( 1 ) is a variable that the user of the template can define, the text following the pipe symbol ( | ) is what will be used if the variable is left undefined when someone uses the template. '''That text is important because the template will look bad if the variable is undefined.''' Everything is enclosed by 3 curly braces ( {{{ }}} ) which tells the template there is a variable at that location.<br />
<br />
This doesn't break the template for existing users and allows users and groups to place their own name in place of the 'This user or group' text. To see an example of the modified template in use check out the bottom of the [[Rowcliffe_Must_Fall|Rowcliffe Must Fall]] group page. If you don't like the change I'm sorry, and feel free to revert it, but I really think it is a useful enhancement to the template.<br />
--[[User:Fox0ne|Fox0ne]] 20:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks for keeping my change, and yeah we all ''love'' the [[CDF]] don't we :) <br />
<br />
For more info on using Variables in Templates go [[Help:Templates#Variable_in_Templates|HERE]]. The example used there has named variables instead of numbers like I used above. With Named Variables you have to call the template and after a pipe by putting the variable name equals the value - Like this:<br />
<pre><nowiki> {{DrunkLevel|User=I|Level=so drunk, I can't use grammer}}</nowiki></pre><br />
With numbered Variables you can just put the value after the pipe like this:<br />
<pre><nowiki> {{SNSlaughter|Rowcliffe Must Fall}}</nowiki></pre><br />
the advantage of named variables is that you can define them in any order, the advantage of numbers is it's less work to setup, but you have to define the variables after the pipe in the order of the numbers. Just use a pipe to separate each variable definition in the template call.<br />
<br />
There are more functions out there for templates, but the Urban Dead Wiki doesn't support most of them.<br />
<br />
Keep up the good work.<br />
--[[User:Fox0ne|Fox0ne]] 22:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Thanks for linking [[TZH]] to [[Team Zombie Hardcore]]. That was something I had wanted to do for a while but couldn't figure out. I can do basic wiki stuff, but nothing too complicated. We appreciate your assistance, if not your humor.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Dhavid Grohl|Dhavid Grohl]] 15:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== [[Malton Civil War]] ==<br />
<br />
to sum it up, it's a declairation of war against the DEM law enforcement groups. mfd and mems are ok, but the rest need to burn in hell. did i explain properly? =) our group needed something different then "kill all zombies!" and "we will be free!!" so we decided to pick a fight, and call it a good fight too! -- {{User:Jack13/sig}} 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:the civil war page was a hope i could band together all groups that want to destroy the DEM. [[Section 13]] has made the MFD and MEMS the exeption, but DEM and all law enforcement brances are villians in our eyes. Do you represent the CGR? because S13 would wilingly alley with them. -- {{User:Jack13/sig}} 16:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
No alliances, eh? that's cool. maybe oneday we could work in cooperation on something, i'll make sure to tell my boys that the CGR are good in our books. --{{User:Jack13/sig}} 15:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Looking to hire for a contract. ==<br />
<br />
I understand your private eye can be hired. Contact me FragMonkey2009@sbcglobal.net so we can work something out.<br />
<br />
UPDATE: Alright here's the deal. I have a vendetta against this guy, but I do not want to be the one to kill him. I know him personally, and I know where he stays as his "safe house." Could you go over there and simply kill him for me (and take screenshot or iwitness proof or something)?<br />
<br />
He stays at The Crofts Arms (32,59) in southern Shore Hills. If you can get over there as soon as possible, that would be appreciated.<br />
Oh and his profile is [http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1094819| here]<br />
<br />
Reply on my talk page to see if you accept or not, and when you will head on over there.<br />
By the way, which character are you using?<br />
<br />
UPDATE: Alright I'm glad you accepted. When is it that you will head on over there?<br />
<br />
UPDATE: Alright sit tight. He should come there later, as this is where he always goes before logging off.<br />
<br />
[[User:Pvt Vukov|Pvt Vukov]]<br />
<br />
==Stalin==<br />
<br />
Cool template. Like how you worded it. But it doesn't say anything besides sum him up. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[ The Ridleybank Resistance Front|RRF]] [[DORIS]] [[Caiger Resistance Front|CRF]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== comment reversion ==<br />
<br />
That snuffalupagus guy made himself look like a tard. Thanks for deleting his monumentally inain comment - it saved me the work of trying to explain how dumb he made himself look. -- {{User:Jack13/sig}} 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Pker ==<br />
<br />
You are commended for reporting yourself. --[[User:Jon Pyre|Jon Pyre]] 03:32, 24 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== goddamnit secruss! ==<br />
<br />
that's twice your phone message button has fooled me!<br />
<br />
== RE: ==<br />
<br />
That may be so but not on a truly malton wide scale with hundreds of players activly searching for DEM members [[User:Brian Vesty|Brian Vesty]] 22:11, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
lol have a guess :P<br />
<br />
Brian Vesty<br />
<br />
[[User:Brian Vesty|Brian Vesty]] 22:16, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Crusade Consultant ==<br />
<br />
Hey there. I'm liking your crusade idea and would like to help out as a private consultant. All of my credentials can be found on my wiki page. {{User:Clint Clintstone/sig}}22 Sept. 08<br />
:I added you to my buddies on AIM but you may not be able to get a hold of me on it. Do you have an MSN? If no try PM'ing me on the Fortress forum. {{User:Clint Clintstone/sig}}24 Sept 08</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Crusade_%2708&diff=1289043Talk:Crusade '082008-10-08T01:50:54Z<p>Janine: /* Crusade is such a bad word */</p>
<hr />
<div>===Crusade is such a bad word===<br />
it's use reminds me of anti antisemitism, and ignorance. you really should read Karen's Armstrong's [[http://books.google.com/books?id=vUNgAAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:Karen+inauthor:Armsatrong&lr=&ei=qJ_aSNa7JZKQzQSJ9eHrDg Book]] on the subject. I hope you all fail miserably and the zombies eat you slowly. hasn't this gotten old already?----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 21:18, 24 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The crusade is a great idea, and all this negativity just fuels the fire my friend. --<font face="arial black"><span style="background-color:#000000; border: 1px solid red">[[User:Haliman111|<span style="color:White">/\'''Haliman'''/\</span>]]</span></font><sup> [[User_talk:Haliman111|T]] | [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]] | [[Project Welcome|W!]] </sup> 22:32, 24 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I believe he's referring to the fact that you've named a (presumably) benelevolent/Good plan to rid Malton of them "evil" zeds after something evil and barbarous; the Crusades which were the multiple, senseless massacres of Jews and Muslims and invasion (and subsequent attempted invasions) of Arab soil by Europeans for hidden secular motivations and/or fanatical religious ideology. EDIT: Gaahh! forgot to sign my post... I posted this a day ago --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 19:19, 5 October 2008 (BST)<br />
: ''I hope you all fail miserably and the zombies eat you slowly.'' Unlike the actual crusades it will be the crusaders who [http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/cannibalism.html will be eaten by us]... Seriously... why glorify such a horrible event where 9/10ths of Christian armies died in transit and even Lords and Knights were starving and bankrupt--[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 19:23, 5 October 2008 (BST)<br />
D...X I'm crushed. {{User:Secruss/Sig}}00:37, 26 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I see the error of my ways. Thank you, crying, bitchy, Politcally Correct trolls, for showing me that a simple name can attract so much connotation that it ruins everyone. I'll have to scrap "The Schutzstaffel Pub Shuffle." {{User:Secruss/Sig}}00:29, 7 October 2008 (BST)<br />
::Wow you're so cool and anti-pc and stuff, you really tell it like it is! But that doesn't change the fact that your leader fails at research and everyone who knows anything about history thinks this thing is a joke. If you want to name yourselves after a bunch of uncivlized barbarians who barely managed to crawl out of the Dark Age only to get their asses handed to them by one of the most lenient/honourable generals that ever lived, go ahead. --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 16:28, 7 October 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Secruss is just trying to troll because he can't wrap his mind around what the Crusades were when compared to the in-game environment. He's taken the basic idea, of forces invading a held area in order to return control, but hasn't quite got it right. The in-game environment it would be far more appropriate to instead reference the massive building project in the US after the Great Depression or the various Native American conflicts. Perhaps even World War 1 would be a more fitting reference.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 02:50, 8 October 2008 (BST)</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Malton_Uprising&diff=1282971Talk:Malton Uprising2008-09-28T23:29:08Z<p>Janine: /* MU alt policy... so, uh, where is it, exactly? LOL */</p>
<hr />
<div>([[Malton Uprising/Archive|Archive of Old Discussions]])<br />
<br />
== Group? ==<br />
So are we really a group now or what? I guess that means the DEM doesn't give a shit about the manifesto...--[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 23:13, 17 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I rather fail to see how those two comments are related. In either case...no, we're not a group, but if a DEM member wants to list us as a notable presence in a suburb, I'm not going to object. I think the closest thing we could be compared to is an event like the Big Bash. And BB2 ''was'' listed as a group in various suburbs (from what I could tell, when I went looking and asked people), so something like ourselves being listed is not without precedent. As to the second part -- maybe you should start following events a bit more closely? --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 02:04, 19 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Well excuuuuuuuuuuse me princess for having a real life outside of this little game...durrrr. --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 23:25, 19 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Please Stop Talking ==<br />
<br />
Don't most of you guys have to get back to trolling each other on Brainstock? I wished I had as much time and what appears to be either patience, or insulting disregard, for the repetitive arguments that do more to strengthen the points made by the badly worded Manifesto that is apparently being held-hostage. For the love of Sappho, please stop posting. When Secruss and Alphy start sounding reasonable and sober, it should tell you that it's just time to stop arguing and start violence.<br />
<br />
Which is why I am suggesting that Secruss, Alphy, and Kikashie all fight Father Tom(?), Labine, and Kristi of the Dead to a Caged Death Match.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:09, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Fuck you. I'm important too, you know. Put me in the ring with Garviel. I'll kick his miniature painting ass. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 01:56, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::You important? To who?--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 13:06, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I don't wanna be [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVDDRZQtiyQ nobody's hero]... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:25, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:When Secruss and Alphy start sounding reasonable and sober, I'll be the first to let you know. So far all I've seen is a tempest in a teacup about the RG (which has about as much impact on PKers as the Toyota Prius had on global warming), and the DEM (which is so thinly spread it's got a lower population density than Antarctica). Even if DEM and the RG were bad for the game, dicking about with a retarded "Let's encourage butthurt players to PK and pretend that it's not PKing" campaign in green suburbs instead of actually doing something about zombies is worse. [[User:Turkmenbashi|Turkmenbashi]] 13:46, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I see the light Turk! The DEM is not evil! It's just the internet! Morals don't exist on the internet! Holy shit! I've wasted so much time! I quit Urban Dead! I kill myself! I kill my cat! I kill my iguana! I kill my mold spores! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm4ohAcGJWg {{User:Secruss/Sig}}00:12, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Spore? Who has Spore? I'm jealous... --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 00:29, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I so want that game. {{User:Secruss/Sig}}22:26, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:You and me both. I'd give Labine's left testicle for it. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 03:45, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
PKing is only fun if people complain about it...like Turkmenbashi here. Anyway, Spore has Securom so I'm not going to get it. Toodles! --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 20:11, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I did get the new /METALLICA\ CD. It's really good. {{User:Secruss/Sig}}18:26, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==In the hopes of a more accurate map.==<br />
I like using the tool provided on Rogue's Gallery to see where the DEM is absent. If you try to locate PKers with in n-number of blocks of location x and y, then you can see how many days it has been since a spotter went through the area. [http://www.ud-malton.info/Rogues_Gallery?State=Search&X=10&Y=10&Distance=10&Type=Location Example] - [[User:Sir Fred of Etruria|Sir Fred of Etruria]]<br />
<br />
:That can work, but what if there's simply been no reported PKers in the area? --{{User:DT/Signature}} 22:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Or DEMs who aren't running IMP? -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 22:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Couldn't you just use some allies/supporters who are low on ammunition/FAKS go through the area and check the hot spots and declared head quarters? And if you wanted to find out if they were zombie or active you could steal their profiles off of the Brainstock recruitment area to check. --[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== join? ==<br />
<br />
group [[hitman]] wuld like to join. did some stuff for the [[DEM]] don't like them that much. It was the team zombie hardcore job...one of our best.<br />
Right now we are growing and branching out. a pro survivor movment in [[East gratside]] also in lockketside protecting St. Alexander's hospital. Some other things going on are mre private.<br />
<br />
Haha, I remember you guys: Total retards. --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 22:51, 16 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I wish your 'movment' was in a real suburb, Hitman. Or is that your group name? You did things for the DEM but you don't like them? That's got to breed some sort of resentment, eh? I suggest laying down and talking about it with someone close to you, and then decide what would be your best interest. -[[user:Mikhos|Dr. Trust M.D.]]<br />
<br />
Didn't the hitmen kill TZH for DORIS? Or is this a DORIS = DEM pancake thing again? --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 00:44, 17 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The DEM has a standing policy against hiring hitmen after Ferrum Leo's little incident back in Dec. '06. If I had to guess I'd say it's either "OMFG DEM PANCAKE" stuff again or Sgt. Steve.<br />
:P.S., I've got Spore. <3--{{User:Labine50/sig}} 02:32, 17 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And if we were gonna hire hitmen, wouldn't we want to, y'know, hire real ones? -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 02:41, 17 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Labine, please tell me Spore is as awesome as I hope it is. If it isn't, I will cry.--[[User:William Told|William Told]] 03:19, 19 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::It's pretty nifty.--{{User:Labine50/sig}} 01:40, 20 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Spore is freaking amazing.</end useless comment> {{User:Lemonhead7t7/Sig}} 04:17, 20 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::lol''indeed''. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 04:38, 20 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== MU alt policy... so, uh, where is it, exactly? LOL ==<br />
<br />
do you people have a strict one alt policy for MU members? because there are a large number of groups under this umbrella, and if a player had an alt in more than just one... well... that'd make you... uuuuuh... ''just like the DEM''!<br />
<br />
i mean, not that i really give a damn, you're insignificant and irrelevant, anyhow, but... i was just, like, wondering and such about your alt policy, y'know? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 21:11, 27 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: Naw, lol. We're not an umbrella group...we're pretty much an "event." About the closest thing we could be compared to is something like the Big Bash, or some sort of PKer extravaganza. And we stick with the same rules as things like that...one alt involved per person. My babah Philosophe Knight is going to stick with handing out FAKs in centers of learning, for instance, until any Uprising/DEM craziness is done. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 21:25, 27 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::So the two alts will be accepted, as long as both aren't fighting DEM members, so they aren't working together. Wow, that sounds a lot like the DEM. Good to know you both aren't breaking the rules! {{User:Lemonhead7t7/Sig}} 05:06, 28 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::The Big Bash was, in effect, a group. Which operated in one area at a time, not several simultaneously. And you could have only one alt involved in it. The comparison is totally inaccurate. And, when PKer "events" take place in one location or area, if a one alt per player policy is not followed, that's multi-abuse. Period. This "event" as you call it involves a large number of groups acting across several surbubs. And, these groups are all fighting the exact same enemy. Which would make their stance on multi-abuse a lot less stringent than that of the DEM, technically... But, if it's as Lemonhead explained... then... yeah... it's pretty much the same as the DEM. Fascinating. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 05:15, 28 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::: Hmm... First she praises our ability to keep our members off the Ronin Gallery, then she parties with us in Stanbury Village, and now she's following alt policies nearly identical to ours... I predict a DEM alt in your future, Jen. :) --[[User:William Told|William Told]] 10:28, 28 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::: Three simple letters, Jen: [[MFU]]. DO EET!! :P -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 14:56, 28 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::: If you're going to Recruitment Spam, do it on brainstock. And the entire post seems to be on of those "I don't like those people; they must be zerging" allegations.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 00:29, 29 September 2008 (BST)</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extinction&diff=1282049Talk:Extinction2008-09-27T14:41:54Z<p>Janine: Your Emissary</p>
<hr />
<div>[irc://irc.dark-storm.net/masamune #masamune]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Well, it's good to see someone making the game fun for us survivors! I took the liberty of doing some proof-reading on your page, cleaning up the text a bit. Hope you don't mind. Good luck with your nefarious plans for world domination! (Ya crazy zambahz...) MolotovH 10:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Hey there just joined up really like this group. I think we need to have a rule that whenever you modify the map you list the number of necrotechs in the suburb and date it so we know just exactly when we control or do not control the suburb.--[[User:Extinction Fighter|Extinction Fighter]] 22:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
agreed, I will update the Map further. Welcome to the Team.--[[User:Brainz|Brainz]] 22:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''It seems that the Date is confusing people, (Is that when the Nt was ransacked or is it the date it was last checked) It will now show the time like this ''"Checked March 16th"''...'''--[[User:Brainz|Brainz]] 00:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Invitation for dinner at Fort Perryn==<br />
Dear friends, i'm proud to invite you to the feast, we, ferals, are going to have there in next few weeks. Also, many major survivour groups are invited too, so siege promises to be not only tasty<br />
but also challenging.<br />
<br />
==[[NT Status Map]]==<br />
I liked the idea of your map, but not the execution. So I did one that is a lot simpler for folks to update (or at least less prone to error) and easier to read. I'd love for you folks to use it n your page; its a template, so very easy to install, and also any edits done "here" will be reflected other places the template is displayed, and vice versa.<br />
<br />
I was gonna copy all the info over from your map, but have limited patience. Still, 99% of the work is done; this one just needs simple upkeep now, in the exact same manner as the [[suburb]] danger level map.<br />
<br />
The template code is <nowiki>{{NT status map}}</nowiki>, and it is already in use at [[Salt the Land]].<br />
<br />
[[User:Swiers|S.Wiers]] <sup>[[X:00]]</sup><sub>[[Christmas Tree Dead Pool|x-mas tree dead pool]]</sub> 20:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:BTW, I'm duplicating all the data off your map, and have updated the map legend to honor this groups efforts. The total number of NT buildings is now shown as "X" if all NT buildings in the suburb are ransacked; X is for "Extinction". :) --[[User:Swiers|S.Wiers]] <sup>[[X:00]]</sup><sub>[[Christmas Tree Dead Pool|x-mas tree dead pool]]</sub> 16:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thats a nice map, and i will switch it tomorrow with the other one on my front page when i have more time. thanks alot.--[[User:Brainz|Brainz]] 00:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Malton Resource Map===<br />
don't know how to show it here, but the following map should be of great value. It has all the NTs (and Malls) highlighted: http://img127.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mallsnntsv1cd2.png If anyone knows wiki code and thinks the image itself would be good right on the page here, please plop it in. btw, my zombie alt will be sporting "Extinction" in his profile when he's off the X:00 clock... --[[User:Raystanwick|Raystanwick]] 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
damn, thats a nice Nt Map...thanks alot [[User:Raystanwick|Raystanwick]], i was looking for one of those a little while ago...I will post it up here with some tweaks. Should be an easy way of keeping track of what Nts we need to smash down.--[[User:Brainz|Brainz]] 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
:wow, fast response. Glad you like it. Credit goes to Redrum's world view Map and filters; I just touched up the Malls and Forts. btw, while I'll be helping you in the NE with RayNorwick, my survivor RonBrenner in the SW has to ask that you guys ease up a little- it's gettin ''TOO'' hard to get revived!!! --[[User:Raystanwick|Raystanwick]] 21:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
::This is a way late response, but [[User:Specialist290|Specialist290]] made this map and it might serve your purposes even better than the highlighted one above: http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/2332/malton5oc9.png --[[User:Insomniac By Choice|Insomniac By Choice]] 14:21, 1 August 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
===Judgewood===<br />
<br />
Does it have Necrotechs?--[[User:Extinction Fighter|Extinction Fighter]] 13:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Why yes it does,....i can't believe i missed that...thanks Extinction Fighter.--[[User:Brainz|Brainz]] 18:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Squatting==<br />
<br />
For this plan to really work, at least as much attention should be paid to [[Salt_The_Land_Policy|squatting ransacked NTs]] as to pillaging new ones. The front page map that tracks the current seiges would become clogged if it also tracked squatting updates, so maybe some kind of tabular format could be developed?--[[User:Ragged Robin|Ragged Robin]] 20:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The only thing about that is survivors could/would pick easy Nts to take back if it put up publicly, if we leave it as a mystery then its harder for survivors to rebel against us. I think its easier to just say if we have the Nt or not, instead of posting how many zombies are actually in there. We also do practice [[Salt The Land Policy]] otherwise this whole "World Domination" plan probably wouldn't work.--[[User:Brainz|Brainz]] 21:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Well, the natural motivation to use NT buildings guarantees that survivors will be cruising through them regularly anyway. It's not as though survivors are going to be sitting around nearby going, "oh no, the Einstein building was ransacked earlier this week, better stay away!" Secrecy isn't an option.<br />
<br />
::(Also, I wasn't even necessarily thinking of posting numbers of zombies... your current (front page) map doesn't actually state whether you have a given NT or not. It just gives a date that it was ransacked.)<br />
<br />
::In any case, it's great that you practice Salt the Land, but if so, why not state it prominently on your group page? I worry about excitable youngsters moving from one siege to the next, without bothering to stay behind and control prior territory.<br />
<br />
::Finally, have you considered endorsing the creation of extra zombie characters for squatting? I'm not talking about any multi-abuse - merely (for e.g.) having one zombie for pillaging, and another who lags behind in another suburb and stands up inside an NT as regularly as possible.--[[User:Ragged Robin|Ragged Robin]] 23:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Im sure that survivors in there own territory will fight for their Nt, all im saying is i don't want any extra attention. If i broadcast that theres 1 zombie in the Twizzler Nt lots of people (out of towners) will go and take it. If i don't broadcast it, the out of towners will hopefully stay as OUT OF TOWN...but this really doesn't matter because if a zombie sees an Nt that i say is Ransacked it becomes "Under Siege" and is takin back...no matter how many stay in the Nt after its been destroyed...<br />
<br />
:::The DATE of the main map is when the NT was last seen ransacked...its not the date that it was ransacked!! (Maybe i should change the date so its less confusing...)<br />
<br />
:::I have considered making zombie squat characters but i don't see it as a need...for the time being...<br />
<br />
:::By the way what do you want here with Extinction ? Just helping out ? Spreading the word ? --[[User:Brainz|Brainz]] 00:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::Oh I see, re: the main map. Yeah, the meaning of the date wasn't clear to me before. I imagine the need for squat characters will grow before long, since there are 211 NTs and you list your group numbers as 50-100. I'm interested in Extinction because I want every last survivor in this game to wake up grey and rot, and this is a worthy strategy. If 10% of all zombies pursued it, the game would be won in a week.--[[User:Ragged Robin|Ragged Robin]] 00:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Congrats==<br />
I have deleted this false accusation, its MY groups talk page and im in control of what is said and what isn't and im NOT going to be called a cheater. Conndraka this discussion is over, unless you can find some solid proff (Impossible because i don't use BOTS!!!) im conviced that i didn't use BOTs to take your Nt. Conndraka if you want to discuss this somewhere else be my guest. But not on this page...--[[User:Brainz|Brainz]] 10:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
:Sounded convincing to me (although I'd like to see screenshots). I'd bet there are a few zombies around zerging and botting away, knowing they're relatively safe behind zombie anonymity -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 11:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Conndraka is a respected person among us survivors, to my knowledge he's never lied to anyone about something he's seen in game... and i've been around him and the rest of the DHPD for quite a while so I can say with confidence that his integrity is uncompromising... But bots or no bots, YOU ARE NOT GOING to be able to KEEP the [[DMZ]]'s Necrotechs, even if the rest Malton's NT's are dark!! We will hold fast against you... and so will our allies!! There will be no endgame against us! You might grab one or two yeah... but we'll grab them right back! Mark my words the DHPD will always have a working NT somewhere! --[[User:MartyBanks|Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) &lt;DHPD&gt;]] 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC) [PS: Please don't delete my posts without good cause... it annoys me, thank you.]<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't care how respected he is as a survivor, i don't care what he sees ingame, i don't care if he lies, the only thing that i care about is that he is blaming me for using Bots. BTW, is that a challenge "YOU CAN'T KEEP THE [[DMZ]] NECROTECTS"...you will fall along with all others in this game. That is a promise!! --[[User:Brainz|Brainz]] 20:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
My only reply to that is... "and if you are using Bots? then that would give him the right to accuse you and bring the fact to light."<br />
If you are not using bot's then you have nothing to fear and can defend yourself against him publicly without retribution... but if you are using Bots then he has had the right all along to accuse you... it really all depends of the facts... --[[User:MartyBanks|Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) &lt;DHPD&gt;]] 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
:The problem is, its an accusation against which no real defense is possible, and an accusation that causes damage to reputation merely by being made, without any need for proof. Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Mr. Banks? --[[User:Swiers|S.Wiers]]<sup>[[Christmas Tree Dead Pool|ctdp]]</sup><sub>[[NT Status Map|NTmap]]</sub><sup>[[X:00|x:oo]]</sup> 11:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
::Exactly... and it's exactly the same accusations that survivors were getting when they were "on top"... you remember those don't you... accusations that barricades were going up ''too'' quickly to be "real survivors". Having played both sides, I find the accusation that a zombie enters a building immediately after one has been killed (?rise --> ?in) to be even more indicative of bot abuse than active barricade maintenance -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 13:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
:::I remember them, and I remember dismissing them pretty easily with a small bit of logical thinking, and eventually convincing most others to do the same. As wityh a cade bot, the bot behavior you are positing also would be impossible to produce without circumventing IP hit limits for the controlled zombie(s)- which is just one of several large technical (and moral) hurdles most people would rather not face. <br />
:::If this were more than a single instance of a single person getting frustrated by purely defensive zombies, I might be convinced, but a "bot" really seems the "least likely explanation" for the observed behavior. Defensive bots are just a totally worthless pain in the ass to code (well, IMO) and pretty well gaurded against by the IP hit limits. Human control by a communicating group that was low on AP's would be just one of several more likely explanations. --[[User:Swiers|S.Wiers]]<sup>[[Christmas Tree Dead Pool|ctdp]]</sup><sub>[[NT Status Map|NTmap]]</sub><sup>[[X:00|x:oo]]</sup> 23:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
There is only 1 question that really should matter, Why does conn think that IM using bots ?? out of all the people involved in taking the bascomb why me ??--[[User:Brainz|Brainz]] 14:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
=== WE'RE FAMOUS ===<br />
<br />
[[The Malton Mirror]]<br />
<br />
p.s. Coondraka is a big fat bitch --[[User:Extinction Fighter|Extinction Fighter]] 04:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
:I do hope for your sake that was a careless typographical error and not a racial slur. Of course, it likely means little considering the tone of your witty ''bon mot''. -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 03:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* Being Famous because people blame us for cheating is not a good thing. and yes Coondraka is crossing the line!--[[User:Brainz|Brainz]] 10:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
* editor and chief... i know a good story when I see one... lol... this is quite the story... if you wish to discuss it with conndraka... arrange it there... i could use the boost in circulation... PS: Let me warn you all in advance and this goes for conndraka too... NO editing of other people's statements made my page... --[[User:MartyBanks|Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) &lt;DHPD&gt;]] 17:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC) <br />
::PPS: you wan't me to put the discussion with conndraka concerning the bots on my page... i'd love to have the content but before i decide whether to put it on i want to get both your and conn's opinion's first. --[[User:MartyBanks|Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) &lt;DHPD&gt;]] 17:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I don't really have anything to say about it much because i didn't use any damn bots. There is only 1 question that really should matter, Why does conn think that IM using bots ?? out of all the people involved in taking the bascomb why me ?? --[[User:Brainz|Brainz]] 20:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I really don't know... but i will give this to conn... he is a stand up guy about thing like this... and just because you deny something doesn't mean an issue will die... the world doesn't work that way... i'm the media... i will call what i see and i see accusations and angry denials... the anger makes me curious... --[[User:MartyBanks|Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) &lt;DHPD&gt;]] 00:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[User:Specialist290/Huey P Long|Huey Long]] Speaks in [[Eastonwood|!zanbah]]==<br />
I hope I'm not intruding on you fine folks by doing this, but I'd like to direct your attention to this circular which I have prepared for distribution to all active zombie groups:<br />
<br />
I, Huey Pierce Long, Jr., will be speaking at [[Pooll Crescent Police Department]] in [[Eastonwood|!zanbah (Eastonwood)]] on April 8th, 2007, concerning his campaign to win the nomination of the Zombiecratic Party in the [[Mayor of Malton]] campaign, and I would like to invite your group to send a representative to attend the rally. It is my earnest hope to improve the situation for the lowly, starving ferals of Malton, and I would like to have your support in doing so.<br />
<br />
Check out my [[User:Specialist290/Huey P Long|campaign site]] for details, and if you like what you see, don't forget to [[Talk:Mayor of Malton|vote]] for Huey P Long! As always, I can be contacted through [[User talk:Specialist290/Huey P Long|my talk page]] [[User talk:Specialist290|(or that of my alt)]] if you have any questions, comments, etc. --[[User:Specialist290/Huey P Long|'''Huey P Long''']] [[User talk:Specialist290/Huey P Long|{{c|black|♠}}]][[Lebende Tote|{{c|red|♥}}]][[User:Specialist290|{{c|black|♣}}]][[Mayor of Malton|{{c|red|♦}}]] 05:25, 6 April 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''ESS Advisory''' - Can we perhaps endorse this excellent Mayoral Candidate [[User:Specialist290/Huey P Long|Huey P Long]]? I read his campaign policy and it's largely in line with Extinction's ... more or less. At least hear what he can do for us in return for the 80 strong Extinction group's advocacy.<br />
--[[User:Zeug|Zeug]] 01:34, 12 April 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Article Edits ==<br />
<br />
Just changed the Join link to point to the Expansion, and the gold font colour. If you'd prefer it changed back I can revise the edit. --[[User:Extinction DIA|Extinction DIA]] 14:42, 12 April 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
:The new colors look great, a LOT more legible and appealing. There's on bit of gold missed- the quote just above the NT map. --[[User:Swiers|S.Wiers]]<sup>[[Christmas Tree Dead Pool|ctdp]]</sup><sub>[[NT Status Map|NTmap]]</sub><sup>[[X:00|x:oo]]</sup> 00:07, 13 April 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Forum discussions on advanced tactics==<br />
'''Here's a rough copy and paste''' culled from the forums on possible advanced tactics for Extinction members. Was a good [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming brainstorming session], whatever's mine in there is [http://www.ilanamercer.com/Copyfree.htm copyright free].<br />
<br />
--[[User:Zeug|Zeug]] 08:03, 12 April 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
-----------------<br />
it's not so much about inhabiting every NT in Malton but rather identifying the strategic NT's belonging to strong survivor groups and taking those down. The Mall Tours will do the rest.<br />
<br />
The DHPD really do need their NT's otherwise they have to vacate to adjacent burbs and regroup, which must put a strain on their coordination efforts. If Extinction is going to work we need to set a precedent by demonstrating the concept in action. We need to take the DHPD down for the count and suppress their revival efforts and that means making the Bascombe and Dury into Extinction strongholds, with the entirety of both suburbs declared "Survivor Free Zones" under Zombie Law and Order.<br />
<br />
------------------<br />
<br />
for those interested in coordinated "special operations". Within Extinction we could have a Special Operations Command for those players interested in real time coordinated attack and defence. That's the gameplay I'm interested in, actually meeting up with a small dedicated squad online and coordinating real time via chat.<br />
<br />
------------------ <br />
<br />
Even if you're only hitting a factory or a hospital in a region that is currently "salted", getting everyone together makes the game more interesting and fun, and also allows for greatly increased efficiency. With a group of three zombies working together, it is virtually guaranteed that any barricaded building can be opened and at least one survivor will perish. Often the results will be better.<br />
<br />
The same three zombies operating on their own could each waste all their AP smashing on the barricades, with the humans inside spending only a few AP in between each attack to repair them. They'd also each need to spend a number of AP selecting a target, whereas a group working together requires only one "scout".<br />
<br />
resource buildings should remain generator-free, both by revived zombies and by keeping factories and auto shops ransacked.<br />
<br />
The AP benefit humans receive when resource building is powered can be very large if there are a lot of humans. Each human saves many AP with the increased search success rate, and they only had to spend a relatively small amount of AP setting up the generator in the first place.<br />
<br />
Smashing the generator (or, better still, preventing humans from getting them in the first place) requires far fewer AP and yields a large return on the investment.<br />
<br />
-------------------<br />
<br />
So then for a suburb wide attack, using X:00 for the mass and chat for specialist squads, the primary targets would be the barricaded NT's. Which also means that single NT burbs like Peddlesden and Dunell Hills, unfortunately for the DHPD, are the most vulnerable. Once the NT is taken and held secure as an Extinction Command HQ then we can expand the target list and secure the entire suburb.<br />
<br />
Secondary targets are the factories and auto repairs which should be targeted for ransacking. Cool, so we can add hospitals and PD's as preferred zombie sleep overs in lieu of a nearby NT. If any are barricaded they can be reported to Spec Ops Command and a siege started. I'd also suggest revive points need to be regularly cleansed of survivors and the Mrh? cows ordered to move out of the suburb.<br />
<br />
Tertiary targets would be any other barricaded building whatsoever.<br />
<br />
The Spec Ops groups can use the NT as Extinction Command HQ to deal with survivor counter attacks and also follow up with regular suppression sweeps of the above targets until revival ceases and the Mrh? cows disperse. At which point the suburb is declared an Extinction Survivor Free Zone on the wiki page and we move on to the next survivor group concentration and strategic NT.<br />
<br />
If there are a lot of survivors, these targets are very imporant, and are usually easier to take than the other resource buildings, but it's situational.<br />
<br />
When a suburb has been completely beaten down, for example, the humans won't be going for luxuries like electricity, they'll be trying to secure FAKs and (if they aren't clear on how to spend their AP properly) weapons in the PDs. If the hospitals and PDs are locked down, wandering humans won't stay in the burb at all, so the dead zone increases.<br />
<br />
Whenever possible, humans should be infected. This has a compounded effect, as revived humans must spend more AP trying to find healing and will increase the chance that any found humans will be wounded and more easily flipped back to the grey side.<br />
<br />
In an area with a deep human infrastructure, this is less effective, but if we're concentrating on kicking humans when they're down, infection is extremely important.<br />
<br />
---------------------<br />
<br />
Tactical commanders could read the suburb map for the current operation and put a target list together and maybe even work out a tour route. Then just publish the target coordinates alongside the GMT attack times for an Extinction R&R Tour (recon and ransack). Anyone want to take on R&R Command and become a tour guide?<br />
<br />
I think we should enforce a zero tolerance policy regarding revival within any Extinction Command Zone as it is a militarily offensive act and counter to the fundamental goal of Extinction. How about an Extinction Biological Warfare Corps? From what you're saying we could scatter the Mrh?s by setting infected zombies on them.<br />
<br />
<br />
Totally agreed, and barricading should be outlawed throughout the Command Zone. The only barricaded building should be the official Extinction Harmanz Corps Command HQ. I like the idea of combat revived troops being able to continue fighting so they can gain body building, flak jackets and other useful survivor skils. What's a good resource building for a safe house and what would they need? A generator?<br />
<br />
On CR: Trying to survive in a zombie hot zone burns a lot of AP. Once you get Bodybuilding and a flak jacket, there's not much reason to go human again. If I get revived, I'll go on a generator smashing run, but I usually end the day as a zombie again. Running around and hiding is AP-inefficient. One of the most valuable things a revived zombie can do is scout inside barricaded buildings to look for the meatiest targets. Once a target is found, it's generally better to attack as a zombie than a human, unless you've previously spent many AP gathering ammo and have all the firearm skills.<br />
<br />
Extinction Harmanz Corps - Tagger<br />
To be used in profiles?<br />
<br />
----------------------<br />
<br />
if we stay put in the NT, supress all survivor relief efforts and make it clear to the Mrh?s they're not going to revive they'll disperse. Strategic boredom can be an Extinction Weapon of Mass Distraction<br />
<br />
outlaw all survivor graffiti in the Command Zones and start a graffiti tagging war!<br />
<br />
---------------------<br />
<br />
on infection: it's possible to infect zombies and for specific instances such as killing someone without infecting them and then being attacked by them the next day. While it's not worth killing them again, it can be worth a few AP to make up for not infecting them the previous day. But there's no real way to handle it systematically, unless people share links for humans they killed without infecting them<br />
<br />
on graffiti: Cleaning out reassuring survivor messages can do much to foster the demise of a suburb. People hang around when things look comfortable and get nervous when all the messages are threatening. It's a lot of work to collect spray cans and search out messages to remove, but if that's something that interests a given player, they should be encouraged, because it is helpful. The Tagging skill is helpful in this regard, but it is still an AP-intensive activity.<br />
<br />
----------------------<br />
<br />
psych warfare: Well the first rule of psychological warfare stipulates that enemy protestations of moral superiority and public denials of wrongdoing are of course ... propaganda. And propaganda (public information management) may be either true or false, it's hard to tell cos propaganda is necessarily agnostic with respect to the truth. The real question is how effective is it?<br />
<br />
I wasn't really arguing with them, it was just an opportunity to flame up a forum thread with lots of info and links back to Extinction. On the net if you want to increase traffic to a site one basic method is to find any forum or blog or myspace, whatever, where you can post the brand name, some info and as many external links back as possible, from as many different IP's as possible.<br />
<br />
That's how you make networks in the web, and if we can expand the Extinction network we boost the inbound traffic and membership.<br />
<br />
------------------------<br />
<br />
Parachuting: Once you get revived, you wait until you have a full amount of APs, then stand up as a human. First, you want to make sure that you're infected. (You might already be infected upon standing up, but if not, you can just walk into a group of zombies and politely ask one to infect you. :) ) Then, you enter your target building and spend APs causing havoc (by PKing or GKing) until you die from your infection. After that, you immediately stand back up as a zombie inside the building before anyone has a chance to dump your body... and you continue to attack as a zed! :D<br />
<br />
The net effect is that you "paradropped" into a building as a zombie, thereby bypassing its barricades. It helps to have Free Running as a human, so you can get into heavily barricaded buildings. Also having offensive survivor skills and weapons is very useful. I think that owning an axe and possessing the Hand To Hand Combat and Axe Proficiency skills is your best bet.<br />
<br />
-------------------------<br />
<br />
summarize Extinction Tactics then from what we've got so far:<br />
<br />
Within a distributed command structure you're responsible for your own suburb Command Zone. Whereabouts are you? You could for instance start a new topic under operations, give it your suburb name, then write a situational report detailing your current target and requests for backup as well as survivor numbers and profiles of the leaders. That way the zombie hordes can move there if they're in the vicinity.<br />
<br />
Primary target is the NT you want to make your Command HQ. From what Trent Rott's been saying if they've got generators running and are always stocked up then maybe you could send out a recon squad to check the nearest factories and auto repair shops and shut those down.<br />
<br />
It all depends on your recruitment numbers for your siege and whether you've got some members who might be into the more coordinated chat squads. For those you're welcome to use Extinction Special Operations Command mailing list to organise a squad meetup and use chat to do real time recon and assaults. It's fun but needs a squad leader to organize it for your Command Zone.<br />
<br />
That's just for the elite few though, that's why it's "Special Operations", organize everyone else using X:00 and suburb target coordinates posted here on the forum and in your profile.<br />
<br />
Once the NT's taken then it's up to you to hold it as your very own Command HQ against counter attack, which is what Peddlesden and Dunell Hills Commands are attempting to do at the moment. But most of your ferals are going to just melt away so it'll be up to you and your organizational skills to keep the NT Command HQ and then spread your control into the suburb. Factories and auto repair, hospitals and PD's should all be taken down. Any barricading anywhere within your Command Zone is a criminal act under Zombie Law and Order and you should not tolerate it.<br />
<br />
Once you've cleansed the survivor resistance and suppressed their revival efforts then your Mrh? cow mobs should start dispersing. If possible get an Extinction Harmanz Tagger to remove the revive point and other graffiti. By that point you should be able to declare your suburb an official Extinction Zone and move on to the next survivor stronghold and its NT's.<br />
<br />
---------------------------<br />
<br />
If you're a human and you have the capability to kill zombies, what you really should be doing is looking through the neighborhood and finding (non-Extinction!) humans to kill or smashing generators that would otherwise be inaccessible to zombies. It's not efficient to smash barricades as a human, but it's still a better pasttime than killing cows.<br />
<br />
If the burb is so absolutely and completely dead that there are no hiding humans and no barricades, then it certainly doesn't hurt to attack the cows, but it's not generally recommended.<br />
<br />
standing in front of a horde and asking them to eat you in the name of gaining XP is only recommended if there is nothing else for the zombies to do in the burb (which is unlikely if you just got revived). Otherwise a zombie will waste all their AP killing you, when they could be doing something that would help the cause.<br />
<br />
If you find yourself alive and you don't want to be, just find a tall building and jump out the window. (This is why Free Running is a recommended skill for all zombies.)<br />
<br />
-----------------------------<br />
<br />
Like so many things, it depends on the situation. Right now, it sounds like you're in siege mode, and your priorities are different. Once an NT falls, you move into maintenance mode, wherein you sometimes have to actually expend energy to find things to do.<br />
<br />
One strong point, however, is that, even if you're in siege mode, and you have a large number of people sleeping outside, it's extremely difficult to gain ground. If you can't get into an<br />
NT, try the nearest resource building. It's likely to have a lower population and be easier to clear. With a large percentage of the zombie force sleeping in that building, you actually become a serious problem, as opposed to minor nuisance that just boils down to humans making sure all three of their dedicated barricaders are checking in regularly.<br />
<br />
Our strategies need to be flexible. The goal is to take all the NTs, but that doesn't require us to bang our heads up against an indestructible wall if it's clear that we mathematically have no chance.<br />
<br />
------------------------------<br />
<br />
<br />
ESS Policy Advisory - Standard Operating Procedure:<br />
<br />
In military orders it's generally the case that each Command is responsible for its own theatre of operations, however that is defined by Supreme Command and its delegated authority down the ranks through Commanders, Officers, NCO's and Cannon Fodder.<br />
<br />
So if you're in the SE Zone then that would be your field of operations as that is what you're already doing. Supreme Commander Dr'Brainz is ultimately responsible for Strategic Command and Extinction coordination across Malton, and also for NW Malton and so on down through the ranks to the Cannon Fodder responsible for whatever suburb Command Zone they're in.<br />
<br />
In effect everyone is a Commander, right down to the lowest ranks and youngest zombies, as everyone is responsible for their own operations and owes allegiance to a Superior Command Zone ... except for the Supreme Commander of course, who usually has to bargain one way or another with the extremely rich and powerful. <br />
<br />
----------------------<br />
<br />
Identify allied and enemy GMT attack times as we're all online at different times of the day: I also see a lot of activity around -4 GMT arvo/evening-ish? Just guessing, I'm +8 GMT. Do they co-ordinate their attacks and when's the peak activity - maybe early morn US time before work/study then sporadic through the day with peak around evening US time? -5 to -3 GMT? <br />
<br />
---------------------<br />
<br />
we need a few low level cannon fodder grunts like me to burn our AP's breaking the barricade and keeping it open and maybe take the first volley of headshots, followed by as many higher level elite Extinction troopers to go in, wreak havoc and drag the wounded out to a waiting ravenous horde ... that's so Aztec it's creepy :)<br />
<br />
And maybe some Extinction engineers to take out the generator while we're at it.<br />
<br />
--------------------<br />
<br />
psych warfare - recruitment: And yes, a good crowd outside the Bascombe but Extinction needs more recruits inside to make it a home base for Peddlesden operations. Hmmm ... who's up for a recruitment campaign amongst the PKer and zombie groups? Anyone got a list of potential forums? Voluntary standing armies stand or fall on their recruitment numbers, just ask the Pentagon.<br />
<br />
How's this for starters:<br />
<br />
Image link - [http://www.an-archos.com/wp-content/uploads/Image/extinction-needs-u.jpg http://www.an-archos.com/wp-content/uploads/Image/extinction-needs-u.jpg]<br />
<br />
---------------------<br />
<br />
Intel: Extinction Special Operations Command requests all available intel on current positions of any and all survivor and zombie DHPD in the wider Peddlesden and Dunell Hills Command Zones and adjacent suburbs.<br />
<br />
To aid this intelligence gathering could we set up an "Intel" forum for reporting enemy sightings, barricading, large DHPD and allied zombie Mrh? cow mobs and so on? An organized Intel structure is critical for any military operation. It's called "operational awareness" and is generally only limited by the organizational capacity of the practitioners and ultimately the available technology.<br />
<br />
We could also add a supplemental order and forum link to the Player Conduct Policy requiring all ranks to report any relevant info to the forum. Once the social network of informants spreads out we could [http://www.geocities.com/totalinformationawareness/ go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not]. Eventually we will need [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml total information awareness] of the entire Malton theater of operations to fulfill the goal of total zombie domination.<br />
<br />
----------------------<br />
<br />
Standing Orders is all most Extinction troops and allies need to do the mass loose coordination thing. They'll be the bulk of the army, hard to control and hard to keep focused.<br />
<br />
Boot Camp is for those who like what they've seen and want to put more effort into their gameplay.<br />
<br />
Then comes Advanced Tactics for those few who get even further into the whole idea of sieging and then defending NT's, salting the land and becoming part of the command force.<br />
<br />
Last is Special Operations Command for the elite few that might be into the real time squads where you email one another to meet up online at a certain location and time then use chat to coordinate an assault in real time.<br />
<br />
-----------------------<br />
<br />
'''E-SS Policy Advisory''' - On Classified and De-classified Information Re Special Operations Command<br />
<br />
A distinction should be made between "public" and "classified" policy. Classified information should not be disseminated publicly and represents "operational" policy, communicated in private. Public policy should be considered a function of the Extinction Psychological Warfare Department and includes all forms of public discussion such as the forums and any communication with lower level Extinction members and other allies/enemies. It's how the US executive and Military/Intelligence branches work, the same as all modern fully industrialized nations, especially in time of war.<br />
<br />
[REDACTED]<br />
<br />
== You realize this will never work, right? ==<br />
<br />
At least, not on the scale you're aiming for. I will give you(Brainz) the username and password to one of my accounts and a pat on the back if you succeed. And by succeeding, I mean to the point where Kevan will HAVE to intervene to stop the whole thing. [[User:Tryce of Thunder|Tryce of Thunder]] 01:50, 21 May 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==something you might like==<br />
[[Bookmarklets#A_monkey_with_his_finger_on_the_f5_key|"Rise Bot"]] - I figured it might be fun to piss off the "oh no, botzorz" crowd by handing out a bookmark that will work as a user configurable (if very stupid) "risebot" in almost any common browser. Maybe I have a sick sense of "fun". Note that it won't work if you the UD window is not the top window, so I don't think its compatible with Extinction Battle Control. Folks could always open a separate window / tab for using the Bookmarklet in. --[[User:Swiers|Seb_Wiers]] <small>[[Imagine]]</small> 01:54, 10 June 2007 (BST)<br />
:I improved the code a bit, so now it gives a a prompt for reps and speed, rather than having those variable hard coded. I'm also working on one that will launch a specified number of barricade attacks at a specified speed, followed by an ?in command... which I already have the code for in an older project called "ZMAZH!!!", but the bookmarklet form seems much more user friendly. --[[User:Swiers|Seb_Wiers]] <small>[[Imagine]]</small> 19:35, 12 June 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Tollyton==<br />
PLEASE don't target us. We're weak after our mall fell, and we're still establishing barricades and whatnot. Please just leave this one little suburb intact. Thank you. :) --[[User:DrBowman|DrBowman]] 21:18, 5 July 2007 (BST)<br />
:No need to plead, we're not operating anywhere near your suburb yet. At the moment we are operating from 3 corners (NW, SW and SE). Get scared once we're next door though, and we'll get around to you soon enough. [[Talk:Suggestions|&#39;]][[User:Armareum|arm]][[User_talk:Armareum|.]] 02:45, 6 July 2007 (BST)<br />
::You know, you ''could'' leave Tollyton intact, and use it as a larder - wait for people to leave Tollyton and forage. Imagine it as farmlands, a dot of green amougnst the red. You zombies need your food, and if there's nowhere safe for survivors then you'll have nothing to eat but each other! --[[User:DrBowman|DrBowman]] 18:15, 7 July 2007 (BST)<br />
:::We're called '''Extinction'''. We don't operate like other zombie groups - we don't smash and run; we don't want any survivors left. At all. And as we squeeze survivors into an ever decreasing area, the concentration will go up. There will be no such thing as farming. Once the revives stop, the survivors will drop. And we are *months* away from Tollyton. You're safe till next year. [[Talk:Suggestions|&#39;]][[User:Armareum|arm]][[User_talk:Armareum|.]] 19:49, 7 July 2007 (BST)<br />
::::Aww. Well, at least we're safe for the meantime. I don't suppose you've thought about people making new survivor accounts and abandoning them when they become zombies, thus causing loads of survivors to constantly be teleporting in, attacking a few zombies, and then succumbing? And what about people who become zombies, don't want to be, and so Z-kill? --[[User:DrBowman|DrBowman]] 12:53, 8 July 2007 (BST)<br />
:::::Newbie survivors cannot barricade, and are terrible at fighting. They are not going to be a great threat. If you mean that we cannot kill all survivors due to new ones spawning, that is correct. But that's not the point. No revives = no returning to be a survivor for any ex-survivor.<br>Survivors who resort to ZKing when zombies are hurting their own cause, except in a minority of cases (I'm not going to tell you what they are). A survivor is a larger threat to a zombie because it can deliver a headshot. ZKing means no headshot, so more AP for us to use against the remaining survivors. [[Talk:Suggestions|&#39;]][[User:Armareum|arm]][[User_talk:Armareum|.]] 03:38, 15 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Calvert Mall ==<br />
<br />
So, I hear that the semi-seige of Calvert was executed by ya'll. I wouldn't call it impressive, but I will say that ya'll chose a great time to attack. Almost no one was on. I hacked at one of you a few times and then made a B-Line for a safe house. You know what though? I hope that your aforementioned goal does come true, and that ya'll literally become so powerful that remaining survivors have to huddle together in a mall and have an epic showdown. That's what this game is about. It's about hardcore hordes and stalwart survivors. These little small seiges and stuff are nothing. So, here's to Extinction bringing the pain! (as long as LUE doesn't do it first, haha).<br />
<br />
See you at Cagier, no?<br />
<br />
--[[User:Big Bear|Big Bur]] 00:15, 15 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Not only is our timing great for attacking Calvert Mall (apparently no-one who lives in that Mall is active around the time we attack, and only about 10 or 15 over the next 6 hours), the the population in that corner of the mall was only 9 survivors the first day we attacked, and 5 the next day (today). Calvert Mall is full of clueless souls.<br>We will indeed see you at Caiger. No idea on the timescale yet (you are close the suburbs we control, yet our numbers aren't high enough yet). [[Talk:Suggestions|&#39;]][[User:Armareum|arm]][[User_talk:Armareum|.]] 03:32, 15 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Oooooooo, it sounds like a possible LUE - Extinction team-up? That would be a formidable opponent, and make for possibly the most epic battle in UD history. But yeah, I wasn't a resident at Calvert or anything, I was just passing through. I'll hopefully see you soon then. We'll be waiting...--[[User:Big Bear|Big Bur]] 06:16, 16 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::LUE would be formidable all on their own, we'd just be jumping on the bandwagon if they came around our neck of the woods. We'll probably try to invite them at some point (i.e. when we are ready), but they seem to do their own thing. See you there though. [[Talk:Suggestions|&#39;]][[User:Armareum|arm]][[User_talk:Armareum|.]] 19:45, 16 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::Right. I understand that you would just be jumping on the bandwagon, but there's no shame in that. Like I said though, this game is about epic battles. I know Caiger has lost many of it's survivors and is probably now weaker than ever, but it's important to the survivors at large anyway. I've got a serious question to ask though, but I'll post it on your user page...--[[User:Big Bear|Big Bur]] 03:17, 17 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== There is a group of 60+ zombies coming towards Caiger... ==<br />
<br />
Is that you and your team, or RRF, or someone else? Just curious.--[[User:Big Bear|Big Bur]] 04:58, 18 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Not us. [[Talk:Suggestions|&#39;]][[User:Armareum|arm]][[User_talk:Armareum|.]] 08:00, 18 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Welcome my children ==<br />
<br />
The infamous [[user:Lord Pitman|Lord Pitman]] greets all of Extinction, welcome to my home ;)--[[user:Lord Pitman|Lord Pitman]] 01:09, 11 August 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==I'm not one to gloat==<br />
But your tactic's failed. The suburbs in the NW are recovering, so your policy isn't working. --[[User:DrBowman|DrBowman]] 21:20, 8 September 2007 (BST)<br />
:What you might not have understood is that is wasn't us that was responsible for the very large block of red suburbs. They were changed to red as the survivors fled (by other groups, not Extinction). Extinction had 6 suburbs as red: Dakerstown, Roywood, Jensentown, Judgewood, Quarlesbank and Gatcombeton. After we took Calvert Mall using our X:00 attacks (with the help of many ferals), the first 4 in that list seemed to stay empty of survivors all on their own - probably due to the lack of supplies and support after Calvert Mall fell. Surprisingly, an active Caiger Mall didn't seem to help, despite it being just as close to the corner of the map. I put this down to the fact that no survivor groups are interested in Roywood, even though it has 4 NTs and with all four running would provide a large base for resistance in the NW. It's also not far to the RPs that operated near Caiger Mall.<br>We knew that LUE were coming to take down Caiger Mall, and that would be something we couldn't do on our own. 19-21 NTs arguably support Caiger Mall, and we knew it was key to take those down as quickly as possible. Due to the presence of many other zombie groups and ferals, those NTs fell quickly. Extinction newbies need brains to eat. Extinction expanded as far as was needed to find those brains. The suburbs below Molebank have few NTs, and so once they were RUINed the survivors either retreated fast, or died then retreated (few syringes to revive the dead).<br>Extinction always realised that this 'Big Push' would stop once survivor groups became stocked up and organised. We relish the fight, and hope not to relinquish any of the 'original 6'. Additionally, we have a high interest in Caiger Mall staying RUINed. Luckily, so do many other groups. Personally, I see the DMZ and the high concentration of NTs in Molebank as a threat to a gradual re-population of the area (though a coordinated strike from a coalition of survivor groups could possibly take Caiger Mall back in one go).<br />
<br />
:Also, I'm not quite sure what 'policy' you are referring to. [[Talk:Suggestions|&#39;]][[User:Armareum|arm]][[Signature Race|.]] 22:55, 8 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== The Second Big Bash ==<br />
In a show of support for [[The Second Big Bash]], I have created a infobox template for display on Group and User pages. Here is a copy of it, for use on your group's page:<br />
<br />
{{BigBash}}<br />
<br />
<nowiki>{{</nowiki>BigBash<nowiki>}}</nowiki><br />
<br />
Thanks! And enjoy some yummy [[brains]]! {{User:Ekashp/Zig}} 22:54, 4 October 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Welcome Back ==<br />
From the loyal opposition.... [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[DHPD]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 18:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Monroeville==<br />
<br />
Welcome to monroeville.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Want to add a squad? ==<br />
<br />
You should add a squad to Ravenwood Security Solutions aka Ravenwood because of sevral bad ass reasons<br />
<br />
1. we dont care if you PK<br />
2.We dont like anyone who hunts PKers<br />
3.Soon, we will have a 9 suburb location that is a PKer safe zone<br />
4.we have no real rules<br />
5. we need Pkers to be our police force to stop them "pk hunters"<br />
what do ya say? head over to [[Ravenwood]] and let us know<br />
<br />
==FUACK==<br />
<br />
Do they even exist anymore? There was no fight put up in Dakerstown, it was an absolute slaughter.<br />
<br />
Yeh FUACK are still around. They fight more guerilla style though rather than take Extinction on up front. They've been in DK since before we arrived and hang out reviving and redoing the odd barricade. You can find them [http://z11.invisionfree.com/FUACK/index.php?showforum=1 here].--[[User:Zeug|Zeug]] 09:34, 26 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== [[The Great Suburb Group Massacre]] ==<br />
<br />
{{Template:Group Active!}}<br />
<br />
== Register? ==<br />
<br />
I am trying to register on your boards, but it's totally screwed and wont let me. Can you contact me through my talk page? Thanx! {{User:DirtMan/sig}} 06:14, 8 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Wiki makeover ==<br />
<br />
Removed the old page to [[Extinction|Archive]], we needed a makeover to attract peeps attention.--[[User:Zeug|Zeug]] 06:32, 21 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Glad you said something -- the new "look" caught me by surprise. [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 19:04, 22 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Your Emissary ==<br />
<br />
I believe you guys sent some sort of Emissary to the [[http://zombette.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=150&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a Hel's Daughters Forums]]. First, is he really an Extinction member? And he seems to have forgotten the post.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 15:41, 27 September 2008 (BST)</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Department_of_Emergency_Management&diff=1274057Talk:Department of Emergency Management2008-09-15T01:43:13Z<p>Janine: /* What's with the anti-DEM sentiment? */</p>
<hr />
<div>''This talk page has an [[Talk:Department of Emergency Management/Archive|archive]]. Older posts may be moved to the archive without notice to any contributor.''<br />
<br />
== Attacks on Bigger Mortice members. ==<br />
<br />
Just to point out that our only enemies are [[Dragonhead]]. We are not pkers as such. We kill members of [[Dragonhead]] because of their crimes against us, and their crimes against the Zog of Marrinium. <br />
<br />
'''All other players and groups are safe.''' We deem it a great shame that [[Dragonhead]] seem unable to fight their own battles. Signed: [[Bigger Mortice]].--[[User:Zombiek|Zombiek]] 22:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== [[The Great Suburb Group Massacre]] ==<br />
<br />
{{Template:Group Active!}}<br />
<br />
Thanks! --{{User:Pedentic/Sig}} 03:40, 31 July 2008 (BST)<br />
:This group is active.--[[User:Father Thompson|<span style="color: Black">FT</span>]] <sup>[[MCI|<span style="color: Black">MCI</span>]]</sup> 20:30, 31 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== What's with the anti-DEM sentiment? ==<br />
<br />
I am a bystander. I have never been in a group, but I have seen the DEM around. Now, I am seeing a lot of really violent and enthusiastic anti-DEM sentiment around, and I don't really understand, so I will ask you. Why do people hate you so? {{unsigned|Orionriver|18:47, September 11, 2008}}<br />
:Various reasons. Some people don't like how some of our groups operate, some people don't like our policies, some people don't like our tools, some people think we're arrogant, and some people have simply heard a lot of crap about us that isn't true.--[[User:William Told|William Told]] 04:35, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Don't forget the respraying of barricade info with recruitment spam and insults! Oh, and this of course: "Some people don't like how some of our groups operate, some people don't like our policies, some people don't like our tools, some people think we're arrogant" --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 22:59, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Our folks are lectured never to spray over useful tags or other groups' messages, and it's been my experience that most don't do so. Usually when someone finds their tags have been sprayed over with a DEM recruitment message, the useful tag had been replaced by something inane (''P00tie wuz heer, l0lz0rz'') before our team tagged it. -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 00:04, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::I'd like to point out that there is no way for any DEM member to prove that the Revive/Entry point was sprayed before they sprayed it.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 14:11, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Agreed. Just as there is also no way for our accusers to prove any DEM member maliciously sprayed over a useful tag. So it's a push. Except lately, nothing's a push, is it? -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 17:55, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::But when you a wall with "Bill was here" sprayed on it. You automatically suspect Bill, not John. And the DEM works in assigned areas where they should '''know''' where the vital entry and revive points are. So shouldn't any DEM member who comes across such blind spraying, quickly spray it over with the correct message? It is common sense after all.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 18:10, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Lots of assumptions in the mix there: that all DEM work in assigned areas (they don't), that all DEM would intuitively know what the "correct" message would be -- that there ''is'' a "correct" message in anything but a completely subjective sense -- and even that all DEM have common sense. If you're speaking of a specific suburb or a specific DEM crew or a specific building or instance, by all means give us some details and we'll be happy to take it up with the DEMs in that area who may or may not be responsible. -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 19:04, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::So you're saying that the '''ENTIRE''' DEM is controlled by the same command structure and that the DEM doesn't work in the suburbs it claims to be working in?--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 02:43, 15 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I hope that answers your question. ;) {{unsigned|William Told|12:15, September 14, 2008}}<br />
::@ Orianriver: William Told's answer up top pretty much covers it. Any further comments in this thread are pretty much just an expansion of his last point. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 21:44, 14 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Truth ==<br />
<br />
{{UprisingFail}}<br />
<br />
<nowiki>{{UprisingFail}}</nowiki> --[[User:Blanemcc|Blanemcc]] 10:04, 14 September 2008 (BST)</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Developing_Suggestions&diff=1272937Developing Suggestions2008-09-13T17:37:35Z<p>Janine: /* Discussion (Permanent Ruin) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Suggestion Navigation}}<br />
==Developing Suggestions==<br />
''This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which '''have not yet been submitted''' and are still being worked on.''<br />
<br />
===Further Discussion===<br />
Discussion concerning this page takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Discussion_About_Talk:Suggestions|here]].<br />
Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general (including policies about it) takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Suggestion_Discussion|here]].<br />
<br />
Nothing on this page will be archived.<br />
<br />
== Please Read Before Posting ==<br />
<br />
*''Be sure to check [[Frequently Suggested#The List|The Frequently Suggested List]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots | Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]] before you post your idea.'' There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a '''dupe''', or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. '''These include [[Suggestions/RejectedNovember2005#SMG.2FMachine_Pistol|Machine Guns]] and [[Suggestions/24th-Apr-2007#Rooftops.2C_Sniper_Rifle.2C_and_Sniper_Ammo|Sniper Rifles]]'''. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.<br />
*Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.<br />
*It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.<br />
<br />
== How To Make a Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
====Format for Suggestions under development====<br />
<br />
Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header <br />
"'''[[Talk:Suggestions#Suggestions|Suggestions]]'''", paste the copied text '''above''' the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in <span style="color: red">red</span> with the details of your suggestion.<br />
<br />
<nowiki><br />
===</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion</font><nowiki>===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=~~~~<br />
|suggest_type=</nowiki><font color="red">Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_scope=</nowiki><font color="red">Who or what it applies to.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_description=</nowiki><font color="red">Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.</font><nowiki><br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion Name</font><nowiki>)====<br />
----</nowiki><br />
<br />
====Cycling Suggestions====<br />
Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit. <br />
<br />
This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the [[Talk:Suggestions/Overflow1|Overflow]]-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.<br />
<br />
If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the <nowiki>{{SNRV|X}}</nowiki> at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:1.5em"><font color="red">'''Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.'''</font></span><br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Suggestions==<br />
<br />
===Permanent Ruin===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Janine|Janine]] 17:18, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Ruin Change<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors who repair and Zombies who ruin.<br />
|suggest_description=After decaying for months on end, ruined buildings have become unrepairable. Buildings that have reached over 100 ap to repair are ruined completely. The buildings can still be barricaded as normal buildings would, but search rates and the inability to free run would remain the same.<br />
<br />
Hopefully this would spur survivors into repairing deserts and zombies into actively protecting and defending ruins.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Permanent Ruin)====<br />
I don't think permanent ruin is a good ides, all it takes is an organised group of zombies to perma-ruin the Necrotechs one at a time until it ends up like monroeville is. There's is also no balance for this zombie bonus, imagine you could perma-barricade a building, zombies would be unable to get to survivors and probably go [[On_Strike|on strike]] (again). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:31, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Unfortunately, Kamikazie is right. A big horde could travel round the city, perma ruining buildings.UPDATE: Harmanz already spend too much time moaning about ruin, this won't pass, and the brainless harmanz would have shit fit.--[[User:drawde|<span style="cursor:crosshair;color:Black">'''Drawde'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:drawde| <span style="cursor:crosshair;color: Blue">'''Talk To Me!'''</span>]] [[DORIS| <span style="cursor:crosshair;color: Black">'''DORIS'''</span>]] [[Red Rum|<span style="cursor:crosshair;color: Red">Red Rum</span>]] [[Ridleybank Resistance Front|<span style="cursor:crosshair;color: Green">Defend Ridleybonk!</span>]] [[The Know Nothings|<span style="cursor:crosshair;color: Brown">I know Nothing!</span>]]</sup> 17:36, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I must admit as a survivor I do dislike the new ruin mechanics, requiring more effort with time is fine but expecting me to not play for two days and risk death for one building is too much. I play one d/n character per city and I don't meta-game, as a survivor I try to survive so dying for a building goes against that. If there was a +100AP zombie action I'd only use it when I knew I wouldn't be back for the next few days. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:54, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A [[Eastonwood|suburb full of 100AP ruins]] is enough of a perma-ruin in itself. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 17:57, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's thinking like yours and Kamikiaze that makes those 100 ap ruined buildings in the first place. Either fix it or stop whining about it. And buildings could never be "permanently barricaded" as buildings would need to be cleared of zombies to have barricades built and those barricades couldn't be above VSB or survivors couldn't use said building.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 17:59, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Not whining, and I '''am''' fixing them. Just woke up today from a two day hibernation period. So, kindly shut up and fuck off. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 18:07, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Not repairing +100AP buildings and not repairing buildings at all are completely different scenarios, I don't tend to repair buildings that cost 50AP or more, but I do repair everything else where practical. Also, a little update for you, you can access VSB+ buildings with a little known skill called [[Free_running#List_of_Military_skills|Free Running]] --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:23, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::YOU CAN'T FREE RUN INTO RUINED BUILDINGS. DUR. Secondly, I just assume that everyone who replies on a Ruin suggestion is either whining about the mechanics, which you did by suggesting that 100 ap is already permanent, or somebody who is tired of the people whining about the mechanics.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 18:37, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Circus===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:58, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Building<br />
|suggest_scope=New addition to Malton/any new city!<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
The circus is a new building that the residents of Malton (or any city it gets put in) can visit, visitors can except to see the finest gathering of clowns, jugglers and sword swallower's this side of quarantine, in addition to these magnificent acts are terrifying new additions that transcend the very boundaries of life and death. If the show happens to unsettle you feel free to purchase one of our cuddly toys to keep you company as the night draws in! (New additions to Urban Dead have been bulleted).<br />
<br />
'''Circus'''<br />
:Large Building (2x1)<br />
:No doors: but can be barricaded. <br />
:Internal descriptions:<br />
::* Unpowered: "The big top lies in darkness, "<br />
::* Powered: "Coloured spotlights highlight the empty ring."<br />
<br />
'''Items'''<br />
:Fencing Foil<br />
:Mobile Phone<br />
:Tool box<br />
:Stuffed Animals<br />
:*Juggling Balls (novelty/unique item) (Survivors can either give their balls to another survivor or zombie, or if none are present, juggle them themselves (doesn't remove it from their inventory). Despite having 0% encumbrance, only one set of balls can be held at a time.) <br />
<br />
'''Clothes'''<br />
:Face<br />
::*A big red nose <br />
:Head<br />
::*a bright <red/green> wig<br />
::a <black> top hat<br />
:Neck<br />
::*a <polka dot> tie <br />
:Shirt<br />
::a <white/red/orange/yellow/green/blue/pink> T-shirt<br />
:jacket<br />
::a dark red waistcoat<br />
:Trousers<br />
::*a pair of baggy trousers<br />
::a pair of <black/white> trousers<br />
:Boots <br />
::*a pair of oversized shoes <br />
::a pair of <black> boots<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Circus)====<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Zombie Plant===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 19:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=balance change<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, Italian plumbers<br />
|suggest_description=I propose that after 7 days of a building being ruined, a zombified plant will grow in it and guard it against those pesky survivors. This plant will inhabit and occasionally peek out of the building's plumbing systems to chew at their meals. At higher levels of decay the plant will grow big enough to be able to spit fireballs at survivors. Their bites and fireballs will do 50 damage, so than small, meek little survivors with no body building will die in one hit, but big and muscular survivors will need two hits to die - the first one greatly weakening them, and oddly enough, reducing their height by half.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Zombie Plant)====<br />
Not unless we can find flowers which gives us fireballs to shoot at those plants. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 21:24, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I 2nd that!--[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:01, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is a great idea! (Shhhhhh! zombies come with Kuribo's Shoe as a drop down clothing item but most of us pick combat boots to be fair.)--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 21:55, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Do want. *'''Starts drooling over the plant, thus it suddenly grows larger..'''* {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 03:41, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd like to have some of those mushrooms you're on. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 07:35, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There must now be a template made! "This user supports the addition of Triffids to the game!". Someone go make it, now! -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 08:51, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Perfect! Just what the game needed to counteract all these demands for ruin nerfs. --{{User:drawde/Sig}} 12:34, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Unstable Barricades===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 10:17, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance Change.<br />
|suggest_scope=All players<br />
|suggest_description=I logged into my character in Creedy today. I had been succesfully revived after being PK'ed yesterday, so I thought I'd hunt down the guy who did it and give him a piece of my mind.<br />
<br />
So, I search the fort, and find that someone's over-barricaded the armoury. Again. This pissed me off to no end, and I thought about what could be done about it.<br />
<br />
Now, if you're making barricades out of everyday materials, there's only going to be so much you can stack before the barricade becomes unstable and a bit wobbly, eh? You try stacking office materials and make the whole thing stable.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I was thinking that perhaps if you took down a level of barricades, and the barricade was already at HeB or higher, that there would be a 10% chance of it losing two levels instead of one. After all, you can only put so much stuff there before things get wobbly from the weight and all that.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Unstable Barricades)====<br />
In other words... about a 2-2.5% increase in overall probability of taking down barricades. Sounds reasonable, although the flavor doesn't really fit well. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 10:56, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:OK then, how about ''After spending a long time in Malton, both survivors and zombies alike have caught on to the idea of taking out the support objects used in large barricades, as this may cause other objects to shift and fall as well.'' --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 12:09, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
It has never made sense to any of us zombies that it is just as hard to take down a loosely barricaded door as it is an EHB door. You expect us to believe that we can thrash a pile of rubble larger than ourselves for several AP doing damage but when it gets down to a board leaning against a door we are helpless? I like the ''idea'' of this, but the actual numbers and such may need work. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:40, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The more objects you stack against something, the more likely that you'll knock away something thats supporting something else when attacking it. --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 03:46, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Without barricades Harmanz are dead so you have to be VERY careful when tampering with them. While i think the associated logic of cades needs an overhaul and the flavour text rewritting so as to be more believable I don't actually think there is too much wrong with the actual mechanics... apart from those fu**ing indestructible doors!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:20, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:That's why I limited the bonus to HeB+ barricades. --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 03:46, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Honestmistake, [[HIPS | think outside the barricade]]!! And... if you wanna make this apply to zombies, as well, then I ''might'' be game. But barricades are the zombie's nemisis, not the survivor's. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:06, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:See the flavour text I added in response to Aeon17x's comment. --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 03:46, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
"hide in plain sight"... no thanks, i will stick to my heavily barricaded target rich areas if you don't mind. At least then if they do get in they might eat someone else and i can piss off sharpish or at wait for a revive ;) Seriously though my 2 biggest bugbears in this game are "invincible doors" and "uber freerunning". Both are essential in some respect but both help to make the game dull... sadly every suggestion to fix them has been shot down (often for very valid reasons!) At the moment barricades are little more than nuisance to an organised horde and almost insurmountable for ferals, any (even slight) alteration will either totaly screw ferals or will severly screw harmanz.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 15:42, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
The fact that your little story is about a survivor in fort creedy who got PK'd shows how silly your understanding of the game is. this suggestion, regardless of any merit in the hope of reviewing barricades that was accidently included, is obviously just you reacting to someone else's playing style that you don't like. and it has never been ironed out that barricades are a single, large stack of objects. many people, discussing it on this page, have come to one conclusion that its a series of barricades, around the whole building. thus, the zombies and survivors alike are already aiming for the sturdy parts as best they can, but its still hard work. while i do think barricades are not how they should be, this is not a solution, either in form, or in flavor. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:57, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===No Reading in the Dark===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=--[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 00:25, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Ruin Change...thing<br />
|suggest_scope=Poetry loving Survivors<br />
|suggest_description= This is a pretty small idea, so I'll get this over with. How is it we Can't see dead bodies, see graffiti, or be able to aim as good, yet we can read fine? In Dark buildings, We should not be able to read books/poetry books. It would just fit in with it better.<br />
<br />
First Suggestion, Spam me gently.<br />
(Also, If someone could get rid of the Keep/Kill thing, thanks. :p)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (No Reading in the Dark)====<br />
<br />
.....wow...I have nothing snarky to say so I am going to wait for Wan..[[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 00:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Sure, why not --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 02:04, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Good for both flavour, and a loss of the ability to gain xp in that certain way while more "protected" in a dark building. I'ed keep it.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is not a dry run for voting it is for discussion. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 02:59, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
# '''Keep''' - Makes sense to me --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}03:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
#: {{s|'''Wow''' - are you a mucking foron? Did you miss the big text that said where the votes "go"? --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:42, 12 September 2008 (BST)}} Non-Author Reply. {{unsigned|DCC|03:42, 12 September 2008 (BST)}}<br />
<br />
You expect me to flame a good idea like this? Wow, get with the program, mate. See, this is not spam. You therefore have NOTHING to worry about from us alleged "trolls"... It's the suggestion spammers who are the REAL trolls... <br />
<br />
Anywaaaaay... this is a fantastic idea. It's minor, sure, but it addresses an illogic in the game pefectly. Practically an automatic keep. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I'm curious. Does anyone still waste AP to read? I stopped after the first few months of playing. Once I realized it wasn't like Moria and the scrolls. I wanted books to summon monsters or something. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:29, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I'll read every once in a while when I don't have anything vitally important to do with my APs. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 17:43, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::it used to be advocated as a bona fide "safe" way to level up. sometime pre-dead, i remember a couple of people on Brainstock still seriously advocating reading as a way to level up! insanity. i tried it at first, and realied really quickly how utterly useless it was. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:46, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Rethinking Ruined Building Decay and Repair===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 00:05, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Change Skill Effect<br />
|suggest_scope=Ruinous Zombies, Constructive Survivors<br />
|suggest_description=Reading the discussion on [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Suggestions#Repair_One_Day.27s_Decay_for_3AP Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP] by Deyo, I thought about an alternative way ruined buildings could work that might leave both breathing and breathing-impaired sides happy: Instead of having ruined buildings require 1 AP extra to repair every day, indefinately, I propose making it cost 1 AP to repair per hour (or 0.5 per 30 min.), to a maximum of 45 AP. <br />
Now Survivor players, you're thinking, ''1 AP per hour? How unfair is this?!'' but with a limit of 45 AP the final bill would never reach astronomical heights and one lone survivor could be able to fully repair it and escape (but you couldn't really barricade it).<br />
Now Zombie players, you're thinking ''So you're basically debuffing Ransack? '' Yes and No. You read the debuff, here's the buff: because buildings will accumulate repair costs 24x quicker, you'll be able to do a lot more damage by ruining multiple buildings quickly and repeatedly. Survivors will have to work together and retake, cade and repair buildings faster to make sure they don't get overwhelmed with 45 AP ruined buildings (so, it would still take some teamwork to achieve, as only one person repairing leaves the building vulnerable to further ransackings). This will force survivors to keep an even more watchful eye out on their neighbourhoods for ruined buildings.<br />
<br />
As a side-effect, during a siege this will slow Survivor's advancement even more when regaining grounds than the old Ransack skill.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Rethinking Ruined Building Mechanics)====<br />
Another Ruin nerf? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! Stop suggesting nerfs to ruin. If survivors cared they would go and fix it instead of whining about it and trying to change it through suggestions.'''STOP SUGGESTING RUIN NERFS!'''--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 01:07, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Please explain to me how one-AP decay per hour is a nerf? Especially during sieges. --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 01:50, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Maybe the fact it only goes to 45? --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 01:53, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::It goes to 45 in '''less than 2 days''', as opposed to '''6 weeks''' with the current system. How many ruined buildings outside of ghost towns do you see with a 45 ap repair bill? I'm surprised, I was actually expecting the harmanz to be against this --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 02:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::First of all - '''THIS IS A 5 MINUTE A DAY GAME'''. Forcing players to have to log in obsessively like you do just to keep a building from reaching your ungodly 45 AP in less than 2 days is stupid. Second, the ghost towns have such high repair costs because the zombies there ACTIVELY keep survivors out, but your idea punishes them by capping the repair cost. Third, nothing in this game (except AP recharging) is BASED IN REAL TIME! The survivors can't even organize when they have DAYS to fix up a repair you expect them to be able to whip up a plan in hours? And fourth, just to be DCC you're a FAG!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::1)Who said you have to log on more than once a day? 2)Yeah and once someone repairs a building, poof! there goes months of work keeping humans out. With this suggestion, survivors might make more attempts at recovering ghost towns, but it would be almost infinitely easier for zombies to re-ruin restored buildings 3)Decay is already based in real time. My decay system could tick along with the AP system doing 0.5 AP per tick. And yeah, some buildings might get maxed AP but someone can still repair them and AP out safely. Maybe tweak it to 40 AP max if people really can't. 4)what's your point? --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 04:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Strange, in the other suggestion, you said: ''So for 1 day's worth of AP a survivor can undo a month's worth of damage and still be able to get away. '' Seems you agree with me --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 04:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Seems you can't fucking comprehend. I was bitching about a suggestion that made repairing severely ruined buildings something that could be done in less than the daily 50 AP. Exactly like this suggestion does!!! Except this one tries to be "balanced".<br />
:::::::It says, ''"Hey look, the repair costs are up to 45 AP!!! I mean 45!! That's a lot! That's almost higher than we can count!"''<br />
:::::::And the smart zombie players are saying, '' "Wow! that's still under your daily 50 AP and still less than a lot of the buildings in the NW. Go fuck yourself"''<br />
::::::This suggestion is about rushing to a reasonable cap that won't really hurt the survivors at all. Why not say the cap is 75 AP? Why does it have to be under 50? Oh wait, here's why:<br />
::::::''And yeah, some buildings might get maxed AP but '''someone can still repair them and AP out safely.''' Maybe tweak it to '''40 AP max''' if people really can't.'' (my bold) That's the part where you admit your suggestion is worthless and are just trying to make it seem like it should appeal to zombies. And if you can't see my point then take your head out of your ass and read it again slowly.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:00, 12 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::Dumb survivor repairs building alone and escapes. Zombie comes back, and ruins uncaded building again. And I said 45 ap, but it could be 40ap, or 50ap. The point is one survivor can't repair and cade at the same time--[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:15, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::I just pointed out that zombies could "win" the game by going suburb to suburb destroying every NT building, killing people with toolboxes and ruining buildings with toolboxes (unless junkyards have toolboxes) as it would quickly take a large amount of aps to repair everything. And you think this is... a debuff? Over the long term it's a debuff (if the building is ruined for more than 45 days) but we'll be able to mass-ruin everything. And I'll ask once again: how many ruined buildings in populated areas do you see with a 45+ ap repair bill? --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:22, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::: HAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow are you new to this game!! The closest anyone has come to "winning" is when The Dead (led and) inspired all the other hordes to kick the shit out of humans and get the population of survivors down to 39% (by mostly killing every mall almost simultaneously ironically) and if this ruin update had been in play then survivors would be an endangered species now. You can ask your question all you want - it doesn't mean anything. I could ask how many repaired buildings do you see in the NW. What's your point? Oh, when humans are around buildings they can fix them. Brilliant! There are buildings over 45 AP because of the dedication of zombies to keep it that way. Stop trying to change that. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
ANY LIMIT TO RUIN IS EFFECTIVELY A NERF! Keep this in mind. Also this isn't a survivor vs. zombie type of thing. Suggestions should be based on a perceived unbalanced game condition and a remedy. The only thing you suggested is nerfing ruin completely and making deserts impossible for zombies to maintain. I'll leave the rest of this argument about how lazy survivors are and why buildings get 85+ ap repair cost to Wan Yao.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 02:38, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Any limits to ruins cost is effectively a nerf, but any increase in speed of decay is also a nerf against survivors. What I'm basically proposing is changing the way Ransack works, making it a more effective short-term tactic, but less effective long-term tactic. (It seems unfair that you have to wait weeks/months to get a good amount of decay and then in a day with just a few survivors you have to start all over again, why not speed up the process) As for lazy survivors, I don't know honestly... that's why I'm asking, how many ruined buildings in populated suburbs have you seen that has a repair bill of over 45ap? --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 02:57, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Don't try to fix what ain't broken. Your super-rapid decay would create far more problems than it attempts to remedy -- and it would eliminate those awesome triple-digit ruins that a lot of us have a blast finding and repairing. NO NO NO. The whole map would start to look the same again. :( --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 05:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Perhaps Kevan could find a way to make those buildings with repair bills above 45ap unaffected by the change, or at least have their costs stay put--[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:22, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Oh noes! I just realized there's a huge flaw to this that could lead to the extinction of the harman race: Rampaging mega-hordes could ruin whole suburbs in their path and survivors would have a hard time restoring whole suburbs with factories, NT buildings down. Eventually, everything except junkyards would be ruined. <br />
But I just thought of something else: Make zombies able to ransack ruined buildings for 1 extra AP per day (max 2 AP decay/day if a zombies perform 1 ransack on the building every day). Because ransack as it is now seems underpowerd to me. Before I post yet another suggestion, anyone got any other ideas for improving ransack? I think I'll wait a little bit in case if I think of something better. Another alternative would be for the starting AP cost to repair ruined buildings to be something like 5 AP --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 05:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Holy shit! you finally said something smart! Of course, it was statistically bound to happen (1,00 monkeys typing on typewriters and all that...) ''Another alternative would be for the starting AP cost to repair ruined buildings to be something like 5 AP'' This is a good idea that would balance with the cost of ransack/ruin and doesn't have a shot in hell of passing. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''fuck the decay nerfs, already! ALL OF THEM''' and get off your ass and earn yourself one of these funky templates, you lazy whinging wankers... {{Template:ExtremeRepair}} --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:And afterwards... '''DON'T LET IT GET THAT BAD!''' Ever again.... It's your own fucking fault the NW is in such bad shape. Up the level of your game, already. Getting out of Creedy or Dowdney might be start in seeing how the game is played by the rest of us. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Who are you talking to? Anyways, 100 ap repair bills look sweet, but they take 100 days to accumulate. As soon as the humans take repairing buildings seriously, we'll probably never see 100 ap repair bills again. Not that it matters much as I now think this might be too powerful for zeds --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:30, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I'm talking to you, and ''everyone'' who keeps suggesting Decay nerfs. Also, considering that still, in spite of all this, only a handful of people are up there dealing with the problem... once we get bored, i am sure it'll be another 4 months before it's done again... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:48, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::It's not really a nerf as much as it is a modification. Both sides are going to see it as a nerf if they think that way. And how well ruined is the NW anyways? I've been playing only for a few months, never visited those places. The reason why I suggested this in the first place is because I don't think most ruined buildings will be able to decay long enough to seriously deter survivors but I could be totally wrong--[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 20:00, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::The median repair for the NW (until these assholes started suicide runs) was 45 AP with the non resource buildings easily in the high 80s. Basically, the entire NW started decaying the moment the update was applied. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::The NW was abandoned even more fully than usual post-March of the Dead. As survivors huddled in the East, moaning for zombie nerfs. The update simply reflected in concrete #s what was already happening for a long time. And, DCC's numbers are pretty accurate, I can attest to them from experience. Although, many TRPs were ruined from day one of the update and never repaired, i.e. at 80+ when the "assholes" showed up... '';)'' Showing how utterly ABANDONED the region was. And, thing is, zombie #s have been fairly low -- low enough that there was no need for it to get this bad -- for a long time. Which is why I have no sympathy for ruin whinger. None. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:29, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Sounds like, despite being able to undo weeks/months of defending a decaying building from humans in a day with a small team of suicide repairers, Ruin is still working the way it's supposed to. So my suggestion is n00bish and redundant --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 16:36, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Scavenging Version 2===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 14:40, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors.<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
<br />
Scavenging would '''''replace''''' Bargain Hunting as a Skill.<br />
<br />
'''Scavenging''' gives a +10% chance for a successful search in ANY building. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Advanced Scavenging''' (sub-skill of Scavenging)<br />
<br />
Costs: 100 points<br />
<br />
Each Powered Building has a new option to do a focused search. A building will have a drop down menu of every item you can find in it, and you can choose what you want to look for. You have a flat 5% chance to find the item. Unpowered buildings have no option at all to do a Focused Search.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Scavenging Version 2)====<br />
<br />
Still no. Give it up already. Go get drunk, or do some productive volunteer work, or something. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:43, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think it would look a little something like this: <br><br />
[[Image:Focused.jpg]]<br><br />
Shame about the high failure rates though ... --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 21:06, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Funny thing is... Those who think we're TROLLS... Go look at posts by me and DCC... Actually ''count'' the posts where we offer something constructive... And put in their correct context the non-constructive posts, i.e. we're dealing with a thoroughly retarded idea and/or people who refuse to listen to constructive criticism. The numbers might surprise and enlighten you... Then tell me: who are the ''real'' trolls??? I'm not whinging, I'm just sayin'... And... strange bedfellows, these times make... '':P'' --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:32, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I <3 my Bargain Hunting. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 00:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think even with 5% search rate it's too powerful, because if I can choose what to look for anywhere, I could hide in a lit bank where zombies rarely break into, and search for that genny or that 1 piece of equipement I need (toolbox, flak jacket, phone...). In about 20 APs chances are I will find it. So instead of running around to find the best place to get a knife, or having to travel far away from a siege to try and find a new generator, I could just use this skill and everything I need is at my disposal. (Then again isn't that how Malls work? Heh...) --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 00:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Well I was thinking you could only do a focused search for things that that building already provides and nothing else. So a Bank would never really have the option since I don't think you can find anything in them anyway. So Hospitals would only have the option to focus search for FAKS/Newspapers, PD's for guns/ammo/Radios/flak jackets/and Flare Guns.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 17:21, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::In that case, what would be the point of advanced scavenging? If I'm in a hospital searching for FAKs I'll get a better search % with the regular search than with this 5% advanced scavenging search. --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:28, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Bargain hunting only works in a powered mall block===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:34, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors in malls<br />
|suggest_description=Does what the title says. The search bonus from bargain hunting should only take effect when there is a powered generator in the mall block.<br />
<br />
Reason one: you should have a lot more light than usual to determine where to best find the supplies you need in the middle of a hundred other people in the mall.<br />
<br />
Reason two: the higher-tier skills of First Aid (Surgery) and NT Employment (NecroNet Access) both require power to use. <br />
<br />
Reason three: even without power, search rates within a mall with the current Bargain Hunting is still ridiculously high. With the reworked Bargain Hunting skill, non-powered mall search rates are in balance with other TRP search rates like in hospitals... and of course generator killing turns into serious business.<br />
<br />
By the way, props to WanYao and karek for pointing out that mall search rates need a bloody nerf.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bargain hunting only works in a powered mall block)====<br />
:shrug. malls are almost always powered and search rates take a hit without the power anyway to the point where the benefit of having power outweighs the hassle of installing a genny.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 14:07, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Yeah, most malls are powered anyway. At least the ones not under attack. I imagine this would be critical for malls under siege though, especially if the power keeps getting cut for hours. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:32, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Malls under serious siege have enough to worry about as it is. And if you have death cultists or even just parachuting CR targets, then this would actually make a big difference. It's also not logical: I can loot in the darkish just fine. And, finally, to toot my own horn... It's really only FAK search rates IMO that need nerfing. The rest is fine. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Scavenging===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:01, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors.<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
<br />
Change the name of Bargain Hunting to Scavenging.<br />
<br />
Now the skill gives a flat +10% chance for a successful search in ANY building. What item you get would still be random as normal.<br />
<br />
Sub-skill:<br />
Focused Search<br />
Costs: 100 points<br />
<br />
Each building has a new option to do a focused search. A building will have a drop down menu of every item you can find in it, and you can choose what you want to look for, but you suffer a -10% to the base chance for a successful search. So it would be as if you didn't have the Scavenging skill at all, but still take a -10% to the unmodified base chance on top of that.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Scavenging)====<br />
Bnhr. Doesn't seem bad.. Your thoughts? {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 20:27, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:So its a global 10% increase in search rates? Justification? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:36, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: Well, There's that..<br />
::It would lower the Mall search rate to +10%, but let other buildings get the same. So instead of Bargain Hunting, you're just really good at scrounging things. Would make Malls less awesome fortresses, but make other resource buildings more useful so defensive battles would be more based on keeping lots of places open instead of just the Mall always being the best spot to search. That's the idea anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 04:03, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Would this skill also buff mall searches or just searches that are in regular buildings? Any search buff that includes malls will get spammed out of existence pretty fast.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:15, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The author said ANY building. Malls normally get +25% with that skill. This suggestion CHANGES it to +10%.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 01:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
The main problem with searching other buildings is that, except for PDs, Hospitals, NecroTech, Auto Repair and Factories, all the other places are pretty useless. Granted this MAY make them more useful (supposedly a generator can be found in the power stations, but there is no proof yet and a 10% bonus might be the proof necessary), your still limited in what you can FIND to begin with. I'd suggest ADDING some items to buildings.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 01:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
So... +10% chance to find syringes in NTs? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 04:09, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yeah. +10% to find anything in an NT, but you'd have the usual random breakdown to find DNA scanners and all that stuff. But since Kevan lowers and raises those NT rates to always keep the game in balance (which is gay), it probably wont matter to much.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 04:17, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Overpowered survivor buff that negates all the randomness and uncertaintly in searching. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:22, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I guess you are referring to the focused search part. And I agree, that part will never pass. I even doubt the change of Bargain Hunting would pass. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 13:10, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
So, in the eternal quest for searching for loot, this would de-emphasize the importance of malls (no longer +25%), but make all other decent resource buildings equal (+10% to all). This may mean that there would be less people in Malls, Malls would be less special. Which might mean less mall sieges. (or not... malls have almost everything under one roof). But it would mean that survivors would have a net search % debuff, as most would probably go to malls for searches, and they'd now have 15% less search probability. Considering the ratio of human:zombies, I'd be okay with this... "Scavenging" makes more sense than "Bargain Hunting" as a realistic survivor skill anyways --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:34, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
I <3 my Bargain Hunting. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 00:11, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Expand Malton Map===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 17:52, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Map Improvement / add-on<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, Zombies<br />
|suggest_description=This would make for a lot of work on Kevan's part, but I suggest adding a suburb-sized corridor of forest to one side of the map's edge, leading to a small town or a cluster of small towns a few suburbs large. This new area would have limited resource buildings (because it's out in the country) and no NT buildings so that it would be very difficult to revive there. It would be ideal for experienced survivors willing to take on the challenge, as it would be a little bit like Monroeville only instead of permanent death you'd have to travel very far to get revived or face a long revive queue. Survivors who don't like this area or think zombies have an unfair advantage can simply stay in urban Malton.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Expand Malton Map)====<br />
<br />
As much as I like the idea of introducing elemts of the Monroeville map to Malton, I just can't see it happening this way. Besides, we already have suburb sized survivor deserts - walked around Dunell Hills lately? Plus you couldn't justify it in game - why does the city have a line of forest nest to it? And why has the barricade zone been increased? --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 19:54, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Stay outta the Hills and off my lawn, you damn kids!!! --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 17:00, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:It could be made justifiable: The quarantine walls in some places has been breached (and some sneaky zombies made it to Monroeville) so they rebuilt it, but as they were repairing they also decided to link up with a nearby village / a small cluster of nearby villages to make management easier. --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:19, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
You've been [[PR_Malton#Fallback|Fallback'd]]. Still nice idea, And starting with T:S first. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 20:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I personally think that a new section to Malton would be cool, but there isn't a need really. right now, survivors can go NE if they want a challange. zombies can go east. as for justification, something like zombies overwellming the border and pushing into the country a bit before getting stopped again.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 03:35, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This already exists. We call it the North West. Now leave Pitneybank and go be challenged!--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 09:27, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What J3D said, which is what I always say... Also, damn dupey, '''STOP SUGGESTING NEW MAPS ALREADY'''. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:24, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Oh noes! I was about to suggest reshaping Malton to the shape of a brain, to encourage more people to become zombies --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 15:22, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
I didn't know this had been suggested already. Since Monroeville might close forever I thought I'd suggest to make a part of Malton Monroeville-y. But it is true that we already have a suburb with no NT buildings, Mornington. Still, it would be fun to have a wilderness area or two to break the monotony of buildings, streets and more buildings. --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:19, 11 September (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 20:57, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New usage of existing skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors in ruined, especially long-ruined buildings.<br />
|suggest_description=A survivor with the Construction skill and a toolbox has a new action button: "Repair One Day's Decay (3AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs, and reduce the building's number of days decayed, and the AP required to repair it, by one. This option would only appear if the building has been ruined for four or more days.<br />
<br />
This gives survivors who are repairing long-ruined buildings, such as forts which have been in zombie hands for weeks, an opportunity to coordinate and distribute the AP cost of repairs, which in some cases can drive a fully-rested survivor into negative AP. This coordination is extremely time-consuming, and thus requires triple the AP that repairing the building alone would consume. Eventually, this coordination would reduce the remaining work to a job that one survivor could finish, and that survivor can simply click "Repair" to complete the repairs.<br />
<br />
This suggestion is an attempt to build consensus for or against several previously [[Undecided Suggestions]], such as [[Suggestion:20080804 Repairing Really Ruined Buildings|Repairing Really Ruined Buildings]], [[Suggestion:20080625 Ruin Repairing change|Ruin Repairing Change]], and [[Suggestion:20080729 Partial Repair|Partial Repair]].<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP)====<br />
Oh look, a survivor complaining about how hard it is to coordinate efforts among several survivors. You have clearly never played as a zombie. Zombies have to coordinate efforts all the time to just get into buildings. You don't want to spend 40+ AP to repair a building? Get off your ass and take it back sooner. Organize a better defense of it in the first place. Changing the mechanics because some players suck at the game is retarded.<br />
Let's stop pitching in Major League Baseball because not everyone can get a home run. Let's make it like T-Ball. If the game is made easier for THE MAJORITY OF THE PLAYERS that will really make it fun for the minority! --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:21, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Sometimes, when I read your replies, I wonder which game you're playing. Just a heads-up, this is the suggestion discussion area for a browser-based casual game about humans and zombies called Urban Dead. Some people have commented that survivors, despite outnumbering the zombies, have Rambo syndrome and never cooperate. This suggestion would give them an option to cooperate, though at a higher total AP cost than sacrificing one human to repair the building and then reviving him later, which requires no cooperation beyond standing at an RP and saying, "Mrh?" [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::No, Dago, this suggestion will make it easier for strafing repairs without danger to the survivors and therefore completely nerf the ruin update. You seem to forget that there is no mechanic available to a zombie to speed up the AP needed to repair a building, so ideas like this that cost low AP to undo something that only time can change are stupid and horribly unbalanced. Using your numbers - 3 AP will remove 2 APs worth of damage. So,if a survivor has 40 AP to spend that is 13 clicks which equals 26 AP. '''So for 1 day's worth of AP a survivor can undo a month's worth of damage and still be able to get away.''' And you want to make this so more than one survivor can repair a ruin like this? The current system is much better because it is all or nothing. But please whine about how I don't offer constructive criticism since you didn't bother to read any of the comments on the suggestions you are raping to make this abortion of an idea. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:30, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Again, you add racial slurs and little else to the discussion. You also have a math error there. A building costs 1 AP per day to repair, so this suggestion would triple the AP required. A survivor who happens to have maximum AP can repair a month of ruin and get away, by spending 30 AP, and would not need to click anything 13 times. Also, you are correct that you don't offer constructive criticism, you only offer rage and spite. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You have reading errors then. You posted ''"Repair One Day's Decay (2AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs'' One day's decay is not 2 AP like you posted in the suggestion. If you are saying that it triples the amount of AP needed to repair then spending 30 AP should only undo 10 AP worth of damage. This goes back to my whole point about making strafing repair runs and how it isn't fair that zombies can't undo the exact amount of damage that survivors can repair, but you seemed to have missed all that you fuckstick. (are insults better than racial slurs? I could call you a wop if you would prefer that.) You know, the only reason I add the slurs and insults is so people like you and Galaxy have something to latch onto and reply to since you obviously don't listen to reason or experience. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Congratulations! You can spot typos and swear on the internet! I'm afraid I can only fix the first, though. Thanks! [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You can't even be bothered to proof read your own suggestion? Really now. How hard would that have been? It wasn't even that far into the suggestion. It was right toward the top. The fact that you didn't read your suggestion before you posted it also tells me that you didn't think about it too much and just hit SAVE PAGE. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 17:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Maybe if survivors don't act like Rambo and actually did teamwork, this would be a non-issue. After all you only need three people tops to repair a building: one to search for gennies and fuel and install them (for dark), one to repair, and one to barricade. On the other hand it takes more than three zombies to take one EHB building with those same three survivors in it. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 00:53, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Actually, this suggestion would ''encourage'' teamwork. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Therefore, you admit that survivors don't actually do much teamwork in the first place if they have to get a massive buff for them to get their asses moving to repair all those dark buildings. Quite a sad state of affairs, isn't it? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:55, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::It is. Want to fix it? [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You do not solve social problems such as survivor laziness by changing the game's design; if you do that, all it would do is show that their laziness is perfectly fine, and that mocks all the organized effort zombie groups do just to keep your shit ruined. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 14:08, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I look forward to your suggestion on how to solve social problems. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I look forward to you making a non-crappy suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Don't hold your breath. I would miss you if you died.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:26, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bitching about how hard it is for one group and how crap the other plays is hardly constructive now is it? The main use for this would not be for survivors to co-operate (it should be but wouldn't get used in that way) instead this would enable altruistic survivors the chance to slowly fix up a ruin without leaving them self out in the open! Sadly that very fact means that this would just attract hordes of low level zergs to gradually rebuild an area with less risk of needing revives :( --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:11, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, but at a higher AP cost than repairing and reviving. It gives survivors options, but doesn't take anything away from Zombies except for APs that would otherwise be used pumping shotgun shells into them. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This isn't needed. shit, Fort Perryn was just taken back and it was ruined for a while (not as long as some buildings up north, granted). oh, and DCC: calm down.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 03:12, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Needed? Maybe not. But it makes sense, it encourages survivor cooperation, and it soaks survivor APs. All are things that both zombie and survivor players have said the game needs. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::How in the fuck is survivors cooperating something zombies need? When did any ZOMBIE player say they needed survivors to pull together? Survivors are really fucking lucky this game doesn't have perma-death and that the creator steps in to help them out when their own stupidity leads them to the brink of destruction. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:39, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::How long have you been around? Zombie players have been some of the main ones bit*hing that survivors are too damn uncoordinated, not that it would help zombies, but it would make the game funner to play. Not everything is about game-mechanics, and if there were no survivors left why would you play? Sounds to me you're putting down the game because survivors are stupid, yet are bit*hing they shoulden't be forced to be smart, like zombies are... and that my friend, is more f**ked up then any susgestion ever made.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 03:02, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::[http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=97517 I've] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Many been] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/DARIS around] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Dead awhile.] The survivors being coordinated or not does not make the zombie aspect of the game "funner". And when zombie players bitch that the survivors suck it is because instead of trying to get together and work as a team they all just suggest buffs to themselves or nerfs to zombies to solve the problem. Buffing them unfairly does not "force them to be smart". --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Remember that what is fun for you is not fun for all zombie players. Some zombie players want to do something other than turn brainz into Mrh? cows. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Enlighten me, Oh Zombie Master, what else a zombie can do in this fucking game. They can't spread zombie grafitti, play on the radio, or even hold IC conversations (since their alphabet is so fucking limited). They can't even get XP through any means other than hitting survivors (or other zombies). Other than killing what the fuck can a person that plays a zombie do? That's why it is so frustrating when assholes like you want to come along and make things harder on the few people that actually fucking play zombies in this zombie "apocalypse" game. Keep suggesting stupid shit and drive off the zed players. Then you and the rest of the dipstick survivors can have your little circle jerk in peace without those pesky undead. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::And we can have campfires and sing "Kumbaya". I'm glad to see you're keeping an open mind. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::Who said buffing them forced them to be smart? I said that a buff to save the population may be required to keep playing the game, while other zombie buffs may force (Able to kill easier is not forceful, as things take time to adjust and with survivors, no quick option is aviable to get back up that causes this lapse of time) them to be smarter, which would elimate the need for those survivor buffs to come into place. Instead of a structured and logical approach on why this is a bad idea, I.E. ''constructive critism''^(this susgestion would counteract a zombie buff designed in a way to help towards this, much better then if this system was put into place), you b*tched about how survivors have it easy. I never provided support for this susgestion and yet you seem to imply I have? In all of this you managed to accomplish hardening the authors stance against the reasoning that this susgestion would be poor in practice, and therefore paving the way for simular susgestions in the future, or turning players away due to a hostile enviroment. Congrats, *Hands Clapping*, im sure they'll put your name in a plaque, on the UD wall for your contributions here today.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:00, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Ah, the snowball argument. Classic. And I laughed heartily when you said there must be a 'buff to save the population'... got a bit of messianic streak lately? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:07, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::: I didn't say "Must", I said may be "required", by which I mean at times of rediculous peril where the game may truly end. If the population can't adapt to a change and shows signs that they won't, and the game ends, then so ends UD (At least Malton in any true form), and has us all starting from square one on a system proven to fail. A broken system can get you farther then a failed system.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:57, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::'''Standing Survivors : 14295 (61%) Standing Zombies : 9022 (39%)''' HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH SOMEBODY SAVE THE SURVIVORS! ''a buff to save the population may be required to keep playing the game'' They are in serious danger of overcrowding at the malls. <br />
:::::::::::You said I didn't offer any constructive criticism. You are wrong. It's in there. You are also ignoring the fact that he said he took this idea from 3 previous ideas which one would assume meant that he FUCKING READ the other suggestions, but since he can't even be bothered to READ HIS OWN suggestion I doubt he did. In the other suggestions there are a lot of constructive criticism and comments. I am not "hardening the author's stance" by disagreeing with him. If I am then he is a stubborn douchebag that will continue to ignore reason and just throw a temper tantrum because he thinks he is right. We have had a few of those before and we nailgunned them. <br />
:::::::::::I think we should turn newbies away from here. I think anyone that hasn't been playing UD for more than 8 months should shut the fuck up and keep their ideas to themselves. You can't contribute to the game if you haven't played the fucking game. And if you bothered to read my links above you would see my contributions to UD. They are much better than a shitty survivor buff suggestion that steals from 3 failed attempts before it.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:26, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::DCC, your a fucking prick. why do you treat this page as a place to insult and belittle others? really, i dont get it. is there actually a reason, or are you just an angry person whos missed taking their meds? i think it was decided that this suggestion sucks, and isnt needed. no need to continue to respond to everything the author says with an insult and justification as to why your right.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 04:01, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::Wow DCC, Im beginning to wonder if you can read... I said "may be required at times", not that "it is needed now", large difference, my saying susgesting when the odds are against survivors, I believe that zombies need a few more buffs as it stands, because as you pointed out the numbers are very sad. Next critism mixed in with ten insults won't do anybody any help, except piss people off and have them pull reasons out of thin air to conclude that there way is better (Note yourself in your previvous comment, you have been harped on for your chosen response, and now this has turned into a conversation on your conduct in response to this sugestion instead of on the susgestion itself, perhaps we should continue elsewhere instead of wasting space here?). As well many people read other peoples susgestions and gain there own idea, and don't use spell check (I fall into that category, as im sure you noticed from "simular" and other mistakes). Oh and I did read the links, my oldest self happens to be [http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=944459 zach016], here a bit over a year, if it would so please you to have my opinon count over your 8 month limit, I truly believe it woulden't make that much of a difference other then introduce those people of eight months on how to use the wiki at a further period of time, they would still quote old susgestions that failed and would have more time to come up with needless buffs that no one wants.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 22:09, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::::''DCC, your a fucking prick.'' That should be '''you're''' by the way, monkey. And, G-Man, I can't even keep up with your fucking mistakes. I hope some day you become bi-lingual and one of those languages is English. These become conversations about my conduct because there isn't enough in the suggestion to support so it is easier to bitch at me. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:29, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::::LOL, Coulden't come up with any actual reasons against me so you just put down my spelling/grammer? wow, you are good my friend, you are good.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 12:06, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::::: Even better, I just pasted it into microsoft word, lets see, 9 words wrong spread throughout, and one grammer mistake ("peoples"). Whats worse the spelling mistakes are not that far off and readable. Guess the tech., don't no nothin bout them der spelling and what not. I will conclude with yes, the possibility exists that there are mistakes that can bypass the system, but its apparant its readable anyway.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 12:18, 12 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::::::::::::Holy shit! You had to paste it into MS Word to figure out the mistakes? HAHAHA! Micro$oft can fix the grammar and spelling, but it can't point out the flaws in your logic. I'm still trying to figure out what you were talking about when you said there is a difference between "must have" and "required". Now that statement is a noodle scratcher!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:14, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::::::::I would have figured you would realise the "may be" before "required" had something to do with it. Guess were all wrong sometimes.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 03:08, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Quit having such a smarmy attitude and responding to everyone's comments with something that you seem to consider a comeback, Deyo. People are offering straight forward critiques of this, and all of the similar ideas. Reaching a compromise of idea's that were spammed or duped or otherwise rejected for their overall um-workability is still just an unworkable idea. The whole point of saying dupe is that what needs to be said has been said, and we don't need to hash over all the arguments all over again. its up to you to read through those and realize for yourself that it won't work, and try to come up with something actually creative or unique, otherwise you will simply be spam voted or dupe voted down. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 07:25, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Between smarmy and hateful, I'll take smarmy every time. Zombie replies to any suggestion that gives survivors any additional options have been akin to "YOU RAEPD MAI DOG!" I don't claim to understand it, so I attempt to defuse it by turning their own words against them. For example, you say that the ideas were spammed, duped, or otherwise rejected. This is untrue. The suggestions were all '''Undecided''' at the end of voting. My hope is that by making this option unattractive to all but the most organized survivor groups, it will be less offensive to the zombie players who seem to be the most vocal and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war impassioned] contributors to this wiki. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. You say this is to encourage them to work together, but really, all this does is make it so that ''individuals'' can do the damage rather than groups, as currently exists. This doesnt in any way encourage group play, it instead encourages the opposite, lone wolf stupid survivor play thats been a huge detriment to the survivor game since the dawn of UD and its that attitude that has resulted in all the nasty holocausts performed by zombies. (I know, i helped plan several of them). You have an "Us versus Them" mentality, which definately isnt going to serve you well here.<br>You have probably already noted that they have stopped discussing reasonably and started flaming you. This isnt because they are zombies and dont want the humans to get new toys, this is because you are being, to put it mildly, a stubborn intransigent nullwit. You dont see the game from both sides, and therefore have a false impression of the other side. Having been zombie fodder, zombie leader, survivor, bounty hunter, pker and specialty reviver on various alts through the years, i can tell you right off the bat that this kind of suggestion is a bad idea, not as bad as your headshot one you suggested previously, but only because that was so horrendous that it makes Cthulhu look handsome by comparison.<br>What is needed is some way for humans to work together (Current ruin does this, with one person clearing, another fixing, and more cading). This isnt to make the game more fun for zombies, but so humans such as yourself stop bitching and moaning on this page for buffs every time som e treasured area goes up the creek without a paddle, or when some large area of the city is devestated by a huge confederation of allied zombies pulling a gargantuan cloud of ferals. The other, and more important reason follows on from that: If you know how to play properly, alone or in a group, you wouldnt get in that kind of mess in the first place. The only reason you think this is needed at all is because some buildings have ruin repair costs of as much as a hundred ap at this time (Best ive seen anyway), but you dont realise that its been ages since the zombies were even there, and the only reason the costs got anywhere near that is because you guys were fucking lazy.<br>Fortunately there are some groups out there actually getting off thier arses and fixing those regions so the braindead fuckwits that make up the majority of the survivor population have a place to live when the zombies come and rape the rest of the city out from under them. Those people fixing those eareas in the city are the real heroes, not the stupid twits who it in a buiolding as the horde advances shouting our orders to barricade and whatnot.<br>This suggestion simply defies the entire concept of making survivors play better and smarter, alone or in groups, encouraging retarded recovery operations that, while they would probably work, would leave the survivor population as the bunch of gibbering morons they are now. Forcing them to play smarter, like kevan forced zombies to do, is the only way to even out the game properly. Giving one side toys because its losing doesnt make things fair, it only shores up the innat unfairness already there.<br>Ugh thats long and rambling, but it has some key points in there you should consider. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 06:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thank you for a considered and reasonable response, Grimch. Obviously, I agree with you that the game needs both methods and reasons for survivors to cooperate, but most of the suggestions I've seen to encourage, enforce, or enable cooperation have been unbalanced, overcomplicated, or both. What I had hoped to provide here was a mechanism for cooperation that was simple and balanced, allowing three survivors to do the work of one, bit by bit. You mention the 100+AP buildings in the north, and I'll admit that you've topped my record -- the worst I've seen was 86AP. Even that building would take more than five survivor-days work to repair cooperatively, whereas a single survivor could run in with max AP, repair it, and walk to a revive point two days later, where a second survivor could revive him, for a net cost of 110APs, or just over two survivor-days total. Those who vociferously decry this suggestion as a "survivor buff" don't seem to me to be looking at the hard numbers. A single survivor using this system to repair a 100+ AP building would be spending 4+ AP per day just to walk back and forth between a ruined and a barricaded building, and the remaining AP fighting back entropy two weeks at a time. That method would take four days to get the building down to a single day's repair job, for five days' total repair time. It's unrealistic to me to think that there's a survivor out there willing to spend weeks "Rambo repairing" ruined buildings. And if there is, what's the harm? If there are more than 20 buildings in such a state, they'll be decaying faster than he's repairing them. I remain unconvinced that this suggestion would lead to "vigilante repairmen". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 07:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::No, but if it leads to wasted AP, why promote it? Its a new but DUMBER way to do things. OTOH, theres a small but growing group of people who do "suicide repairs" just for fun and giggles, and they are kicking repair costs on those 80+ AP buildings back down to 1, and having fun doing it. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:58, 10 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
I '''like''' this idea, because it means that GROUPS of humans can work together to fix a building, instead of ''one'' person losing two days as an immobile stone while the building is zerged. 74 AP building... that means I'm a rock for a loooong time. Doesn't it make sense that the AP repair costs could be shared? Especially if it costs MORE AP to do distributed repair... it would be worth it if it meant the survivors could remain active. Just as a note: I play ''dual nature'', so I'm aware of the ransack-ruin drama from a zed's point of view quite intimately. [[User:Soror Repentia Azalea|Qızılbaş]] 15:53, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:You can pretty much do this right now. Again, you only need at most three people to repair any building block in the game, provided they have been emptied of zombies. What this only provides is a massive survivor buff against ruin by getting rid for a measly 3 AP to remove one ruin point while zombies wait for ''one whole day'' to achieve the same. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:00, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Mister Deyo, I suggest that you '''stop''' suggesting Survivor Buffs that nerf Ruin. Matter of fact I might suggest a new zombie skill specifically to double the ruin already in place in any building just so people stop trying to nerf ruin and darkness. Seriously buffing survivors to get them to work together is just a horrible idea. There are how many survivor groups already in place? If a survivor doesn't join a group, it's because most groups are the same. Not because they have no reason to join a group.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:11, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm not even going to bother reading any of this. Go look at my user page. Read the report I cut and pasted... And look at the last of my wiki templates... And then go earn yourself one of those triple-digit repair templates which I made for the select few of us who are working together and ''doing it'' and ''dealing with it'' -- rather than sitting on our asses in Pitneybank and whining about how hard survivors have it because of ruin. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:28, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Wan, I'll give you the cliff notes: Stupid idea, pointing out the reasons, author ignores them and reacts with a smarmy attitude, I call a lot of people "fucksticks" or whatever the word du jour is, People rail against me for "being mean", and a lot of people get butthurt. You know, the usual.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:29, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Loot dead bodys===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 03:02, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=People how like to steal.<br />
|suggest_description=Looting dead bodys is pretty self explantory. This would be a 100 XP skill that allows you to loot from peoples dead bodys with a 20% succes rate. When you loot a dead body you dont know what you will get, so you could get a genrator to a baseball bat. I will go into more detail if this idea is well accepted.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Loot dead bodys)====<br />
Looting dead bodies = trading. And that one's been spammed and duped so many times it's in the do-not-suggest list. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 03:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
except for the fact about wastin alot of AP, and not knowing what your goint to get. Yes it is like trading :[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 03:59, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is a [[Suggestion:20080310 Unzergable Lootin'|dupe]], probably more than one. Taking items from people is a bad thing (and if it's magically conjured items looted from bodies, that's bad as well and likely a dupe too). --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 04:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Don't be lazy. Its obvious you think this is going to tank if you'll "go into more detail if this idea is well accepted". This isn't even a dupe since there is hardly anything IN the suggestion to dupe. From what I can tell, your suggesting that a single dead body of any level, regardless of the corpse's actual equipment, becomes an instant reservoir of unlimited equipment of any type. The fact it is 20% and "you don't know what you get" is irrelevant. This, as I read it, would make a single zerge (level 1 corpse) a perma-search item.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Dupe-o--bloody-rific and utterly spam-o-fucking-licious. Nequa, please just read and comment on other peoples' suggestions and comments for about a month -- at least! -- before suggesting anything more of your own. Seriously. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:33, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A. "'''Scope:''' People how like to steal." What?? <br />
B. Can I loot ''any'' dead body, or only my zerg alts?<br />
C. Can we tack on a way to also have sex with dead bodies? --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 15:57, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Improve the Banks===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 23:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Add to Bank.<br />
|suggest_scope=All people how enter a bank.<br />
|suggest_description=I belive banks need a improvement becuase of how usless they are. The only good thing I can think about them is becuase they are so useless no zombie would go near it, and it would make a good hiding place. But the problem is what good could a bank be in a place like Malton. The only iteam I could think about finding there would be a pistol and clip becuase of securtity guards. So if not iteams why not something else?<br />
<br />
What is a bank if not a big place to safly guard your valuables? Why not allow the bank to be more heavly barricaded or use the vault? This is still a rough idea, which is why I am talking here. Now, allow me to address two problems I can see with my idea. One is why you would even want to have a extra lelvel of barricades or a vault, the bank does not have anything. And the other being that you should not mess with the barricades, to those people look here [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/PR_Buildings:_Multiple_Types]]. and then go to "Max Cades Varies by Building Type" sujestion.<br />
<br />
As I said, this is still a rough idea and I would like inmput, and not just "this wont work so shut up".<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bank improvment)====<br />
Don't banks go dark? If so why isn't that defensive buff enough?--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:16, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure the bank description says the vaults are already looted empty. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:24, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
"The vault lies open, its contents either looted or transferred." thats what the text is. They make great forward bases and safe houses so they are fine as they are. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 01:31, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I meant using the vaults as a defensive measure, any way banks are useless.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 01:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:They make great safehouses for PKers. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:46, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Okay go look at the 2-10 player sized groups. They thrive in banks. As a defensive measure they would be useless to begin with, as entry points, safe houses and lit, they keep zombie hordes down enough.[[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 02:17, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
True, but that is really it. You dont get anything from the bank or find any purpose for it execpt from what you already said, I just want banks to contribute to Malton in a bigger way.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 01:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The same can be said for wastelands. You think we should plant flowers in them? I'm all for multi-colored wastelands... pink is nice... --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:05, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We need flowers for wastlands dude, there a eye sore. But sersouly, ther is a diffrence between a wastland and a bank.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yeah, banks make great safehouses. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:35, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
It appears this is a bad Suggestion, so I will think of a new one.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Dupe-o-rific. And, some buildings are useless. Not everything is a TRP. This is a ''good'' thing. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:49, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A FUCKING MEN! Next thing these assholes will suggest will be clips and ammo found in the street.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::They can be, you just have a horrible horrible search rate for them though. Ive found a shotgun shell and a flare gun. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 05:13, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::My Monroe PKer accidentally searched the street and found ''a rusty knife''. I took especial joy in shanking people with it, and with luck they got tetanus. <tt>:></tt> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 02:32, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Maybe a powered bank will "close" the vault for ? hours a day (Random times), and anyone entering the bank can't enter the vault during this time, but can destroy the generator. If the Generator is destroyed the locks are once again unpowered and the vault opens up. Entering the vault costs 1AP and is treated as a seperate room (Outside cannot be seen, and it must be exited for 1AP before movement once again). No-one can leave the vault while it is locked and the vault cannot be entered if the building is ruined (Treated as one building once again, with anyone inside "pushed" out.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 22:00, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Switch FAK search rates between Hospitals and Malls===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=search rate adjustment for First Aid Kits. <br />
|suggest_scope=survivors<br />
|suggest_description=''I can't find this in PR or Undecided, I looked. But if someone can find the dupe, please do.''<br />
<br />
'''The suggestion:''' Reverse the search rates for First Aid Kits in Hospital and Malls, i.e. make it easier to find FAKs in Hospitals and harder in Malls. <br />
<br />
'''The rationale:''' Pretty self-explanatory, I think. Hospitals should be the easiest place to find/jury rig first aid kits. Not malls. This would also be a nerf to mall-centric play, which I don't think is a bad thing at all. But it's a highly logical nerf, and far from unbalanced or game-breaking. <br />
<br />
'''Extra details:''' As it is, you have about a 50% chance of finding a FAK in a drugstore. In a hospital, I'd guestimate it's about 20% (I might tally my stats and see... others' experiences would be useful, too). Perhaps an ''exact'' reversal isn't in order: say 25-30% in Malls, 40-45% in Hospitals, something like that. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Switch FAKs search rates between Hospitals and Malls)====<br />
<br />
No to exact reversal, yes to your suggested percentages. That is because there are one hell of a lot of hospitals compared to mall squares. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 14:32, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We could apply the same logic to police departments and forts, in that they should have higher search rates for firearms and ammo there than malls. Not that I'm totally against your suggestion, but the way the game is designed it strikes me that Kevan intentionally made malls as the ultimate stronghold and as such they have the highest search rates for most items in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:33, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Police Stations don't keep ammo lying around. It is actually a bad idea to have excessive weapons and ammo stored where you are holding prisoners. Wal-Mart has more weapons in the sporting section than my local police station. Police Depts. have armories and firing ranges to keep weapons. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 22:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Hospitals don't keep stockpiles of first aid kits, too (or at least here they don't). The fact that there aren't any ready-made FAKs and you have to build one in a hospital reflects that. And going by supply and demand the one which is filled up with all sorts of supplies would still be the malls, and that's why they have much higher search rates for everything than all other TRPs. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:28, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: Malls would have First Aid Kits lying around in a drug store during the zombie apocalypse, Hospitals tend not to keep First Aid kits stockpiled.. If any at all, Perhaps a few.. A local sports store has far too many guns in plain sight right beside the doors. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 04:51, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::: Even if you think of FAKs are mostly badages and tape and some ointment... and I think of them as somewhat more complicated than that... Hospitals have TONS of this stuff stashed around. TONS of it. Everywhere. Moreover, they have all kinds of other medical supplies that you'd use in reality in dealing with the serious injuries that zombies cause: scissors, scalpels, sutures and needles, etc. etc. No, I just can't buy that you'd be able to get such a plethora of medical supplies in a Mall, but not in a hospital. It just makes no sense. And... Mall drugstores are overpowered. Period. 50% find rates for the second most powerful pro-survivor item in the game is just outrageous IMNSHO. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Utility != economics. Hospitals might need those materials the most, but since malls still face the greatest demand for everything it naturally follows that they will have the greatest supplies for everything. And no, mall drugstores aren't overpowered when you consider 50% of the zombie population tend to congregate within a few blocks of one. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You're whole view on this is based on cyclic thinking and is confusing cause and effect. If the malls weren't so resource independent they wouldn't need as many resources, just look at the Mall-Necrotech relationship. Right now malls are making hospitals, which are meant to be a major building, all but useless. That leads to a very simple truth, malls give FAKs too freely. Malls are too resource intensive and it's causing them to be too central to the game, zombies are near malls because all the survivors are in malls, all the survivors are in malls because they get freakishly good find rates in them. Claiming that you don't weaken that because of the thing it causes is completely backwards.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:26, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::karek pretty much hit it right on the head there. in other words, malls are overpowered. and i feel the freakish search rates for FAKs are primary to that. meanwhile, find me a shopping mall that specialises in selling the man on the street medical supplies over consumer goods, and i'll drop this suggestion and revive all my zombies and use proxies to gather all my alts in Caiger and NEVER leave. CAIGAR 4 EVAR!!! --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I agree with Wan Yuo, since it is a hospital of course you would be more likely to find a FAK there, and anyway Malls have alot of other stuff you can gain there.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 16:10, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Uhm, it's "Yao", not "Yuo"... It's a lame old joke alias, but it's still my alias, and it means something... Anyhooo... <br />
<br />
Cop shops are not armouries -- but gun stores in US malls practically are. So I don't really see a need to change that. You might disagree, but, c'est la vie. (And, yes, Malton is in the UK, but the city is a mix of the UK and US, it's not really one or the other in practice... so please don't go ''there''... please.) Perhaps search rates in Fort Armouries need to be boosted, but this suggestion is not addressing that... And, yes, malls are supposed to be strongholds -- however, I think the 50% search rate for FAKs is absurd. Especially when it's so hard to find FAKs in Hospitals, by comparison. And, even if you nerfed search rates in Malls -- even hypothetically across the board -- they are still going to be "fortresses" by virtue of being "one-stop-shopping" places -- you can get everything you need at a mall other than syringes. That ''alone'' makes them very powerful... I, however, appreciate Whitehouse's comments about the fact that are more Hospitals than Malls, and the modified search rates ought to reflect that. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then surgery becomes OMGMEGA-SUPER-GODLY. Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls. If it weren't for that I would support this, I don't think that this would change where people get FAKs from though which would mean it would just be a slight nerf to Malls and a big buff to Hospitals.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
First of, sorry for mispelling your name Yao, and also you dont need a 50% chance for the hospital but maybe like 40%, or something that makes the hospitals be just as good as finding FAKs in the mall.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:29, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Surgery]].--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:47, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I am well aware of what Surgery does. This is how likley you can find a FAK in a hospital and a mall drug store, from the wiki:Mall Drugstores (20%/34%), Hospitals (14%),. If they even made it 25 percent I would love it. [[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:''"Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls"'' -- Well, maybe Surgery ought to be more than just "a little" better in a Hospital. I mean we're dealing with ''Surgery''... in a ''hospital''... come on! And to AHLG below, I don't want Hospitals buffed without Malls being nerfed at the same time. That's kind of the point... Also, I did search for a dupe, but couldn't find one... maybe someone else will? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:01, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The problem with that is that healing is already the most efficient thing in the game, even without surgery, with Surgery it's more efficient, buff surgery and it makes barricades look like a joke(surgery already does 10:1 vs zombie claws). The fix would have to be in weakening something unless you start buffing the ability to do damage.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I would agree with a small percentage increase in hospitals. But check for a dupe. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:19, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd support this as well. Malls need to be reworked a bit. The percentages are too high to warrant going any where else in the game for supply purposes. But I'd also support people who use the word "Glock" to describe their pistols have them blow up upon first use.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 23:38, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Did you take Bargain Hunting into consideration? It is MORE than just a percentage switch. Hospitals also have newspapers where as Bargain Hunting automatically precludes such a find. A FAK in a hospital has a base 14% find, while the FAK in the mall has a base 20%. +14% if you have bargain hunting. This is according to the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Useful_Items#First_Aid_Kit wiki (First Aid Kit)]. So which percentage is being switched? If is the base, then the hospital will be 20% and the mall will be 14%/28%. If it is the max, the hospital would be 34%, the mall would be 14%/28% (presuming Bargain Hunting). And, again, what about newspapers?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:21, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:In actual fact, Mall search rates for a skilled Shopper are around 50%, or very close. And in a Hospital, a bit more than 14%, but not by much. Those stats on the Items page are grossly out of date and inaccurate. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also... honestly, I don't know what you're getting at with all those numbers ... they don't make sense. FAK find rates in Malls would get nerfed, and %ages in Hospitals buffed. This would ''not'' affect the %ages for anything else, there is no connection. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:03, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::What do you mean "no connection"? Yeah, I'm sure they are out of date, but they are intended to illustrate a point. Did you even check the link? The reason FAK find rates are so high in malls is because of the shopper skills. But the shopper skills do MORE than just buff the search. The also negate the search for useless items (ie. newspapers). Searching for a FAK in a hospital maybe be higher, with this suggestion, but you STILL find newspapers. Which you DON'T find in malls. So, again, why are you not taking into consideration the mall skills or newspapers?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 03:31, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Probably because you're misunderstanding what they represent. Not finding spam items doesn't mean the search rate is better for FAKs(what you want to find) it means that the search rate for what you don't want to find is dropped to 0. The only effect that would have is reducing encumbrance, which is already done by being checking it in your profile so you don't have to waste the IP hit dropping it. That there is no connection would be about right, buffing the search rate would still mean you're finding two FAKs in 3 AP even if that third AP digs up a newspaper every once in a while.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:16, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Pesatyel, what you're saying makes no sense. And the link you provided is irrelevant. Say in 12 searches right now you find 1 FAK and one newspaper. If I double FAK search rates... now, I find 2 FAKs and 1 newspaper in 12 searches. ''There is no connection'' between the two different items: the latter is totally unaffected by the former. Also, you don't find newspapers in Malls. Drug stores are spam-free FAKtories... And, the full set of Mall Skillz allows you (for 200 measly XP) to search these spam-free FAKtories at almost a 50% success rate -- a search rate totally unparallelled anywhere else in the game -- and an unparallelled find %age for ''the second most powerful pro-survivor item'' in game, after NT syringes. <br />
<br />
::::'''Q.E.D.''' - In. Need. Of. Fixing. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:48, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I do think FAKs in hospitals need a buff but i am not certain of these numbers... lowering the find rate for malls so it tops out at about 30% would be good (sure the drugstore has pain killers and elastoplast but wide specrum anti-biotics and morphine? I think not!) Rather than a straight buff to the hospital search rates i would rather see the "medical" classes able to build Faks much like syringe creation. Searching already says something like "you gather supplies" so why not make it possible for those with a few pre-req skills choose to build those kits with some certainty (at a cost comparable to the Malls find rate) I would suggest 5AP for anyone with 1st aid and possible 4AP for anyone with a new skill :trauma nurse or some such! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:26, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Not a bad idea, but the proliferation of hospitals would mean an already prevelant item would become even more so. Malls are difficult to hold, hence benefits are found there. Drop the search rate in malls to closer to 30% and make surgery a 20hp hit, making holding a powered hospital useful, rather than powering one, hording FAKs and bailing.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:46, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Bloodletting===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}02:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=PKer buff.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors. PKers, mostly.<br />
|suggest_description=Update revivification syringes to allow for self-targeting. If used on yourself while infected, it becomes a "virus syringe," essentially transforming the item within your inventory. "Virus syringes" cannot be found or made except by infected individuals using revivification syringes on themselves. Like a normal syringe, they have a 2% encumbrance.<br />
<br />
If used on a survivor, there's an X percent chance that this new "virus syringe" will deal 1 HP damage to the survivor and infect the survivor, and a 100-X percent chance that the virus syringe will do nothing. X is the current HP of the PKer. "Virus syringes" do nothing against zombies.<br />
<br />
As it is highly corrosive to glass, the virus will eat through the syringe in a matter of hours. Therefore, "virus syringes" are removed from an inventory after 6 hours of existing.<br />
<br />
...Because bioterrorism is an inherent part of the genre, and because it might entertain some PKers (and thus keep them from actual killing). Yes, the central idea is that the syringe is emptied outside your body, then you draw out your own blood, which contains the infection.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bloodletting)====<br />
<br />
I really wish I could be "constructive"... but this is just too retarded to comment on. Would you like some spam with that cheese, sir? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:11, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:No, sir, nor did I want that frosty. "Retarded" is happily synonymous with "belated," so I'll assume you mean this suggestion is just a little behind its time. Speaking of which, some old-fashioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Logs Lincoln logs] might help with your construction problem. Spend a few hours with those and let your dad back on his computer, okay? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}04:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Survivor infecting other survivors is a dupe, I'm fairly sure. It would be more greify than tactically useful for a PKer / death cultist, which is why (iirc) it wasn't worth keeping. Also, if you want to infect somebody, I fancy that axe you've been splitting infected zombie skulls (or the knife you just pulled from the guts of an infected survivor) would do the job rather as well as a syringe. So if infections COULD be spread that way, pretty much every sharp weapon in Malton would spread them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:23, 6 September 2008 (BST) ''edit- also, if the infection were so corrosive, every blood stained weapon or piece f clothing in the city would crumble to dust. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)''<br />
:It is a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I'd been considering [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofluoric_acid hydrofluoric acid] for that, which wouldn't damage polyester clothes, although I am not a chemist. And blood-stained weapons tend to degrade in real life, hence the NRA's preoccupation with gun cleaning. That aside, do you think (at least) that the X% likelihood is an interesting mechanic that might be able to contribute to gameplay in some other fashion?--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}00:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
PKing may be part of the game, but it does NOT need any emphasis. The game is, primarily, about survivors and zombies fighting each other with some PKing thrown in, NOT about PKing with some zombies thrown in.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I must agree with Pesatyel, this game is mainly about the Living VS Undead... with the abnormal ones mixing it up to make it more interesting (just like in reality). Emphasizing PKing just doesn't fit in well with me (although I really should ''"get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit"'' to quote Wanyao). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Ehh, when I PK, I prefer "Bang. BANG BANG." And the kill is done. The idea would be something I would never use, and as Swiers stated, it's more useful for greifers then PKers like me.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::K-B, I was referring to your comments, somewhere, which alluded to "pro-zombies" and "pro-survivors" as these inimical factions at each others' throats. That's an illusion, and a destructive one at that: most players play both sides, even if some do tend to focus more on one than the other... And most people judge suggestions on the basis of merit, not simply whether they help their "side". For example, this suggestion would be a giant-sized buff for my death cultists -- but that doesn't mean I support it... because it's just a griefing tool, and little more. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Does it grief more than, for instance, one of your death cultists outright killing someone? PKing '''is''' griefing, because survivors only ever want to be killed if they're feeding the hungry n00b zed masses. Sure, I can see survivors getting annoyed by being infected by a PKer, but it would be less aggravating than having to spend AP hunting a revive (which costs more AP than a FAK). Thank you for your constructive criticism. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
NEEDLE SHARING IS NEVER SAFE! THIS SUGGESTION SPREADS HEPATITIS Z! Not to mention it's stupid as fuck and so out of genre gameplay here. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:If you consider "fuck" stupid, does that means I can apply for a timeshare with your girlfriend? Although, for reference, I invite you to check out how the Fantastic Four were infected in ''Marvel Zombies''. Or talk to me on my talk page and I'll happily spoil it for you.--{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::You see, this is what I am on about. I call your suggestion stupid and make a bad pun. You make a personal slur against my girlfriend. Then you bring up a comic book that isn't a survival horror comic, but just a zombie alternate universe. Yet you are still going to bitch about what I said even though you are the one making this personal. Get fucked and stop suggesting things. There that was personal. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:32, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Marvel Zombies'' isn't a zombie alternate universe. The scene in question within the comic is not dependent upon any of the fantastical elements of the Marvel universe. I understand that you're unhappy that you unsuccessfully trolled for lols with 'NEEDLE SHARING IS...HEPATITIS Z,' so my deconstruction of your single-cheeked argument is just rubbing salt in the wound. But please, don't take it personally. I don't object to you, just your casual use of expletives. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::''An alternate reality in which mutants are turned into flesh eating zombies, set on Earth-2149. In the end of the series, The Zombies eat Zombie Silver Surfer and get infused with the power cosmic.'' SPOILER ALERT! You are right. I didn't get as many "lulz" as your initial suggestion did. You bested me, good sir! I didn't add more than a quick comment because why would I need to repeat all of the other reasons that your suggestion is bad? Oh right, because you are a fucking retard. I forgot. And as far as my use of "expletives" that's a really bad argument seeing that this wiki is international and what is an expletive to you might not be one to me, you bloody cunt. And for the record, you couldn't handle [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Katthew MY GIRLFRIEND]--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:38, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::The only criticism you offered was saying that this suggestion is out-of-genre. That could've been done in six words, possibly fewer, without wasting your precious time with your, erm, "pun." And, moreover, you haven't yet discussed (or apparently thought about) that criticism, instead just quoting Comiczine where your own knowledge failed you. While I usually try to use the same profanity standards as the game, I take special exception with poor or improper use of words such as "fuck," as such tends to cause them to eventually lose their meaning. You, sir, are killing the English language. And for the record, I wouldn't want to handle your girlfriend. Ability is not equivalent to desire. --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:47, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Wait wait wait.. this stick is up your ass because I said more than "this is out of genre" and I called your idea stupid? You're all butthurt because I didn't like your idea and therefore by extension you? You resorted to personal attacks and some faggy rant about a shitty comic because I didn't come all over myself with joy at you sharing this EARTH SHATTERINGLY NEW (dupe) IDEA WITH THE UNWORTHY ?!?! Go cry more, you shit stain.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:03, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Calm down. Pop some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laxative pills], you're wound too tight. Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic) thought that zombification was a positive evolutionary step, so he injected Susan Storm (The Invisible Woman), Johnny Storm (The Human Torch) and Ben Grimm (The Thing) with the zombie virus from that universe. After they turned, they infected him by eating parts of him. So, as there exists commonly-accepted (''Marvel Zombies'' was very successful) prior art for my suggestion, it's in-genre. And if this rant sounds faggy, it's because I'm bisexual. And I'm annoyed that you keep dragging this discussion off-topic because you're incapable of supporting your argument. --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::Oh wait a minute! You are the guy that suggested '''horses'''. I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to comment on this suggestion. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I has plastic syringes. Gawd. Oh, I forgot the part were I wake up when you starting moving and poking me, and I kick your ass.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 00:02, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What about the part where zombies you are poking with a syringe do NOT wake up and kick... er, EAT your ass? {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Recharging AP != sleeping. You might as well object to zombies not reacting to a knife or a shotgun, or humans not reacting to being clawed. It's how the game works. We've been over this before. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:50, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Exhausted, you can go no further.'' That pretty much sounds like you are going to sleep to me. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:17, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::So having 0 AP = Sleeping. But Recharging AP != Sleeping. Because I could play the game without ever having to see that message, provided I logged out with at least 1 AP. These arguments have been made before. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
This has been suggested before. It's a bad idea, and encourages out-of-character play - ie survivors deliberately seeking infection and wasting syringes. Also, and I've said this before, there is a very easy way to harm someone with a hypodermic syringe. Empty out whatever's in it, fill it with air, and inject the victim to induce a potentially fatal gas embolism. Too overpowered to be considered in UD though. --[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 23:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's true, it was made for PKing. Thanks for the point about embolisms, I'd forgotten about them. Do you have any thoughts on the X% hit likelihood as a possible mechanic for a later suggestion? --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Latent Infection===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies, their victims.<br />
|suggest_description=''After countless days of fending off the zombies, Malton's best and brightest have discovered an entirely new strain of the virus that the zombies have been using to infect their victims.''<br />
<br />
''Called the Sleeper strain, it typically has an incubation period of 6 hours before it becomes active, rapidly spreading through the victim's circulatory system, degrading living tissue at an alarming speed. The incubation period can be extended if the victim remains motionless, however.''<br />
<br />
''This new strain has proven to be almost completely immune to all forms of medicine when it is in its incubation period, however the virus seems to be easier to eradicate once it has 'awakened'. It can still resist medicine half of the time, however with surgery the virus can be always removed.''<br />
<br />
''Unfortunately, due to it's long incubation period, carriers of the virus often are not aware of when they have become infected until the virus begins to attack them. However, if the victim then gets bitten by a zombie with the more common strain of the virus, the Sleeper strain acts like an antibody, preventing the more common strain from taking hold.''<br />
<br />
New skill: Latent Infection<br />
<br />
Subskill of: Infection<br />
<br />
Abilities:<br />
* Takes 6 hours to kick in.<br />
* Causes 2 damage per AP.<br />
* Does not stack with standard Infection.<br />
* 5% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd during incubation period.<br />
* 50% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd when 'awakened'.<br />
* 100% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd by 'Surgery' in powered hospital.<br />
* Kicks in upon first movement after 6 hour incubation period.<br />
* Victim not told of infection until it 'awakens'.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Latent Infection)====<br />
in all this time have you ever even read the frequently suggested and D&DN pages? this is a dupey infection buff, the likes of which we've seen a bazillion times, and it has nothing special or redeeming about it except for a vry pointless 6 hour delay. such a delay is a) out of genre game-mechanically because time is abstract in UD b) griefs newbies c) griefs everyone who logs in only once a day d) it's overpowered -- zombies kill best by killing, and where they are weak, deal with that, instead. <br />
<br />
i'm also sure someone will be less lazy and find about 30 dupes for this. please... GIVE IT UP ALREADY, blake. go design your own game, print up the rules, get together with some friends over dice and doritos. and give ''us'' a break. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:38, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's... Urghh, it just over complicates a part of the game which doesn't need it, and is a huge buff to zombies. I'm a zombie player, but I don't like things like this. Just do what WanYao said and read the [[Frequently Suggested]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]]. Seriously, just commit them to memory.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd vote keep. And ignore the Hive Mind Kool-Aid Drinkers, Blake. The D&DN page is for wimps.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 13:38, 7 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
After three years they just now find an infection that incubates in 6 hours? somehow, that doesn't quite add up right in my mind. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 00:06, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:50, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance Change<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Ankle Grab<br />
|suggest_description='''The cost to stand up after a [[Zombie Hunter skills|Headshot]] is 15AP, whether or not the target has the [[Zombie Skills|Ankle Grab]] skill.'''<br />
<br />
This suggestion is somewhat slanted toward a Monroeville survivor's perspective.<br />
<br />
In Malton, the survivor's best chance for survival is to find a location which zombies are not currently massing to attack. The only time attacking is a viable option is when zombies are already inside a strategic building, and the survivor wants to repair the structure. Even [[Trenchcoater|Trenchcoaters]] know that when the zeds open the doors, it's time to run.<br />
<br />
In Monroeville, there is never a time when attacking is the best choice. If zombies are near, the survivor runs or the survivor dies. Attacking, even with a massive numeric advantage, is ultimately suicide.<br />
<br />
Currently, a Headshot costs a zombie 6AP, or 15AP if it doesn't have the Ankle Grab skill. To kill a 50HP unarmored zombie costs a minimum of 8AP: Three to find three shotguns loaded with five shells total, and five to bring down the zombie. A more typical number would be 24 -- 6 to find a pistol and two clips, and 18 to fire the pistol at the zombie 16 times, reloading twice, with a 65% hit rate. This means that by purchasing four skills, with seven additional skills required to reach level ten, a survivor can spend 24 AP to take 6AP from a zombie who has purchased two skills.<br />
<br />
If the AP cost to stand up from a Headshot were 15 ''regardless'' of the Ankle Grab skill, the ratio would go from 4:1 to almost 3:2, still strongly favoring the zombie, but making offense a viable tactic in Malton. In Monroeville, the few who remain might actually come out and play once in a while, instead of running like hell when one zombie gets within a block.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab)====<br />
Sure. I just fear its too late. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:59, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
You understand nothing of this game. The AP balance on barricades is 4-1 in favour of survivors at best. Add to that the fact that it takes 35-40 AP for a zombie to kill a survivor, only for the victim to get a revive for 10 AP and the cost of the syringe search. Then factor in that any survivor who isn't killed straight away can be saved with a simple FAK. I could go on and on about this, but in reality I said all that was needed in the first sentence. And seriously people, stop whining about fucking Monroeville. It's a temporary city which is going to be shut down, which makes it entirely irrelevant when discussing the mechanics of Urban Dead as a game. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 20:04, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:"and the cost of the syringe search". I love how you abstract away about 10-15 APs and call it "balanced". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And that only turns out to 20-25 AP, even if you factor in the syringe search. we could keep on discussing the maths of this, but Grim did it for us a few months back: read his rant on the [[User:Grim_s/Rants/Revival_Imbalance|revive imbalance]]. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 05:14, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Total Zombie AP spent (Including recovering from kills by Humans, thank you for padding your numbers): 483. Total Human AP spent: 322. Ratio: 3/2, compared to 4/1 for survivors headshotting zombies. Zombies win, again, by whining louder than the humans. I thought you were supposed to moan. In any event, thank you for showing us the math that proves that zombies have a massive combat AP advantage. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 17:30, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You really haven't grasped this game at all. Allow me to explain: This is a game of 'classes' in which zombies are designed to kill whilst survivors are designed to, get this '''survive'''! Therefore zombies are the attacking class and survivors are the defending class. What a shock to absolutely no-one with a modicum of intellect then that zombies get a combat advantage whilst survivors get a defensive advantage. The greatest 'weapons' that survivors have in this game are revivification syringes, first aid kits and barricades, so whilst it may not appeal to your BOOM! HEADSHOT! masturbation fantasies to have killing zombies be far less important than barricading buildings, healing and reviving, that's the way the game works. Your job is to survive. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 08:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Revivification syringes mean that survivors can go on the offensive, which nulls your given simplification. If each survivor revived two zombies and then died, the game would slowly progress to the survivor side of things. And that's with no barricading or defensive gameplay necessary.--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::That's a byproduct of design and one forced by the nature of the game rather than intent. The only way to make combat revives impossible would be to make revives themselves impossible. As such the existence of combat revives in no way undermines the identification of the offensive-defensive class dynamic. Zombie skills are all created with a view to creating damage, whilst survivor skills are designed for preventing or undoing it; yes, that's right, even the combat skills for survivors are about that. They're there to clear zombies out of buildings and allow those buildings to be secured, not to 'kill' the zombies. The sooner people realise that the sooner they'll start enjoying their game, just as I do with all my characters. Oh and your combat revive scenario neglects to consider death culting and window-diving as responses to such actions. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 19:27, 8 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::Also Brain Rot. My scenario worked from the assumption that all players were true dual-natured players, albeit dual-natured players who don't pick up Brain Rot. However, I would argue that (while zombie skills are indeed designed to deal damage) human skills revolve around maximizing the efficiency of revivification. Securing buildings just allows survivors to stave off death for a few more days, which in turn allows them to revive others more efficiently. Admittedly, this assumes a simplified version of survivors without death-culting and window-diving, etc., etc., but I think it is hard to argue the (relatively) balanced nature of the zombie/survivor ratio just from those extremes. The Mrh? cows tend to equalize that anyway. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Moloch, it's possible for me to completely understand every aspect of this game and still disagree with you. It's also possible for me to refute your arguments without attacking you personally. Here's an example: '''This is not a survival horror game.''' It's World of Warcraft in text. The only difference is that here you can switch sides. Just like WoW, the "human" side is more popular. Just like WoW, the "other" side wants to get more and more advantages because they believe it will offset the numeric disadvantage. Here's a heads-up: WoW proved you wrong there. I proved you wrong here. And I'll do it again. Zombies attack humans with 483 AP, costing the humans 322 AP. Humans attack the zombies with 500 AP, costing the Zombies '''nothing'''. Why nothing? Because the cost of recovery is included in the 483 AP the zombies already spent. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:20, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Wow, nice numbers. Got the math to prove that? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:58, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Not a survival horror game? So what does this: ''A Massively Multi-Player Web-Based Zombie Apocalypse'' mean? But no you are right. I must be forgetting that the innkeeper at Jacomb Arms sent me on the quest to recovery the Holy Golf Club of Lockettside while on my way to slay the Bank Manager of Ruddlebank. This is '''exactly''' like WoW!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 16:20, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
No dude. Just no. Monroeville is freaking dead anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Says the ''Zombie'' Lord... I actually had a nice killing spree a couple of weeks back, 5 survivors in 6 days...<br />
:It would be nice if we waited till there was one survivor, gave him a [[Red_Rum/Tommy_Gun|Tommy_Gun]], ammo and every zombie his location to see how long he would last... --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: :D I'm not sure if he means it as a Monroeville only thing or not, which would be fine with me if it was just contained to that city and not Malton. Seems like Kevan just wanted to kill it off anyway with those last changes to Monroeville. But yeah, the Tommy Gun goes the the last Monroeville Survivor! Would be a cool prize anyway :) --[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::The Tommy Gun is a seasonal weapon, found around 31st October/1st November. They'll have to survive til then and search really hard...--[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 00:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Kamakazie Bunny, get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit, it's tired as all hell. In any event, as much as he is usually an idiot, zombie lord is correct this time. And Moloch hit it on the head even more squarely. Don't fucking nerf Ankle Grab. Period. Even in Moronville. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:46, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::And don't forget, give him or her unlimited AP and IP hits. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:14, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:36, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:How about "Remove Headshot" then? Has that been suggested? It's currently a waste of 100 XP. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
You might have better luck if you suggest that headshot DOESN'T affect those without Ankle Grab.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:37, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Where.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''Balance Change'' HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA ''IMA GONNA RAEP YUO OF UR AP AND CALL IT BALANCED!'' Fuck off, Dago. You can't possibly justify taking away over 1/5th of the AP of just one class. Zombies can't do it to survivors in any amount and you want to increase it? Fucking play as a zombie for a year before you suggest anything that affects zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:59, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Suggestion:20080901_Feeding_Drag_in_Large_Buildings|Yanking a live survivor from a mall]] for 2/5 the AP cost of dumping a dead body from a fort is balanced, then? I don't see you railing against that. Oh, but feel free to turn my username into a racial slur if you can't think of any ''good'' reason to reject the suggestion. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::We've already posted enough reasons why it's a crap idea. Feel free to post it though, because even if it gets passed, Kevan won't touch it. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 05:25, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::How would you know? ANKLE GRAB was in PEER REJECTED when it came to vote here.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Which should give you an idea of how Kevan feels on the subject of the Headshot dynamic. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 08:53, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::It also shows you how fucking survivor-centric this damn wiki is. I'm not surprised that AG was voted down and a shit load of weapons and survivor buffs fill this page constantly. I'm pretty sure even if this ridiculous crap passed Kevan wouldn't implement it since last time I checked survivors outnumbered the zombies 61% to 39%. But hey! the survivors have it so fucking hard with all those damn zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::But OHNOES DCC some people think it's because no one wants to play zombies instead of the fact that their so boring because of their intellectuality and lack of competetivity. Who cares that that's disproved every time zombies make some big event so they can actually do something.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:37, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Actually it is when you consider that it's not a bargain and it's an additional 4 AP per kill that will be payed regularly. All Feeding Drag ever does is transfer AP cost from the individual to the horde, you know, that central play mechanic that zombies are forced to deal with. This would just make it so that all zombies always lose nearly half the AP they get a day, that's not balanced. You're also proposing buffing what is the only skill in the game that is considered to exist for the sole purpose of pissing players off and not balance.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Im not going to argue the game balance here. What i am going to say is that you dont make a game more balanced by making it less fun. Taking away 15 zombie ap a day makes the game much less fun for zombies, which will drive them away. Given how many of them are hanging onto the game out of habit rather than out of any sense of enjoyment, i dont think making playing a zombie feel like pulling teeth is the solution to any balance problem, real or imagined. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:37, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
This is not terribly effective. I mean, the search chances in Mville are all in ruined buildings. 8AP to load a shotgun I think not... ain't nothin' but ruined buildings. [[User:Soror Repentia Azalea|Qızılbaş]] 16:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Riot Shield===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Item<br />
|suggest_scope=All Players<br />
|suggest_description= <BR><br />
:''[[Building Types|Locations]]: Armouries (2%), Police Stations (2%), Junkyards (1%?)''<br />
:''[[Encumberment|Encumbrance]]: 16%''<br />
<br />
- Grants a 10% (5% in dark buildings) chance to deflect any attack <S>that deals less than 5 damage</S> (it does not reduce the chance to hit, only those which would normally hit). Having a Riot Shield in your inventory automatically means that you are using it; no action is required to activate it. Zombies may use and benefit from Riot Shields. Using multiple Riot Shields has no additional effect; having two or more in your inventory will not give any further protection.<br />
<br />
- They may also be used as an improvised weapon with the following stats:<br />
<br />
:''Damage: 1 point''<br />
:''Base Accuracy: 10%''<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Riot Shield)====<br />
<br />
Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield (although rotters will have a harder time getting them but that applies to any cross-class skill/item from the humans). Also the zombie populace should be aware that a Riot shield is the equivalent of 8 clips/shells/Faks/Syringes that can be used against their cause. Survivors now have an active defence against the hordes (in my opinion barricades do not count as they do not directly protect the player or go with them on their journeys). <BR><br />
Things I'm unsure of:<BR><br />
:Encumbrance<br />
:Chance to deflect<br />
:Findable in museums (Medieval / war exhibitions)<br />
:Zombies with a reduced protection chance (as they are more sluggish)<br />
:Flavour text for deflected attacks!<br />
--[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''You fire at target zombie for 10 damage, but it deflects off their riot shield. They are unharmed''<br />
--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:05, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: Whilst I do agree with the flavour text the shot gun does not deal '''less than 5 damage'''. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:13, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Balls. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hi Kamikazie, this is an interesting idea. Given that zombies can't use melee weapons, it seems odd they might continue to use (and effectively position) a riot shield. Additionally, it seems it would get in the way of typical zombie attacks: grabbing, holding, biting. I don't want to seem like I'm favoring survivors, but this, like all other objects, seems it should be survivor-specific. Would players be able to use a shotgun while holding one? Shields of any kind make sense, especially in close-range combat. I'd see the value in making it "equippable" rather than simply automatically active if in inventory. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 18:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ummm... zombies can use melee weapons, although it would get in the way of their normal attacks I don't want to hinder them or make this one sided although realism would want it so. Zombies are people to! Interfering with other functions is something else I disagree with. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hordes are the exception, not the rule. Lets see, a maxed zombie would traditionally score a total of 29 hits in 50 swings. Now, if 10% of those hits are negated, it goes down to 26. Given that the majority of zombies are not horde zombies, and that zombies have a seriously hard time getting past little things you call barricades (Which already are your defenses, not to mention your mobility, which is another, chronically underused one), this puts a serious dent in zombie ability across the board for the sake of defending yourself from the exception to the rule based on a flase assumption of defenselessness. Go away and think things through before you return to plague this page with your stupidity again. The description as written has this as a pure zombie nerf, they cant even use it, ebcause regardless of flaks, a pistol hits for five damage at first, with one subsequently negated, thus pistols will still go through. Given humans use firearms almost exclusively, becauuse axes and improvised weapons suck, they will most often suffer no penalty against a zombie with such a device. Zombies have no 5+ damage attacks. This is one sided zombie rape. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:although I hardly ever agree with grims choice of words, the fact that flare guns and shotguns arent nerfed but all zed attacks are is a fair point. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:29, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sorry if you misunderstood when I used the word horde, I used it to describe the zombies populace as a whole, not in a specific location. The pistol glitch is something which I must admit I did not anticipate and overlooked, thanks for pointing that out. The rest just seems negative for the sake of zombie-jeebus. Whilst this does primarily affect zombie attacks it also affects all survivor melee attacks, you say that survivors depend on guns because everything else sucks, I don't think you need reminding that the Jacket only benefits zombies and PK/DC victims (which their very actions benefit zombies). Zombies have no fear of death and any defence boosts through items come at no cost, survivors have to balance their inventory for survival/defense and the retaking of ruins. If you feel that 26 instead of 29 hits is too many feel free to suggest a change to the values. This is a discussion for whittling out 'stupid' ideas not for insulting them (which I consider pointless). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:47, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
''Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield ...'' Can, but won't. The vast majority of the damage zombies take s from guns, and this also provides no protection vs combat revives. HtH combat damage trails a distant third behind those in terms of impact on zombies. '''So really, this IS a pure zombie nerf.''' {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 19:08, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:Any proposes for a fix? Reducing deflection to 5% (that sounds so geekish). Lowering the limit to Less than 4 (which would account for the gun-bug and allow zombies still to get in their max claws) or would that be seen to be nerfing infection/bite/newbies/survivor melee? I know you might think this is the wrong school of thought but I feel there needs to be some active defence from zombies (running away is not defending) and barricades can't be taken with you, but due to the limited amount of high-powered zombie attacks any thing is essentially a nerf. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 19:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this suggestion if it was to affect ALL attacks regardless of damage... however I am concerned about it stacking with flak jackets to nerf firearms but if you lot are ok with it then I have no objections.... opinions please? --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I think it's a neat idea, just not sure if its passable. Maybe if the Shield had a chance to be broken, or taken away by zombies? For every "deflection" there is a 10% chance the shield breaks as well? Maybe a zombie that gets a Tangling Grasp has a 10% chance to wrench the shield away and toss it aside for each attack it makes while it maintains the Grasp?--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:25, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This fails flavour as it implies active usage to gain its benefit, you must move the shield to cover the attack. A flak jacket is passive, it protects your torso regardless. In short, this would (or rather should) be useless while you are asleep...which for most UD characters is 23 hours and 50 minutes of each day.<br />
<br />
Also it's a nasty zombie nerf. '''All''' zombie attacks are less than 5 damage, meaning all survivors would get a 10% chance to avoid every single zombie attack in the game. This suggestion will discourage zombie play and turn Malton into Monroeville after the first quarantine, tag with PKers. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:42, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''"After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this..."'' We are not okay with this idea. It's awful. It's nothing but a horrible zombie nerf, and no changes are going to save it. Riot shields do not protect against firearms. Period. Any attempt to make them do so is just stupidity. But if riot shields work against melee attacks only, then you are nerfing an already underdog ability -- for both zambahz and survivors. Just drop it, it sucks and it can't be fixed. Also, Izzy, you've failed in your Dupe-meister duties, this is in there somewhere, I know it ;) And, Zhani, once again you demonstrated why you should stay away from making suggestions: please wait until you actually know the game, thanks. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:01, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:As far as I understood from the comments people were making, the two major complaints were that it did not affect guns and that it affected zombie attacks. Including the ability to affect guns as well (which you ''conveniently'' failed to include in your quote) was the change that some people may approve of, as for affecting zombie attacks that kinda goes with the idea of a riot shield. "''Riot shields do not protect against firearms''" it may upset you to know that some do, although if you were arguing for true realism I think the zombies need to go... In defence of Izzy failing to dupe I could only find 2 similar suggestions, both from 2005 and both with completely different mechanics if it is that big an issue to dupe it go put in the effort and do it yourself. As for Zhani, he's learning don't try shoot him down because he's trying to be involved. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Next person to shorten my name gets Jihad declared against them.<br />
<br />
::Wan; what he said about dupes <nowiki>:p</nowiki><br />
<br />
::Bunny; would you care to comment on the point I made about active usage? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Falling asleep from exhaustion is a good reason why your character runs out of AP, it only takes 30min before you can 'wake up'. Whilst I do agree that a player would have to actively use it to defend themselves, the idea that I can hit someone who is asleep repeatedly with a fire axe and with such poor accuracy doesn't make sense (especially considering they don't wake up), I actually assume all players are awake and attempting to defend themselves if attacked which is why hit accuracy is not too high. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait wut? How do zombies benefit from something that will only effect them and low level survivors? Last I heard pistols and shotguns did >= 5 damage, Claws and bites did <= 4.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies would gain more defence from melee weapons, however it has now been changed to include pistols and shotguns. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::It just doesn't seem right. It destroys all zombie attack, survivor players could get them easier then zombie players... Even if Shotguns no longer worked, that would create an atmosphere where it would be CRing only.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 17:56, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::How would this new version work in dark buildings? And Also, I still don't like it for the same reason why I think halving in dark buildings was a horrendous idea, 10% from 50% is a lot more significant than 10% from 65%, especially with the RNG the way it is But if you're going to go on with it might as well answer all questions that might come up.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::As the Riot shield only affects the attacks that hit the player, the environment which the attack is performed in should have make no difference but since the user is making an effort, the same penalty as attacks receive should logically apply. (Chance of success halved in dark buildings added to suggestion) Thanks for that, the more holes you guys help me fill the better. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it. Rather logical especially when considering that several suburbs were just bad neighborhoods (Even BEFORE the zombies!). I think that his would be a bit more efficient if you kept it as a melee reducing item, the hand to hand flak jacket in other words, say knock off 1-2 Damage per non-firearm attacks. Take it to that level and THEN I'll probably vote a keep on this. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 19:33, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, I'm sure new players will appreciate 0-1 damage at 25% to hit.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Well the zombies are getting Uber Buffs. Survivors have always been a bit better than the zombies at base level. I think that just the 1 Reduced Damage is sufficient at say...30% but if we want to get technical with this option lets say Hand to Hand Combat skill gives the 15% bonus to this so base is 15% chance to block 1 damage and then with HtH skill 30% chance to block 1 damage and we drop that improvised attack method because it's going to be the same as a punch. Now for the zombies think of Virgour Mortis as a +10% Chance to block 1 Damage. So again, 15% base and with Vigour Mortis a nice little 25% because Zeds aren't quick enough to keep up with the survivors. It is a bit sketchy but I am going to support this method over sitting around fiddling with percentages. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 20:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I would like for this to apply exclusive to melee weapons, but that would mean ALL zombie attacks and not the attacks used by high-level survivors which was a problem. I'm also unsure if the game distinguishes between damage types, if it does great, if not, going on damage inflicted presents a problem when pistols are reduced by flak jackets. The idea to reduce damage instead of deflecting it completely is possible, however it would just end up as 'a flak for melee attacks' different mechanics for each one helps to keep them unique but if people prefer that option let me know. The skills bit does have merits but I was hoping it would be independent of the skill tree although if people want it to upgrade as you buy skills your way is certainly an excellent way to do it, especially the uniqueness between the live/dead. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:18, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Consider the flak jacket. -1 point for firearms, hand to hand attacks still go through. As for the zombies...well survivors run out of ammunition every now and again, even in the sieges. To combine this item with hand to hand combat training is the most logical approach based off of common sense and lightens the work load if Kevan likes this. Like you stated, zombies and survivors can both hold them, lets apply our minds and think about how well a zombie would be able to block a hit. When you think of next to never apply this big piece of reinforced fiberglass and then you get your answer here. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 03:53, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Zombies holding riot shields? I'd love to have some of that crack you're on. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 04:08, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dude the odd thing is that it is not crack! It's Jello powder! [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:23, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies hold and use all sorts of items... Anyway, this idea is just awful and can't be saved, please give it up. All it does in any form is act as a zombie/PK nerf. Period. Drop it. There is NO NEED for this, and it doesn't improve the game, make it more interesting, or offer a solution to a problem. It's just... dumb. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===No More Walking Armories: Less weapons, more ammo.===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 21:39, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Change to firearm usage<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, firearms.<br />
|suggest_description=Add Equipped Weapon feature, adjust weapon balance numbers to encourage reloading over trenchcoatism. See below for details.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
As things stand, players in Malton become [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|walking armories]], with as many loaded pistols and shotguns strapped to their bodies as they can carry. Essentially, everyone is a [[:Image:Trenchcoater03.gif|trenchcoater]] by default. This is due to how firearms currently work and their game statistics. Players are rewarded for carrying multiple loaded firearms, and there's little penalty for doing so. Guns have very little encumbrance ''relative to their ammunition'', and there's no cost at all to moving on to your next loaded weapon. I think this is [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Arguing_for_Your_Suggestion|unbelievable]] and out of genre. <br />
<br />
My proposal is to add a new game feature and tweak weapon encumbrance, find rates, and damage in order to encourage the carrying and use of only primary weapons, with plenty of ammo for those weapons.<br />
<br />
'''1. Equipped Weapon''' The game supports selecting items that are "worn"; however, this is only used for clothing and flavor at the moment. With this addition, survivor players select any weapon in their inventory to be ''equipped''. <br />
* Above "'''Inventory (click to use):'''" there is "'''Weapon (select):'''". There will be a new drop-down list in this section: '''<code>Equip [Weapon List] as weapon</code>'''. This lets the player choose any existing weapon in their inventory, or an improvised weapon like a fuel can or crowbar. <br />
* Equipping a weapon costs '''2 AP'''. This represents getting it out of your backpack/belt and having it ready for combat. ''The AP cost of switching weapons provides an incentive to reload over switching between a stocked series of weapons.'' <br />
* You can only attack with your equipped weapon. The "attack player" option no longer offers multiple weapons as a choice, but instead lists your ''equipped weapon'': '''<code>Attack [Joe Zombie] with pistol</code>'''. If no weapon is equipped, all attacks are punches.<br />
* Once a weapon is equipped, the "Weapon:" section no longer displays "(select)", and the selected weapon is displayed there, instead of in the inventory section. Below that, the weapon-selection control remains available to select another weapon.<br />
* Clicking ammo to reload defaults to reloading the equipped weapon if it is unloaded. Clicking the equipped weapon removes it. Clicking a weapon that does not have a dual usage (most of them) will equip them as well (this is necessary so you can still click fuel cans to use them on generators, fire flare guns, etc.) <br />
* Upon dying, the equipped weapon is removed and remains in the player's inventory. Zombies do not have equipped weapons. Revivified survivors must reequip their weapon.<br />
* The currently equipped weapon can be seen in the profile description, along with clothing.<br />
<br />
'''2. Weapon Encumbrance Values''' Firearm encumbrance values are increased. Guns can get heavy to carry, and shotguns are unwieldy. Pistols: 10%. Shotgun: 18%. '''Ammunition encumbrance is minimized'''. Bullets and shells take up relatively little space, and can be kept in backpacks, fannypacks, pockets, etc. Clips & Shells: 1%. <br />
<br />
'''3. Reloading''' Reloading a clip or shell remains at 1 AP.<br />
<br />
'''4. Weapon Balance:''' This change slightly increases the in-combat AP costs for survivors. With 8 loaded pistols in inventory, a player can currently do 240 damage in 48 turns at 65% rate, or 156 damage, or 3.25 damage/AP. With 1 equipped pistol and plenty of ammo, in 48 turns the player can empty 7 clips, doing 210 damage @65%, or 136.5 damage, or 2.84 damage/AP; a 12% decrease. <br />
<br />
With current shotguns, 8 shotguns in inventory do 160 damage in 16 turns @ 65%, or 104 damage: 6.5damage/AP. With the change, two shots requires either switching (2AP) or reloading (2AP). Alternately, we can simply think of the unloaded shotgun as 2AP/shot. With the change, the shotgun would do 80 damage in 16 turns @ 65% or 52 damage, a 50% decrease. The change makes the shotgun even more front-loaded damage however. <br />
<br />
'''''It is very difficult to make absolute recommendations on numbers for game balance.''''' Only in-game results can show whether items are unbalanced or not, and to what degree. However, as an initial rebalancing to make the change not appear so drastic, I suggest these figures:<br />
<br />
'''Pistol: 6 damage/shot. (5 flak).''' In 48 turns (finishing empty), a pistol would do (6*7*6*0.65) or 163.8 damage on average: 3.4damage/AP, a 5% increase. This is a very modest change, and sticks to whole-number damage. In 6 turns, the existing pistol does 30 max damage, 19.5 average, the new does 36 or 23.4 average, but on subsequent turns the reload time brings the average damage back down. With 6 shots/7AP, the true average becomes 3.34dam/AP. Total pistol increase: 2.9%<br><br />
Alternately: to kill 50HP enemy:<br />
:Current: 3.25dam/AP. (Assuming enough pistols in inventory) 16AP to kill<br />
:New: 3.34 dam/AP ((6*6*.65)/7). 15AP to kill.<br />
<br />
'''Shotgun: 12 damage/shot (10 flak).''' 2 turns=24 damage @65%=15.6damage. Compare to current: 2 turns = 20*65%=13dam. This is a small front-end increase. However, comparing 16 turns (8 loaded current shotguns, vs 1 shotgun with reloading): (10*16*0.65)/16=6.5dam/AP. New shotgun: 2 shots, then 2 shots per 4 turns for 12 turns, then 1 shot in the last two turns. 2*12+12((2*12)/4)+0+12=108. @65%=70.2 or 4.39dam/AP. The shotgun decreases over time. If we compare current and new shotguns starting unloaded, it's 10dam/2AP vs 12dam/2AP. The advantage of starting a fight with a loaded shotgun goes up, but the advantage of carrying a stack of them goes down. It becomes worthwhile to consider switching to a sidearm after using the shotgun. ''This appears consistent with game believability.''<br><br />
An alternate way of looking at shotgun damage: to kill a 50HP enemy: <br />
:Current: 6.5damage/AP (assuming enough shotguns in inventory). 8AP to kill.<br />
:New: 2*7.8damage=15.6 for 2AP, then 7.8damage/2AP (reload, fire). 7AP to kill.<br />
<br />
Shotgun opener + pistol: 15.6 average damage/2AP. 2AP to switch. 23.4 average damage/6AP. 1AP reload. 11.7 avg. dam. /3AP. = 50.7 damage in 14AP. Slightly more efficient than pistol alone, less than shotgun alone. (I have been working with current balance values; but the existing shotgun is much higher damage than the existing pistol. It requires more AP to find ammo, and reload.)<br />
<br />
'''5. Weapon search rates''' Firearm search rate decreases slightly (most people will only want or need one of each type). Ammunition search rate increases slightly. <br><br />
'''Pistols:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Streets (1%?), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
'''Shotguns:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Pubs (1%)<br><br />
'''Clips:''' Mall Gun Stores (13%/16%), Armories (13%), Police Departments (12%), Junkyards (2%?), Gatehouses (?%)<br><br />
'''Shotgun shells:''' Mall Gun Stores (12%/16%), Armories (11%), Police Departments (11%), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
* If a weapon is found, and the player has selected to discard that type of weapon, but they have NOT selected to discard the ammo, ''they retain the ammo that was in that firearm (if any)''.<br />
<br />
'''Potential objections:'''<br />
<br />
Game balance: the change to damage output/AP is relatively small. If game stats reveal survivors grow more powerful, or one weapon is more preferred than the other, damage values can be adjusted as necessary. The point of this change is not to drastically adjust game balance in any way, but to instead encourage a change in player behavior to something more consistent with genre. Any statistical flaws that benefit a weapon type or player group can be adjusted as necessary.<br />
<br />
Inventory changes: this deprecates the value of carrying multiple weapons. Despite the increase in encumbrance of a single weapon, this should actually free up some space for people. The changes do not severely affect the contents of anyone's inventory. <br />
<br />
Realism/Game fiction/Genre: Carrying an absurd amount of weapons is simply silly. The only reason people do is because the game mechanics encourage it. This change provides an incentive for players to behave much more akin to typical characters in zombie films: carrying a couple favored weapons, and enough ammo to keep them supplied.<br />
<br />
Too long/complicated: This idea consists of minor changes to game variables (encumbrance, damage, search), and adds a straightforward feature which should work consistently with the existing interface and game data structures. It requires tracking one more piece of data per character: which weapon is equipped, and removes one piece of data normally transmitted on each attack: the weapon used. This should not be a prohibitive amount of development work. Balance changes are necessary to coincide with changes to AP costs for using weapons to minimize the secondary impact on gameplay.<br />
<br />
Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit.<br />
<br />
'''Areas for input:'''<br />
<br />
How are the numbers? Are they reasonable to maintain balance while accomplishing the goal of this suggestion?<br />
<br />
====Discussion (No More Walking Armories)====<br />
#Pistols are usually no bigger than two clips. Having 10% pistols and 1% clips is completely unjustified.<br />
#Shotguns are nowhere near the size or unwieldiness of generators (18% vs 20%).<br />
Not just that, but raising the encumbrance of weapons doesn't really contribute to reducing the number of weapons and increasing the amount of ammunition carried. Changing the search percentages wouldn't affect much either. Just plain introducing the equipped-weapon gameplay would do it. It's simple; reloading costs 1 or 2 AP, changing a weapon would cost 2. Ammunition is lighter than weapons. For pistols this means you're paying 1 AP less per 6 bullets, and carrying double the amount of damage if you use clips over loaded pistols. For shotguns it means you're paying just as much, but still carrying one half more ammo by carrying shells instead of shotguns. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 23:28, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I don't believe the game's encumbrance values are based on real-world sizes or weights, but rather are a general reflection of carrying ability for the sake of game balance. They're arbitrary. No one can carry 5 portable generators at once, and being limited to carrying only 50 shotgun shells, when they're typically sold in small boxes of 24 to 48, reveals this. A Ruger Security Six revolver as listed on the [[firearms]] page weighs about 1 kilo; carrying 25 of them at 4% enc per, would mean 55 pounds of firearms. The point isn't to be completely accurate with size or weight, but present a tradeoff in carrying many vs. few. With 1 pistol (12%) and 8 clips (1%), for a total of 20% the user still comes ahead of carrying 8 current pistols (32%). While a shotgun does not weigh as much as a portable generator, carrying 16 of them (at 6%) is just as unreasonable. <br>The search values I adjust because finding new firearms becomes less important. This isn't critical to the suggestion however, especially if the part where I recommend that users be able to discard guns they find but keep the ammo in them. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 23:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The exact nature of encumbrance is pretty much irrelevant, as, like I said, changing the encumbrance values doesn't really contribute towards the goal of this suggestion. It just adds one more thing for people to find objectionable. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 09:59, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::If currently people are carrying 16 weapons, and suddenly they can be just as effective with 3, they now have much more space for first aid kits, ammo, syringes, generators, etc. It's also about balance. While there is extra space, increasing weapon encumbrance means it isn't so survivor-favored in that aspect. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 10:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::That reasoning would make more sense if you weren't halving the weight of ammunition. You still have to keep the values somewhat sensible when compared to others. 10% pistols and 18% shotguns are just too inconsistent. Something like 6/8% pistols and 12% shotguns would be better. Or you could bump up the encumbrance of '''everything else''' (which ''would'' make more sense, but would simply get spammed). --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:24, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Is it necessary for game-balance that survivors be limited to carrying a certain quantity of ammunition? To my mind, the limiting factor is search rates, more than carrying capacity. I halved the encumbrance of ammo to balance increasing the values for firearms, along with the fact that the new system encourages keeping plenty of loose ammo, rather than just that which fits in numerous weapons. As for game-realism, shotguns are large and unwieldy, it's implausible to carry more than two. Encumbrance can represent both weight and bulk. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this idea, both because it makes sense and it's better as flavour, but I don't think it will last two seconds in a vote..not that that's any reason not to suggest it, but all the trenchies will go "OMG ONLY 1 WEAPON + MORE RELOADS NOW I CAN ONLY KILL FOUR ZOMBIES A DAY KILL KILL KILL" <br>But I like it.. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 01:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thanks! :) Actually, I really am trying to keep the balance the about the same so that for purposes of killing speed, it's roughly neutral. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:07, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
All these fucking words to just hide the fact you want to bump up the shotgun's damage. Go to hell. Go back and play Resident Evil some more if you get hard-ons from selecting and equipping weapons. You miss the point that this is a damn text game that only gives you 50 AP a day. You can't unload weapons when you find them and you are just as likely to find a pistol with 3 bullets in it as a full clip, but thanks to this GENIUS suggestion even if you aren't a trenchy you will still get your AP raped by swapping weapons. I like to think that survivors are smart enough not to carry their weapons in a back pack but to have them hidden on their body for easy access. I fucking hate gun suggestions. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 02:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Hi DCC. As I pointed out, in front-loaded damage the shotgun sees an increase, but over time it has reduced damage/AP compared to currently. If you compare the current system with someone carrying 10 loaded shotguns and enough ammo to reload & fire again for their 50AP, the new system represents an 11% decrease in average damage done. As I clearly stated, this isn't about altering game balance or enhancing/damaging the effectiveness of any weapon. As for searching, I provided a suggestion that ammo found in other weapons could be unloaded if the user already has a weapon. Also, I don't think being abusive is very consistent with rational discussion of people's ideas. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:39, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::The game is not played in long term, at least for survivors it shouldn't be. They're more than mobile enough that they can pop in, do tons of damage, run out, and come back a few days later fully stocked and do the same thing. It's low risk and exactly why boosting short term gains for survivors anymore would be ridiculously overpowered.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::This doesn't create a boost for survivors. Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png the graph] I created. The intent is to create a change in behavior, without significantly affecting balance; which is why I'm happy to discuss the numbers used. The pistol remains almost exactly the same; the shotgun does very slightly more damage in the first two turns, quickly falls behind the damage put out by multiple preloaded existing shotguns. This is shifting the pre-combat AP investment to carry around all those loaded weapons, into combat itself, making it viable to have one weapon of each kind and reload during combat. This is more consistent with the game world and genre: frantically loading your weapon as the undead shamble towards you, than carrying 16 loaded weapons effortlessly. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::I wasn't critiquing your suggestion. Now I am. To keep it simple I'm just gonna say this, you can't half ammo encumbrance it would have to much of an effect on the time survivors have that they can spend ''without'' restocking. That amount of time is a significant limiter on their ability to use/abuse their AP efficiency. You're basically doubling their Ammo carrying capacity and attempting to claim it's balanced by slightly reducing their attack efficiency(which is still being left close to 8 damage per AP). Yes, it makes individuals very very slightly less effective, it will also make groups of survivors insanely more effective and it will let those individuals spend ''more'' time without a break. That ''is'' a significant boost. Now I don't actually have too much of a problem with it assuming Kevan ''finally'' allows some specific zombie boost in response, and by that I mean finally letting them do a significant amount of damage per AP and letting them get through barricades with something closer to twice as much AP as they take to build instead of 4-5x. I don't think that will happen though.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:17, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Thanks Karek, this is an interesting point. Assuming a player wants to maximize their combat potential, and disregarding all other concerns (assume they're backed up by other players who will heal/rebuild etc.), a player might carry 16 shotguns (@6%) & 2 shells (@2%). That's an average of ((32+2)*10*0.65)=221 damage in 36AP, then they're empty. 6.14damage/AP. That's not including the significant AP investment to find and load all those guns. Under the proposed system, player has 1 shotgun @18%, and 82 shells @1%. They get 2AP of attacks, then thereafter it's 1attack/2AP (load & shoot). Over 166AP, they do an average of ((2+82)*12*0.65)=655.2 damage, or 3.94 damage/AP. They would have invested more AP in advance to gather all those shells.<br><br />
:::::I understand what you're saying. The existing system allows a quick burst of high damage, then the survivor has to go replenish. The new system would allow large restocking in a "safe" are, then being able to do damage for an additional 4.6x AP; however, both the average damage is reduced, as well as being spread out over more AP. <br><br />
:::::Say we go with 1 shotgun @18%, but 41 shells @2%. ((2+41)*12*0.65)=335.4 in 84AP, or 3.99damage/AP. Roughly the same damage output, just half the cycle time between attacking & replenishing; as well as less AP invested up front. So the question is: is the length of the attack/scavenge cycle significant to game balance? Do zombies depend on survivors running out, even if they're doing 2/3rd the average damage per AP? --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::::That's not necessarily true either, with three, or even four, survivors striking together they can completely ignore the reduced efficiency. They would actually clear things faster and more efficiently then than they could now doing the same thing. Like I mentioned above, the average damage in the long term with shotguns is irrelevant because most of that cost occurs well outside of danger while most of the reward occurs when you want/need it to, all that would happen is who's holding the shotguns would change, that's actually what I like about an equipment based system. Lose everything else, keep that, the rest is irrelevant, likely impossible to balance, and seems generally based on the assumption that all Survivors are idiots; they aren't, they just don't have any real reason to work together. There's a good core idea here but the implementation needs work.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think i like the start of this. Right now i can't focus to tell if all the numbers are good with me over a long base of time. but, first impression is i like this... i just don't know exactly how this would affect things until i'm actually using it. Also, i disagree with DCC... chill out, man. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This sounds great but really this is more of an AP kill. Consider that the majority of us survivors depend on being a walking arsenal, making us pay 2AP to get a loaded pistol out can highly unbalance the basics for siege survival. I say you drop it down to 1AP or just drop it entirely and make this a weapon pump. This has potential and I love the stats given, but you just gotta fine tone it. Try getting together a study group, devise a neat little generator amongst yourselves, provide a report in place of the hypothesis that we do have now and then try getting this into voting. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:There AP cost is there to provide the incentive to reload the weapon you're using, rather than switch out to one loaded weapon after another. For the pistol, it makes it more advantageous, for the shotgun, it makes it equal with carrying other shotguns, but the drop in encumbrance acts as a bonus. The increase in damage for both pistol and shotgun help balance against the increased AP costs so damage/AP is roughly the same. With pistols, you currently do 6 attacks in 6 turns, then switch. With the new system, you'll do 6 attacks in 6 turns, 1 turn to reload, then go again. So you need 1 pistol, and just clips. 6 damage/attack instead of 5 makes them close in damage output. Likewise with the shotgun, with the current system you fire 1 shot per AP for as long as you have shotguns. With my proposal, you still get two shots for two AP with your pre-loaded gun, then you get 1 shot every 2 AP: reload 1 shell, fire, etc. In the first few turns you'll have done more damage than the existing system, but after a few turns, it does a little less on average. Oh, and remember: '''with the existing system, you still need to spend the AP to load your weapons. You just do it before combat, not during.''' Like I said, this brings it more in genre: desperately reloading as the zombies advance on you, instead of carrying a dozen loaded shotguns on your back. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 05:32, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''Re: weapon balance: Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png this graph].''' This compares current with proposed weapon damage. I'm somewhat inclined to increase the shotgun to 13 or 14, but the relative advantage between the old and new shotgun depends on how many loaded shotguns the player would have under the old system. I assumed 8 for this graph. If it's less, the difference is much narrower; it's unlikely a player would have many more. Note that the player has a damage advantage with the old shotgun ''until they run out''; but they had to spend the same AP in advance to load those 8 shotguns. The new shotgun merely incorporates that loading AP into combat. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 06:16, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''GRRRRRRRRRRH!!!''' KISS me, please. i.e., Keep. It. Simple. Stupid. This may be a fantastic idea, but I can't be arsed atm to read that wall of text. Please learn how to be more concise. Seriously. Thank you. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:22, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What I did read... led me here... This is unnecessary. Because carrying lots of loaded firearms is actually a very poor use of AP and encumbrance. The most Ap-encumbrance efficient weapon in the game is the pistol, by far. And the best way to use pistols is to have 2-3 of them and tonnes of ammo. Shotguns are spiffy weapons, but their ap-encumbrance efficiency is atrocious: if wind up with a few, use 'em... but once its empty? Drop it, don't reload it, that's a giant waste of AP... So, if people wanna waste their AP and encumbrance on carrying and reloading lots of firearms -- the zombies say go right ahead and be horribly inefficient! <br />
:That being said... What ticks me is that I never find pistol ammo in Malls. It's always shotguns. Graaaaagh! Which means... I don't think we need a big game mechanic overhaul, so much as search rates should be tweaked... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::More thoughts... If people wanna carry lots of guns, more power to them. Because that helps the zombies... Because zombies can't be killed. And survivors should be focusing on barricading and reviving and healing first -- and when they are not... then the zombies win! By default. <br />
::Also, "walking armouries" are ''totally'' in genre. You always have the Armah Manz with billions of b!g bang-bangz... Always. And usually, these are the idiots who end up getting killed... And the consumer type who focuses on helping others and getting the job done most effectively lives and helps more people... As in the genre, as in UD... Now, I kind of would like to see trenchcoating get a bit of a nerf... however, i am always very cautious about "legislating playing styles"... And that is what this suggestion does. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:37, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: I'm sorry you found the idea too long. However, I wanted to be specific in the reason for each change, and the expected effect. In order to make the change relatively balance-neutral while encouraging a behavioral change, adjusting numbers in several places is necessary. You said that carrying shotguns and reloading would be inefficient: that's part of what the change is attempting to address. People carry multiple weapons because they can front-load their AP to increase damage in a short time. This idea diminishes that effect while allowing them to output roughly the same damage/AP invested. <br />
::: I disagree that "walking armories" are in-genre. The "Army Mans" carry an assault rifle, a couple grenades, and maybe a sidearm. The only reason players will carry 16 loaded weapons around is because ''the current game mechanics encourage this behavior''; it's not something you'd typically see in a film. They can stock up on weapons and ammo in advance, then unleash that stored AP in the form of damage. What is more consistent with the genre and a plausible game-world, is carrying a couple reliable weapons, and reloading them as needed. This change isn't legislating playing styles: combat-oriented players will still be able to arm up and go to war. They'll just do it with a couple weapons and plenty of ammo, rather than 200 pounds of firearms on their back. Their combat effectiveness versus the zombies will be largely unchanged. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:55, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Instead of trying to play with the big boys in the flame department, I suggest picking up some reading comprehension skills. I addressed your "refutations" in my original post. First of all, the game does not actually encourage carrying 16 loaded weapons; in so far as you are able to do so, you're most assuredly ''not'' contributing to the pro-survivor cause. That you fail to understand ''why'' isn't my problem: do your homework. Secondly, dudes armed to the teeth shooting the shit out every zombie they see (and usually dying grisly deaths themselves because of their stupidity) are very common in both the movies and, yeah, even the video games. Pay attention next time, okay? And go re-read karek and DCC's comments and try to understand the words of your intellectual superiors. THEN get back to us. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:12, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm afraid that you really haven't supported your objections, despite claiming you have. Whether choosing combat-oriented activities in-game helps or hinders the survivor cause is ''irrelevant'': you mentioned that we shouldn't be dictating player style. This suggestion as I've stated is largely balance-neutral. What is does, is discourages exactly what I describe: the "walking armory" effect, and encourages carrying only needed weapons with sufficient ammunition. This doesn't prevent or penalize anyone from walking in with guns blaring, it just means they don't look like [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|this guy]] while doing it. More like [http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1003/988120768_87c5ce1538.jpg this]. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::''Balance neutral'' ? What's this shit? How can something be "neutral" -balance or otherwise- when it tries to change the way people play? '''Don't tell people how to play their characters.''' It's just that simple. Who cares if someone fills all of their inventory with weapons or with GPS units? So what if some trenchies want to carry 100 shotguns? I can tell you haven't been playing this game long. More likely you don't even play a zombie. Which makes your bitching about weapons even weirder. Your suggestion doesn't solve a problem. Your suggestion does not make gameplay more interesting. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::: Could you be specific about how you feel it's unbalanced? And the suggestion is not telling people how to play. The intention of [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Gameplay_and_Flavor|that guideline]] for suggestions I believe is that we shouldn't discourage RP or encourage non-RP. People can play their characters how they choose, and fill their inventory with what they want. However, the current game mechanics ''actively encourages players to be walking arsenals'' if they want to maximize their combat effectiveness. The problem the suggestion solves is that carrying a huge stack of weapons is anti-RP, contrary to the genre and game-fiction. As I've said, it's [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|silly]]. Carrying a shotgun, revolver, and melee weapon seems much more plausible, and something you'd see in a zombie movie, don't you think? This lets someone who does that, be viable in combat. Additionally, I have attempted to balance this so it's neutral towards zombies, not shifting the advantage. Again, I invite you to show me how it is not. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 00:35, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::: You say you don't want to legislate how people play the game one moment, then the next you say that's ''exactly'' what you want to do! Make up your mind. Now... Zombies don't care if they get shot. If you actually ''played'' a zombie full-time, you'd understand this. Shot me all you bloody well want, I'll dirt nap and stand up again with, at worst, 44 AP and be ready to go. Therefore, shooting zombies is ''completely'' pointless except when you need to clear a building. To that end, you carry some guns. But ''smart'' survivors don't carry lots of guns: they carry maybe 2-4 pistol and 2-4 shotguns, tops. Why? Well... because the most powerful pro-survivor thing in the whole game is the revive-needle. Next come barricading and FAKing. Smart survivors know this, thus they carry several needles (sometimes a hell of a lot), a toolbox and a big whack o' FAKs. ''These'' are the survivors who benefit the "pro-survivor" cause. By contrast, anyone who just carries a whole bunch of guns is ''not'' really benefiting the survivor cause all that much, they are just parasiting off others' barricades, revives and FAKs. Nor are they ''really'' hurting zombies, because zombies don't care if they die. Capiche? You say I haven't backed up my arguments, but I ''have''. I actually made an argument -- it's just that you either don't understand, or you're wilfully ignoring the argument. Meanwhile, you've just provided statistics and a flawed idea, which you haven't put in any kind of rational or argumentative or bona-fide in-game context... Meanwhile, I don't care if someone wants to carry 16 shotguns -- as a survivor ''or'' a zombie. As a survivor, I think that guy is a parasitic waste of space and I will make fun of him and belittle him for being a trenchcoating wanker -- but he's not really ''hurting'' me. And, as your picture of Ash demonstrates, all said and done, he is actually RPing ''in-genre''. And as a zombie I outright ''laugh'' at his stupidity and I smash his barricades and eat bra!nz with a hearty GRAAAAGH!!... However, I do not wish to legislate how he plays the game in such a heavy-handed way... Which is ''exactly'' what your suggestion intends to do -- by your own fucking admission! This is not a good idea, and by clinging to it and not accepting ''constructive'' and ''reasonable'' criticism, you're proving yourself to be fucking git, a disruptive and non-contributive member of the community. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:12, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hmm. When I said that, you criticized me for having a superficial understanding of the game. The shoe's on the other foot now, eh? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:19, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hi WanYao. How many shotguns is Ash carrying? One. How many firearms will a typical person in a zombie film carry? One, or one rifle/shotgun and one sidearm. In UrbanDead as it stands, how many firearms will a person carry if they want to ''maximize their combat potential''? '''16'''. The game mechanics are already telling them "how to play", it's saying that if you want to devote yourself to dealing damage, you carry a silly and fiction-breaking number of weapons.<br />
:::::::::I'm afraid your comments about what is actually optimal strategy are irrelevant and a red herring. This suggestion makes no change in what players ''should'' do in order to be maximally effective. It simply alters the game mechanics so that the optimal number of weapons to carry is one of each, and not 16. This is what is more in keeping with the genre, more plausible in the game fiction. There's no advocated or encouraged change in "player behavior": a combat-oriented player will choose ammo over other objects, while others will stock sufficient ammo and keep their FAKs and toolkits etc. You've already said that with the status-quo, even ''good'' players will have 4-8 weapons. Again, this is silliness that is a result solely of the game mechanics, not because they believe their fictional roleplaying character would actually be that kind of badass. The game dictates how many weapons they should carry. I'm for reducing that number, without significantly affecting game balance itself.<br />
:::::::::Now if you want to make the case that 1% encumbrance ammo too greatly reduces the tradeoff between being combat-oriented or rebuild/heal oriented, I'm happy to hear it. Karek's provided his support for a similar argument above. And as usual, your personal attacks are completely off-base. I've been giving all reasoned criticism due weight. I get that some people ''don't like'' the idea, based on personal biases, but so far, I've only seen one specific argument for what might be wrong. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:44, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::This wall of text is getting pathetic... Anyhoo, there is another principle that no one has mentioned yet, but it bears emphasis: greater realism =/= better. Anyway, I'm done with this, it's arguing in circles now. Good luck. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:45, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::That's just your luck. I find TONS of clips and pistols with 4+ shots. Last time I loaded up, such stuff was easily 75% of what I found in the gun store. In fact, I would have stopped searching, but it took me a long time to find a shotgun shell to top up the half-loaded shotgun I had. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 16:40, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I fucking hate you. This comment in particular - ''"Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit."''<br />
<br />
Put it up for voting, right fucking now. Watch me dupe it on basis of weapons damage buff, selected weaponry and ammunition encumbrance buff. Just because your 'suggestion' contains many shit suggestions does not mean I cannot find those many mindless trenchie buffs and rightfully kill it, it means you are fucking deluded for thinking I can't and typing such a moronic suggestion.<br />
<br />
Shit, I wish karma was real, then some really bad things would happen to you, I'd find out about them and chortle my arse off. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:45, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Get arsed, yourself, Iscariot. Assuming trolls have arses, that is. Do they? Or does ''all'' your shit come out of your mouth?<br />
:Meanwhile, karek, swiers and DCC have pretty much show this suggestion for the BAD IDEA it is... So let's move on, kay, class? Next lesson please... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:44, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissocial_personality_disorder Please seek help.] --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Alrighty then... See, there is a time and place for being an asshole. I felt the situation was not appropriate, thus my comments to Iscariot. I take them all back now: go nuts, Izzy. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:56, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::What makes you believe it's ever acceptable or appropriate to behave abusively towards people? This sort of behavior certainly isn't conducive to rational discussion and addressing the merits or problems in a suggestion. It simply brings the quality of the wiki down, and reflects poorly on the community. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:02, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Other than Iscariot, no one is trolling you. And, in context -- while I don't really think his comments are particularly helpful -- you've brought it on yourself. In any event, if you want a love-in, where everyone is nice to each other and they let you cry on their should if someone was mean to you, please go [http://www.oprah.com/index here]. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm not trolling at all, trolling implies I'm after a certain response from him. I don't. It would be nice if he'd listened to all the nice people explaining it to him, but he didn't. The comment about duping is pure arrogance on his part, and I don't take kindly to it. The dupe system stops moronic suggestions entering PR because everyone reasonable gets bored of killing it. |I notice he hasn't taken me up on my challenge to see if I could dupe it....<br />
<br />
:::::Also Zhani, feel free to go and whine on any sysop talk page you like. The one you're after is Vandal Banning. Good luck with that, there is no civility policy on this wiki and until we remove to moronic-trenchie-weapons-buff gene from the general population, there never will be. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
...Well isn't that one long suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:...Well isn't that one long discussion. -- [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::... Speaking of things long... ''::looks down::'' Oh, is that a banana in my pocket, or am I just happy to see a zombie in my safehouse? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:07, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Thats a whole lot of SPAM you typed up there... what's wrong with just making weapons assignable? Allow everyone to carry a weapon in each hand and have it cost 1AP per hand to change (shotguns requiring a free hand or having a -60% to hit!) reload or re-arm then cost the same and it becomes a matter of choice which style you prefer. Of course that makes maxed out survivors a lot <br />
less like the combat monsters they currently are but thats probably not a real problem! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 12:38, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Personally, I dislike this, but that's partly because i only carry two pistols and one shotty, thus giving room for more reasonable things. Like fencing foils, Wine, and poetry books. --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 06:41, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Body Bonfires===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:48, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Perma-death option.<br />
|suggest_scope=Characters in citys with perma-death alternatives.<br />
|suggest_description=I've got a zombie character currently running around Monroeville looking for the precious few survivors there are in order to eat them.<br />
<br />
One of Monroeville's biggest problems, I think, is that there was no way for low-level survivors from killing zombies permanently. Zombies could take out survivors, no problem, but unless you had Headshot, you couldn't take down a zombie.<br />
<br />
I know that's in-genre, given that they're the freaking undead and all, but it sucks game-wise.<br />
<br />
Thus, I came up with 'Body Bonfires', after watching the movie ''Night of the Living Dead''.<br />
<br />
Should this get implemented, survivors can now douse corpses in gasoline (from fuel cans) and set them alight with matches (find stats TBC), lighters (find stats TBC) or even a flare gun, if desperate. A burning corpse will degrade into a 'charred skeleton', after which time the character would be effectively 'perma-dead'.<br />
<br />
Note that this is meant to ''replace'' Headshot as the survivor perma-death, not co-incide with it.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Body Bonfires)====<br />
No. Why? Monroeville is quarantined and dead. Adding more items that make things even more difficult to find and implement will not suddenly change the dynamics of the city, nor will it make monroeville more fair. the point, i daresay, of that city is to more realistically show a zombie infestation, and the only way to do that is by making the limited amount of zombies unlimited, with only a small amount of very good zombie killers who can do anything about it, which still amounts to not much. its fine, and the city is pointless, and just leave it. and don't add matches and lighters to do what flare guns already do. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:33, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I think you misread my suggestion. For one, this is NOT for Monroeville. Monroeville is dead (or will be soon), this is for any new cities that will also have perma-death mechanics, should one ever be introduced. For another, you can only burn a zombie once they're on the ground having been 'temp-killed' (HP to 0). --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 09:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I didn't misread crap. Nothing in your post makes reference to any mythical city that is currently not existant. You only mention monroeville, and imply that is what your suggestion is about. And after reading it again, i've decided this is a) a dupe; b) spamtastic, given the non-existant nature of your supposed city; and c) incomplete, given that you don't actually talk about where it is implemented, or if its a skill, or how its done in the user interface. just allow it to die, and then we'll burn the suggestions corpse out of our memories. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 20:44, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Completely pointless because such a hypothetical perma-death city does not exist. You can't get more spamtastic than suggesting a mechanic for something that doesn't even exist. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:56, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Reminds me of both [[Suggestion:20070816 Burning Bodies]] and another suggestion which I can't quite find at the moment. It is entirely possible that this may be substantially a dupe. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:50, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I found [[Suggestions/RejectedFebruary2007#Flare Gun / Fuel Attack|Flare Gun / Fuel Attack]] interesting reading, to say the least. How many [[User:MrAushvitz|MrAushvitz]] suggestions have been implemented, now? Surely the apocalypse is extremely nigh... {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:57, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Sorry, no, perma-death would not go over in this game. It's simply not fun for the players, and gives a person a reason to give up playing. Favors survivors overwhelmingly, and doesn't really improve the game. I hate to be one of those types shooting down ideas, but this doesn't work. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:36, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A) You only mentioned Monroeville, the dead city. B) MV has one purpose now, and one purpose only: ZKing. [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 02:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Make graffiti readable in dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Logic Flaw Fix<br />
|suggest_scope=Graffiti in dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Graffiti disappears when the lights go out in dark buildings. Since it is unreasonable to assume that absolutely no light can get in any parts of dark buildings, why wouldn’t the graffiti just be sprayed in the areas that the little light can get in? Such places would be the front of cinemas (where the snack bar is, as there are usually windows out front), near the windows of the banks, and near the windows of standard buildings.<br />
<br />
I have never seen any buildings like these completely lacking windows in all areas, and windows would have to exist for Free Running to be possible, so even if the skylights haven’t been maintained, there’s no reason people wouldn’t be spraying the signs near the window areas where it’d be visible, even if the rest of the building is dark.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Make graffiti readable in dark buildings)====<br />
<br />
It's dark. You can't see dead bodies. Combat abilities are nerfed for everyone. You can't repair a building in the dark. Barricading and reviving are also disadvangtaged. So there's no logic flaw here, not at all. It's bloody ''dark''!!--[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:The logic is fine as is - after years of the outbreak, the walls will be pocked, peeling and covered in grime and blood, not to mention layers of graffiti in different colours. You'd need fairly good light to make out the latest message.<br />
:I was thinking of suggesting an item, book of matches, the sole purpose of which would be to let the user (only) read graffiti in the dark. But I couldn't be arsed looking for dupes etc. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 10:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::But..but.. what about all those blank rectangles I sprayed onto the walls to keep them clean and in one colour! In all seriousness, no to this suggestion. As Garum says, those walls are a mess, no matter how many blank rectangles you spray. :P - [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:03, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::We don't need a silly, pointless item like matches to spam our searches. Meh. It's dark. Deal with it. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:26, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
WE DEMAND BRAILLE GRAFFITI! Fuck you, cripple haters. I need to be able to read ''I like to poop'' no matter how much light is in the building. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 00:31, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Now ''That'' I would vote keep on.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:21, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And human civilization has truly gone full circle, as survivors have come back to the art of making stone tables with toolboxes. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 14:11, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===picking some one up===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 19:44, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=helping others.<br />
|suggest_scope=humans.<br />
|suggest_description=Almost all of us can say that we have been killed while sleeping, or have been a zombie and killed all the humans becuase most of them were sleeping. So why not allow people to carry some one out of danger? Lets say that you and some of your buddys are fleeing a horde, and one of them is out of AP, so why not pick him/her up? It would cost one AP to pick the player up, and 2 AP to move around, and you would not be able to free run {you are carrying another person). You also cant attack since, it would be to diffuclt.<br />
<br />
You would rengenrate AP as you would normally would, and can be put down for one AP. If the person carrying you is killed, you fall down and be as vunerable as you would be normally. Now comes the PKer question. Being able to pick some one up and carry them of to some were else to kill them would become a PKers best tool. So I sujest there should be a check box in the settings, which you can check yes or no to being picked up. If you try to pick some one up how has checked the box no, this happens.<br />
<br />
''you try to pick the person up, but they push you away: Italic text'' <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Picking some one up)====<br />
Pied Piper skills are a great no no. Specifically because of the griefing possibilities. Even with the block you suggested, I don't think it would be acceptable. A better way of determining who can pick you up would be to check for mutual contacts, and not ignored. Not that I think this would pass even with that, because I'm pretty sure this is a dupe. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:54, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Pied Piper? Whats that?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:15, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A pied piper skill is one that involves one player moving another (like the pied piper of hamelin and rats/children) Within game the closest we have is [[Feeding Drag]] which has on it very specific limiting factors. This is too prone to abuse. New players especially may not know its a feature, and one griefer could pick up a huge number of people and carry them directly outside. Where they would get et. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Just as Ross said, [[Frequently_Suggested#Pied_Piper_Skills|here]] is a link to it on the frequently suggested page. I suggest reading that page, will give you an idea of suggestions to avoid. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 20:31, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nequa please read Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested pages. They are linked to above, at the top of this page. Zangz. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:28, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I see what you mean, but I still think that the check box would stop that. And if you are tricked, well thats just bad luck.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:49, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Only way this would be prevented is if everyone had it set to "Do not allow me to be dragged away", and only switched back when they knew a rescue was on the way. It is simply to abusable in it's current form. And try telling the poor newbies, who weren't aware of the checkbox, that it was just bad luck and that they have to live with it after being dragged away from their VSB safehouse into an area full of EHB cades. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 21:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nothings perfect, and anyway you could kill somebody quickly and no one could stop you.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:17, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:surely the default should be ''dont allow carrying''. Stop a lot of griefing there? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sure, you could have that checkbox turned off as a default. But then, how would people who have this skill know who they could pick up, and who they could not?<br>Moving other players is a bad idea to begin with, play wise, so picking at th details is turd polishing at best. If you want to "rescue" people from danger , give them fist aid, try to fix the barricades, and recruit others to help them survive until they log back in, but don't presume to play the game for them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:30, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait, what? You think this is a skill? A skill you need to get by having enough XP? No, no, no, you dont need to purchase it. Also your other point about knowing if the person has the thing checked or not is a good point. You should probally put it on your describtion if you have it on or not, like the hydra defence.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:47, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Right. Other issues. If I pick up a level 1 survivor, this seems to allow me to carry him inside, and then free run to another building whilst carrying him. Regardless of his skills. Besides Im pretty sure its also a partial dup of firemans carry. Anyone got the link. I just feel its unworkable. sorry. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
[[PR_Skill_New:_Survivor:_Civilian#Fireman.27s_Carry_.28Bring_12HP_Survivor_Indoors.29|Fireman's Carry]], which is in Reviewed. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 22:55, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
LOL, that guy pretty much says the same thing I do. It appears great minds think alike. Now do I seem like a idiot?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:05, 2 September 2008 (BST<br />
:More so, now that you've said that. quit being unwilling to learn. everyones been very nice. now go actually FREAKING READ THE DO AND DO NOTS!<br />
:No one is pointing out the worst part of this. What if i create fifteen drones, and use them to carry a full army of survivors into zombie territory. you don't put it plainly, but you seem to infer that you can only be carried while sleeping (or at least, i'm hoping, because otherwise those zergs could carry armies of full ap'd characters) but either way, its a free trip for my sleeping characters, who spent their AP stocking on ammo. my zergs carry them in, dump them off in a zerg-repaired building, and let them sleep. now i have an army, 2 for one. thats what makes this bad. adding a penalty of 2 for one doesn't fix that.<br />
:and the griefing is absolutly grieftastic. what if i rescue someone with low HP out of a mall into a quiet factory where i show him my gun?... i mean... pk him. errm... or how about if i spend a whole 50 ap 'rescuing' any of the barricaders in a seige with a death culter. the check box doesn't solve this, because the only time that someone would want to be rescued is the same time where its worth abusing the feature. it fails because it will never work. if you can't free run with it, (can you enter/exit buildings?) then its worthless for doing anything but costing the zombie horde half the amount of AP to keep up with you.<br />
:This was long... sorry. but this suggestion is silly silly silly. NOW READ THE FAQ's and DO AND DO NOTS! Please. and don't read them and then try to come up with a better way to do what it tells you not to do... just DON'T suggest those things. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:15, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also, wan yao... i think one of my alts was just combat revived by you. Ha. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:22, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Combat Reviving FTW!!! ;P .... Up Roftwoodish or something, right? I vaguely remember CRing some zambah somewhere for some old reason or another, heheh... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:40, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::As for the suggestion... Yeah... you seem like an idiot at this moment, Nequa. This is a broken and unworkable idea. People are trying to explain that to you. But you're not listening, and you can't even be bothered to read the help pages for Suggestion development -- which are clearly linked to -- and which people have been providing you with links to, above... Smarten the fuck up, please, and quit wasting our time. Seriously. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:44, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I distinctly remember telling you to stop suggesting... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:49, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Feeding Drag in Large Buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:necrodeus/sig}} 02:46, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=improvement<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with feeding drag in large buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Hello team.<br />
<br />
The feeding drag skill allows zombies to drag survivors of less than 12HP outside through an ''open door'' at the cost of 1AP. Therefore, if a zombie enters a large building through an open door, then makes its way through the building unimpeded (ie, through more open doors or just empty space), beats a survivor down to 12HP or below, there should exist the option to feeding drag said survivor through the building.<br />
<br />
It makes sense, as you are inside a building and simply dragging the unfortunate survivor somewhere else in the building, presumably towards the horde that generally congregates in the opened block.<br />
<br />
Now I know that this is the same as suggesting that I could feeding drag a wounded survivor through open streets, but I do think that as it is limited to the insides of large buildings it is hardly useful as a griefing tool, neither would it be game breaking, and it fits in with the idea behind the feeding drag as well - if a zombie feels the need to drag someone outside, why should the fact that it's slightly longer distance than normal dissuade him?<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Feeding Drag in Large Buildings)====<br />
Kind of like a zombie equivalent for the fort body dump? I like it. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 04:02, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Seems out of genre, normally a zombie will feed for itself with absolutely NO consideration for a horde. Though this skill is a good idea, it would be a bit pointless because if you have a survivor at 12 HP and most of the time the only large building you are in would be a mall, it would mean you drag someone near dead to a horde, either way, the survivor was already HIGHLY LIKELY to die unless terribly low on AP this skill is just useless. I say just stick with infectious bite. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:No. Feeding Drag and zambahz helping babahz is ''totally'' part of the genre -- as in, it's ''in the game'' ... So it's part of the genre. Zombies in Urban Dead have intelligence, more like in Return of the Living Dead than in Romero's movies. Regarding the suggestion, I think this is a great idea! But it should cost at least 2 AP to so, perhaps more. You usually don't have to drag as far, or through as complicated a series of buildings as in a fort, so I'm not sure if the same AP costs is in order... but perhaps... Still, in siege situations where this matters, we tend to just tend to kill rather than worry about dragging... However, even then, this ability would be FAR from "useless". --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:08, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ok.. I'm out of it.. I understood this as the equivalent of dragging a body outside the Forts. Which would mean you click the ability and you drag your target outside -- and you go with him, just like you would a normal feeding drag. No "half drags" to another corner of the mall -- it's all or nothing, all the way outside, or not at all. And that would cost 2 AP. And of course you'd still have to spend AP getting back inside and to the action, if that's your desire. There are some tricks to overcome with this... but it's a cool idea, nonetheless. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:37, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Yeah, I like it as well. Some people might call it greifing though [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 04:21, 31 August 2008 (BST).<br />
<br />
I was 50/50 between making it just like a body dump costing 2AP and making it like it is now, but certainly a feeding drag all the way outside for 2AP - like the survivor body dump - is just as keeping in genre and could be considered less of a potential griefing tool.<br />
<br />
What if it just acted the same as feeding drag, so I end up outside. It costs 2AP, and then if I want to get back inside it just costs me the same as normal movement rates - so at least 1AP to just re-enter the building, and 2 AP to get back to where I was originally? It's hardly a griefing tool, you're only ever going to end up outside the building you were in, and at most 1 block away from where you were {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 12:38, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:That's exactly what I just said, man... The only issue could be as follows: you're in mall, all corners are heavily barricaded except one, which is wide open... you're in another (non-open) corner killing some folk, and you want to use this ability. Now, do you drag the victim to the outside of your ''current'' corner, or do you end up moving to the open corner? What if there is more than one open corner? Or, if you drag to the outside of your current corner, then how do you justify bypassing barricades -- because even just a closed door negates feeding drag... See the problems? This is a very spiffy idea IMO, but these things need to be worked out... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:00, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::I was agreeing with you! I was thinking that the feeding drag took them out of the open corner, rather than through the barricades. As for what would happen if more than one door was open, I would say go to the nearest one, except that in a four block square, every sqaure is as near as any of the others...I couldn't see it making too much of a difference which one you drag someone out of, so I would make it random; the zombie just heads towards the light, any light. That way, as long as there is a door open when the button is pressed, the feeding drag will be successful, rather than allowing the user a choice. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 17:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Probably won't matter a lot now since this suggestion would likely get implemented (if ever) after Monroeville closes, but in that city there are non-standard large building shapes, like [[Monroeville Mall]]. You can like drag someone across four blocks. :O Also, how would a zombie know which building block is open from where he/she stands? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:22, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Malls, Mansions, Power Stations ... are large buildings which means they are functionally ''one building''. With fours sets of barricades. And four ''zmargahzbargz, GRAAAAGH!'' The zombies knew how to get inside and move around when there was only one entry point, so why couldn't they know how to get back out? And, I mean, like he could just look around... Also, yeah, no-one cares about MV, it's over... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:48, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Well, ''you'' as the player know there's an entrance to the building, at least recently. In contrast, your zombie can only check within the block he's in -- even adjacent ruined blocks [[Pinata|aren't guaranteed]] that there are no cades there. Unless the zombie is actually looking at every block in the building (something which implies free moves), then without metagaming he/she won't really know there is an exit should dragging be done. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::But like Wan said, you're basically inside one large building. If you try and feeding drag inside a regular building, and the doors been closed, or whatever, you get a message and lose an AP, like for any failed attack. It's the same here. And the whole point of feeding drag is that zombies *do* know where the exit is --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. Its not needed. Once zombies get into a large building, they almost always take it down by keeping one corner ruined, or at least unbarricaded. The babah zombies can just come inside to feed, entering by spotting the ruined corner and then gorging themselves. Besides not being needed, its got a lot of potential complications. What if a large building has multiple open sections? Which one does the zombie drag them to? If zombies really wanted to use feeding drag in every section, they could just spend a few AP each to tear down the barricades, even getting a bonus for attacking from the inside in most cases.<br>I think its safe to say, if a zombie tries to drag a survivor across one or more blocks inside a large building, the survivor struggles and breaks free. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:36, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I'm afraid I disagree; you seem to have a fairly convincing argument against feeding drag itself; namely that if your baby zombah is standing outside any old building, he can see it's open and shamble on in. So why do we need feeding drag at all? I've already answered the point about which exit to be used as well. And yes, I could spend a whole load of AP tearing down the barricades to feeding drag a wounded survivor outside, or I could just spend 2AP and drag the human outside the exit that's already open. <br>And surely the point of feeding drag is that the survivor is wounded enough to not be able to stop it happening? And why should a human be able to drag a zombie across several squares of fort without it reviving? In both cases, if the player is online, they are better able to defend against this, with the difference being that all a survivor needs to do to 'break free' is simply walk back inside the building. <br> If I'm way off here, let me know, but it makes sense to me --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Not of base, but my point is, if zombies on a whole really cared about feeding drag, each of the ~20 or so in a large building could kick in 4 AP and blow away any barricades on that building quarter. That's really only enough AP to kill 2-3 survivors- not enough to slow down a siege once zombies are comping on a SECOND building corner. So it seems to me that zombies themselves do not put much importance on whether they can use feeding drag or not, as evidenced by their own actions in raids. Its not needed to make zombies vs large buidings work, nor would it really make it much better.<br>Truth told, feeding drag was originally used mostly to combat the "yo-yo barricade" syndrome by getting a building emptied (and ransacked) faster; now that zombies can block barricade building, its a bit of an atavism. Its main use is as a "visible" version of feeding groan. For a mall, if you want to let zombies know there is an active strike with some visible cue, just killing the generator is often good enough. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:16, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Fait enough for a horde sweeping through a building, but in my experience, I use eeding Drag for two reasons: Firstly, when I break into a building with one or two others, I know there is a chance that it will escalate into a horde swarming in, but more often that not, it won't. But by dragging a human outside, that's one less defender, and a drain on resources, because that person is outside regardless of whether I get headshot and evicted or not. Secondly, the FU tends to use it as a in game piece of flavour as much as a way of feeding the zedlings. So for a horde, I agree, Feeding Drag is unneccessary, and if you've got the resources to tear down the barricades with ease, then I'm all for that too, but for feral zombies, or smaller groups it's a slightly different ball game --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 00:39, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::When playing a feral (and my death cultist, too, actually) I use and think of Feeding Drag the same way necrodeus describes. It helps small numbers of zombies get the ransack faster. Also, if the cades go up, that drag-meat is suddenly isolated. And drag-meat is fantastic feral bait. And, yup, I do it very much for flavour/RP effect as well. Although, it doesn't work thar well for feeding babahz, b/c usually some big zambah comes along and eats them :( ... This is all in very big contrast to striking with the MOB, where we only drag if we are very intent on getting that damn biulding cleared -- because we can always tag-team to finish someone off if we have to. And if we are feeding a babah, we bring the babah inside with us. This suggestion is more for the ferals than for highly organised hordes... <br />
::::And a few other things: killing a gennie is not enough: GKing is too common... And swiers you know how annoying barricades are -- it really is asking a lot for a smaller number of ferals zombies to invest what it takes to open up EHB cades... But all that being said... Perhaps this isn't necessary, not really. And, it might in the end be a zombie buff that is just a tiny, tiny bit too much... Particularly with cade blocking... But... I still like it... ;) --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:36, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Well, I'm going to put it up, and see what the people / merciless flamers have to say.. {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:45, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I'm not gonna flame it; it can;t do enough harm to deserve that. My personal issue is that I'd like (as much as possible) to avoid moving other characters to different blocks (I even proposed [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20070616_Fort_Revision:_dumping_bodies_over_walls|a fort dumping mechanic that avoided this]]), and that its benefit is so small for the coding effort involved. Mall raids are already a smorgashboard for ferals, so I don't see the point of arguing it helps feed them there. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:37, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Private homes===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:18, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=new building.<br />
|suggest_scope=anybody how enters it.<br />
|suggest_description=Why does it appear that there are no private homes in Malton? I know its a city and your more likely to find a privat home in the subburbs, but I do know there are private homes in the city. We dont really need private homes but it would add realism to the game. There could also be another benafit. Since anybody could have lived in that house, from a NRA gun nut, to some tech loving nerd, you could find anything in thear. But there should be list of items you could not find in the house.<br />
<br />
List of items you could NOT find in a house:<br />
<br />
Necrotech syringe<br />
<br />
DNA scanner<br />
<br />
Flak vest (there could be one there, but it seems hard to belive)<br />
<br />
fire ax<br />
---------------<br />
Also here is the describtion you would see if you went in the building.<br />
<br />
-With power: You enter a well lit home, you start to feel like you were before the out break.<br />
<br />
-With no power: You enter a dark house.<br />
<br />
-when ruined: You enter a house and notice how everything is thrown apart, which grimly reminds you of what has happend here. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Private home)====<br />
If I may ask, how long have you been playing the game? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:36, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
To answer your question, about a week, I have been running around rhodenbank. Let me guess? There are private homes and I have just not found them yet?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:39, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There are [[Mansion|mansions]], and various [[Building_Types#Building|buildings]] around the city can be thought of as offices/condominiums, where you can imaging living places in.<br><br />
There are other reasons why private homes aren't found on the map.<br />
*One is that they're too small, same reason why you don't put a single tree on the map (and for those that are large enough, see mansions).<br />
*Another is that with most survivors just looting around the city and zombie hordes chasing after them, most houses are in such a state of ruin that they are essentially unrecognizable, turning residential districts into [[wasteland]].<br />
*Finally, they are quite insignificant in the grand scale of the survivor-zombie conflict that adding them now three years after the game has launched simply doesn't make the game any more enjoyable or fulfilling than it is before, and frankly it'll only be a waste of time and effort to put them in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:51, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then instead of adding homes how about updating the regular buildings to be more like apartments? Because most buildings have a RP (EX:pubs,police stations,forts) thing you can do with it, but the regular office buildings are boring. Maybe they could add my search idea without the need of a new building type?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:19, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Your search idea is horrible. Normal buildings already do not have items; what you're doing here is the opposite in that you can find ''anything'' in them, and just for that it will be spammed. As for your roleplaying bit, that will take a much lower priority than improving UD gameplay, especially when you consider there is a suitable alternative (once again, mansions, and normal buildings aren't too shabby -- just add some decorations) and multiple other possible roleplaying locations. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:30, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There's no private homes because the private homes are usually at the outskirts of a city, and what we have in Malton...Is the big city. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 19:16, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I usually just think of the street blocks as containing such houses. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:52, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Private homes are not really appropriate to the game. They can be assumed to exist on many blocks... because it's generally accepted that the block description refers to the most prominent or most utilised building on the block... <br />
<br />
But... yeah... Nequa... please play the game for a while before posting suggestion ideas. Hang out and read this page for a while. And start playing some zombies, PKers, death cultists, whatever, as well a survivors. And join a good group or three. Barhah.com is a great board, and though it's zombie-centric, everyone is welcome. Beerhah.com is a good place to go for survivor stuff. Anyhoooo... back to suggestions stuff... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:47, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Dump dead bodies from dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Restoring normal ability<br />
|suggest_scope=Dead bodies and dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Under current game mechanics, you can’t dump dead bodies from dark buildings. How does this make any sense? You can get in and out of the building, even through Free Running, yet somehow you can no longer remove dead bodies? Or do the exits magically close somehow when you try to remove someone?<br />
<br />
Currently, you can see anyone hiding in the shadows of very dark buildings, but you can’t see/dump dead bodies. Even if you just killed the thing, you somehow can’t find its body, even though you’d be tripping all over it!? Once again, it doesn’t make sense. Only once you light up the place does it become possible to dump the dead. Since I see no reason for it to be physically impossible to find or dump dead bodies, they should always be recognizable and dumpable.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Dump dead bodies from dark buildings)====<br />
A possible explanation is that people in dark buildings are found and attacked because they're breathing so loudly and their hearts are thumping. Similarly, standing zombies are wheezing. However, dead bodies emit no noise, and if you're tromping through a building hoping to step through a ribcage, you should be spending AP to do so. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}21:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Or because they are fumbling with heavy furniture in the dark to barricade the building, or shooting guns, or... {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:48, 29 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::Well, how about another take on it. Anyone who dies in the building...if their body is still inside when someone who witnessed the death takes a turn, they notice the body (since it wasn't cleared). The body wouldn't have moved from its original spot that fast.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:06, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Group Bonus===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:22, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance change<br />
|suggest_scope=All denizens of Malton who belong to groups<br />
|suggest_description= <br><br />
<br />
OK, so while I used the template, I’ve brought this to the discussion page in a fairly informal manner because I don’t pretend to be a programmer and I don’t pretend to know what is possible. I like this idea, but I can see my own problems with it from a technical standpoint – and I’m hoping that others here might be able to help with the solutions on that front.<br />
<br />
Here’s the basic idea – in the real world groups are much stronger than individuals. People en masse accomplish much more, whether it be construction projects, armies, or lobbying government. Organization has an additive effect to efficacy - pretty much every time. <br />
<br />
Also – there is a benefit to being part of an organization for humanity. There is community, the transfer of knowledge, the advancement of the overall ends of society.<br />
<br />
With that in mind, I think there should be an in-game bonus for group activity. This will encourage folks to join groups, which in turn will raise the overall level of gameplay across Malton. This bonus would apply to ANY group working in concert – be in human, PK’er, death cultist, or zombie – so there are no powering issues between warring factions – only a power difference between the grouped and the ungrouped. Given there are few restrictions to joining or forming groups, the ungrouped would hardly become a put-upon constituency.<br />
<br />
So how to do it? Originally, I thought a simple tiered bonus for group size measured by the number of folks who have a common group name in their profiles. Say a 5% to-hit/search/cading bonus for folks part of groups from 25-49 members, and maybe 7.5% for 50-74 members, and 10% for over 75 members.<br />
<br />
The problem there would be that it encourages a new form of zerging. Folks would make “Group Scarecrows” that they would park far away from active group activity, but who have the group name in their profile. They’d technically not be in violation of alt abuse, and it would be very hard for group leaders to prevent, and of course the incentive would be to do it.<br />
<br />
So, I am wondering if the UD engine would be able to detect proximity effects and award bonuses that way? In this case, I’d lower the numbers required for the bonuses a lot – say 10-24 for the 5% bonus, 25-39 for the 7.5% bonus, and 40+ for the 10% bonus – and say that if you’ve got that many folks operating in one XX block radius, you get the bonus.<br />
<br />
Is such possible? If so, I think it would reward all the right behaviors in this game, and be pretty darn cool. My parameters are suggestions - they could be lowered, raised, modified. I am really interested first and foremost what folks think of the concept, THEN hammering out rational details that might actually be taken to voting. So, first "Is there a reasonable way this could work?" then "Would we want it if it could?" then "How exactly should it work?"<br />
<br />
What do you think? <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion Group Bonus====<br />
<br />
I'd vote kill, simply because you are not given a hidden bonus in real life from being in a group. Moral boost, maybe. But the rest you accomplish by working closely with your group. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 16:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Impossible. proximity detection would kill the server. Assume a 5 block radius, the game would have to, on every action, harvest information on userlists for 81 blocks (inside and out), run zerg detection routines on that information, and it would have to then count the number in the group. Now, imagine this happening to the server 30,000+ times a day. You would basically increasing server load more than a hundredfold all up (Quite probably by a factor of well over a thousand). As for the rest, without proximity detection, it collapses under the obvious zerg abuse you mentioned. Proximity detection is a myth, despite claiims to the contrary. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 16:41, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think Grim_s is right - without some radical reorg of the account system it's just not possible. I was hoping some genius might have a work-around, but I bet he's right that there isn't one. Whitehouse - thanks for the comment - but I disagree with you. In real life you '''DO''' get the bonus - the door opens for the AARP in Washington that would never open for the unaligned individual. The group can clear a forest while the individual could spend a lifetime chopping a grove. I think it's moot though. --[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:59, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Even if possible, the advantage to being in a group should come from coordinating with other group members to do difficult tasks that an individual couldn't do. You get a big advantage from being in a well-organised group. You don't deserve an advantage from a bunch of people all spelling the group name correctly. This suggestion is a reward for crap metagaming, which we don't need. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 17:24, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:You misunderstood my point. And Garum probably phrased it better than me. You get those advantages from working together, not from simply being in a group (at least not the type of advantages you were thinking of). Being in a group is a moral boost, working together with it creates results far better than that of individuals. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 17:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Oh I see, you're saying that giving an incentive for group behavior beyond already existing benefits doesn't have merit. OK, thanks. Fair enough.--[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 17:45, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::If you want to encourage group work, then find ways for groups to work better together instead of just giving people buffs for having the same group tag. Zombie hordes have scent death, recently someone suggested a way for zombies to sniff out their buddies. Such suggestions, which strengthen the ties of a group, will give good results, the good results are the incentive. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 18:50, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Technical details aside, this simply isn't appropriate. This is an RPG, and in RPGs the benefits of groups are simply those of multiple players co-operating. When members of a group communicate and co-operate, they are more effective. If they don't, then they aren't- just like real life. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 20:07, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
i haveno clue about all the technical aspects, but this just isnt a good suggestion. kinda sucks to be on of those people who likes to stay unaffiliated, cause they get screwed on the deal.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:19, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
If this was implemented, it would be possible for a user, for example, to put the name of a large group into their profile, and get all the benefits, without being a member of the group. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 21:45, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is illogical. The only bonus people should recive from being in a group is having someone to cover their back. No magic bonuses. No special abilities. Just that. --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 02:48, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Take a look at Nexus War for group mechanics. The main problem is that ANYONE can be in ANY group at ANY time.-[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:04, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Restaurants===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 15:12, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New building<br />
|suggest_scope=People who take notice of buildings<br />
|suggest_description=If Malton has pubs, it really should have at least a few fancy restaurants, which could potentially replace a few of the pubs in the richer areas of town. The Maltonians can't all have only ever eaten/drunk beer, peanuts and crisps outside of their homes.<br />
<br />
:'''Mechanics'''<br />
<br />
''Restaurant''<br />
* Dark building<br />
* Can be barricaded, ransacked, ruined and have equipment installed normally.<br />
* Internal description<br />
** Unpowered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The once-busy dining area lies in darkness.''<br />
** Powered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant.''<br />
** Ransacked ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The chairs and tables are overturned, and cutlery and napkins litter the floor.''<br />
* Search rates (normal, if dark condition were not applied)<br />
** Knife (3%) (kitchen knives)<br />
** Wine (6%) (the finest in town)<br />
** Mobile Phone (1%) (some careless people...)<br />
** Menu (6%) (Flavour item, when used displays "The menu reads: <random fancy dishes>", and flavour text "''You think about them hungrily''" (currency not specified).)<br />
* Clothing<br />
** a chef's hat (white) (obviously)<br />
** an apron (white/black) (waiters)<br />
** standard generic formalwear (maitre d'hôtel, sommelier, general higher-ranking service staff)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Restaurants)====<br />
Can we have one at the corner of the map? We shall call it, "The Restaurant at the End of Malton"... :3 --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:44, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't see why not --[[User:Diablor|Diablor]] 01:53, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Whines* Pubs (Arms) aren't fancy enough for you?<br> Mah Pubs not fancy enough for you, foo? Only if there is a Pub at the end of the world.. Already.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 02:51, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it, but I think the menu should be just like a newspaper with different flavour text. For that matter, would newspapers be suitable to be found here? [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 03:07, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A ''dark'' restaurant? Dunno about where you're from but around here people put big ass windows on restaurants coz ppl like to see outside...also a stupid idea. Pointless and you would have to think up some ridiculous way to explain why everyone in malton thought it was a pub but it turned out to be a restaurant.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:54, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:It was always a restaurant and nobody ever thought it was a pub. And 2+2 has always equalled 5. And we have always been at war with Eurasia. And darkness really depends on the restaurant, but good point. --{{User:Anotherpongo/sig}} 11:45, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Not pointless. Knives are the best weapons for newbies, yet malls are the only places with > 1% chance of finding them. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:02, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
As much as I hate suggestions that don't seem to solve any problems, we do need a TRB for knives, and this seems like a great way to do it.{{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 16:33, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Absolutely! TRP for knives, and logical and fun flavor. --[[User:UCFSD|UCFSD]] 17:17, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
a suggestion so simple that it makes sence lol i say yea bring on the restaurants!--[[User:Fanglord2|Fanglord2]] 02:37, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I '''Always''' vote for building suggestions-always love a change [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 09:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Vote all you like, I'm pretty sure a building change suggestion has never been implemented. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 10:04, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Kevan has talked about doing it before<sub>(it's in his talk page archives for those curious few)</sub>, it's not entirely out of the question.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:51, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Building changes not implemented? Dark? Ruin? Fixing the fort walls? Its not without precedent.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:46, 31 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::::He meant changing one building (type) into another building (type). The first significant building change was to make large buildings into "1" building, but they were ALL still the same building to begin with.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:05, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I'll concede that the forts were revamped from just the armoury building to the 9-block compounds that they are now, but as far as I'm aware that wasn't based on a player suggestion. Large buildings and walls changed how some buildings worked, not what type of building they were per se. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this suggestion.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:16, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Asum(awesome)!!! Lol! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Face Rot===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Zombie Skill, subskill of brain rot.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Brain Rot.<br />
|suggest_description=The rot has spread, now it shrivels and distorts the facial features. The person underneath is hard to recognise.<br />
<br />
In game terms, its a buff for zombie anonymity. Unless the zombie is in your contacts you cannot recognise him if.<br />
<br />
*He stands up<br />
*Destroys barricades/equipment<br />
*Kills or injures.<br />
<br />
His profile can still be gained through a successful scan, or if you recognise them via your contacts. (You could be familiar with his limp, a watch or other item, his groaning etc.)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Face Rot)====<br />
Go on. Savage it, like my horribly ruined features. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I like it, what better way to implement Zombie Anonymity than through a skill? Plus. it promotes the Brain Rot! :D --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 18:54, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
How would this work when they're alive? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 19:38, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Then their profile just states they look like [http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=Gary+Busey&btnG=Search+Images Gary Busey] --{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:52, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bloody Brilliant!!! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 22:27, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Good, apart from one thing. How do you explain not being able to recognise a corpse you just saw die when it stands up. This case would only be when you are in the same location for the period of time in which a character dies and rises (in the case of first being a survivor which is recognisable to all anyway). Explanation could be that the face rot while cleared up by the revivification effect while alive, takes hold again almost instantaneous. But that still wouldn't change the fact that you saw that body die and rise, thereby knowing exactly who it was. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 23:36, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A good idea, except that Whitehouse's point might need addressing. How do looks change so quickly? {{User:Ariedartin/Nickname}} 06:22, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't like this idea. It's balanced and innovative but it disregards the true zombie mentality. Yes, I love zombie anonymity. But I am always in the belief that true zombie characters should be willing to do the *above* three actions '''and''' have their anonymity threatened to whoever wants to use it, in order to succeed their goal. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 12:04, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Interesting points. I'm off to make a ridiculous suggestion, and I'll think about this. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 14:24, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
In relation to Whitehouses point. How about an extra piece of text like. "Blah killed Example, their face decomposes before your eyes. "--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:37, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I saw no one pointed it out and I have a feeling you'll actually check before suggesting this. This isn't actually a buff to zombies, this is removing the one way in which zombie groups generally recruit. I like the idea of starting to get zombie anonymity back, it never should have left but, this hurts them, especially because survivors still get all the workarounds they want/use while zombies now have absolutely no way of knowing who to go to for help/advice/etc.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 09:07, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Suggestions up for voting==<br />
===Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080831 Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark]] as suggestion is up for voting. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:17, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Nurse===<br />
Moved to voting, under the new name of [[Suggestion:20080826_Doctor's_Clinic|Doctor's Clinic]]<br />
----<br />
===Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080827 Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:03, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Dead Reckoning===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion_talk:20080826_Dead_Reckoning]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 09:46, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Janine&diff=1272908User:Janine2008-09-13T17:16:12Z<p>Janine: </p>
<hr />
<div>If you want to leave a comment, feel free to do so. Matter of fact I encourage everyone and anyone to leave a message on my talk page.<br />
<br />
== About Me ==<br />
And now for a little about myself without the cut and paste templates. I'm from Baltimore, currently enrolled in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Institute_College_of_Art MICA] and I work as a Creative Assistant for a publishing company. I live with my girlfriend, a Civil Engineer and History Major, off campus in an apartment. I've done some work towards equal civil rights in Maryland. I also just joined a branch of the [http://www.pinkpistols.org/ Pink Pistols].<br />
<br />
<br />
== About Me in UD ==<br />
My one and only character [http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1237352 Janine Eelms] is part of the pker auxiliary of the [[Hel's Daughters|Hel's Daughters]].<br />
<br />
== Current Projects ==<br />
# Currently I'm writing for the [[Families of Malton|Families of Malton]] pages.<br />
# Recruiting for [[Hel's Daughters|Hel's Daughters]].<br />
# Writing the following Guides.<br />
::A PKer Guide, Survivor Tactics, Zombie Tactics, and a starting zombie guide.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Since Someone Asked ==<br />
I currently own a Mosin Nagant and a Henry Lever Carbine.<br />
== Templates ==<br />
<center><br />
{{CS}}<br />
{{Female}}<br />
{{Boobies}} <br />
{{Second Ammendment}}<br />
{{Atheist}} <br />
{{Crucifix}}<br />
{{Firefox}}<br />
{{PKing}} <br />
{{Too Much Free Time}} <br />
{{Axe}} <br />
{{American}}<br />
{{Monk}}<br />
{{Socialism}}<br />
{{carlin}}<br />
{{HATP}}<br />
{{Junk}}<br />
{{ThereCanOnlyBeOne}} <br />
</center></div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Department_of_Emergency_Management&diff=1272903Talk:Department of Emergency Management2008-09-13T17:10:25Z<p>Janine: /* What's with the anti-DEM sentiment? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Attacks on Bigger Mortice members. ==<br />
<br />
Just to point out that our only enemies are [[Dragonhead]]. We are not pkers as such. We kill members of [[Dragonhead]] because of their crimes against us, and their crimes against the Zog of Marrinium. <br />
<br />
'''All other players and groups are safe.''' We deem it a great shame that [[Dragonhead]] seem unable to fight their own battles. Signed: [[Bigger Mortice]].--[[User:Zombiek|Zombiek]] 22:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[Malton Murder Awards]] Nominees==<br />
{{Malton Murder Award}}<br />
Most Inept (Group): the DEM<br />
<br />
Most Inept (Individual): Labine50<br />
<br />
Most Inept (Individual): Zombie/ Blue Crow 90<br />
<br />
Most Inept (Individual): Runis 707<br />
<br />
Good Luck! --[[User:Karloth vois|Karloth Vois]] <sup>[[RR]]</sup> 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Survivor Security Zone==<br />
The [[Survivor Security Zone]] is a specific area near the center of Malton, where four malls and other resources are located closely together, allowing for efficient territory protection. The Survivor Security Zone (aka, "The SSZ" or "The Zone") has a high concentration of resources, compared to all other areas of Malton. The Zone is different from other tactical initiative in that it spans multiple suburbs (at least five have important resources), and cuts some suburbs in half.<br />
<br />
The physical boundaries of the Survivor Security Zone are defined by the proximity of four malls: [[Tynte Mall]] to the north, [[Woodroffe Mall]] to the South, [[Hildebrand Mall]] to the east, and [[Nichols Mall]] to the west. Projecting out a 10-block "square of influence" from each of these malls, and combining the overlapping areas, will define the boundaries of the Security Survivor Zone. The boundary has also been extended a couple blocks in a couple places to "annex" some police stations on the perimeter. <br />
<br />
We could use the support of the various forces that make up the DEM in supporting the SSZ as policy. There's much more information on the wiki page, but what do you say? - [[User:Benigno|Benigno]] , [[Zone Defenders]]<br />
<br />
==The Junkyard Bandits==<br />
Please help us in ridding Pitneybank of these pests! http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Junkyard_Bandits They raid the zombies at your Revivification Point as well, so you've got an interest in this too. -- [[User:Cyarus|Cyarus]] 16:10, 21 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Attention usergroup, [[Malton Hospitals Group]] needs your help. If your running a hospital, please notify us as soon as it's on our list of hospitals.<br />
04:48, 16 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
"How does one find one's own ID number? I want to submit a request but can't find my ID number." - posted on the front page.<br />
:While playing UD, look below the grid displaying the nearby blocks of the city, and you should see a block of text that starts with "You are " followed by your characters name. Click on that link and you will get to your profile page. Now, look up to your browsers toolbar, where the location (URL) of the page is listed. Something like <nowiki>http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=</nowiki> + some numbers at the end. Those numbers at the end are your characters UD ID#, and the entire URL is the link to your profile. You can also get this information by right clicking on your name (the link you found under the map) and choosing 'Copy link location' (or your browsers equivilent) and then pasting that somewhere. --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] 18:57, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
== Remember, remember the [[5th of November]] == <br />
You are all urged to storm the infected heart of our fair city of Malton on the 5th of November. We shall not lie down, we shall take back what is ours! [[User:Codename V|Codename V]] 14:45, 4 April 2006 (BST)<br />
{{Last Hope Mercenaries for Hire}}<br />
<br />
==Starlingtown Resistance Front==<br />
I think I may know how we got onto your page, but I don't know for sure.<br />
During the earlier stages of the groups days, I was contacted by a fireman in starlingtown, I'm not realesing names for absolutly no reason what so ever, and they said we should coordnate our efforts. I said yes but didn't realise I was joining this group. It came as a suprise for me because when I saw us on the list, as I had already dissolved the group. Anyway, the group is finished now and I just thought you should know to avoid any confusion.--[[User:Labine50|Labine50]] <sup>'''[[Malton Hospitals Group|MHG]]'''</sup> 02:56, 28 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Member group applicants ==<br />
<br />
===[[South Paynterton Aces]]===<br />
<br />
Hey there, DEM. I'm Dr. [[User:Diano/Diano|Diano]] Cervantes, Paynterton Leader of the [[South Paynterton Aces]] (I specify because [[User:EzriSun/EzriSun|EzriSun]] is the Starlingtown Leader). I've tried getting your attention on Brainstock, but apparently there are no nibbles on my bait, so I'll try here, instead. The Aces are the largest group based in either Paynterton and Starlingtown right now, and we focus primarily on reviving folks and keeping buildings safe for survivors. We're interested in being allies with the DEM, but we have no idea if you even have a presence in our 'burbs. Mainly we're just looking to establish contact, trade info, and start looking at the bigger picture. We're uniting local groups into a coalition called the Paynterton Pact, and have made some really strong inroads with groups like the Imperium of Man and the Creedy Defense Force which have helped solidify the suburb and keep it safe. I hope to hear back from you guys, and maybe trade some intel about what's up in our crazy world. -- [[User:Diano/Diano|Diano]] 02:03, 24 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===Flustered Brethren===<br />
We've been watching and admiring your work for quite a while, and want to sign on as a supporter/ally.<br />
<br>Having recently been accepted into the [[Dulston Alliance]], the [[Flustered Brethren]] wish to extend a hand to [[DEM]] and voice loudly our support of your hard, good work in Malton. Please consider us as an ally in the future. We consider you so now. <br />
<br>Or, well, at least, *I* do, and I'm the only one in the group who's both sober and awake this early on a Saturday afternoon.<br />
<br>Best wishes, and please attend the Monday Morning Kegger at [[Clewett Alley Police Department]] beginning at 11 a.m., or whenever we find another table upon which to place the keg. The zombies broke the last one as we were bringing it inside Thursday night.<br />
<br>If you have a table -- or corkscrews, which are rare as hen's teeth in this burg -- please attend and bring it/them. Thanks. -- [[User:Flustered Fred|Freddy]] 14:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br><br />
===E.N.D.===<br />
We here at [[E.N.D.]] are a nomadic survivor group that would like to help Malton by traveling through every town, and taking out any threat in order to return our beloved city to its old glory. If we are in need, call upon us and we will give our lives if we mustto heal the sick, and return your loved ones to thier living bodies.<br />
E.N.D. asks for an alliance with every survivor group. <br />
If all survivors can work in harmony, together, our children will grow up to think zeds are only a ghost story. <br />
http://z11.invisionfree.com/END_Forums/index.php?act=idx<br />
--[[User:XxPale HorsexX|XxPale HorsexX]] 11:14, 26 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''They have raised the bar...'''<br />
<br />
:... so we must raise it higher!<br />
<br />
:I have made efforts to call upon every major survivor group to join in a full frontal assault into the red zones.<br />
<br />
:The plan:<br />
:Have a major and a minor group take a red suburb. The bigger group will take the TRP of choice while the minor group will employ the '''DEAD E.N.D.*''' strategy outside. <br />
<br />
:Have a few floating groups (which can be alive or undead) that will be kill units taking out any and all zeds it finds. <br />
<br />
:With these groups taking out the zeds, it will allow the survivor teams to raise the ruined buildings and, also allow the time to search for needles, and other supplies.<br />
<br />
:I won't lie, this effort will take some massive under taking, but, if done right with proper communication between teams. <br />
<br />
:Each team will spend time working on restoring the outside red zones and then working there way to the north western corner.<br />
<br />
:While this is being done, other groups will of course stay within their borders restoring their own suburb, which will hopefully slow down the efforts of it spreading further.<br />
<br />
:The major issue is if we do this, the zeds will counter by joining forces as well. LUE, RRF, Extinction ect, will be fighting back, and we will have to double the efforts even more.<br />
<br />
:To me, this is the only way this "ruined" status will be over taken by the survivors.<br />
<br />
'''*DEAD E.N.D.'''<br />
<br />
:There will be times, (especially with this new ruin status) where we will be put in harms way. In these times of danger there will be a standing order, called Operation: DEAD E.N.D.<br />
<br />
:Those of us that have fallen, will stay outside and guard a NT, while those still alive will stay inside caid, and revive when possible.<br />
<br />
:Those that are dead will attack ONLY zombies, and the living members will mention that we are fighting the undead outside, to greatly increase the chances of survivors staying to defend the NT. Also as a new update, (Not officially mentioned) survivors that do not have construction to barricade, search around for a lead pipe. Even without the construction skill, you too can do some minor helping.<br />
[[Length of Pipe]]<br />
<br />
:In extreme cases DIRT:NAP may be employed in mass:<br />
[[DIRT:NAP]]<br />
<br />
:This will keep the zeds busy, while the survivors gain more AP, and, hopefully increase the chances of having a working NT, threwout a siege.<br />
--[[User:XxPale HorsexX|XxPale HorsexX / XxCannon FodderxX]] 23:51, 3 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
===The Electric Light Torchestra===<br />
This is [[User:PsychoLychee|PsychoLychee]], proud co-leader of the [[ELT]]. We are a very young and very small group up to now and our contribution to the wellbeing of Malton is also only small. But we consider ourselves helpful and peaceful and are dedicated to enlighten the town (starting at only one suburb, however: [[Dulston]]. Organized pretty well by dividing the work into 2 tours, and currently recruiting to be able to expand.). We hate the [[zombies|undead hordes]] as much as you do and would feel more than honored, if you considered our work and decided to form an alliance with us.--[[User:PsychoLychee|PsychoLychee]]<sup>[[The Electric Light Torchestra|ELT]]</sup> 00:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Bagehot Way Precinct===<br />
Hello, [[User:BelPierce|Belinda Pierce]] here from [[Bagehot Way Precinct]]. I've got a group of people working to keep two police stations ([[Bagehot Way Police Department]] and Breeden Way Police Department) clear of zombies as well as the other blocks in that area of [[Pashenton]]. We've mostly cleared our immediate area, though fresh outbreaks are frequent as we're surrounded by zombie territory on several sides. We've got a fairly decent sized survivor population that we're keeping safe to the best of our ability; maintianing barricades, killing zeds, maintaining a revive point, and some small amount of medical assistance though that's difficult given we don't have a hospital in our sphere of influence.<br />
<br />
We're a fairly new and still pretty small group, and I'm not a real cop, but we doing police work as best we can so if you want to count us as allies, we're here. If you don't, well, we're still here and Bagehot is mine. I cleared it first. [[User:BelPierce|Belinda]] out.<br />
<br />
===woamm warriors===<br />
my name is homang, leader of woamm warriors, we are always looking for allies around malton. we are a group that is based out of kempsterbank, helping whomever nearby that needs our service, we are currently working closely with the Kempsterbank Neighbourhood Watch to help survivors in any way possible.<br />
<br />
If you guys are interested to ally up, please drop me a [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Homang line] whenever at your convience. thanks for your time.<br />
here is our [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/woamm_warriors<br />
group page] if you are interested to check it out.<br />
<br />
===U.S. ARMY INFANTRY===<br />
<br />
Hi, I'm Johnny lunchpail commander [[U.S. ARMY INFANTRY]] I wish for you to add us to your allies section I'm not sure what type of ally we are considered at this time. Actaully if you could clear this up for me it would help to know what we are in respct to DEM allies. We have worked with DEM closely in grigg heights, eastonwood, dunningwood, gulsonside, and at caiger. Thanks --[[User:Johnny Lunchpail|Johnny Lunchpail]] 07:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Johnny, it sounds like you are already an ally. If you have worked with our members and friendships have been built between members of our groups, then you are a friend and ally already. As such I've already added your group to our Friends & Allies list on this page. I see you have already added yourself to the DEM Ally category, so you are ahead of the curve there. You are also already listed as a DEM Ally on Brainstock and as such have access to the private Ally Intelligence forum within the DEM area. You can also authorize any members of your group for access to that forum as well, just contact any Brainstock Admin. So you are all set as you are. Please accept my gratitude for the work you do for the survivors of Malton! The only thing further, as far as the relationships between our groups, would be to become a [[Department_of_Emergency_Management#Strategic_Partners|Strategic Partner]]. --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]|[[DEM]]</sup> 02:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Black Berets==<br />
Hello, this is [[User:Iluliaq|Iluliaq]] from the [[Black Berets]]. Our forum is experiencing technical difficulties, so the Black Berets and GHDU will be operating off a temporary forum: http://s14.invisionfree.com/ghdu If you register for this forum under your earlier usernames, you will be added to the temporary forum shortly. Thank you for your patience.<br />
<br />
== Tags - Observed & Suggestions ==<br />
<br />
Have you seen a DEM tag out in Malton? Do you have a suggestion for a new one? Please put them here!<br />
* wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/DEM - Here to help!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Whittenside medical corps==<br />
The Whittenside medical corps, or WMC if you prefer, is a dedicated group of medical proffesionals that has come together in order to provide medical and revival support to all of Whittenside. Based out of Anne General Hospital, the Corps have taken it upon themselves to maintain the generators in the hospital as well as the Colglough Building (a Necrotech establishment) and the Sherwel Building (the local cell tower). Although we're willing to defend the hospital and the surrounding area the WMC is a non-militant fraction that prefers to support the other local groups through excellent medical support rather then carrying on the fight ourselves. --[[User:Changchad|Changchad]] 14:19, 30 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
===GKers===<br />
<br />
I am interested with your [[GKer|anti-GKing]] policy, but I have not seen anything about in your policies section. Without any indication of such, it seems that everyone can get away with GKing if they don't PK?<br />
<br />
The DEM does not view GKing equivalent to PKing in any way, and the [[PK Reporting]] tool we support, the [[Rogues Gallery]] does not assign bounty points for GKing. In our view, while it can be quite annoying, it does not remove any functional capacity other than Necronet access, and requires no special skills, and generally fewer AP, to replace than getting a revive. Particularly with the long lines at [[revivification points]] these days. We do support placing GKers on Do Not Revive lists and their equivalent. --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]|[[DEM]]</sup> 16:16, 30 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
But surely you aware of the new effect with generators in terms of search rate? Also with generators comes with the healing bonus if the skill surgery is obtained? --[[User:Changchad|Changchad]] 18:41, 30 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== PK Misinformation ==<br />
<br />
Take me off your list. You want proof I'm not a PKer you send someone to Dulston and ask around. You'll get your answer. Besides, I was reported by a member of DORIS who is the real player killer. --[[User:Officer Murphy|Officer Murphy]] 11:44, 18th November 2006 (CST)<br />
:Then quit killing people. If you actually targeted people on the pk lists, that argument might work. Yes, you got put on the pk list because you killed a bounty hunter, which is a legal pker.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 18:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I (DerekJeter) am reported on your site as being a PKer, with a screenshot as evidence. However, if you look at the screenshot http://www.ud-malton.info/PK_list.cgi?State=Reports&id=399609 I am in no way involved in that little scuttle. I appreciate your service, but this is a case of "you've got the wrong guy" - I never killed the person that reported it. If Amazing or any other CDF want to repost my name there, that's fine! [[User:Rasher|Rasher]] 01:46, 6 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't know what standards you're using to put people on your PK list, but they could use lots of work. I only kill people who've attacked me without provocation, and every time I do I announce the fact so others in the room won't mistake me for a PKer. AND YET I'VE BEEN KILLED TWICE BY people claiming affiliation with you. I am currently being harrassed by a known PK group, and I suspect they've submitted my name to you as a way to grief me (my in-game name is different from my wiki name). [[User:SmartyMart|SmartyMart]] 04:40, 14 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Not an unknown tactic. I know members of Mall Security have been on my ass because I go after Revive Point Abusers on a regular basis. -[[User:Singular quartet|Singular Quartet]] 15:27, 14 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
: <div style="border: solid 2px #000080; padding: 2px; color: #000000; background-color: #F0FFFF; text-align: center; font-size:110%; -moz-border-radius:6px">Our reporting policies can be reviewed on the [[Rogues Gallery]] wiki page. You can also find links to the tools for reviewing reports and posting to the PKer databases thread on the the forum from that page. Post your argument to the PK list moderators on the forum and it will be reviewed. To facilitate review, please include any links to screenshots, wiki pages, profiles etc that may be relevant to your case. --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]|[[DEM]]</sup> 22:12, 14 June 2006 (BST)</div><br />
<br />
== 151st Brigade and ICB ==<br />
<br />
Hello I am [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:B0ba_Fett B0ba Fett] leader of the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/151st_Brigade 151st Brigade] and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Iron_Cross_Brothers The Iron Cross Brothers]. I was wondering if we could be allies during this catastrophe. So if you would like to become allies just give me a message<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== You are Cordially Invited ==<br />
<br />
You are cordially invited to send a member/members to our forums to act as liason officers between the groups, in the spirit of the alliance we have together. Out boards can be found at; http://z14.invisionfree.com/The_Randoms/index.php?&CODE=00<br />
<br />
We hope to be hearing from you soon<br />
<br />
[[User:HerrStefantheGreat|Commander Stephano2]] 17:06, 4 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
The Randoms<br />
<br />
== Rock'n'Roll ==<br />
<br />
sorry, guess this is the wrong place but if you had an exhausting day and want to relax with some good rock music 28.93 is the right frequency. spread the word!<br />
<br />
==[[Revive Point]]==<br />
<br />
Well I have suggested changes to the revive point page which will change the complete layout of the list of revive points. You can see what changes I have outlines [[Revivification Point/Redesign|here]] and also my reasoning.<br />
<br />
I am already working on these changes although I will not put them into use yet as it will more than likley disrupt your revive request system. I strongly feel the page needs an update to give it a better look and I would like the community to comment on this.<br />
<br />
If you can look this over and also an example of the new list will soon be available at [[User:Pillsy/Sandbox]]. It works the same as the [[Mobile Phone Mast]] list. Any questions then please leave them on the talk page of the revive point redesign page. Thanks. {{User:Pillsy/Sig}} 22:19, 17 October 2006 (BST)<br />
*The example is now available for viewing. {{User:Pillsy/Sig}} 22:53, 17 October 2006 (BST)<br />
**I think it looks great, although a color legend and links to revive request tools are hopefully going to be there too. It's easy to use, maintaining might be a bitch although you might do what Conndraka does with the recruitment page and tag maintaining group talks with reminders before you downgrade their RP to a different color level. Will there be a notes section? -- [[User:Atticus Rex|Atticus Rex]] <sup>[[AMS|A]][[Malton Hospitals Group|M]][[Project Wiki Patrol|P]] ' [[User talk:Atticus Rex|T]]</sup> 23:18, 17 October 2006 (BST) '''ETA:''' Whoops, just went back and you've answered all my questions. Cool. -- [[User:Atticus Rex|Atticus Rex]] <sup>[[AMS|A]][[Malton Hospitals Group|M]][[Project Wiki Patrol|P]] ' [[User talk:Atticus Rex|T]]</sup> 23:21, 17 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==DHPD: Rotters Relief and DEM==<br />
Some of you may know me already from my work as PR Chief for DHPD. I was recently promoted to First Commisioner and am now second in command. <br />
<br />
The ferals spreading from Shacknews prompted us to seek a backup NT in case Dury was seiged. We sent some officers to collect syringes from Woodborne which is the office of Rotters Relief. Until now we'd had little contact with them. Some minor tension has developed and thus far been handled by my local command staff and new PR officer.<br />
<br />
A new development brings me here to ask your policy regarding PKers in the RR facilities. dontaco2000 of the RR has taken the position that the DHPD is forbidden from executing our warrants in their buildings. I wondered if he has placed a similar ban on bounties being collected by the DEM. To my knowledge our warrant procedure has been recognized and accepted by our allies and many other groups as legitimate. I base this on the fact that when properly executed our officers are not listed as PKers by DEM or the Ressens List.<br />
<br />
The Woodborne building falls within our area of operations (the DMZ), we do not claim this as our territory but we are the primary group in the area. We will not allow the RR clinic to serve as a safe house for PKers and the like from which they can escape our warrants only to strike again.<br />
<br />
I will be handling future discussion with Rotters Relief myself hence my interest. [[User:DHPD-SDC FmrPFCBob|FmrPFCBob]] 05:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Serving your warrants to PKers under any circumstances in general is something that should be discussed with Karija & the current lead PK mod on Brainstock, and with TBM on Resensitized. However, where known PKers on the [[Rogues Gallery]] are concerned, there is no such thing as a place where a valid bounty [b]can't[/b] be collected. So in general I'd say if the bounty is valid, it can be collected anywhere. I don't believe PKers should have a right to expect safe haven anywhere, as I know of no place in Malton that is safe from them. --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]|[[DEM]]</sup> 23:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Query.==<br />
<br />
I'd like to know if the DEM manage a revive point in one of the streets adjacent to the Nich Building, in South Blythville. It's come to my attention that the two members of a notorious RK/Griefer group ([[Silent Storm]]) are continually getting revives there.<br />
<br />
If this is the case, I demand you '''STOP'''. It's difficult enough tracking them down and killing them in the first place, without some do-gooder sticking needles into random zeds, and reviving the wrong people. Should they continue, then I'll simply consider them assisting an enemy of South Blythville, and be forced to take them out.<br />
<br />
If this isn't the case, then I apologise for pretty much wasting your time with this rant/complaint.<br />
<br />
A prompt reply would be much appreciated. --[[User:Flatliner|Flatliner]] 12:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:'''Re''': The DEM is not running any official revive points in South Blythville. The only known revive point we're monitoring is at Gee Avenue, as well as certain ad hoc RP locations. I believe the [[Blythville Gang]] is running a RP at Park Walk (1W of Nich NT). If that's the place you're referring to, then please raise your issue with them. --[[User:Halomarine34|Winnan]] 19:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Shall do just that. Thanks for the clarification. =) --[[User:Flatliner|Flatliner]] 18:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==A proposal==<br />
I have a proposal that could benefit everyone involved. Please come here and post what you think. http://z8.invisionfree.com/AOG2_Home/index.php?act=idx I believe everyone has something to gain from this.--[[User:Franz Molotov|Franz Molotov]] 19:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Revive Tool Combination ==<br />
<br />
As a dedicated reviver, I find it a little difficult knowing which tool to use, the CDF's CIT or the DEM's Rev Tool. I know that both share their information, but I am unsure how fast and efficient this is. Secondly, when setting up a revive point, I am unsure with which program I should register the point. Perhaps there is some way the two tools can be combined to form one solid tool, that acts as the premier revive request centre for those who wish to return from unlife? While the CDF tool is easier to add a request to, I find that the DEM tool is better for searching for non-area-specific requests. So, both tools have strengths and this would be a good reason to combine. Also, we could look into creating a Greasemonkey script or Firefox plug-in that uses the current co-ordinates of a player and link directly to the tool with co-ords already inserted (and even the profile link, if possible), thus making it easier for requesters and thus more likely they will use the tool. Hope you are at least interested in these ideas. As a prior member of both the CDF and the DEM, I wish you both all the best. --[[User:Rip purr|Rip purr]] 06:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks for the suggestions! First, there is no way to 'combine' these tools. What I think you are suggesting is that a new tool be written with the features you like most from each incorporated? Do you happen to have specifics in mind. or perhaps a mock-up of the UI you would like? Also, the CDFs is part of their mostly internal tool set, and I don't expect them to be interested in breaking it loose. Not to mention the fact that I am unsure if the CDF currently has any coders active who would be willing and able to work on this project. As you point out, they both have different strengths, but also adherents. FYI, the request data is synced between the two 4 times a day.<br />
:<br />
:As for submitting requests, the[http://z14.invisionfree.com/Brainstock/index.php?showtopic=342 UD Graphics Enhancer] has had a direct submit option from the UD page for a long time now. And we are currently working on a new version which will streamline the process even further, as well as provide a way to see requests at your location, find nearby requests, and link to a map view of requests, all from the UD interface. As for listing RPs, I'd prefer to continue to parse RP locations off of the wiki list, which seems a good neutral place for the community to maintain and correct records. --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]|[[DEM]]</sup> 15:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks very much for the thorough answer. After looking through both tools and weighing up all sorts of pros and cons, I believe a major combination of the tool is unnecessary. Not that I'm playing a game of 'yours is better than mine', but I feel the DEM tool is far more suited to wide spread usage within the extended reviver community. The UD Interface plug-in you mentioned really clinched the deal. I was unaware it carried this direct request feature! Fantastic. I'd been using UDTool and thus had turned my mind off to any alternative. I shall be combining both on my firefox after I finish this post! Syncing 4 times a day is incredible! How do you get enough volunteers to keep that up? Or is it done robotically? Also, you answered my unasked question about where I should post new or adjusted RP points. You say the DEM parse from the wiki list? Is that this list here: [[List of Revivification Points]]? I only ask because I'm aware of the move from [[Revive points]]. As you can tell, I'm not very schooled in coding, but find it fascinating. Well, keep up the fine revive work, and I'll continue to use your grand DEM revive suite to help the fair citizens of Malton. --[[User:Rip purr|Rip purr]] 05:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
:::Rip, the sync is done automatically by code that Aypok of the CDF and I wrote specifically for that purpose. As for the revive points, the parse is currently of the original [[Revivification_Point#List|Revive points]] page, but only because I'm a few weeks behind on finishing updating the parser and making the final page move. Hopefully I'll get that finished this weekend sometime. --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]|[[DEM]]</sup> 13:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Dartside Revive Point==<br />
We have a message on one of our revive points in Dartside that has come from what appears to be a DEM member. I would like to know, if this is so. The message stated that the revive point has been closed by the DEM, it is still an active point (on a regular basis) maintained by the Regulators Alliance. Can you explain this?--[[User:John Blast|John Blast]] 15:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
:While I have no direct knowledge of this case, I can hazard some guesses. It would help if you could provide the coordinates of the RP ro which you are referring as well. Looking at the [[Revivification_Point#List|RP list]], I do not see an entry for an RP in Dartside maintained by the Regulators Alliance. My guess would be that the member who tagged that was being reassigned and, not seeing any other groups with declared responsibility for the RP marked it as inactive to save people seeking revives from waiting for one that might not come. If the RA is maintaining an RP, I would suggest adding it to the list (well, to the [[List_of_Revivification_Points|new list]] I suppose since the switch is pending), which also gets it's status updated to the [http://ud-malton.info/revive_requests.cgi DEM RevReq tool]. In the meantime I know Evl Kitty has an account on Brainstock and DEM Ally access, so she (or any other known RA member registered on that forum) could post in our allies section for more information. I'll also point out this discussion to the head of the [[MFU]]. HTH! --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]-[[DEM]]</sup> 16:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
::Gilant I seem to have made a mistake, the group was the DEA (not sure who they are). We do maintain an RP at the Abarrow Monument [37-81] listed on the Dartside page. I also have an account on Brainstock, so I can post there if you'd like. Can you tell me, who the DEA is? I was unable to find a reference for them in the groups. Thanks, and I apologize again for the mistaken identity.--[[User:John Blast|John Blast]] 18:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
:::Apparently the DEA are/were a PK group who target "pushers of the drug 'Revive'". They also appear to be inactive as a group, but some members may still be active. [[Malton DEA]] --[[User:Turner Calton|Turner Calton]] 19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
::::Thanks guys, much appreciated. By the way Evl Kitty said to say hi.--[[User:John Blast|John Blast]] 04:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Revivification Points ==<br />
<br />
You group/organization are attributed on the [[List of Revivification Points]] for maintaining the following RP(s) whose status have not been updated recently and are scheduled for deletion from the list:<br />
<br />
* <s>Gibsonton Harold Square 84, 27</s><br />
* Gibsonton Germain Way 88, 26<br />
* Raines Hills Cemetery 66, 13<br />
* Shackleville Swaffield Plaza 55, 67<br />
* Shearbank Allder Row 53, 21<br />
* Shearbank Male Way 55, 27<br />
<br />
Please make sure to update the status and timestamp of your RP(s) at least once every two weeks. Thank you! --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]-[[DEM]]</sup> 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
:Struck the ones I updated. Thanks, Gilant. -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 19:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Radio Page Maintenance==<br />
<br />
A few of us have been trying to bring the [[Radio]] page up to date. We currently have 26.26 listed like this:<br />
<br />
* 26.26 MHz - <br />
** [[Department of Emergency Management]] - Emergency Services Radio Station<br />
*** [[Malton Police Department]] - All Malton police stations<br />
*** [[Malton Fire Department]] -- All Malton fire Stations<br />
*** [[Malton Emergency Medical Service]] -- All Malton hospitals and FAK providers<br />
*** [[Malton Forensics Unit]] -- All Malton NT buildings, syringe providers, and DNA scanners<br />
*** [[Malton Marshals]] -- Malton's anti-PK Unit<br />
** [[Malton Red Cross]]<br />
** [[Malton Civil Defense Unit]]<br />
<br />
This is perfectly all right -- however, we'd like you to know that there are unused frequencies (marked '''''AVAILABLE''''' if you wanted to spread things out a bit. Also, please let us know if your descriptions here are correct. Thanks. [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 22:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Actually, Malton Civil Defense Unit should be also be listed under the DEM, and Axes High should be added if we are listing all the groups within the DEM. Malton Red Cross is the only non-DEM group in that list, and they weren't there last I cecked (though that was a few weeks ago at least). --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]-[[DEM]]</sup> 23:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I'll let you do the edits you think are best for this. Thanks for your attention! [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 23:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Mobile Phone status maintenance==<br />
I'd like to put out a general call to your membership for updating the phone mast status page at http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Mobile_Phone_Mast#Locations for the locations they pass through. AND, if they'd like to maintain the masts, that would be great, too. Sincerely, your friends at [[MalTel]] and [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== The [[U.S. ARMY INFANTRY]] is in Dunningwood. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
This is Captain Mordac, commander of USAI's Bravo Platoon. We're currently in Dunningwood to lend assistance, but it doesn't really look like much is going on. We have worked with you in the past in Dunningwood and I was hoping you may have some intel to share. We need a large hostile force(s) to help us with this surplus of bullets we seem to have been plagued with. We can relocate to certain nearby suburbs as well - we'll follow the action. Get in touch with LTC Lunchpail and he'll set you up with a secure allied account on our forum if you don't already have one. --[[User:Stickman|Stickman]] 02:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC) (EDIT: Sorry about the multi-post, mods, I had a bad connection on FF)<br />
<br />
== RAMPAGE ==<br />
<br />
Hi.<br />
<br />
The Beatbox Kids have decided to hold a Santlerville/Huntley Heights-wide Rampage. We regularly have our own BBK Rampages in which our whole group goes out at the same pre-determined time to the same general area and kill every zombie in sight. So we'd like to expand this concept and invite all the groups from Santlerville and Huntley Heights and any lone characters to participate in a Rampage on Sunday the 8th of April at 8pm Australian Eastern Standard Time (which is GMT +10 for those outside Australia). Check to see what time that is your time zone so you can go Rampaging with the BBK. We'll aim to eradicate the zombie threat that has Huntleigh Heights coloured red on the danger level map. In doing this Rampage we also hope to strengthen ties with Santlerville/Huntley Heights groups such as yours. As Santlerville doesn't have enough of a zombie presence to support every group Rampaging at once, we will not be Rampaging in our home suburb of Santlerville - this will change should the danger level of Santlerville ever rise above yellow.<br />
<br />
So spend the next 5 days stocking up on ammo, reving your group members, and finding appropriate safe houses for after the Rampage. Let the BBK know via email, wiki, or in game whether or not your group will be participating. Also, we'd like to get a head count of rampagers and a zombie body count so we can see how successfully the Rampage went after it's over. Together, we can make this small, localised, weekly shooting trip a huge, wide spread kill-fest. Who knows? One day this could become a Malton-wide event...<br />
<br />
Good luck.<br />
<br />
Nick (Nallan) from the BBK.<br />
<br />
<br />
== SOS from Rolt Heights ==<br />
'''April, 6, 2007''' <BR><br />
Our entire suburb is under attack from almost EVERY group in the [[PKA]], and will be within the next week, and according to their threats on my group's forum, they plan on taking this suburb permanently as a safe haven for PKers. That's 200+ members on one suburb killing every non PKer, but you may already know about it because they say they have been attacking your base in [[Rolt Heights]] as well. They say not even you can stop them, but it'd be great if you tried with us to kick them out!! |m|_ [[User:Warstorm|Warstorm]]<br />
<br />
==[[Team Zombie Hardcore]] Operations in Marven Mall==<br />
<br />
The PKer/Zed Spy group known as "Malton Skeet Club", including members such as "Jack's Cold Sweat" have come to South Blythville. TZH is currently rooting them out, and killing them when we find them. We ask that the DEM approve of this policing action, as TZH is the only group in the area willing to deal with it. We have screenshot proof of their PKing, as well as their actions as zed spies. We will deal with them as we attempted to deal with the Gore-Corps during their occupation of [[South Blythville]]<br />
--[[User:Big Nixon|Big Nixon]] 23:13, 15 May 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== How long will it take for DEM to put LUE as first priority? ==<br />
<br />
They are killing everything in their pace. How long till we let this menace haunt Malton? All members should join forces and stop them dead in their tracks. The greatest joint effort in Malton is the history only way to stop this horde. {{unsigned|LuE Colo|13:56, July 19, 2007}}<br />
:sorry but his won't happen. The DEM doesn't make a priority of any hordes. Yes we watch them and warn others of their actions but we don't make a priority of any horde...be they the The Many, the RRF, Shacknews, or in this case LUE.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 03:35, 20 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Your Barricade plan for Randallbank ==<br />
<br />
Hi I am a member of the NNRC and have noticed you have NNRC as a enterable building This is harming our efforts to hold the suburb I ask you change it to make Littlehales EHB and have MacMillan Library as a Entry point--[[User:Matterfoot|Matterfoot]] 23:07, 22 July 2007 (BST)<br />
: I suggest you take this suggestion directly to [[Talk:Randallbank_Barricade_Plan]] ---[[User:Ashate|Ashate]] 06:53, 25 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==A little help please?==<br />
<br />
Hey there [[Shearbank]] Could really use some help, stickling mall has around 30 zombies inside and another 60 outside, the survivors are having a really hard time, any help you can send would be great. We ain't gunna last much longer. Lots of survivors are running and others are dying the Revives are starting to slow and ammo is starting to be a hassle, It's also hard to re'cade the building with that new ruined status. We really need some help here. Cheers --[[User:Annun|Annun]] 12:18, 23 August 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Cookie==<br />
{{Cookie|[[User:P4X639|P4X639]]|The DEM|reason=no good reason}}<br />
<br />
== Revive the DEM Tool? ==<br />
<br />
Hey, what's up with the DEM's Revivification Request tool? I heard that it fell to malicious hacking (is that true?), but I never thought it would be down this long. Quick, somebody poke it with a syringe! --{{User:Morgan Blair/sig}} 13:28, 1 September 2007 (BST)<br />
:Yes, there was a [http://z14.invisionfree.com/Brainstock/index.php?showtopic=6900 security issue] which forced our coder to take the tool offline until the problem can be fixed. We do expect the tool to be back up soon. -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 16:06, 1 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Criticisms ==<br />
<br />
On [[User:WanYao]]s page, there is a list of criticisms of the DEM. What do you make of these criticisms? --[[User:OPECOILER|OPECOILER]] 20:29, 26 September 2007 (BST)<br />
:I don't know I haven't ever really heard of him. Though the biggest part of his rant is that the RG is controlled by the DEM...It is not and is in fact run by a seperate group of leaders. The DEM along with the top 10 survivor groups + all use the RG for bounty hunting. So I guess my take on it is yet another person who doesn't really know what they're talking about ranting cause they desperately need a bad guy to hate.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 02:40, 27 September 2007 (BST)<br />
::And I don't know what's up with WanYao's "bedtime story", but the guy claiming to be MFD in his iWitness? Isn't. -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 07:13, 28 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Bouncing Beavers==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Hello, this is Falco94 from the Dribbling Beavers located in Santlerville. We have made a group of allies and beavers called the Bouncing Beavers that go and help where help is needed. First of all, we would like to know what you are doing at the moment, if you are not occupied with something else, we would like to extend our plea for help while we clean up Tapton from the aftermath of the Big Bash. If you would like to get in touch, email me at falconspeed94@hotmail.com or use this wiki talk page or go to our boards at http://tinyurl.com/o7ehp. Second of all, I would just like to say that we hope that you come and join us in Tapton and we hope that our alliance can be one that is fruitful.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Falco94<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Second Big Bash ==<br />
<br />
I note you already assisting in resisting [[The Second Big Bash]]. I have set up a page to help coordinate the efforts of [[Survivors vs The Second Big Bash]] and would be grateful if you would add any news or ideas you have. --[[User:Richardhg|Richardhg]] 14:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== MMA ==<br />
<br />
I like how the DEM was voted the most inept group! We're not a group. <br />
<br />
Also, AH could never be called inept... HA!<br />
--[[User:Hardcore Rockabilly|Hardcore Rockabilly]] 07:38, 1 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== [[The Great Suburb Group Massacre]] ==<br />
<br />
{{Template:Group Active!}}<br />
<br />
Thanks! --{{User:Pedentic/Sig}} 03:40, 31 July 2008 (BST)<br />
:This group is active.--[[User:Father Thompson|<span style="color: Black">FT</span>]] <sup>[[MCI|<span style="color: Black">MCI</span>]]</sup> 20:30, 31 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== What's with the anti-DEM sentiment? ==<br />
<br />
I am a bystander. I have never been in a group, but I have seen the DEM around. Now, I am seeing a lot of really violent and enthusiastic anti-DEM sentiment around, and I don't really understand, so I will ask you. Why do people hate you so?<br />
:Various reasons. Some people don't like how some of our groups operate, some people don't like our policies, some people don't like our tools, some people think we're arrogant, and some people have simply heard a lot of crap about us that isn't true.--[[User:William Told|William Told]] 04:35, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Don't forget the respraying of barricade info with recruitment spam and insults! Oh, and this of course: "Some people don't like how some of our groups operate, some people don't like our policies, some people don't like our tools, some people think we're arrogant" --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 22:59, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Our folks are lectured never to spray over useful tags or other groups' messages, and it's been my experience that most don't do so. Usually when someone finds their tags have been sprayed over with a DEM recruitment message, the useful tag had been replaced by something inane (''P00tie wuz heer, l0lz0rz'') before our team tagged it. -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 00:04, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::I'd like to point out that there is no way for any DEM member to prove that the Revive/Entry point was sprayed before they sprayed it.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 14:11, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Agreed. Just as there is also no way for our accusers to prove any DEM member maliciously sprayed over a useful tag. So it's a push. Except lately, nothing's a push, is it? -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 17:55, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::But when you a wall with "Bill was here" sprayed on it. You automatically suspect Bill, not John. And the DEM works in assigned areas where they should '''know''' where the vital entry and revive points are. So shouldn't any DEM member who comes across such blind spraying, quickly spray it over with the correct message? It is common sense after all.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 18:10, 13 September 2008 (BST)</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Developing_Suggestions&diff=1272888Developing Suggestions2008-09-13T16:59:23Z<p>Janine: /* Discussion (Permanent Ruin) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Suggestion Navigation}}<br />
==Developing Suggestions==<br />
''This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which '''have not yet been submitted''' and are still being worked on.''<br />
<br />
===Further Discussion===<br />
Discussion concerning this page takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Discussion_About_Talk:Suggestions|here]].<br />
Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general (including policies about it) takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Suggestion_Discussion|here]].<br />
<br />
Nothing on this page will be archived.<br />
<br />
== Please Read Before Posting ==<br />
<br />
*''Be sure to check [[Frequently Suggested#The List|The Frequently Suggested List]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots | Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]] before you post your idea.'' There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a '''dupe''', or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. '''These include [[Suggestions/RejectedNovember2005#SMG.2FMachine_Pistol|Machine Guns]] and [[Suggestions/24th-Apr-2007#Rooftops.2C_Sniper_Rifle.2C_and_Sniper_Ammo|Sniper Rifles]]'''. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.<br />
*Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.<br />
*It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.<br />
<br />
== How To Make a Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
====Format for Suggestions under development====<br />
<br />
Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header <br />
"'''[[Talk:Suggestions#Suggestions|Suggestions]]'''", paste the copied text '''above''' the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in <span style="color: red">red</span> with the details of your suggestion.<br />
<br />
<nowiki><br />
===</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion</font><nowiki>===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=~~~~<br />
|suggest_type=</nowiki><font color="red">Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_scope=</nowiki><font color="red">Who or what it applies to.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_description=</nowiki><font color="red">Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.</font><nowiki><br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion Name</font><nowiki>)====<br />
----</nowiki><br />
<br />
====Cycling Suggestions====<br />
Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit. <br />
<br />
This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the [[Talk:Suggestions/Overflow1|Overflow]]-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.<br />
<br />
If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the <nowiki>{{SNRV|X}}</nowiki> at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:1.5em"><font color="red">'''Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.'''</font></span><br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Suggestions==<br />
<br />
===Permanent Ruin===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Janine|Janine]] 17:18, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Ruin Change<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors who repair and Zombies who ruin.<br />
|suggest_description=After decaying for months on end, ruined buildings have become unrepairable. Buildings that have reached over 100 ap to repair are ruined completely. The buildings can still be barricaded as normal buildings would, but search rates and the inability to free run would remain the same.<br />
<br />
Hopefully this would spur survivors into repairing deserts and zombies into actively protecting and defending ruins.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Permanent Ruin)====<br />
I don't think permanent ruin is a good ides, all it takes is an organised group of zombies to perma-ruin the Necrotechs one at a time until it ends up like monroeville is. There's is also no balance for this zombie bonus, imagine you could perma-barricade a building, zombies would be unable to get to survivors and probably go [[On_Strike|on strike]] (again). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:31, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Unfortunately, Kamikazie is right. A big horde could travel round the city, perma ruining buildings.UPDATE: Harmanz already spend too much time moaning about ruin, this won't pass, and the brainless harmanz would have shit fit.--[[User:drawde|<span style="cursor:crosshair;color:Black">'''Drawde'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:drawde| <span style="cursor:crosshair;color: Blue">'''Talk To Me!'''</span>]] [[DORIS| <span style="cursor:crosshair;color: Black">'''DORIS'''</span>]] [[Red Rum|<span style="cursor:crosshair;color: Red">Red Rum</span>]] [[Ridleybank Resistance Front|<span style="cursor:crosshair;color: Green">Defend Ridleybonk!</span>]] [[The Know Nothings|<span style="cursor:crosshair;color: Brown">I know Nothing!</span>]]</sup> 17:36, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I must admit as a survivor I do dislike the new ruin mechanics, requiring more effort with time is fine but expecting me to not play for two days and risk death for one building is too much. I play one d/n character per city and I don't meta-game, as a survivor I try to survive so dying for a building goes against that. If there was a +100AP zombie action I'd only use it when I knew I wouldn't be back for the next few days. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:54, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A [[Eastonwood|suburb full of 100AP ruins]] is enough of a perma-ruin in itself. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 17:57, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's thinking like yours and Kamikiaze that makes those 100 ap ruined buildings in the first place. Either fix it or stop whining about it. And buildings could never be "permanently barricaded" as buildings would need to be cleared of zombies to have barricades built and those barricades couldn't be above VSB or survivors couldn't use said building.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 17:59, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Circus===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:58, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Building<br />
|suggest_scope=New addition to Malton/any new city!<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
The circus is a new building that the residents of Malton (or any city it gets put in) can visit, visitors can except to see the finest gathering of clowns, jugglers and sword swallower's this side of quarantine, in addition to these magnificent acts are terrifying new additions that transcend the very boundaries of life and death. If the show happens to unsettle you feel free to purchase one of cuddly toys to keep you company as the night draws in! (New additions to Urban Dead have been bulleted).<br />
<br />
'''Circus'''<br />
:Large Building (2x1)<br />
:No doors: but can be barricaded. <br />
:Internal descriptions:<br />
::* Unpowered: "The big top lies in darkness, "<br />
::* Powered: "Coloured spotlights highlight the empty ring."<br />
<br />
'''Items'''<br />
:Fencing Foil<br />
:Mobile Phone<br />
:Tool box<br />
:Stuffed Animals<br />
:*Juggling Balls (novelty/unique item) (Survivors can either give their balls to another survivor or zombie, or if none are present, juggle them themselves (doesn't remove it from their inventory). Despite having 0% encumbrance, only one set of balls can be held at a time.) <br />
<br />
'''Clothes'''<br />
:Face<br />
::*A big red nose <br />
:Head<br />
::*a bright <red/green> wig<br />
::a <black> top hat<br />
:Neck<br />
::*a <polka dot> tie <br />
:Shirt<br />
::a <white/red/orange/yellow/green/blue/pink> T-shirt<br />
:jacket<br />
::a dark red waistcoat<br />
:Trousers<br />
::*a pair of oversized trousers<br />
::a pair of <black/white> trousers<br />
:Boots <br />
::*a pair of oversized shoes <br />
::a pair of <black> boots<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Circus)====<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Zombie Plant===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 19:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=balance change<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, Italian plumbers<br />
|suggest_description=I propose that after 7 days of a building being ruined, a zombified plant will grow in it and guard it against those pesky survivors. This plant will inhabit and occasionally peek out of the building's plumbing systems to chew at their meals. At higher levels of decay the plant will grow big enough to be able to spit fireballs at survivors. Their bites and fireballs will do 50 damage, so than small, meek little survivors with no body building will die in one hit, but big and muscular survivors will need two hits to die - the first one greatly weakening them, and oddly enough, reducing their height by half.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Zombie Plant)====<br />
Not unless we can find flowers which gives us fireballs to shoot at those plants. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 21:24, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I 2nd that!--[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:01, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is a great idea! (Shhhhhh! zombies come with Kuribo's Shoe as a drop down clothing item but most of us pick combat boots to be fair.)--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 21:55, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Do want. *'''Starts drooling over the plant, thus it suddenly grows larger..'''* {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 03:41, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd like to have some of those mushrooms you're on. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 07:35, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There must now be a template made! "This user supports the addition of Triffids to the game!". Someone go make it, now! -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 08:51, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Perfect! Just what the game needed to counteract all these demands for ruin nerfs. --{{User:drawde/Sig}} 12:34, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Unstable Barricades===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 10:17, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance Change.<br />
|suggest_scope=All players<br />
|suggest_description=I logged into my character in Creedy today. I had been succesfully revived after being PK'ed yesterday, so I thought I'd hunt down the guy who did it and give him a piece of my mind.<br />
<br />
So, I search the fort, and find that someone's over-barricaded the armoury. Again. This pissed me off to no end, and I thought about what could be done about it.<br />
<br />
Now, if you're making barricades out of everyday materials, there's only going to be so much you can stack before the barricade becomes unstable and a bit wobbly, eh? You try stacking office materials and make the whole thing stable.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I was thinking that perhaps if you took down a level of barricades, and the barricade was already at HeB or higher, that there would be a 10% chance of it losing two levels instead of one. After all, you can only put so much stuff there before things get wobbly from the weight and all that.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Unstable Barricades)====<br />
In other words... about a 2-2.5% increase in overall probability of taking down barricades. Sounds reasonable, although the flavor doesn't really fit well. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 10:56, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:OK then, how about ''After spending a long time in Malton, both survivors and zombies alike have caught on to the idea of taking out the support objects used in large barricades, as this may cause other objects to shift and fall as well.'' --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 12:09, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
It has never made sense to any of us zombies that it is just as hard to take down a loosely barricaded door as it is an EHB door. You expect us to believe that we can thrash a pile of rubble larger than ourselves for several AP doing damage but when it gets down to a board leaning against a door we are helpless? I like the ''idea'' of this, but the actual numbers and such may need work. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:40, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The more objects you stack against something, the more likely that you'll knock away something thats supporting something else when attacking it. --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 03:46, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Without barricades Harmanz are dead so you have to be VERY careful when tampering with them. While i think the associated logic of cades needs an overhaul and the flavour text rewritting so as to be more believable I don't actually think there is too much wrong with the actual mechanics... apart from those fu**ing indestructible doors!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:20, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:That's why I limited the bonus to HeB+ barricades. --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 03:46, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Honestmistake, [[HIPS | think outside the barricade]]!! And... if you wanna make this apply to zombies, as well, then I ''might'' be game. But barricades are the zombie's nemisis, not the survivor's. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:06, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:See the flavour text I added in response to Aeon17x's comment. --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 03:46, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
"hide in plain sight"... no thanks, i will stick to my heavily barricaded target rich areas if you don't mind. At least then if they do get in they might eat someone else and i can piss off sharpish or at wait for a revive ;) Seriously though my 2 biggest bugbears in this game are "invincible doors" and "uber freerunning". Both are essential in some respect but both help to make the game dull... sadly every suggestion to fix them has been shot down (often for very valid reasons!) At the moment barricades are little more than nuisance to an organised horde and almost insurmountable for ferals, any (even slight) alteration will either totaly screw ferals or will severly screw harmanz.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 15:42, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
The fact that your little story is about a survivor in fort creedy who got PK'd shows how silly your understanding of the game is. this suggestion, regardless of any merit in the hope of reviewing barricades that was accidently included, is obviously just you reacting to someone else's playing style that you don't like. and it has never been ironed out that barricades are a single, large stack of objects. many people, discussing it on this page, have come to one conclusion that its a series of barricades, around the whole building. thus, the zombies and survivors alike are already aiming for the sturdy parts as best they can, but its still hard work. while i do think barricades are not how they should be, this is not a solution, either in form, or in flavor. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:57, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===No Reading in the Dark===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=--[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 00:25, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Ruin Change...thing<br />
|suggest_scope=Poetry loving Survivors<br />
|suggest_description= This is a pretty small idea, so I'll get this over with. How is it we Can't see dead bodies, see graffiti, or be able to aim as good, yet we can read fine? In Dark buildings, We should not be able to read books/poetry books. It would just fit in with it better.<br />
<br />
First Suggestion, Spam me gently.<br />
(Also, If someone could get rid of the Keep/Kill thing, thanks. :p)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (No Reading in the Dark)====<br />
<br />
.....wow...I have nothing snarky to say so I am going to wait for Wan..[[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 00:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Sure, why not --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 02:04, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Good for both flavour, and a loss of the ability to gain xp in that certain way while more "protected" in a dark building. I'ed keep it.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is not a dry run for voting it is for discussion. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 02:59, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
# '''Keep''' - Makes sense to me --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}03:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
#: {{s|'''Wow''' - are you a mucking foron? Did you miss the big text that said where the votes "go"? --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:42, 12 September 2008 (BST)}} Non-Author Reply. {{unsigned|DCC|03:42, 12 September 2008 (BST)}}<br />
<br />
You expect me to flame a good idea like this? Wow, get with the program, mate. See, this is not spam. You therefore have NOTHING to worry about from us alleged "trolls"... It's the suggestion spammers who are the REAL trolls... <br />
<br />
Anywaaaaay... this is a fantastic idea. It's minor, sure, but it addresses an illogic in the game pefectly. Practically an automatic keep. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I'm curious. Does anyone still waste AP to read? I stopped after the first few months of playing. Once I realized it wasn't like Moria and the scrolls. I wanted books to summon monsters or something. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:29, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I'll read every once in a while when I don't have anything vitally important to do with my APs. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 17:43, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::it used to be advocated as a bona fide "safe" way to level up. sometime pre-dead, i remember a couple of people on Brainstock still seriously advocating reading as a way to level up! insanity. i tried it at first, and realied really quickly how utterly useless it was. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:46, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Rethinking Ruined Building Decay and Repair===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 00:05, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Change Skill Effect<br />
|suggest_scope=Ruinous Zombies, Constructive Survivors<br />
|suggest_description=Reading the discussion on [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Suggestions#Repair_One_Day.27s_Decay_for_3AP Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP] by Deyo, I thought about an alternative way ruined buildings could work that might leave both breathing and breathing-impaired sides happy: Instead of having ruined buildings require 1 AP extra to repair every day, indefinately, I propose making it cost 1 AP to repair per hour (or 0.5 per 30 min.), to a maximum of 45 AP. <br />
Now Survivor players, you're thinking, ''1 AP per hour? How unfair is this?!'' but with a limit of 45 AP the final bill would never reach astronomical heights and one lone survivor could be able to fully repair it and escape (but you couldn't really barricade it).<br />
Now Zombie players, you're thinking ''So you're basically debuffing Ransack? '' Yes and No. You read the debuff, here's the buff: because buildings will accumulate repair costs 24x quicker, you'll be able to do a lot more damage by ruining multiple buildings quickly and repeatedly. Survivors will have to work together and retake, cade and repair buildings faster to make sure they don't get overwhelmed with 45 AP ruined buildings (so, it would still take some teamwork to achieve, as only one person repairing leaves the building vulnerable to further ransackings). This will force survivors to keep an even more watchful eye out on their neighbourhoods for ruined buildings.<br />
<br />
As a side-effect, during a siege this will slow Survivor's advancement even more when regaining grounds than the old Ransack skill.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Rethinking Ruined Building Mechanics)====<br />
Another Ruin nerf? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! Stop suggesting nerfs to ruin. If survivors cared they would go and fix it instead of whining about it and trying to change it through suggestions.'''STOP SUGGESTING RUIN NERFS!'''--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 01:07, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Please explain to me how one-AP decay per hour is a nerf? Especially during sieges. --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 01:50, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Maybe the fact it only goes to 45? --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 01:53, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::It goes to 45 in '''less than 2 days''', as opposed to '''6 weeks''' with the current system. How many ruined buildings outside of ghost towns do you see with a 45 ap repair bill? I'm surprised, I was actually expecting the harmanz to be against this --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 02:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::First of all - '''THIS IS A 5 MINUTE A DAY GAME'''. Forcing players to have to log in obsessively like you do just to keep a building from reaching your ungodly 45 AP in less than 2 days is stupid. Second, the ghost towns have such high repair costs because the zombies there ACTIVELY keep survivors out, but your idea punishes them by capping the repair cost. Third, nothing in this game (except AP recharging) is BASED IN REAL TIME! The survivors can't even organize when they have DAYS to fix up a repair you expect them to be able to whip up a plan in hours? And fourth, just to be DCC you're a FAG!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::1)Who said you have to log on more than once a day? 2)Yeah and once someone repairs a building, poof! there goes months of work keeping humans out. With this suggestion, survivors might make more attempts at recovering ghost towns, but it would be almost infinitely easier for zombies to re-ruin restored buildings 3)Decay is already based in real time. My decay system could tick along with the AP system doing 0.5 AP per tick. And yeah, some buildings might get maxed AP but someone can still repair them and AP out safely. Maybe tweak it to 40 AP max if people really can't. 4)what's your point? --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 04:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Strange, in the other suggestion, you said: ''So for 1 day's worth of AP a survivor can undo a month's worth of damage and still be able to get away. '' Seems you agree with me --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 04:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Seems you can't fucking comprehend. I was bitching about a suggestion that made repairing severely ruined buildings something that could be done in less than the daily 50 AP. Exactly like this suggestion does!!! Except this one tries to be "balanced".<br />
:::::::It says, ''"Hey look, the repair costs are up to 45 AP!!! I mean 45!! That's a lot! That's almost higher than we can count!"''<br />
:::::::And the smart zombie players are saying, '' "Wow! that's still under your daily 50 AP and still less than a lot of the buildings in the NW. Go fuck yourself"''<br />
::::::This suggestion is about rushing to a reasonable cap that won't really hurt the survivors at all. Why not say the cap is 75 AP? Why does it have to be under 50? Oh wait, here's why:<br />
::::::''And yeah, some buildings might get maxed AP but '''someone can still repair them and AP out safely.''' Maybe tweak it to '''40 AP max''' if people really can't.'' (my bold) That's the part where you admit your suggestion is worthless and are just trying to make it seem like it should appeal to zombies. And if you can't see my point then take your head out of your ass and read it again slowly.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:00, 12 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::Dumb survivor repairs building alone and escapes. Zombie comes back, and ruins uncaded building again. And I said 45 ap, but it could be 40ap, or 50ap. The point is one survivor can't repair and cade at the same time--[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:15, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::I just pointed out that zombies could "win" the game by going suburb to suburb destroying every NT building, killing people with toolboxes and ruining buildings with toolboxes (unless junkyards have toolboxes) as it would quickly take a large amount of aps to repair everything. And you think this is... a debuff? Over the long term it's a debuff (if the building is ruined for more than 45 days) but we'll be able to mass-ruin everything. And I'll ask once again: how many ruined buildings in populated areas do you see with a 45+ ap repair bill? --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:22, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::: HAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow are you new to this game!! The closest anyone has come to "winning" is when The Dead (led and) inspired all the other hordes to kick the shit out of humans and get the population of survivors down to 39% (by mostly killing every mall almost simultaneously ironically) and if this ruin update had been in play then survivors would be an endangered species now. You can ask your question all you want - it doesn't mean anything. I could ask how many repaired buildings do you see in the NW. What's your point? Oh, when humans are around buildings they can fix them. Brilliant! There are buildings over 45 AP because of the dedication of zombies to keep it that way. Stop trying to change that. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
ANY LIMIT TO RUIN IS EFFECTIVELY A NERF! Keep this in mind. Also this isn't a survivor vs. zombie type of thing. Suggestions should be based on a perceived unbalanced game condition and a remedy. The only thing you suggested is nerfing ruin completely and making deserts impossible for zombies to maintain. I'll leave the rest of this argument about how lazy survivors are and why buildings get 85+ ap repair cost to Wan Yao.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 02:38, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Any limits to ruins cost is effectively a nerf, but any increase in speed of decay is also a nerf against survivors. What I'm basically proposing is changing the way Ransack works, making it a more effective short-term tactic, but less effective long-term tactic. (It seems unfair that you have to wait weeks/months to get a good amount of decay and then in a day with just a few survivors you have to start all over again, why not speed up the process) As for lazy survivors, I don't know honestly... that's why I'm asking, how many ruined buildings in populated suburbs have you seen that has a repair bill of over 45ap? --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 02:57, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Don't try to fix what ain't broken. Your super-rapid decay would create far more problems than it attempts to remedy -- and it would eliminate those awesome triple-digit ruins that a lot of us have a blast finding and repairing. NO NO NO. The whole map would start to look the same again. :( --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 05:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Perhaps Kevan could find a way to make those buildings with repair bills above 45ap unaffected by the change, or at least have their costs stay put--[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:22, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Oh noes! I just realized there's a huge flaw to this that could lead to the extinction of the harman race: Rampaging mega-hordes could ruin whole suburbs in their path and survivors would have a hard time restoring whole suburbs with factories, NT buildings down. Eventually, everything except junkyards would be ruined. <br />
But I just thought of something else: Make zombies able to ransack ruined buildings for 1 extra AP per day (max 2 AP decay/day if a zombies perform 1 ransack on the building every day). Because ransack as it is now seems underpowerd to me. Before I post yet another suggestion, anyone got any other ideas for improving ransack? I think I'll wait a little bit in case if I think of something better. Another alternative would be for the starting AP cost to repair ruined buildings to be something like 5 AP --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 05:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Holy shit! you finally said something smart! Of course, it was statistically bound to happen (1,00 monkeys typing on typewriters and all that...) ''Another alternative would be for the starting AP cost to repair ruined buildings to be something like 5 AP'' This is a good idea that would balance with the cost of ransack/ruin and doesn't have a shot in hell of passing. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''fuck the decay nerfs, already! ALL OF THEM''' and get off your ass and earn yourself one of these funky templates, you lazy whinging wankers... {{Template:ExtremeRepair}} --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:And afterwards... '''DON'T LET IT GET THAT BAD!''' Ever again.... It's your own fucking fault the NW is in such bad shape. Up the level of your game, already. Getting out of Creedy or Dowdney might be start in seeing how the game is played by the rest of us. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Who are you talking to? Anyways, 100 ap repair bills look sweet, but they take 100 days to accumulate. As soon as the humans take repairing buildings seriously, we'll probably never see 100 ap repair bills again. Not that it matters much as I now think this might be too powerful for zeds --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:30, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I'm talking to you, and ''everyone'' who keeps suggesting Decay nerfs. Also, considering that still, in spite of all this, only a handful of people are up there dealing with the problem... once we get bored, i am sure it'll be another 4 months before it's done again... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:48, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::It's not really a nerf as much as it is a modification. Both sides are going to see it as a nerf if they think that way. And how well ruined is the NW anyways? I've been playing only for a few months, never visited those places. The reason why I suggested this in the first place is because I don't think most ruined buildings will be able to decay long enough to seriously deter survivors but I could be totally wrong--[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 20:00, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::The median repair for the NW (until these assholes started suicide runs) was 45 AP with the non resource buildings easily in the high 80s. Basically, the entire NW started decaying the moment the update was applied. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::The NW was abandoned even more fully than usual post-March of the Dead. As survivors huddled in the East, moaning for zombie nerfs. The update simply reflected in concrete #s what was already happening for a long time. And, DCC's numbers are pretty accurate, I can attest to them from experience. Although, many TRPs were ruined from day one of the update and never repaired, i.e. at 80+ when the "assholes" showed up... '';)'' Showing how utterly ABANDONED the region was. And, thing is, zombie #s have been fairly low -- low enough that there was no need for it to get this bad -- for a long time. Which is why I have no sympathy for ruin whinger. None. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:29, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Sounds like, despite being able to undo weeks/months of defending a decaying building from humans in a day with a small team of suicide repairers, Ruin is still working the way it's supposed to. So my suggestion is n00bish and redundant --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 16:36, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Scavenging Version 2===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 14:40, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors.<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
<br />
Scavenging would '''''replace''''' Bargain Hunting as a Skill.<br />
<br />
'''Scavenging''' gives a +10% chance for a successful search in ANY building. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Advanced Scavenging''' (sub-skill of Scavenging)<br />
<br />
Costs: 100 points<br />
<br />
Each Powered Building has a new option to do a focused search. A building will have a drop down menu of every item you can find in it, and you can choose what you want to look for. You have a flat 5% chance to find the item. Unpowered buildings have no option at all to do a Focused Search.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Scavenging Version 2)====<br />
<br />
Still no. Give it up already. Go get drunk, or do some productive volunteer work, or something. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:43, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think it would look a little something like this: <br><br />
[[Image:Focused.jpg]]<br><br />
Shame about the high failure rates though ... --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 21:06, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Funny thing is... Those who think we're TROLLS... Go look at posts by me and DCC... Actually ''count'' the posts where we offer something constructive... And put in their correct context the non-constructive posts, i.e. we're dealing with a thoroughly retarded idea and/or people who refuse to listen to constructive criticism. The numbers might surprise and enlighten you... Then tell me: who are the ''real'' trolls??? I'm not whinging, I'm just sayin'... And... strange bedfellows, these times make... '':P'' --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:32, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I <3 my Bargain Hunting. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 00:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think even with 5% search rate it's too powerful, because if I can choose what to look for anywhere, I could hide in a lit bank where zombies rarely break into, and search for that genny or that 1 piece of equipement I need (toolbox, flak jacket, phone...). In about 20 APs chances are I will find it. So instead of running around to find the best place to get a knife, or having to travel far away from a siege to try and find a new generator, I could just use this skill and everything I need is at my disposal. (Then again isn't that how Malls work? Heh...) --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 00:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Well I was thinking you could only do a focused search for things that that building already provides and nothing else. So a Bank would never really have the option since I don't think you can find anything in them anyway. So Hospitals would only have the option to focus search for FAKS/Newspapers, PD's for guns/ammo/Radios/flak jackets/and Flare Guns.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 17:21, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::In that case, what would be the point of advanced scavenging? If I'm in a hospital searching for FAKs I'll get a better search % with the regular search than with this 5% advanced scavenging search. --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:28, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Bargain hunting only works in a powered mall block===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:34, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors in malls<br />
|suggest_description=Does what the title says. The search bonus from bargain hunting should only take effect when there is a powered generator in the mall block.<br />
<br />
Reason one: you should have a lot more light than usual to determine where to best find the supplies you need in the middle of a hundred other people in the mall.<br />
<br />
Reason two: the higher-tier skills of First Aid (Surgery) and NT Employment (NecroNet Access) both require power to use. <br />
<br />
Reason three: even without power, search rates within a mall with the current Bargain Hunting is still ridiculously high. With the reworked Bargain Hunting skill, non-powered mall search rates are in balance with other TRP search rates like in hospitals... and of course generator killing turns into serious business.<br />
<br />
By the way, props to WanYao and karek for pointing out that mall search rates need a bloody nerf.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bargain hunting only works in a powered mall block)====<br />
:shrug. malls are almost always powered and search rates take a hit without the power anyway to the point where the benefit of having power outweighs the hassle of installing a genny.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 14:07, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Yeah, most malls are powered anyway. At least the ones not under attack. I imagine this would be critical for malls under siege though, especially if the power keeps getting cut for hours. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:32, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Malls under serious siege have enough to worry about as it is. And if you have death cultists or even just parachuting CR targets, then this would actually make a big difference. It's also not logical: I can loot in the darkish just fine. And, finally, to toot my own horn... It's really only FAK search rates IMO that need nerfing. The rest is fine. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Scavenging===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:01, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors.<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
<br />
Change the name of Bargain Hunting to Scavenging.<br />
<br />
Now the skill gives a flat +10% chance for a successful search in ANY building. What item you get would still be random as normal.<br />
<br />
Sub-skill:<br />
Focused Search<br />
Costs: 100 points<br />
<br />
Each building has a new option to do a focused search. A building will have a drop down menu of every item you can find in it, and you can choose what you want to look for, but you suffer a -10% to the base chance for a successful search. So it would be as if you didn't have the Scavenging skill at all, but still take a -10% to the unmodified base chance on top of that.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Scavenging)====<br />
Bnhr. Doesn't seem bad.. Your thoughts? {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 20:27, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:So its a global 10% increase in search rates? Justification? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:36, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: Well, There's that..<br />
::It would lower the Mall search rate to +10%, but let other buildings get the same. So instead of Bargain Hunting, you're just really good at scrounging things. Would make Malls less awesome fortresses, but make other resource buildings more useful so defensive battles would be more based on keeping lots of places open instead of just the Mall always being the best spot to search. That's the idea anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 04:03, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Would this skill also buff mall searches or just searches that are in regular buildings? Any search buff that includes malls will get spammed out of existence pretty fast.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:15, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The author said ANY building. Malls normally get +25% with that skill. This suggestion CHANGES it to +10%.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 01:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
The main problem with searching other buildings is that, except for PDs, Hospitals, NecroTech, Auto Repair and Factories, all the other places are pretty useless. Granted this MAY make them more useful (supposedly a generator can be found in the power stations, but there is no proof yet and a 10% bonus might be the proof necessary), your still limited in what you can FIND to begin with. I'd suggest ADDING some items to buildings.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 01:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
So... +10% chance to find syringes in NTs? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 04:09, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yeah. +10% to find anything in an NT, but you'd have the usual random breakdown to find DNA scanners and all that stuff. But since Kevan lowers and raises those NT rates to always keep the game in balance (which is gay), it probably wont matter to much.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 04:17, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Overpowered survivor buff that negates all the randomness and uncertaintly in searching. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:22, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I guess you are referring to the focused search part. And I agree, that part will never pass. I even doubt the change of Bargain Hunting would pass. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 13:10, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
So, in the eternal quest for searching for loot, this would de-emphasize the importance of malls (no longer +25%), but make all other decent resource buildings equal (+10% to all). This may mean that there would be less people in Malls, Malls would be less special. Which might mean less mall sieges. (or not... malls have almost everything under one roof). But it would mean that survivors would have a net search % debuff, as most would probably go to malls for searches, and they'd now have 15% less search probability. Considering the ratio of human:zombies, I'd be okay with this... "Scavenging" makes more sense than "Bargain Hunting" as a realistic survivor skill anyways --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:34, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
I <3 my Bargain Hunting. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 00:11, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Expand Malton Map===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 17:52, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Map Improvement / add-on<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, Zombies<br />
|suggest_description=This would make for a lot of work on Kevan's part, but I suggest adding a suburb-sized corridor of forest to one side of the map's edge, leading to a small town or a cluster of small towns a few suburbs large. This new area would have limited resource buildings (because it's out in the country) and no NT buildings so that it would be very difficult to revive there. It would be ideal for experienced survivors willing to take on the challenge, as it would be a little bit like Monroeville only instead of permanent death you'd have to travel very far to get revived or face a long revive queue. Survivors who don't like this area or think zombies have an unfair advantage can simply stay in urban Malton.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Expand Malton Map)====<br />
<br />
As much as I like the idea of introducing elemts of the Monroeville map to Malton, I just can't see it happening this way. Besides, we already have suburb sized survivor deserts - walked around Dunell Hills lately? Plus you couldn't justify it in game - why does the city have a line of forest nest to it? And why has the barricade zone been increased? --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 19:54, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Stay outta the Hills and off my lawn, you damn kids!!! --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 17:00, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:It could be made justifiable: The quarantine walls in some places has been breached (and some sneaky zombies made it to Monroeville) so they rebuilt it, but as they were repairing they also decided to link up with a nearby village / a small cluster of nearby villages to make management easier. --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:19, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
You've been [[PR_Malton#Fallback|Fallback'd]]. Still nice idea, And starting with T:S first. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 20:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I personally think that a new section to Malton would be cool, but there isn't a need really. right now, survivors can go NE if they want a challange. zombies can go east. as for justification, something like zombies overwellming the border and pushing into the country a bit before getting stopped again.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 03:35, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This already exists. We call it the North West. Now leave Pitneybank and go be challenged!--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 09:27, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What J3D said, which is what I always say... Also, damn dupey, '''STOP SUGGESTING NEW MAPS ALREADY'''. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:24, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Oh noes! I was about to suggest reshaping Malton to the shape of a brain, to encourage more people to become zombies --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 15:22, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
I didn't know this had been suggested already. Since Monroeville might close forever I thought I'd suggest to make a part of Malton Monroeville-y. But it is true that we already have a suburb with no NT buildings, Mornington. Still, it would be fun to have a wilderness area or two to break the monotony of buildings, streets and more buildings. --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:19, 11 September (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 20:57, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New usage of existing skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors in ruined, especially long-ruined buildings.<br />
|suggest_description=A survivor with the Construction skill and a toolbox has a new action button: "Repair One Day's Decay (3AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs, and reduce the building's number of days decayed, and the AP required to repair it, by one. This option would only appear if the building has been ruined for four or more days.<br />
<br />
This gives survivors who are repairing long-ruined buildings, such as forts which have been in zombie hands for weeks, an opportunity to coordinate and distribute the AP cost of repairs, which in some cases can drive a fully-rested survivor into negative AP. This coordination is extremely time-consuming, and thus requires triple the AP that repairing the building alone would consume. Eventually, this coordination would reduce the remaining work to a job that one survivor could finish, and that survivor can simply click "Repair" to complete the repairs.<br />
<br />
This suggestion is an attempt to build consensus for or against several previously [[Undecided Suggestions]], such as [[Suggestion:20080804 Repairing Really Ruined Buildings|Repairing Really Ruined Buildings]], [[Suggestion:20080625 Ruin Repairing change|Ruin Repairing Change]], and [[Suggestion:20080729 Partial Repair|Partial Repair]].<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP)====<br />
Oh look, a survivor complaining about how hard it is to coordinate efforts among several survivors. You have clearly never played as a zombie. Zombies have to coordinate efforts all the time to just get into buildings. You don't want to spend 40+ AP to repair a building? Get off your ass and take it back sooner. Organize a better defense of it in the first place. Changing the mechanics because some players suck at the game is retarded.<br />
Let's stop pitching in Major League Baseball because not everyone can get a home run. Let's make it like T-Ball. If the game is made easier for THE MAJORITY OF THE PLAYERS that will really make it fun for the minority! --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:21, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Sometimes, when I read your replies, I wonder which game you're playing. Just a heads-up, this is the suggestion discussion area for a browser-based casual game about humans and zombies called Urban Dead. Some people have commented that survivors, despite outnumbering the zombies, have Rambo syndrome and never cooperate. This suggestion would give them an option to cooperate, though at a higher total AP cost than sacrificing one human to repair the building and then reviving him later, which requires no cooperation beyond standing at an RP and saying, "Mrh?" [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::No, Dago, this suggestion will make it easier for strafing repairs without danger to the survivors and therefore completely nerf the ruin update. You seem to forget that there is no mechanic available to a zombie to speed up the AP needed to repair a building, so ideas like this that cost low AP to undo something that only time can change are stupid and horribly unbalanced. Using your numbers - 3 AP will remove 2 APs worth of damage. So,if a survivor has 40 AP to spend that is 13 clicks which equals 26 AP. '''So for 1 day's worth of AP a survivor can undo a month's worth of damage and still be able to get away.''' And you want to make this so more than one survivor can repair a ruin like this? The current system is much better because it is all or nothing. But please whine about how I don't offer constructive criticism since you didn't bother to read any of the comments on the suggestions you are raping to make this abortion of an idea. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:30, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Again, you add racial slurs and little else to the discussion. You also have a math error there. A building costs 1 AP per day to repair, so this suggestion would triple the AP required. A survivor who happens to have maximum AP can repair a month of ruin and get away, by spending 30 AP, and would not need to click anything 13 times. Also, you are correct that you don't offer constructive criticism, you only offer rage and spite. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You have reading errors then. You posted ''"Repair One Day's Decay (2AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs'' One day's decay is not 2 AP like you posted in the suggestion. If you are saying that it triples the amount of AP needed to repair then spending 30 AP should only undo 10 AP worth of damage. This goes back to my whole point about making strafing repair runs and how it isn't fair that zombies can't undo the exact amount of damage that survivors can repair, but you seemed to have missed all that you fuckstick. (are insults better than racial slurs? I could call you a wop if you would prefer that.) You know, the only reason I add the slurs and insults is so people like you and Galaxy have something to latch onto and reply to since you obviously don't listen to reason or experience. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Congratulations! You can spot typos and swear on the internet! I'm afraid I can only fix the first, though. Thanks! [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You can't even be bothered to proof read your own suggestion? Really now. How hard would that have been? It wasn't even that far into the suggestion. It was right toward the top. The fact that you didn't read your suggestion before you posted it also tells me that you didn't think about it too much and just hit SAVE PAGE. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 17:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Maybe if survivors don't act like Rambo and actually did teamwork, this would be a non-issue. After all you only need three people tops to repair a building: one to search for gennies and fuel and install them (for dark), one to repair, and one to barricade. On the other hand it takes more than three zombies to take one EHB building with those same three survivors in it. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 00:53, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Actually, this suggestion would ''encourage'' teamwork. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Therefore, you admit that survivors don't actually do much teamwork in the first place if they have to get a massive buff for them to get their asses moving to repair all those dark buildings. Quite a sad state of affairs, isn't it? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:55, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::It is. Want to fix it? [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You do not solve social problems such as survivor laziness by changing the game's design; if you do that, all it would do is show that their laziness is perfectly fine, and that mocks all the organized effort zombie groups do just to keep your shit ruined. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 14:08, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I look forward to your suggestion on how to solve social problems. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I look forward to you making a non-crappy suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Don't hold your breath. I would miss you if you died.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:26, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bitching about how hard it is for one group and how crap the other plays is hardly constructive now is it? The main use for this would not be for survivors to co-operate (it should be but wouldn't get used in that way) instead this would enable altruistic survivors the chance to slowly fix up a ruin without leaving them self out in the open! Sadly that very fact means that this would just attract hordes of low level zergs to gradually rebuild an area with less risk of needing revives :( --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:11, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, but at a higher AP cost than repairing and reviving. It gives survivors options, but doesn't take anything away from Zombies except for APs that would otherwise be used pumping shotgun shells into them. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This isn't needed. shit, Fort Perryn was just taken back and it was ruined for a while (not as long as some buildings up north, granted). oh, and DCC: calm down.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 03:12, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Needed? Maybe not. But it makes sense, it encourages survivor cooperation, and it soaks survivor APs. All are things that both zombie and survivor players have said the game needs. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::How in the fuck is survivors cooperating something zombies need? When did any ZOMBIE player say they needed survivors to pull together? Survivors are really fucking lucky this game doesn't have perma-death and that the creator steps in to help them out when their own stupidity leads them to the brink of destruction. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:39, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::How long have you been around? Zombie players have been some of the main ones bit*hing that survivors are too damn uncoordinated, not that it would help zombies, but it would make the game funner to play. Not everything is about game-mechanics, and if there were no survivors left why would you play? Sounds to me you're putting down the game because survivors are stupid, yet are bit*hing they shoulden't be forced to be smart, like zombies are... and that my friend, is more f**ked up then any susgestion ever made.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 03:02, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::[http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=97517 I've] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Many been] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/DARIS around] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Dead awhile.] The survivors being coordinated or not does not make the zombie aspect of the game "funner". And when zombie players bitch that the survivors suck it is because instead of trying to get together and work as a team they all just suggest buffs to themselves or nerfs to zombies to solve the problem. Buffing them unfairly does not "force them to be smart". --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Remember that what is fun for you is not fun for all zombie players. Some zombie players want to do something other than turn brainz into Mrh? cows. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Enlighten me, Oh Zombie Master, what else a zombie can do in this fucking game. They can't spread zombie grafitti, play on the radio, or even hold IC conversations (since their alphabet is so fucking limited). They can't even get XP through any means other than hitting survivors (or other zombies). Other than killing what the fuck can a person that plays a zombie do? That's why it is so frustrating when assholes like you want to come along and make things harder on the few people that actually fucking play zombies in this zombie "apocalypse" game. Keep suggesting stupid shit and drive off the zed players. Then you and the rest of the dipstick survivors can have your little circle jerk in peace without those pesky undead. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::And we can have campfires and sing "Kumbaya". I'm glad to see you're keeping an open mind. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::Who said buffing them forced them to be smart? I said that a buff to save the population may be required to keep playing the game, while other zombie buffs may force (Able to kill easier is not forceful, as things take time to adjust and with survivors, no quick option is aviable to get back up that causes this lapse of time) them to be smarter, which would elimate the need for those survivor buffs to come into place. Instead of a structured and logical approach on why this is a bad idea, I.E. ''constructive critism''^(this susgestion would counteract a zombie buff designed in a way to help towards this, much better then if this system was put into place), you b*tched about how survivors have it easy. I never provided support for this susgestion and yet you seem to imply I have? In all of this you managed to accomplish hardening the authors stance against the reasoning that this susgestion would be poor in practice, and therefore paving the way for simular susgestions in the future, or turning players away due to a hostile enviroment. Congrats, *Hands Clapping*, im sure they'll put your name in a plaque, on the UD wall for your contributions here today.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:00, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Ah, the snowball argument. Classic. And I laughed heartily when you said there must be a 'buff to save the population'... got a bit of messianic streak lately? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:07, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::: I didn't say "Must", I said may be "required", by which I mean at times of rediculous peril where the game may truly end. If the population can't adapt to a change and shows signs that they won't, and the game ends, then so ends UD (At least Malton in any true form), and has us all starting from square one on a system proven to fail. A broken system can get you farther then a failed system.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:57, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::'''Standing Survivors : 14295 (61%) Standing Zombies : 9022 (39%)''' HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH SOMEBODY SAVE THE SURVIVORS! ''a buff to save the population may be required to keep playing the game'' They are in serious danger of overcrowding at the malls. <br />
:::::::::::You said I didn't offer any constructive criticism. You are wrong. It's in there. You are also ignoring the fact that he said he took this idea from 3 previous ideas which one would assume meant that he FUCKING READ the other suggestions, but since he can't even be bothered to READ HIS OWN suggestion I doubt he did. In the other suggestions there are a lot of constructive criticism and comments. I am not "hardening the author's stance" by disagreeing with him. If I am then he is a stubborn douchebag that will continue to ignore reason and just throw a temper tantrum because he thinks he is right. We have had a few of those before and we nailgunned them. <br />
:::::::::::I think we should turn newbies away from here. I think anyone that hasn't been playing UD for more than 8 months should shut the fuck up and keep their ideas to themselves. You can't contribute to the game if you haven't played the fucking game. And if you bothered to read my links above you would see my contributions to UD. They are much better than a shitty survivor buff suggestion that steals from 3 failed attempts before it.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:26, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::DCC, your a fucking prick. why do you treat this page as a place to insult and belittle others? really, i dont get it. is there actually a reason, or are you just an angry person whos missed taking their meds? i think it was decided that this suggestion sucks, and isnt needed. no need to continue to respond to everything the author says with an insult and justification as to why your right.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 04:01, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::Wow DCC, Im beginning to wonder if you can read... I said "may be required at times", not that "it is needed now", large difference, my saying susgesting when the odds are against survivors, I believe that zombies need a few more buffs as it stands, because as you pointed out the numbers are very sad. Next critism mixed in with ten insults won't do anybody any help, except piss people off and have them pull reasons out of thin air to conclude that there way is better (Note yourself in your previvous comment, you have been harped on for your chosen response, and now this has turned into a conversation on your conduct in response to this sugestion instead of on the susgestion itself, perhaps we should continue elsewhere instead of wasting space here?). As well many people read other peoples susgestions and gain there own idea, and don't use spell check (I fall into that category, as im sure you noticed from "simular" and other mistakes). Oh and I did read the links, my oldest self happens to be [http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=944459 zach016], here a bit over a year, if it would so please you to have my opinon count over your 8 month limit, I truly believe it woulden't make that much of a difference other then introduce those people of eight months on how to use the wiki at a further period of time, they would still quote old susgestions that failed and would have more time to come up with needless buffs that no one wants.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 22:09, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::::''DCC, your a fucking prick.'' That should be '''you're''' by the way, monkey. And, G-Man, I can't even keep up with your fucking mistakes. I hope some day you become bi-lingual and one of those languages is English. These become conversations about my conduct because there isn't enough in the suggestion to support so it is easier to bitch at me. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:29, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::::LOL, Coulden't come up with any actual reasons against me so you just put down my spelling/grammer? wow, you are good my friend, you are good.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 12:06, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::::: Even better, I just pasted it into microsoft word, lets see, 9 words wrong spread throughout, and one grammer mistake ("peoples"). Whats worse the spelling mistakes are not that far off and readable. Guess the tech., don't no nothin bout them der spelling and what not. I will conclude with yes, the possibility exists that there are mistakes that can bypass the system, but its apparant its readable anyway.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 12:18, 12 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::::::::::::Holy shit! You had to paste it into MS Word to figure out the mistakes? HAHAHA! Micro$oft can fix the grammar and spelling, but it can't point out the flaws in your logic. I'm still trying to figure out what you were talking about when you said there is a difference between "must have" and "required". Now that statement is a noodle scratcher!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:14, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::::::::I would have figured you would realise the "may be" before "required" had something to do with it. Guess were all wrong sometimes.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 03:08, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Quit having such a smarmy attitude and responding to everyone's comments with something that you seem to consider a comeback, Deyo. People are offering straight forward critiques of this, and all of the similar ideas. Reaching a compromise of idea's that were spammed or duped or otherwise rejected for their overall um-workability is still just an unworkable idea. The whole point of saying dupe is that what needs to be said has been said, and we don't need to hash over all the arguments all over again. its up to you to read through those and realize for yourself that it won't work, and try to come up with something actually creative or unique, otherwise you will simply be spam voted or dupe voted down. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 07:25, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Between smarmy and hateful, I'll take smarmy every time. Zombie replies to any suggestion that gives survivors any additional options have been akin to "YOU RAEPD MAI DOG!" I don't claim to understand it, so I attempt to defuse it by turning their own words against them. For example, you say that the ideas were spammed, duped, or otherwise rejected. This is untrue. The suggestions were all '''Undecided''' at the end of voting. My hope is that by making this option unattractive to all but the most organized survivor groups, it will be less offensive to the zombie players who seem to be the most vocal and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war impassioned] contributors to this wiki. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. You say this is to encourage them to work together, but really, all this does is make it so that ''individuals'' can do the damage rather than groups, as currently exists. This doesnt in any way encourage group play, it instead encourages the opposite, lone wolf stupid survivor play thats been a huge detriment to the survivor game since the dawn of UD and its that attitude that has resulted in all the nasty holocausts performed by zombies. (I know, i helped plan several of them). You have an "Us versus Them" mentality, which definately isnt going to serve you well here.<br>You have probably already noted that they have stopped discussing reasonably and started flaming you. This isnt because they are zombies and dont want the humans to get new toys, this is because you are being, to put it mildly, a stubborn intransigent nullwit. You dont see the game from both sides, and therefore have a false impression of the other side. Having been zombie fodder, zombie leader, survivor, bounty hunter, pker and specialty reviver on various alts through the years, i can tell you right off the bat that this kind of suggestion is a bad idea, not as bad as your headshot one you suggested previously, but only because that was so horrendous that it makes Cthulhu look handsome by comparison.<br>What is needed is some way for humans to work together (Current ruin does this, with one person clearing, another fixing, and more cading). This isnt to make the game more fun for zombies, but so humans such as yourself stop bitching and moaning on this page for buffs every time som e treasured area goes up the creek without a paddle, or when some large area of the city is devestated by a huge confederation of allied zombies pulling a gargantuan cloud of ferals. The other, and more important reason follows on from that: If you know how to play properly, alone or in a group, you wouldnt get in that kind of mess in the first place. The only reason you think this is needed at all is because some buildings have ruin repair costs of as much as a hundred ap at this time (Best ive seen anyway), but you dont realise that its been ages since the zombies were even there, and the only reason the costs got anywhere near that is because you guys were fucking lazy.<br>Fortunately there are some groups out there actually getting off thier arses and fixing those regions so the braindead fuckwits that make up the majority of the survivor population have a place to live when the zombies come and rape the rest of the city out from under them. Those people fixing those eareas in the city are the real heroes, not the stupid twits who it in a buiolding as the horde advances shouting our orders to barricade and whatnot.<br>This suggestion simply defies the entire concept of making survivors play better and smarter, alone or in groups, encouraging retarded recovery operations that, while they would probably work, would leave the survivor population as the bunch of gibbering morons they are now. Forcing them to play smarter, like kevan forced zombies to do, is the only way to even out the game properly. Giving one side toys because its losing doesnt make things fair, it only shores up the innat unfairness already there.<br>Ugh thats long and rambling, but it has some key points in there you should consider. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 06:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thank you for a considered and reasonable response, Grimch. Obviously, I agree with you that the game needs both methods and reasons for survivors to cooperate, but most of the suggestions I've seen to encourage, enforce, or enable cooperation have been unbalanced, overcomplicated, or both. What I had hoped to provide here was a mechanism for cooperation that was simple and balanced, allowing three survivors to do the work of one, bit by bit. You mention the 100+AP buildings in the north, and I'll admit that you've topped my record -- the worst I've seen was 86AP. Even that building would take more than five survivor-days work to repair cooperatively, whereas a single survivor could run in with max AP, repair it, and walk to a revive point two days later, where a second survivor could revive him, for a net cost of 110APs, or just over two survivor-days total. Those who vociferously decry this suggestion as a "survivor buff" don't seem to me to be looking at the hard numbers. A single survivor using this system to repair a 100+ AP building would be spending 4+ AP per day just to walk back and forth between a ruined and a barricaded building, and the remaining AP fighting back entropy two weeks at a time. That method would take four days to get the building down to a single day's repair job, for five days' total repair time. It's unrealistic to me to think that there's a survivor out there willing to spend weeks "Rambo repairing" ruined buildings. And if there is, what's the harm? If there are more than 20 buildings in such a state, they'll be decaying faster than he's repairing them. I remain unconvinced that this suggestion would lead to "vigilante repairmen". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 07:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::No, but if it leads to wasted AP, why promote it? Its a new but DUMBER way to do things. OTOH, theres a small but growing group of people who do "suicide repairs" just for fun and giggles, and they are kicking repair costs on those 80+ AP buildings back down to 1, and having fun doing it. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:58, 10 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
I '''like''' this idea, because it means that GROUPS of humans can work together to fix a building, instead of ''one'' person losing two days as an immobile stone while the building is zerged. 74 AP building... that means I'm a rock for a loooong time. Doesn't it make sense that the AP repair costs could be shared? Especially if it costs MORE AP to do distributed repair... it would be worth it if it meant the survivors could remain active. Just as a note: I play ''dual nature'', so I'm aware of the ransack-ruin drama from a zed's point of view quite intimately. [[User:Soror Repentia Azalea|Qızılbaş]] 15:53, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:You can pretty much do this right now. Again, you only need at most three people to repair any building block in the game, provided they have been emptied of zombies. What this only provides is a massive survivor buff against ruin by getting rid for a measly 3 AP to remove one ruin point while zombies wait for ''one whole day'' to achieve the same. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:00, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Mister Deyo, I suggest that you '''stop''' suggesting Survivor Buffs that nerf Ruin. Matter of fact I might suggest a new zombie skill specifically to double the ruin already in place in any building just so people stop trying to nerf ruin and darkness. Seriously buffing survivors to get them to work together is just a horrible idea. There are how many survivor groups already in place? If a survivor doesn't join a group, it's because most groups are the same. Not because they have no reason to join a group.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:11, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm not even going to bother reading any of this. Go look at my user page. Read the report I cut and pasted... And look at the last of my wiki templates... And then go earn yourself one of those triple-digit repair templates which I made for the select few of us who are working together and ''doing it'' and ''dealing with it'' -- rather than sitting on our asses in Pitneybank and whining about how hard survivors have it because of ruin. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:28, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Wan, I'll give you the cliff notes: Stupid idea, pointing out the reasons, author ignores them and reacts with a smarmy attitude, I call a lot of people "fucksticks" or whatever the word du jour is, People rail against me for "being mean", and a lot of people get butthurt. You know, the usual.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:29, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Loot dead bodys===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 03:02, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=People how like to steal.<br />
|suggest_description=Looting dead bodys is pretty self explantory. This would be a 100 XP skill that allows you to loot from peoples dead bodys with a 20% succes rate. When you loot a dead body you dont know what you will get, so you could get a genrator to a baseball bat. I will go into more detail if this idea is well accepted.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Loot dead bodys)====<br />
Looting dead bodies = trading. And that one's been spammed and duped so many times it's in the do-not-suggest list. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 03:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
except for the fact about wastin alot of AP, and not knowing what your goint to get. Yes it is like trading :[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 03:59, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is a [[Suggestion:20080310 Unzergable Lootin'|dupe]], probably more than one. Taking items from people is a bad thing (and if it's magically conjured items looted from bodies, that's bad as well and likely a dupe too). --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 04:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Don't be lazy. Its obvious you think this is going to tank if you'll "go into more detail if this idea is well accepted". This isn't even a dupe since there is hardly anything IN the suggestion to dupe. From what I can tell, your suggesting that a single dead body of any level, regardless of the corpse's actual equipment, becomes an instant reservoir of unlimited equipment of any type. The fact it is 20% and "you don't know what you get" is irrelevant. This, as I read it, would make a single zerge (level 1 corpse) a perma-search item.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Dupe-o--bloody-rific and utterly spam-o-fucking-licious. Nequa, please just read and comment on other peoples' suggestions and comments for about a month -- at least! -- before suggesting anything more of your own. Seriously. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:33, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A. "'''Scope:''' People how like to steal." What?? <br />
B. Can I loot ''any'' dead body, or only my zerg alts?<br />
C. Can we tack on a way to also have sex with dead bodies? --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 15:57, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Improve the Banks===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 23:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Add to Bank.<br />
|suggest_scope=All people how enter a bank.<br />
|suggest_description=I belive banks need a improvement becuase of how usless they are. The only good thing I can think about them is becuase they are so useless no zombie would go near it, and it would make a good hiding place. But the problem is what good could a bank be in a place like Malton. The only iteam I could think about finding there would be a pistol and clip becuase of securtity guards. So if not iteams why not something else?<br />
<br />
What is a bank if not a big place to safly guard your valuables? Why not allow the bank to be more heavly barricaded or use the vault? This is still a rough idea, which is why I am talking here. Now, allow me to address two problems I can see with my idea. One is why you would even want to have a extra lelvel of barricades or a vault, the bank does not have anything. And the other being that you should not mess with the barricades, to those people look here [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/PR_Buildings:_Multiple_Types]]. and then go to "Max Cades Varies by Building Type" sujestion.<br />
<br />
As I said, this is still a rough idea and I would like inmput, and not just "this wont work so shut up".<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bank improvment)====<br />
Don't banks go dark? If so why isn't that defensive buff enough?--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:16, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure the bank description says the vaults are already looted empty. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:24, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
"The vault lies open, its contents either looted or transferred." thats what the text is. They make great forward bases and safe houses so they are fine as they are. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 01:31, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I meant using the vaults as a defensive measure, any way banks are useless.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 01:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:They make great safehouses for PKers. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:46, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Okay go look at the 2-10 player sized groups. They thrive in banks. As a defensive measure they would be useless to begin with, as entry points, safe houses and lit, they keep zombie hordes down enough.[[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 02:17, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
True, but that is really it. You dont get anything from the bank or find any purpose for it execpt from what you already said, I just want banks to contribute to Malton in a bigger way.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 01:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The same can be said for wastelands. You think we should plant flowers in them? I'm all for multi-colored wastelands... pink is nice... --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:05, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We need flowers for wastlands dude, there a eye sore. But sersouly, ther is a diffrence between a wastland and a bank.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yeah, banks make great safehouses. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:35, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
It appears this is a bad Suggestion, so I will think of a new one.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Dupe-o-rific. And, some buildings are useless. Not everything is a TRP. This is a ''good'' thing. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:49, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A FUCKING MEN! Next thing these assholes will suggest will be clips and ammo found in the street.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::They can be, you just have a horrible horrible search rate for them though. Ive found a shotgun shell and a flare gun. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 05:13, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::My Monroe PKer accidentally searched the street and found ''a rusty knife''. I took especial joy in shanking people with it, and with luck they got tetanus. <tt>:></tt> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 02:32, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Maybe a powered bank will "close" the vault for ? hours a day (Random times), and anyone entering the bank can't enter the vault during this time, but can destroy the generator. If the Generator is destroyed the locks are once again unpowered and the vault opens up. Entering the vault costs 1AP and is treated as a seperate room (Outside cannot be seen, and it must be exited for 1AP before movement once again). No-one can leave the vault while it is locked and the vault cannot be entered if the building is ruined (Treated as one building once again, with anyone inside "pushed" out.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 22:00, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Switch FAK search rates between Hospitals and Malls===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=search rate adjustment for First Aid Kits. <br />
|suggest_scope=survivors<br />
|suggest_description=''I can't find this in PR or Undecided, I looked. But if someone can find the dupe, please do.''<br />
<br />
'''The suggestion:''' Reverse the search rates for First Aid Kits in Hospital and Malls, i.e. make it easier to find FAKs in Hospitals and harder in Malls. <br />
<br />
'''The rationale:''' Pretty self-explanatory, I think. Hospitals should be the easiest place to find/jury rig first aid kits. Not malls. This would also be a nerf to mall-centric play, which I don't think is a bad thing at all. But it's a highly logical nerf, and far from unbalanced or game-breaking. <br />
<br />
'''Extra details:''' As it is, you have about a 50% chance of finding a FAK in a drugstore. In a hospital, I'd guestimate it's about 20% (I might tally my stats and see... others' experiences would be useful, too). Perhaps an ''exact'' reversal isn't in order: say 25-30% in Malls, 40-45% in Hospitals, something like that. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Switch FAKs search rates between Hospitals and Malls)====<br />
<br />
No to exact reversal, yes to your suggested percentages. That is because there are one hell of a lot of hospitals compared to mall squares. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 14:32, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We could apply the same logic to police departments and forts, in that they should have higher search rates for firearms and ammo there than malls. Not that I'm totally against your suggestion, but the way the game is designed it strikes me that Kevan intentionally made malls as the ultimate stronghold and as such they have the highest search rates for most items in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:33, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Police Stations don't keep ammo lying around. It is actually a bad idea to have excessive weapons and ammo stored where you are holding prisoners. Wal-Mart has more weapons in the sporting section than my local police station. Police Depts. have armories and firing ranges to keep weapons. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 22:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Hospitals don't keep stockpiles of first aid kits, too (or at least here they don't). The fact that there aren't any ready-made FAKs and you have to build one in a hospital reflects that. And going by supply and demand the one which is filled up with all sorts of supplies would still be the malls, and that's why they have much higher search rates for everything than all other TRPs. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:28, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: Malls would have First Aid Kits lying around in a drug store during the zombie apocalypse, Hospitals tend not to keep First Aid kits stockpiled.. If any at all, Perhaps a few.. A local sports store has far too many guns in plain sight right beside the doors. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 04:51, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::: Even if you think of FAKs are mostly badages and tape and some ointment... and I think of them as somewhat more complicated than that... Hospitals have TONS of this stuff stashed around. TONS of it. Everywhere. Moreover, they have all kinds of other medical supplies that you'd use in reality in dealing with the serious injuries that zombies cause: scissors, scalpels, sutures and needles, etc. etc. No, I just can't buy that you'd be able to get such a plethora of medical supplies in a Mall, but not in a hospital. It just makes no sense. And... Mall drugstores are overpowered. Period. 50% find rates for the second most powerful pro-survivor item in the game is just outrageous IMNSHO. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Utility != economics. Hospitals might need those materials the most, but since malls still face the greatest demand for everything it naturally follows that they will have the greatest supplies for everything. And no, mall drugstores aren't overpowered when you consider 50% of the zombie population tend to congregate within a few blocks of one. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You're whole view on this is based on cyclic thinking and is confusing cause and effect. If the malls weren't so resource independent they wouldn't need as many resources, just look at the Mall-Necrotech relationship. Right now malls are making hospitals, which are meant to be a major building, all but useless. That leads to a very simple truth, malls give FAKs too freely. Malls are too resource intensive and it's causing them to be too central to the game, zombies are near malls because all the survivors are in malls, all the survivors are in malls because they get freakishly good find rates in them. Claiming that you don't weaken that because of the thing it causes is completely backwards.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:26, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::karek pretty much hit it right on the head there. in other words, malls are overpowered. and i feel the freakish search rates for FAKs are primary to that. meanwhile, find me a shopping mall that specialises in selling the man on the street medical supplies over consumer goods, and i'll drop this suggestion and revive all my zombies and use proxies to gather all my alts in Caiger and NEVER leave. CAIGAR 4 EVAR!!! --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I agree with Wan Yuo, since it is a hospital of course you would be more likely to find a FAK there, and anyway Malls have alot of other stuff you can gain there.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 16:10, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Uhm, it's "Yao", not "Yuo"... It's a lame old joke alias, but it's still my alias, and it means something... Anyhooo... <br />
<br />
Cop shops are not armouries -- but gun stores in US malls practically are. So I don't really see a need to change that. You might disagree, but, c'est la vie. (And, yes, Malton is in the UK, but the city is a mix of the UK and US, it's not really one or the other in practice... so please don't go ''there''... please.) Perhaps search rates in Fort Armouries need to be boosted, but this suggestion is not addressing that... And, yes, malls are supposed to be strongholds -- however, I think the 50% search rate for FAKs is absurd. Especially when it's so hard to find FAKs in Hospitals, by comparison. And, even if you nerfed search rates in Malls -- even hypothetically across the board -- they are still going to be "fortresses" by virtue of being "one-stop-shopping" places -- you can get everything you need at a mall other than syringes. That ''alone'' makes them very powerful... I, however, appreciate Whitehouse's comments about the fact that are more Hospitals than Malls, and the modified search rates ought to reflect that. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then surgery becomes OMGMEGA-SUPER-GODLY. Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls. If it weren't for that I would support this, I don't think that this would change where people get FAKs from though which would mean it would just be a slight nerf to Malls and a big buff to Hospitals.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
First of, sorry for mispelling your name Yao, and also you dont need a 50% chance for the hospital but maybe like 40%, or something that makes the hospitals be just as good as finding FAKs in the mall.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:29, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Surgery]].--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:47, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I am well aware of what Surgery does. This is how likley you can find a FAK in a hospital and a mall drug store, from the wiki:Mall Drugstores (20%/34%), Hospitals (14%),. If they even made it 25 percent I would love it. [[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:''"Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls"'' -- Well, maybe Surgery ought to be more than just "a little" better in a Hospital. I mean we're dealing with ''Surgery''... in a ''hospital''... come on! And to AHLG below, I don't want Hospitals buffed without Malls being nerfed at the same time. That's kind of the point... Also, I did search for a dupe, but couldn't find one... maybe someone else will? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:01, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The problem with that is that healing is already the most efficient thing in the game, even without surgery, with Surgery it's more efficient, buff surgery and it makes barricades look like a joke(surgery already does 10:1 vs zombie claws). The fix would have to be in weakening something unless you start buffing the ability to do damage.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I would agree with a small percentage increase in hospitals. But check for a dupe. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:19, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd support this as well. Malls need to be reworked a bit. The percentages are too high to warrant going any where else in the game for supply purposes. But I'd also support people who use the word "Glock" to describe their pistols have them blow up upon first use.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 23:38, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Did you take Bargain Hunting into consideration? It is MORE than just a percentage switch. Hospitals also have newspapers where as Bargain Hunting automatically precludes such a find. A FAK in a hospital has a base 14% find, while the FAK in the mall has a base 20%. +14% if you have bargain hunting. This is according to the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Useful_Items#First_Aid_Kit wiki (First Aid Kit)]. So which percentage is being switched? If is the base, then the hospital will be 20% and the mall will be 14%/28%. If it is the max, the hospital would be 34%, the mall would be 14%/28% (presuming Bargain Hunting). And, again, what about newspapers?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:21, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:In actual fact, Mall search rates for a skilled Shopper are around 50%, or very close. And in a Hospital, a bit more than 14%, but not by much. Those stats on the Items page are grossly out of date and inaccurate. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also... honestly, I don't know what you're getting at with all those numbers ... they don't make sense. FAK find rates in Malls would get nerfed, and %ages in Hospitals buffed. This would ''not'' affect the %ages for anything else, there is no connection. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:03, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::What do you mean "no connection"? Yeah, I'm sure they are out of date, but they are intended to illustrate a point. Did you even check the link? The reason FAK find rates are so high in malls is because of the shopper skills. But the shopper skills do MORE than just buff the search. The also negate the search for useless items (ie. newspapers). Searching for a FAK in a hospital maybe be higher, with this suggestion, but you STILL find newspapers. Which you DON'T find in malls. So, again, why are you not taking into consideration the mall skills or newspapers?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 03:31, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Probably because you're misunderstanding what they represent. Not finding spam items doesn't mean the search rate is better for FAKs(what you want to find) it means that the search rate for what you don't want to find is dropped to 0. The only effect that would have is reducing encumbrance, which is already done by being checking it in your profile so you don't have to waste the IP hit dropping it. That there is no connection would be about right, buffing the search rate would still mean you're finding two FAKs in 3 AP even if that third AP digs up a newspaper every once in a while.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:16, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Pesatyel, what you're saying makes no sense. And the link you provided is irrelevant. Say in 12 searches right now you find 1 FAK and one newspaper. If I double FAK search rates... now, I find 2 FAKs and 1 newspaper in 12 searches. ''There is no connection'' between the two different items: the latter is totally unaffected by the former. Also, you don't find newspapers in Malls. Drug stores are spam-free FAKtories... And, the full set of Mall Skillz allows you (for 200 measly XP) to search these spam-free FAKtories at almost a 50% success rate -- a search rate totally unparallelled anywhere else in the game -- and an unparallelled find %age for ''the second most powerful pro-survivor item'' in game, after NT syringes. <br />
<br />
::::'''Q.E.D.''' - In. Need. Of. Fixing. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:48, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I do think FAKs in hospitals need a buff but i am not certain of these numbers... lowering the find rate for malls so it tops out at about 30% would be good (sure the drugstore has pain killers and elastoplast but wide specrum anti-biotics and morphine? I think not!) Rather than a straight buff to the hospital search rates i would rather see the "medical" classes able to build Faks much like syringe creation. Searching already says something like "you gather supplies" so why not make it possible for those with a few pre-req skills choose to build those kits with some certainty (at a cost comparable to the Malls find rate) I would suggest 5AP for anyone with 1st aid and possible 4AP for anyone with a new skill :trauma nurse or some such! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:26, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Not a bad idea, but the proliferation of hospitals would mean an already prevelant item would become even more so. Malls are difficult to hold, hence benefits are found there. Drop the search rate in malls to closer to 30% and make surgery a 20hp hit, making holding a powered hospital useful, rather than powering one, hording FAKs and bailing.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:46, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Bloodletting===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}02:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=PKer buff.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors. PKers, mostly.<br />
|suggest_description=Update revivification syringes to allow for self-targeting. If used on yourself while infected, it becomes a "virus syringe," essentially transforming the item within your inventory. "Virus syringes" cannot be found or made except by infected individuals using revivification syringes on themselves. Like a normal syringe, they have a 2% encumbrance.<br />
<br />
If used on a survivor, there's an X percent chance that this new "virus syringe" will deal 1 HP damage to the survivor and infect the survivor, and a 100-X percent chance that the virus syringe will do nothing. X is the current HP of the PKer. "Virus syringes" do nothing against zombies.<br />
<br />
As it is highly corrosive to glass, the virus will eat through the syringe in a matter of hours. Therefore, "virus syringes" are removed from an inventory after 6 hours of existing.<br />
<br />
...Because bioterrorism is an inherent part of the genre, and because it might entertain some PKers (and thus keep them from actual killing). Yes, the central idea is that the syringe is emptied outside your body, then you draw out your own blood, which contains the infection.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bloodletting)====<br />
<br />
I really wish I could be "constructive"... but this is just too retarded to comment on. Would you like some spam with that cheese, sir? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:11, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:No, sir, nor did I want that frosty. "Retarded" is happily synonymous with "belated," so I'll assume you mean this suggestion is just a little behind its time. Speaking of which, some old-fashioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Logs Lincoln logs] might help with your construction problem. Spend a few hours with those and let your dad back on his computer, okay? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}04:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Survivor infecting other survivors is a dupe, I'm fairly sure. It would be more greify than tactically useful for a PKer / death cultist, which is why (iirc) it wasn't worth keeping. Also, if you want to infect somebody, I fancy that axe you've been splitting infected zombie skulls (or the knife you just pulled from the guts of an infected survivor) would do the job rather as well as a syringe. So if infections COULD be spread that way, pretty much every sharp weapon in Malton would spread them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:23, 6 September 2008 (BST) ''edit- also, if the infection were so corrosive, every blood stained weapon or piece f clothing in the city would crumble to dust. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)''<br />
:It is a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I'd been considering [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofluoric_acid hydrofluoric acid] for that, which wouldn't damage polyester clothes, although I am not a chemist. And blood-stained weapons tend to degrade in real life, hence the NRA's preoccupation with gun cleaning. That aside, do you think (at least) that the X% likelihood is an interesting mechanic that might be able to contribute to gameplay in some other fashion?--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}00:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
PKing may be part of the game, but it does NOT need any emphasis. The game is, primarily, about survivors and zombies fighting each other with some PKing thrown in, NOT about PKing with some zombies thrown in.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I must agree with Pesatyel, this game is mainly about the Living VS Undead... with the abnormal ones mixing it up to make it more interesting (just like in reality). Emphasizing PKing just doesn't fit in well with me (although I really should ''"get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit"'' to quote Wanyao). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Ehh, when I PK, I prefer "Bang. BANG BANG." And the kill is done. The idea would be something I would never use, and as Swiers stated, it's more useful for greifers then PKers like me.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::K-B, I was referring to your comments, somewhere, which alluded to "pro-zombies" and "pro-survivors" as these inimical factions at each others' throats. That's an illusion, and a destructive one at that: most players play both sides, even if some do tend to focus more on one than the other... And most people judge suggestions on the basis of merit, not simply whether they help their "side". For example, this suggestion would be a giant-sized buff for my death cultists -- but that doesn't mean I support it... because it's just a griefing tool, and little more. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Does it grief more than, for instance, one of your death cultists outright killing someone? PKing '''is''' griefing, because survivors only ever want to be killed if they're feeding the hungry n00b zed masses. Sure, I can see survivors getting annoyed by being infected by a PKer, but it would be less aggravating than having to spend AP hunting a revive (which costs more AP than a FAK). Thank you for your constructive criticism. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
NEEDLE SHARING IS NEVER SAFE! THIS SUGGESTION SPREADS HEPATITIS Z! Not to mention it's stupid as fuck and so out of genre gameplay here. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:If you consider "fuck" stupid, does that means I can apply for a timeshare with your girlfriend? Although, for reference, I invite you to check out how the Fantastic Four were infected in ''Marvel Zombies''. Or talk to me on my talk page and I'll happily spoil it for you.--{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::You see, this is what I am on about. I call your suggestion stupid and make a bad pun. You make a personal slur against my girlfriend. Then you bring up a comic book that isn't a survival horror comic, but just a zombie alternate universe. Yet you are still going to bitch about what I said even though you are the one making this personal. Get fucked and stop suggesting things. There that was personal. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:32, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Marvel Zombies'' isn't a zombie alternate universe. The scene in question within the comic is not dependent upon any of the fantastical elements of the Marvel universe. I understand that you're unhappy that you unsuccessfully trolled for lols with 'NEEDLE SHARING IS...HEPATITIS Z,' so my deconstruction of your single-cheeked argument is just rubbing salt in the wound. But please, don't take it personally. I don't object to you, just your casual use of expletives. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::''An alternate reality in which mutants are turned into flesh eating zombies, set on Earth-2149. In the end of the series, The Zombies eat Zombie Silver Surfer and get infused with the power cosmic.'' SPOILER ALERT! You are right. I didn't get as many "lulz" as your initial suggestion did. You bested me, good sir! I didn't add more than a quick comment because why would I need to repeat all of the other reasons that your suggestion is bad? Oh right, because you are a fucking retard. I forgot. And as far as my use of "expletives" that's a really bad argument seeing that this wiki is international and what is an expletive to you might not be one to me, you bloody cunt. And for the record, you couldn't handle [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Katthew MY GIRLFRIEND]--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:38, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::The only criticism you offered was saying that this suggestion is out-of-genre. That could've been done in six words, possibly fewer, without wasting your precious time with your, erm, "pun." And, moreover, you haven't yet discussed (or apparently thought about) that criticism, instead just quoting Comiczine where your own knowledge failed you. While I usually try to use the same profanity standards as the game, I take special exception with poor or improper use of words such as "fuck," as such tends to cause them to eventually lose their meaning. You, sir, are killing the English language. And for the record, I wouldn't want to handle your girlfriend. Ability is not equivalent to desire. --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:47, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Wait wait wait.. this stick is up your ass because I said more than "this is out of genre" and I called your idea stupid? You're all butthurt because I didn't like your idea and therefore by extension you? You resorted to personal attacks and some faggy rant about a shitty comic because I didn't come all over myself with joy at you sharing this EARTH SHATTERINGLY NEW (dupe) IDEA WITH THE UNWORTHY ?!?! Go cry more, you shit stain.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:03, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Calm down. Pop some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laxative pills], you're wound too tight. Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic) thought that zombification was a positive evolutionary step, so he injected Susan Storm (The Invisible Woman), Johnny Storm (The Human Torch) and Ben Grimm (The Thing) with the zombie virus from that universe. After they turned, they infected him by eating parts of him. So, as there exists commonly-accepted (''Marvel Zombies'' was very successful) prior art for my suggestion, it's in-genre. And if this rant sounds faggy, it's because I'm bisexual. And I'm annoyed that you keep dragging this discussion off-topic because you're incapable of supporting your argument. --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::Oh wait a minute! You are the guy that suggested '''horses'''. I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to comment on this suggestion. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I has plastic syringes. Gawd. Oh, I forgot the part were I wake up when you starting moving and poking me, and I kick your ass.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 00:02, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What about the part where zombies you are poking with a syringe do NOT wake up and kick... er, EAT your ass? {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Recharging AP != sleeping. You might as well object to zombies not reacting to a knife or a shotgun, or humans not reacting to being clawed. It's how the game works. We've been over this before. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:50, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Exhausted, you can go no further.'' That pretty much sounds like you are going to sleep to me. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:17, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::So having 0 AP = Sleeping. But Recharging AP != Sleeping. Because I could play the game without ever having to see that message, provided I logged out with at least 1 AP. These arguments have been made before. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
This has been suggested before. It's a bad idea, and encourages out-of-character play - ie survivors deliberately seeking infection and wasting syringes. Also, and I've said this before, there is a very easy way to harm someone with a hypodermic syringe. Empty out whatever's in it, fill it with air, and inject the victim to induce a potentially fatal gas embolism. Too overpowered to be considered in UD though. --[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 23:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's true, it was made for PKing. Thanks for the point about embolisms, I'd forgotten about them. Do you have any thoughts on the X% hit likelihood as a possible mechanic for a later suggestion? --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Latent Infection===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies, their victims.<br />
|suggest_description=''After countless days of fending off the zombies, Malton's best and brightest have discovered an entirely new strain of the virus that the zombies have been using to infect their victims.''<br />
<br />
''Called the Sleeper strain, it typically has an incubation period of 6 hours before it becomes active, rapidly spreading through the victim's circulatory system, degrading living tissue at an alarming speed. The incubation period can be extended if the victim remains motionless, however.''<br />
<br />
''This new strain has proven to be almost completely immune to all forms of medicine when it is in its incubation period, however the virus seems to be easier to eradicate once it has 'awakened'. It can still resist medicine half of the time, however with surgery the virus can be always removed.''<br />
<br />
''Unfortunately, due to it's long incubation period, carriers of the virus often are not aware of when they have become infected until the virus begins to attack them. However, if the victim then gets bitten by a zombie with the more common strain of the virus, the Sleeper strain acts like an antibody, preventing the more common strain from taking hold.''<br />
<br />
New skill: Latent Infection<br />
<br />
Subskill of: Infection<br />
<br />
Abilities:<br />
* Takes 6 hours to kick in.<br />
* Causes 2 damage per AP.<br />
* Does not stack with standard Infection.<br />
* 5% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd during incubation period.<br />
* 50% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd when 'awakened'.<br />
* 100% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd by 'Surgery' in powered hospital.<br />
* Kicks in upon first movement after 6 hour incubation period.<br />
* Victim not told of infection until it 'awakens'.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Latent Infection)====<br />
in all this time have you ever even read the frequently suggested and D&DN pages? this is a dupey infection buff, the likes of which we've seen a bazillion times, and it has nothing special or redeeming about it except for a vry pointless 6 hour delay. such a delay is a) out of genre game-mechanically because time is abstract in UD b) griefs newbies c) griefs everyone who logs in only once a day d) it's overpowered -- zombies kill best by killing, and where they are weak, deal with that, instead. <br />
<br />
i'm also sure someone will be less lazy and find about 30 dupes for this. please... GIVE IT UP ALREADY, blake. go design your own game, print up the rules, get together with some friends over dice and doritos. and give ''us'' a break. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:38, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's... Urghh, it just over complicates a part of the game which doesn't need it, and is a huge buff to zombies. I'm a zombie player, but I don't like things like this. Just do what WanYao said and read the [[Frequently Suggested]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]]. Seriously, just commit them to memory.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd vote keep. And ignore the Hive Mind Kool-Aid Drinkers, Blake. The D&DN page is for wimps.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 13:38, 7 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
After three years they just now find an infection that incubates in 6 hours? somehow, that doesn't quite add up right in my mind. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 00:06, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:50, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance Change<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Ankle Grab<br />
|suggest_description='''The cost to stand up after a [[Zombie Hunter skills|Headshot]] is 15AP, whether or not the target has the [[Zombie Skills|Ankle Grab]] skill.'''<br />
<br />
This suggestion is somewhat slanted toward a Monroeville survivor's perspective.<br />
<br />
In Malton, the survivor's best chance for survival is to find a location which zombies are not currently massing to attack. The only time attacking is a viable option is when zombies are already inside a strategic building, and the survivor wants to repair the structure. Even [[Trenchcoater|Trenchcoaters]] know that when the zeds open the doors, it's time to run.<br />
<br />
In Monroeville, there is never a time when attacking is the best choice. If zombies are near, the survivor runs or the survivor dies. Attacking, even with a massive numeric advantage, is ultimately suicide.<br />
<br />
Currently, a Headshot costs a zombie 6AP, or 15AP if it doesn't have the Ankle Grab skill. To kill a 50HP unarmored zombie costs a minimum of 8AP: Three to find three shotguns loaded with five shells total, and five to bring down the zombie. A more typical number would be 24 -- 6 to find a pistol and two clips, and 18 to fire the pistol at the zombie 16 times, reloading twice, with a 65% hit rate. This means that by purchasing four skills, with seven additional skills required to reach level ten, a survivor can spend 24 AP to take 6AP from a zombie who has purchased two skills.<br />
<br />
If the AP cost to stand up from a Headshot were 15 ''regardless'' of the Ankle Grab skill, the ratio would go from 4:1 to almost 3:2, still strongly favoring the zombie, but making offense a viable tactic in Malton. In Monroeville, the few who remain might actually come out and play once in a while, instead of running like hell when one zombie gets within a block.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab)====<br />
Sure. I just fear its too late. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:59, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
You understand nothing of this game. The AP balance on barricades is 4-1 in favour of survivors at best. Add to that the fact that it takes 35-40 AP for a zombie to kill a survivor, only for the victim to get a revive for 10 AP and the cost of the syringe search. Then factor in that any survivor who isn't killed straight away can be saved with a simple FAK. I could go on and on about this, but in reality I said all that was needed in the first sentence. And seriously people, stop whining about fucking Monroeville. It's a temporary city which is going to be shut down, which makes it entirely irrelevant when discussing the mechanics of Urban Dead as a game. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 20:04, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:"and the cost of the syringe search". I love how you abstract away about 10-15 APs and call it "balanced". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And that only turns out to 20-25 AP, even if you factor in the syringe search. we could keep on discussing the maths of this, but Grim did it for us a few months back: read his rant on the [[User:Grim_s/Rants/Revival_Imbalance|revive imbalance]]. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 05:14, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Total Zombie AP spent (Including recovering from kills by Humans, thank you for padding your numbers): 483. Total Human AP spent: 322. Ratio: 3/2, compared to 4/1 for survivors headshotting zombies. Zombies win, again, by whining louder than the humans. I thought you were supposed to moan. In any event, thank you for showing us the math that proves that zombies have a massive combat AP advantage. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 17:30, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You really haven't grasped this game at all. Allow me to explain: This is a game of 'classes' in which zombies are designed to kill whilst survivors are designed to, get this '''survive'''! Therefore zombies are the attacking class and survivors are the defending class. What a shock to absolutely no-one with a modicum of intellect then that zombies get a combat advantage whilst survivors get a defensive advantage. The greatest 'weapons' that survivors have in this game are revivification syringes, first aid kits and barricades, so whilst it may not appeal to your BOOM! HEADSHOT! masturbation fantasies to have killing zombies be far less important than barricading buildings, healing and reviving, that's the way the game works. Your job is to survive. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 08:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Revivification syringes mean that survivors can go on the offensive, which nulls your given simplification. If each survivor revived two zombies and then died, the game would slowly progress to the survivor side of things. And that's with no barricading or defensive gameplay necessary.--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::That's a byproduct of design and one forced by the nature of the game rather than intent. The only way to make combat revives impossible would be to make revives themselves impossible. As such the existence of combat revives in no way undermines the identification of the offensive-defensive class dynamic. Zombie skills are all created with a view to creating damage, whilst survivor skills are designed for preventing or undoing it; yes, that's right, even the combat skills for survivors are about that. They're there to clear zombies out of buildings and allow those buildings to be secured, not to 'kill' the zombies. The sooner people realise that the sooner they'll start enjoying their game, just as I do with all my characters. Oh and your combat revive scenario neglects to consider death culting and window-diving as responses to such actions. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 19:27, 8 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::Also Brain Rot. My scenario worked from the assumption that all players were true dual-natured players, albeit dual-natured players who don't pick up Brain Rot. However, I would argue that (while zombie skills are indeed designed to deal damage) human skills revolve around maximizing the efficiency of revivification. Securing buildings just allows survivors to stave off death for a few more days, which in turn allows them to revive others more efficiently. Admittedly, this assumes a simplified version of survivors without death-culting and window-diving, etc., etc., but I think it is hard to argue the (relatively) balanced nature of the zombie/survivor ratio just from those extremes. The Mrh? cows tend to equalize that anyway. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Moloch, it's possible for me to completely understand every aspect of this game and still disagree with you. It's also possible for me to refute your arguments without attacking you personally. Here's an example: '''This is not a survival horror game.''' It's World of Warcraft in text. The only difference is that here you can switch sides. Just like WoW, the "human" side is more popular. Just like WoW, the "other" side wants to get more and more advantages because they believe it will offset the numeric disadvantage. Here's a heads-up: WoW proved you wrong there. I proved you wrong here. And I'll do it again. Zombies attack humans with 483 AP, costing the humans 322 AP. Humans attack the zombies with 500 AP, costing the Zombies '''nothing'''. Why nothing? Because the cost of recovery is included in the 483 AP the zombies already spent. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:20, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Wow, nice numbers. Got the math to prove that? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:58, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Not a survival horror game? So what does this: ''A Massively Multi-Player Web-Based Zombie Apocalypse'' mean? But no you are right. I must be forgetting that the innkeeper at Jacomb Arms sent me on the quest to recovery the Holy Golf Club of Lockettside while on my way to slay the Bank Manager of Ruddlebank. This is '''exactly''' like WoW!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 16:20, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
No dude. Just no. Monroeville is freaking dead anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Says the ''Zombie'' Lord... I actually had a nice killing spree a couple of weeks back, 5 survivors in 6 days...<br />
:It would be nice if we waited till there was one survivor, gave him a [[Red_Rum/Tommy_Gun|Tommy_Gun]], ammo and every zombie his location to see how long he would last... --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: :D I'm not sure if he means it as a Monroeville only thing or not, which would be fine with me if it was just contained to that city and not Malton. Seems like Kevan just wanted to kill it off anyway with those last changes to Monroeville. But yeah, the Tommy Gun goes the the last Monroeville Survivor! Would be a cool prize anyway :) --[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::The Tommy Gun is a seasonal weapon, found around 31st October/1st November. They'll have to survive til then and search really hard...--[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 00:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Kamakazie Bunny, get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit, it's tired as all hell. In any event, as much as he is usually an idiot, zombie lord is correct this time. And Moloch hit it on the head even more squarely. Don't fucking nerf Ankle Grab. Period. Even in Moronville. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:46, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::And don't forget, give him or her unlimited AP and IP hits. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:14, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:36, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:How about "Remove Headshot" then? Has that been suggested? It's currently a waste of 100 XP. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
You might have better luck if you suggest that headshot DOESN'T affect those without Ankle Grab.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:37, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Where.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''Balance Change'' HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA ''IMA GONNA RAEP YUO OF UR AP AND CALL IT BALANCED!'' Fuck off, Dago. You can't possibly justify taking away over 1/5th of the AP of just one class. Zombies can't do it to survivors in any amount and you want to increase it? Fucking play as a zombie for a year before you suggest anything that affects zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:59, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Suggestion:20080901_Feeding_Drag_in_Large_Buildings|Yanking a live survivor from a mall]] for 2/5 the AP cost of dumping a dead body from a fort is balanced, then? I don't see you railing against that. Oh, but feel free to turn my username into a racial slur if you can't think of any ''good'' reason to reject the suggestion. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::We've already posted enough reasons why it's a crap idea. Feel free to post it though, because even if it gets passed, Kevan won't touch it. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 05:25, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::How would you know? ANKLE GRAB was in PEER REJECTED when it came to vote here.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Which should give you an idea of how Kevan feels on the subject of the Headshot dynamic. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 08:53, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::It also shows you how fucking survivor-centric this damn wiki is. I'm not surprised that AG was voted down and a shit load of weapons and survivor buffs fill this page constantly. I'm pretty sure even if this ridiculous crap passed Kevan wouldn't implement it since last time I checked survivors outnumbered the zombies 61% to 39%. But hey! the survivors have it so fucking hard with all those damn zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::But OHNOES DCC some people think it's because no one wants to play zombies instead of the fact that their so boring because of their intellectuality and lack of competetivity. Who cares that that's disproved every time zombies make some big event so they can actually do something.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:37, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Actually it is when you consider that it's not a bargain and it's an additional 4 AP per kill that will be payed regularly. All Feeding Drag ever does is transfer AP cost from the individual to the horde, you know, that central play mechanic that zombies are forced to deal with. This would just make it so that all zombies always lose nearly half the AP they get a day, that's not balanced. You're also proposing buffing what is the only skill in the game that is considered to exist for the sole purpose of pissing players off and not balance.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Im not going to argue the game balance here. What i am going to say is that you dont make a game more balanced by making it less fun. Taking away 15 zombie ap a day makes the game much less fun for zombies, which will drive them away. Given how many of them are hanging onto the game out of habit rather than out of any sense of enjoyment, i dont think making playing a zombie feel like pulling teeth is the solution to any balance problem, real or imagined. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:37, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
This is not terribly effective. I mean, the search chances in Mville are all in ruined buildings. 8AP to load a shotgun I think not... ain't nothin' but ruined buildings. [[User:Soror Repentia Azalea|Qızılbaş]] 16:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Riot Shield===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Item<br />
|suggest_scope=All Players<br />
|suggest_description= <BR><br />
:''[[Building Types|Locations]]: Armouries (2%), Police Stations (2%), Junkyards (1%?)''<br />
:''[[Encumberment|Encumbrance]]: 16%''<br />
<br />
- Grants a 10% (5% in dark buildings) chance to deflect any attack <S>that deals less than 5 damage</S> (it does not reduce the chance to hit, only those which would normally hit). Having a Riot Shield in your inventory automatically means that you are using it; no action is required to activate it. Zombies may use and benefit from Riot Shields. Using multiple Riot Shields has no additional effect; having two or more in your inventory will not give any further protection.<br />
<br />
- They may also be used as an improvised weapon with the following stats:<br />
<br />
:''Damage: 1 point''<br />
:''Base Accuracy: 10%''<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Riot Shield)====<br />
<br />
Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield (although rotters will have a harder time getting them but that applies to any cross-class skill/item from the humans). Also the zombie populace should be aware that a Riot shield is the equivalent of 8 clips/shells/Faks/Syringes that can be used against their cause. Survivors now have an active defence against the hordes (in my opinion barricades do not count as they do not directly protect the player or go with them on their journeys). <BR><br />
Things I'm unsure of:<BR><br />
:Encumbrance<br />
:Chance to deflect<br />
:Findable in museums (Medieval / war exhibitions)<br />
:Zombies with a reduced protection chance (as they are more sluggish)<br />
:Flavour text for deflected attacks!<br />
--[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''You fire at target zombie for 10 damage, but it deflects off their riot shield. They are unharmed''<br />
--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:05, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: Whilst I do agree with the flavour text the shot gun does not deal '''less than 5 damage'''. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:13, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Balls. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hi Kamikazie, this is an interesting idea. Given that zombies can't use melee weapons, it seems odd they might continue to use (and effectively position) a riot shield. Additionally, it seems it would get in the way of typical zombie attacks: grabbing, holding, biting. I don't want to seem like I'm favoring survivors, but this, like all other objects, seems it should be survivor-specific. Would players be able to use a shotgun while holding one? Shields of any kind make sense, especially in close-range combat. I'd see the value in making it "equippable" rather than simply automatically active if in inventory. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 18:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ummm... zombies can use melee weapons, although it would get in the way of their normal attacks I don't want to hinder them or make this one sided although realism would want it so. Zombies are people to! Interfering with other functions is something else I disagree with. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hordes are the exception, not the rule. Lets see, a maxed zombie would traditionally score a total of 29 hits in 50 swings. Now, if 10% of those hits are negated, it goes down to 26. Given that the majority of zombies are not horde zombies, and that zombies have a seriously hard time getting past little things you call barricades (Which already are your defenses, not to mention your mobility, which is another, chronically underused one), this puts a serious dent in zombie ability across the board for the sake of defending yourself from the exception to the rule based on a flase assumption of defenselessness. Go away and think things through before you return to plague this page with your stupidity again. The description as written has this as a pure zombie nerf, they cant even use it, ebcause regardless of flaks, a pistol hits for five damage at first, with one subsequently negated, thus pistols will still go through. Given humans use firearms almost exclusively, becauuse axes and improvised weapons suck, they will most often suffer no penalty against a zombie with such a device. Zombies have no 5+ damage attacks. This is one sided zombie rape. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:although I hardly ever agree with grims choice of words, the fact that flare guns and shotguns arent nerfed but all zed attacks are is a fair point. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:29, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sorry if you misunderstood when I used the word horde, I used it to describe the zombies populace as a whole, not in a specific location. The pistol glitch is something which I must admit I did not anticipate and overlooked, thanks for pointing that out. The rest just seems negative for the sake of zombie-jeebus. Whilst this does primarily affect zombie attacks it also affects all survivor melee attacks, you say that survivors depend on guns because everything else sucks, I don't think you need reminding that the Jacket only benefits zombies and PK/DC victims (which their very actions benefit zombies). Zombies have no fear of death and any defence boosts through items come at no cost, survivors have to balance their inventory for survival/defense and the retaking of ruins. If you feel that 26 instead of 29 hits is too many feel free to suggest a change to the values. This is a discussion for whittling out 'stupid' ideas not for insulting them (which I consider pointless). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:47, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
''Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield ...'' Can, but won't. The vast majority of the damage zombies take s from guns, and this also provides no protection vs combat revives. HtH combat damage trails a distant third behind those in terms of impact on zombies. '''So really, this IS a pure zombie nerf.''' {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 19:08, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:Any proposes for a fix? Reducing deflection to 5% (that sounds so geekish). Lowering the limit to Less than 4 (which would account for the gun-bug and allow zombies still to get in their max claws) or would that be seen to be nerfing infection/bite/newbies/survivor melee? I know you might think this is the wrong school of thought but I feel there needs to be some active defence from zombies (running away is not defending) and barricades can't be taken with you, but due to the limited amount of high-powered zombie attacks any thing is essentially a nerf. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 19:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this suggestion if it was to affect ALL attacks regardless of damage... however I am concerned about it stacking with flak jackets to nerf firearms but if you lot are ok with it then I have no objections.... opinions please? --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I think it's a neat idea, just not sure if its passable. Maybe if the Shield had a chance to be broken, or taken away by zombies? For every "deflection" there is a 10% chance the shield breaks as well? Maybe a zombie that gets a Tangling Grasp has a 10% chance to wrench the shield away and toss it aside for each attack it makes while it maintains the Grasp?--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:25, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This fails flavour as it implies active usage to gain its benefit, you must move the shield to cover the attack. A flak jacket is passive, it protects your torso regardless. In short, this would (or rather should) be useless while you are asleep...which for most UD characters is 23 hours and 50 minutes of each day.<br />
<br />
Also it's a nasty zombie nerf. '''All''' zombie attacks are less than 5 damage, meaning all survivors would get a 10% chance to avoid every single zombie attack in the game. This suggestion will discourage zombie play and turn Malton into Monroeville after the first quarantine, tag with PKers. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:42, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''"After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this..."'' We are not okay with this idea. It's awful. It's nothing but a horrible zombie nerf, and no changes are going to save it. Riot shields do not protect against firearms. Period. Any attempt to make them do so is just stupidity. But if riot shields work against melee attacks only, then you are nerfing an already underdog ability -- for both zambahz and survivors. Just drop it, it sucks and it can't be fixed. Also, Izzy, you've failed in your Dupe-meister duties, this is in there somewhere, I know it ;) And, Zhani, once again you demonstrated why you should stay away from making suggestions: please wait until you actually know the game, thanks. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:01, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:As far as I understood from the comments people were making, the two major complaints were that it did not affect guns and that it affected zombie attacks. Including the ability to affect guns as well (which you ''conveniently'' failed to include in your quote) was the change that some people may approve of, as for affecting zombie attacks that kinda goes with the idea of a riot shield. "''Riot shields do not protect against firearms''" it may upset you to know that some do, although if you were arguing for true realism I think the zombies need to go... In defence of Izzy failing to dupe I could only find 2 similar suggestions, both from 2005 and both with completely different mechanics if it is that big an issue to dupe it go put in the effort and do it yourself. As for Zhani, he's learning don't try shoot him down because he's trying to be involved. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Next person to shorten my name gets Jihad declared against them.<br />
<br />
::Wan; what he said about dupes <nowiki>:p</nowiki><br />
<br />
::Bunny; would you care to comment on the point I made about active usage? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Falling asleep from exhaustion is a good reason why your character runs out of AP, it only takes 30min before you can 'wake up'. Whilst I do agree that a player would have to actively use it to defend themselves, the idea that I can hit someone who is asleep repeatedly with a fire axe and with such poor accuracy doesn't make sense (especially considering they don't wake up), I actually assume all players are awake and attempting to defend themselves if attacked which is why hit accuracy is not too high. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait wut? How do zombies benefit from something that will only effect them and low level survivors? Last I heard pistols and shotguns did >= 5 damage, Claws and bites did <= 4.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies would gain more defence from melee weapons, however it has now been changed to include pistols and shotguns. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::It just doesn't seem right. It destroys all zombie attack, survivor players could get them easier then zombie players... Even if Shotguns no longer worked, that would create an atmosphere where it would be CRing only.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 17:56, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::How would this new version work in dark buildings? And Also, I still don't like it for the same reason why I think halving in dark buildings was a horrendous idea, 10% from 50% is a lot more significant than 10% from 65%, especially with the RNG the way it is But if you're going to go on with it might as well answer all questions that might come up.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::As the Riot shield only affects the attacks that hit the player, the environment which the attack is performed in should have make no difference but since the user is making an effort, the same penalty as attacks receive should logically apply. (Chance of success halved in dark buildings added to suggestion) Thanks for that, the more holes you guys help me fill the better. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it. Rather logical especially when considering that several suburbs were just bad neighborhoods (Even BEFORE the zombies!). I think that his would be a bit more efficient if you kept it as a melee reducing item, the hand to hand flak jacket in other words, say knock off 1-2 Damage per non-firearm attacks. Take it to that level and THEN I'll probably vote a keep on this. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 19:33, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, I'm sure new players will appreciate 0-1 damage at 25% to hit.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Well the zombies are getting Uber Buffs. Survivors have always been a bit better than the zombies at base level. I think that just the 1 Reduced Damage is sufficient at say...30% but if we want to get technical with this option lets say Hand to Hand Combat skill gives the 15% bonus to this so base is 15% chance to block 1 damage and then with HtH skill 30% chance to block 1 damage and we drop that improvised attack method because it's going to be the same as a punch. Now for the zombies think of Virgour Mortis as a +10% Chance to block 1 Damage. So again, 15% base and with Vigour Mortis a nice little 25% because Zeds aren't quick enough to keep up with the survivors. It is a bit sketchy but I am going to support this method over sitting around fiddling with percentages. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 20:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I would like for this to apply exclusive to melee weapons, but that would mean ALL zombie attacks and not the attacks used by high-level survivors which was a problem. I'm also unsure if the game distinguishes between damage types, if it does great, if not, going on damage inflicted presents a problem when pistols are reduced by flak jackets. The idea to reduce damage instead of deflecting it completely is possible, however it would just end up as 'a flak for melee attacks' different mechanics for each one helps to keep them unique but if people prefer that option let me know. The skills bit does have merits but I was hoping it would be independent of the skill tree although if people want it to upgrade as you buy skills your way is certainly an excellent way to do it, especially the uniqueness between the live/dead. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:18, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Consider the flak jacket. -1 point for firearms, hand to hand attacks still go through. As for the zombies...well survivors run out of ammunition every now and again, even in the sieges. To combine this item with hand to hand combat training is the most logical approach based off of common sense and lightens the work load if Kevan likes this. Like you stated, zombies and survivors can both hold them, lets apply our minds and think about how well a zombie would be able to block a hit. When you think of next to never apply this big piece of reinforced fiberglass and then you get your answer here. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 03:53, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Zombies holding riot shields? I'd love to have some of that crack you're on. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 04:08, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dude the odd thing is that it is not crack! It's Jello powder! [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:23, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies hold and use all sorts of items... Anyway, this idea is just awful and can't be saved, please give it up. All it does in any form is act as a zombie/PK nerf. Period. Drop it. There is NO NEED for this, and it doesn't improve the game, make it more interesting, or offer a solution to a problem. It's just... dumb. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===No More Walking Armories: Less weapons, more ammo.===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 21:39, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Change to firearm usage<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, firearms.<br />
|suggest_description=Add Equipped Weapon feature, adjust weapon balance numbers to encourage reloading over trenchcoatism. See below for details.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
As things stand, players in Malton become [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|walking armories]], with as many loaded pistols and shotguns strapped to their bodies as they can carry. Essentially, everyone is a [[:Image:Trenchcoater03.gif|trenchcoater]] by default. This is due to how firearms currently work and their game statistics. Players are rewarded for carrying multiple loaded firearms, and there's little penalty for doing so. Guns have very little encumbrance ''relative to their ammunition'', and there's no cost at all to moving on to your next loaded weapon. I think this is [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Arguing_for_Your_Suggestion|unbelievable]] and out of genre. <br />
<br />
My proposal is to add a new game feature and tweak weapon encumbrance, find rates, and damage in order to encourage the carrying and use of only primary weapons, with plenty of ammo for those weapons.<br />
<br />
'''1. Equipped Weapon''' The game supports selecting items that are "worn"; however, this is only used for clothing and flavor at the moment. With this addition, survivor players select any weapon in their inventory to be ''equipped''. <br />
* Above "'''Inventory (click to use):'''" there is "'''Weapon (select):'''". There will be a new drop-down list in this section: '''<code>Equip [Weapon List] as weapon</code>'''. This lets the player choose any existing weapon in their inventory, or an improvised weapon like a fuel can or crowbar. <br />
* Equipping a weapon costs '''2 AP'''. This represents getting it out of your backpack/belt and having it ready for combat. ''The AP cost of switching weapons provides an incentive to reload over switching between a stocked series of weapons.'' <br />
* You can only attack with your equipped weapon. The "attack player" option no longer offers multiple weapons as a choice, but instead lists your ''equipped weapon'': '''<code>Attack [Joe Zombie] with pistol</code>'''. If no weapon is equipped, all attacks are punches.<br />
* Once a weapon is equipped, the "Weapon:" section no longer displays "(select)", and the selected weapon is displayed there, instead of in the inventory section. Below that, the weapon-selection control remains available to select another weapon.<br />
* Clicking ammo to reload defaults to reloading the equipped weapon if it is unloaded. Clicking the equipped weapon removes it. Clicking a weapon that does not have a dual usage (most of them) will equip them as well (this is necessary so you can still click fuel cans to use them on generators, fire flare guns, etc.) <br />
* Upon dying, the equipped weapon is removed and remains in the player's inventory. Zombies do not have equipped weapons. Revivified survivors must reequip their weapon.<br />
* The currently equipped weapon can be seen in the profile description, along with clothing.<br />
<br />
'''2. Weapon Encumbrance Values''' Firearm encumbrance values are increased. Guns can get heavy to carry, and shotguns are unwieldy. Pistols: 10%. Shotgun: 18%. '''Ammunition encumbrance is minimized'''. Bullets and shells take up relatively little space, and can be kept in backpacks, fannypacks, pockets, etc. Clips & Shells: 1%. <br />
<br />
'''3. Reloading''' Reloading a clip or shell remains at 1 AP.<br />
<br />
'''4. Weapon Balance:''' This change slightly increases the in-combat AP costs for survivors. With 8 loaded pistols in inventory, a player can currently do 240 damage in 48 turns at 65% rate, or 156 damage, or 3.25 damage/AP. With 1 equipped pistol and plenty of ammo, in 48 turns the player can empty 7 clips, doing 210 damage @65%, or 136.5 damage, or 2.84 damage/AP; a 12% decrease. <br />
<br />
With current shotguns, 8 shotguns in inventory do 160 damage in 16 turns @ 65%, or 104 damage: 6.5damage/AP. With the change, two shots requires either switching (2AP) or reloading (2AP). Alternately, we can simply think of the unloaded shotgun as 2AP/shot. With the change, the shotgun would do 80 damage in 16 turns @ 65% or 52 damage, a 50% decrease. The change makes the shotgun even more front-loaded damage however. <br />
<br />
'''''It is very difficult to make absolute recommendations on numbers for game balance.''''' Only in-game results can show whether items are unbalanced or not, and to what degree. However, as an initial rebalancing to make the change not appear so drastic, I suggest these figures:<br />
<br />
'''Pistol: 6 damage/shot. (5 flak).''' In 48 turns (finishing empty), a pistol would do (6*7*6*0.65) or 163.8 damage on average: 3.4damage/AP, a 5% increase. This is a very modest change, and sticks to whole-number damage. In 6 turns, the existing pistol does 30 max damage, 19.5 average, the new does 36 or 23.4 average, but on subsequent turns the reload time brings the average damage back down. With 6 shots/7AP, the true average becomes 3.34dam/AP. Total pistol increase: 2.9%<br><br />
Alternately: to kill 50HP enemy:<br />
:Current: 3.25dam/AP. (Assuming enough pistols in inventory) 16AP to kill<br />
:New: 3.34 dam/AP ((6*6*.65)/7). 15AP to kill.<br />
<br />
'''Shotgun: 12 damage/shot (10 flak).''' 2 turns=24 damage @65%=15.6damage. Compare to current: 2 turns = 20*65%=13dam. This is a small front-end increase. However, comparing 16 turns (8 loaded current shotguns, vs 1 shotgun with reloading): (10*16*0.65)/16=6.5dam/AP. New shotgun: 2 shots, then 2 shots per 4 turns for 12 turns, then 1 shot in the last two turns. 2*12+12((2*12)/4)+0+12=108. @65%=70.2 or 4.39dam/AP. The shotgun decreases over time. If we compare current and new shotguns starting unloaded, it's 10dam/2AP vs 12dam/2AP. The advantage of starting a fight with a loaded shotgun goes up, but the advantage of carrying a stack of them goes down. It becomes worthwhile to consider switching to a sidearm after using the shotgun. ''This appears consistent with game believability.''<br><br />
An alternate way of looking at shotgun damage: to kill a 50HP enemy: <br />
:Current: 6.5damage/AP (assuming enough shotguns in inventory). 8AP to kill.<br />
:New: 2*7.8damage=15.6 for 2AP, then 7.8damage/2AP (reload, fire). 7AP to kill.<br />
<br />
Shotgun opener + pistol: 15.6 average damage/2AP. 2AP to switch. 23.4 average damage/6AP. 1AP reload. 11.7 avg. dam. /3AP. = 50.7 damage in 14AP. Slightly more efficient than pistol alone, less than shotgun alone. (I have been working with current balance values; but the existing shotgun is much higher damage than the existing pistol. It requires more AP to find ammo, and reload.)<br />
<br />
'''5. Weapon search rates''' Firearm search rate decreases slightly (most people will only want or need one of each type). Ammunition search rate increases slightly. <br><br />
'''Pistols:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Streets (1%?), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
'''Shotguns:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Pubs (1%)<br><br />
'''Clips:''' Mall Gun Stores (13%/16%), Armories (13%), Police Departments (12%), Junkyards (2%?), Gatehouses (?%)<br><br />
'''Shotgun shells:''' Mall Gun Stores (12%/16%), Armories (11%), Police Departments (11%), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
* If a weapon is found, and the player has selected to discard that type of weapon, but they have NOT selected to discard the ammo, ''they retain the ammo that was in that firearm (if any)''.<br />
<br />
'''Potential objections:'''<br />
<br />
Game balance: the change to damage output/AP is relatively small. If game stats reveal survivors grow more powerful, or one weapon is more preferred than the other, damage values can be adjusted as necessary. The point of this change is not to drastically adjust game balance in any way, but to instead encourage a change in player behavior to something more consistent with genre. Any statistical flaws that benefit a weapon type or player group can be adjusted as necessary.<br />
<br />
Inventory changes: this deprecates the value of carrying multiple weapons. Despite the increase in encumbrance of a single weapon, this should actually free up some space for people. The changes do not severely affect the contents of anyone's inventory. <br />
<br />
Realism/Game fiction/Genre: Carrying an absurd amount of weapons is simply silly. The only reason people do is because the game mechanics encourage it. This change provides an incentive for players to behave much more akin to typical characters in zombie films: carrying a couple favored weapons, and enough ammo to keep them supplied.<br />
<br />
Too long/complicated: This idea consists of minor changes to game variables (encumbrance, damage, search), and adds a straightforward feature which should work consistently with the existing interface and game data structures. It requires tracking one more piece of data per character: which weapon is equipped, and removes one piece of data normally transmitted on each attack: the weapon used. This should not be a prohibitive amount of development work. Balance changes are necessary to coincide with changes to AP costs for using weapons to minimize the secondary impact on gameplay.<br />
<br />
Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit.<br />
<br />
'''Areas for input:'''<br />
<br />
How are the numbers? Are they reasonable to maintain balance while accomplishing the goal of this suggestion?<br />
<br />
====Discussion (No More Walking Armories)====<br />
#Pistols are usually no bigger than two clips. Having 10% pistols and 1% clips is completely unjustified.<br />
#Shotguns are nowhere near the size or unwieldiness of generators (18% vs 20%).<br />
Not just that, but raising the encumbrance of weapons doesn't really contribute to reducing the number of weapons and increasing the amount of ammunition carried. Changing the search percentages wouldn't affect much either. Just plain introducing the equipped-weapon gameplay would do it. It's simple; reloading costs 1 or 2 AP, changing a weapon would cost 2. Ammunition is lighter than weapons. For pistols this means you're paying 1 AP less per 6 bullets, and carrying double the amount of damage if you use clips over loaded pistols. For shotguns it means you're paying just as much, but still carrying one half more ammo by carrying shells instead of shotguns. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 23:28, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I don't believe the game's encumbrance values are based on real-world sizes or weights, but rather are a general reflection of carrying ability for the sake of game balance. They're arbitrary. No one can carry 5 portable generators at once, and being limited to carrying only 50 shotgun shells, when they're typically sold in small boxes of 24 to 48, reveals this. A Ruger Security Six revolver as listed on the [[firearms]] page weighs about 1 kilo; carrying 25 of them at 4% enc per, would mean 55 pounds of firearms. The point isn't to be completely accurate with size or weight, but present a tradeoff in carrying many vs. few. With 1 pistol (12%) and 8 clips (1%), for a total of 20% the user still comes ahead of carrying 8 current pistols (32%). While a shotgun does not weigh as much as a portable generator, carrying 16 of them (at 6%) is just as unreasonable. <br>The search values I adjust because finding new firearms becomes less important. This isn't critical to the suggestion however, especially if the part where I recommend that users be able to discard guns they find but keep the ammo in them. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 23:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The exact nature of encumbrance is pretty much irrelevant, as, like I said, changing the encumbrance values doesn't really contribute towards the goal of this suggestion. It just adds one more thing for people to find objectionable. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 09:59, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::If currently people are carrying 16 weapons, and suddenly they can be just as effective with 3, they now have much more space for first aid kits, ammo, syringes, generators, etc. It's also about balance. While there is extra space, increasing weapon encumbrance means it isn't so survivor-favored in that aspect. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 10:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::That reasoning would make more sense if you weren't halving the weight of ammunition. You still have to keep the values somewhat sensible when compared to others. 10% pistols and 18% shotguns are just too inconsistent. Something like 6/8% pistols and 12% shotguns would be better. Or you could bump up the encumbrance of '''everything else''' (which ''would'' make more sense, but would simply get spammed). --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:24, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Is it necessary for game-balance that survivors be limited to carrying a certain quantity of ammunition? To my mind, the limiting factor is search rates, more than carrying capacity. I halved the encumbrance of ammo to balance increasing the values for firearms, along with the fact that the new system encourages keeping plenty of loose ammo, rather than just that which fits in numerous weapons. As for game-realism, shotguns are large and unwieldy, it's implausible to carry more than two. Encumbrance can represent both weight and bulk. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this idea, both because it makes sense and it's better as flavour, but I don't think it will last two seconds in a vote..not that that's any reason not to suggest it, but all the trenchies will go "OMG ONLY 1 WEAPON + MORE RELOADS NOW I CAN ONLY KILL FOUR ZOMBIES A DAY KILL KILL KILL" <br>But I like it.. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 01:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thanks! :) Actually, I really am trying to keep the balance the about the same so that for purposes of killing speed, it's roughly neutral. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:07, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
All these fucking words to just hide the fact you want to bump up the shotgun's damage. Go to hell. Go back and play Resident Evil some more if you get hard-ons from selecting and equipping weapons. You miss the point that this is a damn text game that only gives you 50 AP a day. You can't unload weapons when you find them and you are just as likely to find a pistol with 3 bullets in it as a full clip, but thanks to this GENIUS suggestion even if you aren't a trenchy you will still get your AP raped by swapping weapons. I like to think that survivors are smart enough not to carry their weapons in a back pack but to have them hidden on their body for easy access. I fucking hate gun suggestions. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 02:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Hi DCC. As I pointed out, in front-loaded damage the shotgun sees an increase, but over time it has reduced damage/AP compared to currently. If you compare the current system with someone carrying 10 loaded shotguns and enough ammo to reload & fire again for their 50AP, the new system represents an 11% decrease in average damage done. As I clearly stated, this isn't about altering game balance or enhancing/damaging the effectiveness of any weapon. As for searching, I provided a suggestion that ammo found in other weapons could be unloaded if the user already has a weapon. Also, I don't think being abusive is very consistent with rational discussion of people's ideas. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:39, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::The game is not played in long term, at least for survivors it shouldn't be. They're more than mobile enough that they can pop in, do tons of damage, run out, and come back a few days later fully stocked and do the same thing. It's low risk and exactly why boosting short term gains for survivors anymore would be ridiculously overpowered.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::This doesn't create a boost for survivors. Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png the graph] I created. The intent is to create a change in behavior, without significantly affecting balance; which is why I'm happy to discuss the numbers used. The pistol remains almost exactly the same; the shotgun does very slightly more damage in the first two turns, quickly falls behind the damage put out by multiple preloaded existing shotguns. This is shifting the pre-combat AP investment to carry around all those loaded weapons, into combat itself, making it viable to have one weapon of each kind and reload during combat. This is more consistent with the game world and genre: frantically loading your weapon as the undead shamble towards you, than carrying 16 loaded weapons effortlessly. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::I wasn't critiquing your suggestion. Now I am. To keep it simple I'm just gonna say this, you can't half ammo encumbrance it would have to much of an effect on the time survivors have that they can spend ''without'' restocking. That amount of time is a significant limiter on their ability to use/abuse their AP efficiency. You're basically doubling their Ammo carrying capacity and attempting to claim it's balanced by slightly reducing their attack efficiency(which is still being left close to 8 damage per AP). Yes, it makes individuals very very slightly less effective, it will also make groups of survivors insanely more effective and it will let those individuals spend ''more'' time without a break. That ''is'' a significant boost. Now I don't actually have too much of a problem with it assuming Kevan ''finally'' allows some specific zombie boost in response, and by that I mean finally letting them do a significant amount of damage per AP and letting them get through barricades with something closer to twice as much AP as they take to build instead of 4-5x. I don't think that will happen though.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:17, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Thanks Karek, this is an interesting point. Assuming a player wants to maximize their combat potential, and disregarding all other concerns (assume they're backed up by other players who will heal/rebuild etc.), a player might carry 16 shotguns (@6%) & 2 shells (@2%). That's an average of ((32+2)*10*0.65)=221 damage in 36AP, then they're empty. 6.14damage/AP. That's not including the significant AP investment to find and load all those guns. Under the proposed system, player has 1 shotgun @18%, and 82 shells @1%. They get 2AP of attacks, then thereafter it's 1attack/2AP (load & shoot). Over 166AP, they do an average of ((2+82)*12*0.65)=655.2 damage, or 3.94 damage/AP. They would have invested more AP in advance to gather all those shells.<br><br />
:::::I understand what you're saying. The existing system allows a quick burst of high damage, then the survivor has to go replenish. The new system would allow large restocking in a "safe" are, then being able to do damage for an additional 4.6x AP; however, both the average damage is reduced, as well as being spread out over more AP. <br><br />
:::::Say we go with 1 shotgun @18%, but 41 shells @2%. ((2+41)*12*0.65)=335.4 in 84AP, or 3.99damage/AP. Roughly the same damage output, just half the cycle time between attacking & replenishing; as well as less AP invested up front. So the question is: is the length of the attack/scavenge cycle significant to game balance? Do zombies depend on survivors running out, even if they're doing 2/3rd the average damage per AP? --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::::That's not necessarily true either, with three, or even four, survivors striking together they can completely ignore the reduced efficiency. They would actually clear things faster and more efficiently then than they could now doing the same thing. Like I mentioned above, the average damage in the long term with shotguns is irrelevant because most of that cost occurs well outside of danger while most of the reward occurs when you want/need it to, all that would happen is who's holding the shotguns would change, that's actually what I like about an equipment based system. Lose everything else, keep that, the rest is irrelevant, likely impossible to balance, and seems generally based on the assumption that all Survivors are idiots; they aren't, they just don't have any real reason to work together. There's a good core idea here but the implementation needs work.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think i like the start of this. Right now i can't focus to tell if all the numbers are good with me over a long base of time. but, first impression is i like this... i just don't know exactly how this would affect things until i'm actually using it. Also, i disagree with DCC... chill out, man. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This sounds great but really this is more of an AP kill. Consider that the majority of us survivors depend on being a walking arsenal, making us pay 2AP to get a loaded pistol out can highly unbalance the basics for siege survival. I say you drop it down to 1AP or just drop it entirely and make this a weapon pump. This has potential and I love the stats given, but you just gotta fine tone it. Try getting together a study group, devise a neat little generator amongst yourselves, provide a report in place of the hypothesis that we do have now and then try getting this into voting. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:There AP cost is there to provide the incentive to reload the weapon you're using, rather than switch out to one loaded weapon after another. For the pistol, it makes it more advantageous, for the shotgun, it makes it equal with carrying other shotguns, but the drop in encumbrance acts as a bonus. The increase in damage for both pistol and shotgun help balance against the increased AP costs so damage/AP is roughly the same. With pistols, you currently do 6 attacks in 6 turns, then switch. With the new system, you'll do 6 attacks in 6 turns, 1 turn to reload, then go again. So you need 1 pistol, and just clips. 6 damage/attack instead of 5 makes them close in damage output. Likewise with the shotgun, with the current system you fire 1 shot per AP for as long as you have shotguns. With my proposal, you still get two shots for two AP with your pre-loaded gun, then you get 1 shot every 2 AP: reload 1 shell, fire, etc. In the first few turns you'll have done more damage than the existing system, but after a few turns, it does a little less on average. Oh, and remember: '''with the existing system, you still need to spend the AP to load your weapons. You just do it before combat, not during.''' Like I said, this brings it more in genre: desperately reloading as the zombies advance on you, instead of carrying a dozen loaded shotguns on your back. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 05:32, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''Re: weapon balance: Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png this graph].''' This compares current with proposed weapon damage. I'm somewhat inclined to increase the shotgun to 13 or 14, but the relative advantage between the old and new shotgun depends on how many loaded shotguns the player would have under the old system. I assumed 8 for this graph. If it's less, the difference is much narrower; it's unlikely a player would have many more. Note that the player has a damage advantage with the old shotgun ''until they run out''; but they had to spend the same AP in advance to load those 8 shotguns. The new shotgun merely incorporates that loading AP into combat. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 06:16, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''GRRRRRRRRRRH!!!''' KISS me, please. i.e., Keep. It. Simple. Stupid. This may be a fantastic idea, but I can't be arsed atm to read that wall of text. Please learn how to be more concise. Seriously. Thank you. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:22, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What I did read... led me here... This is unnecessary. Because carrying lots of loaded firearms is actually a very poor use of AP and encumbrance. The most Ap-encumbrance efficient weapon in the game is the pistol, by far. And the best way to use pistols is to have 2-3 of them and tonnes of ammo. Shotguns are spiffy weapons, but their ap-encumbrance efficiency is atrocious: if wind up with a few, use 'em... but once its empty? Drop it, don't reload it, that's a giant waste of AP... So, if people wanna waste their AP and encumbrance on carrying and reloading lots of firearms -- the zombies say go right ahead and be horribly inefficient! <br />
:That being said... What ticks me is that I never find pistol ammo in Malls. It's always shotguns. Graaaaagh! Which means... I don't think we need a big game mechanic overhaul, so much as search rates should be tweaked... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::More thoughts... If people wanna carry lots of guns, more power to them. Because that helps the zombies... Because zombies can't be killed. And survivors should be focusing on barricading and reviving and healing first -- and when they are not... then the zombies win! By default. <br />
::Also, "walking armouries" are ''totally'' in genre. You always have the Armah Manz with billions of b!g bang-bangz... Always. And usually, these are the idiots who end up getting killed... And the consumer type who focuses on helping others and getting the job done most effectively lives and helps more people... As in the genre, as in UD... Now, I kind of would like to see trenchcoating get a bit of a nerf... however, i am always very cautious about "legislating playing styles"... And that is what this suggestion does. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:37, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: I'm sorry you found the idea too long. However, I wanted to be specific in the reason for each change, and the expected effect. In order to make the change relatively balance-neutral while encouraging a behavioral change, adjusting numbers in several places is necessary. You said that carrying shotguns and reloading would be inefficient: that's part of what the change is attempting to address. People carry multiple weapons because they can front-load their AP to increase damage in a short time. This idea diminishes that effect while allowing them to output roughly the same damage/AP invested. <br />
::: I disagree that "walking armories" are in-genre. The "Army Mans" carry an assault rifle, a couple grenades, and maybe a sidearm. The only reason players will carry 16 loaded weapons around is because ''the current game mechanics encourage this behavior''; it's not something you'd typically see in a film. They can stock up on weapons and ammo in advance, then unleash that stored AP in the form of damage. What is more consistent with the genre and a plausible game-world, is carrying a couple reliable weapons, and reloading them as needed. This change isn't legislating playing styles: combat-oriented players will still be able to arm up and go to war. They'll just do it with a couple weapons and plenty of ammo, rather than 200 pounds of firearms on their back. Their combat effectiveness versus the zombies will be largely unchanged. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:55, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Instead of trying to play with the big boys in the flame department, I suggest picking up some reading comprehension skills. I addressed your "refutations" in my original post. First of all, the game does not actually encourage carrying 16 loaded weapons; in so far as you are able to do so, you're most assuredly ''not'' contributing to the pro-survivor cause. That you fail to understand ''why'' isn't my problem: do your homework. Secondly, dudes armed to the teeth shooting the shit out every zombie they see (and usually dying grisly deaths themselves because of their stupidity) are very common in both the movies and, yeah, even the video games. Pay attention next time, okay? And go re-read karek and DCC's comments and try to understand the words of your intellectual superiors. THEN get back to us. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:12, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm afraid that you really haven't supported your objections, despite claiming you have. Whether choosing combat-oriented activities in-game helps or hinders the survivor cause is ''irrelevant'': you mentioned that we shouldn't be dictating player style. This suggestion as I've stated is largely balance-neutral. What is does, is discourages exactly what I describe: the "walking armory" effect, and encourages carrying only needed weapons with sufficient ammunition. This doesn't prevent or penalize anyone from walking in with guns blaring, it just means they don't look like [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|this guy]] while doing it. More like [http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1003/988120768_87c5ce1538.jpg this]. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::''Balance neutral'' ? What's this shit? How can something be "neutral" -balance or otherwise- when it tries to change the way people play? '''Don't tell people how to play their characters.''' It's just that simple. Who cares if someone fills all of their inventory with weapons or with GPS units? So what if some trenchies want to carry 100 shotguns? I can tell you haven't been playing this game long. More likely you don't even play a zombie. Which makes your bitching about weapons even weirder. Your suggestion doesn't solve a problem. Your suggestion does not make gameplay more interesting. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::: Could you be specific about how you feel it's unbalanced? And the suggestion is not telling people how to play. The intention of [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Gameplay_and_Flavor|that guideline]] for suggestions I believe is that we shouldn't discourage RP or encourage non-RP. People can play their characters how they choose, and fill their inventory with what they want. However, the current game mechanics ''actively encourages players to be walking arsenals'' if they want to maximize their combat effectiveness. The problem the suggestion solves is that carrying a huge stack of weapons is anti-RP, contrary to the genre and game-fiction. As I've said, it's [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|silly]]. Carrying a shotgun, revolver, and melee weapon seems much more plausible, and something you'd see in a zombie movie, don't you think? This lets someone who does that, be viable in combat. Additionally, I have attempted to balance this so it's neutral towards zombies, not shifting the advantage. Again, I invite you to show me how it is not. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 00:35, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::: You say you don't want to legislate how people play the game one moment, then the next you say that's ''exactly'' what you want to do! Make up your mind. Now... Zombies don't care if they get shot. If you actually ''played'' a zombie full-time, you'd understand this. Shot me all you bloody well want, I'll dirt nap and stand up again with, at worst, 44 AP and be ready to go. Therefore, shooting zombies is ''completely'' pointless except when you need to clear a building. To that end, you carry some guns. But ''smart'' survivors don't carry lots of guns: they carry maybe 2-4 pistol and 2-4 shotguns, tops. Why? Well... because the most powerful pro-survivor thing in the whole game is the revive-needle. Next come barricading and FAKing. Smart survivors know this, thus they carry several needles (sometimes a hell of a lot), a toolbox and a big whack o' FAKs. ''These'' are the survivors who benefit the "pro-survivor" cause. By contrast, anyone who just carries a whole bunch of guns is ''not'' really benefiting the survivor cause all that much, they are just parasiting off others' barricades, revives and FAKs. Nor are they ''really'' hurting zombies, because zombies don't care if they die. Capiche? You say I haven't backed up my arguments, but I ''have''. I actually made an argument -- it's just that you either don't understand, or you're wilfully ignoring the argument. Meanwhile, you've just provided statistics and a flawed idea, which you haven't put in any kind of rational or argumentative or bona-fide in-game context... Meanwhile, I don't care if someone wants to carry 16 shotguns -- as a survivor ''or'' a zombie. As a survivor, I think that guy is a parasitic waste of space and I will make fun of him and belittle him for being a trenchcoating wanker -- but he's not really ''hurting'' me. And, as your picture of Ash demonstrates, all said and done, he is actually RPing ''in-genre''. And as a zombie I outright ''laugh'' at his stupidity and I smash his barricades and eat bra!nz with a hearty GRAAAAGH!!... However, I do not wish to legislate how he plays the game in such a heavy-handed way... Which is ''exactly'' what your suggestion intends to do -- by your own fucking admission! This is not a good idea, and by clinging to it and not accepting ''constructive'' and ''reasonable'' criticism, you're proving yourself to be fucking git, a disruptive and non-contributive member of the community. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:12, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hmm. When I said that, you criticized me for having a superficial understanding of the game. The shoe's on the other foot now, eh? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:19, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hi WanYao. How many shotguns is Ash carrying? One. How many firearms will a typical person in a zombie film carry? One, or one rifle/shotgun and one sidearm. In UrbanDead as it stands, how many firearms will a person carry if they want to ''maximize their combat potential''? '''16'''. The game mechanics are already telling them "how to play", it's saying that if you want to devote yourself to dealing damage, you carry a silly and fiction-breaking number of weapons.<br />
:::::::::I'm afraid your comments about what is actually optimal strategy are irrelevant and a red herring. This suggestion makes no change in what players ''should'' do in order to be maximally effective. It simply alters the game mechanics so that the optimal number of weapons to carry is one of each, and not 16. This is what is more in keeping with the genre, more plausible in the game fiction. There's no advocated or encouraged change in "player behavior": a combat-oriented player will choose ammo over other objects, while others will stock sufficient ammo and keep their FAKs and toolkits etc. You've already said that with the status-quo, even ''good'' players will have 4-8 weapons. Again, this is silliness that is a result solely of the game mechanics, not because they believe their fictional roleplaying character would actually be that kind of badass. The game dictates how many weapons they should carry. I'm for reducing that number, without significantly affecting game balance itself.<br />
:::::::::Now if you want to make the case that 1% encumbrance ammo too greatly reduces the tradeoff between being combat-oriented or rebuild/heal oriented, I'm happy to hear it. Karek's provided his support for a similar argument above. And as usual, your personal attacks are completely off-base. I've been giving all reasoned criticism due weight. I get that some people ''don't like'' the idea, based on personal biases, but so far, I've only seen one specific argument for what might be wrong. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:44, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::This wall of text is getting pathetic... Anyhoo, there is another principle that no one has mentioned yet, but it bears emphasis: greater realism =/= better. Anyway, I'm done with this, it's arguing in circles now. Good luck. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:45, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::That's just your luck. I find TONS of clips and pistols with 4+ shots. Last time I loaded up, such stuff was easily 75% of what I found in the gun store. In fact, I would have stopped searching, but it took me a long time to find a shotgun shell to top up the half-loaded shotgun I had. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 16:40, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I fucking hate you. This comment in particular - ''"Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit."''<br />
<br />
Put it up for voting, right fucking now. Watch me dupe it on basis of weapons damage buff, selected weaponry and ammunition encumbrance buff. Just because your 'suggestion' contains many shit suggestions does not mean I cannot find those many mindless trenchie buffs and rightfully kill it, it means you are fucking deluded for thinking I can't and typing such a moronic suggestion.<br />
<br />
Shit, I wish karma was real, then some really bad things would happen to you, I'd find out about them and chortle my arse off. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:45, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Get arsed, yourself, Iscariot. Assuming trolls have arses, that is. Do they? Or does ''all'' your shit come out of your mouth?<br />
:Meanwhile, karek, swiers and DCC have pretty much show this suggestion for the BAD IDEA it is... So let's move on, kay, class? Next lesson please... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:44, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissocial_personality_disorder Please seek help.] --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Alrighty then... See, there is a time and place for being an asshole. I felt the situation was not appropriate, thus my comments to Iscariot. I take them all back now: go nuts, Izzy. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:56, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::What makes you believe it's ever acceptable or appropriate to behave abusively towards people? This sort of behavior certainly isn't conducive to rational discussion and addressing the merits or problems in a suggestion. It simply brings the quality of the wiki down, and reflects poorly on the community. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:02, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Other than Iscariot, no one is trolling you. And, in context -- while I don't really think his comments are particularly helpful -- you've brought it on yourself. In any event, if you want a love-in, where everyone is nice to each other and they let you cry on their should if someone was mean to you, please go [http://www.oprah.com/index here]. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm not trolling at all, trolling implies I'm after a certain response from him. I don't. It would be nice if he'd listened to all the nice people explaining it to him, but he didn't. The comment about duping is pure arrogance on his part, and I don't take kindly to it. The dupe system stops moronic suggestions entering PR because everyone reasonable gets bored of killing it. |I notice he hasn't taken me up on my challenge to see if I could dupe it....<br />
<br />
:::::Also Zhani, feel free to go and whine on any sysop talk page you like. The one you're after is Vandal Banning. Good luck with that, there is no civility policy on this wiki and until we remove to moronic-trenchie-weapons-buff gene from the general population, there never will be. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
...Well isn't that one long suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:...Well isn't that one long discussion. -- [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::... Speaking of things long... ''::looks down::'' Oh, is that a banana in my pocket, or am I just happy to see a zombie in my safehouse? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:07, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Thats a whole lot of SPAM you typed up there... what's wrong with just making weapons assignable? Allow everyone to carry a weapon in each hand and have it cost 1AP per hand to change (shotguns requiring a free hand or having a -60% to hit!) reload or re-arm then cost the same and it becomes a matter of choice which style you prefer. Of course that makes maxed out survivors a lot <br />
less like the combat monsters they currently are but thats probably not a real problem! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 12:38, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Personally, I dislike this, but that's partly because i only carry two pistols and one shotty, thus giving room for more reasonable things. Like fencing foils, Wine, and poetry books. --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 06:41, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Body Bonfires===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:48, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Perma-death option.<br />
|suggest_scope=Characters in citys with perma-death alternatives.<br />
|suggest_description=I've got a zombie character currently running around Monroeville looking for the precious few survivors there are in order to eat them.<br />
<br />
One of Monroeville's biggest problems, I think, is that there was no way for low-level survivors from killing zombies permanently. Zombies could take out survivors, no problem, but unless you had Headshot, you couldn't take down a zombie.<br />
<br />
I know that's in-genre, given that they're the freaking undead and all, but it sucks game-wise.<br />
<br />
Thus, I came up with 'Body Bonfires', after watching the movie ''Night of the Living Dead''.<br />
<br />
Should this get implemented, survivors can now douse corpses in gasoline (from fuel cans) and set them alight with matches (find stats TBC), lighters (find stats TBC) or even a flare gun, if desperate. A burning corpse will degrade into a 'charred skeleton', after which time the character would be effectively 'perma-dead'.<br />
<br />
Note that this is meant to ''replace'' Headshot as the survivor perma-death, not co-incide with it.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Body Bonfires)====<br />
No. Why? Monroeville is quarantined and dead. Adding more items that make things even more difficult to find and implement will not suddenly change the dynamics of the city, nor will it make monroeville more fair. the point, i daresay, of that city is to more realistically show a zombie infestation, and the only way to do that is by making the limited amount of zombies unlimited, with only a small amount of very good zombie killers who can do anything about it, which still amounts to not much. its fine, and the city is pointless, and just leave it. and don't add matches and lighters to do what flare guns already do. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:33, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I think you misread my suggestion. For one, this is NOT for Monroeville. Monroeville is dead (or will be soon), this is for any new cities that will also have perma-death mechanics, should one ever be introduced. For another, you can only burn a zombie once they're on the ground having been 'temp-killed' (HP to 0). --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 09:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I didn't misread crap. Nothing in your post makes reference to any mythical city that is currently not existant. You only mention monroeville, and imply that is what your suggestion is about. And after reading it again, i've decided this is a) a dupe; b) spamtastic, given the non-existant nature of your supposed city; and c) incomplete, given that you don't actually talk about where it is implemented, or if its a skill, or how its done in the user interface. just allow it to die, and then we'll burn the suggestions corpse out of our memories. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 20:44, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Completely pointless because such a hypothetical perma-death city does not exist. You can't get more spamtastic than suggesting a mechanic for something that doesn't even exist. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:56, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Reminds me of both [[Suggestion:20070816 Burning Bodies]] and another suggestion which I can't quite find at the moment. It is entirely possible that this may be substantially a dupe. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:50, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I found [[Suggestions/RejectedFebruary2007#Flare Gun / Fuel Attack|Flare Gun / Fuel Attack]] interesting reading, to say the least. How many [[User:MrAushvitz|MrAushvitz]] suggestions have been implemented, now? Surely the apocalypse is extremely nigh... {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:57, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Sorry, no, perma-death would not go over in this game. It's simply not fun for the players, and gives a person a reason to give up playing. Favors survivors overwhelmingly, and doesn't really improve the game. I hate to be one of those types shooting down ideas, but this doesn't work. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:36, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A) You only mentioned Monroeville, the dead city. B) MV has one purpose now, and one purpose only: ZKing. [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 02:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Make graffiti readable in dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Logic Flaw Fix<br />
|suggest_scope=Graffiti in dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Graffiti disappears when the lights go out in dark buildings. Since it is unreasonable to assume that absolutely no light can get in any parts of dark buildings, why wouldn’t the graffiti just be sprayed in the areas that the little light can get in? Such places would be the front of cinemas (where the snack bar is, as there are usually windows out front), near the windows of the banks, and near the windows of standard buildings.<br />
<br />
I have never seen any buildings like these completely lacking windows in all areas, and windows would have to exist for Free Running to be possible, so even if the skylights haven’t been maintained, there’s no reason people wouldn’t be spraying the signs near the window areas where it’d be visible, even if the rest of the building is dark.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Make graffiti readable in dark buildings)====<br />
<br />
It's dark. You can't see dead bodies. Combat abilities are nerfed for everyone. You can't repair a building in the dark. Barricading and reviving are also disadvangtaged. So there's no logic flaw here, not at all. It's bloody ''dark''!!--[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:The logic is fine as is - after years of the outbreak, the walls will be pocked, peeling and covered in grime and blood, not to mention layers of graffiti in different colours. You'd need fairly good light to make out the latest message.<br />
:I was thinking of suggesting an item, book of matches, the sole purpose of which would be to let the user (only) read graffiti in the dark. But I couldn't be arsed looking for dupes etc. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 10:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::But..but.. what about all those blank rectangles I sprayed onto the walls to keep them clean and in one colour! In all seriousness, no to this suggestion. As Garum says, those walls are a mess, no matter how many blank rectangles you spray. :P - [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:03, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::We don't need a silly, pointless item like matches to spam our searches. Meh. It's dark. Deal with it. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:26, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
WE DEMAND BRAILLE GRAFFITI! Fuck you, cripple haters. I need to be able to read ''I like to poop'' no matter how much light is in the building. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 00:31, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Now ''That'' I would vote keep on.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:21, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And human civilization has truly gone full circle, as survivors have come back to the art of making stone tables with toolboxes. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 14:11, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===picking some one up===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 19:44, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=helping others.<br />
|suggest_scope=humans.<br />
|suggest_description=Almost all of us can say that we have been killed while sleeping, or have been a zombie and killed all the humans becuase most of them were sleeping. So why not allow people to carry some one out of danger? Lets say that you and some of your buddys are fleeing a horde, and one of them is out of AP, so why not pick him/her up? It would cost one AP to pick the player up, and 2 AP to move around, and you would not be able to free run {you are carrying another person). You also cant attack since, it would be to diffuclt.<br />
<br />
You would rengenrate AP as you would normally would, and can be put down for one AP. If the person carrying you is killed, you fall down and be as vunerable as you would be normally. Now comes the PKer question. Being able to pick some one up and carry them of to some were else to kill them would become a PKers best tool. So I sujest there should be a check box in the settings, which you can check yes or no to being picked up. If you try to pick some one up how has checked the box no, this happens.<br />
<br />
''you try to pick the person up, but they push you away: Italic text'' <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Picking some one up)====<br />
Pied Piper skills are a great no no. Specifically because of the griefing possibilities. Even with the block you suggested, I don't think it would be acceptable. A better way of determining who can pick you up would be to check for mutual contacts, and not ignored. Not that I think this would pass even with that, because I'm pretty sure this is a dupe. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:54, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Pied Piper? Whats that?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:15, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A pied piper skill is one that involves one player moving another (like the pied piper of hamelin and rats/children) Within game the closest we have is [[Feeding Drag]] which has on it very specific limiting factors. This is too prone to abuse. New players especially may not know its a feature, and one griefer could pick up a huge number of people and carry them directly outside. Where they would get et. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Just as Ross said, [[Frequently_Suggested#Pied_Piper_Skills|here]] is a link to it on the frequently suggested page. I suggest reading that page, will give you an idea of suggestions to avoid. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 20:31, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nequa please read Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested pages. They are linked to above, at the top of this page. Zangz. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:28, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I see what you mean, but I still think that the check box would stop that. And if you are tricked, well thats just bad luck.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:49, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Only way this would be prevented is if everyone had it set to "Do not allow me to be dragged away", and only switched back when they knew a rescue was on the way. It is simply to abusable in it's current form. And try telling the poor newbies, who weren't aware of the checkbox, that it was just bad luck and that they have to live with it after being dragged away from their VSB safehouse into an area full of EHB cades. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 21:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nothings perfect, and anyway you could kill somebody quickly and no one could stop you.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:17, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:surely the default should be ''dont allow carrying''. Stop a lot of griefing there? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sure, you could have that checkbox turned off as a default. But then, how would people who have this skill know who they could pick up, and who they could not?<br>Moving other players is a bad idea to begin with, play wise, so picking at th details is turd polishing at best. If you want to "rescue" people from danger , give them fist aid, try to fix the barricades, and recruit others to help them survive until they log back in, but don't presume to play the game for them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:30, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait, what? You think this is a skill? A skill you need to get by having enough XP? No, no, no, you dont need to purchase it. Also your other point about knowing if the person has the thing checked or not is a good point. You should probally put it on your describtion if you have it on or not, like the hydra defence.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:47, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Right. Other issues. If I pick up a level 1 survivor, this seems to allow me to carry him inside, and then free run to another building whilst carrying him. Regardless of his skills. Besides Im pretty sure its also a partial dup of firemans carry. Anyone got the link. I just feel its unworkable. sorry. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
[[PR_Skill_New:_Survivor:_Civilian#Fireman.27s_Carry_.28Bring_12HP_Survivor_Indoors.29|Fireman's Carry]], which is in Reviewed. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 22:55, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
LOL, that guy pretty much says the same thing I do. It appears great minds think alike. Now do I seem like a idiot?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:05, 2 September 2008 (BST<br />
:More so, now that you've said that. quit being unwilling to learn. everyones been very nice. now go actually FREAKING READ THE DO AND DO NOTS!<br />
:No one is pointing out the worst part of this. What if i create fifteen drones, and use them to carry a full army of survivors into zombie territory. you don't put it plainly, but you seem to infer that you can only be carried while sleeping (or at least, i'm hoping, because otherwise those zergs could carry armies of full ap'd characters) but either way, its a free trip for my sleeping characters, who spent their AP stocking on ammo. my zergs carry them in, dump them off in a zerg-repaired building, and let them sleep. now i have an army, 2 for one. thats what makes this bad. adding a penalty of 2 for one doesn't fix that.<br />
:and the griefing is absolutly grieftastic. what if i rescue someone with low HP out of a mall into a quiet factory where i show him my gun?... i mean... pk him. errm... or how about if i spend a whole 50 ap 'rescuing' any of the barricaders in a seige with a death culter. the check box doesn't solve this, because the only time that someone would want to be rescued is the same time where its worth abusing the feature. it fails because it will never work. if you can't free run with it, (can you enter/exit buildings?) then its worthless for doing anything but costing the zombie horde half the amount of AP to keep up with you.<br />
:This was long... sorry. but this suggestion is silly silly silly. NOW READ THE FAQ's and DO AND DO NOTS! Please. and don't read them and then try to come up with a better way to do what it tells you not to do... just DON'T suggest those things. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:15, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also, wan yao... i think one of my alts was just combat revived by you. Ha. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:22, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Combat Reviving FTW!!! ;P .... Up Roftwoodish or something, right? I vaguely remember CRing some zambah somewhere for some old reason or another, heheh... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:40, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::As for the suggestion... Yeah... you seem like an idiot at this moment, Nequa. This is a broken and unworkable idea. People are trying to explain that to you. But you're not listening, and you can't even be bothered to read the help pages for Suggestion development -- which are clearly linked to -- and which people have been providing you with links to, above... Smarten the fuck up, please, and quit wasting our time. Seriously. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:44, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I distinctly remember telling you to stop suggesting... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:49, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Feeding Drag in Large Buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:necrodeus/sig}} 02:46, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=improvement<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with feeding drag in large buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Hello team.<br />
<br />
The feeding drag skill allows zombies to drag survivors of less than 12HP outside through an ''open door'' at the cost of 1AP. Therefore, if a zombie enters a large building through an open door, then makes its way through the building unimpeded (ie, through more open doors or just empty space), beats a survivor down to 12HP or below, there should exist the option to feeding drag said survivor through the building.<br />
<br />
It makes sense, as you are inside a building and simply dragging the unfortunate survivor somewhere else in the building, presumably towards the horde that generally congregates in the opened block.<br />
<br />
Now I know that this is the same as suggesting that I could feeding drag a wounded survivor through open streets, but I do think that as it is limited to the insides of large buildings it is hardly useful as a griefing tool, neither would it be game breaking, and it fits in with the idea behind the feeding drag as well - if a zombie feels the need to drag someone outside, why should the fact that it's slightly longer distance than normal dissuade him?<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Feeding Drag in Large Buildings)====<br />
Kind of like a zombie equivalent for the fort body dump? I like it. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 04:02, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Seems out of genre, normally a zombie will feed for itself with absolutely NO consideration for a horde. Though this skill is a good idea, it would be a bit pointless because if you have a survivor at 12 HP and most of the time the only large building you are in would be a mall, it would mean you drag someone near dead to a horde, either way, the survivor was already HIGHLY LIKELY to die unless terribly low on AP this skill is just useless. I say just stick with infectious bite. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:No. Feeding Drag and zambahz helping babahz is ''totally'' part of the genre -- as in, it's ''in the game'' ... So it's part of the genre. Zombies in Urban Dead have intelligence, more like in Return of the Living Dead than in Romero's movies. Regarding the suggestion, I think this is a great idea! But it should cost at least 2 AP to so, perhaps more. You usually don't have to drag as far, or through as complicated a series of buildings as in a fort, so I'm not sure if the same AP costs is in order... but perhaps... Still, in siege situations where this matters, we tend to just tend to kill rather than worry about dragging... However, even then, this ability would be FAR from "useless". --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:08, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ok.. I'm out of it.. I understood this as the equivalent of dragging a body outside the Forts. Which would mean you click the ability and you drag your target outside -- and you go with him, just like you would a normal feeding drag. No "half drags" to another corner of the mall -- it's all or nothing, all the way outside, or not at all. And that would cost 2 AP. And of course you'd still have to spend AP getting back inside and to the action, if that's your desire. There are some tricks to overcome with this... but it's a cool idea, nonetheless. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:37, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Yeah, I like it as well. Some people might call it greifing though [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 04:21, 31 August 2008 (BST).<br />
<br />
I was 50/50 between making it just like a body dump costing 2AP and making it like it is now, but certainly a feeding drag all the way outside for 2AP - like the survivor body dump - is just as keeping in genre and could be considered less of a potential griefing tool.<br />
<br />
What if it just acted the same as feeding drag, so I end up outside. It costs 2AP, and then if I want to get back inside it just costs me the same as normal movement rates - so at least 1AP to just re-enter the building, and 2 AP to get back to where I was originally? It's hardly a griefing tool, you're only ever going to end up outside the building you were in, and at most 1 block away from where you were {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 12:38, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:That's exactly what I just said, man... The only issue could be as follows: you're in mall, all corners are heavily barricaded except one, which is wide open... you're in another (non-open) corner killing some folk, and you want to use this ability. Now, do you drag the victim to the outside of your ''current'' corner, or do you end up moving to the open corner? What if there is more than one open corner? Or, if you drag to the outside of your current corner, then how do you justify bypassing barricades -- because even just a closed door negates feeding drag... See the problems? This is a very spiffy idea IMO, but these things need to be worked out... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:00, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::I was agreeing with you! I was thinking that the feeding drag took them out of the open corner, rather than through the barricades. As for what would happen if more than one door was open, I would say go to the nearest one, except that in a four block square, every sqaure is as near as any of the others...I couldn't see it making too much of a difference which one you drag someone out of, so I would make it random; the zombie just heads towards the light, any light. That way, as long as there is a door open when the button is pressed, the feeding drag will be successful, rather than allowing the user a choice. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 17:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Probably won't matter a lot now since this suggestion would likely get implemented (if ever) after Monroeville closes, but in that city there are non-standard large building shapes, like [[Monroeville Mall]]. You can like drag someone across four blocks. :O Also, how would a zombie know which building block is open from where he/she stands? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:22, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Malls, Mansions, Power Stations ... are large buildings which means they are functionally ''one building''. With fours sets of barricades. And four ''zmargahzbargz, GRAAAAGH!'' The zombies knew how to get inside and move around when there was only one entry point, so why couldn't they know how to get back out? And, I mean, like he could just look around... Also, yeah, no-one cares about MV, it's over... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:48, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Well, ''you'' as the player know there's an entrance to the building, at least recently. In contrast, your zombie can only check within the block he's in -- even adjacent ruined blocks [[Pinata|aren't guaranteed]] that there are no cades there. Unless the zombie is actually looking at every block in the building (something which implies free moves), then without metagaming he/she won't really know there is an exit should dragging be done. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::But like Wan said, you're basically inside one large building. If you try and feeding drag inside a regular building, and the doors been closed, or whatever, you get a message and lose an AP, like for any failed attack. It's the same here. And the whole point of feeding drag is that zombies *do* know where the exit is --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. Its not needed. Once zombies get into a large building, they almost always take it down by keeping one corner ruined, or at least unbarricaded. The babah zombies can just come inside to feed, entering by spotting the ruined corner and then gorging themselves. Besides not being needed, its got a lot of potential complications. What if a large building has multiple open sections? Which one does the zombie drag them to? If zombies really wanted to use feeding drag in every section, they could just spend a few AP each to tear down the barricades, even getting a bonus for attacking from the inside in most cases.<br>I think its safe to say, if a zombie tries to drag a survivor across one or more blocks inside a large building, the survivor struggles and breaks free. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:36, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I'm afraid I disagree; you seem to have a fairly convincing argument against feeding drag itself; namely that if your baby zombah is standing outside any old building, he can see it's open and shamble on in. So why do we need feeding drag at all? I've already answered the point about which exit to be used as well. And yes, I could spend a whole load of AP tearing down the barricades to feeding drag a wounded survivor outside, or I could just spend 2AP and drag the human outside the exit that's already open. <br>And surely the point of feeding drag is that the survivor is wounded enough to not be able to stop it happening? And why should a human be able to drag a zombie across several squares of fort without it reviving? In both cases, if the player is online, they are better able to defend against this, with the difference being that all a survivor needs to do to 'break free' is simply walk back inside the building. <br> If I'm way off here, let me know, but it makes sense to me --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Not of base, but my point is, if zombies on a whole really cared about feeding drag, each of the ~20 or so in a large building could kick in 4 AP and blow away any barricades on that building quarter. That's really only enough AP to kill 2-3 survivors- not enough to slow down a siege once zombies are comping on a SECOND building corner. So it seems to me that zombies themselves do not put much importance on whether they can use feeding drag or not, as evidenced by their own actions in raids. Its not needed to make zombies vs large buidings work, nor would it really make it much better.<br>Truth told, feeding drag was originally used mostly to combat the "yo-yo barricade" syndrome by getting a building emptied (and ransacked) faster; now that zombies can block barricade building, its a bit of an atavism. Its main use is as a "visible" version of feeding groan. For a mall, if you want to let zombies know there is an active strike with some visible cue, just killing the generator is often good enough. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:16, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Fait enough for a horde sweeping through a building, but in my experience, I use eeding Drag for two reasons: Firstly, when I break into a building with one or two others, I know there is a chance that it will escalate into a horde swarming in, but more often that not, it won't. But by dragging a human outside, that's one less defender, and a drain on resources, because that person is outside regardless of whether I get headshot and evicted or not. Secondly, the FU tends to use it as a in game piece of flavour as much as a way of feeding the zedlings. So for a horde, I agree, Feeding Drag is unneccessary, and if you've got the resources to tear down the barricades with ease, then I'm all for that too, but for feral zombies, or smaller groups it's a slightly different ball game --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 00:39, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::When playing a feral (and my death cultist, too, actually) I use and think of Feeding Drag the same way necrodeus describes. It helps small numbers of zombies get the ransack faster. Also, if the cades go up, that drag-meat is suddenly isolated. And drag-meat is fantastic feral bait. And, yup, I do it very much for flavour/RP effect as well. Although, it doesn't work thar well for feeding babahz, b/c usually some big zambah comes along and eats them :( ... This is all in very big contrast to striking with the MOB, where we only drag if we are very intent on getting that damn biulding cleared -- because we can always tag-team to finish someone off if we have to. And if we are feeding a babah, we bring the babah inside with us. This suggestion is more for the ferals than for highly organised hordes... <br />
::::And a few other things: killing a gennie is not enough: GKing is too common... And swiers you know how annoying barricades are -- it really is asking a lot for a smaller number of ferals zombies to invest what it takes to open up EHB cades... But all that being said... Perhaps this isn't necessary, not really. And, it might in the end be a zombie buff that is just a tiny, tiny bit too much... Particularly with cade blocking... But... I still like it... ;) --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:36, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Well, I'm going to put it up, and see what the people / merciless flamers have to say.. {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:45, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I'm not gonna flame it; it can;t do enough harm to deserve that. My personal issue is that I'd like (as much as possible) to avoid moving other characters to different blocks (I even proposed [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20070616_Fort_Revision:_dumping_bodies_over_walls|a fort dumping mechanic that avoided this]]), and that its benefit is so small for the coding effort involved. Mall raids are already a smorgashboard for ferals, so I don't see the point of arguing it helps feed them there. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:37, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Private homes===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:18, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=new building.<br />
|suggest_scope=anybody how enters it.<br />
|suggest_description=Why does it appear that there are no private homes in Malton? I know its a city and your more likely to find a privat home in the subburbs, but I do know there are private homes in the city. We dont really need private homes but it would add realism to the game. There could also be another benafit. Since anybody could have lived in that house, from a NRA gun nut, to some tech loving nerd, you could find anything in thear. But there should be list of items you could not find in the house.<br />
<br />
List of items you could NOT find in a house:<br />
<br />
Necrotech syringe<br />
<br />
DNA scanner<br />
<br />
Flak vest (there could be one there, but it seems hard to belive)<br />
<br />
fire ax<br />
---------------<br />
Also here is the describtion you would see if you went in the building.<br />
<br />
-With power: You enter a well lit home, you start to feel like you were before the out break.<br />
<br />
-With no power: You enter a dark house.<br />
<br />
-when ruined: You enter a house and notice how everything is thrown apart, which grimly reminds you of what has happend here. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Private home)====<br />
If I may ask, how long have you been playing the game? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:36, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
To answer your question, about a week, I have been running around rhodenbank. Let me guess? There are private homes and I have just not found them yet?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:39, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There are [[Mansion|mansions]], and various [[Building_Types#Building|buildings]] around the city can be thought of as offices/condominiums, where you can imaging living places in.<br><br />
There are other reasons why private homes aren't found on the map.<br />
*One is that they're too small, same reason why you don't put a single tree on the map (and for those that are large enough, see mansions).<br />
*Another is that with most survivors just looting around the city and zombie hordes chasing after them, most houses are in such a state of ruin that they are essentially unrecognizable, turning residential districts into [[wasteland]].<br />
*Finally, they are quite insignificant in the grand scale of the survivor-zombie conflict that adding them now three years after the game has launched simply doesn't make the game any more enjoyable or fulfilling than it is before, and frankly it'll only be a waste of time and effort to put them in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:51, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then instead of adding homes how about updating the regular buildings to be more like apartments? Because most buildings have a RP (EX:pubs,police stations,forts) thing you can do with it, but the regular office buildings are boring. Maybe they could add my search idea without the need of a new building type?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:19, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Your search idea is horrible. Normal buildings already do not have items; what you're doing here is the opposite in that you can find ''anything'' in them, and just for that it will be spammed. As for your roleplaying bit, that will take a much lower priority than improving UD gameplay, especially when you consider there is a suitable alternative (once again, mansions, and normal buildings aren't too shabby -- just add some decorations) and multiple other possible roleplaying locations. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:30, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There's no private homes because the private homes are usually at the outskirts of a city, and what we have in Malton...Is the big city. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 19:16, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I usually just think of the street blocks as containing such houses. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:52, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Private homes are not really appropriate to the game. They can be assumed to exist on many blocks... because it's generally accepted that the block description refers to the most prominent or most utilised building on the block... <br />
<br />
But... yeah... Nequa... please play the game for a while before posting suggestion ideas. Hang out and read this page for a while. And start playing some zombies, PKers, death cultists, whatever, as well a survivors. And join a good group or three. Barhah.com is a great board, and though it's zombie-centric, everyone is welcome. Beerhah.com is a good place to go for survivor stuff. Anyhoooo... back to suggestions stuff... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:47, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Dump dead bodies from dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Restoring normal ability<br />
|suggest_scope=Dead bodies and dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Under current game mechanics, you can’t dump dead bodies from dark buildings. How does this make any sense? You can get in and out of the building, even through Free Running, yet somehow you can no longer remove dead bodies? Or do the exits magically close somehow when you try to remove someone?<br />
<br />
Currently, you can see anyone hiding in the shadows of very dark buildings, but you can’t see/dump dead bodies. Even if you just killed the thing, you somehow can’t find its body, even though you’d be tripping all over it!? Once again, it doesn’t make sense. Only once you light up the place does it become possible to dump the dead. Since I see no reason for it to be physically impossible to find or dump dead bodies, they should always be recognizable and dumpable.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Dump dead bodies from dark buildings)====<br />
A possible explanation is that people in dark buildings are found and attacked because they're breathing so loudly and their hearts are thumping. Similarly, standing zombies are wheezing. However, dead bodies emit no noise, and if you're tromping through a building hoping to step through a ribcage, you should be spending AP to do so. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}21:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Or because they are fumbling with heavy furniture in the dark to barricade the building, or shooting guns, or... {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:48, 29 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::Well, how about another take on it. Anyone who dies in the building...if their body is still inside when someone who witnessed the death takes a turn, they notice the body (since it wasn't cleared). The body wouldn't have moved from its original spot that fast.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:06, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Group Bonus===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:22, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance change<br />
|suggest_scope=All denizens of Malton who belong to groups<br />
|suggest_description= <br><br />
<br />
OK, so while I used the template, I’ve brought this to the discussion page in a fairly informal manner because I don’t pretend to be a programmer and I don’t pretend to know what is possible. I like this idea, but I can see my own problems with it from a technical standpoint – and I’m hoping that others here might be able to help with the solutions on that front.<br />
<br />
Here’s the basic idea – in the real world groups are much stronger than individuals. People en masse accomplish much more, whether it be construction projects, armies, or lobbying government. Organization has an additive effect to efficacy - pretty much every time. <br />
<br />
Also – there is a benefit to being part of an organization for humanity. There is community, the transfer of knowledge, the advancement of the overall ends of society.<br />
<br />
With that in mind, I think there should be an in-game bonus for group activity. This will encourage folks to join groups, which in turn will raise the overall level of gameplay across Malton. This bonus would apply to ANY group working in concert – be in human, PK’er, death cultist, or zombie – so there are no powering issues between warring factions – only a power difference between the grouped and the ungrouped. Given there are few restrictions to joining or forming groups, the ungrouped would hardly become a put-upon constituency.<br />
<br />
So how to do it? Originally, I thought a simple tiered bonus for group size measured by the number of folks who have a common group name in their profiles. Say a 5% to-hit/search/cading bonus for folks part of groups from 25-49 members, and maybe 7.5% for 50-74 members, and 10% for over 75 members.<br />
<br />
The problem there would be that it encourages a new form of zerging. Folks would make “Group Scarecrows” that they would park far away from active group activity, but who have the group name in their profile. They’d technically not be in violation of alt abuse, and it would be very hard for group leaders to prevent, and of course the incentive would be to do it.<br />
<br />
So, I am wondering if the UD engine would be able to detect proximity effects and award bonuses that way? In this case, I’d lower the numbers required for the bonuses a lot – say 10-24 for the 5% bonus, 25-39 for the 7.5% bonus, and 40+ for the 10% bonus – and say that if you’ve got that many folks operating in one XX block radius, you get the bonus.<br />
<br />
Is such possible? If so, I think it would reward all the right behaviors in this game, and be pretty darn cool. My parameters are suggestions - they could be lowered, raised, modified. I am really interested first and foremost what folks think of the concept, THEN hammering out rational details that might actually be taken to voting. So, first "Is there a reasonable way this could work?" then "Would we want it if it could?" then "How exactly should it work?"<br />
<br />
What do you think? <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion Group Bonus====<br />
<br />
I'd vote kill, simply because you are not given a hidden bonus in real life from being in a group. Moral boost, maybe. But the rest you accomplish by working closely with your group. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 16:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Impossible. proximity detection would kill the server. Assume a 5 block radius, the game would have to, on every action, harvest information on userlists for 81 blocks (inside and out), run zerg detection routines on that information, and it would have to then count the number in the group. Now, imagine this happening to the server 30,000+ times a day. You would basically increasing server load more than a hundredfold all up (Quite probably by a factor of well over a thousand). As for the rest, without proximity detection, it collapses under the obvious zerg abuse you mentioned. Proximity detection is a myth, despite claiims to the contrary. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 16:41, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think Grim_s is right - without some radical reorg of the account system it's just not possible. I was hoping some genius might have a work-around, but I bet he's right that there isn't one. Whitehouse - thanks for the comment - but I disagree with you. In real life you '''DO''' get the bonus - the door opens for the AARP in Washington that would never open for the unaligned individual. The group can clear a forest while the individual could spend a lifetime chopping a grove. I think it's moot though. --[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:59, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Even if possible, the advantage to being in a group should come from coordinating with other group members to do difficult tasks that an individual couldn't do. You get a big advantage from being in a well-organised group. You don't deserve an advantage from a bunch of people all spelling the group name correctly. This suggestion is a reward for crap metagaming, which we don't need. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 17:24, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:You misunderstood my point. And Garum probably phrased it better than me. You get those advantages from working together, not from simply being in a group (at least not the type of advantages you were thinking of). Being in a group is a moral boost, working together with it creates results far better than that of individuals. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 17:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Oh I see, you're saying that giving an incentive for group behavior beyond already existing benefits doesn't have merit. OK, thanks. Fair enough.--[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 17:45, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::If you want to encourage group work, then find ways for groups to work better together instead of just giving people buffs for having the same group tag. Zombie hordes have scent death, recently someone suggested a way for zombies to sniff out their buddies. Such suggestions, which strengthen the ties of a group, will give good results, the good results are the incentive. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 18:50, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Technical details aside, this simply isn't appropriate. This is an RPG, and in RPGs the benefits of groups are simply those of multiple players co-operating. When members of a group communicate and co-operate, they are more effective. If they don't, then they aren't- just like real life. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 20:07, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
i haveno clue about all the technical aspects, but this just isnt a good suggestion. kinda sucks to be on of those people who likes to stay unaffiliated, cause they get screwed on the deal.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:19, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
If this was implemented, it would be possible for a user, for example, to put the name of a large group into their profile, and get all the benefits, without being a member of the group. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 21:45, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is illogical. The only bonus people should recive from being in a group is having someone to cover their back. No magic bonuses. No special abilities. Just that. --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 02:48, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Take a look at Nexus War for group mechanics. The main problem is that ANYONE can be in ANY group at ANY time.-[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:04, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Restaurants===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 15:12, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New building<br />
|suggest_scope=People who take notice of buildings<br />
|suggest_description=If Malton has pubs, it really should have at least a few fancy restaurants, which could potentially replace a few of the pubs in the richer areas of town. The Maltonians can't all have only ever eaten/drunk beer, peanuts and crisps outside of their homes.<br />
<br />
:'''Mechanics'''<br />
<br />
''Restaurant''<br />
* Dark building<br />
* Can be barricaded, ransacked, ruined and have equipment installed normally.<br />
* Internal description<br />
** Unpowered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The once-busy dining area lies in darkness.''<br />
** Powered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant.''<br />
** Ransacked ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The chairs and tables are overturned, and cutlery and napkins litter the floor.''<br />
* Search rates (normal, if dark condition were not applied)<br />
** Knife (3%) (kitchen knives)<br />
** Wine (6%) (the finest in town)<br />
** Mobile Phone (1%) (some careless people...)<br />
** Menu (6%) (Flavour item, when used displays "The menu reads: <random fancy dishes>", and flavour text "''You think about them hungrily''" (currency not specified).)<br />
* Clothing<br />
** a chef's hat (white) (obviously)<br />
** an apron (white/black) (waiters)<br />
** standard generic formalwear (maitre d'hôtel, sommelier, general higher-ranking service staff)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Restaurants)====<br />
Can we have one at the corner of the map? We shall call it, "The Restaurant at the End of Malton"... :3 --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:44, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't see why not --[[User:Diablor|Diablor]] 01:53, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Whines* Pubs (Arms) aren't fancy enough for you?<br> Mah Pubs not fancy enough for you, foo? Only if there is a Pub at the end of the world.. Already.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 02:51, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it, but I think the menu should be just like a newspaper with different flavour text. For that matter, would newspapers be suitable to be found here? [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 03:07, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A ''dark'' restaurant? Dunno about where you're from but around here people put big ass windows on restaurants coz ppl like to see outside...also a stupid idea. Pointless and you would have to think up some ridiculous way to explain why everyone in malton thought it was a pub but it turned out to be a restaurant.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:54, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:It was always a restaurant and nobody ever thought it was a pub. And 2+2 has always equalled 5. And we have always been at war with Eurasia. And darkness really depends on the restaurant, but good point. --{{User:Anotherpongo/sig}} 11:45, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Not pointless. Knives are the best weapons for newbies, yet malls are the only places with > 1% chance of finding them. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:02, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
As much as I hate suggestions that don't seem to solve any problems, we do need a TRB for knives, and this seems like a great way to do it.{{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 16:33, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Absolutely! TRP for knives, and logical and fun flavor. --[[User:UCFSD|UCFSD]] 17:17, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
a suggestion so simple that it makes sence lol i say yea bring on the restaurants!--[[User:Fanglord2|Fanglord2]] 02:37, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I '''Always''' vote for building suggestions-always love a change [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 09:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Vote all you like, I'm pretty sure a building change suggestion has never been implemented. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 10:04, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Kevan has talked about doing it before<sub>(it's in his talk page archives for those curious few)</sub>, it's not entirely out of the question.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:51, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Building changes not implemented? Dark? Ruin? Fixing the fort walls? Its not without precedent.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:46, 31 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::::He meant changing one building (type) into another building (type). The first significant building change was to make large buildings into "1" building, but they were ALL still the same building to begin with.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:05, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I'll concede that the forts were revamped from just the armoury building to the 9-block compounds that they are now, but as far as I'm aware that wasn't based on a player suggestion. Large buildings and walls changed how some buildings worked, not what type of building they were per se. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this suggestion.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:16, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Asum(awesome)!!! Lol! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Face Rot===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Zombie Skill, subskill of brain rot.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Brain Rot.<br />
|suggest_description=The rot has spread, now it shrivels and distorts the facial features. The person underneath is hard to recognise.<br />
<br />
In game terms, its a buff for zombie anonymity. Unless the zombie is in your contacts you cannot recognise him if.<br />
<br />
*He stands up<br />
*Destroys barricades/equipment<br />
*Kills or injures.<br />
<br />
His profile can still be gained through a successful scan, or if you recognise them via your contacts. (You could be familiar with his limp, a watch or other item, his groaning etc.)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Face Rot)====<br />
Go on. Savage it, like my horribly ruined features. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I like it, what better way to implement Zombie Anonymity than through a skill? Plus. it promotes the Brain Rot! :D --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 18:54, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
How would this work when they're alive? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 19:38, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Then their profile just states they look like [http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=Gary+Busey&btnG=Search+Images Gary Busey] --{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:52, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bloody Brilliant!!! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 22:27, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Good, apart from one thing. How do you explain not being able to recognise a corpse you just saw die when it stands up. This case would only be when you are in the same location for the period of time in which a character dies and rises (in the case of first being a survivor which is recognisable to all anyway). Explanation could be that the face rot while cleared up by the revivification effect while alive, takes hold again almost instantaneous. But that still wouldn't change the fact that you saw that body die and rise, thereby knowing exactly who it was. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 23:36, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A good idea, except that Whitehouse's point might need addressing. How do looks change so quickly? {{User:Ariedartin/Nickname}} 06:22, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't like this idea. It's balanced and innovative but it disregards the true zombie mentality. Yes, I love zombie anonymity. But I am always in the belief that true zombie characters should be willing to do the *above* three actions '''and''' have their anonymity threatened to whoever wants to use it, in order to succeed their goal. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 12:04, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Interesting points. I'm off to make a ridiculous suggestion, and I'll think about this. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 14:24, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
In relation to Whitehouses point. How about an extra piece of text like. "Blah killed Example, their face decomposes before your eyes. "--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:37, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I saw no one pointed it out and I have a feeling you'll actually check before suggesting this. This isn't actually a buff to zombies, this is removing the one way in which zombie groups generally recruit. I like the idea of starting to get zombie anonymity back, it never should have left but, this hurts them, especially because survivors still get all the workarounds they want/use while zombies now have absolutely no way of knowing who to go to for help/advice/etc.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 09:07, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Suggestions up for voting==<br />
===Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080831 Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark]] as suggestion is up for voting. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:17, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Nurse===<br />
Moved to voting, under the new name of [[Suggestion:20080826_Doctor's_Clinic|Doctor's Clinic]]<br />
----<br />
===Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080827 Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:03, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Dead Reckoning===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion_talk:20080826_Dead_Reckoning]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 09:46, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Janine&diff=1272863User:Janine2008-09-13T16:37:21Z<p>Janine: </p>
<hr />
<div>If you want to leave a comment, feel free to do so. Matter of fact I encourage everyone and anyone to leave a message on my talk page.<br />
<br />
== About Me ==<br />
And now for a little about myself without the cut and paste templates. I'm from Baltimore, currently enrolled in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Institute_College_of_Art MICA] and I work as a Creative Assistant for a publishing company. I live with my girlfriend, a Civil Engineer and History Major, off campus in an apartment. I've done some work towards equal civil rights in Maryland. I also just joined a branch of the [http://www.pinkpistols.org/ Pink Pistols].<br />
<br />
<br />
== About Me in UD ==<br />
My one and only character [http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1237352 Janine Eelms] is part of the pker auxiliary of the [[Hel's Daughters|Hel's Daughters]].<br />
<br />
== Current Projects ==<br />
# Currently I'm writing for the [[Families of Malton|Families of Malton]] pages.<br />
::[[The Eelms Family|The Eelms Family]]<br />
# Recruiting for [[Hel's Daughters|Hel's Daughters]].<br />
# Writing the following Guides.<br />
::A PKer Guide, Survivor Tactics, Zombie Tactics, and a starting zombie guide.<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
<center><br />
{{CS}}<br />
{{Female}}<br />
{{Boobies}} <br />
{{Second Ammendment}}<br />
{{Atheist}} <br />
{{Crucifix}}<br />
{{Firefox}}<br />
{{PKing}} <br />
{{Too Much Free Time}} <br />
{{Axe}} <br />
{{American}}<br />
{{Monk}}<br />
{{Socialism}}<br />
{{carlin}}<br />
{{HATP}}<br />
{{Junk}}<br />
{{ThereCanOnlyBeOne}} <br />
</center></div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Developing_Suggestions&diff=1272853Developing Suggestions2008-09-13T16:20:29Z<p>Janine: /* Permanent Ruin */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Suggestion Navigation}}<br />
==Developing Suggestions==<br />
''This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which '''have not yet been submitted''' and are still being worked on.''<br />
<br />
===Further Discussion===<br />
Discussion concerning this page takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Discussion_About_Talk:Suggestions|here]].<br />
Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general (including policies about it) takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Suggestion_Discussion|here]].<br />
<br />
Nothing on this page will be archived.<br />
<br />
== Please Read Before Posting ==<br />
<br />
*''Be sure to check [[Frequently Suggested#The List|The Frequently Suggested List]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots | Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]] before you post your idea.'' There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a '''dupe''', or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. '''These include [[Suggestions/RejectedNovember2005#SMG.2FMachine_Pistol|Machine Guns]] and [[Suggestions/24th-Apr-2007#Rooftops.2C_Sniper_Rifle.2C_and_Sniper_Ammo|Sniper Rifles]]'''. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.<br />
*Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.<br />
*It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.<br />
<br />
== How To Make a Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
====Format for Suggestions under development====<br />
<br />
Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header <br />
"'''[[Talk:Suggestions#Suggestions|Suggestions]]'''", paste the copied text '''above''' the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in <span style="color: red">red</span> with the details of your suggestion.<br />
<br />
<nowiki><br />
===</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion</font><nowiki>===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=~~~~<br />
|suggest_type=</nowiki><font color="red">Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_scope=</nowiki><font color="red">Who or what it applies to.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_description=</nowiki><font color="red">Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.</font><nowiki><br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion Name</font><nowiki>)====<br />
----</nowiki><br />
<br />
====Cycling Suggestions====<br />
Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit. <br />
<br />
This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the [[Talk:Suggestions/Overflow1|Overflow]]-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.<br />
<br />
If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the <nowiki>{{SNRV|X}}</nowiki> at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:1.5em"><font color="red">'''Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.'''</font></span><br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Suggestions==<br />
<br />
===Permanent Ruin===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Janine|Janine]] 17:18, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Ruin Change<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors who repair and Zombies who ruin.<br />
|suggest_description=After decaying for months on end, ruined buildings have become unrepairable. Buildings that have reached over 100 ap to repair are ruined completely. The buildings can still be barricaded as normal buildings would, but search rates and the inability to free run would remain the same.<br />
<br />
Hopefully this would spur survivors into repairing deserts and zombies into actively protecting and defending ruins.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Permanent Ruin)====<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Circus===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:58, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Building<br />
|suggest_scope=New addition to Malton/any new city!<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
The circus is a new building that the residents of Malton (or any city it gets put in) can visit, visitors can except to see the finest gathering of clowns, jugglers and sword swallower's this side of quarantine, in addition to these magnificent acts are terrifying new additions that transcend the very boundaries of life and death. If the show happens to unsettle you feel free to purchase one of cuddly toys to keep you company as the night draws in! (New additions to Urban Dead have been marked with bulleted).<br />
<br />
'''Circus'''<br />
:Large Building (2x1)<br />
:No doors: but can be barricaded. <br />
:Internal descriptions:<br />
::* Unpowered: "The big top lies in darkness, "<br />
::* Powered: "Coloured spotlights highlight the empty ring."<br />
<br />
'''Items'''<br />
:Fencing Foil<br />
:Mobile Phone<br />
:Tool box<br />
:Stuffed Animals<br />
:*Juggling Balls (novelty/unique item) (Survivors can either give their balls to another survivor or zombie, or if none are present, juggle them themselves (doesn't remove it from their inventory). Despite having 0% encumbrance, only one set of balls can be held at a time.) <br />
<br />
'''Clothes'''<br />
:Face<br />
::*A big red nose <br />
:Head<br />
::*a bright <red/green> wig<br />
::a <black> top hat<br />
:Neck<br />
::*a <polka dot> tie <br />
:Shirt<br />
::a <white/red/orange/yellow/green/blue/pink> T-shirt<br />
:jacket<br />
::a dark red waistcoat<br />
:Trousers<br />
::*a pair of oversized trousers<br />
::a pair of <black/white> trousers<br />
:Boots <br />
::*a pair of oversized shoes <br />
::a pair of <black> boots<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Circus)====<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Zombie Plant===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 19:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=balance change<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, Italian plumbers<br />
|suggest_description=I propose that after 7 days of a building being ruined, a zombified plant will grow in it and guard it against those pesky survivors. This plant will inhabit and occasionally peek out of the building's plumbing systems to chew at their meals. At higher levels of decay the plant will grow big enough to be able to spit fireballs at survivors. Their bites and fireballs will do 50 damage, so than small, meek little survivors with no body building will die in one hit, but big and muscular survivors will need two hits to die - the first one greatly weakening them, and oddly enough, reducing their height by half.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Zombie Plant)====<br />
Not unless we can find flowers which gives us fireballs to shoot at those plants. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 21:24, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I 2nd that!--[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:01, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is a great idea! (Shhhhhh! zombies come with Kuribo's Shoe as a drop down clothing item but most of us pick combat boots to be fair.)--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 21:55, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Do want. *'''Starts drooling over the plant, thus it suddenly grows larger..'''* {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 03:41, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd like to have some of those mushrooms you're on. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 07:35, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There must now be a template made! "This user supports the addition of Triffids to the game!". Someone go make it, now! -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 08:51, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Perfect! Just what the game needed to counteract all these demands for ruin nerfs. --{{User:drawde/Sig}} 12:34, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Unstable Barricades===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 10:17, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance Change.<br />
|suggest_scope=All players<br />
|suggest_description=I logged into my character in Creedy today. I had been succesfully revived after being PK'ed yesterday, so I thought I'd hunt down the guy who did it and give him a piece of my mind.<br />
<br />
So, I search the fort, and find that someone's over-barricaded the armoury. Again. This pissed me off to no end, and I thought about what could be done about it.<br />
<br />
Now, if you're making barricades out of everyday materials, there's only going to be so much you can stack before the barricade becomes unstable and a bit wobbly, eh? You try stacking office materials and make the whole thing stable.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I was thinking that perhaps if you took down a level of barricades, and the barricade was already at HeB or higher, that there would be a 10% chance of it losing two levels instead of one. After all, you can only put so much stuff there before things get wobbly from the weight and all that.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Unstable Barricades)====<br />
In other words... about a 2-2.5% increase in overall probability of taking down barricades. Sounds reasonable, although the flavor doesn't really fit well. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 10:56, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:OK then, how about ''After spending a long time in Malton, both survivors and zombies alike have caught on to the idea of taking out the support objects used in large barricades, as this may cause other objects to shift and fall as well.'' --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 12:09, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
It has never made sense to any of us zombies that it is just as hard to take down a loosely barricaded door as it is an EHB door. You expect us to believe that we can thrash a pile of rubble larger than ourselves for several AP doing damage but when it gets down to a board leaning against a door we are helpless? I like the ''idea'' of this, but the actual numbers and such may need work. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:40, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The more objects you stack against something, the more likely that you'll knock away something thats supporting something else when attacking it. --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 03:46, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Without barricades Harmanz are dead so you have to be VERY careful when tampering with them. While i think the associated logic of cades needs an overhaul and the flavour text rewritting so as to be more believable I don't actually think there is too much wrong with the actual mechanics... apart from those fu**ing indestructible doors!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:20, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:That's why I limited the bonus to HeB+ barricades. --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 03:46, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Honestmistake, [[HIPS | think outside the barricade]]!! And... if you wanna make this apply to zombies, as well, then I ''might'' be game. But barricades are the zombie's nemisis, not the survivor's. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:06, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:See the flavour text I added in response to Aeon17x's comment. --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 03:46, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
"hide in plain sight"... no thanks, i will stick to my heavily barricaded target rich areas if you don't mind. At least then if they do get in they might eat someone else and i can piss off sharpish or at wait for a revive ;) Seriously though my 2 biggest bugbears in this game are "invincible doors" and "uber freerunning". Both are essential in some respect but both help to make the game dull... sadly every suggestion to fix them has been shot down (often for very valid reasons!) At the moment barricades are little more than nuisance to an organised horde and almost insurmountable for ferals, any (even slight) alteration will either totaly screw ferals or will severly screw harmanz.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 15:42, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
The fact that your little story is about a survivor in fort creedy who got PK'd shows how silly your understanding of the game is. this suggestion, regardless of any merit in the hope of reviewing barricades that was accidently included, is obviously just you reacting to someone else's playing style that you don't like. and it has never been ironed out that barricades are a single, large stack of objects. many people, discussing it on this page, have come to one conclusion that its a series of barricades, around the whole building. thus, the zombies and survivors alike are already aiming for the sturdy parts as best they can, but its still hard work. while i do think barricades are not how they should be, this is not a solution, either in form, or in flavor. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:57, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===No Reading in the Dark===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=--[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 00:25, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Ruin Change...thing<br />
|suggest_scope=Poetry loving Survivors<br />
|suggest_description= This is a pretty small idea, so I'll get this over with. How is it we Can't see dead bodies, see graffiti, or be able to aim as good, yet we can read fine? In Dark buildings, We should not be able to read books/poetry books. It would just fit in with it better.<br />
<br />
First Suggestion, Spam me gently.<br />
(Also, If someone could get rid of the Keep/Kill thing, thanks. :p)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (No Reading in the Dark)====<br />
<br />
.....wow...I have nothing snarky to say so I am going to wait for Wan..[[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 00:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Sure, why not --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 02:04, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Good for both flavour, and a loss of the ability to gain xp in that certain way while more "protected" in a dark building. I'ed keep it.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is not a dry run for voting it is for discussion. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 02:59, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
# '''Keep''' - Makes sense to me --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}03:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
#: {{s|'''Wow''' - are you a mucking foron? Did you miss the big text that said where the votes "go"? --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:42, 12 September 2008 (BST)}} Non-Author Reply. {{unsigned|DCC|03:42, 12 September 2008 (BST)}}<br />
<br />
You expect me to flame a good idea like this? Wow, get with the program, mate. See, this is not spam. You therefore have NOTHING to worry about from us alleged "trolls"... It's the suggestion spammers who are the REAL trolls... <br />
<br />
Anywaaaaay... this is a fantastic idea. It's minor, sure, but it addresses an illogic in the game pefectly. Practically an automatic keep. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I'm curious. Does anyone still waste AP to read? I stopped after the first few months of playing. Once I realized it wasn't like Moria and the scrolls. I wanted books to summon monsters or something. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:29, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I'll read every once in a while when I don't have anything vitally important to do with my APs. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 17:43, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::it used to be advocated as a bona fide "safe" way to level up. sometime pre-dead, i remember a couple of people on Brainstock still seriously advocating reading as a way to level up! insanity. i tried it at first, and realied really quickly how utterly useless it was. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:46, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Rethinking Ruined Building Decay and Repair===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 00:05, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Change Skill Effect<br />
|suggest_scope=Ruinous Zombies, Constructive Survivors<br />
|suggest_description=Reading the discussion on [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Suggestions#Repair_One_Day.27s_Decay_for_3AP Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP] by Deyo, I thought about an alternative way ruined buildings could work that might leave both breathing and breathing-impaired sides happy: Instead of having ruined buildings require 1 AP extra to repair every day, indefinately, I propose making it cost 1 AP to repair per hour (or 0.5 per 30 min.), to a maximum of 45 AP. <br />
Now Survivor players, you're thinking, ''1 AP per hour? How unfair is this?!'' but with a limit of 45 AP the final bill would never reach astronomical heights and one lone survivor could be able to fully repair it and escape (but you couldn't really barricade it).<br />
Now Zombie players, you're thinking ''So you're basically debuffing Ransack? '' Yes and No. You read the debuff, here's the buff: because buildings will accumulate repair costs 24x quicker, you'll be able to do a lot more damage by ruining multiple buildings quickly and repeatedly. Survivors will have to work together and retake, cade and repair buildings faster to make sure they don't get overwhelmed with 45 AP ruined buildings (so, it would still take some teamwork to achieve, as only one person repairing leaves the building vulnerable to further ransackings). This will force survivors to keep an even more watchful eye out on their neighbourhoods for ruined buildings.<br />
<br />
As a side-effect, during a siege this will slow Survivor's advancement even more when regaining grounds than the old Ransack skill.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Rethinking Ruined Building Mechanics)====<br />
Another Ruin nerf? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! Stop suggesting nerfs to ruin. If survivors cared they would go and fix it instead of whining about it and trying to change it through suggestions.'''STOP SUGGESTING RUIN NERFS!'''--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 01:07, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Please explain to me how one-AP decay per hour is a nerf? Especially during sieges. --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 01:50, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Maybe the fact it only goes to 45? --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 01:53, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::It goes to 45 in '''less than 2 days''', as opposed to '''6 weeks''' with the current system. How many ruined buildings outside of ghost towns do you see with a 45 ap repair bill? I'm surprised, I was actually expecting the harmanz to be against this --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 02:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::First of all - '''THIS IS A 5 MINUTE A DAY GAME'''. Forcing players to have to log in obsessively like you do just to keep a building from reaching your ungodly 45 AP in less than 2 days is stupid. Second, the ghost towns have such high repair costs because the zombies there ACTIVELY keep survivors out, but your idea punishes them by capping the repair cost. Third, nothing in this game (except AP recharging) is BASED IN REAL TIME! The survivors can't even organize when they have DAYS to fix up a repair you expect them to be able to whip up a plan in hours? And fourth, just to be DCC you're a FAG!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::1)Who said you have to log on more than once a day? 2)Yeah and once someone repairs a building, poof! there goes months of work keeping humans out. With this suggestion, survivors might make more attempts at recovering ghost towns, but it would be almost infinitely easier for zombies to re-ruin restored buildings 3)Decay is already based in real time. My decay system could tick along with the AP system doing 0.5 AP per tick. And yeah, some buildings might get maxed AP but someone can still repair them and AP out safely. Maybe tweak it to 40 AP max if people really can't. 4)what's your point? --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 04:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Strange, in the other suggestion, you said: ''So for 1 day's worth of AP a survivor can undo a month's worth of damage and still be able to get away. '' Seems you agree with me --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 04:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Seems you can't fucking comprehend. I was bitching about a suggestion that made repairing severely ruined buildings something that could be done in less than the daily 50 AP. Exactly like this suggestion does!!! Except this one tries to be "balanced".<br />
:::::::It says, ''"Hey look, the repair costs are up to 45 AP!!! I mean 45!! That's a lot! That's almost higher than we can count!"''<br />
:::::::And the smart zombie players are saying, '' "Wow! that's still under your daily 50 AP and still less than a lot of the buildings in the NW. Go fuck yourself"''<br />
::::::This suggestion is about rushing to a reasonable cap that won't really hurt the survivors at all. Why not say the cap is 75 AP? Why does it have to be under 50? Oh wait, here's why:<br />
::::::''And yeah, some buildings might get maxed AP but '''someone can still repair them and AP out safely.''' Maybe tweak it to '''40 AP max''' if people really can't.'' (my bold) That's the part where you admit your suggestion is worthless and are just trying to make it seem like it should appeal to zombies. And if you can't see my point then take your head out of your ass and read it again slowly.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:00, 12 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::Dumb survivor repairs building alone and escapes. Zombie comes back, and ruins uncaded building again. And I said 45 ap, but it could be 40ap, or 50ap. The point is one survivor can't repair and cade at the same time--[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:15, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::I just pointed out that zombies could "win" the game by going suburb to suburb destroying every NT building, killing people with toolboxes and ruining buildings with toolboxes (unless junkyards have toolboxes) as it would quickly take a large amount of aps to repair everything. And you think this is... a debuff? Over the long term it's a debuff (if the building is ruined for more than 45 days) but we'll be able to mass-ruin everything. And I'll ask once again: how many ruined buildings in populated areas do you see with a 45+ ap repair bill? --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:22, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::: HAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow are you new to this game!! The closest anyone has come to "winning" is when The Dead (led and) inspired all the other hordes to kick the shit out of humans and get the population of survivors down to 39% (by mostly killing every mall almost simultaneously ironically) and if this ruin update had been in play then survivors would be an endangered species now. You can ask your question all you want - it doesn't mean anything. I could ask how many repaired buildings do you see in the NW. What's your point? Oh, when humans are around buildings they can fix them. Brilliant! There are buildings over 45 AP because of the dedication of zombies to keep it that way. Stop trying to change that. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
ANY LIMIT TO RUIN IS EFFECTIVELY A NERF! Keep this in mind. Also this isn't a survivor vs. zombie type of thing. Suggestions should be based on a perceived unbalanced game condition and a remedy. The only thing you suggested is nerfing ruin completely and making deserts impossible for zombies to maintain. I'll leave the rest of this argument about how lazy survivors are and why buildings get 85+ ap repair cost to Wan Yao.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 02:38, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Any limits to ruins cost is effectively a nerf, but any increase in speed of decay is also a nerf against survivors. What I'm basically proposing is changing the way Ransack works, making it a more effective short-term tactic, but less effective long-term tactic. (It seems unfair that you have to wait weeks/months to get a good amount of decay and then in a day with just a few survivors you have to start all over again, why not speed up the process) As for lazy survivors, I don't know honestly... that's why I'm asking, how many ruined buildings in populated suburbs have you seen that has a repair bill of over 45ap? --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 02:57, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Don't try to fix what ain't broken. Your super-rapid decay would create far more problems than it attempts to remedy -- and it would eliminate those awesome triple-digit ruins that a lot of us have a blast finding and repairing. NO NO NO. The whole map would start to look the same again. :( --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 05:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Perhaps Kevan could find a way to make those buildings with repair bills above 45ap unaffected by the change, or at least have their costs stay put--[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:22, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Oh noes! I just realized there's a huge flaw to this that could lead to the extinction of the harman race: Rampaging mega-hordes could ruin whole suburbs in their path and survivors would have a hard time restoring whole suburbs with factories, NT buildings down. Eventually, everything except junkyards would be ruined. <br />
But I just thought of something else: Make zombies able to ransack ruined buildings for 1 extra AP per day (max 2 AP decay/day if a zombies perform 1 ransack on the building every day). Because ransack as it is now seems underpowerd to me. Before I post yet another suggestion, anyone got any other ideas for improving ransack? I think I'll wait a little bit in case if I think of something better. Another alternative would be for the starting AP cost to repair ruined buildings to be something like 5 AP --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 05:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Holy shit! you finally said something smart! Of course, it was statistically bound to happen (1,00 monkeys typing on typewriters and all that...) ''Another alternative would be for the starting AP cost to repair ruined buildings to be something like 5 AP'' This is a good idea that would balance with the cost of ransack/ruin and doesn't have a shot in hell of passing. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''fuck the decay nerfs, already! ALL OF THEM''' and get off your ass and earn yourself one of these funky templates, you lazy whinging wankers... {{Template:ExtremeRepair}} --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:And afterwards... '''DON'T LET IT GET THAT BAD!''' Ever again.... It's your own fucking fault the NW is in such bad shape. Up the level of your game, already. Getting out of Creedy or Dowdney might be start in seeing how the game is played by the rest of us. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Who are you talking to? Anyways, 100 ap repair bills look sweet, but they take 100 days to accumulate. As soon as the humans take repairing buildings seriously, we'll probably never see 100 ap repair bills again. Not that it matters much as I now think this might be too powerful for zeds --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:30, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I'm talking to you, and ''everyone'' who keeps suggesting Decay nerfs. Also, considering that still, in spite of all this, only a handful of people are up there dealing with the problem... once we get bored, i am sure it'll be another 4 months before it's done again... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:48, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::It's not really a nerf as much as it is a modification. Both sides are going to see it as a nerf if they think that way. And how well ruined is the NW anyways? I've been playing only for a few months, never visited those places. The reason why I suggested this in the first place is because I don't think most ruined buildings will be able to decay long enough to seriously deter survivors but I could be totally wrong--[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 20:00, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::The median repair for the NW (until these assholes started suicide runs) was 45 AP with the non resource buildings easily in the high 80s. Basically, the entire NW started decaying the moment the update was applied. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::The NW was abandoned even more fully than usual post-March of the Dead. As survivors huddled in the East, moaning for zombie nerfs. The update simply reflected in concrete #s what was already happening for a long time. And, DCC's numbers are pretty accurate, I can attest to them from experience. Although, many TRPs were ruined from day one of the update and never repaired, i.e. at 80+ when the "assholes" showed up... '';)'' Showing how utterly ABANDONED the region was. And, thing is, zombie #s have been fairly low -- low enough that there was no need for it to get this bad -- for a long time. Which is why I have no sympathy for ruin whinger. None. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:29, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Sounds like, despite being able to undo weeks/months of defending a decaying building from humans in a day with a small team of suicide repairers, Ruin is still working the way it's supposed to. So my suggestion is n00bish and redundant --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 16:36, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Scavenging Version 2===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 14:40, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors.<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
<br />
Scavenging would '''''replace''''' Bargain Hunting as a Skill.<br />
<br />
'''Scavenging''' gives a +10% chance for a successful search in ANY building. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Advanced Scavenging''' (sub-skill of Scavenging)<br />
<br />
Costs: 100 points<br />
<br />
Each Powered Building has a new option to do a focused search. A building will have a drop down menu of every item you can find in it, and you can choose what you want to look for. You have a flat 5% chance to find the item. Unpowered buildings have no option at all to do a Focused Search.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Scavenging Version 2)====<br />
<br />
Still no. Give it up already. Go get drunk, or do some productive volunteer work, or something. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:43, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think it would look a little something like this: <br><br />
[[Image:Focused.jpg]]<br><br />
Shame about the high failure rates though ... --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 21:06, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Funny thing is... Those who think we're TROLLS... Go look at posts by me and DCC... Actually ''count'' the posts where we offer something constructive... And put in their correct context the non-constructive posts, i.e. we're dealing with a thoroughly retarded idea and/or people who refuse to listen to constructive criticism. The numbers might surprise and enlighten you... Then tell me: who are the ''real'' trolls??? I'm not whinging, I'm just sayin'... And... strange bedfellows, these times make... '':P'' --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:32, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I <3 my Bargain Hunting. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 00:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think even with 5% search rate it's too powerful, because if I can choose what to look for anywhere, I could hide in a lit bank where zombies rarely break into, and search for that genny or that 1 piece of equipement I need (toolbox, flak jacket, phone...). In about 20 APs chances are I will find it. So instead of running around to find the best place to get a knife, or having to travel far away from a siege to try and find a new generator, I could just use this skill and everything I need is at my disposal. (Then again isn't that how Malls work? Heh...) --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 00:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Well I was thinking you could only do a focused search for things that that building already provides and nothing else. So a Bank would never really have the option since I don't think you can find anything in them anyway. So Hospitals would only have the option to focus search for FAKS/Newspapers, PD's for guns/ammo/Radios/flak jackets/and Flare Guns.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 17:21, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::In that case, what would be the point of advanced scavenging? If I'm in a hospital searching for FAKs I'll get a better search % with the regular search than with this 5% advanced scavenging search. --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:28, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Bargain hunting only works in a powered mall block===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:34, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors in malls<br />
|suggest_description=Does what the title says. The search bonus from bargain hunting should only take effect when there is a powered generator in the mall block.<br />
<br />
Reason one: you should have a lot more light than usual to determine where to best find the supplies you need in the middle of a hundred other people in the mall.<br />
<br />
Reason two: the higher-tier skills of First Aid (Surgery) and NT Employment (NecroNet Access) both require power to use. <br />
<br />
Reason three: even without power, search rates within a mall with the current Bargain Hunting is still ridiculously high. With the reworked Bargain Hunting skill, non-powered mall search rates are in balance with other TRP search rates like in hospitals... and of course generator killing turns into serious business.<br />
<br />
By the way, props to WanYao and karek for pointing out that mall search rates need a bloody nerf.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bargain hunting only works in a powered mall block)====<br />
:shrug. malls are almost always powered and search rates take a hit without the power anyway to the point where the benefit of having power outweighs the hassle of installing a genny.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 14:07, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Yeah, most malls are powered anyway. At least the ones not under attack. I imagine this would be critical for malls under siege though, especially if the power keeps getting cut for hours. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:32, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Malls under serious siege have enough to worry about as it is. And if you have death cultists or even just parachuting CR targets, then this would actually make a big difference. It's also not logical: I can loot in the darkish just fine. And, finally, to toot my own horn... It's really only FAK search rates IMO that need nerfing. The rest is fine. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Scavenging===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:01, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors.<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
<br />
Change the name of Bargain Hunting to Scavenging.<br />
<br />
Now the skill gives a flat +10% chance for a successful search in ANY building. What item you get would still be random as normal.<br />
<br />
Sub-skill:<br />
Focused Search<br />
Costs: 100 points<br />
<br />
Each building has a new option to do a focused search. A building will have a drop down menu of every item you can find in it, and you can choose what you want to look for, but you suffer a -10% to the base chance for a successful search. So it would be as if you didn't have the Scavenging skill at all, but still take a -10% to the unmodified base chance on top of that.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Scavenging)====<br />
Bnhr. Doesn't seem bad.. Your thoughts? {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 20:27, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:So its a global 10% increase in search rates? Justification? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:36, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: Well, There's that..<br />
::It would lower the Mall search rate to +10%, but let other buildings get the same. So instead of Bargain Hunting, you're just really good at scrounging things. Would make Malls less awesome fortresses, but make other resource buildings more useful so defensive battles would be more based on keeping lots of places open instead of just the Mall always being the best spot to search. That's the idea anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 04:03, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Would this skill also buff mall searches or just searches that are in regular buildings? Any search buff that includes malls will get spammed out of existence pretty fast.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:15, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The author said ANY building. Malls normally get +25% with that skill. This suggestion CHANGES it to +10%.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 01:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
The main problem with searching other buildings is that, except for PDs, Hospitals, NecroTech, Auto Repair and Factories, all the other places are pretty useless. Granted this MAY make them more useful (supposedly a generator can be found in the power stations, but there is no proof yet and a 10% bonus might be the proof necessary), your still limited in what you can FIND to begin with. I'd suggest ADDING some items to buildings.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 01:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
So... +10% chance to find syringes in NTs? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 04:09, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yeah. +10% to find anything in an NT, but you'd have the usual random breakdown to find DNA scanners and all that stuff. But since Kevan lowers and raises those NT rates to always keep the game in balance (which is gay), it probably wont matter to much.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 04:17, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Overpowered survivor buff that negates all the randomness and uncertaintly in searching. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:22, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I guess you are referring to the focused search part. And I agree, that part will never pass. I even doubt the change of Bargain Hunting would pass. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 13:10, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
So, in the eternal quest for searching for loot, this would de-emphasize the importance of malls (no longer +25%), but make all other decent resource buildings equal (+10% to all). This may mean that there would be less people in Malls, Malls would be less special. Which might mean less mall sieges. (or not... malls have almost everything under one roof). But it would mean that survivors would have a net search % debuff, as most would probably go to malls for searches, and they'd now have 15% less search probability. Considering the ratio of human:zombies, I'd be okay with this... "Scavenging" makes more sense than "Bargain Hunting" as a realistic survivor skill anyways --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:34, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
I <3 my Bargain Hunting. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 00:11, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Expand Malton Map===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 17:52, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Map Improvement / add-on<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, Zombies<br />
|suggest_description=This would make for a lot of work on Kevan's part, but I suggest adding a suburb-sized corridor of forest to one side of the map's edge, leading to a small town or a cluster of small towns a few suburbs large. This new area would have limited resource buildings (because it's out in the country) and no NT buildings so that it would be very difficult to revive there. It would be ideal for experienced survivors willing to take on the challenge, as it would be a little bit like Monroeville only instead of permanent death you'd have to travel very far to get revived or face a long revive queue. Survivors who don't like this area or think zombies have an unfair advantage can simply stay in urban Malton.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Expand Malton Map)====<br />
<br />
As much as I like the idea of introducing elemts of the Monroeville map to Malton, I just can't see it happening this way. Besides, we already have suburb sized survivor deserts - walked around Dunell Hills lately? Plus you couldn't justify it in game - why does the city have a line of forest nest to it? And why has the barricade zone been increased? --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 19:54, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Stay outta the Hills and off my lawn, you damn kids!!! --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 17:00, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:It could be made justifiable: The quarantine walls in some places has been breached (and some sneaky zombies made it to Monroeville) so they rebuilt it, but as they were repairing they also decided to link up with a nearby village / a small cluster of nearby villages to make management easier. --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:19, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
You've been [[PR_Malton#Fallback|Fallback'd]]. Still nice idea, And starting with T:S first. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 20:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I personally think that a new section to Malton would be cool, but there isn't a need really. right now, survivors can go NE if they want a challange. zombies can go east. as for justification, something like zombies overwellming the border and pushing into the country a bit before getting stopped again.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 03:35, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This already exists. We call it the North West. Now leave Pitneybank and go be challenged!--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 09:27, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What J3D said, which is what I always say... Also, damn dupey, '''STOP SUGGESTING NEW MAPS ALREADY'''. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:24, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Oh noes! I was about to suggest reshaping Malton to the shape of a brain, to encourage more people to become zombies --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 15:22, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
I didn't know this had been suggested already. Since Monroeville might close forever I thought I'd suggest to make a part of Malton Monroeville-y. But it is true that we already have a suburb with no NT buildings, Mornington. Still, it would be fun to have a wilderness area or two to break the monotony of buildings, streets and more buildings. --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:19, 11 September (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 20:57, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New usage of existing skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors in ruined, especially long-ruined buildings.<br />
|suggest_description=A survivor with the Construction skill and a toolbox has a new action button: "Repair One Day's Decay (3AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs, and reduce the building's number of days decayed, and the AP required to repair it, by one. This option would only appear if the building has been ruined for four or more days.<br />
<br />
This gives survivors who are repairing long-ruined buildings, such as forts which have been in zombie hands for weeks, an opportunity to coordinate and distribute the AP cost of repairs, which in some cases can drive a fully-rested survivor into negative AP. This coordination is extremely time-consuming, and thus requires triple the AP that repairing the building alone would consume. Eventually, this coordination would reduce the remaining work to a job that one survivor could finish, and that survivor can simply click "Repair" to complete the repairs.<br />
<br />
This suggestion is an attempt to build consensus for or against several previously [[Undecided Suggestions]], such as [[Suggestion:20080804 Repairing Really Ruined Buildings|Repairing Really Ruined Buildings]], [[Suggestion:20080625 Ruin Repairing change|Ruin Repairing Change]], and [[Suggestion:20080729 Partial Repair|Partial Repair]].<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP)====<br />
Oh look, a survivor complaining about how hard it is to coordinate efforts among several survivors. You have clearly never played as a zombie. Zombies have to coordinate efforts all the time to just get into buildings. You don't want to spend 40+ AP to repair a building? Get off your ass and take it back sooner. Organize a better defense of it in the first place. Changing the mechanics because some players suck at the game is retarded.<br />
Let's stop pitching in Major League Baseball because not everyone can get a home run. Let's make it like T-Ball. If the game is made easier for THE MAJORITY OF THE PLAYERS that will really make it fun for the minority! --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:21, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Sometimes, when I read your replies, I wonder which game you're playing. Just a heads-up, this is the suggestion discussion area for a browser-based casual game about humans and zombies called Urban Dead. Some people have commented that survivors, despite outnumbering the zombies, have Rambo syndrome and never cooperate. This suggestion would give them an option to cooperate, though at a higher total AP cost than sacrificing one human to repair the building and then reviving him later, which requires no cooperation beyond standing at an RP and saying, "Mrh?" [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::No, Dago, this suggestion will make it easier for strafing repairs without danger to the survivors and therefore completely nerf the ruin update. You seem to forget that there is no mechanic available to a zombie to speed up the AP needed to repair a building, so ideas like this that cost low AP to undo something that only time can change are stupid and horribly unbalanced. Using your numbers - 3 AP will remove 2 APs worth of damage. So,if a survivor has 40 AP to spend that is 13 clicks which equals 26 AP. '''So for 1 day's worth of AP a survivor can undo a month's worth of damage and still be able to get away.''' And you want to make this so more than one survivor can repair a ruin like this? The current system is much better because it is all or nothing. But please whine about how I don't offer constructive criticism since you didn't bother to read any of the comments on the suggestions you are raping to make this abortion of an idea. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:30, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Again, you add racial slurs and little else to the discussion. You also have a math error there. A building costs 1 AP per day to repair, so this suggestion would triple the AP required. A survivor who happens to have maximum AP can repair a month of ruin and get away, by spending 30 AP, and would not need to click anything 13 times. Also, you are correct that you don't offer constructive criticism, you only offer rage and spite. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You have reading errors then. You posted ''"Repair One Day's Decay (2AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs'' One day's decay is not 2 AP like you posted in the suggestion. If you are saying that it triples the amount of AP needed to repair then spending 30 AP should only undo 10 AP worth of damage. This goes back to my whole point about making strafing repair runs and how it isn't fair that zombies can't undo the exact amount of damage that survivors can repair, but you seemed to have missed all that you fuckstick. (are insults better than racial slurs? I could call you a wop if you would prefer that.) You know, the only reason I add the slurs and insults is so people like you and Galaxy have something to latch onto and reply to since you obviously don't listen to reason or experience. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Congratulations! You can spot typos and swear on the internet! I'm afraid I can only fix the first, though. Thanks! [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You can't even be bothered to proof read your own suggestion? Really now. How hard would that have been? It wasn't even that far into the suggestion. It was right toward the top. The fact that you didn't read your suggestion before you posted it also tells me that you didn't think about it too much and just hit SAVE PAGE. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 17:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Maybe if survivors don't act like Rambo and actually did teamwork, this would be a non-issue. After all you only need three people tops to repair a building: one to search for gennies and fuel and install them (for dark), one to repair, and one to barricade. On the other hand it takes more than three zombies to take one EHB building with those same three survivors in it. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 00:53, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Actually, this suggestion would ''encourage'' teamwork. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Therefore, you admit that survivors don't actually do much teamwork in the first place if they have to get a massive buff for them to get their asses moving to repair all those dark buildings. Quite a sad state of affairs, isn't it? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:55, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::It is. Want to fix it? [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You do not solve social problems such as survivor laziness by changing the game's design; if you do that, all it would do is show that their laziness is perfectly fine, and that mocks all the organized effort zombie groups do just to keep your shit ruined. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 14:08, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I look forward to your suggestion on how to solve social problems. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I look forward to you making a non-crappy suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Don't hold your breath. I would miss you if you died.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:26, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bitching about how hard it is for one group and how crap the other plays is hardly constructive now is it? The main use for this would not be for survivors to co-operate (it should be but wouldn't get used in that way) instead this would enable altruistic survivors the chance to slowly fix up a ruin without leaving them self out in the open! Sadly that very fact means that this would just attract hordes of low level zergs to gradually rebuild an area with less risk of needing revives :( --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:11, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, but at a higher AP cost than repairing and reviving. It gives survivors options, but doesn't take anything away from Zombies except for APs that would otherwise be used pumping shotgun shells into them. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This isn't needed. shit, Fort Perryn was just taken back and it was ruined for a while (not as long as some buildings up north, granted). oh, and DCC: calm down.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 03:12, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Needed? Maybe not. But it makes sense, it encourages survivor cooperation, and it soaks survivor APs. All are things that both zombie and survivor players have said the game needs. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::How in the fuck is survivors cooperating something zombies need? When did any ZOMBIE player say they needed survivors to pull together? Survivors are really fucking lucky this game doesn't have perma-death and that the creator steps in to help them out when their own stupidity leads them to the brink of destruction. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:39, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::How long have you been around? Zombie players have been some of the main ones bit*hing that survivors are too damn uncoordinated, not that it would help zombies, but it would make the game funner to play. Not everything is about game-mechanics, and if there were no survivors left why would you play? Sounds to me you're putting down the game because survivors are stupid, yet are bit*hing they shoulden't be forced to be smart, like zombies are... and that my friend, is more f**ked up then any susgestion ever made.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 03:02, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::[http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=97517 I've] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Many been] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/DARIS around] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Dead awhile.] The survivors being coordinated or not does not make the zombie aspect of the game "funner". And when zombie players bitch that the survivors suck it is because instead of trying to get together and work as a team they all just suggest buffs to themselves or nerfs to zombies to solve the problem. Buffing them unfairly does not "force them to be smart". --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Remember that what is fun for you is not fun for all zombie players. Some zombie players want to do something other than turn brainz into Mrh? cows. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Enlighten me, Oh Zombie Master, what else a zombie can do in this fucking game. They can't spread zombie grafitti, play on the radio, or even hold IC conversations (since their alphabet is so fucking limited). They can't even get XP through any means other than hitting survivors (or other zombies). Other than killing what the fuck can a person that plays a zombie do? That's why it is so frustrating when assholes like you want to come along and make things harder on the few people that actually fucking play zombies in this zombie "apocalypse" game. Keep suggesting stupid shit and drive off the zed players. Then you and the rest of the dipstick survivors can have your little circle jerk in peace without those pesky undead. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::And we can have campfires and sing "Kumbaya". I'm glad to see you're keeping an open mind. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::Who said buffing them forced them to be smart? I said that a buff to save the population may be required to keep playing the game, while other zombie buffs may force (Able to kill easier is not forceful, as things take time to adjust and with survivors, no quick option is aviable to get back up that causes this lapse of time) them to be smarter, which would elimate the need for those survivor buffs to come into place. Instead of a structured and logical approach on why this is a bad idea, I.E. ''constructive critism''^(this susgestion would counteract a zombie buff designed in a way to help towards this, much better then if this system was put into place), you b*tched about how survivors have it easy. I never provided support for this susgestion and yet you seem to imply I have? In all of this you managed to accomplish hardening the authors stance against the reasoning that this susgestion would be poor in practice, and therefore paving the way for simular susgestions in the future, or turning players away due to a hostile enviroment. Congrats, *Hands Clapping*, im sure they'll put your name in a plaque, on the UD wall for your contributions here today.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:00, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Ah, the snowball argument. Classic. And I laughed heartily when you said there must be a 'buff to save the population'... got a bit of messianic streak lately? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:07, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::: I didn't say "Must", I said may be "required", by which I mean at times of rediculous peril where the game may truly end. If the population can't adapt to a change and shows signs that they won't, and the game ends, then so ends UD (At least Malton in any true form), and has us all starting from square one on a system proven to fail. A broken system can get you farther then a failed system.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:57, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::'''Standing Survivors : 14295 (61%) Standing Zombies : 9022 (39%)''' HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH SOMEBODY SAVE THE SURVIVORS! ''a buff to save the population may be required to keep playing the game'' They are in serious danger of overcrowding at the malls. <br />
:::::::::::You said I didn't offer any constructive criticism. You are wrong. It's in there. You are also ignoring the fact that he said he took this idea from 3 previous ideas which one would assume meant that he FUCKING READ the other suggestions, but since he can't even be bothered to READ HIS OWN suggestion I doubt he did. In the other suggestions there are a lot of constructive criticism and comments. I am not "hardening the author's stance" by disagreeing with him. If I am then he is a stubborn douchebag that will continue to ignore reason and just throw a temper tantrum because he thinks he is right. We have had a few of those before and we nailgunned them. <br />
:::::::::::I think we should turn newbies away from here. I think anyone that hasn't been playing UD for more than 8 months should shut the fuck up and keep their ideas to themselves. You can't contribute to the game if you haven't played the fucking game. And if you bothered to read my links above you would see my contributions to UD. They are much better than a shitty survivor buff suggestion that steals from 3 failed attempts before it.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:26, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::DCC, your a fucking prick. why do you treat this page as a place to insult and belittle others? really, i dont get it. is there actually a reason, or are you just an angry person whos missed taking their meds? i think it was decided that this suggestion sucks, and isnt needed. no need to continue to respond to everything the author says with an insult and justification as to why your right.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 04:01, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::Wow DCC, Im beginning to wonder if you can read... I said "may be required at times", not that "it is needed now", large difference, my saying susgesting when the odds are against survivors, I believe that zombies need a few more buffs as it stands, because as you pointed out the numbers are very sad. Next critism mixed in with ten insults won't do anybody any help, except piss people off and have them pull reasons out of thin air to conclude that there way is better (Note yourself in your previvous comment, you have been harped on for your chosen response, and now this has turned into a conversation on your conduct in response to this sugestion instead of on the susgestion itself, perhaps we should continue elsewhere instead of wasting space here?). As well many people read other peoples susgestions and gain there own idea, and don't use spell check (I fall into that category, as im sure you noticed from "simular" and other mistakes). Oh and I did read the links, my oldest self happens to be [http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=944459 zach016], here a bit over a year, if it would so please you to have my opinon count over your 8 month limit, I truly believe it woulden't make that much of a difference other then introduce those people of eight months on how to use the wiki at a further period of time, they would still quote old susgestions that failed and would have more time to come up with needless buffs that no one wants.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 22:09, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::::''DCC, your a fucking prick.'' That should be '''you're''' by the way, monkey. And, G-Man, I can't even keep up with your fucking mistakes. I hope some day you become bi-lingual and one of those languages is English. These become conversations about my conduct because there isn't enough in the suggestion to support so it is easier to bitch at me. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:29, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::::LOL, Coulden't come up with any actual reasons against me so you just put down my spelling/grammer? wow, you are good my friend, you are good.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 12:06, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::::: Even better, I just pasted it into microsoft word, lets see, 9 words wrong spread throughout, and one grammer mistake ("peoples"). Whats worse the spelling mistakes are not that far off and readable. Guess the tech., don't no nothin bout them der spelling and what not. I will conclude with yes, the possibility exists that there are mistakes that can bypass the system, but its apparant its readable anyway.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 12:18, 12 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::::::::::::Holy shit! You had to paste it into MS Word to figure out the mistakes? HAHAHA! Micro$oft can fix the grammar and spelling, but it can't point out the flaws in your logic. I'm still trying to figure out what you were talking about when you said there is a difference between "must have" and "required". Now that statement is a noodle scratcher!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:14, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::::::::I would have figured you would realise the "may be" before "required" had something to do with it. Guess were all wrong sometimes.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 03:08, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Quit having such a smarmy attitude and responding to everyone's comments with something that you seem to consider a comeback, Deyo. People are offering straight forward critiques of this, and all of the similar ideas. Reaching a compromise of idea's that were spammed or duped or otherwise rejected for their overall um-workability is still just an unworkable idea. The whole point of saying dupe is that what needs to be said has been said, and we don't need to hash over all the arguments all over again. its up to you to read through those and realize for yourself that it won't work, and try to come up with something actually creative or unique, otherwise you will simply be spam voted or dupe voted down. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 07:25, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Between smarmy and hateful, I'll take smarmy every time. Zombie replies to any suggestion that gives survivors any additional options have been akin to "YOU RAEPD MAI DOG!" I don't claim to understand it, so I attempt to defuse it by turning their own words against them. For example, you say that the ideas were spammed, duped, or otherwise rejected. This is untrue. The suggestions were all '''Undecided''' at the end of voting. My hope is that by making this option unattractive to all but the most organized survivor groups, it will be less offensive to the zombie players who seem to be the most vocal and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war impassioned] contributors to this wiki. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. You say this is to encourage them to work together, but really, all this does is make it so that ''individuals'' can do the damage rather than groups, as currently exists. This doesnt in any way encourage group play, it instead encourages the opposite, lone wolf stupid survivor play thats been a huge detriment to the survivor game since the dawn of UD and its that attitude that has resulted in all the nasty holocausts performed by zombies. (I know, i helped plan several of them). You have an "Us versus Them" mentality, which definately isnt going to serve you well here.<br>You have probably already noted that they have stopped discussing reasonably and started flaming you. This isnt because they are zombies and dont want the humans to get new toys, this is because you are being, to put it mildly, a stubborn intransigent nullwit. You dont see the game from both sides, and therefore have a false impression of the other side. Having been zombie fodder, zombie leader, survivor, bounty hunter, pker and specialty reviver on various alts through the years, i can tell you right off the bat that this kind of suggestion is a bad idea, not as bad as your headshot one you suggested previously, but only because that was so horrendous that it makes Cthulhu look handsome by comparison.<br>What is needed is some way for humans to work together (Current ruin does this, with one person clearing, another fixing, and more cading). This isnt to make the game more fun for zombies, but so humans such as yourself stop bitching and moaning on this page for buffs every time som e treasured area goes up the creek without a paddle, or when some large area of the city is devestated by a huge confederation of allied zombies pulling a gargantuan cloud of ferals. The other, and more important reason follows on from that: If you know how to play properly, alone or in a group, you wouldnt get in that kind of mess in the first place. The only reason you think this is needed at all is because some buildings have ruin repair costs of as much as a hundred ap at this time (Best ive seen anyway), but you dont realise that its been ages since the zombies were even there, and the only reason the costs got anywhere near that is because you guys were fucking lazy.<br>Fortunately there are some groups out there actually getting off thier arses and fixing those regions so the braindead fuckwits that make up the majority of the survivor population have a place to live when the zombies come and rape the rest of the city out from under them. Those people fixing those eareas in the city are the real heroes, not the stupid twits who it in a buiolding as the horde advances shouting our orders to barricade and whatnot.<br>This suggestion simply defies the entire concept of making survivors play better and smarter, alone or in groups, encouraging retarded recovery operations that, while they would probably work, would leave the survivor population as the bunch of gibbering morons they are now. Forcing them to play smarter, like kevan forced zombies to do, is the only way to even out the game properly. Giving one side toys because its losing doesnt make things fair, it only shores up the innat unfairness already there.<br>Ugh thats long and rambling, but it has some key points in there you should consider. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 06:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thank you for a considered and reasonable response, Grimch. Obviously, I agree with you that the game needs both methods and reasons for survivors to cooperate, but most of the suggestions I've seen to encourage, enforce, or enable cooperation have been unbalanced, overcomplicated, or both. What I had hoped to provide here was a mechanism for cooperation that was simple and balanced, allowing three survivors to do the work of one, bit by bit. You mention the 100+AP buildings in the north, and I'll admit that you've topped my record -- the worst I've seen was 86AP. Even that building would take more than five survivor-days work to repair cooperatively, whereas a single survivor could run in with max AP, repair it, and walk to a revive point two days later, where a second survivor could revive him, for a net cost of 110APs, or just over two survivor-days total. Those who vociferously decry this suggestion as a "survivor buff" don't seem to me to be looking at the hard numbers. A single survivor using this system to repair a 100+ AP building would be spending 4+ AP per day just to walk back and forth between a ruined and a barricaded building, and the remaining AP fighting back entropy two weeks at a time. That method would take four days to get the building down to a single day's repair job, for five days' total repair time. It's unrealistic to me to think that there's a survivor out there willing to spend weeks "Rambo repairing" ruined buildings. And if there is, what's the harm? If there are more than 20 buildings in such a state, they'll be decaying faster than he's repairing them. I remain unconvinced that this suggestion would lead to "vigilante repairmen". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 07:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::No, but if it leads to wasted AP, why promote it? Its a new but DUMBER way to do things. OTOH, theres a small but growing group of people who do "suicide repairs" just for fun and giggles, and they are kicking repair costs on those 80+ AP buildings back down to 1, and having fun doing it. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:58, 10 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
I '''like''' this idea, because it means that GROUPS of humans can work together to fix a building, instead of ''one'' person losing two days as an immobile stone while the building is zerged. 74 AP building... that means I'm a rock for a loooong time. Doesn't it make sense that the AP repair costs could be shared? Especially if it costs MORE AP to do distributed repair... it would be worth it if it meant the survivors could remain active. Just as a note: I play ''dual nature'', so I'm aware of the ransack-ruin drama from a zed's point of view quite intimately. [[User:Soror Repentia Azalea|Qızılbaş]] 15:53, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:You can pretty much do this right now. Again, you only need at most three people to repair any building block in the game, provided they have been emptied of zombies. What this only provides is a massive survivor buff against ruin by getting rid for a measly 3 AP to remove one ruin point while zombies wait for ''one whole day'' to achieve the same. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:00, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Mister Deyo, I suggest that you '''stop''' suggesting Survivor Buffs that nerf Ruin. Matter of fact I might suggest a new zombie skill specifically to double the ruin already in place in any building just so people stop trying to nerf ruin and darkness. Seriously buffing survivors to get them to work together is just a horrible idea. There are how many survivor groups already in place? If a survivor doesn't join a group, it's because most groups are the same. Not because they have no reason to join a group.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:11, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm not even going to bother reading any of this. Go look at my user page. Read the report I cut and pasted... And look at the last of my wiki templates... And then go earn yourself one of those triple-digit repair templates which I made for the select few of us who are working together and ''doing it'' and ''dealing with it'' -- rather than sitting on our asses in Pitneybank and whining about how hard survivors have it because of ruin. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:28, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Wan, I'll give you the cliff notes: Stupid idea, pointing out the reasons, author ignores them and reacts with a smarmy attitude, I call a lot of people "fucksticks" or whatever the word du jour is, People rail against me for "being mean", and a lot of people get butthurt. You know, the usual.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:29, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Loot dead bodys===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 03:02, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=People how like to steal.<br />
|suggest_description=Looting dead bodys is pretty self explantory. This would be a 100 XP skill that allows you to loot from peoples dead bodys with a 20% succes rate. When you loot a dead body you dont know what you will get, so you could get a genrator to a baseball bat. I will go into more detail if this idea is well accepted.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Loot dead bodys)====<br />
Looting dead bodies = trading. And that one's been spammed and duped so many times it's in the do-not-suggest list. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 03:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
except for the fact about wastin alot of AP, and not knowing what your goint to get. Yes it is like trading :[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 03:59, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is a [[Suggestion:20080310 Unzergable Lootin'|dupe]], probably more than one. Taking items from people is a bad thing (and if it's magically conjured items looted from bodies, that's bad as well and likely a dupe too). --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 04:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Don't be lazy. Its obvious you think this is going to tank if you'll "go into more detail if this idea is well accepted". This isn't even a dupe since there is hardly anything IN the suggestion to dupe. From what I can tell, your suggesting that a single dead body of any level, regardless of the corpse's actual equipment, becomes an instant reservoir of unlimited equipment of any type. The fact it is 20% and "you don't know what you get" is irrelevant. This, as I read it, would make a single zerge (level 1 corpse) a perma-search item.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Dupe-o--bloody-rific and utterly spam-o-fucking-licious. Nequa, please just read and comment on other peoples' suggestions and comments for about a month -- at least! -- before suggesting anything more of your own. Seriously. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:33, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A. "'''Scope:''' People how like to steal." What?? <br />
B. Can I loot ''any'' dead body, or only my zerg alts?<br />
C. Can we tack on a way to also have sex with dead bodies? --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 15:57, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Improve the Banks===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 23:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Add to Bank.<br />
|suggest_scope=All people how enter a bank.<br />
|suggest_description=I belive banks need a improvement becuase of how usless they are. The only good thing I can think about them is becuase they are so useless no zombie would go near it, and it would make a good hiding place. But the problem is what good could a bank be in a place like Malton. The only iteam I could think about finding there would be a pistol and clip becuase of securtity guards. So if not iteams why not something else?<br />
<br />
What is a bank if not a big place to safly guard your valuables? Why not allow the bank to be more heavly barricaded or use the vault? This is still a rough idea, which is why I am talking here. Now, allow me to address two problems I can see with my idea. One is why you would even want to have a extra lelvel of barricades or a vault, the bank does not have anything. And the other being that you should not mess with the barricades, to those people look here [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/PR_Buildings:_Multiple_Types]]. and then go to "Max Cades Varies by Building Type" sujestion.<br />
<br />
As I said, this is still a rough idea and I would like inmput, and not just "this wont work so shut up".<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bank improvment)====<br />
Don't banks go dark? If so why isn't that defensive buff enough?--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:16, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure the bank description says the vaults are already looted empty. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:24, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
"The vault lies open, its contents either looted or transferred." thats what the text is. They make great forward bases and safe houses so they are fine as they are. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 01:31, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I meant using the vaults as a defensive measure, any way banks are useless.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 01:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:They make great safehouses for PKers. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:46, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Okay go look at the 2-10 player sized groups. They thrive in banks. As a defensive measure they would be useless to begin with, as entry points, safe houses and lit, they keep zombie hordes down enough.[[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 02:17, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
True, but that is really it. You dont get anything from the bank or find any purpose for it execpt from what you already said, I just want banks to contribute to Malton in a bigger way.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 01:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The same can be said for wastelands. You think we should plant flowers in them? I'm all for multi-colored wastelands... pink is nice... --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:05, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We need flowers for wastlands dude, there a eye sore. But sersouly, ther is a diffrence between a wastland and a bank.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yeah, banks make great safehouses. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:35, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
It appears this is a bad Suggestion, so I will think of a new one.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Dupe-o-rific. And, some buildings are useless. Not everything is a TRP. This is a ''good'' thing. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:49, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A FUCKING MEN! Next thing these assholes will suggest will be clips and ammo found in the street.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::They can be, you just have a horrible horrible search rate for them though. Ive found a shotgun shell and a flare gun. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 05:13, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::My Monroe PKer accidentally searched the street and found ''a rusty knife''. I took especial joy in shanking people with it, and with luck they got tetanus. <tt>:></tt> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 02:32, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Maybe a powered bank will "close" the vault for ? hours a day (Random times), and anyone entering the bank can't enter the vault during this time, but can destroy the generator. If the Generator is destroyed the locks are once again unpowered and the vault opens up. Entering the vault costs 1AP and is treated as a seperate room (Outside cannot be seen, and it must be exited for 1AP before movement once again). No-one can leave the vault while it is locked and the vault cannot be entered if the building is ruined (Treated as one building once again, with anyone inside "pushed" out.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 22:00, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Switch FAK search rates between Hospitals and Malls===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=search rate adjustment for First Aid Kits. <br />
|suggest_scope=survivors<br />
|suggest_description=''I can't find this in PR or Undecided, I looked. But if someone can find the dupe, please do.''<br />
<br />
'''The suggestion:''' Reverse the search rates for First Aid Kits in Hospital and Malls, i.e. make it easier to find FAKs in Hospitals and harder in Malls. <br />
<br />
'''The rationale:''' Pretty self-explanatory, I think. Hospitals should be the easiest place to find/jury rig first aid kits. Not malls. This would also be a nerf to mall-centric play, which I don't think is a bad thing at all. But it's a highly logical nerf, and far from unbalanced or game-breaking. <br />
<br />
'''Extra details:''' As it is, you have about a 50% chance of finding a FAK in a drugstore. In a hospital, I'd guestimate it's about 20% (I might tally my stats and see... others' experiences would be useful, too). Perhaps an ''exact'' reversal isn't in order: say 25-30% in Malls, 40-45% in Hospitals, something like that. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Switch FAKs search rates between Hospitals and Malls)====<br />
<br />
No to exact reversal, yes to your suggested percentages. That is because there are one hell of a lot of hospitals compared to mall squares. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 14:32, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We could apply the same logic to police departments and forts, in that they should have higher search rates for firearms and ammo there than malls. Not that I'm totally against your suggestion, but the way the game is designed it strikes me that Kevan intentionally made malls as the ultimate stronghold and as such they have the highest search rates for most items in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:33, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Police Stations don't keep ammo lying around. It is actually a bad idea to have excessive weapons and ammo stored where you are holding prisoners. Wal-Mart has more weapons in the sporting section than my local police station. Police Depts. have armories and firing ranges to keep weapons. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 22:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Hospitals don't keep stockpiles of first aid kits, too (or at least here they don't). The fact that there aren't any ready-made FAKs and you have to build one in a hospital reflects that. And going by supply and demand the one which is filled up with all sorts of supplies would still be the malls, and that's why they have much higher search rates for everything than all other TRPs. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:28, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: Malls would have First Aid Kits lying around in a drug store during the zombie apocalypse, Hospitals tend not to keep First Aid kits stockpiled.. If any at all, Perhaps a few.. A local sports store has far too many guns in plain sight right beside the doors. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 04:51, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::: Even if you think of FAKs are mostly badages and tape and some ointment... and I think of them as somewhat more complicated than that... Hospitals have TONS of this stuff stashed around. TONS of it. Everywhere. Moreover, they have all kinds of other medical supplies that you'd use in reality in dealing with the serious injuries that zombies cause: scissors, scalpels, sutures and needles, etc. etc. No, I just can't buy that you'd be able to get such a plethora of medical supplies in a Mall, but not in a hospital. It just makes no sense. And... Mall drugstores are overpowered. Period. 50% find rates for the second most powerful pro-survivor item in the game is just outrageous IMNSHO. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Utility != economics. Hospitals might need those materials the most, but since malls still face the greatest demand for everything it naturally follows that they will have the greatest supplies for everything. And no, mall drugstores aren't overpowered when you consider 50% of the zombie population tend to congregate within a few blocks of one. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You're whole view on this is based on cyclic thinking and is confusing cause and effect. If the malls weren't so resource independent they wouldn't need as many resources, just look at the Mall-Necrotech relationship. Right now malls are making hospitals, which are meant to be a major building, all but useless. That leads to a very simple truth, malls give FAKs too freely. Malls are too resource intensive and it's causing them to be too central to the game, zombies are near malls because all the survivors are in malls, all the survivors are in malls because they get freakishly good find rates in them. Claiming that you don't weaken that because of the thing it causes is completely backwards.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:26, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::karek pretty much hit it right on the head there. in other words, malls are overpowered. and i feel the freakish search rates for FAKs are primary to that. meanwhile, find me a shopping mall that specialises in selling the man on the street medical supplies over consumer goods, and i'll drop this suggestion and revive all my zombies and use proxies to gather all my alts in Caiger and NEVER leave. CAIGAR 4 EVAR!!! --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I agree with Wan Yuo, since it is a hospital of course you would be more likely to find a FAK there, and anyway Malls have alot of other stuff you can gain there.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 16:10, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Uhm, it's "Yao", not "Yuo"... It's a lame old joke alias, but it's still my alias, and it means something... Anyhooo... <br />
<br />
Cop shops are not armouries -- but gun stores in US malls practically are. So I don't really see a need to change that. You might disagree, but, c'est la vie. (And, yes, Malton is in the UK, but the city is a mix of the UK and US, it's not really one or the other in practice... so please don't go ''there''... please.) Perhaps search rates in Fort Armouries need to be boosted, but this suggestion is not addressing that... And, yes, malls are supposed to be strongholds -- however, I think the 50% search rate for FAKs is absurd. Especially when it's so hard to find FAKs in Hospitals, by comparison. And, even if you nerfed search rates in Malls -- even hypothetically across the board -- they are still going to be "fortresses" by virtue of being "one-stop-shopping" places -- you can get everything you need at a mall other than syringes. That ''alone'' makes them very powerful... I, however, appreciate Whitehouse's comments about the fact that are more Hospitals than Malls, and the modified search rates ought to reflect that. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then surgery becomes OMGMEGA-SUPER-GODLY. Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls. If it weren't for that I would support this, I don't think that this would change where people get FAKs from though which would mean it would just be a slight nerf to Malls and a big buff to Hospitals.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
First of, sorry for mispelling your name Yao, and also you dont need a 50% chance for the hospital but maybe like 40%, or something that makes the hospitals be just as good as finding FAKs in the mall.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:29, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Surgery]].--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:47, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I am well aware of what Surgery does. This is how likley you can find a FAK in a hospital and a mall drug store, from the wiki:Mall Drugstores (20%/34%), Hospitals (14%),. If they even made it 25 percent I would love it. [[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:''"Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls"'' -- Well, maybe Surgery ought to be more than just "a little" better in a Hospital. I mean we're dealing with ''Surgery''... in a ''hospital''... come on! And to AHLG below, I don't want Hospitals buffed without Malls being nerfed at the same time. That's kind of the point... Also, I did search for a dupe, but couldn't find one... maybe someone else will? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:01, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The problem with that is that healing is already the most efficient thing in the game, even without surgery, with Surgery it's more efficient, buff surgery and it makes barricades look like a joke(surgery already does 10:1 vs zombie claws). The fix would have to be in weakening something unless you start buffing the ability to do damage.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I would agree with a small percentage increase in hospitals. But check for a dupe. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:19, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd support this as well. Malls need to be reworked a bit. The percentages are too high to warrant going any where else in the game for supply purposes. But I'd also support people who use the word "Glock" to describe their pistols have them blow up upon first use.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 23:38, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Did you take Bargain Hunting into consideration? It is MORE than just a percentage switch. Hospitals also have newspapers where as Bargain Hunting automatically precludes such a find. A FAK in a hospital has a base 14% find, while the FAK in the mall has a base 20%. +14% if you have bargain hunting. This is according to the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Useful_Items#First_Aid_Kit wiki (First Aid Kit)]. So which percentage is being switched? If is the base, then the hospital will be 20% and the mall will be 14%/28%. If it is the max, the hospital would be 34%, the mall would be 14%/28% (presuming Bargain Hunting). And, again, what about newspapers?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:21, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:In actual fact, Mall search rates for a skilled Shopper are around 50%, or very close. And in a Hospital, a bit more than 14%, but not by much. Those stats on the Items page are grossly out of date and inaccurate. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also... honestly, I don't know what you're getting at with all those numbers ... they don't make sense. FAK find rates in Malls would get nerfed, and %ages in Hospitals buffed. This would ''not'' affect the %ages for anything else, there is no connection. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:03, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::What do you mean "no connection"? Yeah, I'm sure they are out of date, but they are intended to illustrate a point. Did you even check the link? The reason FAK find rates are so high in malls is because of the shopper skills. But the shopper skills do MORE than just buff the search. The also negate the search for useless items (ie. newspapers). Searching for a FAK in a hospital maybe be higher, with this suggestion, but you STILL find newspapers. Which you DON'T find in malls. So, again, why are you not taking into consideration the mall skills or newspapers?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 03:31, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Probably because you're misunderstanding what they represent. Not finding spam items doesn't mean the search rate is better for FAKs(what you want to find) it means that the search rate for what you don't want to find is dropped to 0. The only effect that would have is reducing encumbrance, which is already done by being checking it in your profile so you don't have to waste the IP hit dropping it. That there is no connection would be about right, buffing the search rate would still mean you're finding two FAKs in 3 AP even if that third AP digs up a newspaper every once in a while.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:16, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Pesatyel, what you're saying makes no sense. And the link you provided is irrelevant. Say in 12 searches right now you find 1 FAK and one newspaper. If I double FAK search rates... now, I find 2 FAKs and 1 newspaper in 12 searches. ''There is no connection'' between the two different items: the latter is totally unaffected by the former. Also, you don't find newspapers in Malls. Drug stores are spam-free FAKtories... And, the full set of Mall Skillz allows you (for 200 measly XP) to search these spam-free FAKtories at almost a 50% success rate -- a search rate totally unparallelled anywhere else in the game -- and an unparallelled find %age for ''the second most powerful pro-survivor item'' in game, after NT syringes. <br />
<br />
::::'''Q.E.D.''' - In. Need. Of. Fixing. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:48, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I do think FAKs in hospitals need a buff but i am not certain of these numbers... lowering the find rate for malls so it tops out at about 30% would be good (sure the drugstore has pain killers and elastoplast but wide specrum anti-biotics and morphine? I think not!) Rather than a straight buff to the hospital search rates i would rather see the "medical" classes able to build Faks much like syringe creation. Searching already says something like "you gather supplies" so why not make it possible for those with a few pre-req skills choose to build those kits with some certainty (at a cost comparable to the Malls find rate) I would suggest 5AP for anyone with 1st aid and possible 4AP for anyone with a new skill :trauma nurse or some such! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:26, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Not a bad idea, but the proliferation of hospitals would mean an already prevelant item would become even more so. Malls are difficult to hold, hence benefits are found there. Drop the search rate in malls to closer to 30% and make surgery a 20hp hit, making holding a powered hospital useful, rather than powering one, hording FAKs and bailing.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:46, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Bloodletting===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}02:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=PKer buff.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors. PKers, mostly.<br />
|suggest_description=Update revivification syringes to allow for self-targeting. If used on yourself while infected, it becomes a "virus syringe," essentially transforming the item within your inventory. "Virus syringes" cannot be found or made except by infected individuals using revivification syringes on themselves. Like a normal syringe, they have a 2% encumbrance.<br />
<br />
If used on a survivor, there's an X percent chance that this new "virus syringe" will deal 1 HP damage to the survivor and infect the survivor, and a 100-X percent chance that the virus syringe will do nothing. X is the current HP of the PKer. "Virus syringes" do nothing against zombies.<br />
<br />
As it is highly corrosive to glass, the virus will eat through the syringe in a matter of hours. Therefore, "virus syringes" are removed from an inventory after 6 hours of existing.<br />
<br />
...Because bioterrorism is an inherent part of the genre, and because it might entertain some PKers (and thus keep them from actual killing). Yes, the central idea is that the syringe is emptied outside your body, then you draw out your own blood, which contains the infection.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bloodletting)====<br />
<br />
I really wish I could be "constructive"... but this is just too retarded to comment on. Would you like some spam with that cheese, sir? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:11, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:No, sir, nor did I want that frosty. "Retarded" is happily synonymous with "belated," so I'll assume you mean this suggestion is just a little behind its time. Speaking of which, some old-fashioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Logs Lincoln logs] might help with your construction problem. Spend a few hours with those and let your dad back on his computer, okay? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}04:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Survivor infecting other survivors is a dupe, I'm fairly sure. It would be more greify than tactically useful for a PKer / death cultist, which is why (iirc) it wasn't worth keeping. Also, if you want to infect somebody, I fancy that axe you've been splitting infected zombie skulls (or the knife you just pulled from the guts of an infected survivor) would do the job rather as well as a syringe. So if infections COULD be spread that way, pretty much every sharp weapon in Malton would spread them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:23, 6 September 2008 (BST) ''edit- also, if the infection were so corrosive, every blood stained weapon or piece f clothing in the city would crumble to dust. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)''<br />
:It is a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I'd been considering [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofluoric_acid hydrofluoric acid] for that, which wouldn't damage polyester clothes, although I am not a chemist. And blood-stained weapons tend to degrade in real life, hence the NRA's preoccupation with gun cleaning. That aside, do you think (at least) that the X% likelihood is an interesting mechanic that might be able to contribute to gameplay in some other fashion?--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}00:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
PKing may be part of the game, but it does NOT need any emphasis. The game is, primarily, about survivors and zombies fighting each other with some PKing thrown in, NOT about PKing with some zombies thrown in.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I must agree with Pesatyel, this game is mainly about the Living VS Undead... with the abnormal ones mixing it up to make it more interesting (just like in reality). Emphasizing PKing just doesn't fit in well with me (although I really should ''"get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit"'' to quote Wanyao). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Ehh, when I PK, I prefer "Bang. BANG BANG." And the kill is done. The idea would be something I would never use, and as Swiers stated, it's more useful for greifers then PKers like me.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::K-B, I was referring to your comments, somewhere, which alluded to "pro-zombies" and "pro-survivors" as these inimical factions at each others' throats. That's an illusion, and a destructive one at that: most players play both sides, even if some do tend to focus more on one than the other... And most people judge suggestions on the basis of merit, not simply whether they help their "side". For example, this suggestion would be a giant-sized buff for my death cultists -- but that doesn't mean I support it... because it's just a griefing tool, and little more. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Does it grief more than, for instance, one of your death cultists outright killing someone? PKing '''is''' griefing, because survivors only ever want to be killed if they're feeding the hungry n00b zed masses. Sure, I can see survivors getting annoyed by being infected by a PKer, but it would be less aggravating than having to spend AP hunting a revive (which costs more AP than a FAK). Thank you for your constructive criticism. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
NEEDLE SHARING IS NEVER SAFE! THIS SUGGESTION SPREADS HEPATITIS Z! Not to mention it's stupid as fuck and so out of genre gameplay here. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:If you consider "fuck" stupid, does that means I can apply for a timeshare with your girlfriend? Although, for reference, I invite you to check out how the Fantastic Four were infected in ''Marvel Zombies''. Or talk to me on my talk page and I'll happily spoil it for you.--{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::You see, this is what I am on about. I call your suggestion stupid and make a bad pun. You make a personal slur against my girlfriend. Then you bring up a comic book that isn't a survival horror comic, but just a zombie alternate universe. Yet you are still going to bitch about what I said even though you are the one making this personal. Get fucked and stop suggesting things. There that was personal. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:32, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Marvel Zombies'' isn't a zombie alternate universe. The scene in question within the comic is not dependent upon any of the fantastical elements of the Marvel universe. I understand that you're unhappy that you unsuccessfully trolled for lols with 'NEEDLE SHARING IS...HEPATITIS Z,' so my deconstruction of your single-cheeked argument is just rubbing salt in the wound. But please, don't take it personally. I don't object to you, just your casual use of expletives. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::''An alternate reality in which mutants are turned into flesh eating zombies, set on Earth-2149. In the end of the series, The Zombies eat Zombie Silver Surfer and get infused with the power cosmic.'' SPOILER ALERT! You are right. I didn't get as many "lulz" as your initial suggestion did. You bested me, good sir! I didn't add more than a quick comment because why would I need to repeat all of the other reasons that your suggestion is bad? Oh right, because you are a fucking retard. I forgot. And as far as my use of "expletives" that's a really bad argument seeing that this wiki is international and what is an expletive to you might not be one to me, you bloody cunt. And for the record, you couldn't handle [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Katthew MY GIRLFRIEND]--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:38, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::The only criticism you offered was saying that this suggestion is out-of-genre. That could've been done in six words, possibly fewer, without wasting your precious time with your, erm, "pun." And, moreover, you haven't yet discussed (or apparently thought about) that criticism, instead just quoting Comiczine where your own knowledge failed you. While I usually try to use the same profanity standards as the game, I take special exception with poor or improper use of words such as "fuck," as such tends to cause them to eventually lose their meaning. You, sir, are killing the English language. And for the record, I wouldn't want to handle your girlfriend. Ability is not equivalent to desire. --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:47, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Wait wait wait.. this stick is up your ass because I said more than "this is out of genre" and I called your idea stupid? You're all butthurt because I didn't like your idea and therefore by extension you? You resorted to personal attacks and some faggy rant about a shitty comic because I didn't come all over myself with joy at you sharing this EARTH SHATTERINGLY NEW (dupe) IDEA WITH THE UNWORTHY ?!?! Go cry more, you shit stain.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:03, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Calm down. Pop some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laxative pills], you're wound too tight. Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic) thought that zombification was a positive evolutionary step, so he injected Susan Storm (The Invisible Woman), Johnny Storm (The Human Torch) and Ben Grimm (The Thing) with the zombie virus from that universe. After they turned, they infected him by eating parts of him. So, as there exists commonly-accepted (''Marvel Zombies'' was very successful) prior art for my suggestion, it's in-genre. And if this rant sounds faggy, it's because I'm bisexual. And I'm annoyed that you keep dragging this discussion off-topic because you're incapable of supporting your argument. --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::Oh wait a minute! You are the guy that suggested '''horses'''. I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to comment on this suggestion. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I has plastic syringes. Gawd. Oh, I forgot the part were I wake up when you starting moving and poking me, and I kick your ass.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 00:02, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What about the part where zombies you are poking with a syringe do NOT wake up and kick... er, EAT your ass? {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Recharging AP != sleeping. You might as well object to zombies not reacting to a knife or a shotgun, or humans not reacting to being clawed. It's how the game works. We've been over this before. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:50, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Exhausted, you can go no further.'' That pretty much sounds like you are going to sleep to me. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:17, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::So having 0 AP = Sleeping. But Recharging AP != Sleeping. Because I could play the game without ever having to see that message, provided I logged out with at least 1 AP. These arguments have been made before. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
This has been suggested before. It's a bad idea, and encourages out-of-character play - ie survivors deliberately seeking infection and wasting syringes. Also, and I've said this before, there is a very easy way to harm someone with a hypodermic syringe. Empty out whatever's in it, fill it with air, and inject the victim to induce a potentially fatal gas embolism. Too overpowered to be considered in UD though. --[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 23:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's true, it was made for PKing. Thanks for the point about embolisms, I'd forgotten about them. Do you have any thoughts on the X% hit likelihood as a possible mechanic for a later suggestion? --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Latent Infection===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies, their victims.<br />
|suggest_description=''After countless days of fending off the zombies, Malton's best and brightest have discovered an entirely new strain of the virus that the zombies have been using to infect their victims.''<br />
<br />
''Called the Sleeper strain, it typically has an incubation period of 6 hours before it becomes active, rapidly spreading through the victim's circulatory system, degrading living tissue at an alarming speed. The incubation period can be extended if the victim remains motionless, however.''<br />
<br />
''This new strain has proven to be almost completely immune to all forms of medicine when it is in its incubation period, however the virus seems to be easier to eradicate once it has 'awakened'. It can still resist medicine half of the time, however with surgery the virus can be always removed.''<br />
<br />
''Unfortunately, due to it's long incubation period, carriers of the virus often are not aware of when they have become infected until the virus begins to attack them. However, if the victim then gets bitten by a zombie with the more common strain of the virus, the Sleeper strain acts like an antibody, preventing the more common strain from taking hold.''<br />
<br />
New skill: Latent Infection<br />
<br />
Subskill of: Infection<br />
<br />
Abilities:<br />
* Takes 6 hours to kick in.<br />
* Causes 2 damage per AP.<br />
* Does not stack with standard Infection.<br />
* 5% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd during incubation period.<br />
* 50% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd when 'awakened'.<br />
* 100% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd by 'Surgery' in powered hospital.<br />
* Kicks in upon first movement after 6 hour incubation period.<br />
* Victim not told of infection until it 'awakens'.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Latent Infection)====<br />
in all this time have you ever even read the frequently suggested and D&DN pages? this is a dupey infection buff, the likes of which we've seen a bazillion times, and it has nothing special or redeeming about it except for a vry pointless 6 hour delay. such a delay is a) out of genre game-mechanically because time is abstract in UD b) griefs newbies c) griefs everyone who logs in only once a day d) it's overpowered -- zombies kill best by killing, and where they are weak, deal with that, instead. <br />
<br />
i'm also sure someone will be less lazy and find about 30 dupes for this. please... GIVE IT UP ALREADY, blake. go design your own game, print up the rules, get together with some friends over dice and doritos. and give ''us'' a break. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:38, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's... Urghh, it just over complicates a part of the game which doesn't need it, and is a huge buff to zombies. I'm a zombie player, but I don't like things like this. Just do what WanYao said and read the [[Frequently Suggested]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]]. Seriously, just commit them to memory.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd vote keep. And ignore the Hive Mind Kool-Aid Drinkers, Blake. The D&DN page is for wimps.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 13:38, 7 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
After three years they just now find an infection that incubates in 6 hours? somehow, that doesn't quite add up right in my mind. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 00:06, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:50, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance Change<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Ankle Grab<br />
|suggest_description='''The cost to stand up after a [[Zombie Hunter skills|Headshot]] is 15AP, whether or not the target has the [[Zombie Skills|Ankle Grab]] skill.'''<br />
<br />
This suggestion is somewhat slanted toward a Monroeville survivor's perspective.<br />
<br />
In Malton, the survivor's best chance for survival is to find a location which zombies are not currently massing to attack. The only time attacking is a viable option is when zombies are already inside a strategic building, and the survivor wants to repair the structure. Even [[Trenchcoater|Trenchcoaters]] know that when the zeds open the doors, it's time to run.<br />
<br />
In Monroeville, there is never a time when attacking is the best choice. If zombies are near, the survivor runs or the survivor dies. Attacking, even with a massive numeric advantage, is ultimately suicide.<br />
<br />
Currently, a Headshot costs a zombie 6AP, or 15AP if it doesn't have the Ankle Grab skill. To kill a 50HP unarmored zombie costs a minimum of 8AP: Three to find three shotguns loaded with five shells total, and five to bring down the zombie. A more typical number would be 24 -- 6 to find a pistol and two clips, and 18 to fire the pistol at the zombie 16 times, reloading twice, with a 65% hit rate. This means that by purchasing four skills, with seven additional skills required to reach level ten, a survivor can spend 24 AP to take 6AP from a zombie who has purchased two skills.<br />
<br />
If the AP cost to stand up from a Headshot were 15 ''regardless'' of the Ankle Grab skill, the ratio would go from 4:1 to almost 3:2, still strongly favoring the zombie, but making offense a viable tactic in Malton. In Monroeville, the few who remain might actually come out and play once in a while, instead of running like hell when one zombie gets within a block.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab)====<br />
Sure. I just fear its too late. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:59, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
You understand nothing of this game. The AP balance on barricades is 4-1 in favour of survivors at best. Add to that the fact that it takes 35-40 AP for a zombie to kill a survivor, only for the victim to get a revive for 10 AP and the cost of the syringe search. Then factor in that any survivor who isn't killed straight away can be saved with a simple FAK. I could go on and on about this, but in reality I said all that was needed in the first sentence. And seriously people, stop whining about fucking Monroeville. It's a temporary city which is going to be shut down, which makes it entirely irrelevant when discussing the mechanics of Urban Dead as a game. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 20:04, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:"and the cost of the syringe search". I love how you abstract away about 10-15 APs and call it "balanced". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And that only turns out to 20-25 AP, even if you factor in the syringe search. we could keep on discussing the maths of this, but Grim did it for us a few months back: read his rant on the [[User:Grim_s/Rants/Revival_Imbalance|revive imbalance]]. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 05:14, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Total Zombie AP spent (Including recovering from kills by Humans, thank you for padding your numbers): 483. Total Human AP spent: 322. Ratio: 3/2, compared to 4/1 for survivors headshotting zombies. Zombies win, again, by whining louder than the humans. I thought you were supposed to moan. In any event, thank you for showing us the math that proves that zombies have a massive combat AP advantage. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 17:30, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You really haven't grasped this game at all. Allow me to explain: This is a game of 'classes' in which zombies are designed to kill whilst survivors are designed to, get this '''survive'''! Therefore zombies are the attacking class and survivors are the defending class. What a shock to absolutely no-one with a modicum of intellect then that zombies get a combat advantage whilst survivors get a defensive advantage. The greatest 'weapons' that survivors have in this game are revivification syringes, first aid kits and barricades, so whilst it may not appeal to your BOOM! HEADSHOT! masturbation fantasies to have killing zombies be far less important than barricading buildings, healing and reviving, that's the way the game works. Your job is to survive. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 08:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Revivification syringes mean that survivors can go on the offensive, which nulls your given simplification. If each survivor revived two zombies and then died, the game would slowly progress to the survivor side of things. And that's with no barricading or defensive gameplay necessary.--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::That's a byproduct of design and one forced by the nature of the game rather than intent. The only way to make combat revives impossible would be to make revives themselves impossible. As such the existence of combat revives in no way undermines the identification of the offensive-defensive class dynamic. Zombie skills are all created with a view to creating damage, whilst survivor skills are designed for preventing or undoing it; yes, that's right, even the combat skills for survivors are about that. They're there to clear zombies out of buildings and allow those buildings to be secured, not to 'kill' the zombies. The sooner people realise that the sooner they'll start enjoying their game, just as I do with all my characters. Oh and your combat revive scenario neglects to consider death culting and window-diving as responses to such actions. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 19:27, 8 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::Also Brain Rot. My scenario worked from the assumption that all players were true dual-natured players, albeit dual-natured players who don't pick up Brain Rot. However, I would argue that (while zombie skills are indeed designed to deal damage) human skills revolve around maximizing the efficiency of revivification. Securing buildings just allows survivors to stave off death for a few more days, which in turn allows them to revive others more efficiently. Admittedly, this assumes a simplified version of survivors without death-culting and window-diving, etc., etc., but I think it is hard to argue the (relatively) balanced nature of the zombie/survivor ratio just from those extremes. The Mrh? cows tend to equalize that anyway. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Moloch, it's possible for me to completely understand every aspect of this game and still disagree with you. It's also possible for me to refute your arguments without attacking you personally. Here's an example: '''This is not a survival horror game.''' It's World of Warcraft in text. The only difference is that here you can switch sides. Just like WoW, the "human" side is more popular. Just like WoW, the "other" side wants to get more and more advantages because they believe it will offset the numeric disadvantage. Here's a heads-up: WoW proved you wrong there. I proved you wrong here. And I'll do it again. Zombies attack humans with 483 AP, costing the humans 322 AP. Humans attack the zombies with 500 AP, costing the Zombies '''nothing'''. Why nothing? Because the cost of recovery is included in the 483 AP the zombies already spent. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:20, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Wow, nice numbers. Got the math to prove that? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:58, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Not a survival horror game? So what does this: ''A Massively Multi-Player Web-Based Zombie Apocalypse'' mean? But no you are right. I must be forgetting that the innkeeper at Jacomb Arms sent me on the quest to recovery the Holy Golf Club of Lockettside while on my way to slay the Bank Manager of Ruddlebank. This is '''exactly''' like WoW!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 16:20, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
No dude. Just no. Monroeville is freaking dead anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Says the ''Zombie'' Lord... I actually had a nice killing spree a couple of weeks back, 5 survivors in 6 days...<br />
:It would be nice if we waited till there was one survivor, gave him a [[Red_Rum/Tommy_Gun|Tommy_Gun]], ammo and every zombie his location to see how long he would last... --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: :D I'm not sure if he means it as a Monroeville only thing or not, which would be fine with me if it was just contained to that city and not Malton. Seems like Kevan just wanted to kill it off anyway with those last changes to Monroeville. But yeah, the Tommy Gun goes the the last Monroeville Survivor! Would be a cool prize anyway :) --[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::The Tommy Gun is a seasonal weapon, found around 31st October/1st November. They'll have to survive til then and search really hard...--[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 00:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Kamakazie Bunny, get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit, it's tired as all hell. In any event, as much as he is usually an idiot, zombie lord is correct this time. And Moloch hit it on the head even more squarely. Don't fucking nerf Ankle Grab. Period. Even in Moronville. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:46, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::And don't forget, give him or her unlimited AP and IP hits. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:14, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:36, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:How about "Remove Headshot" then? Has that been suggested? It's currently a waste of 100 XP. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
You might have better luck if you suggest that headshot DOESN'T affect those without Ankle Grab.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:37, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Where.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''Balance Change'' HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA ''IMA GONNA RAEP YUO OF UR AP AND CALL IT BALANCED!'' Fuck off, Dago. You can't possibly justify taking away over 1/5th of the AP of just one class. Zombies can't do it to survivors in any amount and you want to increase it? Fucking play as a zombie for a year before you suggest anything that affects zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:59, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Suggestion:20080901_Feeding_Drag_in_Large_Buildings|Yanking a live survivor from a mall]] for 2/5 the AP cost of dumping a dead body from a fort is balanced, then? I don't see you railing against that. Oh, but feel free to turn my username into a racial slur if you can't think of any ''good'' reason to reject the suggestion. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::We've already posted enough reasons why it's a crap idea. Feel free to post it though, because even if it gets passed, Kevan won't touch it. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 05:25, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::How would you know? ANKLE GRAB was in PEER REJECTED when it came to vote here.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Which should give you an idea of how Kevan feels on the subject of the Headshot dynamic. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 08:53, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::It also shows you how fucking survivor-centric this damn wiki is. I'm not surprised that AG was voted down and a shit load of weapons and survivor buffs fill this page constantly. I'm pretty sure even if this ridiculous crap passed Kevan wouldn't implement it since last time I checked survivors outnumbered the zombies 61% to 39%. But hey! the survivors have it so fucking hard with all those damn zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::But OHNOES DCC some people think it's because no one wants to play zombies instead of the fact that their so boring because of their intellectuality and lack of competetivity. Who cares that that's disproved every time zombies make some big event so they can actually do something.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:37, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Actually it is when you consider that it's not a bargain and it's an additional 4 AP per kill that will be payed regularly. All Feeding Drag ever does is transfer AP cost from the individual to the horde, you know, that central play mechanic that zombies are forced to deal with. This would just make it so that all zombies always lose nearly half the AP they get a day, that's not balanced. You're also proposing buffing what is the only skill in the game that is considered to exist for the sole purpose of pissing players off and not balance.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Im not going to argue the game balance here. What i am going to say is that you dont make a game more balanced by making it less fun. Taking away 15 zombie ap a day makes the game much less fun for zombies, which will drive them away. Given how many of them are hanging onto the game out of habit rather than out of any sense of enjoyment, i dont think making playing a zombie feel like pulling teeth is the solution to any balance problem, real or imagined. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:37, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
This is not terribly effective. I mean, the search chances in Mville are all in ruined buildings. 8AP to load a shotgun I think not... ain't nothin' but ruined buildings. [[User:Soror Repentia Azalea|Qızılbaş]] 16:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Riot Shield===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Item<br />
|suggest_scope=All Players<br />
|suggest_description= <BR><br />
:''[[Building Types|Locations]]: Armouries (2%), Police Stations (2%), Junkyards (1%?)''<br />
:''[[Encumberment|Encumbrance]]: 16%''<br />
<br />
- Grants a 10% (5% in dark buildings) chance to deflect any attack <S>that deals less than 5 damage</S> (it does not reduce the chance to hit, only those which would normally hit). Having a Riot Shield in your inventory automatically means that you are using it; no action is required to activate it. Zombies may use and benefit from Riot Shields. Using multiple Riot Shields has no additional effect; having two or more in your inventory will not give any further protection.<br />
<br />
- They may also be used as an improvised weapon with the following stats:<br />
<br />
:''Damage: 1 point''<br />
:''Base Accuracy: 10%''<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Riot Shield)====<br />
<br />
Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield (although rotters will have a harder time getting them but that applies to any cross-class skill/item from the humans). Also the zombie populace should be aware that a Riot shield is the equivalent of 8 clips/shells/Faks/Syringes that can be used against their cause. Survivors now have an active defence against the hordes (in my opinion barricades do not count as they do not directly protect the player or go with them on their journeys). <BR><br />
Things I'm unsure of:<BR><br />
:Encumbrance<br />
:Chance to deflect<br />
:Findable in museums (Medieval / war exhibitions)<br />
:Zombies with a reduced protection chance (as they are more sluggish)<br />
:Flavour text for deflected attacks!<br />
--[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''You fire at target zombie for 10 damage, but it deflects off their riot shield. They are unharmed''<br />
--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:05, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: Whilst I do agree with the flavour text the shot gun does not deal '''less than 5 damage'''. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:13, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Balls. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hi Kamikazie, this is an interesting idea. Given that zombies can't use melee weapons, it seems odd they might continue to use (and effectively position) a riot shield. Additionally, it seems it would get in the way of typical zombie attacks: grabbing, holding, biting. I don't want to seem like I'm favoring survivors, but this, like all other objects, seems it should be survivor-specific. Would players be able to use a shotgun while holding one? Shields of any kind make sense, especially in close-range combat. I'd see the value in making it "equippable" rather than simply automatically active if in inventory. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 18:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ummm... zombies can use melee weapons, although it would get in the way of their normal attacks I don't want to hinder them or make this one sided although realism would want it so. Zombies are people to! Interfering with other functions is something else I disagree with. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hordes are the exception, not the rule. Lets see, a maxed zombie would traditionally score a total of 29 hits in 50 swings. Now, if 10% of those hits are negated, it goes down to 26. Given that the majority of zombies are not horde zombies, and that zombies have a seriously hard time getting past little things you call barricades (Which already are your defenses, not to mention your mobility, which is another, chronically underused one), this puts a serious dent in zombie ability across the board for the sake of defending yourself from the exception to the rule based on a flase assumption of defenselessness. Go away and think things through before you return to plague this page with your stupidity again. The description as written has this as a pure zombie nerf, they cant even use it, ebcause regardless of flaks, a pistol hits for five damage at first, with one subsequently negated, thus pistols will still go through. Given humans use firearms almost exclusively, becauuse axes and improvised weapons suck, they will most often suffer no penalty against a zombie with such a device. Zombies have no 5+ damage attacks. This is one sided zombie rape. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:although I hardly ever agree with grims choice of words, the fact that flare guns and shotguns arent nerfed but all zed attacks are is a fair point. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:29, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sorry if you misunderstood when I used the word horde, I used it to describe the zombies populace as a whole, not in a specific location. The pistol glitch is something which I must admit I did not anticipate and overlooked, thanks for pointing that out. The rest just seems negative for the sake of zombie-jeebus. Whilst this does primarily affect zombie attacks it also affects all survivor melee attacks, you say that survivors depend on guns because everything else sucks, I don't think you need reminding that the Jacket only benefits zombies and PK/DC victims (which their very actions benefit zombies). Zombies have no fear of death and any defence boosts through items come at no cost, survivors have to balance their inventory for survival/defense and the retaking of ruins. If you feel that 26 instead of 29 hits is too many feel free to suggest a change to the values. This is a discussion for whittling out 'stupid' ideas not for insulting them (which I consider pointless). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:47, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
''Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield ...'' Can, but won't. The vast majority of the damage zombies take s from guns, and this also provides no protection vs combat revives. HtH combat damage trails a distant third behind those in terms of impact on zombies. '''So really, this IS a pure zombie nerf.''' {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 19:08, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:Any proposes for a fix? Reducing deflection to 5% (that sounds so geekish). Lowering the limit to Less than 4 (which would account for the gun-bug and allow zombies still to get in their max claws) or would that be seen to be nerfing infection/bite/newbies/survivor melee? I know you might think this is the wrong school of thought but I feel there needs to be some active defence from zombies (running away is not defending) and barricades can't be taken with you, but due to the limited amount of high-powered zombie attacks any thing is essentially a nerf. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 19:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this suggestion if it was to affect ALL attacks regardless of damage... however I am concerned about it stacking with flak jackets to nerf firearms but if you lot are ok with it then I have no objections.... opinions please? --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I think it's a neat idea, just not sure if its passable. Maybe if the Shield had a chance to be broken, or taken away by zombies? For every "deflection" there is a 10% chance the shield breaks as well? Maybe a zombie that gets a Tangling Grasp has a 10% chance to wrench the shield away and toss it aside for each attack it makes while it maintains the Grasp?--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:25, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This fails flavour as it implies active usage to gain its benefit, you must move the shield to cover the attack. A flak jacket is passive, it protects your torso regardless. In short, this would (or rather should) be useless while you are asleep...which for most UD characters is 23 hours and 50 minutes of each day.<br />
<br />
Also it's a nasty zombie nerf. '''All''' zombie attacks are less than 5 damage, meaning all survivors would get a 10% chance to avoid every single zombie attack in the game. This suggestion will discourage zombie play and turn Malton into Monroeville after the first quarantine, tag with PKers. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:42, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''"After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this..."'' We are not okay with this idea. It's awful. It's nothing but a horrible zombie nerf, and no changes are going to save it. Riot shields do not protect against firearms. Period. Any attempt to make them do so is just stupidity. But if riot shields work against melee attacks only, then you are nerfing an already underdog ability -- for both zambahz and survivors. Just drop it, it sucks and it can't be fixed. Also, Izzy, you've failed in your Dupe-meister duties, this is in there somewhere, I know it ;) And, Zhani, once again you demonstrated why you should stay away from making suggestions: please wait until you actually know the game, thanks. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:01, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:As far as I understood from the comments people were making, the two major complaints were that it did not affect guns and that it affected zombie attacks. Including the ability to affect guns as well (which you ''conveniently'' failed to include in your quote) was the change that some people may approve of, as for affecting zombie attacks that kinda goes with the idea of a riot shield. "''Riot shields do not protect against firearms''" it may upset you to know that some do, although if you were arguing for true realism I think the zombies need to go... In defence of Izzy failing to dupe I could only find 2 similar suggestions, both from 2005 and both with completely different mechanics if it is that big an issue to dupe it go put in the effort and do it yourself. As for Zhani, he's learning don't try shoot him down because he's trying to be involved. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Next person to shorten my name gets Jihad declared against them.<br />
<br />
::Wan; what he said about dupes <nowiki>:p</nowiki><br />
<br />
::Bunny; would you care to comment on the point I made about active usage? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Falling asleep from exhaustion is a good reason why your character runs out of AP, it only takes 30min before you can 'wake up'. Whilst I do agree that a player would have to actively use it to defend themselves, the idea that I can hit someone who is asleep repeatedly with a fire axe and with such poor accuracy doesn't make sense (especially considering they don't wake up), I actually assume all players are awake and attempting to defend themselves if attacked which is why hit accuracy is not too high. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait wut? How do zombies benefit from something that will only effect them and low level survivors? Last I heard pistols and shotguns did >= 5 damage, Claws and bites did <= 4.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies would gain more defence from melee weapons, however it has now been changed to include pistols and shotguns. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::It just doesn't seem right. It destroys all zombie attack, survivor players could get them easier then zombie players... Even if Shotguns no longer worked, that would create an atmosphere where it would be CRing only.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 17:56, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::How would this new version work in dark buildings? And Also, I still don't like it for the same reason why I think halving in dark buildings was a horrendous idea, 10% from 50% is a lot more significant than 10% from 65%, especially with the RNG the way it is But if you're going to go on with it might as well answer all questions that might come up.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::As the Riot shield only affects the attacks that hit the player, the environment which the attack is performed in should have make no difference but since the user is making an effort, the same penalty as attacks receive should logically apply. (Chance of success halved in dark buildings added to suggestion) Thanks for that, the more holes you guys help me fill the better. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it. Rather logical especially when considering that several suburbs were just bad neighborhoods (Even BEFORE the zombies!). I think that his would be a bit more efficient if you kept it as a melee reducing item, the hand to hand flak jacket in other words, say knock off 1-2 Damage per non-firearm attacks. Take it to that level and THEN I'll probably vote a keep on this. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 19:33, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, I'm sure new players will appreciate 0-1 damage at 25% to hit.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Well the zombies are getting Uber Buffs. Survivors have always been a bit better than the zombies at base level. I think that just the 1 Reduced Damage is sufficient at say...30% but if we want to get technical with this option lets say Hand to Hand Combat skill gives the 15% bonus to this so base is 15% chance to block 1 damage and then with HtH skill 30% chance to block 1 damage and we drop that improvised attack method because it's going to be the same as a punch. Now for the zombies think of Virgour Mortis as a +10% Chance to block 1 Damage. So again, 15% base and with Vigour Mortis a nice little 25% because Zeds aren't quick enough to keep up with the survivors. It is a bit sketchy but I am going to support this method over sitting around fiddling with percentages. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 20:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I would like for this to apply exclusive to melee weapons, but that would mean ALL zombie attacks and not the attacks used by high-level survivors which was a problem. I'm also unsure if the game distinguishes between damage types, if it does great, if not, going on damage inflicted presents a problem when pistols are reduced by flak jackets. The idea to reduce damage instead of deflecting it completely is possible, however it would just end up as 'a flak for melee attacks' different mechanics for each one helps to keep them unique but if people prefer that option let me know. The skills bit does have merits but I was hoping it would be independent of the skill tree although if people want it to upgrade as you buy skills your way is certainly an excellent way to do it, especially the uniqueness between the live/dead. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:18, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Consider the flak jacket. -1 point for firearms, hand to hand attacks still go through. As for the zombies...well survivors run out of ammunition every now and again, even in the sieges. To combine this item with hand to hand combat training is the most logical approach based off of common sense and lightens the work load if Kevan likes this. Like you stated, zombies and survivors can both hold them, lets apply our minds and think about how well a zombie would be able to block a hit. When you think of next to never apply this big piece of reinforced fiberglass and then you get your answer here. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 03:53, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Zombies holding riot shields? I'd love to have some of that crack you're on. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 04:08, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dude the odd thing is that it is not crack! It's Jello powder! [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:23, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies hold and use all sorts of items... Anyway, this idea is just awful and can't be saved, please give it up. All it does in any form is act as a zombie/PK nerf. Period. Drop it. There is NO NEED for this, and it doesn't improve the game, make it more interesting, or offer a solution to a problem. It's just... dumb. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===No More Walking Armories: Less weapons, more ammo.===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 21:39, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Change to firearm usage<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, firearms.<br />
|suggest_description=Add Equipped Weapon feature, adjust weapon balance numbers to encourage reloading over trenchcoatism. See below for details.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
As things stand, players in Malton become [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|walking armories]], with as many loaded pistols and shotguns strapped to their bodies as they can carry. Essentially, everyone is a [[:Image:Trenchcoater03.gif|trenchcoater]] by default. This is due to how firearms currently work and their game statistics. Players are rewarded for carrying multiple loaded firearms, and there's little penalty for doing so. Guns have very little encumbrance ''relative to their ammunition'', and there's no cost at all to moving on to your next loaded weapon. I think this is [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Arguing_for_Your_Suggestion|unbelievable]] and out of genre. <br />
<br />
My proposal is to add a new game feature and tweak weapon encumbrance, find rates, and damage in order to encourage the carrying and use of only primary weapons, with plenty of ammo for those weapons.<br />
<br />
'''1. Equipped Weapon''' The game supports selecting items that are "worn"; however, this is only used for clothing and flavor at the moment. With this addition, survivor players select any weapon in their inventory to be ''equipped''. <br />
* Above "'''Inventory (click to use):'''" there is "'''Weapon (select):'''". There will be a new drop-down list in this section: '''<code>Equip [Weapon List] as weapon</code>'''. This lets the player choose any existing weapon in their inventory, or an improvised weapon like a fuel can or crowbar. <br />
* Equipping a weapon costs '''2 AP'''. This represents getting it out of your backpack/belt and having it ready for combat. ''The AP cost of switching weapons provides an incentive to reload over switching between a stocked series of weapons.'' <br />
* You can only attack with your equipped weapon. The "attack player" option no longer offers multiple weapons as a choice, but instead lists your ''equipped weapon'': '''<code>Attack [Joe Zombie] with pistol</code>'''. If no weapon is equipped, all attacks are punches.<br />
* Once a weapon is equipped, the "Weapon:" section no longer displays "(select)", and the selected weapon is displayed there, instead of in the inventory section. Below that, the weapon-selection control remains available to select another weapon.<br />
* Clicking ammo to reload defaults to reloading the equipped weapon if it is unloaded. Clicking the equipped weapon removes it. Clicking a weapon that does not have a dual usage (most of them) will equip them as well (this is necessary so you can still click fuel cans to use them on generators, fire flare guns, etc.) <br />
* Upon dying, the equipped weapon is removed and remains in the player's inventory. Zombies do not have equipped weapons. Revivified survivors must reequip their weapon.<br />
* The currently equipped weapon can be seen in the profile description, along with clothing.<br />
<br />
'''2. Weapon Encumbrance Values''' Firearm encumbrance values are increased. Guns can get heavy to carry, and shotguns are unwieldy. Pistols: 10%. Shotgun: 18%. '''Ammunition encumbrance is minimized'''. Bullets and shells take up relatively little space, and can be kept in backpacks, fannypacks, pockets, etc. Clips & Shells: 1%. <br />
<br />
'''3. Reloading''' Reloading a clip or shell remains at 1 AP.<br />
<br />
'''4. Weapon Balance:''' This change slightly increases the in-combat AP costs for survivors. With 8 loaded pistols in inventory, a player can currently do 240 damage in 48 turns at 65% rate, or 156 damage, or 3.25 damage/AP. With 1 equipped pistol and plenty of ammo, in 48 turns the player can empty 7 clips, doing 210 damage @65%, or 136.5 damage, or 2.84 damage/AP; a 12% decrease. <br />
<br />
With current shotguns, 8 shotguns in inventory do 160 damage in 16 turns @ 65%, or 104 damage: 6.5damage/AP. With the change, two shots requires either switching (2AP) or reloading (2AP). Alternately, we can simply think of the unloaded shotgun as 2AP/shot. With the change, the shotgun would do 80 damage in 16 turns @ 65% or 52 damage, a 50% decrease. The change makes the shotgun even more front-loaded damage however. <br />
<br />
'''''It is very difficult to make absolute recommendations on numbers for game balance.''''' Only in-game results can show whether items are unbalanced or not, and to what degree. However, as an initial rebalancing to make the change not appear so drastic, I suggest these figures:<br />
<br />
'''Pistol: 6 damage/shot. (5 flak).''' In 48 turns (finishing empty), a pistol would do (6*7*6*0.65) or 163.8 damage on average: 3.4damage/AP, a 5% increase. This is a very modest change, and sticks to whole-number damage. In 6 turns, the existing pistol does 30 max damage, 19.5 average, the new does 36 or 23.4 average, but on subsequent turns the reload time brings the average damage back down. With 6 shots/7AP, the true average becomes 3.34dam/AP. Total pistol increase: 2.9%<br><br />
Alternately: to kill 50HP enemy:<br />
:Current: 3.25dam/AP. (Assuming enough pistols in inventory) 16AP to kill<br />
:New: 3.34 dam/AP ((6*6*.65)/7). 15AP to kill.<br />
<br />
'''Shotgun: 12 damage/shot (10 flak).''' 2 turns=24 damage @65%=15.6damage. Compare to current: 2 turns = 20*65%=13dam. This is a small front-end increase. However, comparing 16 turns (8 loaded current shotguns, vs 1 shotgun with reloading): (10*16*0.65)/16=6.5dam/AP. New shotgun: 2 shots, then 2 shots per 4 turns for 12 turns, then 1 shot in the last two turns. 2*12+12((2*12)/4)+0+12=108. @65%=70.2 or 4.39dam/AP. The shotgun decreases over time. If we compare current and new shotguns starting unloaded, it's 10dam/2AP vs 12dam/2AP. The advantage of starting a fight with a loaded shotgun goes up, but the advantage of carrying a stack of them goes down. It becomes worthwhile to consider switching to a sidearm after using the shotgun. ''This appears consistent with game believability.''<br><br />
An alternate way of looking at shotgun damage: to kill a 50HP enemy: <br />
:Current: 6.5damage/AP (assuming enough shotguns in inventory). 8AP to kill.<br />
:New: 2*7.8damage=15.6 for 2AP, then 7.8damage/2AP (reload, fire). 7AP to kill.<br />
<br />
Shotgun opener + pistol: 15.6 average damage/2AP. 2AP to switch. 23.4 average damage/6AP. 1AP reload. 11.7 avg. dam. /3AP. = 50.7 damage in 14AP. Slightly more efficient than pistol alone, less than shotgun alone. (I have been working with current balance values; but the existing shotgun is much higher damage than the existing pistol. It requires more AP to find ammo, and reload.)<br />
<br />
'''5. Weapon search rates''' Firearm search rate decreases slightly (most people will only want or need one of each type). Ammunition search rate increases slightly. <br><br />
'''Pistols:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Streets (1%?), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
'''Shotguns:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Pubs (1%)<br><br />
'''Clips:''' Mall Gun Stores (13%/16%), Armories (13%), Police Departments (12%), Junkyards (2%?), Gatehouses (?%)<br><br />
'''Shotgun shells:''' Mall Gun Stores (12%/16%), Armories (11%), Police Departments (11%), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
* If a weapon is found, and the player has selected to discard that type of weapon, but they have NOT selected to discard the ammo, ''they retain the ammo that was in that firearm (if any)''.<br />
<br />
'''Potential objections:'''<br />
<br />
Game balance: the change to damage output/AP is relatively small. If game stats reveal survivors grow more powerful, or one weapon is more preferred than the other, damage values can be adjusted as necessary. The point of this change is not to drastically adjust game balance in any way, but to instead encourage a change in player behavior to something more consistent with genre. Any statistical flaws that benefit a weapon type or player group can be adjusted as necessary.<br />
<br />
Inventory changes: this deprecates the value of carrying multiple weapons. Despite the increase in encumbrance of a single weapon, this should actually free up some space for people. The changes do not severely affect the contents of anyone's inventory. <br />
<br />
Realism/Game fiction/Genre: Carrying an absurd amount of weapons is simply silly. The only reason people do is because the game mechanics encourage it. This change provides an incentive for players to behave much more akin to typical characters in zombie films: carrying a couple favored weapons, and enough ammo to keep them supplied.<br />
<br />
Too long/complicated: This idea consists of minor changes to game variables (encumbrance, damage, search), and adds a straightforward feature which should work consistently with the existing interface and game data structures. It requires tracking one more piece of data per character: which weapon is equipped, and removes one piece of data normally transmitted on each attack: the weapon used. This should not be a prohibitive amount of development work. Balance changes are necessary to coincide with changes to AP costs for using weapons to minimize the secondary impact on gameplay.<br />
<br />
Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit.<br />
<br />
'''Areas for input:'''<br />
<br />
How are the numbers? Are they reasonable to maintain balance while accomplishing the goal of this suggestion?<br />
<br />
====Discussion (No More Walking Armories)====<br />
#Pistols are usually no bigger than two clips. Having 10% pistols and 1% clips is completely unjustified.<br />
#Shotguns are nowhere near the size or unwieldiness of generators (18% vs 20%).<br />
Not just that, but raising the encumbrance of weapons doesn't really contribute to reducing the number of weapons and increasing the amount of ammunition carried. Changing the search percentages wouldn't affect much either. Just plain introducing the equipped-weapon gameplay would do it. It's simple; reloading costs 1 or 2 AP, changing a weapon would cost 2. Ammunition is lighter than weapons. For pistols this means you're paying 1 AP less per 6 bullets, and carrying double the amount of damage if you use clips over loaded pistols. For shotguns it means you're paying just as much, but still carrying one half more ammo by carrying shells instead of shotguns. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 23:28, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I don't believe the game's encumbrance values are based on real-world sizes or weights, but rather are a general reflection of carrying ability for the sake of game balance. They're arbitrary. No one can carry 5 portable generators at once, and being limited to carrying only 50 shotgun shells, when they're typically sold in small boxes of 24 to 48, reveals this. A Ruger Security Six revolver as listed on the [[firearms]] page weighs about 1 kilo; carrying 25 of them at 4% enc per, would mean 55 pounds of firearms. The point isn't to be completely accurate with size or weight, but present a tradeoff in carrying many vs. few. With 1 pistol (12%) and 8 clips (1%), for a total of 20% the user still comes ahead of carrying 8 current pistols (32%). While a shotgun does not weigh as much as a portable generator, carrying 16 of them (at 6%) is just as unreasonable. <br>The search values I adjust because finding new firearms becomes less important. This isn't critical to the suggestion however, especially if the part where I recommend that users be able to discard guns they find but keep the ammo in them. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 23:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The exact nature of encumbrance is pretty much irrelevant, as, like I said, changing the encumbrance values doesn't really contribute towards the goal of this suggestion. It just adds one more thing for people to find objectionable. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 09:59, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::If currently people are carrying 16 weapons, and suddenly they can be just as effective with 3, they now have much more space for first aid kits, ammo, syringes, generators, etc. It's also about balance. While there is extra space, increasing weapon encumbrance means it isn't so survivor-favored in that aspect. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 10:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::That reasoning would make more sense if you weren't halving the weight of ammunition. You still have to keep the values somewhat sensible when compared to others. 10% pistols and 18% shotguns are just too inconsistent. Something like 6/8% pistols and 12% shotguns would be better. Or you could bump up the encumbrance of '''everything else''' (which ''would'' make more sense, but would simply get spammed). --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:24, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Is it necessary for game-balance that survivors be limited to carrying a certain quantity of ammunition? To my mind, the limiting factor is search rates, more than carrying capacity. I halved the encumbrance of ammo to balance increasing the values for firearms, along with the fact that the new system encourages keeping plenty of loose ammo, rather than just that which fits in numerous weapons. As for game-realism, shotguns are large and unwieldy, it's implausible to carry more than two. Encumbrance can represent both weight and bulk. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this idea, both because it makes sense and it's better as flavour, but I don't think it will last two seconds in a vote..not that that's any reason not to suggest it, but all the trenchies will go "OMG ONLY 1 WEAPON + MORE RELOADS NOW I CAN ONLY KILL FOUR ZOMBIES A DAY KILL KILL KILL" <br>But I like it.. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 01:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thanks! :) Actually, I really am trying to keep the balance the about the same so that for purposes of killing speed, it's roughly neutral. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:07, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
All these fucking words to just hide the fact you want to bump up the shotgun's damage. Go to hell. Go back and play Resident Evil some more if you get hard-ons from selecting and equipping weapons. You miss the point that this is a damn text game that only gives you 50 AP a day. You can't unload weapons when you find them and you are just as likely to find a pistol with 3 bullets in it as a full clip, but thanks to this GENIUS suggestion even if you aren't a trenchy you will still get your AP raped by swapping weapons. I like to think that survivors are smart enough not to carry their weapons in a back pack but to have them hidden on their body for easy access. I fucking hate gun suggestions. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 02:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Hi DCC. As I pointed out, in front-loaded damage the shotgun sees an increase, but over time it has reduced damage/AP compared to currently. If you compare the current system with someone carrying 10 loaded shotguns and enough ammo to reload & fire again for their 50AP, the new system represents an 11% decrease in average damage done. As I clearly stated, this isn't about altering game balance or enhancing/damaging the effectiveness of any weapon. As for searching, I provided a suggestion that ammo found in other weapons could be unloaded if the user already has a weapon. Also, I don't think being abusive is very consistent with rational discussion of people's ideas. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:39, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::The game is not played in long term, at least for survivors it shouldn't be. They're more than mobile enough that they can pop in, do tons of damage, run out, and come back a few days later fully stocked and do the same thing. It's low risk and exactly why boosting short term gains for survivors anymore would be ridiculously overpowered.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::This doesn't create a boost for survivors. Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png the graph] I created. The intent is to create a change in behavior, without significantly affecting balance; which is why I'm happy to discuss the numbers used. The pistol remains almost exactly the same; the shotgun does very slightly more damage in the first two turns, quickly falls behind the damage put out by multiple preloaded existing shotguns. This is shifting the pre-combat AP investment to carry around all those loaded weapons, into combat itself, making it viable to have one weapon of each kind and reload during combat. This is more consistent with the game world and genre: frantically loading your weapon as the undead shamble towards you, than carrying 16 loaded weapons effortlessly. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::I wasn't critiquing your suggestion. Now I am. To keep it simple I'm just gonna say this, you can't half ammo encumbrance it would have to much of an effect on the time survivors have that they can spend ''without'' restocking. That amount of time is a significant limiter on their ability to use/abuse their AP efficiency. You're basically doubling their Ammo carrying capacity and attempting to claim it's balanced by slightly reducing their attack efficiency(which is still being left close to 8 damage per AP). Yes, it makes individuals very very slightly less effective, it will also make groups of survivors insanely more effective and it will let those individuals spend ''more'' time without a break. That ''is'' a significant boost. Now I don't actually have too much of a problem with it assuming Kevan ''finally'' allows some specific zombie boost in response, and by that I mean finally letting them do a significant amount of damage per AP and letting them get through barricades with something closer to twice as much AP as they take to build instead of 4-5x. I don't think that will happen though.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:17, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Thanks Karek, this is an interesting point. Assuming a player wants to maximize their combat potential, and disregarding all other concerns (assume they're backed up by other players who will heal/rebuild etc.), a player might carry 16 shotguns (@6%) & 2 shells (@2%). That's an average of ((32+2)*10*0.65)=221 damage in 36AP, then they're empty. 6.14damage/AP. That's not including the significant AP investment to find and load all those guns. Under the proposed system, player has 1 shotgun @18%, and 82 shells @1%. They get 2AP of attacks, then thereafter it's 1attack/2AP (load & shoot). Over 166AP, they do an average of ((2+82)*12*0.65)=655.2 damage, or 3.94 damage/AP. They would have invested more AP in advance to gather all those shells.<br><br />
:::::I understand what you're saying. The existing system allows a quick burst of high damage, then the survivor has to go replenish. The new system would allow large restocking in a "safe" are, then being able to do damage for an additional 4.6x AP; however, both the average damage is reduced, as well as being spread out over more AP. <br><br />
:::::Say we go with 1 shotgun @18%, but 41 shells @2%. ((2+41)*12*0.65)=335.4 in 84AP, or 3.99damage/AP. Roughly the same damage output, just half the cycle time between attacking & replenishing; as well as less AP invested up front. So the question is: is the length of the attack/scavenge cycle significant to game balance? Do zombies depend on survivors running out, even if they're doing 2/3rd the average damage per AP? --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::::That's not necessarily true either, with three, or even four, survivors striking together they can completely ignore the reduced efficiency. They would actually clear things faster and more efficiently then than they could now doing the same thing. Like I mentioned above, the average damage in the long term with shotguns is irrelevant because most of that cost occurs well outside of danger while most of the reward occurs when you want/need it to, all that would happen is who's holding the shotguns would change, that's actually what I like about an equipment based system. Lose everything else, keep that, the rest is irrelevant, likely impossible to balance, and seems generally based on the assumption that all Survivors are idiots; they aren't, they just don't have any real reason to work together. There's a good core idea here but the implementation needs work.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think i like the start of this. Right now i can't focus to tell if all the numbers are good with me over a long base of time. but, first impression is i like this... i just don't know exactly how this would affect things until i'm actually using it. Also, i disagree with DCC... chill out, man. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This sounds great but really this is more of an AP kill. Consider that the majority of us survivors depend on being a walking arsenal, making us pay 2AP to get a loaded pistol out can highly unbalance the basics for siege survival. I say you drop it down to 1AP or just drop it entirely and make this a weapon pump. This has potential and I love the stats given, but you just gotta fine tone it. Try getting together a study group, devise a neat little generator amongst yourselves, provide a report in place of the hypothesis that we do have now and then try getting this into voting. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:There AP cost is there to provide the incentive to reload the weapon you're using, rather than switch out to one loaded weapon after another. For the pistol, it makes it more advantageous, for the shotgun, it makes it equal with carrying other shotguns, but the drop in encumbrance acts as a bonus. The increase in damage for both pistol and shotgun help balance against the increased AP costs so damage/AP is roughly the same. With pistols, you currently do 6 attacks in 6 turns, then switch. With the new system, you'll do 6 attacks in 6 turns, 1 turn to reload, then go again. So you need 1 pistol, and just clips. 6 damage/attack instead of 5 makes them close in damage output. Likewise with the shotgun, with the current system you fire 1 shot per AP for as long as you have shotguns. With my proposal, you still get two shots for two AP with your pre-loaded gun, then you get 1 shot every 2 AP: reload 1 shell, fire, etc. In the first few turns you'll have done more damage than the existing system, but after a few turns, it does a little less on average. Oh, and remember: '''with the existing system, you still need to spend the AP to load your weapons. You just do it before combat, not during.''' Like I said, this brings it more in genre: desperately reloading as the zombies advance on you, instead of carrying a dozen loaded shotguns on your back. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 05:32, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''Re: weapon balance: Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png this graph].''' This compares current with proposed weapon damage. I'm somewhat inclined to increase the shotgun to 13 or 14, but the relative advantage between the old and new shotgun depends on how many loaded shotguns the player would have under the old system. I assumed 8 for this graph. If it's less, the difference is much narrower; it's unlikely a player would have many more. Note that the player has a damage advantage with the old shotgun ''until they run out''; but they had to spend the same AP in advance to load those 8 shotguns. The new shotgun merely incorporates that loading AP into combat. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 06:16, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''GRRRRRRRRRRH!!!''' KISS me, please. i.e., Keep. It. Simple. Stupid. This may be a fantastic idea, but I can't be arsed atm to read that wall of text. Please learn how to be more concise. Seriously. Thank you. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:22, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What I did read... led me here... This is unnecessary. Because carrying lots of loaded firearms is actually a very poor use of AP and encumbrance. The most Ap-encumbrance efficient weapon in the game is the pistol, by far. And the best way to use pistols is to have 2-3 of them and tonnes of ammo. Shotguns are spiffy weapons, but their ap-encumbrance efficiency is atrocious: if wind up with a few, use 'em... but once its empty? Drop it, don't reload it, that's a giant waste of AP... So, if people wanna waste their AP and encumbrance on carrying and reloading lots of firearms -- the zombies say go right ahead and be horribly inefficient! <br />
:That being said... What ticks me is that I never find pistol ammo in Malls. It's always shotguns. Graaaaagh! Which means... I don't think we need a big game mechanic overhaul, so much as search rates should be tweaked... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::More thoughts... If people wanna carry lots of guns, more power to them. Because that helps the zombies... Because zombies can't be killed. And survivors should be focusing on barricading and reviving and healing first -- and when they are not... then the zombies win! By default. <br />
::Also, "walking armouries" are ''totally'' in genre. You always have the Armah Manz with billions of b!g bang-bangz... Always. And usually, these are the idiots who end up getting killed... And the consumer type who focuses on helping others and getting the job done most effectively lives and helps more people... As in the genre, as in UD... Now, I kind of would like to see trenchcoating get a bit of a nerf... however, i am always very cautious about "legislating playing styles"... And that is what this suggestion does. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:37, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: I'm sorry you found the idea too long. However, I wanted to be specific in the reason for each change, and the expected effect. In order to make the change relatively balance-neutral while encouraging a behavioral change, adjusting numbers in several places is necessary. You said that carrying shotguns and reloading would be inefficient: that's part of what the change is attempting to address. People carry multiple weapons because they can front-load their AP to increase damage in a short time. This idea diminishes that effect while allowing them to output roughly the same damage/AP invested. <br />
::: I disagree that "walking armories" are in-genre. The "Army Mans" carry an assault rifle, a couple grenades, and maybe a sidearm. The only reason players will carry 16 loaded weapons around is because ''the current game mechanics encourage this behavior''; it's not something you'd typically see in a film. They can stock up on weapons and ammo in advance, then unleash that stored AP in the form of damage. What is more consistent with the genre and a plausible game-world, is carrying a couple reliable weapons, and reloading them as needed. This change isn't legislating playing styles: combat-oriented players will still be able to arm up and go to war. They'll just do it with a couple weapons and plenty of ammo, rather than 200 pounds of firearms on their back. Their combat effectiveness versus the zombies will be largely unchanged. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:55, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Instead of trying to play with the big boys in the flame department, I suggest picking up some reading comprehension skills. I addressed your "refutations" in my original post. First of all, the game does not actually encourage carrying 16 loaded weapons; in so far as you are able to do so, you're most assuredly ''not'' contributing to the pro-survivor cause. That you fail to understand ''why'' isn't my problem: do your homework. Secondly, dudes armed to the teeth shooting the shit out every zombie they see (and usually dying grisly deaths themselves because of their stupidity) are very common in both the movies and, yeah, even the video games. Pay attention next time, okay? And go re-read karek and DCC's comments and try to understand the words of your intellectual superiors. THEN get back to us. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:12, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm afraid that you really haven't supported your objections, despite claiming you have. Whether choosing combat-oriented activities in-game helps or hinders the survivor cause is ''irrelevant'': you mentioned that we shouldn't be dictating player style. This suggestion as I've stated is largely balance-neutral. What is does, is discourages exactly what I describe: the "walking armory" effect, and encourages carrying only needed weapons with sufficient ammunition. This doesn't prevent or penalize anyone from walking in with guns blaring, it just means they don't look like [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|this guy]] while doing it. More like [http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1003/988120768_87c5ce1538.jpg this]. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::''Balance neutral'' ? What's this shit? How can something be "neutral" -balance or otherwise- when it tries to change the way people play? '''Don't tell people how to play their characters.''' It's just that simple. Who cares if someone fills all of their inventory with weapons or with GPS units? So what if some trenchies want to carry 100 shotguns? I can tell you haven't been playing this game long. More likely you don't even play a zombie. Which makes your bitching about weapons even weirder. Your suggestion doesn't solve a problem. Your suggestion does not make gameplay more interesting. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::: Could you be specific about how you feel it's unbalanced? And the suggestion is not telling people how to play. The intention of [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Gameplay_and_Flavor|that guideline]] for suggestions I believe is that we shouldn't discourage RP or encourage non-RP. People can play their characters how they choose, and fill their inventory with what they want. However, the current game mechanics ''actively encourages players to be walking arsenals'' if they want to maximize their combat effectiveness. The problem the suggestion solves is that carrying a huge stack of weapons is anti-RP, contrary to the genre and game-fiction. As I've said, it's [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|silly]]. Carrying a shotgun, revolver, and melee weapon seems much more plausible, and something you'd see in a zombie movie, don't you think? This lets someone who does that, be viable in combat. Additionally, I have attempted to balance this so it's neutral towards zombies, not shifting the advantage. Again, I invite you to show me how it is not. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 00:35, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::: You say you don't want to legislate how people play the game one moment, then the next you say that's ''exactly'' what you want to do! Make up your mind. Now... Zombies don't care if they get shot. If you actually ''played'' a zombie full-time, you'd understand this. Shot me all you bloody well want, I'll dirt nap and stand up again with, at worst, 44 AP and be ready to go. Therefore, shooting zombies is ''completely'' pointless except when you need to clear a building. To that end, you carry some guns. But ''smart'' survivors don't carry lots of guns: they carry maybe 2-4 pistol and 2-4 shotguns, tops. Why? Well... because the most powerful pro-survivor thing in the whole game is the revive-needle. Next come barricading and FAKing. Smart survivors know this, thus they carry several needles (sometimes a hell of a lot), a toolbox and a big whack o' FAKs. ''These'' are the survivors who benefit the "pro-survivor" cause. By contrast, anyone who just carries a whole bunch of guns is ''not'' really benefiting the survivor cause all that much, they are just parasiting off others' barricades, revives and FAKs. Nor are they ''really'' hurting zombies, because zombies don't care if they die. Capiche? You say I haven't backed up my arguments, but I ''have''. I actually made an argument -- it's just that you either don't understand, or you're wilfully ignoring the argument. Meanwhile, you've just provided statistics and a flawed idea, which you haven't put in any kind of rational or argumentative or bona-fide in-game context... Meanwhile, I don't care if someone wants to carry 16 shotguns -- as a survivor ''or'' a zombie. As a survivor, I think that guy is a parasitic waste of space and I will make fun of him and belittle him for being a trenchcoating wanker -- but he's not really ''hurting'' me. And, as your picture of Ash demonstrates, all said and done, he is actually RPing ''in-genre''. And as a zombie I outright ''laugh'' at his stupidity and I smash his barricades and eat bra!nz with a hearty GRAAAAGH!!... However, I do not wish to legislate how he plays the game in such a heavy-handed way... Which is ''exactly'' what your suggestion intends to do -- by your own fucking admission! This is not a good idea, and by clinging to it and not accepting ''constructive'' and ''reasonable'' criticism, you're proving yourself to be fucking git, a disruptive and non-contributive member of the community. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:12, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hmm. When I said that, you criticized me for having a superficial understanding of the game. The shoe's on the other foot now, eh? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:19, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hi WanYao. How many shotguns is Ash carrying? One. How many firearms will a typical person in a zombie film carry? One, or one rifle/shotgun and one sidearm. In UrbanDead as it stands, how many firearms will a person carry if they want to ''maximize their combat potential''? '''16'''. The game mechanics are already telling them "how to play", it's saying that if you want to devote yourself to dealing damage, you carry a silly and fiction-breaking number of weapons.<br />
:::::::::I'm afraid your comments about what is actually optimal strategy are irrelevant and a red herring. This suggestion makes no change in what players ''should'' do in order to be maximally effective. It simply alters the game mechanics so that the optimal number of weapons to carry is one of each, and not 16. This is what is more in keeping with the genre, more plausible in the game fiction. There's no advocated or encouraged change in "player behavior": a combat-oriented player will choose ammo over other objects, while others will stock sufficient ammo and keep their FAKs and toolkits etc. You've already said that with the status-quo, even ''good'' players will have 4-8 weapons. Again, this is silliness that is a result solely of the game mechanics, not because they believe their fictional roleplaying character would actually be that kind of badass. The game dictates how many weapons they should carry. I'm for reducing that number, without significantly affecting game balance itself.<br />
:::::::::Now if you want to make the case that 1% encumbrance ammo too greatly reduces the tradeoff between being combat-oriented or rebuild/heal oriented, I'm happy to hear it. Karek's provided his support for a similar argument above. And as usual, your personal attacks are completely off-base. I've been giving all reasoned criticism due weight. I get that some people ''don't like'' the idea, based on personal biases, but so far, I've only seen one specific argument for what might be wrong. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:44, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::This wall of text is getting pathetic... Anyhoo, there is another principle that no one has mentioned yet, but it bears emphasis: greater realism =/= better. Anyway, I'm done with this, it's arguing in circles now. Good luck. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:45, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::That's just your luck. I find TONS of clips and pistols with 4+ shots. Last time I loaded up, such stuff was easily 75% of what I found in the gun store. In fact, I would have stopped searching, but it took me a long time to find a shotgun shell to top up the half-loaded shotgun I had. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 16:40, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I fucking hate you. This comment in particular - ''"Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit."''<br />
<br />
Put it up for voting, right fucking now. Watch me dupe it on basis of weapons damage buff, selected weaponry and ammunition encumbrance buff. Just because your 'suggestion' contains many shit suggestions does not mean I cannot find those many mindless trenchie buffs and rightfully kill it, it means you are fucking deluded for thinking I can't and typing such a moronic suggestion.<br />
<br />
Shit, I wish karma was real, then some really bad things would happen to you, I'd find out about them and chortle my arse off. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:45, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Get arsed, yourself, Iscariot. Assuming trolls have arses, that is. Do they? Or does ''all'' your shit come out of your mouth?<br />
:Meanwhile, karek, swiers and DCC have pretty much show this suggestion for the BAD IDEA it is... So let's move on, kay, class? Next lesson please... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:44, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissocial_personality_disorder Please seek help.] --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Alrighty then... See, there is a time and place for being an asshole. I felt the situation was not appropriate, thus my comments to Iscariot. I take them all back now: go nuts, Izzy. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:56, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::What makes you believe it's ever acceptable or appropriate to behave abusively towards people? This sort of behavior certainly isn't conducive to rational discussion and addressing the merits or problems in a suggestion. It simply brings the quality of the wiki down, and reflects poorly on the community. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:02, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Other than Iscariot, no one is trolling you. And, in context -- while I don't really think his comments are particularly helpful -- you've brought it on yourself. In any event, if you want a love-in, where everyone is nice to each other and they let you cry on their should if someone was mean to you, please go [http://www.oprah.com/index here]. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm not trolling at all, trolling implies I'm after a certain response from him. I don't. It would be nice if he'd listened to all the nice people explaining it to him, but he didn't. The comment about duping is pure arrogance on his part, and I don't take kindly to it. The dupe system stops moronic suggestions entering PR because everyone reasonable gets bored of killing it. |I notice he hasn't taken me up on my challenge to see if I could dupe it....<br />
<br />
:::::Also Zhani, feel free to go and whine on any sysop talk page you like. The one you're after is Vandal Banning. Good luck with that, there is no civility policy on this wiki and until we remove to moronic-trenchie-weapons-buff gene from the general population, there never will be. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
...Well isn't that one long suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:...Well isn't that one long discussion. -- [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::... Speaking of things long... ''::looks down::'' Oh, is that a banana in my pocket, or am I just happy to see a zombie in my safehouse? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:07, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Thats a whole lot of SPAM you typed up there... what's wrong with just making weapons assignable? Allow everyone to carry a weapon in each hand and have it cost 1AP per hand to change (shotguns requiring a free hand or having a -60% to hit!) reload or re-arm then cost the same and it becomes a matter of choice which style you prefer. Of course that makes maxed out survivors a lot <br />
less like the combat monsters they currently are but thats probably not a real problem! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 12:38, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Personally, I dislike this, but that's partly because i only carry two pistols and one shotty, thus giving room for more reasonable things. Like fencing foils, Wine, and poetry books. --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 06:41, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Body Bonfires===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:48, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Perma-death option.<br />
|suggest_scope=Characters in citys with perma-death alternatives.<br />
|suggest_description=I've got a zombie character currently running around Monroeville looking for the precious few survivors there are in order to eat them.<br />
<br />
One of Monroeville's biggest problems, I think, is that there was no way for low-level survivors from killing zombies permanently. Zombies could take out survivors, no problem, but unless you had Headshot, you couldn't take down a zombie.<br />
<br />
I know that's in-genre, given that they're the freaking undead and all, but it sucks game-wise.<br />
<br />
Thus, I came up with 'Body Bonfires', after watching the movie ''Night of the Living Dead''.<br />
<br />
Should this get implemented, survivors can now douse corpses in gasoline (from fuel cans) and set them alight with matches (find stats TBC), lighters (find stats TBC) or even a flare gun, if desperate. A burning corpse will degrade into a 'charred skeleton', after which time the character would be effectively 'perma-dead'.<br />
<br />
Note that this is meant to ''replace'' Headshot as the survivor perma-death, not co-incide with it.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Body Bonfires)====<br />
No. Why? Monroeville is quarantined and dead. Adding more items that make things even more difficult to find and implement will not suddenly change the dynamics of the city, nor will it make monroeville more fair. the point, i daresay, of that city is to more realistically show a zombie infestation, and the only way to do that is by making the limited amount of zombies unlimited, with only a small amount of very good zombie killers who can do anything about it, which still amounts to not much. its fine, and the city is pointless, and just leave it. and don't add matches and lighters to do what flare guns already do. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:33, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I think you misread my suggestion. For one, this is NOT for Monroeville. Monroeville is dead (or will be soon), this is for any new cities that will also have perma-death mechanics, should one ever be introduced. For another, you can only burn a zombie once they're on the ground having been 'temp-killed' (HP to 0). --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 09:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I didn't misread crap. Nothing in your post makes reference to any mythical city that is currently not existant. You only mention monroeville, and imply that is what your suggestion is about. And after reading it again, i've decided this is a) a dupe; b) spamtastic, given the non-existant nature of your supposed city; and c) incomplete, given that you don't actually talk about where it is implemented, or if its a skill, or how its done in the user interface. just allow it to die, and then we'll burn the suggestions corpse out of our memories. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 20:44, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Completely pointless because such a hypothetical perma-death city does not exist. You can't get more spamtastic than suggesting a mechanic for something that doesn't even exist. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:56, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Reminds me of both [[Suggestion:20070816 Burning Bodies]] and another suggestion which I can't quite find at the moment. It is entirely possible that this may be substantially a dupe. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:50, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I found [[Suggestions/RejectedFebruary2007#Flare Gun / Fuel Attack|Flare Gun / Fuel Attack]] interesting reading, to say the least. How many [[User:MrAushvitz|MrAushvitz]] suggestions have been implemented, now? Surely the apocalypse is extremely nigh... {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:57, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Sorry, no, perma-death would not go over in this game. It's simply not fun for the players, and gives a person a reason to give up playing. Favors survivors overwhelmingly, and doesn't really improve the game. I hate to be one of those types shooting down ideas, but this doesn't work. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:36, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A) You only mentioned Monroeville, the dead city. B) MV has one purpose now, and one purpose only: ZKing. [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 02:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Make graffiti readable in dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Logic Flaw Fix<br />
|suggest_scope=Graffiti in dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Graffiti disappears when the lights go out in dark buildings. Since it is unreasonable to assume that absolutely no light can get in any parts of dark buildings, why wouldn’t the graffiti just be sprayed in the areas that the little light can get in? Such places would be the front of cinemas (where the snack bar is, as there are usually windows out front), near the windows of the banks, and near the windows of standard buildings.<br />
<br />
I have never seen any buildings like these completely lacking windows in all areas, and windows would have to exist for Free Running to be possible, so even if the skylights haven’t been maintained, there’s no reason people wouldn’t be spraying the signs near the window areas where it’d be visible, even if the rest of the building is dark.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Make graffiti readable in dark buildings)====<br />
<br />
It's dark. You can't see dead bodies. Combat abilities are nerfed for everyone. You can't repair a building in the dark. Barricading and reviving are also disadvangtaged. So there's no logic flaw here, not at all. It's bloody ''dark''!!--[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:The logic is fine as is - after years of the outbreak, the walls will be pocked, peeling and covered in grime and blood, not to mention layers of graffiti in different colours. You'd need fairly good light to make out the latest message.<br />
:I was thinking of suggesting an item, book of matches, the sole purpose of which would be to let the user (only) read graffiti in the dark. But I couldn't be arsed looking for dupes etc. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 10:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::But..but.. what about all those blank rectangles I sprayed onto the walls to keep them clean and in one colour! In all seriousness, no to this suggestion. As Garum says, those walls are a mess, no matter how many blank rectangles you spray. :P - [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:03, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::We don't need a silly, pointless item like matches to spam our searches. Meh. It's dark. Deal with it. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:26, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
WE DEMAND BRAILLE GRAFFITI! Fuck you, cripple haters. I need to be able to read ''I like to poop'' no matter how much light is in the building. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 00:31, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Now ''That'' I would vote keep on.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:21, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And human civilization has truly gone full circle, as survivors have come back to the art of making stone tables with toolboxes. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 14:11, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===picking some one up===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 19:44, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=helping others.<br />
|suggest_scope=humans.<br />
|suggest_description=Almost all of us can say that we have been killed while sleeping, or have been a zombie and killed all the humans becuase most of them were sleeping. So why not allow people to carry some one out of danger? Lets say that you and some of your buddys are fleeing a horde, and one of them is out of AP, so why not pick him/her up? It would cost one AP to pick the player up, and 2 AP to move around, and you would not be able to free run {you are carrying another person). You also cant attack since, it would be to diffuclt.<br />
<br />
You would rengenrate AP as you would normally would, and can be put down for one AP. If the person carrying you is killed, you fall down and be as vunerable as you would be normally. Now comes the PKer question. Being able to pick some one up and carry them of to some were else to kill them would become a PKers best tool. So I sujest there should be a check box in the settings, which you can check yes or no to being picked up. If you try to pick some one up how has checked the box no, this happens.<br />
<br />
''you try to pick the person up, but they push you away: Italic text'' <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Picking some one up)====<br />
Pied Piper skills are a great no no. Specifically because of the griefing possibilities. Even with the block you suggested, I don't think it would be acceptable. A better way of determining who can pick you up would be to check for mutual contacts, and not ignored. Not that I think this would pass even with that, because I'm pretty sure this is a dupe. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:54, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Pied Piper? Whats that?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:15, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A pied piper skill is one that involves one player moving another (like the pied piper of hamelin and rats/children) Within game the closest we have is [[Feeding Drag]] which has on it very specific limiting factors. This is too prone to abuse. New players especially may not know its a feature, and one griefer could pick up a huge number of people and carry them directly outside. Where they would get et. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Just as Ross said, [[Frequently_Suggested#Pied_Piper_Skills|here]] is a link to it on the frequently suggested page. I suggest reading that page, will give you an idea of suggestions to avoid. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 20:31, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nequa please read Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested pages. They are linked to above, at the top of this page. Zangz. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:28, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I see what you mean, but I still think that the check box would stop that. And if you are tricked, well thats just bad luck.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:49, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Only way this would be prevented is if everyone had it set to "Do not allow me to be dragged away", and only switched back when they knew a rescue was on the way. It is simply to abusable in it's current form. And try telling the poor newbies, who weren't aware of the checkbox, that it was just bad luck and that they have to live with it after being dragged away from their VSB safehouse into an area full of EHB cades. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 21:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nothings perfect, and anyway you could kill somebody quickly and no one could stop you.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:17, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:surely the default should be ''dont allow carrying''. Stop a lot of griefing there? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sure, you could have that checkbox turned off as a default. But then, how would people who have this skill know who they could pick up, and who they could not?<br>Moving other players is a bad idea to begin with, play wise, so picking at th details is turd polishing at best. If you want to "rescue" people from danger , give them fist aid, try to fix the barricades, and recruit others to help them survive until they log back in, but don't presume to play the game for them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:30, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait, what? You think this is a skill? A skill you need to get by having enough XP? No, no, no, you dont need to purchase it. Also your other point about knowing if the person has the thing checked or not is a good point. You should probally put it on your describtion if you have it on or not, like the hydra defence.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:47, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Right. Other issues. If I pick up a level 1 survivor, this seems to allow me to carry him inside, and then free run to another building whilst carrying him. Regardless of his skills. Besides Im pretty sure its also a partial dup of firemans carry. Anyone got the link. I just feel its unworkable. sorry. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
[[PR_Skill_New:_Survivor:_Civilian#Fireman.27s_Carry_.28Bring_12HP_Survivor_Indoors.29|Fireman's Carry]], which is in Reviewed. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 22:55, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
LOL, that guy pretty much says the same thing I do. It appears great minds think alike. Now do I seem like a idiot?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:05, 2 September 2008 (BST<br />
:More so, now that you've said that. quit being unwilling to learn. everyones been very nice. now go actually FREAKING READ THE DO AND DO NOTS!<br />
:No one is pointing out the worst part of this. What if i create fifteen drones, and use them to carry a full army of survivors into zombie territory. you don't put it plainly, but you seem to infer that you can only be carried while sleeping (or at least, i'm hoping, because otherwise those zergs could carry armies of full ap'd characters) but either way, its a free trip for my sleeping characters, who spent their AP stocking on ammo. my zergs carry them in, dump them off in a zerg-repaired building, and let them sleep. now i have an army, 2 for one. thats what makes this bad. adding a penalty of 2 for one doesn't fix that.<br />
:and the griefing is absolutly grieftastic. what if i rescue someone with low HP out of a mall into a quiet factory where i show him my gun?... i mean... pk him. errm... or how about if i spend a whole 50 ap 'rescuing' any of the barricaders in a seige with a death culter. the check box doesn't solve this, because the only time that someone would want to be rescued is the same time where its worth abusing the feature. it fails because it will never work. if you can't free run with it, (can you enter/exit buildings?) then its worthless for doing anything but costing the zombie horde half the amount of AP to keep up with you.<br />
:This was long... sorry. but this suggestion is silly silly silly. NOW READ THE FAQ's and DO AND DO NOTS! Please. and don't read them and then try to come up with a better way to do what it tells you not to do... just DON'T suggest those things. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:15, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also, wan yao... i think one of my alts was just combat revived by you. Ha. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:22, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Combat Reviving FTW!!! ;P .... Up Roftwoodish or something, right? I vaguely remember CRing some zambah somewhere for some old reason or another, heheh... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:40, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::As for the suggestion... Yeah... you seem like an idiot at this moment, Nequa. This is a broken and unworkable idea. People are trying to explain that to you. But you're not listening, and you can't even be bothered to read the help pages for Suggestion development -- which are clearly linked to -- and which people have been providing you with links to, above... Smarten the fuck up, please, and quit wasting our time. Seriously. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:44, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I distinctly remember telling you to stop suggesting... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:49, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Feeding Drag in Large Buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:necrodeus/sig}} 02:46, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=improvement<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with feeding drag in large buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Hello team.<br />
<br />
The feeding drag skill allows zombies to drag survivors of less than 12HP outside through an ''open door'' at the cost of 1AP. Therefore, if a zombie enters a large building through an open door, then makes its way through the building unimpeded (ie, through more open doors or just empty space), beats a survivor down to 12HP or below, there should exist the option to feeding drag said survivor through the building.<br />
<br />
It makes sense, as you are inside a building and simply dragging the unfortunate survivor somewhere else in the building, presumably towards the horde that generally congregates in the opened block.<br />
<br />
Now I know that this is the same as suggesting that I could feeding drag a wounded survivor through open streets, but I do think that as it is limited to the insides of large buildings it is hardly useful as a griefing tool, neither would it be game breaking, and it fits in with the idea behind the feeding drag as well - if a zombie feels the need to drag someone outside, why should the fact that it's slightly longer distance than normal dissuade him?<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Feeding Drag in Large Buildings)====<br />
Kind of like a zombie equivalent for the fort body dump? I like it. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 04:02, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Seems out of genre, normally a zombie will feed for itself with absolutely NO consideration for a horde. Though this skill is a good idea, it would be a bit pointless because if you have a survivor at 12 HP and most of the time the only large building you are in would be a mall, it would mean you drag someone near dead to a horde, either way, the survivor was already HIGHLY LIKELY to die unless terribly low on AP this skill is just useless. I say just stick with infectious bite. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:No. Feeding Drag and zambahz helping babahz is ''totally'' part of the genre -- as in, it's ''in the game'' ... So it's part of the genre. Zombies in Urban Dead have intelligence, more like in Return of the Living Dead than in Romero's movies. Regarding the suggestion, I think this is a great idea! But it should cost at least 2 AP to so, perhaps more. You usually don't have to drag as far, or through as complicated a series of buildings as in a fort, so I'm not sure if the same AP costs is in order... but perhaps... Still, in siege situations where this matters, we tend to just tend to kill rather than worry about dragging... However, even then, this ability would be FAR from "useless". --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:08, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ok.. I'm out of it.. I understood this as the equivalent of dragging a body outside the Forts. Which would mean you click the ability and you drag your target outside -- and you go with him, just like you would a normal feeding drag. No "half drags" to another corner of the mall -- it's all or nothing, all the way outside, or not at all. And that would cost 2 AP. And of course you'd still have to spend AP getting back inside and to the action, if that's your desire. There are some tricks to overcome with this... but it's a cool idea, nonetheless. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:37, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Yeah, I like it as well. Some people might call it greifing though [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 04:21, 31 August 2008 (BST).<br />
<br />
I was 50/50 between making it just like a body dump costing 2AP and making it like it is now, but certainly a feeding drag all the way outside for 2AP - like the survivor body dump - is just as keeping in genre and could be considered less of a potential griefing tool.<br />
<br />
What if it just acted the same as feeding drag, so I end up outside. It costs 2AP, and then if I want to get back inside it just costs me the same as normal movement rates - so at least 1AP to just re-enter the building, and 2 AP to get back to where I was originally? It's hardly a griefing tool, you're only ever going to end up outside the building you were in, and at most 1 block away from where you were {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 12:38, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:That's exactly what I just said, man... The only issue could be as follows: you're in mall, all corners are heavily barricaded except one, which is wide open... you're in another (non-open) corner killing some folk, and you want to use this ability. Now, do you drag the victim to the outside of your ''current'' corner, or do you end up moving to the open corner? What if there is more than one open corner? Or, if you drag to the outside of your current corner, then how do you justify bypassing barricades -- because even just a closed door negates feeding drag... See the problems? This is a very spiffy idea IMO, but these things need to be worked out... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:00, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::I was agreeing with you! I was thinking that the feeding drag took them out of the open corner, rather than through the barricades. As for what would happen if more than one door was open, I would say go to the nearest one, except that in a four block square, every sqaure is as near as any of the others...I couldn't see it making too much of a difference which one you drag someone out of, so I would make it random; the zombie just heads towards the light, any light. That way, as long as there is a door open when the button is pressed, the feeding drag will be successful, rather than allowing the user a choice. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 17:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Probably won't matter a lot now since this suggestion would likely get implemented (if ever) after Monroeville closes, but in that city there are non-standard large building shapes, like [[Monroeville Mall]]. You can like drag someone across four blocks. :O Also, how would a zombie know which building block is open from where he/she stands? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:22, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Malls, Mansions, Power Stations ... are large buildings which means they are functionally ''one building''. With fours sets of barricades. And four ''zmargahzbargz, GRAAAAGH!'' The zombies knew how to get inside and move around when there was only one entry point, so why couldn't they know how to get back out? And, I mean, like he could just look around... Also, yeah, no-one cares about MV, it's over... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:48, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Well, ''you'' as the player know there's an entrance to the building, at least recently. In contrast, your zombie can only check within the block he's in -- even adjacent ruined blocks [[Pinata|aren't guaranteed]] that there are no cades there. Unless the zombie is actually looking at every block in the building (something which implies free moves), then without metagaming he/she won't really know there is an exit should dragging be done. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::But like Wan said, you're basically inside one large building. If you try and feeding drag inside a regular building, and the doors been closed, or whatever, you get a message and lose an AP, like for any failed attack. It's the same here. And the whole point of feeding drag is that zombies *do* know where the exit is --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. Its not needed. Once zombies get into a large building, they almost always take it down by keeping one corner ruined, or at least unbarricaded. The babah zombies can just come inside to feed, entering by spotting the ruined corner and then gorging themselves. Besides not being needed, its got a lot of potential complications. What if a large building has multiple open sections? Which one does the zombie drag them to? If zombies really wanted to use feeding drag in every section, they could just spend a few AP each to tear down the barricades, even getting a bonus for attacking from the inside in most cases.<br>I think its safe to say, if a zombie tries to drag a survivor across one or more blocks inside a large building, the survivor struggles and breaks free. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:36, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I'm afraid I disagree; you seem to have a fairly convincing argument against feeding drag itself; namely that if your baby zombah is standing outside any old building, he can see it's open and shamble on in. So why do we need feeding drag at all? I've already answered the point about which exit to be used as well. And yes, I could spend a whole load of AP tearing down the barricades to feeding drag a wounded survivor outside, or I could just spend 2AP and drag the human outside the exit that's already open. <br>And surely the point of feeding drag is that the survivor is wounded enough to not be able to stop it happening? And why should a human be able to drag a zombie across several squares of fort without it reviving? In both cases, if the player is online, they are better able to defend against this, with the difference being that all a survivor needs to do to 'break free' is simply walk back inside the building. <br> If I'm way off here, let me know, but it makes sense to me --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Not of base, but my point is, if zombies on a whole really cared about feeding drag, each of the ~20 or so in a large building could kick in 4 AP and blow away any barricades on that building quarter. That's really only enough AP to kill 2-3 survivors- not enough to slow down a siege once zombies are comping on a SECOND building corner. So it seems to me that zombies themselves do not put much importance on whether they can use feeding drag or not, as evidenced by their own actions in raids. Its not needed to make zombies vs large buidings work, nor would it really make it much better.<br>Truth told, feeding drag was originally used mostly to combat the "yo-yo barricade" syndrome by getting a building emptied (and ransacked) faster; now that zombies can block barricade building, its a bit of an atavism. Its main use is as a "visible" version of feeding groan. For a mall, if you want to let zombies know there is an active strike with some visible cue, just killing the generator is often good enough. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:16, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Fait enough for a horde sweeping through a building, but in my experience, I use eeding Drag for two reasons: Firstly, when I break into a building with one or two others, I know there is a chance that it will escalate into a horde swarming in, but more often that not, it won't. But by dragging a human outside, that's one less defender, and a drain on resources, because that person is outside regardless of whether I get headshot and evicted or not. Secondly, the FU tends to use it as a in game piece of flavour as much as a way of feeding the zedlings. So for a horde, I agree, Feeding Drag is unneccessary, and if you've got the resources to tear down the barricades with ease, then I'm all for that too, but for feral zombies, or smaller groups it's a slightly different ball game --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 00:39, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::When playing a feral (and my death cultist, too, actually) I use and think of Feeding Drag the same way necrodeus describes. It helps small numbers of zombies get the ransack faster. Also, if the cades go up, that drag-meat is suddenly isolated. And drag-meat is fantastic feral bait. And, yup, I do it very much for flavour/RP effect as well. Although, it doesn't work thar well for feeding babahz, b/c usually some big zambah comes along and eats them :( ... This is all in very big contrast to striking with the MOB, where we only drag if we are very intent on getting that damn biulding cleared -- because we can always tag-team to finish someone off if we have to. And if we are feeding a babah, we bring the babah inside with us. This suggestion is more for the ferals than for highly organised hordes... <br />
::::And a few other things: killing a gennie is not enough: GKing is too common... And swiers you know how annoying barricades are -- it really is asking a lot for a smaller number of ferals zombies to invest what it takes to open up EHB cades... But all that being said... Perhaps this isn't necessary, not really. And, it might in the end be a zombie buff that is just a tiny, tiny bit too much... Particularly with cade blocking... But... I still like it... ;) --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:36, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Well, I'm going to put it up, and see what the people / merciless flamers have to say.. {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:45, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I'm not gonna flame it; it can;t do enough harm to deserve that. My personal issue is that I'd like (as much as possible) to avoid moving other characters to different blocks (I even proposed [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20070616_Fort_Revision:_dumping_bodies_over_walls|a fort dumping mechanic that avoided this]]), and that its benefit is so small for the coding effort involved. Mall raids are already a smorgashboard for ferals, so I don't see the point of arguing it helps feed them there. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:37, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Private homes===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:18, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=new building.<br />
|suggest_scope=anybody how enters it.<br />
|suggest_description=Why does it appear that there are no private homes in Malton? I know its a city and your more likely to find a privat home in the subburbs, but I do know there are private homes in the city. We dont really need private homes but it would add realism to the game. There could also be another benafit. Since anybody could have lived in that house, from a NRA gun nut, to some tech loving nerd, you could find anything in thear. But there should be list of items you could not find in the house.<br />
<br />
List of items you could NOT find in a house:<br />
<br />
Necrotech syringe<br />
<br />
DNA scanner<br />
<br />
Flak vest (there could be one there, but it seems hard to belive)<br />
<br />
fire ax<br />
---------------<br />
Also here is the describtion you would see if you went in the building.<br />
<br />
-With power: You enter a well lit home, you start to feel like you were before the out break.<br />
<br />
-With no power: You enter a dark house.<br />
<br />
-when ruined: You enter a house and notice how everything is thrown apart, which grimly reminds you of what has happend here. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Private home)====<br />
If I may ask, how long have you been playing the game? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:36, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
To answer your question, about a week, I have been running around rhodenbank. Let me guess? There are private homes and I have just not found them yet?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:39, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There are [[Mansion|mansions]], and various [[Building_Types#Building|buildings]] around the city can be thought of as offices/condominiums, where you can imaging living places in.<br><br />
There are other reasons why private homes aren't found on the map.<br />
*One is that they're too small, same reason why you don't put a single tree on the map (and for those that are large enough, see mansions).<br />
*Another is that with most survivors just looting around the city and zombie hordes chasing after them, most houses are in such a state of ruin that they are essentially unrecognizable, turning residential districts into [[wasteland]].<br />
*Finally, they are quite insignificant in the grand scale of the survivor-zombie conflict that adding them now three years after the game has launched simply doesn't make the game any more enjoyable or fulfilling than it is before, and frankly it'll only be a waste of time and effort to put them in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:51, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then instead of adding homes how about updating the regular buildings to be more like apartments? Because most buildings have a RP (EX:pubs,police stations,forts) thing you can do with it, but the regular office buildings are boring. Maybe they could add my search idea without the need of a new building type?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:19, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Your search idea is horrible. Normal buildings already do not have items; what you're doing here is the opposite in that you can find ''anything'' in them, and just for that it will be spammed. As for your roleplaying bit, that will take a much lower priority than improving UD gameplay, especially when you consider there is a suitable alternative (once again, mansions, and normal buildings aren't too shabby -- just add some decorations) and multiple other possible roleplaying locations. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:30, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There's no private homes because the private homes are usually at the outskirts of a city, and what we have in Malton...Is the big city. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 19:16, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I usually just think of the street blocks as containing such houses. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:52, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Private homes are not really appropriate to the game. They can be assumed to exist on many blocks... because it's generally accepted that the block description refers to the most prominent or most utilised building on the block... <br />
<br />
But... yeah... Nequa... please play the game for a while before posting suggestion ideas. Hang out and read this page for a while. And start playing some zombies, PKers, death cultists, whatever, as well a survivors. And join a good group or three. Barhah.com is a great board, and though it's zombie-centric, everyone is welcome. Beerhah.com is a good place to go for survivor stuff. Anyhoooo... back to suggestions stuff... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:47, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Dump dead bodies from dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Restoring normal ability<br />
|suggest_scope=Dead bodies and dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Under current game mechanics, you can’t dump dead bodies from dark buildings. How does this make any sense? You can get in and out of the building, even through Free Running, yet somehow you can no longer remove dead bodies? Or do the exits magically close somehow when you try to remove someone?<br />
<br />
Currently, you can see anyone hiding in the shadows of very dark buildings, but you can’t see/dump dead bodies. Even if you just killed the thing, you somehow can’t find its body, even though you’d be tripping all over it!? Once again, it doesn’t make sense. Only once you light up the place does it become possible to dump the dead. Since I see no reason for it to be physically impossible to find or dump dead bodies, they should always be recognizable and dumpable.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Dump dead bodies from dark buildings)====<br />
A possible explanation is that people in dark buildings are found and attacked because they're breathing so loudly and their hearts are thumping. Similarly, standing zombies are wheezing. However, dead bodies emit no noise, and if you're tromping through a building hoping to step through a ribcage, you should be spending AP to do so. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}21:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Or because they are fumbling with heavy furniture in the dark to barricade the building, or shooting guns, or... {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:48, 29 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::Well, how about another take on it. Anyone who dies in the building...if their body is still inside when someone who witnessed the death takes a turn, they notice the body (since it wasn't cleared). The body wouldn't have moved from its original spot that fast.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:06, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Group Bonus===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:22, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance change<br />
|suggest_scope=All denizens of Malton who belong to groups<br />
|suggest_description= <br><br />
<br />
OK, so while I used the template, I’ve brought this to the discussion page in a fairly informal manner because I don’t pretend to be a programmer and I don’t pretend to know what is possible. I like this idea, but I can see my own problems with it from a technical standpoint – and I’m hoping that others here might be able to help with the solutions on that front.<br />
<br />
Here’s the basic idea – in the real world groups are much stronger than individuals. People en masse accomplish much more, whether it be construction projects, armies, or lobbying government. Organization has an additive effect to efficacy - pretty much every time. <br />
<br />
Also – there is a benefit to being part of an organization for humanity. There is community, the transfer of knowledge, the advancement of the overall ends of society.<br />
<br />
With that in mind, I think there should be an in-game bonus for group activity. This will encourage folks to join groups, which in turn will raise the overall level of gameplay across Malton. This bonus would apply to ANY group working in concert – be in human, PK’er, death cultist, or zombie – so there are no powering issues between warring factions – only a power difference between the grouped and the ungrouped. Given there are few restrictions to joining or forming groups, the ungrouped would hardly become a put-upon constituency.<br />
<br />
So how to do it? Originally, I thought a simple tiered bonus for group size measured by the number of folks who have a common group name in their profiles. Say a 5% to-hit/search/cading bonus for folks part of groups from 25-49 members, and maybe 7.5% for 50-74 members, and 10% for over 75 members.<br />
<br />
The problem there would be that it encourages a new form of zerging. Folks would make “Group Scarecrows” that they would park far away from active group activity, but who have the group name in their profile. They’d technically not be in violation of alt abuse, and it would be very hard for group leaders to prevent, and of course the incentive would be to do it.<br />
<br />
So, I am wondering if the UD engine would be able to detect proximity effects and award bonuses that way? In this case, I’d lower the numbers required for the bonuses a lot – say 10-24 for the 5% bonus, 25-39 for the 7.5% bonus, and 40+ for the 10% bonus – and say that if you’ve got that many folks operating in one XX block radius, you get the bonus.<br />
<br />
Is such possible? If so, I think it would reward all the right behaviors in this game, and be pretty darn cool. My parameters are suggestions - they could be lowered, raised, modified. I am really interested first and foremost what folks think of the concept, THEN hammering out rational details that might actually be taken to voting. So, first "Is there a reasonable way this could work?" then "Would we want it if it could?" then "How exactly should it work?"<br />
<br />
What do you think? <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion Group Bonus====<br />
<br />
I'd vote kill, simply because you are not given a hidden bonus in real life from being in a group. Moral boost, maybe. But the rest you accomplish by working closely with your group. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 16:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Impossible. proximity detection would kill the server. Assume a 5 block radius, the game would have to, on every action, harvest information on userlists for 81 blocks (inside and out), run zerg detection routines on that information, and it would have to then count the number in the group. Now, imagine this happening to the server 30,000+ times a day. You would basically increasing server load more than a hundredfold all up (Quite probably by a factor of well over a thousand). As for the rest, without proximity detection, it collapses under the obvious zerg abuse you mentioned. Proximity detection is a myth, despite claiims to the contrary. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 16:41, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think Grim_s is right - without some radical reorg of the account system it's just not possible. I was hoping some genius might have a work-around, but I bet he's right that there isn't one. Whitehouse - thanks for the comment - but I disagree with you. In real life you '''DO''' get the bonus - the door opens for the AARP in Washington that would never open for the unaligned individual. The group can clear a forest while the individual could spend a lifetime chopping a grove. I think it's moot though. --[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:59, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Even if possible, the advantage to being in a group should come from coordinating with other group members to do difficult tasks that an individual couldn't do. You get a big advantage from being in a well-organised group. You don't deserve an advantage from a bunch of people all spelling the group name correctly. This suggestion is a reward for crap metagaming, which we don't need. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 17:24, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:You misunderstood my point. And Garum probably phrased it better than me. You get those advantages from working together, not from simply being in a group (at least not the type of advantages you were thinking of). Being in a group is a moral boost, working together with it creates results far better than that of individuals. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 17:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Oh I see, you're saying that giving an incentive for group behavior beyond already existing benefits doesn't have merit. OK, thanks. Fair enough.--[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 17:45, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::If you want to encourage group work, then find ways for groups to work better together instead of just giving people buffs for having the same group tag. Zombie hordes have scent death, recently someone suggested a way for zombies to sniff out their buddies. Such suggestions, which strengthen the ties of a group, will give good results, the good results are the incentive. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 18:50, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Technical details aside, this simply isn't appropriate. This is an RPG, and in RPGs the benefits of groups are simply those of multiple players co-operating. When members of a group communicate and co-operate, they are more effective. If they don't, then they aren't- just like real life. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 20:07, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
i haveno clue about all the technical aspects, but this just isnt a good suggestion. kinda sucks to be on of those people who likes to stay unaffiliated, cause they get screwed on the deal.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:19, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
If this was implemented, it would be possible for a user, for example, to put the name of a large group into their profile, and get all the benefits, without being a member of the group. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 21:45, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is illogical. The only bonus people should recive from being in a group is having someone to cover their back. No magic bonuses. No special abilities. Just that. --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 02:48, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Take a look at Nexus War for group mechanics. The main problem is that ANYONE can be in ANY group at ANY time.-[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:04, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Restaurants===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 15:12, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New building<br />
|suggest_scope=People who take notice of buildings<br />
|suggest_description=If Malton has pubs, it really should have at least a few fancy restaurants, which could potentially replace a few of the pubs in the richer areas of town. The Maltonians can't all have only ever eaten/drunk beer, peanuts and crisps outside of their homes.<br />
<br />
:'''Mechanics'''<br />
<br />
''Restaurant''<br />
* Dark building<br />
* Can be barricaded, ransacked, ruined and have equipment installed normally.<br />
* Internal description<br />
** Unpowered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The once-busy dining area lies in darkness.''<br />
** Powered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant.''<br />
** Ransacked ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The chairs and tables are overturned, and cutlery and napkins litter the floor.''<br />
* Search rates (normal, if dark condition were not applied)<br />
** Knife (3%) (kitchen knives)<br />
** Wine (6%) (the finest in town)<br />
** Mobile Phone (1%) (some careless people...)<br />
** Menu (6%) (Flavour item, when used displays "The menu reads: <random fancy dishes>", and flavour text "''You think about them hungrily''" (currency not specified).)<br />
* Clothing<br />
** a chef's hat (white) (obviously)<br />
** an apron (white/black) (waiters)<br />
** standard generic formalwear (maitre d'hôtel, sommelier, general higher-ranking service staff)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Restaurants)====<br />
Can we have one at the corner of the map? We shall call it, "The Restaurant at the End of Malton"... :3 --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:44, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't see why not --[[User:Diablor|Diablor]] 01:53, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Whines* Pubs (Arms) aren't fancy enough for you?<br> Mah Pubs not fancy enough for you, foo? Only if there is a Pub at the end of the world.. Already.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 02:51, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it, but I think the menu should be just like a newspaper with different flavour text. For that matter, would newspapers be suitable to be found here? [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 03:07, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A ''dark'' restaurant? Dunno about where you're from but around here people put big ass windows on restaurants coz ppl like to see outside...also a stupid idea. Pointless and you would have to think up some ridiculous way to explain why everyone in malton thought it was a pub but it turned out to be a restaurant.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:54, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:It was always a restaurant and nobody ever thought it was a pub. And 2+2 has always equalled 5. And we have always been at war with Eurasia. And darkness really depends on the restaurant, but good point. --{{User:Anotherpongo/sig}} 11:45, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Not pointless. Knives are the best weapons for newbies, yet malls are the only places with > 1% chance of finding them. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:02, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
As much as I hate suggestions that don't seem to solve any problems, we do need a TRB for knives, and this seems like a great way to do it.{{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 16:33, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Absolutely! TRP for knives, and logical and fun flavor. --[[User:UCFSD|UCFSD]] 17:17, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
a suggestion so simple that it makes sence lol i say yea bring on the restaurants!--[[User:Fanglord2|Fanglord2]] 02:37, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I '''Always''' vote for building suggestions-always love a change [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 09:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Vote all you like, I'm pretty sure a building change suggestion has never been implemented. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 10:04, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Kevan has talked about doing it before<sub>(it's in his talk page archives for those curious few)</sub>, it's not entirely out of the question.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:51, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Building changes not implemented? Dark? Ruin? Fixing the fort walls? Its not without precedent.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:46, 31 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::::He meant changing one building (type) into another building (type). The first significant building change was to make large buildings into "1" building, but they were ALL still the same building to begin with.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:05, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I'll concede that the forts were revamped from just the armoury building to the 9-block compounds that they are now, but as far as I'm aware that wasn't based on a player suggestion. Large buildings and walls changed how some buildings worked, not what type of building they were per se. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this suggestion.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:16, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Asum(awesome)!!! Lol! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Face Rot===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Zombie Skill, subskill of brain rot.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Brain Rot.<br />
|suggest_description=The rot has spread, now it shrivels and distorts the facial features. The person underneath is hard to recognise.<br />
<br />
In game terms, its a buff for zombie anonymity. Unless the zombie is in your contacts you cannot recognise him if.<br />
<br />
*He stands up<br />
*Destroys barricades/equipment<br />
*Kills or injures.<br />
<br />
His profile can still be gained through a successful scan, or if you recognise them via your contacts. (You could be familiar with his limp, a watch or other item, his groaning etc.)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Face Rot)====<br />
Go on. Savage it, like my horribly ruined features. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I like it, what better way to implement Zombie Anonymity than through a skill? Plus. it promotes the Brain Rot! :D --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 18:54, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
How would this work when they're alive? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 19:38, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Then their profile just states they look like [http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=Gary+Busey&btnG=Search+Images Gary Busey] --{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:52, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bloody Brilliant!!! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 22:27, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Good, apart from one thing. How do you explain not being able to recognise a corpse you just saw die when it stands up. This case would only be when you are in the same location for the period of time in which a character dies and rises (in the case of first being a survivor which is recognisable to all anyway). Explanation could be that the face rot while cleared up by the revivification effect while alive, takes hold again almost instantaneous. But that still wouldn't change the fact that you saw that body die and rise, thereby knowing exactly who it was. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 23:36, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A good idea, except that Whitehouse's point might need addressing. How do looks change so quickly? {{User:Ariedartin/Nickname}} 06:22, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't like this idea. It's balanced and innovative but it disregards the true zombie mentality. Yes, I love zombie anonymity. But I am always in the belief that true zombie characters should be willing to do the *above* three actions '''and''' have their anonymity threatened to whoever wants to use it, in order to succeed their goal. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 12:04, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Interesting points. I'm off to make a ridiculous suggestion, and I'll think about this. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 14:24, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
In relation to Whitehouses point. How about an extra piece of text like. "Blah killed Example, their face decomposes before your eyes. "--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:37, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I saw no one pointed it out and I have a feeling you'll actually check before suggesting this. This isn't actually a buff to zombies, this is removing the one way in which zombie groups generally recruit. I like the idea of starting to get zombie anonymity back, it never should have left but, this hurts them, especially because survivors still get all the workarounds they want/use while zombies now have absolutely no way of knowing who to go to for help/advice/etc.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 09:07, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Suggestions up for voting==<br />
===Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080831 Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark]] as suggestion is up for voting. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:17, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Nurse===<br />
Moved to voting, under the new name of [[Suggestion:20080826_Doctor's_Clinic|Doctor's Clinic]]<br />
----<br />
===Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080827 Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:03, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Dead Reckoning===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion_talk:20080826_Dead_Reckoning]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 09:46, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Developing_Suggestions&diff=1272851Developing Suggestions2008-09-13T16:18:24Z<p>Janine: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Suggestion Navigation}}<br />
==Developing Suggestions==<br />
''This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which '''have not yet been submitted''' and are still being worked on.''<br />
<br />
===Further Discussion===<br />
Discussion concerning this page takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Discussion_About_Talk:Suggestions|here]].<br />
Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general (including policies about it) takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Suggestion_Discussion|here]].<br />
<br />
Nothing on this page will be archived.<br />
<br />
== Please Read Before Posting ==<br />
<br />
*''Be sure to check [[Frequently Suggested#The List|The Frequently Suggested List]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots | Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]] before you post your idea.'' There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a '''dupe''', or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. '''These include [[Suggestions/RejectedNovember2005#SMG.2FMachine_Pistol|Machine Guns]] and [[Suggestions/24th-Apr-2007#Rooftops.2C_Sniper_Rifle.2C_and_Sniper_Ammo|Sniper Rifles]]'''. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.<br />
*Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.<br />
*It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.<br />
<br />
== How To Make a Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
====Format for Suggestions under development====<br />
<br />
Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header <br />
"'''[[Talk:Suggestions#Suggestions|Suggestions]]'''", paste the copied text '''above''' the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in <span style="color: red">red</span> with the details of your suggestion.<br />
<br />
<nowiki><br />
===</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion</font><nowiki>===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=~~~~<br />
|suggest_type=</nowiki><font color="red">Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_scope=</nowiki><font color="red">Who or what it applies to.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_description=</nowiki><font color="red">Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.</font><nowiki><br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion Name</font><nowiki>)====<br />
----</nowiki><br />
<br />
====Cycling Suggestions====<br />
Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit. <br />
<br />
This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the [[Talk:Suggestions/Overflow1|Overflow]]-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.<br />
<br />
If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the <nowiki>{{SNRV|X}}</nowiki> at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:1.5em"><font color="red">'''Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.'''</font></span><br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Suggestions==<br />
<br />
===Permanent Ruin===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Janine|Janine]] 17:18, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Ruin Change<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors who repair and Zombies who ruin.<br />
|suggest_description=After decaying for monthes on end, ruined buildings have become unrepairable. Buildings that have reached over 100 ap to repair are ruined completely. The buildings can still be barricaded as normal buildings would, but search rates and the inability to free run would remain the same.<br />
<br />
Hopefully this would spur survivors into repairing deserts and zombies into actively protecting and defending ruins.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Permanent Ruin)====<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
===Circus===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:58, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Building<br />
|suggest_scope=New addition to Malton/any new city!<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
The circus is a new building that the residents of Malton (or any city it gets put in) can visit, visitors can except to see the finest gathering of clowns, jugglers and sword swallower's this side of quarantine, in addition to these magnificent acts are terrifying new additions that transcend the very boundaries of life and death. If the show happens to unsettle you feel free to purchase one of cuddly toys to keep you company as the night draws in! (New additions to Urban Dead have been marked with bulleted).<br />
<br />
'''Circus'''<br />
:Large Building (2x1)<br />
:No doors: but can be barricaded. <br />
:Internal descriptions:<br />
::* Unpowered: "The big top lies in darkness, "<br />
::* Powered: "Coloured spotlights highlight the empty ring."<br />
<br />
'''Items'''<br />
:Fencing Foil<br />
:Mobile Phone<br />
:Tool box<br />
:Stuffed Animals<br />
:*Juggling Balls (novelty/unique item) (Survivors can either give their balls to another survivor or zombie, or if none are present, juggle them themselves (doesn't remove it from their inventory). Despite having 0% encumbrance, only one set of balls can be held at a time.) <br />
<br />
'''Clothes'''<br />
:Face<br />
::*A big red nose <br />
:Head<br />
::*a bright <red/green> wig<br />
::a <black> top hat<br />
:Neck<br />
::*a <polka dot> tie <br />
:Shirt<br />
::a <white/red/orange/yellow/green/blue/pink> T-shirt<br />
:jacket<br />
::a dark red waistcoat<br />
:Trousers<br />
::*a pair of oversized trousers<br />
::a pair of <black/white> trousers<br />
:Boots <br />
::*a pair of oversized shoes <br />
::a pair of <black> boots<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Circus)====<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Zombie Plant===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 19:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=balance change<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, Italian plumbers<br />
|suggest_description=I propose that after 7 days of a building being ruined, a zombified plant will grow in it and guard it against those pesky survivors. This plant will inhabit and occasionally peek out of the building's plumbing systems to chew at their meals. At higher levels of decay the plant will grow big enough to be able to spit fireballs at survivors. Their bites and fireballs will do 50 damage, so than small, meek little survivors with no body building will die in one hit, but big and muscular survivors will need two hits to die - the first one greatly weakening them, and oddly enough, reducing their height by half.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Zombie Plant)====<br />
Not unless we can find flowers which gives us fireballs to shoot at those plants. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 21:24, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I 2nd that!--[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:01, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is a great idea! (Shhhhhh! zombies come with Kuribo's Shoe as a drop down clothing item but most of us pick combat boots to be fair.)--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 21:55, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Do want. *'''Starts drooling over the plant, thus it suddenly grows larger..'''* {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 03:41, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd like to have some of those mushrooms you're on. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 07:35, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There must now be a template made! "This user supports the addition of Triffids to the game!". Someone go make it, now! -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 08:51, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Perfect! Just what the game needed to counteract all these demands for ruin nerfs. --{{User:drawde/Sig}} 12:34, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Unstable Barricades===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 10:17, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance Change.<br />
|suggest_scope=All players<br />
|suggest_description=I logged into my character in Creedy today. I had been succesfully revived after being PK'ed yesterday, so I thought I'd hunt down the guy who did it and give him a piece of my mind.<br />
<br />
So, I search the fort, and find that someone's over-barricaded the armoury. Again. This pissed me off to no end, and I thought about what could be done about it.<br />
<br />
Now, if you're making barricades out of everyday materials, there's only going to be so much you can stack before the barricade becomes unstable and a bit wobbly, eh? You try stacking office materials and make the whole thing stable.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I was thinking that perhaps if you took down a level of barricades, and the barricade was already at HeB or higher, that there would be a 10% chance of it losing two levels instead of one. After all, you can only put so much stuff there before things get wobbly from the weight and all that.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Unstable Barricades)====<br />
In other words... about a 2-2.5% increase in overall probability of taking down barricades. Sounds reasonable, although the flavor doesn't really fit well. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 10:56, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:OK then, how about ''After spending a long time in Malton, both survivors and zombies alike have caught on to the idea of taking out the support objects used in large barricades, as this may cause other objects to shift and fall as well.'' --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 12:09, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
It has never made sense to any of us zombies that it is just as hard to take down a loosely barricaded door as it is an EHB door. You expect us to believe that we can thrash a pile of rubble larger than ourselves for several AP doing damage but when it gets down to a board leaning against a door we are helpless? I like the ''idea'' of this, but the actual numbers and such may need work. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:40, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The more objects you stack against something, the more likely that you'll knock away something thats supporting something else when attacking it. --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 03:46, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Without barricades Harmanz are dead so you have to be VERY careful when tampering with them. While i think the associated logic of cades needs an overhaul and the flavour text rewritting so as to be more believable I don't actually think there is too much wrong with the actual mechanics... apart from those fu**ing indestructible doors!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:20, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:That's why I limited the bonus to HeB+ barricades. --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 03:46, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Honestmistake, [[HIPS | think outside the barricade]]!! And... if you wanna make this apply to zombies, as well, then I ''might'' be game. But barricades are the zombie's nemisis, not the survivor's. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:06, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:See the flavour text I added in response to Aeon17x's comment. --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 03:46, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
"hide in plain sight"... no thanks, i will stick to my heavily barricaded target rich areas if you don't mind. At least then if they do get in they might eat someone else and i can piss off sharpish or at wait for a revive ;) Seriously though my 2 biggest bugbears in this game are "invincible doors" and "uber freerunning". Both are essential in some respect but both help to make the game dull... sadly every suggestion to fix them has been shot down (often for very valid reasons!) At the moment barricades are little more than nuisance to an organised horde and almost insurmountable for ferals, any (even slight) alteration will either totaly screw ferals or will severly screw harmanz.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 15:42, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
The fact that your little story is about a survivor in fort creedy who got PK'd shows how silly your understanding of the game is. this suggestion, regardless of any merit in the hope of reviewing barricades that was accidently included, is obviously just you reacting to someone else's playing style that you don't like. and it has never been ironed out that barricades are a single, large stack of objects. many people, discussing it on this page, have come to one conclusion that its a series of barricades, around the whole building. thus, the zombies and survivors alike are already aiming for the sturdy parts as best they can, but its still hard work. while i do think barricades are not how they should be, this is not a solution, either in form, or in flavor. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:57, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===No Reading in the Dark===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=--[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 00:25, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Ruin Change...thing<br />
|suggest_scope=Poetry loving Survivors<br />
|suggest_description= This is a pretty small idea, so I'll get this over with. How is it we Can't see dead bodies, see graffiti, or be able to aim as good, yet we can read fine? In Dark buildings, We should not be able to read books/poetry books. It would just fit in with it better.<br />
<br />
First Suggestion, Spam me gently.<br />
(Also, If someone could get rid of the Keep/Kill thing, thanks. :p)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (No Reading in the Dark)====<br />
<br />
.....wow...I have nothing snarky to say so I am going to wait for Wan..[[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 00:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Sure, why not --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 02:04, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Good for both flavour, and a loss of the ability to gain xp in that certain way while more "protected" in a dark building. I'ed keep it.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is not a dry run for voting it is for discussion. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 02:59, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
# '''Keep''' - Makes sense to me --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}03:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
#: {{s|'''Wow''' - are you a mucking foron? Did you miss the big text that said where the votes "go"? --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:42, 12 September 2008 (BST)}} Non-Author Reply. {{unsigned|DCC|03:42, 12 September 2008 (BST)}}<br />
<br />
You expect me to flame a good idea like this? Wow, get with the program, mate. See, this is not spam. You therefore have NOTHING to worry about from us alleged "trolls"... It's the suggestion spammers who are the REAL trolls... <br />
<br />
Anywaaaaay... this is a fantastic idea. It's minor, sure, but it addresses an illogic in the game pefectly. Practically an automatic keep. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I'm curious. Does anyone still waste AP to read? I stopped after the first few months of playing. Once I realized it wasn't like Moria and the scrolls. I wanted books to summon monsters or something. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:29, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I'll read every once in a while when I don't have anything vitally important to do with my APs. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 17:43, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::it used to be advocated as a bona fide "safe" way to level up. sometime pre-dead, i remember a couple of people on Brainstock still seriously advocating reading as a way to level up! insanity. i tried it at first, and realied really quickly how utterly useless it was. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:46, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Rethinking Ruined Building Decay and Repair===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 00:05, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Change Skill Effect<br />
|suggest_scope=Ruinous Zombies, Constructive Survivors<br />
|suggest_description=Reading the discussion on [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Suggestions#Repair_One_Day.27s_Decay_for_3AP Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP] by Deyo, I thought about an alternative way ruined buildings could work that might leave both breathing and breathing-impaired sides happy: Instead of having ruined buildings require 1 AP extra to repair every day, indefinately, I propose making it cost 1 AP to repair per hour (or 0.5 per 30 min.), to a maximum of 45 AP. <br />
Now Survivor players, you're thinking, ''1 AP per hour? How unfair is this?!'' but with a limit of 45 AP the final bill would never reach astronomical heights and one lone survivor could be able to fully repair it and escape (but you couldn't really barricade it).<br />
Now Zombie players, you're thinking ''So you're basically debuffing Ransack? '' Yes and No. You read the debuff, here's the buff: because buildings will accumulate repair costs 24x quicker, you'll be able to do a lot more damage by ruining multiple buildings quickly and repeatedly. Survivors will have to work together and retake, cade and repair buildings faster to make sure they don't get overwhelmed with 45 AP ruined buildings (so, it would still take some teamwork to achieve, as only one person repairing leaves the building vulnerable to further ransackings). This will force survivors to keep an even more watchful eye out on their neighbourhoods for ruined buildings.<br />
<br />
As a side-effect, during a siege this will slow Survivor's advancement even more when regaining grounds than the old Ransack skill.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Rethinking Ruined Building Mechanics)====<br />
Another Ruin nerf? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! Stop suggesting nerfs to ruin. If survivors cared they would go and fix it instead of whining about it and trying to change it through suggestions.'''STOP SUGGESTING RUIN NERFS!'''--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 01:07, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Please explain to me how one-AP decay per hour is a nerf? Especially during sieges. --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 01:50, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Maybe the fact it only goes to 45? --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 01:53, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::It goes to 45 in '''less than 2 days''', as opposed to '''6 weeks''' with the current system. How many ruined buildings outside of ghost towns do you see with a 45 ap repair bill? I'm surprised, I was actually expecting the harmanz to be against this --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 02:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::First of all - '''THIS IS A 5 MINUTE A DAY GAME'''. Forcing players to have to log in obsessively like you do just to keep a building from reaching your ungodly 45 AP in less than 2 days is stupid. Second, the ghost towns have such high repair costs because the zombies there ACTIVELY keep survivors out, but your idea punishes them by capping the repair cost. Third, nothing in this game (except AP recharging) is BASED IN REAL TIME! The survivors can't even organize when they have DAYS to fix up a repair you expect them to be able to whip up a plan in hours? And fourth, just to be DCC you're a FAG!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::1)Who said you have to log on more than once a day? 2)Yeah and once someone repairs a building, poof! there goes months of work keeping humans out. With this suggestion, survivors might make more attempts at recovering ghost towns, but it would be almost infinitely easier for zombies to re-ruin restored buildings 3)Decay is already based in real time. My decay system could tick along with the AP system doing 0.5 AP per tick. And yeah, some buildings might get maxed AP but someone can still repair them and AP out safely. Maybe tweak it to 40 AP max if people really can't. 4)what's your point? --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 04:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Strange, in the other suggestion, you said: ''So for 1 day's worth of AP a survivor can undo a month's worth of damage and still be able to get away. '' Seems you agree with me --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 04:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Seems you can't fucking comprehend. I was bitching about a suggestion that made repairing severely ruined buildings something that could be done in less than the daily 50 AP. Exactly like this suggestion does!!! Except this one tries to be "balanced".<br />
:::::::It says, ''"Hey look, the repair costs are up to 45 AP!!! I mean 45!! That's a lot! That's almost higher than we can count!"''<br />
:::::::And the smart zombie players are saying, '' "Wow! that's still under your daily 50 AP and still less than a lot of the buildings in the NW. Go fuck yourself"''<br />
::::::This suggestion is about rushing to a reasonable cap that won't really hurt the survivors at all. Why not say the cap is 75 AP? Why does it have to be under 50? Oh wait, here's why:<br />
::::::''And yeah, some buildings might get maxed AP but '''someone can still repair them and AP out safely.''' Maybe tweak it to '''40 AP max''' if people really can't.'' (my bold) That's the part where you admit your suggestion is worthless and are just trying to make it seem like it should appeal to zombies. And if you can't see my point then take your head out of your ass and read it again slowly.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:00, 12 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::Dumb survivor repairs building alone and escapes. Zombie comes back, and ruins uncaded building again. And I said 45 ap, but it could be 40ap, or 50ap. The point is one survivor can't repair and cade at the same time--[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:15, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::I just pointed out that zombies could "win" the game by going suburb to suburb destroying every NT building, killing people with toolboxes and ruining buildings with toolboxes (unless junkyards have toolboxes) as it would quickly take a large amount of aps to repair everything. And you think this is... a debuff? Over the long term it's a debuff (if the building is ruined for more than 45 days) but we'll be able to mass-ruin everything. And I'll ask once again: how many ruined buildings in populated areas do you see with a 45+ ap repair bill? --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:22, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::: HAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow are you new to this game!! The closest anyone has come to "winning" is when The Dead (led and) inspired all the other hordes to kick the shit out of humans and get the population of survivors down to 39% (by mostly killing every mall almost simultaneously ironically) and if this ruin update had been in play then survivors would be an endangered species now. You can ask your question all you want - it doesn't mean anything. I could ask how many repaired buildings do you see in the NW. What's your point? Oh, when humans are around buildings they can fix them. Brilliant! There are buildings over 45 AP because of the dedication of zombies to keep it that way. Stop trying to change that. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
ANY LIMIT TO RUIN IS EFFECTIVELY A NERF! Keep this in mind. Also this isn't a survivor vs. zombie type of thing. Suggestions should be based on a perceived unbalanced game condition and a remedy. The only thing you suggested is nerfing ruin completely and making deserts impossible for zombies to maintain. I'll leave the rest of this argument about how lazy survivors are and why buildings get 85+ ap repair cost to Wan Yao.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 02:38, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Any limits to ruins cost is effectively a nerf, but any increase in speed of decay is also a nerf against survivors. What I'm basically proposing is changing the way Ransack works, making it a more effective short-term tactic, but less effective long-term tactic. (It seems unfair that you have to wait weeks/months to get a good amount of decay and then in a day with just a few survivors you have to start all over again, why not speed up the process) As for lazy survivors, I don't know honestly... that's why I'm asking, how many ruined buildings in populated suburbs have you seen that has a repair bill of over 45ap? --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 02:57, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Don't try to fix what ain't broken. Your super-rapid decay would create far more problems than it attempts to remedy -- and it would eliminate those awesome triple-digit ruins that a lot of us have a blast finding and repairing. NO NO NO. The whole map would start to look the same again. :( --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 05:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Perhaps Kevan could find a way to make those buildings with repair bills above 45ap unaffected by the change, or at least have their costs stay put--[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:22, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Oh noes! I just realized there's a huge flaw to this that could lead to the extinction of the harman race: Rampaging mega-hordes could ruin whole suburbs in their path and survivors would have a hard time restoring whole suburbs with factories, NT buildings down. Eventually, everything except junkyards would be ruined. <br />
But I just thought of something else: Make zombies able to ransack ruined buildings for 1 extra AP per day (max 2 AP decay/day if a zombies perform 1 ransack on the building every day). Because ransack as it is now seems underpowerd to me. Before I post yet another suggestion, anyone got any other ideas for improving ransack? I think I'll wait a little bit in case if I think of something better. Another alternative would be for the starting AP cost to repair ruined buildings to be something like 5 AP --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 05:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Holy shit! you finally said something smart! Of course, it was statistically bound to happen (1,00 monkeys typing on typewriters and all that...) ''Another alternative would be for the starting AP cost to repair ruined buildings to be something like 5 AP'' This is a good idea that would balance with the cost of ransack/ruin and doesn't have a shot in hell of passing. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''fuck the decay nerfs, already! ALL OF THEM''' and get off your ass and earn yourself one of these funky templates, you lazy whinging wankers... {{Template:ExtremeRepair}} --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:And afterwards... '''DON'T LET IT GET THAT BAD!''' Ever again.... It's your own fucking fault the NW is in such bad shape. Up the level of your game, already. Getting out of Creedy or Dowdney might be start in seeing how the game is played by the rest of us. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Who are you talking to? Anyways, 100 ap repair bills look sweet, but they take 100 days to accumulate. As soon as the humans take repairing buildings seriously, we'll probably never see 100 ap repair bills again. Not that it matters much as I now think this might be too powerful for zeds --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:30, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I'm talking to you, and ''everyone'' who keeps suggesting Decay nerfs. Also, considering that still, in spite of all this, only a handful of people are up there dealing with the problem... once we get bored, i am sure it'll be another 4 months before it's done again... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:48, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::It's not really a nerf as much as it is a modification. Both sides are going to see it as a nerf if they think that way. And how well ruined is the NW anyways? I've been playing only for a few months, never visited those places. The reason why I suggested this in the first place is because I don't think most ruined buildings will be able to decay long enough to seriously deter survivors but I could be totally wrong--[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 20:00, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::The median repair for the NW (until these assholes started suicide runs) was 45 AP with the non resource buildings easily in the high 80s. Basically, the entire NW started decaying the moment the update was applied. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::The NW was abandoned even more fully than usual post-March of the Dead. As survivors huddled in the East, moaning for zombie nerfs. The update simply reflected in concrete #s what was already happening for a long time. And, DCC's numbers are pretty accurate, I can attest to them from experience. Although, many TRPs were ruined from day one of the update and never repaired, i.e. at 80+ when the "assholes" showed up... '';)'' Showing how utterly ABANDONED the region was. And, thing is, zombie #s have been fairly low -- low enough that there was no need for it to get this bad -- for a long time. Which is why I have no sympathy for ruin whinger. None. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:29, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Sounds like, despite being able to undo weeks/months of defending a decaying building from humans in a day with a small team of suicide repairers, Ruin is still working the way it's supposed to. So my suggestion is n00bish and redundant --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 16:36, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Scavenging Version 2===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 14:40, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors.<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
<br />
Scavenging would '''''replace''''' Bargain Hunting as a Skill.<br />
<br />
'''Scavenging''' gives a +10% chance for a successful search in ANY building. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Advanced Scavenging''' (sub-skill of Scavenging)<br />
<br />
Costs: 100 points<br />
<br />
Each Powered Building has a new option to do a focused search. A building will have a drop down menu of every item you can find in it, and you can choose what you want to look for. You have a flat 5% chance to find the item. Unpowered buildings have no option at all to do a Focused Search.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Scavenging Version 2)====<br />
<br />
Still no. Give it up already. Go get drunk, or do some productive volunteer work, or something. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:43, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think it would look a little something like this: <br><br />
[[Image:Focused.jpg]]<br><br />
Shame about the high failure rates though ... --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 21:06, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Funny thing is... Those who think we're TROLLS... Go look at posts by me and DCC... Actually ''count'' the posts where we offer something constructive... And put in their correct context the non-constructive posts, i.e. we're dealing with a thoroughly retarded idea and/or people who refuse to listen to constructive criticism. The numbers might surprise and enlighten you... Then tell me: who are the ''real'' trolls??? I'm not whinging, I'm just sayin'... And... strange bedfellows, these times make... '':P'' --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:32, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I <3 my Bargain Hunting. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 00:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think even with 5% search rate it's too powerful, because if I can choose what to look for anywhere, I could hide in a lit bank where zombies rarely break into, and search for that genny or that 1 piece of equipement I need (toolbox, flak jacket, phone...). In about 20 APs chances are I will find it. So instead of running around to find the best place to get a knife, or having to travel far away from a siege to try and find a new generator, I could just use this skill and everything I need is at my disposal. (Then again isn't that how Malls work? Heh...) --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 00:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Well I was thinking you could only do a focused search for things that that building already provides and nothing else. So a Bank would never really have the option since I don't think you can find anything in them anyway. So Hospitals would only have the option to focus search for FAKS/Newspapers, PD's for guns/ammo/Radios/flak jackets/and Flare Guns.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 17:21, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::In that case, what would be the point of advanced scavenging? If I'm in a hospital searching for FAKs I'll get a better search % with the regular search than with this 5% advanced scavenging search. --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:28, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Bargain hunting only works in a powered mall block===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:34, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors in malls<br />
|suggest_description=Does what the title says. The search bonus from bargain hunting should only take effect when there is a powered generator in the mall block.<br />
<br />
Reason one: you should have a lot more light than usual to determine where to best find the supplies you need in the middle of a hundred other people in the mall.<br />
<br />
Reason two: the higher-tier skills of First Aid (Surgery) and NT Employment (NecroNet Access) both require power to use. <br />
<br />
Reason three: even without power, search rates within a mall with the current Bargain Hunting is still ridiculously high. With the reworked Bargain Hunting skill, non-powered mall search rates are in balance with other TRP search rates like in hospitals... and of course generator killing turns into serious business.<br />
<br />
By the way, props to WanYao and karek for pointing out that mall search rates need a bloody nerf.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bargain hunting only works in a powered mall block)====<br />
:shrug. malls are almost always powered and search rates take a hit without the power anyway to the point where the benefit of having power outweighs the hassle of installing a genny.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 14:07, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Yeah, most malls are powered anyway. At least the ones not under attack. I imagine this would be critical for malls under siege though, especially if the power keeps getting cut for hours. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:32, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Malls under serious siege have enough to worry about as it is. And if you have death cultists or even just parachuting CR targets, then this would actually make a big difference. It's also not logical: I can loot in the darkish just fine. And, finally, to toot my own horn... It's really only FAK search rates IMO that need nerfing. The rest is fine. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Scavenging===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:01, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors.<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
<br />
Change the name of Bargain Hunting to Scavenging.<br />
<br />
Now the skill gives a flat +10% chance for a successful search in ANY building. What item you get would still be random as normal.<br />
<br />
Sub-skill:<br />
Focused Search<br />
Costs: 100 points<br />
<br />
Each building has a new option to do a focused search. A building will have a drop down menu of every item you can find in it, and you can choose what you want to look for, but you suffer a -10% to the base chance for a successful search. So it would be as if you didn't have the Scavenging skill at all, but still take a -10% to the unmodified base chance on top of that.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Scavenging)====<br />
Bnhr. Doesn't seem bad.. Your thoughts? {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 20:27, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:So its a global 10% increase in search rates? Justification? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:36, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: Well, There's that..<br />
::It would lower the Mall search rate to +10%, but let other buildings get the same. So instead of Bargain Hunting, you're just really good at scrounging things. Would make Malls less awesome fortresses, but make other resource buildings more useful so defensive battles would be more based on keeping lots of places open instead of just the Mall always being the best spot to search. That's the idea anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 04:03, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Would this skill also buff mall searches or just searches that are in regular buildings? Any search buff that includes malls will get spammed out of existence pretty fast.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:15, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The author said ANY building. Malls normally get +25% with that skill. This suggestion CHANGES it to +10%.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 01:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
The main problem with searching other buildings is that, except for PDs, Hospitals, NecroTech, Auto Repair and Factories, all the other places are pretty useless. Granted this MAY make them more useful (supposedly a generator can be found in the power stations, but there is no proof yet and a 10% bonus might be the proof necessary), your still limited in what you can FIND to begin with. I'd suggest ADDING some items to buildings.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 01:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
So... +10% chance to find syringes in NTs? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 04:09, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yeah. +10% to find anything in an NT, but you'd have the usual random breakdown to find DNA scanners and all that stuff. But since Kevan lowers and raises those NT rates to always keep the game in balance (which is gay), it probably wont matter to much.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 04:17, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Overpowered survivor buff that negates all the randomness and uncertaintly in searching. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:22, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I guess you are referring to the focused search part. And I agree, that part will never pass. I even doubt the change of Bargain Hunting would pass. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 13:10, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
So, in the eternal quest for searching for loot, this would de-emphasize the importance of malls (no longer +25%), but make all other decent resource buildings equal (+10% to all). This may mean that there would be less people in Malls, Malls would be less special. Which might mean less mall sieges. (or not... malls have almost everything under one roof). But it would mean that survivors would have a net search % debuff, as most would probably go to malls for searches, and they'd now have 15% less search probability. Considering the ratio of human:zombies, I'd be okay with this... "Scavenging" makes more sense than "Bargain Hunting" as a realistic survivor skill anyways --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:34, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
I <3 my Bargain Hunting. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 00:11, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Expand Malton Map===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 17:52, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Map Improvement / add-on<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, Zombies<br />
|suggest_description=This would make for a lot of work on Kevan's part, but I suggest adding a suburb-sized corridor of forest to one side of the map's edge, leading to a small town or a cluster of small towns a few suburbs large. This new area would have limited resource buildings (because it's out in the country) and no NT buildings so that it would be very difficult to revive there. It would be ideal for experienced survivors willing to take on the challenge, as it would be a little bit like Monroeville only instead of permanent death you'd have to travel very far to get revived or face a long revive queue. Survivors who don't like this area or think zombies have an unfair advantage can simply stay in urban Malton.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Expand Malton Map)====<br />
<br />
As much as I like the idea of introducing elemts of the Monroeville map to Malton, I just can't see it happening this way. Besides, we already have suburb sized survivor deserts - walked around Dunell Hills lately? Plus you couldn't justify it in game - why does the city have a line of forest nest to it? And why has the barricade zone been increased? --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 19:54, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Stay outta the Hills and off my lawn, you damn kids!!! --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 17:00, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:It could be made justifiable: The quarantine walls in some places has been breached (and some sneaky zombies made it to Monroeville) so they rebuilt it, but as they were repairing they also decided to link up with a nearby village / a small cluster of nearby villages to make management easier. --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:19, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
You've been [[PR_Malton#Fallback|Fallback'd]]. Still nice idea, And starting with T:S first. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 20:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I personally think that a new section to Malton would be cool, but there isn't a need really. right now, survivors can go NE if they want a challange. zombies can go east. as for justification, something like zombies overwellming the border and pushing into the country a bit before getting stopped again.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 03:35, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This already exists. We call it the North West. Now leave Pitneybank and go be challenged!--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 09:27, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What J3D said, which is what I always say... Also, damn dupey, '''STOP SUGGESTING NEW MAPS ALREADY'''. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:24, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Oh noes! I was about to suggest reshaping Malton to the shape of a brain, to encourage more people to become zombies --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 15:22, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
I didn't know this had been suggested already. Since Monroeville might close forever I thought I'd suggest to make a part of Malton Monroeville-y. But it is true that we already have a suburb with no NT buildings, Mornington. Still, it would be fun to have a wilderness area or two to break the monotony of buildings, streets and more buildings. --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:19, 11 September (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 20:57, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New usage of existing skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors in ruined, especially long-ruined buildings.<br />
|suggest_description=A survivor with the Construction skill and a toolbox has a new action button: "Repair One Day's Decay (3AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs, and reduce the building's number of days decayed, and the AP required to repair it, by one. This option would only appear if the building has been ruined for four or more days.<br />
<br />
This gives survivors who are repairing long-ruined buildings, such as forts which have been in zombie hands for weeks, an opportunity to coordinate and distribute the AP cost of repairs, which in some cases can drive a fully-rested survivor into negative AP. This coordination is extremely time-consuming, and thus requires triple the AP that repairing the building alone would consume. Eventually, this coordination would reduce the remaining work to a job that one survivor could finish, and that survivor can simply click "Repair" to complete the repairs.<br />
<br />
This suggestion is an attempt to build consensus for or against several previously [[Undecided Suggestions]], such as [[Suggestion:20080804 Repairing Really Ruined Buildings|Repairing Really Ruined Buildings]], [[Suggestion:20080625 Ruin Repairing change|Ruin Repairing Change]], and [[Suggestion:20080729 Partial Repair|Partial Repair]].<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP)====<br />
Oh look, a survivor complaining about how hard it is to coordinate efforts among several survivors. You have clearly never played as a zombie. Zombies have to coordinate efforts all the time to just get into buildings. You don't want to spend 40+ AP to repair a building? Get off your ass and take it back sooner. Organize a better defense of it in the first place. Changing the mechanics because some players suck at the game is retarded.<br />
Let's stop pitching in Major League Baseball because not everyone can get a home run. Let's make it like T-Ball. If the game is made easier for THE MAJORITY OF THE PLAYERS that will really make it fun for the minority! --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:21, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Sometimes, when I read your replies, I wonder which game you're playing. Just a heads-up, this is the suggestion discussion area for a browser-based casual game about humans and zombies called Urban Dead. Some people have commented that survivors, despite outnumbering the zombies, have Rambo syndrome and never cooperate. This suggestion would give them an option to cooperate, though at a higher total AP cost than sacrificing one human to repair the building and then reviving him later, which requires no cooperation beyond standing at an RP and saying, "Mrh?" [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::No, Dago, this suggestion will make it easier for strafing repairs without danger to the survivors and therefore completely nerf the ruin update. You seem to forget that there is no mechanic available to a zombie to speed up the AP needed to repair a building, so ideas like this that cost low AP to undo something that only time can change are stupid and horribly unbalanced. Using your numbers - 3 AP will remove 2 APs worth of damage. So,if a survivor has 40 AP to spend that is 13 clicks which equals 26 AP. '''So for 1 day's worth of AP a survivor can undo a month's worth of damage and still be able to get away.''' And you want to make this so more than one survivor can repair a ruin like this? The current system is much better because it is all or nothing. But please whine about how I don't offer constructive criticism since you didn't bother to read any of the comments on the suggestions you are raping to make this abortion of an idea. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:30, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Again, you add racial slurs and little else to the discussion. You also have a math error there. A building costs 1 AP per day to repair, so this suggestion would triple the AP required. A survivor who happens to have maximum AP can repair a month of ruin and get away, by spending 30 AP, and would not need to click anything 13 times. Also, you are correct that you don't offer constructive criticism, you only offer rage and spite. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You have reading errors then. You posted ''"Repair One Day's Decay (2AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs'' One day's decay is not 2 AP like you posted in the suggestion. If you are saying that it triples the amount of AP needed to repair then spending 30 AP should only undo 10 AP worth of damage. This goes back to my whole point about making strafing repair runs and how it isn't fair that zombies can't undo the exact amount of damage that survivors can repair, but you seemed to have missed all that you fuckstick. (are insults better than racial slurs? I could call you a wop if you would prefer that.) You know, the only reason I add the slurs and insults is so people like you and Galaxy have something to latch onto and reply to since you obviously don't listen to reason or experience. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Congratulations! You can spot typos and swear on the internet! I'm afraid I can only fix the first, though. Thanks! [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You can't even be bothered to proof read your own suggestion? Really now. How hard would that have been? It wasn't even that far into the suggestion. It was right toward the top. The fact that you didn't read your suggestion before you posted it also tells me that you didn't think about it too much and just hit SAVE PAGE. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 17:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Maybe if survivors don't act like Rambo and actually did teamwork, this would be a non-issue. After all you only need three people tops to repair a building: one to search for gennies and fuel and install them (for dark), one to repair, and one to barricade. On the other hand it takes more than three zombies to take one EHB building with those same three survivors in it. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 00:53, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Actually, this suggestion would ''encourage'' teamwork. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Therefore, you admit that survivors don't actually do much teamwork in the first place if they have to get a massive buff for them to get their asses moving to repair all those dark buildings. Quite a sad state of affairs, isn't it? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:55, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::It is. Want to fix it? [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You do not solve social problems such as survivor laziness by changing the game's design; if you do that, all it would do is show that their laziness is perfectly fine, and that mocks all the organized effort zombie groups do just to keep your shit ruined. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 14:08, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I look forward to your suggestion on how to solve social problems. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I look forward to you making a non-crappy suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Don't hold your breath. I would miss you if you died.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:26, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bitching about how hard it is for one group and how crap the other plays is hardly constructive now is it? The main use for this would not be for survivors to co-operate (it should be but wouldn't get used in that way) instead this would enable altruistic survivors the chance to slowly fix up a ruin without leaving them self out in the open! Sadly that very fact means that this would just attract hordes of low level zergs to gradually rebuild an area with less risk of needing revives :( --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:11, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, but at a higher AP cost than repairing and reviving. It gives survivors options, but doesn't take anything away from Zombies except for APs that would otherwise be used pumping shotgun shells into them. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This isn't needed. shit, Fort Perryn was just taken back and it was ruined for a while (not as long as some buildings up north, granted). oh, and DCC: calm down.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 03:12, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Needed? Maybe not. But it makes sense, it encourages survivor cooperation, and it soaks survivor APs. All are things that both zombie and survivor players have said the game needs. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::How in the fuck is survivors cooperating something zombies need? When did any ZOMBIE player say they needed survivors to pull together? Survivors are really fucking lucky this game doesn't have perma-death and that the creator steps in to help them out when their own stupidity leads them to the brink of destruction. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:39, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::How long have you been around? Zombie players have been some of the main ones bit*hing that survivors are too damn uncoordinated, not that it would help zombies, but it would make the game funner to play. Not everything is about game-mechanics, and if there were no survivors left why would you play? Sounds to me you're putting down the game because survivors are stupid, yet are bit*hing they shoulden't be forced to be smart, like zombies are... and that my friend, is more f**ked up then any susgestion ever made.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 03:02, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::[http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=97517 I've] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Many been] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/DARIS around] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Dead awhile.] The survivors being coordinated or not does not make the zombie aspect of the game "funner". And when zombie players bitch that the survivors suck it is because instead of trying to get together and work as a team they all just suggest buffs to themselves or nerfs to zombies to solve the problem. Buffing them unfairly does not "force them to be smart". --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Remember that what is fun for you is not fun for all zombie players. Some zombie players want to do something other than turn brainz into Mrh? cows. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Enlighten me, Oh Zombie Master, what else a zombie can do in this fucking game. They can't spread zombie grafitti, play on the radio, or even hold IC conversations (since their alphabet is so fucking limited). They can't even get XP through any means other than hitting survivors (or other zombies). Other than killing what the fuck can a person that plays a zombie do? That's why it is so frustrating when assholes like you want to come along and make things harder on the few people that actually fucking play zombies in this zombie "apocalypse" game. Keep suggesting stupid shit and drive off the zed players. Then you and the rest of the dipstick survivors can have your little circle jerk in peace without those pesky undead. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::And we can have campfires and sing "Kumbaya". I'm glad to see you're keeping an open mind. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::Who said buffing them forced them to be smart? I said that a buff to save the population may be required to keep playing the game, while other zombie buffs may force (Able to kill easier is not forceful, as things take time to adjust and with survivors, no quick option is aviable to get back up that causes this lapse of time) them to be smarter, which would elimate the need for those survivor buffs to come into place. Instead of a structured and logical approach on why this is a bad idea, I.E. ''constructive critism''^(this susgestion would counteract a zombie buff designed in a way to help towards this, much better then if this system was put into place), you b*tched about how survivors have it easy. I never provided support for this susgestion and yet you seem to imply I have? In all of this you managed to accomplish hardening the authors stance against the reasoning that this susgestion would be poor in practice, and therefore paving the way for simular susgestions in the future, or turning players away due to a hostile enviroment. Congrats, *Hands Clapping*, im sure they'll put your name in a plaque, on the UD wall for your contributions here today.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:00, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Ah, the snowball argument. Classic. And I laughed heartily when you said there must be a 'buff to save the population'... got a bit of messianic streak lately? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:07, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::: I didn't say "Must", I said may be "required", by which I mean at times of rediculous peril where the game may truly end. If the population can't adapt to a change and shows signs that they won't, and the game ends, then so ends UD (At least Malton in any true form), and has us all starting from square one on a system proven to fail. A broken system can get you farther then a failed system.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:57, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::'''Standing Survivors : 14295 (61%) Standing Zombies : 9022 (39%)''' HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH SOMEBODY SAVE THE SURVIVORS! ''a buff to save the population may be required to keep playing the game'' They are in serious danger of overcrowding at the malls. <br />
:::::::::::You said I didn't offer any constructive criticism. You are wrong. It's in there. You are also ignoring the fact that he said he took this idea from 3 previous ideas which one would assume meant that he FUCKING READ the other suggestions, but since he can't even be bothered to READ HIS OWN suggestion I doubt he did. In the other suggestions there are a lot of constructive criticism and comments. I am not "hardening the author's stance" by disagreeing with him. If I am then he is a stubborn douchebag that will continue to ignore reason and just throw a temper tantrum because he thinks he is right. We have had a few of those before and we nailgunned them. <br />
:::::::::::I think we should turn newbies away from here. I think anyone that hasn't been playing UD for more than 8 months should shut the fuck up and keep their ideas to themselves. You can't contribute to the game if you haven't played the fucking game. And if you bothered to read my links above you would see my contributions to UD. They are much better than a shitty survivor buff suggestion that steals from 3 failed attempts before it.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:26, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::DCC, your a fucking prick. why do you treat this page as a place to insult and belittle others? really, i dont get it. is there actually a reason, or are you just an angry person whos missed taking their meds? i think it was decided that this suggestion sucks, and isnt needed. no need to continue to respond to everything the author says with an insult and justification as to why your right.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 04:01, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::Wow DCC, Im beginning to wonder if you can read... I said "may be required at times", not that "it is needed now", large difference, my saying susgesting when the odds are against survivors, I believe that zombies need a few more buffs as it stands, because as you pointed out the numbers are very sad. Next critism mixed in with ten insults won't do anybody any help, except piss people off and have them pull reasons out of thin air to conclude that there way is better (Note yourself in your previvous comment, you have been harped on for your chosen response, and now this has turned into a conversation on your conduct in response to this sugestion instead of on the susgestion itself, perhaps we should continue elsewhere instead of wasting space here?). As well many people read other peoples susgestions and gain there own idea, and don't use spell check (I fall into that category, as im sure you noticed from "simular" and other mistakes). Oh and I did read the links, my oldest self happens to be [http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=944459 zach016], here a bit over a year, if it would so please you to have my opinon count over your 8 month limit, I truly believe it woulden't make that much of a difference other then introduce those people of eight months on how to use the wiki at a further period of time, they would still quote old susgestions that failed and would have more time to come up with needless buffs that no one wants.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 22:09, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::::''DCC, your a fucking prick.'' That should be '''you're''' by the way, monkey. And, G-Man, I can't even keep up with your fucking mistakes. I hope some day you become bi-lingual and one of those languages is English. These become conversations about my conduct because there isn't enough in the suggestion to support so it is easier to bitch at me. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:29, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::::LOL, Coulden't come up with any actual reasons against me so you just put down my spelling/grammer? wow, you are good my friend, you are good.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 12:06, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::::: Even better, I just pasted it into microsoft word, lets see, 9 words wrong spread throughout, and one grammer mistake ("peoples"). Whats worse the spelling mistakes are not that far off and readable. Guess the tech., don't no nothin bout them der spelling and what not. I will conclude with yes, the possibility exists that there are mistakes that can bypass the system, but its apparant its readable anyway.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 12:18, 12 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::::::::::::Holy shit! You had to paste it into MS Word to figure out the mistakes? HAHAHA! Micro$oft can fix the grammar and spelling, but it can't point out the flaws in your logic. I'm still trying to figure out what you were talking about when you said there is a difference between "must have" and "required". Now that statement is a noodle scratcher!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:14, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::::::::I would have figured you would realise the "may be" before "required" had something to do with it. Guess were all wrong sometimes.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 03:08, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Quit having such a smarmy attitude and responding to everyone's comments with something that you seem to consider a comeback, Deyo. People are offering straight forward critiques of this, and all of the similar ideas. Reaching a compromise of idea's that were spammed or duped or otherwise rejected for their overall um-workability is still just an unworkable idea. The whole point of saying dupe is that what needs to be said has been said, and we don't need to hash over all the arguments all over again. its up to you to read through those and realize for yourself that it won't work, and try to come up with something actually creative or unique, otherwise you will simply be spam voted or dupe voted down. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 07:25, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Between smarmy and hateful, I'll take smarmy every time. Zombie replies to any suggestion that gives survivors any additional options have been akin to "YOU RAEPD MAI DOG!" I don't claim to understand it, so I attempt to defuse it by turning their own words against them. For example, you say that the ideas were spammed, duped, or otherwise rejected. This is untrue. The suggestions were all '''Undecided''' at the end of voting. My hope is that by making this option unattractive to all but the most organized survivor groups, it will be less offensive to the zombie players who seem to be the most vocal and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war impassioned] contributors to this wiki. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. You say this is to encourage them to work together, but really, all this does is make it so that ''individuals'' can do the damage rather than groups, as currently exists. This doesnt in any way encourage group play, it instead encourages the opposite, lone wolf stupid survivor play thats been a huge detriment to the survivor game since the dawn of UD and its that attitude that has resulted in all the nasty holocausts performed by zombies. (I know, i helped plan several of them). You have an "Us versus Them" mentality, which definately isnt going to serve you well here.<br>You have probably already noted that they have stopped discussing reasonably and started flaming you. This isnt because they are zombies and dont want the humans to get new toys, this is because you are being, to put it mildly, a stubborn intransigent nullwit. You dont see the game from both sides, and therefore have a false impression of the other side. Having been zombie fodder, zombie leader, survivor, bounty hunter, pker and specialty reviver on various alts through the years, i can tell you right off the bat that this kind of suggestion is a bad idea, not as bad as your headshot one you suggested previously, but only because that was so horrendous that it makes Cthulhu look handsome by comparison.<br>What is needed is some way for humans to work together (Current ruin does this, with one person clearing, another fixing, and more cading). This isnt to make the game more fun for zombies, but so humans such as yourself stop bitching and moaning on this page for buffs every time som e treasured area goes up the creek without a paddle, or when some large area of the city is devestated by a huge confederation of allied zombies pulling a gargantuan cloud of ferals. The other, and more important reason follows on from that: If you know how to play properly, alone or in a group, you wouldnt get in that kind of mess in the first place. The only reason you think this is needed at all is because some buildings have ruin repair costs of as much as a hundred ap at this time (Best ive seen anyway), but you dont realise that its been ages since the zombies were even there, and the only reason the costs got anywhere near that is because you guys were fucking lazy.<br>Fortunately there are some groups out there actually getting off thier arses and fixing those regions so the braindead fuckwits that make up the majority of the survivor population have a place to live when the zombies come and rape the rest of the city out from under them. Those people fixing those eareas in the city are the real heroes, not the stupid twits who it in a buiolding as the horde advances shouting our orders to barricade and whatnot.<br>This suggestion simply defies the entire concept of making survivors play better and smarter, alone or in groups, encouraging retarded recovery operations that, while they would probably work, would leave the survivor population as the bunch of gibbering morons they are now. Forcing them to play smarter, like kevan forced zombies to do, is the only way to even out the game properly. Giving one side toys because its losing doesnt make things fair, it only shores up the innat unfairness already there.<br>Ugh thats long and rambling, but it has some key points in there you should consider. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 06:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thank you for a considered and reasonable response, Grimch. Obviously, I agree with you that the game needs both methods and reasons for survivors to cooperate, but most of the suggestions I've seen to encourage, enforce, or enable cooperation have been unbalanced, overcomplicated, or both. What I had hoped to provide here was a mechanism for cooperation that was simple and balanced, allowing three survivors to do the work of one, bit by bit. You mention the 100+AP buildings in the north, and I'll admit that you've topped my record -- the worst I've seen was 86AP. Even that building would take more than five survivor-days work to repair cooperatively, whereas a single survivor could run in with max AP, repair it, and walk to a revive point two days later, where a second survivor could revive him, for a net cost of 110APs, or just over two survivor-days total. Those who vociferously decry this suggestion as a "survivor buff" don't seem to me to be looking at the hard numbers. A single survivor using this system to repair a 100+ AP building would be spending 4+ AP per day just to walk back and forth between a ruined and a barricaded building, and the remaining AP fighting back entropy two weeks at a time. That method would take four days to get the building down to a single day's repair job, for five days' total repair time. It's unrealistic to me to think that there's a survivor out there willing to spend weeks "Rambo repairing" ruined buildings. And if there is, what's the harm? If there are more than 20 buildings in such a state, they'll be decaying faster than he's repairing them. I remain unconvinced that this suggestion would lead to "vigilante repairmen". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 07:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::No, but if it leads to wasted AP, why promote it? Its a new but DUMBER way to do things. OTOH, theres a small but growing group of people who do "suicide repairs" just for fun and giggles, and they are kicking repair costs on those 80+ AP buildings back down to 1, and having fun doing it. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:58, 10 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
I '''like''' this idea, because it means that GROUPS of humans can work together to fix a building, instead of ''one'' person losing two days as an immobile stone while the building is zerged. 74 AP building... that means I'm a rock for a loooong time. Doesn't it make sense that the AP repair costs could be shared? Especially if it costs MORE AP to do distributed repair... it would be worth it if it meant the survivors could remain active. Just as a note: I play ''dual nature'', so I'm aware of the ransack-ruin drama from a zed's point of view quite intimately. [[User:Soror Repentia Azalea|Qızılbaş]] 15:53, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:You can pretty much do this right now. Again, you only need at most three people to repair any building block in the game, provided they have been emptied of zombies. What this only provides is a massive survivor buff against ruin by getting rid for a measly 3 AP to remove one ruin point while zombies wait for ''one whole day'' to achieve the same. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:00, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Mister Deyo, I suggest that you '''stop''' suggesting Survivor Buffs that nerf Ruin. Matter of fact I might suggest a new zombie skill specifically to double the ruin already in place in any building just so people stop trying to nerf ruin and darkness. Seriously buffing survivors to get them to work together is just a horrible idea. There are how many survivor groups already in place? If a survivor doesn't join a group, it's because most groups are the same. Not because they have no reason to join a group.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:11, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm not even going to bother reading any of this. Go look at my user page. Read the report I cut and pasted... And look at the last of my wiki templates... And then go earn yourself one of those triple-digit repair templates which I made for the select few of us who are working together and ''doing it'' and ''dealing with it'' -- rather than sitting on our asses in Pitneybank and whining about how hard survivors have it because of ruin. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:28, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Wan, I'll give you the cliff notes: Stupid idea, pointing out the reasons, author ignores them and reacts with a smarmy attitude, I call a lot of people "fucksticks" or whatever the word du jour is, People rail against me for "being mean", and a lot of people get butthurt. You know, the usual.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:29, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Loot dead bodys===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 03:02, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=People how like to steal.<br />
|suggest_description=Looting dead bodys is pretty self explantory. This would be a 100 XP skill that allows you to loot from peoples dead bodys with a 20% succes rate. When you loot a dead body you dont know what you will get, so you could get a genrator to a baseball bat. I will go into more detail if this idea is well accepted.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Loot dead bodys)====<br />
Looting dead bodies = trading. And that one's been spammed and duped so many times it's in the do-not-suggest list. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 03:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
except for the fact about wastin alot of AP, and not knowing what your goint to get. Yes it is like trading :[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 03:59, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is a [[Suggestion:20080310 Unzergable Lootin'|dupe]], probably more than one. Taking items from people is a bad thing (and if it's magically conjured items looted from bodies, that's bad as well and likely a dupe too). --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 04:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Don't be lazy. Its obvious you think this is going to tank if you'll "go into more detail if this idea is well accepted". This isn't even a dupe since there is hardly anything IN the suggestion to dupe. From what I can tell, your suggesting that a single dead body of any level, regardless of the corpse's actual equipment, becomes an instant reservoir of unlimited equipment of any type. The fact it is 20% and "you don't know what you get" is irrelevant. This, as I read it, would make a single zerge (level 1 corpse) a perma-search item.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Dupe-o--bloody-rific and utterly spam-o-fucking-licious. Nequa, please just read and comment on other peoples' suggestions and comments for about a month -- at least! -- before suggesting anything more of your own. Seriously. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:33, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A. "'''Scope:''' People how like to steal." What?? <br />
B. Can I loot ''any'' dead body, or only my zerg alts?<br />
C. Can we tack on a way to also have sex with dead bodies? --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 15:57, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Improve the Banks===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 23:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Add to Bank.<br />
|suggest_scope=All people how enter a bank.<br />
|suggest_description=I belive banks need a improvement becuase of how usless they are. The only good thing I can think about them is becuase they are so useless no zombie would go near it, and it would make a good hiding place. But the problem is what good could a bank be in a place like Malton. The only iteam I could think about finding there would be a pistol and clip becuase of securtity guards. So if not iteams why not something else?<br />
<br />
What is a bank if not a big place to safly guard your valuables? Why not allow the bank to be more heavly barricaded or use the vault? This is still a rough idea, which is why I am talking here. Now, allow me to address two problems I can see with my idea. One is why you would even want to have a extra lelvel of barricades or a vault, the bank does not have anything. And the other being that you should not mess with the barricades, to those people look here [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/PR_Buildings:_Multiple_Types]]. and then go to "Max Cades Varies by Building Type" sujestion.<br />
<br />
As I said, this is still a rough idea and I would like inmput, and not just "this wont work so shut up".<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bank improvment)====<br />
Don't banks go dark? If so why isn't that defensive buff enough?--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:16, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure the bank description says the vaults are already looted empty. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:24, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
"The vault lies open, its contents either looted or transferred." thats what the text is. They make great forward bases and safe houses so they are fine as they are. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 01:31, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I meant using the vaults as a defensive measure, any way banks are useless.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 01:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:They make great safehouses for PKers. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:46, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Okay go look at the 2-10 player sized groups. They thrive in banks. As a defensive measure they would be useless to begin with, as entry points, safe houses and lit, they keep zombie hordes down enough.[[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 02:17, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
True, but that is really it. You dont get anything from the bank or find any purpose for it execpt from what you already said, I just want banks to contribute to Malton in a bigger way.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 01:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The same can be said for wastelands. You think we should plant flowers in them? I'm all for multi-colored wastelands... pink is nice... --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:05, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We need flowers for wastlands dude, there a eye sore. But sersouly, ther is a diffrence between a wastland and a bank.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yeah, banks make great safehouses. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:35, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
It appears this is a bad Suggestion, so I will think of a new one.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Dupe-o-rific. And, some buildings are useless. Not everything is a TRP. This is a ''good'' thing. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:49, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A FUCKING MEN! Next thing these assholes will suggest will be clips and ammo found in the street.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::They can be, you just have a horrible horrible search rate for them though. Ive found a shotgun shell and a flare gun. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 05:13, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::My Monroe PKer accidentally searched the street and found ''a rusty knife''. I took especial joy in shanking people with it, and with luck they got tetanus. <tt>:></tt> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 02:32, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Maybe a powered bank will "close" the vault for ? hours a day (Random times), and anyone entering the bank can't enter the vault during this time, but can destroy the generator. If the Generator is destroyed the locks are once again unpowered and the vault opens up. Entering the vault costs 1AP and is treated as a seperate room (Outside cannot be seen, and it must be exited for 1AP before movement once again). No-one can leave the vault while it is locked and the vault cannot be entered if the building is ruined (Treated as one building once again, with anyone inside "pushed" out.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 22:00, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Switch FAK search rates between Hospitals and Malls===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=search rate adjustment for First Aid Kits. <br />
|suggest_scope=survivors<br />
|suggest_description=''I can't find this in PR or Undecided, I looked. But if someone can find the dupe, please do.''<br />
<br />
'''The suggestion:''' Reverse the search rates for First Aid Kits in Hospital and Malls, i.e. make it easier to find FAKs in Hospitals and harder in Malls. <br />
<br />
'''The rationale:''' Pretty self-explanatory, I think. Hospitals should be the easiest place to find/jury rig first aid kits. Not malls. This would also be a nerf to mall-centric play, which I don't think is a bad thing at all. But it's a highly logical nerf, and far from unbalanced or game-breaking. <br />
<br />
'''Extra details:''' As it is, you have about a 50% chance of finding a FAK in a drugstore. In a hospital, I'd guestimate it's about 20% (I might tally my stats and see... others' experiences would be useful, too). Perhaps an ''exact'' reversal isn't in order: say 25-30% in Malls, 40-45% in Hospitals, something like that. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Switch FAKs search rates between Hospitals and Malls)====<br />
<br />
No to exact reversal, yes to your suggested percentages. That is because there are one hell of a lot of hospitals compared to mall squares. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 14:32, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We could apply the same logic to police departments and forts, in that they should have higher search rates for firearms and ammo there than malls. Not that I'm totally against your suggestion, but the way the game is designed it strikes me that Kevan intentionally made malls as the ultimate stronghold and as such they have the highest search rates for most items in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:33, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Police Stations don't keep ammo lying around. It is actually a bad idea to have excessive weapons and ammo stored where you are holding prisoners. Wal-Mart has more weapons in the sporting section than my local police station. Police Depts. have armories and firing ranges to keep weapons. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 22:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Hospitals don't keep stockpiles of first aid kits, too (or at least here they don't). The fact that there aren't any ready-made FAKs and you have to build one in a hospital reflects that. And going by supply and demand the one which is filled up with all sorts of supplies would still be the malls, and that's why they have much higher search rates for everything than all other TRPs. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:28, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: Malls would have First Aid Kits lying around in a drug store during the zombie apocalypse, Hospitals tend not to keep First Aid kits stockpiled.. If any at all, Perhaps a few.. A local sports store has far too many guns in plain sight right beside the doors. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 04:51, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::: Even if you think of FAKs are mostly badages and tape and some ointment... and I think of them as somewhat more complicated than that... Hospitals have TONS of this stuff stashed around. TONS of it. Everywhere. Moreover, they have all kinds of other medical supplies that you'd use in reality in dealing with the serious injuries that zombies cause: scissors, scalpels, sutures and needles, etc. etc. No, I just can't buy that you'd be able to get such a plethora of medical supplies in a Mall, but not in a hospital. It just makes no sense. And... Mall drugstores are overpowered. Period. 50% find rates for the second most powerful pro-survivor item in the game is just outrageous IMNSHO. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Utility != economics. Hospitals might need those materials the most, but since malls still face the greatest demand for everything it naturally follows that they will have the greatest supplies for everything. And no, mall drugstores aren't overpowered when you consider 50% of the zombie population tend to congregate within a few blocks of one. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You're whole view on this is based on cyclic thinking and is confusing cause and effect. If the malls weren't so resource independent they wouldn't need as many resources, just look at the Mall-Necrotech relationship. Right now malls are making hospitals, which are meant to be a major building, all but useless. That leads to a very simple truth, malls give FAKs too freely. Malls are too resource intensive and it's causing them to be too central to the game, zombies are near malls because all the survivors are in malls, all the survivors are in malls because they get freakishly good find rates in them. Claiming that you don't weaken that because of the thing it causes is completely backwards.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:26, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::karek pretty much hit it right on the head there. in other words, malls are overpowered. and i feel the freakish search rates for FAKs are primary to that. meanwhile, find me a shopping mall that specialises in selling the man on the street medical supplies over consumer goods, and i'll drop this suggestion and revive all my zombies and use proxies to gather all my alts in Caiger and NEVER leave. CAIGAR 4 EVAR!!! --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I agree with Wan Yuo, since it is a hospital of course you would be more likely to find a FAK there, and anyway Malls have alot of other stuff you can gain there.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 16:10, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Uhm, it's "Yao", not "Yuo"... It's a lame old joke alias, but it's still my alias, and it means something... Anyhooo... <br />
<br />
Cop shops are not armouries -- but gun stores in US malls practically are. So I don't really see a need to change that. You might disagree, but, c'est la vie. (And, yes, Malton is in the UK, but the city is a mix of the UK and US, it's not really one or the other in practice... so please don't go ''there''... please.) Perhaps search rates in Fort Armouries need to be boosted, but this suggestion is not addressing that... And, yes, malls are supposed to be strongholds -- however, I think the 50% search rate for FAKs is absurd. Especially when it's so hard to find FAKs in Hospitals, by comparison. And, even if you nerfed search rates in Malls -- even hypothetically across the board -- they are still going to be "fortresses" by virtue of being "one-stop-shopping" places -- you can get everything you need at a mall other than syringes. That ''alone'' makes them very powerful... I, however, appreciate Whitehouse's comments about the fact that are more Hospitals than Malls, and the modified search rates ought to reflect that. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then surgery becomes OMGMEGA-SUPER-GODLY. Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls. If it weren't for that I would support this, I don't think that this would change where people get FAKs from though which would mean it would just be a slight nerf to Malls and a big buff to Hospitals.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
First of, sorry for mispelling your name Yao, and also you dont need a 50% chance for the hospital but maybe like 40%, or something that makes the hospitals be just as good as finding FAKs in the mall.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:29, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Surgery]].--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:47, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I am well aware of what Surgery does. This is how likley you can find a FAK in a hospital and a mall drug store, from the wiki:Mall Drugstores (20%/34%), Hospitals (14%),. If they even made it 25 percent I would love it. [[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:''"Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls"'' -- Well, maybe Surgery ought to be more than just "a little" better in a Hospital. I mean we're dealing with ''Surgery''... in a ''hospital''... come on! And to AHLG below, I don't want Hospitals buffed without Malls being nerfed at the same time. That's kind of the point... Also, I did search for a dupe, but couldn't find one... maybe someone else will? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:01, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The problem with that is that healing is already the most efficient thing in the game, even without surgery, with Surgery it's more efficient, buff surgery and it makes barricades look like a joke(surgery already does 10:1 vs zombie claws). The fix would have to be in weakening something unless you start buffing the ability to do damage.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I would agree with a small percentage increase in hospitals. But check for a dupe. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:19, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd support this as well. Malls need to be reworked a bit. The percentages are too high to warrant going any where else in the game for supply purposes. But I'd also support people who use the word "Glock" to describe their pistols have them blow up upon first use.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 23:38, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Did you take Bargain Hunting into consideration? It is MORE than just a percentage switch. Hospitals also have newspapers where as Bargain Hunting automatically precludes such a find. A FAK in a hospital has a base 14% find, while the FAK in the mall has a base 20%. +14% if you have bargain hunting. This is according to the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Useful_Items#First_Aid_Kit wiki (First Aid Kit)]. So which percentage is being switched? If is the base, then the hospital will be 20% and the mall will be 14%/28%. If it is the max, the hospital would be 34%, the mall would be 14%/28% (presuming Bargain Hunting). And, again, what about newspapers?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:21, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:In actual fact, Mall search rates for a skilled Shopper are around 50%, or very close. And in a Hospital, a bit more than 14%, but not by much. Those stats on the Items page are grossly out of date and inaccurate. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also... honestly, I don't know what you're getting at with all those numbers ... they don't make sense. FAK find rates in Malls would get nerfed, and %ages in Hospitals buffed. This would ''not'' affect the %ages for anything else, there is no connection. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:03, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::What do you mean "no connection"? Yeah, I'm sure they are out of date, but they are intended to illustrate a point. Did you even check the link? The reason FAK find rates are so high in malls is because of the shopper skills. But the shopper skills do MORE than just buff the search. The also negate the search for useless items (ie. newspapers). Searching for a FAK in a hospital maybe be higher, with this suggestion, but you STILL find newspapers. Which you DON'T find in malls. So, again, why are you not taking into consideration the mall skills or newspapers?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 03:31, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Probably because you're misunderstanding what they represent. Not finding spam items doesn't mean the search rate is better for FAKs(what you want to find) it means that the search rate for what you don't want to find is dropped to 0. The only effect that would have is reducing encumbrance, which is already done by being checking it in your profile so you don't have to waste the IP hit dropping it. That there is no connection would be about right, buffing the search rate would still mean you're finding two FAKs in 3 AP even if that third AP digs up a newspaper every once in a while.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:16, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Pesatyel, what you're saying makes no sense. And the link you provided is irrelevant. Say in 12 searches right now you find 1 FAK and one newspaper. If I double FAK search rates... now, I find 2 FAKs and 1 newspaper in 12 searches. ''There is no connection'' between the two different items: the latter is totally unaffected by the former. Also, you don't find newspapers in Malls. Drug stores are spam-free FAKtories... And, the full set of Mall Skillz allows you (for 200 measly XP) to search these spam-free FAKtories at almost a 50% success rate -- a search rate totally unparallelled anywhere else in the game -- and an unparallelled find %age for ''the second most powerful pro-survivor item'' in game, after NT syringes. <br />
<br />
::::'''Q.E.D.''' - In. Need. Of. Fixing. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:48, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I do think FAKs in hospitals need a buff but i am not certain of these numbers... lowering the find rate for malls so it tops out at about 30% would be good (sure the drugstore has pain killers and elastoplast but wide specrum anti-biotics and morphine? I think not!) Rather than a straight buff to the hospital search rates i would rather see the "medical" classes able to build Faks much like syringe creation. Searching already says something like "you gather supplies" so why not make it possible for those with a few pre-req skills choose to build those kits with some certainty (at a cost comparable to the Malls find rate) I would suggest 5AP for anyone with 1st aid and possible 4AP for anyone with a new skill :trauma nurse or some such! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:26, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Not a bad idea, but the proliferation of hospitals would mean an already prevelant item would become even more so. Malls are difficult to hold, hence benefits are found there. Drop the search rate in malls to closer to 30% and make surgery a 20hp hit, making holding a powered hospital useful, rather than powering one, hording FAKs and bailing.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:46, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Bloodletting===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}02:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=PKer buff.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors. PKers, mostly.<br />
|suggest_description=Update revivification syringes to allow for self-targeting. If used on yourself while infected, it becomes a "virus syringe," essentially transforming the item within your inventory. "Virus syringes" cannot be found or made except by infected individuals using revivification syringes on themselves. Like a normal syringe, they have a 2% encumbrance.<br />
<br />
If used on a survivor, there's an X percent chance that this new "virus syringe" will deal 1 HP damage to the survivor and infect the survivor, and a 100-X percent chance that the virus syringe will do nothing. X is the current HP of the PKer. "Virus syringes" do nothing against zombies.<br />
<br />
As it is highly corrosive to glass, the virus will eat through the syringe in a matter of hours. Therefore, "virus syringes" are removed from an inventory after 6 hours of existing.<br />
<br />
...Because bioterrorism is an inherent part of the genre, and because it might entertain some PKers (and thus keep them from actual killing). Yes, the central idea is that the syringe is emptied outside your body, then you draw out your own blood, which contains the infection.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bloodletting)====<br />
<br />
I really wish I could be "constructive"... but this is just too retarded to comment on. Would you like some spam with that cheese, sir? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:11, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:No, sir, nor did I want that frosty. "Retarded" is happily synonymous with "belated," so I'll assume you mean this suggestion is just a little behind its time. Speaking of which, some old-fashioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Logs Lincoln logs] might help with your construction problem. Spend a few hours with those and let your dad back on his computer, okay? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}04:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Survivor infecting other survivors is a dupe, I'm fairly sure. It would be more greify than tactically useful for a PKer / death cultist, which is why (iirc) it wasn't worth keeping. Also, if you want to infect somebody, I fancy that axe you've been splitting infected zombie skulls (or the knife you just pulled from the guts of an infected survivor) would do the job rather as well as a syringe. So if infections COULD be spread that way, pretty much every sharp weapon in Malton would spread them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:23, 6 September 2008 (BST) ''edit- also, if the infection were so corrosive, every blood stained weapon or piece f clothing in the city would crumble to dust. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)''<br />
:It is a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I'd been considering [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofluoric_acid hydrofluoric acid] for that, which wouldn't damage polyester clothes, although I am not a chemist. And blood-stained weapons tend to degrade in real life, hence the NRA's preoccupation with gun cleaning. That aside, do you think (at least) that the X% likelihood is an interesting mechanic that might be able to contribute to gameplay in some other fashion?--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}00:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
PKing may be part of the game, but it does NOT need any emphasis. The game is, primarily, about survivors and zombies fighting each other with some PKing thrown in, NOT about PKing with some zombies thrown in.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I must agree with Pesatyel, this game is mainly about the Living VS Undead... with the abnormal ones mixing it up to make it more interesting (just like in reality). Emphasizing PKing just doesn't fit in well with me (although I really should ''"get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit"'' to quote Wanyao). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Ehh, when I PK, I prefer "Bang. BANG BANG." And the kill is done. The idea would be something I would never use, and as Swiers stated, it's more useful for greifers then PKers like me.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::K-B, I was referring to your comments, somewhere, which alluded to "pro-zombies" and "pro-survivors" as these inimical factions at each others' throats. That's an illusion, and a destructive one at that: most players play both sides, even if some do tend to focus more on one than the other... And most people judge suggestions on the basis of merit, not simply whether they help their "side". For example, this suggestion would be a giant-sized buff for my death cultists -- but that doesn't mean I support it... because it's just a griefing tool, and little more. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Does it grief more than, for instance, one of your death cultists outright killing someone? PKing '''is''' griefing, because survivors only ever want to be killed if they're feeding the hungry n00b zed masses. Sure, I can see survivors getting annoyed by being infected by a PKer, but it would be less aggravating than having to spend AP hunting a revive (which costs more AP than a FAK). Thank you for your constructive criticism. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
NEEDLE SHARING IS NEVER SAFE! THIS SUGGESTION SPREADS HEPATITIS Z! Not to mention it's stupid as fuck and so out of genre gameplay here. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:If you consider "fuck" stupid, does that means I can apply for a timeshare with your girlfriend? Although, for reference, I invite you to check out how the Fantastic Four were infected in ''Marvel Zombies''. Or talk to me on my talk page and I'll happily spoil it for you.--{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::You see, this is what I am on about. I call your suggestion stupid and make a bad pun. You make a personal slur against my girlfriend. Then you bring up a comic book that isn't a survival horror comic, but just a zombie alternate universe. Yet you are still going to bitch about what I said even though you are the one making this personal. Get fucked and stop suggesting things. There that was personal. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:32, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Marvel Zombies'' isn't a zombie alternate universe. The scene in question within the comic is not dependent upon any of the fantastical elements of the Marvel universe. I understand that you're unhappy that you unsuccessfully trolled for lols with 'NEEDLE SHARING IS...HEPATITIS Z,' so my deconstruction of your single-cheeked argument is just rubbing salt in the wound. But please, don't take it personally. I don't object to you, just your casual use of expletives. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::''An alternate reality in which mutants are turned into flesh eating zombies, set on Earth-2149. In the end of the series, The Zombies eat Zombie Silver Surfer and get infused with the power cosmic.'' SPOILER ALERT! You are right. I didn't get as many "lulz" as your initial suggestion did. You bested me, good sir! I didn't add more than a quick comment because why would I need to repeat all of the other reasons that your suggestion is bad? Oh right, because you are a fucking retard. I forgot. And as far as my use of "expletives" that's a really bad argument seeing that this wiki is international and what is an expletive to you might not be one to me, you bloody cunt. And for the record, you couldn't handle [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Katthew MY GIRLFRIEND]--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:38, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::The only criticism you offered was saying that this suggestion is out-of-genre. That could've been done in six words, possibly fewer, without wasting your precious time with your, erm, "pun." And, moreover, you haven't yet discussed (or apparently thought about) that criticism, instead just quoting Comiczine where your own knowledge failed you. While I usually try to use the same profanity standards as the game, I take special exception with poor or improper use of words such as "fuck," as such tends to cause them to eventually lose their meaning. You, sir, are killing the English language. And for the record, I wouldn't want to handle your girlfriend. Ability is not equivalent to desire. --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:47, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Wait wait wait.. this stick is up your ass because I said more than "this is out of genre" and I called your idea stupid? You're all butthurt because I didn't like your idea and therefore by extension you? You resorted to personal attacks and some faggy rant about a shitty comic because I didn't come all over myself with joy at you sharing this EARTH SHATTERINGLY NEW (dupe) IDEA WITH THE UNWORTHY ?!?! Go cry more, you shit stain.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:03, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Calm down. Pop some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laxative pills], you're wound too tight. Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic) thought that zombification was a positive evolutionary step, so he injected Susan Storm (The Invisible Woman), Johnny Storm (The Human Torch) and Ben Grimm (The Thing) with the zombie virus from that universe. After they turned, they infected him by eating parts of him. So, as there exists commonly-accepted (''Marvel Zombies'' was very successful) prior art for my suggestion, it's in-genre. And if this rant sounds faggy, it's because I'm bisexual. And I'm annoyed that you keep dragging this discussion off-topic because you're incapable of supporting your argument. --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::Oh wait a minute! You are the guy that suggested '''horses'''. I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to comment on this suggestion. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I has plastic syringes. Gawd. Oh, I forgot the part were I wake up when you starting moving and poking me, and I kick your ass.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 00:02, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What about the part where zombies you are poking with a syringe do NOT wake up and kick... er, EAT your ass? {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Recharging AP != sleeping. You might as well object to zombies not reacting to a knife or a shotgun, or humans not reacting to being clawed. It's how the game works. We've been over this before. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:50, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Exhausted, you can go no further.'' That pretty much sounds like you are going to sleep to me. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:17, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::So having 0 AP = Sleeping. But Recharging AP != Sleeping. Because I could play the game without ever having to see that message, provided I logged out with at least 1 AP. These arguments have been made before. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
This has been suggested before. It's a bad idea, and encourages out-of-character play - ie survivors deliberately seeking infection and wasting syringes. Also, and I've said this before, there is a very easy way to harm someone with a hypodermic syringe. Empty out whatever's in it, fill it with air, and inject the victim to induce a potentially fatal gas embolism. Too overpowered to be considered in UD though. --[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 23:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's true, it was made for PKing. Thanks for the point about embolisms, I'd forgotten about them. Do you have any thoughts on the X% hit likelihood as a possible mechanic for a later suggestion? --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Latent Infection===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies, their victims.<br />
|suggest_description=''After countless days of fending off the zombies, Malton's best and brightest have discovered an entirely new strain of the virus that the zombies have been using to infect their victims.''<br />
<br />
''Called the Sleeper strain, it typically has an incubation period of 6 hours before it becomes active, rapidly spreading through the victim's circulatory system, degrading living tissue at an alarming speed. The incubation period can be extended if the victim remains motionless, however.''<br />
<br />
''This new strain has proven to be almost completely immune to all forms of medicine when it is in its incubation period, however the virus seems to be easier to eradicate once it has 'awakened'. It can still resist medicine half of the time, however with surgery the virus can be always removed.''<br />
<br />
''Unfortunately, due to it's long incubation period, carriers of the virus often are not aware of when they have become infected until the virus begins to attack them. However, if the victim then gets bitten by a zombie with the more common strain of the virus, the Sleeper strain acts like an antibody, preventing the more common strain from taking hold.''<br />
<br />
New skill: Latent Infection<br />
<br />
Subskill of: Infection<br />
<br />
Abilities:<br />
* Takes 6 hours to kick in.<br />
* Causes 2 damage per AP.<br />
* Does not stack with standard Infection.<br />
* 5% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd during incubation period.<br />
* 50% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd when 'awakened'.<br />
* 100% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd by 'Surgery' in powered hospital.<br />
* Kicks in upon first movement after 6 hour incubation period.<br />
* Victim not told of infection until it 'awakens'.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Latent Infection)====<br />
in all this time have you ever even read the frequently suggested and D&DN pages? this is a dupey infection buff, the likes of which we've seen a bazillion times, and it has nothing special or redeeming about it except for a vry pointless 6 hour delay. such a delay is a) out of genre game-mechanically because time is abstract in UD b) griefs newbies c) griefs everyone who logs in only once a day d) it's overpowered -- zombies kill best by killing, and where they are weak, deal with that, instead. <br />
<br />
i'm also sure someone will be less lazy and find about 30 dupes for this. please... GIVE IT UP ALREADY, blake. go design your own game, print up the rules, get together with some friends over dice and doritos. and give ''us'' a break. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:38, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's... Urghh, it just over complicates a part of the game which doesn't need it, and is a huge buff to zombies. I'm a zombie player, but I don't like things like this. Just do what WanYao said and read the [[Frequently Suggested]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]]. Seriously, just commit them to memory.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd vote keep. And ignore the Hive Mind Kool-Aid Drinkers, Blake. The D&DN page is for wimps.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 13:38, 7 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
After three years they just now find an infection that incubates in 6 hours? somehow, that doesn't quite add up right in my mind. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 00:06, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:50, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance Change<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Ankle Grab<br />
|suggest_description='''The cost to stand up after a [[Zombie Hunter skills|Headshot]] is 15AP, whether or not the target has the [[Zombie Skills|Ankle Grab]] skill.'''<br />
<br />
This suggestion is somewhat slanted toward a Monroeville survivor's perspective.<br />
<br />
In Malton, the survivor's best chance for survival is to find a location which zombies are not currently massing to attack. The only time attacking is a viable option is when zombies are already inside a strategic building, and the survivor wants to repair the structure. Even [[Trenchcoater|Trenchcoaters]] know that when the zeds open the doors, it's time to run.<br />
<br />
In Monroeville, there is never a time when attacking is the best choice. If zombies are near, the survivor runs or the survivor dies. Attacking, even with a massive numeric advantage, is ultimately suicide.<br />
<br />
Currently, a Headshot costs a zombie 6AP, or 15AP if it doesn't have the Ankle Grab skill. To kill a 50HP unarmored zombie costs a minimum of 8AP: Three to find three shotguns loaded with five shells total, and five to bring down the zombie. A more typical number would be 24 -- 6 to find a pistol and two clips, and 18 to fire the pistol at the zombie 16 times, reloading twice, with a 65% hit rate. This means that by purchasing four skills, with seven additional skills required to reach level ten, a survivor can spend 24 AP to take 6AP from a zombie who has purchased two skills.<br />
<br />
If the AP cost to stand up from a Headshot were 15 ''regardless'' of the Ankle Grab skill, the ratio would go from 4:1 to almost 3:2, still strongly favoring the zombie, but making offense a viable tactic in Malton. In Monroeville, the few who remain might actually come out and play once in a while, instead of running like hell when one zombie gets within a block.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab)====<br />
Sure. I just fear its too late. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:59, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
You understand nothing of this game. The AP balance on barricades is 4-1 in favour of survivors at best. Add to that the fact that it takes 35-40 AP for a zombie to kill a survivor, only for the victim to get a revive for 10 AP and the cost of the syringe search. Then factor in that any survivor who isn't killed straight away can be saved with a simple FAK. I could go on and on about this, but in reality I said all that was needed in the first sentence. And seriously people, stop whining about fucking Monroeville. It's a temporary city which is going to be shut down, which makes it entirely irrelevant when discussing the mechanics of Urban Dead as a game. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 20:04, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:"and the cost of the syringe search". I love how you abstract away about 10-15 APs and call it "balanced". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And that only turns out to 20-25 AP, even if you factor in the syringe search. we could keep on discussing the maths of this, but Grim did it for us a few months back: read his rant on the [[User:Grim_s/Rants/Revival_Imbalance|revive imbalance]]. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 05:14, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Total Zombie AP spent (Including recovering from kills by Humans, thank you for padding your numbers): 483. Total Human AP spent: 322. Ratio: 3/2, compared to 4/1 for survivors headshotting zombies. Zombies win, again, by whining louder than the humans. I thought you were supposed to moan. In any event, thank you for showing us the math that proves that zombies have a massive combat AP advantage. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 17:30, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You really haven't grasped this game at all. Allow me to explain: This is a game of 'classes' in which zombies are designed to kill whilst survivors are designed to, get this '''survive'''! Therefore zombies are the attacking class and survivors are the defending class. What a shock to absolutely no-one with a modicum of intellect then that zombies get a combat advantage whilst survivors get a defensive advantage. The greatest 'weapons' that survivors have in this game are revivification syringes, first aid kits and barricades, so whilst it may not appeal to your BOOM! HEADSHOT! masturbation fantasies to have killing zombies be far less important than barricading buildings, healing and reviving, that's the way the game works. Your job is to survive. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 08:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Revivification syringes mean that survivors can go on the offensive, which nulls your given simplification. If each survivor revived two zombies and then died, the game would slowly progress to the survivor side of things. And that's with no barricading or defensive gameplay necessary.--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::That's a byproduct of design and one forced by the nature of the game rather than intent. The only way to make combat revives impossible would be to make revives themselves impossible. As such the existence of combat revives in no way undermines the identification of the offensive-defensive class dynamic. Zombie skills are all created with a view to creating damage, whilst survivor skills are designed for preventing or undoing it; yes, that's right, even the combat skills for survivors are about that. They're there to clear zombies out of buildings and allow those buildings to be secured, not to 'kill' the zombies. The sooner people realise that the sooner they'll start enjoying their game, just as I do with all my characters. Oh and your combat revive scenario neglects to consider death culting and window-diving as responses to such actions. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 19:27, 8 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::Also Brain Rot. My scenario worked from the assumption that all players were true dual-natured players, albeit dual-natured players who don't pick up Brain Rot. However, I would argue that (while zombie skills are indeed designed to deal damage) human skills revolve around maximizing the efficiency of revivification. Securing buildings just allows survivors to stave off death for a few more days, which in turn allows them to revive others more efficiently. Admittedly, this assumes a simplified version of survivors without death-culting and window-diving, etc., etc., but I think it is hard to argue the (relatively) balanced nature of the zombie/survivor ratio just from those extremes. The Mrh? cows tend to equalize that anyway. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Moloch, it's possible for me to completely understand every aspect of this game and still disagree with you. It's also possible for me to refute your arguments without attacking you personally. Here's an example: '''This is not a survival horror game.''' It's World of Warcraft in text. The only difference is that here you can switch sides. Just like WoW, the "human" side is more popular. Just like WoW, the "other" side wants to get more and more advantages because they believe it will offset the numeric disadvantage. Here's a heads-up: WoW proved you wrong there. I proved you wrong here. And I'll do it again. Zombies attack humans with 483 AP, costing the humans 322 AP. Humans attack the zombies with 500 AP, costing the Zombies '''nothing'''. Why nothing? Because the cost of recovery is included in the 483 AP the zombies already spent. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:20, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Wow, nice numbers. Got the math to prove that? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:58, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Not a survival horror game? So what does this: ''A Massively Multi-Player Web-Based Zombie Apocalypse'' mean? But no you are right. I must be forgetting that the innkeeper at Jacomb Arms sent me on the quest to recovery the Holy Golf Club of Lockettside while on my way to slay the Bank Manager of Ruddlebank. This is '''exactly''' like WoW!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 16:20, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
No dude. Just no. Monroeville is freaking dead anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Says the ''Zombie'' Lord... I actually had a nice killing spree a couple of weeks back, 5 survivors in 6 days...<br />
:It would be nice if we waited till there was one survivor, gave him a [[Red_Rum/Tommy_Gun|Tommy_Gun]], ammo and every zombie his location to see how long he would last... --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: :D I'm not sure if he means it as a Monroeville only thing or not, which would be fine with me if it was just contained to that city and not Malton. Seems like Kevan just wanted to kill it off anyway with those last changes to Monroeville. But yeah, the Tommy Gun goes the the last Monroeville Survivor! Would be a cool prize anyway :) --[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::The Tommy Gun is a seasonal weapon, found around 31st October/1st November. They'll have to survive til then and search really hard...--[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 00:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Kamakazie Bunny, get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit, it's tired as all hell. In any event, as much as he is usually an idiot, zombie lord is correct this time. And Moloch hit it on the head even more squarely. Don't fucking nerf Ankle Grab. Period. Even in Moronville. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:46, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::And don't forget, give him or her unlimited AP and IP hits. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:14, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:36, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:How about "Remove Headshot" then? Has that been suggested? It's currently a waste of 100 XP. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
You might have better luck if you suggest that headshot DOESN'T affect those without Ankle Grab.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:37, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Where.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''Balance Change'' HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA ''IMA GONNA RAEP YUO OF UR AP AND CALL IT BALANCED!'' Fuck off, Dago. You can't possibly justify taking away over 1/5th of the AP of just one class. Zombies can't do it to survivors in any amount and you want to increase it? Fucking play as a zombie for a year before you suggest anything that affects zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:59, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Suggestion:20080901_Feeding_Drag_in_Large_Buildings|Yanking a live survivor from a mall]] for 2/5 the AP cost of dumping a dead body from a fort is balanced, then? I don't see you railing against that. Oh, but feel free to turn my username into a racial slur if you can't think of any ''good'' reason to reject the suggestion. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::We've already posted enough reasons why it's a crap idea. Feel free to post it though, because even if it gets passed, Kevan won't touch it. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 05:25, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::How would you know? ANKLE GRAB was in PEER REJECTED when it came to vote here.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Which should give you an idea of how Kevan feels on the subject of the Headshot dynamic. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 08:53, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::It also shows you how fucking survivor-centric this damn wiki is. I'm not surprised that AG was voted down and a shit load of weapons and survivor buffs fill this page constantly. I'm pretty sure even if this ridiculous crap passed Kevan wouldn't implement it since last time I checked survivors outnumbered the zombies 61% to 39%. But hey! the survivors have it so fucking hard with all those damn zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::But OHNOES DCC some people think it's because no one wants to play zombies instead of the fact that their so boring because of their intellectuality and lack of competetivity. Who cares that that's disproved every time zombies make some big event so they can actually do something.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:37, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Actually it is when you consider that it's not a bargain and it's an additional 4 AP per kill that will be payed regularly. All Feeding Drag ever does is transfer AP cost from the individual to the horde, you know, that central play mechanic that zombies are forced to deal with. This would just make it so that all zombies always lose nearly half the AP they get a day, that's not balanced. You're also proposing buffing what is the only skill in the game that is considered to exist for the sole purpose of pissing players off and not balance.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Im not going to argue the game balance here. What i am going to say is that you dont make a game more balanced by making it less fun. Taking away 15 zombie ap a day makes the game much less fun for zombies, which will drive them away. Given how many of them are hanging onto the game out of habit rather than out of any sense of enjoyment, i dont think making playing a zombie feel like pulling teeth is the solution to any balance problem, real or imagined. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:37, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
This is not terribly effective. I mean, the search chances in Mville are all in ruined buildings. 8AP to load a shotgun I think not... ain't nothin' but ruined buildings. [[User:Soror Repentia Azalea|Qızılbaş]] 16:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Riot Shield===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Item<br />
|suggest_scope=All Players<br />
|suggest_description= <BR><br />
:''[[Building Types|Locations]]: Armouries (2%), Police Stations (2%), Junkyards (1%?)''<br />
:''[[Encumberment|Encumbrance]]: 16%''<br />
<br />
- Grants a 10% (5% in dark buildings) chance to deflect any attack <S>that deals less than 5 damage</S> (it does not reduce the chance to hit, only those which would normally hit). Having a Riot Shield in your inventory automatically means that you are using it; no action is required to activate it. Zombies may use and benefit from Riot Shields. Using multiple Riot Shields has no additional effect; having two or more in your inventory will not give any further protection.<br />
<br />
- They may also be used as an improvised weapon with the following stats:<br />
<br />
:''Damage: 1 point''<br />
:''Base Accuracy: 10%''<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Riot Shield)====<br />
<br />
Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield (although rotters will have a harder time getting them but that applies to any cross-class skill/item from the humans). Also the zombie populace should be aware that a Riot shield is the equivalent of 8 clips/shells/Faks/Syringes that can be used against their cause. Survivors now have an active defence against the hordes (in my opinion barricades do not count as they do not directly protect the player or go with them on their journeys). <BR><br />
Things I'm unsure of:<BR><br />
:Encumbrance<br />
:Chance to deflect<br />
:Findable in museums (Medieval / war exhibitions)<br />
:Zombies with a reduced protection chance (as they are more sluggish)<br />
:Flavour text for deflected attacks!<br />
--[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''You fire at target zombie for 10 damage, but it deflects off their riot shield. They are unharmed''<br />
--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:05, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: Whilst I do agree with the flavour text the shot gun does not deal '''less than 5 damage'''. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:13, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Balls. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hi Kamikazie, this is an interesting idea. Given that zombies can't use melee weapons, it seems odd they might continue to use (and effectively position) a riot shield. Additionally, it seems it would get in the way of typical zombie attacks: grabbing, holding, biting. I don't want to seem like I'm favoring survivors, but this, like all other objects, seems it should be survivor-specific. Would players be able to use a shotgun while holding one? Shields of any kind make sense, especially in close-range combat. I'd see the value in making it "equippable" rather than simply automatically active if in inventory. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 18:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ummm... zombies can use melee weapons, although it would get in the way of their normal attacks I don't want to hinder them or make this one sided although realism would want it so. Zombies are people to! Interfering with other functions is something else I disagree with. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hordes are the exception, not the rule. Lets see, a maxed zombie would traditionally score a total of 29 hits in 50 swings. Now, if 10% of those hits are negated, it goes down to 26. Given that the majority of zombies are not horde zombies, and that zombies have a seriously hard time getting past little things you call barricades (Which already are your defenses, not to mention your mobility, which is another, chronically underused one), this puts a serious dent in zombie ability across the board for the sake of defending yourself from the exception to the rule based on a flase assumption of defenselessness. Go away and think things through before you return to plague this page with your stupidity again. The description as written has this as a pure zombie nerf, they cant even use it, ebcause regardless of flaks, a pistol hits for five damage at first, with one subsequently negated, thus pistols will still go through. Given humans use firearms almost exclusively, becauuse axes and improvised weapons suck, they will most often suffer no penalty against a zombie with such a device. Zombies have no 5+ damage attacks. This is one sided zombie rape. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:although I hardly ever agree with grims choice of words, the fact that flare guns and shotguns arent nerfed but all zed attacks are is a fair point. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:29, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sorry if you misunderstood when I used the word horde, I used it to describe the zombies populace as a whole, not in a specific location. The pistol glitch is something which I must admit I did not anticipate and overlooked, thanks for pointing that out. The rest just seems negative for the sake of zombie-jeebus. Whilst this does primarily affect zombie attacks it also affects all survivor melee attacks, you say that survivors depend on guns because everything else sucks, I don't think you need reminding that the Jacket only benefits zombies and PK/DC victims (which their very actions benefit zombies). Zombies have no fear of death and any defence boosts through items come at no cost, survivors have to balance their inventory for survival/defense and the retaking of ruins. If you feel that 26 instead of 29 hits is too many feel free to suggest a change to the values. This is a discussion for whittling out 'stupid' ideas not for insulting them (which I consider pointless). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:47, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
''Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield ...'' Can, but won't. The vast majority of the damage zombies take s from guns, and this also provides no protection vs combat revives. HtH combat damage trails a distant third behind those in terms of impact on zombies. '''So really, this IS a pure zombie nerf.''' {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 19:08, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:Any proposes for a fix? Reducing deflection to 5% (that sounds so geekish). Lowering the limit to Less than 4 (which would account for the gun-bug and allow zombies still to get in their max claws) or would that be seen to be nerfing infection/bite/newbies/survivor melee? I know you might think this is the wrong school of thought but I feel there needs to be some active defence from zombies (running away is not defending) and barricades can't be taken with you, but due to the limited amount of high-powered zombie attacks any thing is essentially a nerf. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 19:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this suggestion if it was to affect ALL attacks regardless of damage... however I am concerned about it stacking with flak jackets to nerf firearms but if you lot are ok with it then I have no objections.... opinions please? --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I think it's a neat idea, just not sure if its passable. Maybe if the Shield had a chance to be broken, or taken away by zombies? For every "deflection" there is a 10% chance the shield breaks as well? Maybe a zombie that gets a Tangling Grasp has a 10% chance to wrench the shield away and toss it aside for each attack it makes while it maintains the Grasp?--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:25, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This fails flavour as it implies active usage to gain its benefit, you must move the shield to cover the attack. A flak jacket is passive, it protects your torso regardless. In short, this would (or rather should) be useless while you are asleep...which for most UD characters is 23 hours and 50 minutes of each day.<br />
<br />
Also it's a nasty zombie nerf. '''All''' zombie attacks are less than 5 damage, meaning all survivors would get a 10% chance to avoid every single zombie attack in the game. This suggestion will discourage zombie play and turn Malton into Monroeville after the first quarantine, tag with PKers. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:42, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''"After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this..."'' We are not okay with this idea. It's awful. It's nothing but a horrible zombie nerf, and no changes are going to save it. Riot shields do not protect against firearms. Period. Any attempt to make them do so is just stupidity. But if riot shields work against melee attacks only, then you are nerfing an already underdog ability -- for both zambahz and survivors. Just drop it, it sucks and it can't be fixed. Also, Izzy, you've failed in your Dupe-meister duties, this is in there somewhere, I know it ;) And, Zhani, once again you demonstrated why you should stay away from making suggestions: please wait until you actually know the game, thanks. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:01, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:As far as I understood from the comments people were making, the two major complaints were that it did not affect guns and that it affected zombie attacks. Including the ability to affect guns as well (which you ''conveniently'' failed to include in your quote) was the change that some people may approve of, as for affecting zombie attacks that kinda goes with the idea of a riot shield. "''Riot shields do not protect against firearms''" it may upset you to know that some do, although if you were arguing for true realism I think the zombies need to go... In defence of Izzy failing to dupe I could only find 2 similar suggestions, both from 2005 and both with completely different mechanics if it is that big an issue to dupe it go put in the effort and do it yourself. As for Zhani, he's learning don't try shoot him down because he's trying to be involved. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Next person to shorten my name gets Jihad declared against them.<br />
<br />
::Wan; what he said about dupes <nowiki>:p</nowiki><br />
<br />
::Bunny; would you care to comment on the point I made about active usage? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Falling asleep from exhaustion is a good reason why your character runs out of AP, it only takes 30min before you can 'wake up'. Whilst I do agree that a player would have to actively use it to defend themselves, the idea that I can hit someone who is asleep repeatedly with a fire axe and with such poor accuracy doesn't make sense (especially considering they don't wake up), I actually assume all players are awake and attempting to defend themselves if attacked which is why hit accuracy is not too high. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait wut? How do zombies benefit from something that will only effect them and low level survivors? Last I heard pistols and shotguns did >= 5 damage, Claws and bites did <= 4.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies would gain more defence from melee weapons, however it has now been changed to include pistols and shotguns. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::It just doesn't seem right. It destroys all zombie attack, survivor players could get them easier then zombie players... Even if Shotguns no longer worked, that would create an atmosphere where it would be CRing only.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 17:56, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::How would this new version work in dark buildings? And Also, I still don't like it for the same reason why I think halving in dark buildings was a horrendous idea, 10% from 50% is a lot more significant than 10% from 65%, especially with the RNG the way it is But if you're going to go on with it might as well answer all questions that might come up.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::As the Riot shield only affects the attacks that hit the player, the environment which the attack is performed in should have make no difference but since the user is making an effort, the same penalty as attacks receive should logically apply. (Chance of success halved in dark buildings added to suggestion) Thanks for that, the more holes you guys help me fill the better. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it. Rather logical especially when considering that several suburbs were just bad neighborhoods (Even BEFORE the zombies!). I think that his would be a bit more efficient if you kept it as a melee reducing item, the hand to hand flak jacket in other words, say knock off 1-2 Damage per non-firearm attacks. Take it to that level and THEN I'll probably vote a keep on this. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 19:33, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, I'm sure new players will appreciate 0-1 damage at 25% to hit.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Well the zombies are getting Uber Buffs. Survivors have always been a bit better than the zombies at base level. I think that just the 1 Reduced Damage is sufficient at say...30% but if we want to get technical with this option lets say Hand to Hand Combat skill gives the 15% bonus to this so base is 15% chance to block 1 damage and then with HtH skill 30% chance to block 1 damage and we drop that improvised attack method because it's going to be the same as a punch. Now for the zombies think of Virgour Mortis as a +10% Chance to block 1 Damage. So again, 15% base and with Vigour Mortis a nice little 25% because Zeds aren't quick enough to keep up with the survivors. It is a bit sketchy but I am going to support this method over sitting around fiddling with percentages. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 20:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I would like for this to apply exclusive to melee weapons, but that would mean ALL zombie attacks and not the attacks used by high-level survivors which was a problem. I'm also unsure if the game distinguishes between damage types, if it does great, if not, going on damage inflicted presents a problem when pistols are reduced by flak jackets. The idea to reduce damage instead of deflecting it completely is possible, however it would just end up as 'a flak for melee attacks' different mechanics for each one helps to keep them unique but if people prefer that option let me know. The skills bit does have merits but I was hoping it would be independent of the skill tree although if people want it to upgrade as you buy skills your way is certainly an excellent way to do it, especially the uniqueness between the live/dead. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:18, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Consider the flak jacket. -1 point for firearms, hand to hand attacks still go through. As for the zombies...well survivors run out of ammunition every now and again, even in the sieges. To combine this item with hand to hand combat training is the most logical approach based off of common sense and lightens the work load if Kevan likes this. Like you stated, zombies and survivors can both hold them, lets apply our minds and think about how well a zombie would be able to block a hit. When you think of next to never apply this big piece of reinforced fiberglass and then you get your answer here. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 03:53, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Zombies holding riot shields? I'd love to have some of that crack you're on. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 04:08, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dude the odd thing is that it is not crack! It's Jello powder! [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:23, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies hold and use all sorts of items... Anyway, this idea is just awful and can't be saved, please give it up. All it does in any form is act as a zombie/PK nerf. Period. Drop it. There is NO NEED for this, and it doesn't improve the game, make it more interesting, or offer a solution to a problem. It's just... dumb. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===No More Walking Armories: Less weapons, more ammo.===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 21:39, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Change to firearm usage<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, firearms.<br />
|suggest_description=Add Equipped Weapon feature, adjust weapon balance numbers to encourage reloading over trenchcoatism. See below for details.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
As things stand, players in Malton become [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|walking armories]], with as many loaded pistols and shotguns strapped to their bodies as they can carry. Essentially, everyone is a [[:Image:Trenchcoater03.gif|trenchcoater]] by default. This is due to how firearms currently work and their game statistics. Players are rewarded for carrying multiple loaded firearms, and there's little penalty for doing so. Guns have very little encumbrance ''relative to their ammunition'', and there's no cost at all to moving on to your next loaded weapon. I think this is [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Arguing_for_Your_Suggestion|unbelievable]] and out of genre. <br />
<br />
My proposal is to add a new game feature and tweak weapon encumbrance, find rates, and damage in order to encourage the carrying and use of only primary weapons, with plenty of ammo for those weapons.<br />
<br />
'''1. Equipped Weapon''' The game supports selecting items that are "worn"; however, this is only used for clothing and flavor at the moment. With this addition, survivor players select any weapon in their inventory to be ''equipped''. <br />
* Above "'''Inventory (click to use):'''" there is "'''Weapon (select):'''". There will be a new drop-down list in this section: '''<code>Equip [Weapon List] as weapon</code>'''. This lets the player choose any existing weapon in their inventory, or an improvised weapon like a fuel can or crowbar. <br />
* Equipping a weapon costs '''2 AP'''. This represents getting it out of your backpack/belt and having it ready for combat. ''The AP cost of switching weapons provides an incentive to reload over switching between a stocked series of weapons.'' <br />
* You can only attack with your equipped weapon. The "attack player" option no longer offers multiple weapons as a choice, but instead lists your ''equipped weapon'': '''<code>Attack [Joe Zombie] with pistol</code>'''. If no weapon is equipped, all attacks are punches.<br />
* Once a weapon is equipped, the "Weapon:" section no longer displays "(select)", and the selected weapon is displayed there, instead of in the inventory section. Below that, the weapon-selection control remains available to select another weapon.<br />
* Clicking ammo to reload defaults to reloading the equipped weapon if it is unloaded. Clicking the equipped weapon removes it. Clicking a weapon that does not have a dual usage (most of them) will equip them as well (this is necessary so you can still click fuel cans to use them on generators, fire flare guns, etc.) <br />
* Upon dying, the equipped weapon is removed and remains in the player's inventory. Zombies do not have equipped weapons. Revivified survivors must reequip their weapon.<br />
* The currently equipped weapon can be seen in the profile description, along with clothing.<br />
<br />
'''2. Weapon Encumbrance Values''' Firearm encumbrance values are increased. Guns can get heavy to carry, and shotguns are unwieldy. Pistols: 10%. Shotgun: 18%. '''Ammunition encumbrance is minimized'''. Bullets and shells take up relatively little space, and can be kept in backpacks, fannypacks, pockets, etc. Clips & Shells: 1%. <br />
<br />
'''3. Reloading''' Reloading a clip or shell remains at 1 AP.<br />
<br />
'''4. Weapon Balance:''' This change slightly increases the in-combat AP costs for survivors. With 8 loaded pistols in inventory, a player can currently do 240 damage in 48 turns at 65% rate, or 156 damage, or 3.25 damage/AP. With 1 equipped pistol and plenty of ammo, in 48 turns the player can empty 7 clips, doing 210 damage @65%, or 136.5 damage, or 2.84 damage/AP; a 12% decrease. <br />
<br />
With current shotguns, 8 shotguns in inventory do 160 damage in 16 turns @ 65%, or 104 damage: 6.5damage/AP. With the change, two shots requires either switching (2AP) or reloading (2AP). Alternately, we can simply think of the unloaded shotgun as 2AP/shot. With the change, the shotgun would do 80 damage in 16 turns @ 65% or 52 damage, a 50% decrease. The change makes the shotgun even more front-loaded damage however. <br />
<br />
'''''It is very difficult to make absolute recommendations on numbers for game balance.''''' Only in-game results can show whether items are unbalanced or not, and to what degree. However, as an initial rebalancing to make the change not appear so drastic, I suggest these figures:<br />
<br />
'''Pistol: 6 damage/shot. (5 flak).''' In 48 turns (finishing empty), a pistol would do (6*7*6*0.65) or 163.8 damage on average: 3.4damage/AP, a 5% increase. This is a very modest change, and sticks to whole-number damage. In 6 turns, the existing pistol does 30 max damage, 19.5 average, the new does 36 or 23.4 average, but on subsequent turns the reload time brings the average damage back down. With 6 shots/7AP, the true average becomes 3.34dam/AP. Total pistol increase: 2.9%<br><br />
Alternately: to kill 50HP enemy:<br />
:Current: 3.25dam/AP. (Assuming enough pistols in inventory) 16AP to kill<br />
:New: 3.34 dam/AP ((6*6*.65)/7). 15AP to kill.<br />
<br />
'''Shotgun: 12 damage/shot (10 flak).''' 2 turns=24 damage @65%=15.6damage. Compare to current: 2 turns = 20*65%=13dam. This is a small front-end increase. However, comparing 16 turns (8 loaded current shotguns, vs 1 shotgun with reloading): (10*16*0.65)/16=6.5dam/AP. New shotgun: 2 shots, then 2 shots per 4 turns for 12 turns, then 1 shot in the last two turns. 2*12+12((2*12)/4)+0+12=108. @65%=70.2 or 4.39dam/AP. The shotgun decreases over time. If we compare current and new shotguns starting unloaded, it's 10dam/2AP vs 12dam/2AP. The advantage of starting a fight with a loaded shotgun goes up, but the advantage of carrying a stack of them goes down. It becomes worthwhile to consider switching to a sidearm after using the shotgun. ''This appears consistent with game believability.''<br><br />
An alternate way of looking at shotgun damage: to kill a 50HP enemy: <br />
:Current: 6.5damage/AP (assuming enough shotguns in inventory). 8AP to kill.<br />
:New: 2*7.8damage=15.6 for 2AP, then 7.8damage/2AP (reload, fire). 7AP to kill.<br />
<br />
Shotgun opener + pistol: 15.6 average damage/2AP. 2AP to switch. 23.4 average damage/6AP. 1AP reload. 11.7 avg. dam. /3AP. = 50.7 damage in 14AP. Slightly more efficient than pistol alone, less than shotgun alone. (I have been working with current balance values; but the existing shotgun is much higher damage than the existing pistol. It requires more AP to find ammo, and reload.)<br />
<br />
'''5. Weapon search rates''' Firearm search rate decreases slightly (most people will only want or need one of each type). Ammunition search rate increases slightly. <br><br />
'''Pistols:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Streets (1%?), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
'''Shotguns:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Pubs (1%)<br><br />
'''Clips:''' Mall Gun Stores (13%/16%), Armories (13%), Police Departments (12%), Junkyards (2%?), Gatehouses (?%)<br><br />
'''Shotgun shells:''' Mall Gun Stores (12%/16%), Armories (11%), Police Departments (11%), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
* If a weapon is found, and the player has selected to discard that type of weapon, but they have NOT selected to discard the ammo, ''they retain the ammo that was in that firearm (if any)''.<br />
<br />
'''Potential objections:'''<br />
<br />
Game balance: the change to damage output/AP is relatively small. If game stats reveal survivors grow more powerful, or one weapon is more preferred than the other, damage values can be adjusted as necessary. The point of this change is not to drastically adjust game balance in any way, but to instead encourage a change in player behavior to something more consistent with genre. Any statistical flaws that benefit a weapon type or player group can be adjusted as necessary.<br />
<br />
Inventory changes: this deprecates the value of carrying multiple weapons. Despite the increase in encumbrance of a single weapon, this should actually free up some space for people. The changes do not severely affect the contents of anyone's inventory. <br />
<br />
Realism/Game fiction/Genre: Carrying an absurd amount of weapons is simply silly. The only reason people do is because the game mechanics encourage it. This change provides an incentive for players to behave much more akin to typical characters in zombie films: carrying a couple favored weapons, and enough ammo to keep them supplied.<br />
<br />
Too long/complicated: This idea consists of minor changes to game variables (encumbrance, damage, search), and adds a straightforward feature which should work consistently with the existing interface and game data structures. It requires tracking one more piece of data per character: which weapon is equipped, and removes one piece of data normally transmitted on each attack: the weapon used. This should not be a prohibitive amount of development work. Balance changes are necessary to coincide with changes to AP costs for using weapons to minimize the secondary impact on gameplay.<br />
<br />
Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit.<br />
<br />
'''Areas for input:'''<br />
<br />
How are the numbers? Are they reasonable to maintain balance while accomplishing the goal of this suggestion?<br />
<br />
====Discussion (No More Walking Armories)====<br />
#Pistols are usually no bigger than two clips. Having 10% pistols and 1% clips is completely unjustified.<br />
#Shotguns are nowhere near the size or unwieldiness of generators (18% vs 20%).<br />
Not just that, but raising the encumbrance of weapons doesn't really contribute to reducing the number of weapons and increasing the amount of ammunition carried. Changing the search percentages wouldn't affect much either. Just plain introducing the equipped-weapon gameplay would do it. It's simple; reloading costs 1 or 2 AP, changing a weapon would cost 2. Ammunition is lighter than weapons. For pistols this means you're paying 1 AP less per 6 bullets, and carrying double the amount of damage if you use clips over loaded pistols. For shotguns it means you're paying just as much, but still carrying one half more ammo by carrying shells instead of shotguns. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 23:28, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I don't believe the game's encumbrance values are based on real-world sizes or weights, but rather are a general reflection of carrying ability for the sake of game balance. They're arbitrary. No one can carry 5 portable generators at once, and being limited to carrying only 50 shotgun shells, when they're typically sold in small boxes of 24 to 48, reveals this. A Ruger Security Six revolver as listed on the [[firearms]] page weighs about 1 kilo; carrying 25 of them at 4% enc per, would mean 55 pounds of firearms. The point isn't to be completely accurate with size or weight, but present a tradeoff in carrying many vs. few. With 1 pistol (12%) and 8 clips (1%), for a total of 20% the user still comes ahead of carrying 8 current pistols (32%). While a shotgun does not weigh as much as a portable generator, carrying 16 of them (at 6%) is just as unreasonable. <br>The search values I adjust because finding new firearms becomes less important. This isn't critical to the suggestion however, especially if the part where I recommend that users be able to discard guns they find but keep the ammo in them. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 23:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The exact nature of encumbrance is pretty much irrelevant, as, like I said, changing the encumbrance values doesn't really contribute towards the goal of this suggestion. It just adds one more thing for people to find objectionable. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 09:59, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::If currently people are carrying 16 weapons, and suddenly they can be just as effective with 3, they now have much more space for first aid kits, ammo, syringes, generators, etc. It's also about balance. While there is extra space, increasing weapon encumbrance means it isn't so survivor-favored in that aspect. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 10:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::That reasoning would make more sense if you weren't halving the weight of ammunition. You still have to keep the values somewhat sensible when compared to others. 10% pistols and 18% shotguns are just too inconsistent. Something like 6/8% pistols and 12% shotguns would be better. Or you could bump up the encumbrance of '''everything else''' (which ''would'' make more sense, but would simply get spammed). --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:24, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Is it necessary for game-balance that survivors be limited to carrying a certain quantity of ammunition? To my mind, the limiting factor is search rates, more than carrying capacity. I halved the encumbrance of ammo to balance increasing the values for firearms, along with the fact that the new system encourages keeping plenty of loose ammo, rather than just that which fits in numerous weapons. As for game-realism, shotguns are large and unwieldy, it's implausible to carry more than two. Encumbrance can represent both weight and bulk. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this idea, both because it makes sense and it's better as flavour, but I don't think it will last two seconds in a vote..not that that's any reason not to suggest it, but all the trenchies will go "OMG ONLY 1 WEAPON + MORE RELOADS NOW I CAN ONLY KILL FOUR ZOMBIES A DAY KILL KILL KILL" <br>But I like it.. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 01:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thanks! :) Actually, I really am trying to keep the balance the about the same so that for purposes of killing speed, it's roughly neutral. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:07, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
All these fucking words to just hide the fact you want to bump up the shotgun's damage. Go to hell. Go back and play Resident Evil some more if you get hard-ons from selecting and equipping weapons. You miss the point that this is a damn text game that only gives you 50 AP a day. You can't unload weapons when you find them and you are just as likely to find a pistol with 3 bullets in it as a full clip, but thanks to this GENIUS suggestion even if you aren't a trenchy you will still get your AP raped by swapping weapons. I like to think that survivors are smart enough not to carry their weapons in a back pack but to have them hidden on their body for easy access. I fucking hate gun suggestions. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 02:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Hi DCC. As I pointed out, in front-loaded damage the shotgun sees an increase, but over time it has reduced damage/AP compared to currently. If you compare the current system with someone carrying 10 loaded shotguns and enough ammo to reload & fire again for their 50AP, the new system represents an 11% decrease in average damage done. As I clearly stated, this isn't about altering game balance or enhancing/damaging the effectiveness of any weapon. As for searching, I provided a suggestion that ammo found in other weapons could be unloaded if the user already has a weapon. Also, I don't think being abusive is very consistent with rational discussion of people's ideas. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:39, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::The game is not played in long term, at least for survivors it shouldn't be. They're more than mobile enough that they can pop in, do tons of damage, run out, and come back a few days later fully stocked and do the same thing. It's low risk and exactly why boosting short term gains for survivors anymore would be ridiculously overpowered.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::This doesn't create a boost for survivors. Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png the graph] I created. The intent is to create a change in behavior, without significantly affecting balance; which is why I'm happy to discuss the numbers used. The pistol remains almost exactly the same; the shotgun does very slightly more damage in the first two turns, quickly falls behind the damage put out by multiple preloaded existing shotguns. This is shifting the pre-combat AP investment to carry around all those loaded weapons, into combat itself, making it viable to have one weapon of each kind and reload during combat. This is more consistent with the game world and genre: frantically loading your weapon as the undead shamble towards you, than carrying 16 loaded weapons effortlessly. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::I wasn't critiquing your suggestion. Now I am. To keep it simple I'm just gonna say this, you can't half ammo encumbrance it would have to much of an effect on the time survivors have that they can spend ''without'' restocking. That amount of time is a significant limiter on their ability to use/abuse their AP efficiency. You're basically doubling their Ammo carrying capacity and attempting to claim it's balanced by slightly reducing their attack efficiency(which is still being left close to 8 damage per AP). Yes, it makes individuals very very slightly less effective, it will also make groups of survivors insanely more effective and it will let those individuals spend ''more'' time without a break. That ''is'' a significant boost. Now I don't actually have too much of a problem with it assuming Kevan ''finally'' allows some specific zombie boost in response, and by that I mean finally letting them do a significant amount of damage per AP and letting them get through barricades with something closer to twice as much AP as they take to build instead of 4-5x. I don't think that will happen though.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:17, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Thanks Karek, this is an interesting point. Assuming a player wants to maximize their combat potential, and disregarding all other concerns (assume they're backed up by other players who will heal/rebuild etc.), a player might carry 16 shotguns (@6%) & 2 shells (@2%). That's an average of ((32+2)*10*0.65)=221 damage in 36AP, then they're empty. 6.14damage/AP. That's not including the significant AP investment to find and load all those guns. Under the proposed system, player has 1 shotgun @18%, and 82 shells @1%. They get 2AP of attacks, then thereafter it's 1attack/2AP (load & shoot). Over 166AP, they do an average of ((2+82)*12*0.65)=655.2 damage, or 3.94 damage/AP. They would have invested more AP in advance to gather all those shells.<br><br />
:::::I understand what you're saying. The existing system allows a quick burst of high damage, then the survivor has to go replenish. The new system would allow large restocking in a "safe" are, then being able to do damage for an additional 4.6x AP; however, both the average damage is reduced, as well as being spread out over more AP. <br><br />
:::::Say we go with 1 shotgun @18%, but 41 shells @2%. ((2+41)*12*0.65)=335.4 in 84AP, or 3.99damage/AP. Roughly the same damage output, just half the cycle time between attacking & replenishing; as well as less AP invested up front. So the question is: is the length of the attack/scavenge cycle significant to game balance? Do zombies depend on survivors running out, even if they're doing 2/3rd the average damage per AP? --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::::That's not necessarily true either, with three, or even four, survivors striking together they can completely ignore the reduced efficiency. They would actually clear things faster and more efficiently then than they could now doing the same thing. Like I mentioned above, the average damage in the long term with shotguns is irrelevant because most of that cost occurs well outside of danger while most of the reward occurs when you want/need it to, all that would happen is who's holding the shotguns would change, that's actually what I like about an equipment based system. Lose everything else, keep that, the rest is irrelevant, likely impossible to balance, and seems generally based on the assumption that all Survivors are idiots; they aren't, they just don't have any real reason to work together. There's a good core idea here but the implementation needs work.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think i like the start of this. Right now i can't focus to tell if all the numbers are good with me over a long base of time. but, first impression is i like this... i just don't know exactly how this would affect things until i'm actually using it. Also, i disagree with DCC... chill out, man. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This sounds great but really this is more of an AP kill. Consider that the majority of us survivors depend on being a walking arsenal, making us pay 2AP to get a loaded pistol out can highly unbalance the basics for siege survival. I say you drop it down to 1AP or just drop it entirely and make this a weapon pump. This has potential and I love the stats given, but you just gotta fine tone it. Try getting together a study group, devise a neat little generator amongst yourselves, provide a report in place of the hypothesis that we do have now and then try getting this into voting. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:There AP cost is there to provide the incentive to reload the weapon you're using, rather than switch out to one loaded weapon after another. For the pistol, it makes it more advantageous, for the shotgun, it makes it equal with carrying other shotguns, but the drop in encumbrance acts as a bonus. The increase in damage for both pistol and shotgun help balance against the increased AP costs so damage/AP is roughly the same. With pistols, you currently do 6 attacks in 6 turns, then switch. With the new system, you'll do 6 attacks in 6 turns, 1 turn to reload, then go again. So you need 1 pistol, and just clips. 6 damage/attack instead of 5 makes them close in damage output. Likewise with the shotgun, with the current system you fire 1 shot per AP for as long as you have shotguns. With my proposal, you still get two shots for two AP with your pre-loaded gun, then you get 1 shot every 2 AP: reload 1 shell, fire, etc. In the first few turns you'll have done more damage than the existing system, but after a few turns, it does a little less on average. Oh, and remember: '''with the existing system, you still need to spend the AP to load your weapons. You just do it before combat, not during.''' Like I said, this brings it more in genre: desperately reloading as the zombies advance on you, instead of carrying a dozen loaded shotguns on your back. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 05:32, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''Re: weapon balance: Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png this graph].''' This compares current with proposed weapon damage. I'm somewhat inclined to increase the shotgun to 13 or 14, but the relative advantage between the old and new shotgun depends on how many loaded shotguns the player would have under the old system. I assumed 8 for this graph. If it's less, the difference is much narrower; it's unlikely a player would have many more. Note that the player has a damage advantage with the old shotgun ''until they run out''; but they had to spend the same AP in advance to load those 8 shotguns. The new shotgun merely incorporates that loading AP into combat. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 06:16, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''GRRRRRRRRRRH!!!''' KISS me, please. i.e., Keep. It. Simple. Stupid. This may be a fantastic idea, but I can't be arsed atm to read that wall of text. Please learn how to be more concise. Seriously. Thank you. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:22, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What I did read... led me here... This is unnecessary. Because carrying lots of loaded firearms is actually a very poor use of AP and encumbrance. The most Ap-encumbrance efficient weapon in the game is the pistol, by far. And the best way to use pistols is to have 2-3 of them and tonnes of ammo. Shotguns are spiffy weapons, but their ap-encumbrance efficiency is atrocious: if wind up with a few, use 'em... but once its empty? Drop it, don't reload it, that's a giant waste of AP... So, if people wanna waste their AP and encumbrance on carrying and reloading lots of firearms -- the zombies say go right ahead and be horribly inefficient! <br />
:That being said... What ticks me is that I never find pistol ammo in Malls. It's always shotguns. Graaaaagh! Which means... I don't think we need a big game mechanic overhaul, so much as search rates should be tweaked... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::More thoughts... If people wanna carry lots of guns, more power to them. Because that helps the zombies... Because zombies can't be killed. And survivors should be focusing on barricading and reviving and healing first -- and when they are not... then the zombies win! By default. <br />
::Also, "walking armouries" are ''totally'' in genre. You always have the Armah Manz with billions of b!g bang-bangz... Always. And usually, these are the idiots who end up getting killed... And the consumer type who focuses on helping others and getting the job done most effectively lives and helps more people... As in the genre, as in UD... Now, I kind of would like to see trenchcoating get a bit of a nerf... however, i am always very cautious about "legislating playing styles"... And that is what this suggestion does. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:37, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: I'm sorry you found the idea too long. However, I wanted to be specific in the reason for each change, and the expected effect. In order to make the change relatively balance-neutral while encouraging a behavioral change, adjusting numbers in several places is necessary. You said that carrying shotguns and reloading would be inefficient: that's part of what the change is attempting to address. People carry multiple weapons because they can front-load their AP to increase damage in a short time. This idea diminishes that effect while allowing them to output roughly the same damage/AP invested. <br />
::: I disagree that "walking armories" are in-genre. The "Army Mans" carry an assault rifle, a couple grenades, and maybe a sidearm. The only reason players will carry 16 loaded weapons around is because ''the current game mechanics encourage this behavior''; it's not something you'd typically see in a film. They can stock up on weapons and ammo in advance, then unleash that stored AP in the form of damage. What is more consistent with the genre and a plausible game-world, is carrying a couple reliable weapons, and reloading them as needed. This change isn't legislating playing styles: combat-oriented players will still be able to arm up and go to war. They'll just do it with a couple weapons and plenty of ammo, rather than 200 pounds of firearms on their back. Their combat effectiveness versus the zombies will be largely unchanged. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:55, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Instead of trying to play with the big boys in the flame department, I suggest picking up some reading comprehension skills. I addressed your "refutations" in my original post. First of all, the game does not actually encourage carrying 16 loaded weapons; in so far as you are able to do so, you're most assuredly ''not'' contributing to the pro-survivor cause. That you fail to understand ''why'' isn't my problem: do your homework. Secondly, dudes armed to the teeth shooting the shit out every zombie they see (and usually dying grisly deaths themselves because of their stupidity) are very common in both the movies and, yeah, even the video games. Pay attention next time, okay? And go re-read karek and DCC's comments and try to understand the words of your intellectual superiors. THEN get back to us. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:12, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm afraid that you really haven't supported your objections, despite claiming you have. Whether choosing combat-oriented activities in-game helps or hinders the survivor cause is ''irrelevant'': you mentioned that we shouldn't be dictating player style. This suggestion as I've stated is largely balance-neutral. What is does, is discourages exactly what I describe: the "walking armory" effect, and encourages carrying only needed weapons with sufficient ammunition. This doesn't prevent or penalize anyone from walking in with guns blaring, it just means they don't look like [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|this guy]] while doing it. More like [http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1003/988120768_87c5ce1538.jpg this]. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::''Balance neutral'' ? What's this shit? How can something be "neutral" -balance or otherwise- when it tries to change the way people play? '''Don't tell people how to play their characters.''' It's just that simple. Who cares if someone fills all of their inventory with weapons or with GPS units? So what if some trenchies want to carry 100 shotguns? I can tell you haven't been playing this game long. More likely you don't even play a zombie. Which makes your bitching about weapons even weirder. Your suggestion doesn't solve a problem. Your suggestion does not make gameplay more interesting. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::: Could you be specific about how you feel it's unbalanced? And the suggestion is not telling people how to play. The intention of [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Gameplay_and_Flavor|that guideline]] for suggestions I believe is that we shouldn't discourage RP or encourage non-RP. People can play their characters how they choose, and fill their inventory with what they want. However, the current game mechanics ''actively encourages players to be walking arsenals'' if they want to maximize their combat effectiveness. The problem the suggestion solves is that carrying a huge stack of weapons is anti-RP, contrary to the genre and game-fiction. As I've said, it's [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|silly]]. Carrying a shotgun, revolver, and melee weapon seems much more plausible, and something you'd see in a zombie movie, don't you think? This lets someone who does that, be viable in combat. Additionally, I have attempted to balance this so it's neutral towards zombies, not shifting the advantage. Again, I invite you to show me how it is not. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 00:35, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::: You say you don't want to legislate how people play the game one moment, then the next you say that's ''exactly'' what you want to do! Make up your mind. Now... Zombies don't care if they get shot. If you actually ''played'' a zombie full-time, you'd understand this. Shot me all you bloody well want, I'll dirt nap and stand up again with, at worst, 44 AP and be ready to go. Therefore, shooting zombies is ''completely'' pointless except when you need to clear a building. To that end, you carry some guns. But ''smart'' survivors don't carry lots of guns: they carry maybe 2-4 pistol and 2-4 shotguns, tops. Why? Well... because the most powerful pro-survivor thing in the whole game is the revive-needle. Next come barricading and FAKing. Smart survivors know this, thus they carry several needles (sometimes a hell of a lot), a toolbox and a big whack o' FAKs. ''These'' are the survivors who benefit the "pro-survivor" cause. By contrast, anyone who just carries a whole bunch of guns is ''not'' really benefiting the survivor cause all that much, they are just parasiting off others' barricades, revives and FAKs. Nor are they ''really'' hurting zombies, because zombies don't care if they die. Capiche? You say I haven't backed up my arguments, but I ''have''. I actually made an argument -- it's just that you either don't understand, or you're wilfully ignoring the argument. Meanwhile, you've just provided statistics and a flawed idea, which you haven't put in any kind of rational or argumentative or bona-fide in-game context... Meanwhile, I don't care if someone wants to carry 16 shotguns -- as a survivor ''or'' a zombie. As a survivor, I think that guy is a parasitic waste of space and I will make fun of him and belittle him for being a trenchcoating wanker -- but he's not really ''hurting'' me. And, as your picture of Ash demonstrates, all said and done, he is actually RPing ''in-genre''. And as a zombie I outright ''laugh'' at his stupidity and I smash his barricades and eat bra!nz with a hearty GRAAAAGH!!... However, I do not wish to legislate how he plays the game in such a heavy-handed way... Which is ''exactly'' what your suggestion intends to do -- by your own fucking admission! This is not a good idea, and by clinging to it and not accepting ''constructive'' and ''reasonable'' criticism, you're proving yourself to be fucking git, a disruptive and non-contributive member of the community. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:12, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hmm. When I said that, you criticized me for having a superficial understanding of the game. The shoe's on the other foot now, eh? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:19, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hi WanYao. How many shotguns is Ash carrying? One. How many firearms will a typical person in a zombie film carry? One, or one rifle/shotgun and one sidearm. In UrbanDead as it stands, how many firearms will a person carry if they want to ''maximize their combat potential''? '''16'''. The game mechanics are already telling them "how to play", it's saying that if you want to devote yourself to dealing damage, you carry a silly and fiction-breaking number of weapons.<br />
:::::::::I'm afraid your comments about what is actually optimal strategy are irrelevant and a red herring. This suggestion makes no change in what players ''should'' do in order to be maximally effective. It simply alters the game mechanics so that the optimal number of weapons to carry is one of each, and not 16. This is what is more in keeping with the genre, more plausible in the game fiction. There's no advocated or encouraged change in "player behavior": a combat-oriented player will choose ammo over other objects, while others will stock sufficient ammo and keep their FAKs and toolkits etc. You've already said that with the status-quo, even ''good'' players will have 4-8 weapons. Again, this is silliness that is a result solely of the game mechanics, not because they believe their fictional roleplaying character would actually be that kind of badass. The game dictates how many weapons they should carry. I'm for reducing that number, without significantly affecting game balance itself.<br />
:::::::::Now if you want to make the case that 1% encumbrance ammo too greatly reduces the tradeoff between being combat-oriented or rebuild/heal oriented, I'm happy to hear it. Karek's provided his support for a similar argument above. And as usual, your personal attacks are completely off-base. I've been giving all reasoned criticism due weight. I get that some people ''don't like'' the idea, based on personal biases, but so far, I've only seen one specific argument for what might be wrong. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:44, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::This wall of text is getting pathetic... Anyhoo, there is another principle that no one has mentioned yet, but it bears emphasis: greater realism =/= better. Anyway, I'm done with this, it's arguing in circles now. Good luck. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:45, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::That's just your luck. I find TONS of clips and pistols with 4+ shots. Last time I loaded up, such stuff was easily 75% of what I found in the gun store. In fact, I would have stopped searching, but it took me a long time to find a shotgun shell to top up the half-loaded shotgun I had. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 16:40, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I fucking hate you. This comment in particular - ''"Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit."''<br />
<br />
Put it up for voting, right fucking now. Watch me dupe it on basis of weapons damage buff, selected weaponry and ammunition encumbrance buff. Just because your 'suggestion' contains many shit suggestions does not mean I cannot find those many mindless trenchie buffs and rightfully kill it, it means you are fucking deluded for thinking I can't and typing such a moronic suggestion.<br />
<br />
Shit, I wish karma was real, then some really bad things would happen to you, I'd find out about them and chortle my arse off. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:45, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Get arsed, yourself, Iscariot. Assuming trolls have arses, that is. Do they? Or does ''all'' your shit come out of your mouth?<br />
:Meanwhile, karek, swiers and DCC have pretty much show this suggestion for the BAD IDEA it is... So let's move on, kay, class? Next lesson please... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:44, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissocial_personality_disorder Please seek help.] --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Alrighty then... See, there is a time and place for being an asshole. I felt the situation was not appropriate, thus my comments to Iscariot. I take them all back now: go nuts, Izzy. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:56, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::What makes you believe it's ever acceptable or appropriate to behave abusively towards people? This sort of behavior certainly isn't conducive to rational discussion and addressing the merits or problems in a suggestion. It simply brings the quality of the wiki down, and reflects poorly on the community. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:02, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Other than Iscariot, no one is trolling you. And, in context -- while I don't really think his comments are particularly helpful -- you've brought it on yourself. In any event, if you want a love-in, where everyone is nice to each other and they let you cry on their should if someone was mean to you, please go [http://www.oprah.com/index here]. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm not trolling at all, trolling implies I'm after a certain response from him. I don't. It would be nice if he'd listened to all the nice people explaining it to him, but he didn't. The comment about duping is pure arrogance on his part, and I don't take kindly to it. The dupe system stops moronic suggestions entering PR because everyone reasonable gets bored of killing it. |I notice he hasn't taken me up on my challenge to see if I could dupe it....<br />
<br />
:::::Also Zhani, feel free to go and whine on any sysop talk page you like. The one you're after is Vandal Banning. Good luck with that, there is no civility policy on this wiki and until we remove to moronic-trenchie-weapons-buff gene from the general population, there never will be. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
...Well isn't that one long suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:...Well isn't that one long discussion. -- [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::... Speaking of things long... ''::looks down::'' Oh, is that a banana in my pocket, or am I just happy to see a zombie in my safehouse? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:07, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Thats a whole lot of SPAM you typed up there... what's wrong with just making weapons assignable? Allow everyone to carry a weapon in each hand and have it cost 1AP per hand to change (shotguns requiring a free hand or having a -60% to hit!) reload or re-arm then cost the same and it becomes a matter of choice which style you prefer. Of course that makes maxed out survivors a lot <br />
less like the combat monsters they currently are but thats probably not a real problem! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 12:38, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Personally, I dislike this, but that's partly because i only carry two pistols and one shotty, thus giving room for more reasonable things. Like fencing foils, Wine, and poetry books. --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 06:41, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Body Bonfires===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:48, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Perma-death option.<br />
|suggest_scope=Characters in citys with perma-death alternatives.<br />
|suggest_description=I've got a zombie character currently running around Monroeville looking for the precious few survivors there are in order to eat them.<br />
<br />
One of Monroeville's biggest problems, I think, is that there was no way for low-level survivors from killing zombies permanently. Zombies could take out survivors, no problem, but unless you had Headshot, you couldn't take down a zombie.<br />
<br />
I know that's in-genre, given that they're the freaking undead and all, but it sucks game-wise.<br />
<br />
Thus, I came up with 'Body Bonfires', after watching the movie ''Night of the Living Dead''.<br />
<br />
Should this get implemented, survivors can now douse corpses in gasoline (from fuel cans) and set them alight with matches (find stats TBC), lighters (find stats TBC) or even a flare gun, if desperate. A burning corpse will degrade into a 'charred skeleton', after which time the character would be effectively 'perma-dead'.<br />
<br />
Note that this is meant to ''replace'' Headshot as the survivor perma-death, not co-incide with it.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Body Bonfires)====<br />
No. Why? Monroeville is quarantined and dead. Adding more items that make things even more difficult to find and implement will not suddenly change the dynamics of the city, nor will it make monroeville more fair. the point, i daresay, of that city is to more realistically show a zombie infestation, and the only way to do that is by making the limited amount of zombies unlimited, with only a small amount of very good zombie killers who can do anything about it, which still amounts to not much. its fine, and the city is pointless, and just leave it. and don't add matches and lighters to do what flare guns already do. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:33, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I think you misread my suggestion. For one, this is NOT for Monroeville. Monroeville is dead (or will be soon), this is for any new cities that will also have perma-death mechanics, should one ever be introduced. For another, you can only burn a zombie once they're on the ground having been 'temp-killed' (HP to 0). --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 09:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I didn't misread crap. Nothing in your post makes reference to any mythical city that is currently not existant. You only mention monroeville, and imply that is what your suggestion is about. And after reading it again, i've decided this is a) a dupe; b) spamtastic, given the non-existant nature of your supposed city; and c) incomplete, given that you don't actually talk about where it is implemented, or if its a skill, or how its done in the user interface. just allow it to die, and then we'll burn the suggestions corpse out of our memories. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 20:44, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Completely pointless because such a hypothetical perma-death city does not exist. You can't get more spamtastic than suggesting a mechanic for something that doesn't even exist. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:56, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Reminds me of both [[Suggestion:20070816 Burning Bodies]] and another suggestion which I can't quite find at the moment. It is entirely possible that this may be substantially a dupe. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:50, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I found [[Suggestions/RejectedFebruary2007#Flare Gun / Fuel Attack|Flare Gun / Fuel Attack]] interesting reading, to say the least. How many [[User:MrAushvitz|MrAushvitz]] suggestions have been implemented, now? Surely the apocalypse is extremely nigh... {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:57, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Sorry, no, perma-death would not go over in this game. It's simply not fun for the players, and gives a person a reason to give up playing. Favors survivors overwhelmingly, and doesn't really improve the game. I hate to be one of those types shooting down ideas, but this doesn't work. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:36, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A) You only mentioned Monroeville, the dead city. B) MV has one purpose now, and one purpose only: ZKing. [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 02:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Make graffiti readable in dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Logic Flaw Fix<br />
|suggest_scope=Graffiti in dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Graffiti disappears when the lights go out in dark buildings. Since it is unreasonable to assume that absolutely no light can get in any parts of dark buildings, why wouldn’t the graffiti just be sprayed in the areas that the little light can get in? Such places would be the front of cinemas (where the snack bar is, as there are usually windows out front), near the windows of the banks, and near the windows of standard buildings.<br />
<br />
I have never seen any buildings like these completely lacking windows in all areas, and windows would have to exist for Free Running to be possible, so even if the skylights haven’t been maintained, there’s no reason people wouldn’t be spraying the signs near the window areas where it’d be visible, even if the rest of the building is dark.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Make graffiti readable in dark buildings)====<br />
<br />
It's dark. You can't see dead bodies. Combat abilities are nerfed for everyone. You can't repair a building in the dark. Barricading and reviving are also disadvangtaged. So there's no logic flaw here, not at all. It's bloody ''dark''!!--[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:The logic is fine as is - after years of the outbreak, the walls will be pocked, peeling and covered in grime and blood, not to mention layers of graffiti in different colours. You'd need fairly good light to make out the latest message.<br />
:I was thinking of suggesting an item, book of matches, the sole purpose of which would be to let the user (only) read graffiti in the dark. But I couldn't be arsed looking for dupes etc. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 10:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::But..but.. what about all those blank rectangles I sprayed onto the walls to keep them clean and in one colour! In all seriousness, no to this suggestion. As Garum says, those walls are a mess, no matter how many blank rectangles you spray. :P - [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:03, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::We don't need a silly, pointless item like matches to spam our searches. Meh. It's dark. Deal with it. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:26, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
WE DEMAND BRAILLE GRAFFITI! Fuck you, cripple haters. I need to be able to read ''I like to poop'' no matter how much light is in the building. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 00:31, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Now ''That'' I would vote keep on.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:21, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And human civilization has truly gone full circle, as survivors have come back to the art of making stone tables with toolboxes. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 14:11, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===picking some one up===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 19:44, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=helping others.<br />
|suggest_scope=humans.<br />
|suggest_description=Almost all of us can say that we have been killed while sleeping, or have been a zombie and killed all the humans becuase most of them were sleeping. So why not allow people to carry some one out of danger? Lets say that you and some of your buddys are fleeing a horde, and one of them is out of AP, so why not pick him/her up? It would cost one AP to pick the player up, and 2 AP to move around, and you would not be able to free run {you are carrying another person). You also cant attack since, it would be to diffuclt.<br />
<br />
You would rengenrate AP as you would normally would, and can be put down for one AP. If the person carrying you is killed, you fall down and be as vunerable as you would be normally. Now comes the PKer question. Being able to pick some one up and carry them of to some were else to kill them would become a PKers best tool. So I sujest there should be a check box in the settings, which you can check yes or no to being picked up. If you try to pick some one up how has checked the box no, this happens.<br />
<br />
''you try to pick the person up, but they push you away: Italic text'' <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Picking some one up)====<br />
Pied Piper skills are a great no no. Specifically because of the griefing possibilities. Even with the block you suggested, I don't think it would be acceptable. A better way of determining who can pick you up would be to check for mutual contacts, and not ignored. Not that I think this would pass even with that, because I'm pretty sure this is a dupe. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:54, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Pied Piper? Whats that?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:15, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A pied piper skill is one that involves one player moving another (like the pied piper of hamelin and rats/children) Within game the closest we have is [[Feeding Drag]] which has on it very specific limiting factors. This is too prone to abuse. New players especially may not know its a feature, and one griefer could pick up a huge number of people and carry them directly outside. Where they would get et. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Just as Ross said, [[Frequently_Suggested#Pied_Piper_Skills|here]] is a link to it on the frequently suggested page. I suggest reading that page, will give you an idea of suggestions to avoid. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 20:31, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nequa please read Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested pages. They are linked to above, at the top of this page. Zangz. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:28, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I see what you mean, but I still think that the check box would stop that. And if you are tricked, well thats just bad luck.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:49, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Only way this would be prevented is if everyone had it set to "Do not allow me to be dragged away", and only switched back when they knew a rescue was on the way. It is simply to abusable in it's current form. And try telling the poor newbies, who weren't aware of the checkbox, that it was just bad luck and that they have to live with it after being dragged away from their VSB safehouse into an area full of EHB cades. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 21:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nothings perfect, and anyway you could kill somebody quickly and no one could stop you.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:17, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:surely the default should be ''dont allow carrying''. Stop a lot of griefing there? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sure, you could have that checkbox turned off as a default. But then, how would people who have this skill know who they could pick up, and who they could not?<br>Moving other players is a bad idea to begin with, play wise, so picking at th details is turd polishing at best. If you want to "rescue" people from danger , give them fist aid, try to fix the barricades, and recruit others to help them survive until they log back in, but don't presume to play the game for them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:30, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait, what? You think this is a skill? A skill you need to get by having enough XP? No, no, no, you dont need to purchase it. Also your other point about knowing if the person has the thing checked or not is a good point. You should probally put it on your describtion if you have it on or not, like the hydra defence.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:47, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Right. Other issues. If I pick up a level 1 survivor, this seems to allow me to carry him inside, and then free run to another building whilst carrying him. Regardless of his skills. Besides Im pretty sure its also a partial dup of firemans carry. Anyone got the link. I just feel its unworkable. sorry. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
[[PR_Skill_New:_Survivor:_Civilian#Fireman.27s_Carry_.28Bring_12HP_Survivor_Indoors.29|Fireman's Carry]], which is in Reviewed. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 22:55, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
LOL, that guy pretty much says the same thing I do. It appears great minds think alike. Now do I seem like a idiot?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:05, 2 September 2008 (BST<br />
:More so, now that you've said that. quit being unwilling to learn. everyones been very nice. now go actually FREAKING READ THE DO AND DO NOTS!<br />
:No one is pointing out the worst part of this. What if i create fifteen drones, and use them to carry a full army of survivors into zombie territory. you don't put it plainly, but you seem to infer that you can only be carried while sleeping (or at least, i'm hoping, because otherwise those zergs could carry armies of full ap'd characters) but either way, its a free trip for my sleeping characters, who spent their AP stocking on ammo. my zergs carry them in, dump them off in a zerg-repaired building, and let them sleep. now i have an army, 2 for one. thats what makes this bad. adding a penalty of 2 for one doesn't fix that.<br />
:and the griefing is absolutly grieftastic. what if i rescue someone with low HP out of a mall into a quiet factory where i show him my gun?... i mean... pk him. errm... or how about if i spend a whole 50 ap 'rescuing' any of the barricaders in a seige with a death culter. the check box doesn't solve this, because the only time that someone would want to be rescued is the same time where its worth abusing the feature. it fails because it will never work. if you can't free run with it, (can you enter/exit buildings?) then its worthless for doing anything but costing the zombie horde half the amount of AP to keep up with you.<br />
:This was long... sorry. but this suggestion is silly silly silly. NOW READ THE FAQ's and DO AND DO NOTS! Please. and don't read them and then try to come up with a better way to do what it tells you not to do... just DON'T suggest those things. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:15, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also, wan yao... i think one of my alts was just combat revived by you. Ha. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:22, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Combat Reviving FTW!!! ;P .... Up Roftwoodish or something, right? I vaguely remember CRing some zambah somewhere for some old reason or another, heheh... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:40, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::As for the suggestion... Yeah... you seem like an idiot at this moment, Nequa. This is a broken and unworkable idea. People are trying to explain that to you. But you're not listening, and you can't even be bothered to read the help pages for Suggestion development -- which are clearly linked to -- and which people have been providing you with links to, above... Smarten the fuck up, please, and quit wasting our time. Seriously. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:44, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I distinctly remember telling you to stop suggesting... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:49, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Feeding Drag in Large Buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:necrodeus/sig}} 02:46, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=improvement<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with feeding drag in large buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Hello team.<br />
<br />
The feeding drag skill allows zombies to drag survivors of less than 12HP outside through an ''open door'' at the cost of 1AP. Therefore, if a zombie enters a large building through an open door, then makes its way through the building unimpeded (ie, through more open doors or just empty space), beats a survivor down to 12HP or below, there should exist the option to feeding drag said survivor through the building.<br />
<br />
It makes sense, as you are inside a building and simply dragging the unfortunate survivor somewhere else in the building, presumably towards the horde that generally congregates in the opened block.<br />
<br />
Now I know that this is the same as suggesting that I could feeding drag a wounded survivor through open streets, but I do think that as it is limited to the insides of large buildings it is hardly useful as a griefing tool, neither would it be game breaking, and it fits in with the idea behind the feeding drag as well - if a zombie feels the need to drag someone outside, why should the fact that it's slightly longer distance than normal dissuade him?<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Feeding Drag in Large Buildings)====<br />
Kind of like a zombie equivalent for the fort body dump? I like it. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 04:02, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Seems out of genre, normally a zombie will feed for itself with absolutely NO consideration for a horde. Though this skill is a good idea, it would be a bit pointless because if you have a survivor at 12 HP and most of the time the only large building you are in would be a mall, it would mean you drag someone near dead to a horde, either way, the survivor was already HIGHLY LIKELY to die unless terribly low on AP this skill is just useless. I say just stick with infectious bite. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:No. Feeding Drag and zambahz helping babahz is ''totally'' part of the genre -- as in, it's ''in the game'' ... So it's part of the genre. Zombies in Urban Dead have intelligence, more like in Return of the Living Dead than in Romero's movies. Regarding the suggestion, I think this is a great idea! But it should cost at least 2 AP to so, perhaps more. You usually don't have to drag as far, or through as complicated a series of buildings as in a fort, so I'm not sure if the same AP costs is in order... but perhaps... Still, in siege situations where this matters, we tend to just tend to kill rather than worry about dragging... However, even then, this ability would be FAR from "useless". --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:08, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ok.. I'm out of it.. I understood this as the equivalent of dragging a body outside the Forts. Which would mean you click the ability and you drag your target outside -- and you go with him, just like you would a normal feeding drag. No "half drags" to another corner of the mall -- it's all or nothing, all the way outside, or not at all. And that would cost 2 AP. And of course you'd still have to spend AP getting back inside and to the action, if that's your desire. There are some tricks to overcome with this... but it's a cool idea, nonetheless. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:37, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Yeah, I like it as well. Some people might call it greifing though [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 04:21, 31 August 2008 (BST).<br />
<br />
I was 50/50 between making it just like a body dump costing 2AP and making it like it is now, but certainly a feeding drag all the way outside for 2AP - like the survivor body dump - is just as keeping in genre and could be considered less of a potential griefing tool.<br />
<br />
What if it just acted the same as feeding drag, so I end up outside. It costs 2AP, and then if I want to get back inside it just costs me the same as normal movement rates - so at least 1AP to just re-enter the building, and 2 AP to get back to where I was originally? It's hardly a griefing tool, you're only ever going to end up outside the building you were in, and at most 1 block away from where you were {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 12:38, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:That's exactly what I just said, man... The only issue could be as follows: you're in mall, all corners are heavily barricaded except one, which is wide open... you're in another (non-open) corner killing some folk, and you want to use this ability. Now, do you drag the victim to the outside of your ''current'' corner, or do you end up moving to the open corner? What if there is more than one open corner? Or, if you drag to the outside of your current corner, then how do you justify bypassing barricades -- because even just a closed door negates feeding drag... See the problems? This is a very spiffy idea IMO, but these things need to be worked out... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:00, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::I was agreeing with you! I was thinking that the feeding drag took them out of the open corner, rather than through the barricades. As for what would happen if more than one door was open, I would say go to the nearest one, except that in a four block square, every sqaure is as near as any of the others...I couldn't see it making too much of a difference which one you drag someone out of, so I would make it random; the zombie just heads towards the light, any light. That way, as long as there is a door open when the button is pressed, the feeding drag will be successful, rather than allowing the user a choice. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 17:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Probably won't matter a lot now since this suggestion would likely get implemented (if ever) after Monroeville closes, but in that city there are non-standard large building shapes, like [[Monroeville Mall]]. You can like drag someone across four blocks. :O Also, how would a zombie know which building block is open from where he/she stands? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:22, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Malls, Mansions, Power Stations ... are large buildings which means they are functionally ''one building''. With fours sets of barricades. And four ''zmargahzbargz, GRAAAAGH!'' The zombies knew how to get inside and move around when there was only one entry point, so why couldn't they know how to get back out? And, I mean, like he could just look around... Also, yeah, no-one cares about MV, it's over... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:48, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Well, ''you'' as the player know there's an entrance to the building, at least recently. In contrast, your zombie can only check within the block he's in -- even adjacent ruined blocks [[Pinata|aren't guaranteed]] that there are no cades there. Unless the zombie is actually looking at every block in the building (something which implies free moves), then without metagaming he/she won't really know there is an exit should dragging be done. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::But like Wan said, you're basically inside one large building. If you try and feeding drag inside a regular building, and the doors been closed, or whatever, you get a message and lose an AP, like for any failed attack. It's the same here. And the whole point of feeding drag is that zombies *do* know where the exit is --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. Its not needed. Once zombies get into a large building, they almost always take it down by keeping one corner ruined, or at least unbarricaded. The babah zombies can just come inside to feed, entering by spotting the ruined corner and then gorging themselves. Besides not being needed, its got a lot of potential complications. What if a large building has multiple open sections? Which one does the zombie drag them to? If zombies really wanted to use feeding drag in every section, they could just spend a few AP each to tear down the barricades, even getting a bonus for attacking from the inside in most cases.<br>I think its safe to say, if a zombie tries to drag a survivor across one or more blocks inside a large building, the survivor struggles and breaks free. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:36, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I'm afraid I disagree; you seem to have a fairly convincing argument against feeding drag itself; namely that if your baby zombah is standing outside any old building, he can see it's open and shamble on in. So why do we need feeding drag at all? I've already answered the point about which exit to be used as well. And yes, I could spend a whole load of AP tearing down the barricades to feeding drag a wounded survivor outside, or I could just spend 2AP and drag the human outside the exit that's already open. <br>And surely the point of feeding drag is that the survivor is wounded enough to not be able to stop it happening? And why should a human be able to drag a zombie across several squares of fort without it reviving? In both cases, if the player is online, they are better able to defend against this, with the difference being that all a survivor needs to do to 'break free' is simply walk back inside the building. <br> If I'm way off here, let me know, but it makes sense to me --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Not of base, but my point is, if zombies on a whole really cared about feeding drag, each of the ~20 or so in a large building could kick in 4 AP and blow away any barricades on that building quarter. That's really only enough AP to kill 2-3 survivors- not enough to slow down a siege once zombies are comping on a SECOND building corner. So it seems to me that zombies themselves do not put much importance on whether they can use feeding drag or not, as evidenced by their own actions in raids. Its not needed to make zombies vs large buidings work, nor would it really make it much better.<br>Truth told, feeding drag was originally used mostly to combat the "yo-yo barricade" syndrome by getting a building emptied (and ransacked) faster; now that zombies can block barricade building, its a bit of an atavism. Its main use is as a "visible" version of feeding groan. For a mall, if you want to let zombies know there is an active strike with some visible cue, just killing the generator is often good enough. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:16, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Fait enough for a horde sweeping through a building, but in my experience, I use eeding Drag for two reasons: Firstly, when I break into a building with one or two others, I know there is a chance that it will escalate into a horde swarming in, but more often that not, it won't. But by dragging a human outside, that's one less defender, and a drain on resources, because that person is outside regardless of whether I get headshot and evicted or not. Secondly, the FU tends to use it as a in game piece of flavour as much as a way of feeding the zedlings. So for a horde, I agree, Feeding Drag is unneccessary, and if you've got the resources to tear down the barricades with ease, then I'm all for that too, but for feral zombies, or smaller groups it's a slightly different ball game --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 00:39, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::When playing a feral (and my death cultist, too, actually) I use and think of Feeding Drag the same way necrodeus describes. It helps small numbers of zombies get the ransack faster. Also, if the cades go up, that drag-meat is suddenly isolated. And drag-meat is fantastic feral bait. And, yup, I do it very much for flavour/RP effect as well. Although, it doesn't work thar well for feeding babahz, b/c usually some big zambah comes along and eats them :( ... This is all in very big contrast to striking with the MOB, where we only drag if we are very intent on getting that damn biulding cleared -- because we can always tag-team to finish someone off if we have to. And if we are feeding a babah, we bring the babah inside with us. This suggestion is more for the ferals than for highly organised hordes... <br />
::::And a few other things: killing a gennie is not enough: GKing is too common... And swiers you know how annoying barricades are -- it really is asking a lot for a smaller number of ferals zombies to invest what it takes to open up EHB cades... But all that being said... Perhaps this isn't necessary, not really. And, it might in the end be a zombie buff that is just a tiny, tiny bit too much... Particularly with cade blocking... But... I still like it... ;) --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:36, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Well, I'm going to put it up, and see what the people / merciless flamers have to say.. {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:45, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I'm not gonna flame it; it can;t do enough harm to deserve that. My personal issue is that I'd like (as much as possible) to avoid moving other characters to different blocks (I even proposed [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20070616_Fort_Revision:_dumping_bodies_over_walls|a fort dumping mechanic that avoided this]]), and that its benefit is so small for the coding effort involved. Mall raids are already a smorgashboard for ferals, so I don't see the point of arguing it helps feed them there. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:37, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Private homes===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:18, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=new building.<br />
|suggest_scope=anybody how enters it.<br />
|suggest_description=Why does it appear that there are no private homes in Malton? I know its a city and your more likely to find a privat home in the subburbs, but I do know there are private homes in the city. We dont really need private homes but it would add realism to the game. There could also be another benafit. Since anybody could have lived in that house, from a NRA gun nut, to some tech loving nerd, you could find anything in thear. But there should be list of items you could not find in the house.<br />
<br />
List of items you could NOT find in a house:<br />
<br />
Necrotech syringe<br />
<br />
DNA scanner<br />
<br />
Flak vest (there could be one there, but it seems hard to belive)<br />
<br />
fire ax<br />
---------------<br />
Also here is the describtion you would see if you went in the building.<br />
<br />
-With power: You enter a well lit home, you start to feel like you were before the out break.<br />
<br />
-With no power: You enter a dark house.<br />
<br />
-when ruined: You enter a house and notice how everything is thrown apart, which grimly reminds you of what has happend here. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Private home)====<br />
If I may ask, how long have you been playing the game? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:36, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
To answer your question, about a week, I have been running around rhodenbank. Let me guess? There are private homes and I have just not found them yet?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:39, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There are [[Mansion|mansions]], and various [[Building_Types#Building|buildings]] around the city can be thought of as offices/condominiums, where you can imaging living places in.<br><br />
There are other reasons why private homes aren't found on the map.<br />
*One is that they're too small, same reason why you don't put a single tree on the map (and for those that are large enough, see mansions).<br />
*Another is that with most survivors just looting around the city and zombie hordes chasing after them, most houses are in such a state of ruin that they are essentially unrecognizable, turning residential districts into [[wasteland]].<br />
*Finally, they are quite insignificant in the grand scale of the survivor-zombie conflict that adding them now three years after the game has launched simply doesn't make the game any more enjoyable or fulfilling than it is before, and frankly it'll only be a waste of time and effort to put them in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:51, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then instead of adding homes how about updating the regular buildings to be more like apartments? Because most buildings have a RP (EX:pubs,police stations,forts) thing you can do with it, but the regular office buildings are boring. Maybe they could add my search idea without the need of a new building type?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:19, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Your search idea is horrible. Normal buildings already do not have items; what you're doing here is the opposite in that you can find ''anything'' in them, and just for that it will be spammed. As for your roleplaying bit, that will take a much lower priority than improving UD gameplay, especially when you consider there is a suitable alternative (once again, mansions, and normal buildings aren't too shabby -- just add some decorations) and multiple other possible roleplaying locations. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:30, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There's no private homes because the private homes are usually at the outskirts of a city, and what we have in Malton...Is the big city. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 19:16, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I usually just think of the street blocks as containing such houses. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:52, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Private homes are not really appropriate to the game. They can be assumed to exist on many blocks... because it's generally accepted that the block description refers to the most prominent or most utilised building on the block... <br />
<br />
But... yeah... Nequa... please play the game for a while before posting suggestion ideas. Hang out and read this page for a while. And start playing some zombies, PKers, death cultists, whatever, as well a survivors. And join a good group or three. Barhah.com is a great board, and though it's zombie-centric, everyone is welcome. Beerhah.com is a good place to go for survivor stuff. Anyhoooo... back to suggestions stuff... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:47, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Dump dead bodies from dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Restoring normal ability<br />
|suggest_scope=Dead bodies and dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Under current game mechanics, you can’t dump dead bodies from dark buildings. How does this make any sense? You can get in and out of the building, even through Free Running, yet somehow you can no longer remove dead bodies? Or do the exits magically close somehow when you try to remove someone?<br />
<br />
Currently, you can see anyone hiding in the shadows of very dark buildings, but you can’t see/dump dead bodies. Even if you just killed the thing, you somehow can’t find its body, even though you’d be tripping all over it!? Once again, it doesn’t make sense. Only once you light up the place does it become possible to dump the dead. Since I see no reason for it to be physically impossible to find or dump dead bodies, they should always be recognizable and dumpable.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Dump dead bodies from dark buildings)====<br />
A possible explanation is that people in dark buildings are found and attacked because they're breathing so loudly and their hearts are thumping. Similarly, standing zombies are wheezing. However, dead bodies emit no noise, and if you're tromping through a building hoping to step through a ribcage, you should be spending AP to do so. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}21:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Or because they are fumbling with heavy furniture in the dark to barricade the building, or shooting guns, or... {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:48, 29 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::Well, how about another take on it. Anyone who dies in the building...if their body is still inside when someone who witnessed the death takes a turn, they notice the body (since it wasn't cleared). The body wouldn't have moved from its original spot that fast.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:06, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Group Bonus===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:22, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance change<br />
|suggest_scope=All denizens of Malton who belong to groups<br />
|suggest_description= <br><br />
<br />
OK, so while I used the template, I’ve brought this to the discussion page in a fairly informal manner because I don’t pretend to be a programmer and I don’t pretend to know what is possible. I like this idea, but I can see my own problems with it from a technical standpoint – and I’m hoping that others here might be able to help with the solutions on that front.<br />
<br />
Here’s the basic idea – in the real world groups are much stronger than individuals. People en masse accomplish much more, whether it be construction projects, armies, or lobbying government. Organization has an additive effect to efficacy - pretty much every time. <br />
<br />
Also – there is a benefit to being part of an organization for humanity. There is community, the transfer of knowledge, the advancement of the overall ends of society.<br />
<br />
With that in mind, I think there should be an in-game bonus for group activity. This will encourage folks to join groups, which in turn will raise the overall level of gameplay across Malton. This bonus would apply to ANY group working in concert – be in human, PK’er, death cultist, or zombie – so there are no powering issues between warring factions – only a power difference between the grouped and the ungrouped. Given there are few restrictions to joining or forming groups, the ungrouped would hardly become a put-upon constituency.<br />
<br />
So how to do it? Originally, I thought a simple tiered bonus for group size measured by the number of folks who have a common group name in their profiles. Say a 5% to-hit/search/cading bonus for folks part of groups from 25-49 members, and maybe 7.5% for 50-74 members, and 10% for over 75 members.<br />
<br />
The problem there would be that it encourages a new form of zerging. Folks would make “Group Scarecrows” that they would park far away from active group activity, but who have the group name in their profile. They’d technically not be in violation of alt abuse, and it would be very hard for group leaders to prevent, and of course the incentive would be to do it.<br />
<br />
So, I am wondering if the UD engine would be able to detect proximity effects and award bonuses that way? In this case, I’d lower the numbers required for the bonuses a lot – say 10-24 for the 5% bonus, 25-39 for the 7.5% bonus, and 40+ for the 10% bonus – and say that if you’ve got that many folks operating in one XX block radius, you get the bonus.<br />
<br />
Is such possible? If so, I think it would reward all the right behaviors in this game, and be pretty darn cool. My parameters are suggestions - they could be lowered, raised, modified. I am really interested first and foremost what folks think of the concept, THEN hammering out rational details that might actually be taken to voting. So, first "Is there a reasonable way this could work?" then "Would we want it if it could?" then "How exactly should it work?"<br />
<br />
What do you think? <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion Group Bonus====<br />
<br />
I'd vote kill, simply because you are not given a hidden bonus in real life from being in a group. Moral boost, maybe. But the rest you accomplish by working closely with your group. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 16:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Impossible. proximity detection would kill the server. Assume a 5 block radius, the game would have to, on every action, harvest information on userlists for 81 blocks (inside and out), run zerg detection routines on that information, and it would have to then count the number in the group. Now, imagine this happening to the server 30,000+ times a day. You would basically increasing server load more than a hundredfold all up (Quite probably by a factor of well over a thousand). As for the rest, without proximity detection, it collapses under the obvious zerg abuse you mentioned. Proximity detection is a myth, despite claiims to the contrary. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 16:41, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think Grim_s is right - without some radical reorg of the account system it's just not possible. I was hoping some genius might have a work-around, but I bet he's right that there isn't one. Whitehouse - thanks for the comment - but I disagree with you. In real life you '''DO''' get the bonus - the door opens for the AARP in Washington that would never open for the unaligned individual. The group can clear a forest while the individual could spend a lifetime chopping a grove. I think it's moot though. --[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:59, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Even if possible, the advantage to being in a group should come from coordinating with other group members to do difficult tasks that an individual couldn't do. You get a big advantage from being in a well-organised group. You don't deserve an advantage from a bunch of people all spelling the group name correctly. This suggestion is a reward for crap metagaming, which we don't need. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 17:24, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:You misunderstood my point. And Garum probably phrased it better than me. You get those advantages from working together, not from simply being in a group (at least not the type of advantages you were thinking of). Being in a group is a moral boost, working together with it creates results far better than that of individuals. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 17:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Oh I see, you're saying that giving an incentive for group behavior beyond already existing benefits doesn't have merit. OK, thanks. Fair enough.--[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 17:45, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::If you want to encourage group work, then find ways for groups to work better together instead of just giving people buffs for having the same group tag. Zombie hordes have scent death, recently someone suggested a way for zombies to sniff out their buddies. Such suggestions, which strengthen the ties of a group, will give good results, the good results are the incentive. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 18:50, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Technical details aside, this simply isn't appropriate. This is an RPG, and in RPGs the benefits of groups are simply those of multiple players co-operating. When members of a group communicate and co-operate, they are more effective. If they don't, then they aren't- just like real life. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 20:07, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
i haveno clue about all the technical aspects, but this just isnt a good suggestion. kinda sucks to be on of those people who likes to stay unaffiliated, cause they get screwed on the deal.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:19, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
If this was implemented, it would be possible for a user, for example, to put the name of a large group into their profile, and get all the benefits, without being a member of the group. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 21:45, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is illogical. The only bonus people should recive from being in a group is having someone to cover their back. No magic bonuses. No special abilities. Just that. --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 02:48, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Take a look at Nexus War for group mechanics. The main problem is that ANYONE can be in ANY group at ANY time.-[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:04, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Restaurants===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 15:12, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New building<br />
|suggest_scope=People who take notice of buildings<br />
|suggest_description=If Malton has pubs, it really should have at least a few fancy restaurants, which could potentially replace a few of the pubs in the richer areas of town. The Maltonians can't all have only ever eaten/drunk beer, peanuts and crisps outside of their homes.<br />
<br />
:'''Mechanics'''<br />
<br />
''Restaurant''<br />
* Dark building<br />
* Can be barricaded, ransacked, ruined and have equipment installed normally.<br />
* Internal description<br />
** Unpowered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The once-busy dining area lies in darkness.''<br />
** Powered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant.''<br />
** Ransacked ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The chairs and tables are overturned, and cutlery and napkins litter the floor.''<br />
* Search rates (normal, if dark condition were not applied)<br />
** Knife (3%) (kitchen knives)<br />
** Wine (6%) (the finest in town)<br />
** Mobile Phone (1%) (some careless people...)<br />
** Menu (6%) (Flavour item, when used displays "The menu reads: <random fancy dishes>", and flavour text "''You think about them hungrily''" (currency not specified).)<br />
* Clothing<br />
** a chef's hat (white) (obviously)<br />
** an apron (white/black) (waiters)<br />
** standard generic formalwear (maitre d'hôtel, sommelier, general higher-ranking service staff)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Restaurants)====<br />
Can we have one at the corner of the map? We shall call it, "The Restaurant at the End of Malton"... :3 --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:44, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't see why not --[[User:Diablor|Diablor]] 01:53, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Whines* Pubs (Arms) aren't fancy enough for you?<br> Mah Pubs not fancy enough for you, foo? Only if there is a Pub at the end of the world.. Already.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 02:51, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it, but I think the menu should be just like a newspaper with different flavour text. For that matter, would newspapers be suitable to be found here? [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 03:07, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A ''dark'' restaurant? Dunno about where you're from but around here people put big ass windows on restaurants coz ppl like to see outside...also a stupid idea. Pointless and you would have to think up some ridiculous way to explain why everyone in malton thought it was a pub but it turned out to be a restaurant.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:54, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:It was always a restaurant and nobody ever thought it was a pub. And 2+2 has always equalled 5. And we have always been at war with Eurasia. And darkness really depends on the restaurant, but good point. --{{User:Anotherpongo/sig}} 11:45, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Not pointless. Knives are the best weapons for newbies, yet malls are the only places with > 1% chance of finding them. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:02, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
As much as I hate suggestions that don't seem to solve any problems, we do need a TRB for knives, and this seems like a great way to do it.{{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 16:33, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Absolutely! TRP for knives, and logical and fun flavor. --[[User:UCFSD|UCFSD]] 17:17, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
a suggestion so simple that it makes sence lol i say yea bring on the restaurants!--[[User:Fanglord2|Fanglord2]] 02:37, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I '''Always''' vote for building suggestions-always love a change [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 09:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Vote all you like, I'm pretty sure a building change suggestion has never been implemented. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 10:04, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Kevan has talked about doing it before<sub>(it's in his talk page archives for those curious few)</sub>, it's not entirely out of the question.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:51, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Building changes not implemented? Dark? Ruin? Fixing the fort walls? Its not without precedent.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:46, 31 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::::He meant changing one building (type) into another building (type). The first significant building change was to make large buildings into "1" building, but they were ALL still the same building to begin with.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:05, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I'll concede that the forts were revamped from just the armoury building to the 9-block compounds that they are now, but as far as I'm aware that wasn't based on a player suggestion. Large buildings and walls changed how some buildings worked, not what type of building they were per se. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this suggestion.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:16, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Asum(awesome)!!! Lol! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Face Rot===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Zombie Skill, subskill of brain rot.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Brain Rot.<br />
|suggest_description=The rot has spread, now it shrivels and distorts the facial features. The person underneath is hard to recognise.<br />
<br />
In game terms, its a buff for zombie anonymity. Unless the zombie is in your contacts you cannot recognise him if.<br />
<br />
*He stands up<br />
*Destroys barricades/equipment<br />
*Kills or injures.<br />
<br />
His profile can still be gained through a successful scan, or if you recognise them via your contacts. (You could be familiar with his limp, a watch or other item, his groaning etc.)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Face Rot)====<br />
Go on. Savage it, like my horribly ruined features. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I like it, what better way to implement Zombie Anonymity than through a skill? Plus. it promotes the Brain Rot! :D --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 18:54, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
How would this work when they're alive? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 19:38, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Then their profile just states they look like [http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=Gary+Busey&btnG=Search+Images Gary Busey] --{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:52, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bloody Brilliant!!! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 22:27, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Good, apart from one thing. How do you explain not being able to recognise a corpse you just saw die when it stands up. This case would only be when you are in the same location for the period of time in which a character dies and rises (in the case of first being a survivor which is recognisable to all anyway). Explanation could be that the face rot while cleared up by the revivification effect while alive, takes hold again almost instantaneous. But that still wouldn't change the fact that you saw that body die and rise, thereby knowing exactly who it was. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 23:36, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A good idea, except that Whitehouse's point might need addressing. How do looks change so quickly? {{User:Ariedartin/Nickname}} 06:22, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't like this idea. It's balanced and innovative but it disregards the true zombie mentality. Yes, I love zombie anonymity. But I am always in the belief that true zombie characters should be willing to do the *above* three actions '''and''' have their anonymity threatened to whoever wants to use it, in order to succeed their goal. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 12:04, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Interesting points. I'm off to make a ridiculous suggestion, and I'll think about this. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 14:24, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
In relation to Whitehouses point. How about an extra piece of text like. "Blah killed Example, their face decomposes before your eyes. "--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:37, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I saw no one pointed it out and I have a feeling you'll actually check before suggesting this. This isn't actually a buff to zombies, this is removing the one way in which zombie groups generally recruit. I like the idea of starting to get zombie anonymity back, it never should have left but, this hurts them, especially because survivors still get all the workarounds they want/use while zombies now have absolutely no way of knowing who to go to for help/advice/etc.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 09:07, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Suggestions up for voting==<br />
===Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080831 Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark]] as suggestion is up for voting. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:17, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Nurse===<br />
Moved to voting, under the new name of [[Suggestion:20080826_Doctor's_Clinic|Doctor's Clinic]]<br />
----<br />
===Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080827 Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:03, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Dead Reckoning===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion_talk:20080826_Dead_Reckoning]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 09:46, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Clothes/Suggestions&diff=1272828Clothes/Suggestions2008-09-13T16:02:21Z<p>Janine: /* No (Gay Pride T-Shirts) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| style="margin-bottom: .5em; float: right; padding: .5em 0 .8em 1.4em; width: 300px"<br />
|__TOC__<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''This page is for suggestions of new [[Clothes|clothes]] to be implemented into the game.'''<br />
<br />
These suggestions should be limited to clothes which would have no specific game effect; if you want to suggest a clothing type which would give the wearer an automatic bonus or penalty, it should instead be submitted as a [[Suggestions|standard suggestion]]. (Relatedly, if players of the game could reasonably ''expect'' your suggested item to have some significant game effect, when they put it on - such as an ammo belt or a parachute - it shouldn't be proposed as a zero-effect piece of decorative clothing.)<br />
<br />
=How to Suggest=<br />
<br />
*New suggestions go at the bottom of the list.<br />
Suggestions should use this setup:<br />
==<i>Name suggestion</i>==<br />
<i>Description of the item, preferably including slot used, colour<br />
and the location were it would be found. <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki></i><br />
===<i>Yes (Name suggestion)</i>===<br />
<i>Votes for go here</i><br />
===<i>No (Name suggestion)</i>===<br />
<i>Votes against go here</i><br />
<br />
*To vote simply sign your name with a timestamp (4 tildes --> <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>)at the appropriate place. Only one vote per person.<br />
<br />
*Suggestions being cycled for space constraints should be sorted according to the slot they use. Cycling should be used to keep the page below 15 suggestions at a time.<br />
<br />
*Kevan is the final arbiter and he decides whether he implements a suggestion based on his own judgement (and hopefully popular support)<br />
<br />
*'''Do not forget''' to check if clothing already exists, and check the archives in case it has been suggested already<br />
<br />
*To add a new suggestion, please copy the above code, [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Clothes/Suggestions&action=edit&section=new click here], paste the code, and edit as required.<br />
<br />
=Archives =<br />
'''All Clothes Suggestions are open for voting permanently. Check archives for other cool clothing suggestions and vote there too!'''<br />
<br />
{{ClothesNavigation}}<br />
<br />
=Suggestions:=<br />
[[Category:Clothes]]<br />
<br />
<!-- Add new clothes suggestions at the bottom of the page. NOT HERE. --><br />
<br />
==New slot: Badge==<br />
Adds a new slot for badges. The following would go in this slot:<br />
<br />
:NecroTech ID card (NT buildings)<br />
:Police Officer badge (Police Departments)<br />
:Firefighter badge (Fire Departments)<br />
:Promotional movie badge (Cinemas)<br />
:Mall security badge (Malls)<br />
:Press badge (Stadiums) ''Thanks to DI Sweeny''<br />
:Bank security card (Bank) ''Thanks to DI Sweeny''<br />
:Paramedic card (Hospital) ''Thanks to Acoustic Pie''<br />
<br />
That's about it really. If you have more badge ideas, post 'em here! --[[User:Blake Firedancer|Blake Firedancer]] 09:40, 29 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
OK, I just realised this is a half-dupe. Apparently, someone already suggested badges, but as a neck item instead of a new slot.<br />
<br />
===Yes (Badges slot)===<br />
#'''Author wants to keep''' --[[User:Blake Firedancer|Blake Firedancer]] 09:40, 29 May 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Nice idea. Stadiums could have discarded press badges, Forts - military I.D, Banks would have security cards or something like that, I'm sure other buildings have suitable badges etc to fill the slot as well.--[[User:DI Marc Sweeny|DI Sweeny]] 10:12, 29 May 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Sure...--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 18:55, 29 May 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Good idea, but you may want a paramedic card. The only thing I can see going wrong are people asking for all sorts of crazy badges. Like teacher ID badges and 'maintenance' badges etc. {{User:Acoustic_Pie/Sig}} 22:04, 29 May 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Keep''' Wanted a necrotech ID badge fpr Johnathan since i made him--[[User:Johnathan necro|Jae]] 12:45, 30 May 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Keep''' - I want a necrotech badge too --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 22:40, 30 May 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Keep''' - I want a "Hi my name is..." badge --[[User:Bob_Fortune|Sir Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 13:26, 4 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Can't hurt.--[[User:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKRED">Jamie Cantwel3</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKGREEN">Talk</span></sup>]]''All glory to the Hypnotoad!'' 14:58, 6 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Keep''' - A zookeepers badge in the zoo?--{{User:Blood Panther/Sig}} 07:20, 8 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Great for role-players who claim to work at particular places (e.g McZeds worker) - [[User:Zig13|<span style="color:DodgerBlue">Zig13 - 2/07/2008 at 10:19(BST) </span>]]<br />
#'''Oi''' - Aye. --[[User:Macampos|Private Mark]] 07:31, 7 July 2008 (BST)<br />
# '''keep''' i like it.--[[User:Irounds|Irounds]] 01:54, 14 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''yes please''' Why not? --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 07:24, 4 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Great, love it''' Sounds perfect to me. The "Old World" position you refuse to let go of. --[[User:Shawn O'Hara|Shawn O'Hara]] 11:31, 21 August 2008<br />
#'''Yes''' I like it, would love to wear a necrotech badge --[[User:Tjayh913|Tjayh913]] 16:53, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Keep''' - I say... Hell Yes!!! --[[User:MartyBanks|Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) &lt;DHPD&gt;]] 06:10, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Brilliant [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 12:10, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Keep''' - Add military ID badges, found in Armory, Barracks, Gatehouse, Storehouse, and Vehicle Depot. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 01:49, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Keep''' Yeah! {{User:Tayth/Sig}}<br />
<br />
===No (Badges slot)===<br />
#''Expected Effect'' - Wouldn't a personal Necrotech I.D. make it seem like you'd also get access to something in a Necrotech building? or that a Military I.D. could get you special stuff within a fort? --[[User:Officer Dick Trickle|Officer Dick Trickle]] 11:24, 2 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#:Please sign next time. Oh, and you're thinking of personal keycards. These are just IDs.--{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 08:33, 2 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#:: Alot of times I.D. badges have a magnetic strip on the back for access to restricted areas. --[[User:Officer Dick Trickle|Officer Dick Trickle]] 11:25, 2 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#:::Ah, that. Well, why not say that since the zombie uprising those scanners and stuff have been broken by either looting zombies or survivors trying to break into those areas? After all, armories seem like they'd be sealed off, eh? --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 20:03, 2 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#::::Too much to have to say for nothing more than a clothes item, Yet the item itself still gives some idea of expected effect. Why continue to argue a moot point? --[[User:Officer Dick Trickle|Officer Dick Trickle]] 21:01, 2 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== New Damage Tag for Hats: Battered ==<br />
As anyone who likes to collect (or, at the very least, wear) hats knows, certain kinds of hats use some sort of rigid support to keep their shape. Naturally, these supports can be damaged fairly easily. Therefore, it would make sense for such hats to become battered out of shape, especially in the middle of something as rough as a zombie apocalypse. --[[User:Specialist290|'''Specialist290''']] [[User talk:Specialist290|{{c|black|♠}}]][[User:Specialist290/Huey_P_Long|{{c|red|♥}}]][[User:Specialist290/PB|{{c|black|♣}}]]{{c|red|♦}} 20:56, 4 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
=== Yes Votes for "New Damage Tag for Hats: Battered" ===<br />
#'''Yes''' but... a whatever.--[[User:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKRED">Jamie Cantwel3</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKGREEN">Talk</span></sup>]]''All glory to the Hypnotoad!'' 15:02, 6 June 2008 (BST)<br />
I see no reason why not, but with the stipulation that it cannot be used for certain hats. I don;t think berets can be battered. --[[User:Fenian|Fenian]] 16:55, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
=== No Votes for "New Damage Tag for Hats: Battered" ===<br />
<br />
==Sombreros==<br />
DipCup is an Idiot, so here I am, suggesting this for him. A sombrero is found in the hat store (Tompson Mall) and would go in hats slot. --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 01:18, 5 June 2008 (BST)<br />
===Yes (Sombreritos)===<br />
#'''Dippy''' is my friend --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 01:18, 5 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' I am not an idiot --[[User:Dipcup|Dipcup]] 01:22, 5 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' I like my hats. --[[User:Bob_Fortune|Sir Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 01:28, 5 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' Please and thanks. --{{User:Goofy Mccoy/sig}} 01:36, 5 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' More hats are always good.--[[User:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKRED">Jamie Cantwel3</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKGREEN">Talk</span></sup>]]''All glory to the Hypnotoad!'' 15:06, 6 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' Nice mexican hat allows me to make a bandito character. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 21:01, 9 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' Because I love hats. --[[User:Diano|Diano]] 03:02, 10 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Si''' - como entusiasta ávido del sombrero, amo esta sugerencia --[[User:Scotw|Scotw]] 00:27, 24 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' - Of course. --[[User:Macampos|Private Mark]] 07:31, 7 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' So I can push a women off a cliff ''tequila''. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 17:35, 2 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' - I love hats! {{User:P02 Samuel/sig}} 04:26, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' - This sandwich is tasty--[[User:Jake4d1|Jake4d1]] 23:07, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Sure.''' - Why the hell not? --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 06:50, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===No (Somrberitos)===<br />
#'''No''' - Impractical - [[User:Zig13|<span style="color:DodgerBlue">Zig13 - 2/07/2008 at 10:20(BST) </span>]]<br />
#:Im-fag-tical kekekeke--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 17:00, 9 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Fake "Dali" Mustache==<br />
DipCup is an Idiot, so here I am, suggesting this for him. Fake Mustache essentially, found in mall costume stores.... super bad ass.... face slot. --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 01:18, 5 June 2008 (BST)<br />
===Yes (Dali Mustache)===<br />
#Whut Whut! --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 01:18, 5 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#Aye --{{User:The Surgeon General/sig}} 01:21, 5 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes!''' remember to vote yes if you think I am an idiot OR you would like to see this in game or both! --[[User:Dipcup|Dipcup]] 01:23, 5 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' - Both --[[User:Bob_Fortune|Sir Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 01:29, 5 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' Evil mustache FTW. --{{User:Goofy Mccoy/sig}} 01:37, 5 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' Cool--[[User:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKRED">Jamie Cantwel3</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKGREEN">Talk</span></sup>]]''All glory to the Hypnotoad!'' 15:07, 6 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes'''' - The game sorely needs a moustache. I grew one and felt better about myself. I want my characters to spread my moustachie joy --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 21:01, 9 June 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' - For the sake of humor - [[User:Zig13|<span style="color:DodgerBlue">Zig13 - 2/07/2008 at 10:21(BST) </span>]]<br />
#'''A thousand times''' - The thermometer of success is merely the jealousy of the malcontents. --[[User:Karloth_vois|Sir Topaz]] <sup>[[Daily Ruminations|DR]] ♣ [[The Gardeners|GR]]</sup> 14:01, 2 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes on Proposition 3vil''' - We need more stereotypical evil villains and their trademark mustaches around here. --[[User:Macampos|Private Mark]] 07:34, 7 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''keep''' i would have to give up my cracked and blood-smeared pair of mirrored sunglasses for this, but i want funny facial hair --[[User:Scotw|Scotw]] 23:11, 7 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''keep''' - AVIDA DOLLARS & FAKE HILTER 'STACHES FTW. But sure, why not, these could be picked up with the Groucho Glasses I suggested a long time ago. And.... Malton... needs... DEVO HATS! Really, it does, for are we not men? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:38, 8 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''keep''' For. --[[User:VI|VI]] 19:06, 10 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''keep''' why the devil not? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 17:39, 2 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===No (Dali Mustache)===<br />
Votes against go here<br />
<br />
==Red Energy Dome aka Devo Hats==<br />
<br />
Just like [http://www.clubdevo.com/mp/store.html this]. Found at the much talked about Novelty Store which everyone wants, and / or the hat shop. At least make them available on a special occasion or something... An 80s retro party or something? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:51, 8 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
=== Yes (Red Energy Dome) ===<br />
#'''Yes''' Are we not men? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:55, 8 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' Ziggurat hats? Hell yes! --[[User:Amber Waves of Pain|Amber Waves of Pain]] 16:16, 8 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' It was acceptable in the 80s. It was acceptable at the time. --[[User:Bob_Fortune|Sir Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 21:56, 8 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxH39QlRuhg whip it]''' whip it good --[[User:Scotw|Scotw]] 00:28, 9 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''It's''' a Beautiful World we live in -- [[User:Bisfan|Bisfan]] 06:08, 13 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' Good idea.--[[User:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKRED">Jamie Cantwel3</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKGREEN">Talk</span></sup>]]''All glory to the Hypnotoad!'' 21:09, 14 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' Ive got love for you if you were born in the 80's, the 80's. Can we also have global hypercolour t-shirts? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 17:41, 2 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#:Hell yeah. Why did they stop making them? Do they cause cancer or something? --[[User:Bob_Fortune|Sir Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 22:31, 2 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' As WanYao, now we just need to get whips in the game. --[[User:Rude Sykes|Rude Sykes]] 02:14, 14 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===No (Red Energy Dome)===<br />
<br />
==Gentlemen Vests==<br />
Stylish vests would go in the jacket slot, so as to be worn with a nice coat as well, and would suit those who appreciate dressing to impress. These could be found at malls and perhaps churches, in case some old men died while in their Sunday best. --[[User:Tylerisfat|Tylerisfat]] 10:54, 11 July 2008 (BST)<br />
===Yes (Gentlemen vests)===<br />
#'''Yes''' - MMmm vests. http://www.esquiresuithire.co.nz/newvests/vests_1.jpg [[User:Tylerisfat|Tylerisfat]] 10:54, 11 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' - Sure why not...is this not already in the game?--[[User:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKRED">Jamie Cantwel3</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKGREEN">Talk</span></sup>]]''All glory to the Hypnotoad!'' 21:10, 14 July 2008 (BST)<br />
:There are waistcoats, mildly different i think.<br />
<br />
===No (Gentlemen Vests)===<br />
#'''Dupe''' - What you're referring to is a waistcoat, which is already in the game. However, not in a full range of colours. But, that too has been suggested I am very sure of it... But I can't be arsed to look for it. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:39, 16 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#:Also wrong locations... Mansions and maybe malls are where you'd find them IMO. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:42, 16 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Sweater Vests==<br />
A simple, classy sweater vest, using the jacket slot, available in all colors, and found in Malls, Hotels and Towers. There are sweaters and waistcoats, but niether of these are quite the same thing. A sweater vest is lighter and is usually worn under a coat of some sort; It is lighter than the usual sweater, and more durable and informal than a silk waistcoat. They are very popular among teachers, scientists and other reserved, academic types. --[[User:Palladium477|Palladium477]] 06:42, 27 July 2008 (BST)<br />
===Yes (Sweater Vests)===<br />
#Author vote :) --[[User:Palladium477|Palladium477]] 06:42, 27 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#yeah! go sweater vests--{{User:Rictor_Stilwell/sig}} 00:53, 29 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes''' - Would be cool.--[[User:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKRED">Jamie Cantwel3</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKGREEN">Talk</span></sup>]]''All glory to the Hypnotoad!'' 18:16, 17 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===No (Sweater Vests)===<br />
#'''Nah''' - This is getting too picky/specific. Just describe it in your profile. --<br />
<br />
==Combat goggles==<br />
You've likely seen Marines wearing goggles on their helmets. I was thinking you could find these in forts. It would use the face slot. (duh) Lens color: Orange, Black, or Clear. Of course, this would have no use other than to wear. I feel it is would be a great addition to anyone's military outfit. [[User:Victor Denley]] 20:48, 28 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===Yes (Combat Goggles)===<br />
#'''Yes''' I think they'd look cool, and this wouldn't automatically be for trenchcoaters. --[[User:Lathome|Lathome]] 13:28, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Keep''' Just a nice little flavor item. We've got purple shades, mirrored shades, etc. Doesn't hurt anyone. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 01:51, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Aye''' Military stuff is always good. {{User:Tayth/Sig}}<br />
<br />
===No (Combat Goggles)===<br />
#'''No''' - No more trenchie gear. Not ever. --[[User:Bob_Fortune|Sir Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 17:43, 29 July 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''No''' - As Bob. --[[User:JaredV|<span style="color: Green">Jared</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|<span style="color: Blue">Talk</span>]] [[South Paynterton Aces|<span style="color: Red">SPA</span>]] [[Columbine Kids|<span style="color: SaddleBrown">CK</span>]]</sup> 22:26, 4 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''No''' - As Bob. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:12, 18 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''No Thanks.''' As Bob. Plus, I want AVIATOR goggles, not combat. --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 02:55, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Customizable Clothing==<br />
Players could create their own clothing items. An example could be "a <description> baseball cap." In place of "<description>", they could write their own descriptions of their clothing. This would allow more individuality in character profiles.<br />
<br />
A character limit would be imposed, to save space. A profanity filter might also be necessary.<br />
<br />
For example:<br />
<br />
"an Arizona Cardinals football T-shirt"<br />
"a blue, mustard-stained baseball cap"<br />
"a pair of ragged, holey blue jeans"<br />
<br />
--[[User:JaredV|<span style="color: Green">Jared</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|<span style="color: Blue">Talk</span>]] [[South Paynterton Aces|<span style="color: Red">SPA</span>]] [[Columbine Kids|<span style="color: SaddleBrown">CK</span>]]</sup> 02:39, 4 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Yes (Customizable Clothing)===<br />
# Author Keep. --[[User:JaredV|<span style="color: Green">Jared</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|<span style="color: Blue">Talk</span>]] [[South Paynterton Aces|<span style="color: Red">SPA</span>]] [[Columbine Kids|<span style="color: SaddleBrown">CK</span>]]</sup> 02:39, 4 August 2008 (BST)<br />
# That would be pretty awesome. If it can be done I think it should. --[[User:Lathome|Lathome]] 15:27, 17 August 2008 (BST)<br />
# I like this idea.--[[User:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKRED">Jamie Cantwel3</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKGREEN">Talk</span></sup>]]''All glory to the Hypnotoad!'' 18:21, 17 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===No (Customizable Clothing)===<br />
#Dupe. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 22:36, 4 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#Dupe. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:05, 18 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Gay Pride T-Shirts==<br />
Pretty simple, obviously it would go in the shirt slot. There could be two versions: an all black shirt with the rainbow pride flag, or an all white shirt with the pride flag. If there can't be two, then defiantly the black one. And I was thinking the best place for it would in the Malls. And that's about it, what do you all think? --[[User:Lathome|Lathome]] 15:23, 17 August 2008 (BST)<br />
===Yes (Gay Pride T-Shirts)===<br />
# It's 2008, why not.--[[User:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKRED">Jamie Cantwel3</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Jamie Cantwell3|<span style="color: DARKGREEN">Talk</span></sup>]]''All glory to the Hypnotoad!'' 18:22, 17 August 2008 (BST)<br />
# to say no would be homophobia--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 08:57, 18 August 2008 (BST)<br />
# As above --[[User:Fifth Element|Fifth Element]] 09:04, 18 August 2008 (BST)<br />
# There's a lot of homophobia already within the game, this might help folks address the balance. -- [[User:Bisfan|Bisfan]] 09:13, 18 August 2008 (BST)<br />
# '''Keep''' - Changing my vote, as bisfan. The textual queer-bashing that goes on within the adolescent macho-overcompensation crowd in this game can get pretty over-the-top. Thus, in spite of generally agreeing with Bob Fortune, below, about things like this... in this case, it'd be a great idea. Just make sure it's something simple -- and neutral, but definitely identifiable -- like a "Rainbow-coloured/patterned t-shirt" or something to that effect?. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:58, 18 August 2008 (BST) Furthermore, Nitro378's comment below is EXACTLY why this would be a ''good'' thing... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:04, 18 August 2008 (BST)<br />
# '''Keep''' as everyone above. Also, are we not men(and women)? --[[User:Rude Sykes|A Kenyan Mangrove Crab]] 22:11, 18 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#:[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRguZr0xCOc We are D-E-V-O!] --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 22:39, 18 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#Keep cause I said so, bowchikabowwow --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 19:15, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Keep''' - As a heterosexual PKer male, I would wear that shirt as if my life depended on it.--[[User:Jake4d1|Jake4d1]] 23:16, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===No (Gay Pride T-Shirts)===<br />
#'''No''' - for one simple reason - it would open the floodgates. Soon there'd be calls for other real-life t-shirts like ''Save the Whales'', ''Free Tibet'', ''US out of Iraq'' and ''Pete Doherty is Innocent''. --[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 00:54, 18 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#:"<s>'''No''' - As Rich Robert, right above me. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:45, 18 August 2008 (BST)</s> ''Vote changed.'''<br />
#'''No''' "Gayhunt, the new event happening across Malton. All you have to do is post a screen shot of you killing someone with a "Gay Pride"(lol)T-Shirt. All people interested should..." Yeah. It just doesn't sound like a great idea. --{{User:Nitro378/Sig}} 19:56, 18 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''No''' I really wish I could vote yes, but as above, it would backfire. Imagine all the /b/tards hunting down and pking teh_gays? [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 12:10, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#''' NO''' dont think so I agree with WanYao! --[[User:Tony Darkgrave|Tony Darkgrave]] 02:45, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
#''' NO''' - I show my Les-pride off in my profile. These shirts would without customization and only a novelty.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 17:02, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==New Slots==<br />
This is my first time to suggest something. I was thinking that maybe there could be some new clothing slots in the game. If you have additional suggestions to any of the slots, articles, or anything else, '''please do so in your vote.''' The slots would include:<br />
<br />
Hand Slot: Articles would include: regular gloves (in all colors and could be found in schools, towers, hotels and malls), plastic gloves (in white or pale green to fit the doctor theme, and could be found in hospitals, hotels and malls), leather gloves (in all colors, could be found in police stations, towers, hotels and malls), boxing gloves (in all colors, could be found in schools, stadiums and malls), tape (in all colors, could be found in schools, towers and malls) and fire-resistant gloves (goes with the firefighter theme, could be found in fire departments). Additional suggestions should be posted with your vote.<br />
<br />
Finger Slot: Though it sounds childish, I was thinking that this could be for: rings (in various metallic shades, such as gold, silver, etc., etc., could be found in towers, mansions and malls) and wedding bands (with the various colors like before, but with a diamond, ruby, sapphire or other precious gems, could be found in towers, mansions and malls).<br />
<br />
Wrist Slot: Could be for: watches (I don't have one, so some advice would be nice) and bracelets (cloth or rubber bracelets in all colors).<br />
<br />
Ear Slot: Simple: earrings, hoop earrings, etc., etc.<br />
<br />
Leg Slot: Not associated with the shoe slot! The article of clothing for this slot would be: regular socks (in all colors, could be found in towers and malls), tube socks (in all colors, could be found in towers and malls), and stockings (in all colors, could be found in schools, towers, malls, and various lingerie types in clubs).<br />
<br />
-Natalie Rosenberg, Aug, 18, 2008<br />
<br />
===Yes===<br />
# YES - The author is allowed to vote. -Natalie Rosenberg, Aug. 18, 2008.<br />
# Not a Clothing Suggestion, but meh, okay --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 19:18, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
# YES - The more clothing slots and options the better. I'm wearing a ball-gown, where are the matching gloves and the sparkling rings?--[[User:Zuton|Zuton]] 21:12, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===No===<br />
Votes to decline this idea go here.<br />
<br />
===Neutral/Spam/Dupe===<br />
:'''Spam/Dupe''' - This is not a clothing suggestion. It's an actual SUGGESTION suggestion that would alter the game's interface, and as such belongs in that section. And, I think it's a dupe, but can't be arsed to look. I will not remove this suggestion, but could a sysop please look at it and remove/move it if appropriate. (Dream on...) --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:48, 18 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sorry, I didn't realize this was a different type of suggestion. I'm not on the computer much, but I will try to keep this in mind in the future if I suggest something else. -Natalie Rosenberg, 8/20/08<br />
Au contraire! This is '''definitely''' a clothing suggestion. New slots have been suggested in the past and I'm sure they will be again, though you should be aware that none have been implemented thus far. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 03:56, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Tin foil hat/ Paper hat==<br />
so what? I am paranoid and if we have zombies who knows what else could happen?<br />
also paper seems very common in hospitals so what stops people from making newspaper hats? Remember the times before the zombies took over.<br />
===Yes===<br />
# YES - the author is paranoid -Janjakko, Aug. 18 2008<br />
#'''Yeah, sure''' Why not, sorta funny. --[[User:Shawn O'Hara|Shawn O'Hara]]<br />
#'''Yes''' Made me laugh [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 12:10, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yes, sure, why not?''' Funneh. {{User:P02 Samuel/sig}} 04:29, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''Yarr''' Yeah! Don't let the aliens read my mind! {{User:Tayth/Sig}}<br />
#'''Yes,''' yes keep the goverment out--[[User:Tony Darkgrave|Tony Darkgrave]] 02:43, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===No===<br />
#'''Nope''' For the greater Sparta area --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 19:18, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#[[Clothes/Suggestions/Head#Tinfoil_Hat|Dupe]]. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 22:42, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Church Medallions / Amulets==<br />
Well, of course, we already have medallions for saints that can be found in cathedrals, so why not in churches too? I mean, of course the cultists... excuse me, "devotees", want to show their faith for, say, Saint Barbara. It would go in the same slot as the current medallions do, of course. --[[User:TehHeyhey|TehHeyhey]] 01:03, 19 August 2008 (BST)<br />
===Yes (Church Medallions)===<br />
<br />
# YES - Of course the author supports! R.I.P. St Barbara.<br />
<br />
Meh, I kinda agree with that one guy who said cathedrals are special...But its a pretty good idea! I say YES!<br />
<br />
===No (Church Medallions)===<br />
<br />
#'''Eh''' I just don't like it. --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 02:52, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''No''' - Catherdrals are special buildings, which is why they have some special kinds of items. Churches, however, are not. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 00:19, 22 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#'''No''' As WanYao --[[User:Fenian|Fenian]] 17:10, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Outfits==<br />
Let's say that you are debating on what to wear, and you can't make up your mind because you like 2 different outfits. If you choose 1 and decide later you want to wear another outfit, you have to cross 3 neighborhoods to get it. Well, I propose a new idea to the fashion-distressed citizens of Malton: Outfits.<br />
<br />
In your settings page, there would be a pull-down box where the clothing selection is, saying Outfit 1, Outfit 2, etc. Outfit 1 could be a, for example, ''gas mask, fireman's helmet, pale-blue short-sleeved shirt, firefighter's jacket, blue trousers and black boots''. Outfit 2, on the other hand, could be ''a hospital gown and tartan slippers''. If you decide to add something to another outfit that you have, you can collect that item and still be wearing another.<br />
<br />
As for how many Outfits there should be, I'll leave that decision to Kevan, if other people think this is a good idea. --[[User:Natalie Rosenberg|Natalie Rosenberg]] 01:26, 31 August 2008<br />
<br />
===Yes (Outfits)===<br />
#The author is allowed to vote once. --[[User:Natalie Rosenberg|Natalie Rosenberg]] 01:28, 31 August 2008<br />
#:Fixed your formatting and sigs. Next time, please copy+paste the format from the top of the page, and sign using 4 tildes {{CodeInline|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}} or the [[Image:button_sig.png]] button. Oh, and welcome aboard the wiki! <tt>:)</tt> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 03:08, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#::Thank you so much, Revenant! [[User:Natalie Rosenberg|Natalie Rosenberg]] 23:38, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
#If the game accepts carrying a couple portable generators, 8 shotguns, and a dozen FAKs, then certainly we have room for a spare set of clothes. This could be simply implemented in settings as "save outfit", then recalled as necessary. Allows people to have one set of "combat gear", and another for roleplaying, etc. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 23:27, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===No (Outfits)===<br />
Votes against go here<br />
#'''Kill''' Where the HELL are we going to carry all this clothing?...Hmm...Maybe it could go in the same spot we put all those shotguns.... [[User:Matthew Armada|Armada]] 07:39, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
#No. Some people, like me, like to mix-n-match. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 22:59, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
#:No, I don't mean that! Let me rephrase - Let's say I can't decide if I want to wear a yellow dress and black stilleto heels or just a simple pale-blue T-shirt and white shorts. Oufit 1 could be the dress and heels, while Outfit 2 could be the shirt and shorts. You decide what you want in your particular outfit, and if you get tired of what you're wearing right now, you can switch to the outher outfit. Sorry if I confused you. [[User:Natalie Rosenberg|Natalie Rosenberg]] 23:18, 1 September 2008 (BST)Natalie Rosenberg, September 1, 2008.<br />
#::I remember someone suggesting suitcases before on the suggestion page. Is that what you're going for here? Being able to carry around lots of different clothes? --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 23:20, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
#:::Not suitcases, just the ability to have multiple clothing to wear and have easy access to instead of having to look everywhere for one simple thing. If you want something to be part of one of your outfits, you'll have to look for it, but once you get it, you can carry it around and use it in all of your outfits. Also, you can change the items in an outfit if you want. [[User:Natalie Rosenberg|Natalie Rosenberg]] 23:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
#::::That's...about the same thing as that suitcase suggestion... --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 23:42, 4 September 2008 (BST)</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Jen&diff=1272713User talk:Jen2008-09-13T13:15:05Z<p>Janine: /* Hel's Daughters */</p>
<hr />
<div>Alright...if'n you've got a new topic and all, use the "+" sign, and add it to the bottom. Seems the best way to organize this. :)<br />
<br />
== Welcome to our Wiki ==<br />
{{Welcomenewbie}}<br />
<br />
--{{:User:Airborne88/sig}} 01:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Hi Jen!==<br />
Welcome to the wiki! I hope all is going ok. Fell free to drop me line anytime--{{:User:Airborne88/sig}} 07:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
:You are welcome! The wiki is sort of a crazy place huh? I like it though. You know where to find me! Good luck and have fun.--{{:User:Airborne88/sig}} 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Yes, yes I am ==<br />
<br />
I'm not sure how to use it either...<br />
:Ha! I now know how to indent responses to posts, Reign! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 23:09, 23 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== [[dark]] ==<br />
<br />
needs to be fueled im afraid. Completely agree with your Monroeville comments by the way. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 17:25, 29 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== oh noes ==<br />
<br />
I'm glad you appreciated my contribution. People can get a bit ''invested'' in their own point of view, so it's fun to throw rocks at them from time to time. (Although I generally like to avoid online drama. Its a wiki for a browser game, after all.) <br />
<br />
This might amuse you:<br />
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm<br />
<br />
cheers, [[User:Garum|Garum]] 15:51, 30 May 2008 (BST)<br />
== Spy ==<br />
thanks anways. i respect your views. (--[[User:Weekendwarrior|Weekendwarrior]])<br />
:Good thing Jen doesn't condone yours, or she would be a truly classless person. Good to see you taking a moral stand there, Jen. It's truly a rare thing to find exceptional players like you. - [[User:Brona|Brona]] 01:29, 16 June 2008 (BST)<br />
::As Brona. I really appreciate what you said on <strike>weekendzerger</strike>, I mean, weekendwarrior's talk page, despite his attempts to cover it up. You're just the type of survivor we LUEsers love to go into battle against. Best of luck to you in your endeavors, and thank you for being an honest player, Jen. --[[User:Another alias|Zombie in Pajamas]] 20:50, 16 June 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Ditto the above.--[[User:Insomniac By Choice|Insomniac By Choice]] 02:01, 17 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== re: <insert subject here> ==<br />
<br />
Indeed, one must be careful of what one says. A world where people are held accountable for their words, on the INTERNET? Oh, how the mighty anonymous jerks have fallen! Though I suppose my group impersonation makes me one of those jerks as well. ;[ I don't intend to justify my wrongdoing, merely offer my reasoning: LUEsers don't get revived as easily as pro-survivors do. I figure if my character is going to play "dirty" and shoot his fellow man in the back, he may as well fly another's flag to get a revive under false pretenses. If I am to be judged a criminal, I have no need for delusions of grandeur. And as for wasted AP, there is no such thing when in a siege. If you're going down, go down trying or at least smiling. It's not wasted at all if you build something that lasts (and I don't mean barricades) or you learn something new. I'll look forward to crossing paths with you again in the future--and rest assured I'll be flying my own group's flag in my profile. ;] --[[User:Another alias|Zombie in Pajamas]] 06:17, 17 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:That bank is either great luck or bad luck, I'm not really sure which. I'd already been nearly killed once by a very determined bounty hunter this morning, but I was healed up by my fellow PKers. Just when I think I'm safe, you say some nice things '''and''' kill me. I don't think I've ever laughed so hard at an online game, so thanks for that. As for reporting the bounty, by all means. It's not like I'm going to suddenly drop below KOS, so I have no objections. That would also put your name will forever be listed on my Rogue's Gallery page where you shall live in infamy. Or something.<br />
<br />
:And it's always good to be on a revive-on-sight list. That will make one ROS for every 50 KOS lists I'm on, I'd wager. ;] And my fellow LUEsers got to me fairly quickly, as they were most sympathetic to my plight (and in tears from laughing so hard). --[[User:Another alias|Zombie in Pajamas]] 03:28, 18 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::What list does that put you on? My AIM list, hopefully. Add me if you'd prefer to continue our nice chat without the whole filling of our respective talk pages. The name's "a generic alias" minus the quotes. Otherwise, you've certainly found a place on my "Do Not Kill" list, albeit somewhat ''grudgingly''--after all, if I killed you, you'd actually play as a zombie. ;] --[[User:Another alias|Zombie in Pajamas]] 21:17, 18 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::It seems I can't get away from you anywhere I go, even in Monroeville. ;P<br />
<br />
::: A zombie ( Jen Mikonati ) killed hugh manatee. (2 hours and 43 minutes ago)<br />
::: A zombie ( Jen Mikonati ) said "BARHAH! G!ahn ahz, harmanz! Bah zambahz!" (2 hours and 38 minutes ago)<br />
::: A zombie ( Jen Mikonati ) dragged Sachika out into the street. (2 hours and 38 minutes ago)<br />
<br />
:::It's a shame you were gone by the time [http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1147994 I] logged back in. I would have gestured to you and said something dramatic (for a zambah at least!) and everything. Maybe next time. --[[User:Another alias|Zombie in Pajamas]] 00:29, 2 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Read the link for the Qartly Study Group ==<br />
<br />
I read the link for the Qartly Study Group that you thoughtfully commented on to me.<br />
I snorted and giggled for a few minutes at the absurdity of a literate and well studied populace, both living and otherwise in a war-torn Apocalyptic setting.<br />
<br />
That was a very welcome relief from the formalized background of the DEM I work with everyday.<br />
<br />
If I ever see a Zombie stacking books for cataloging I'll not interfere until I get attacked that is.<br />
What a libretto for community serving.<br />
I can see a lot of ironic comparison to the DEM for their (our) attempt to find some order in an otherwise doomed life.<br />
[[User:Charles Degaulle|Charles Degaulle]] 17:43, 8 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== MCRmy ==<br />
<br />
Hey, yea it's not a joke, but tbh I'm not realy plying Urban Dead anymore, so feel free to take the group for yourself, I may be coming back at some point, so keep me at the joint top of tehj group with yourself if you want. [[User:Ryan Shuck|Ryan SHuck]] 23:49, 13 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Why, thanks! ==<br />
<br />
The CGR helped inspire it, of course. :) <br />
<br />
It was made for the page of my other "group" the [[Cult of the Red Star]], so it's really more representative of The bluefish, my fun alt. FT's my 'serious' character, it's only on that page because TB's not represented on the wiki.<br />
<br />
Have a cookie!<br />
<br />
{{Evil_Cookie|1=Father Thompson|2=Jen|reason=the generous compliment}}<br />
--[[User:Father Thompson|<span style="color: Black">FT</span>]] <sup>[[MCI|<span style="color: Black">MCI</span>]]</sup> 03:31, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Yet another thanks ==<br />
<br />
Thanks for helping with the MU project. I've been working alone for a while... {{User:Secruss/Sig}}20:40, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
: You needed some better posters, mate! How could I resist? ;) --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 21:16, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Hel's Daughters ==<br />
<br />
You seem like the kind of user who would be a great addition to the [[Hel's Daughters|Hel's Daughters]]. A close knit female-only zombie(with a pker auxiliary) group. I've noticed that your user page talked about joining a zombie group and couldn't help trying to raise group awareness.<br />
<br />
Just wanted to officially invite you to both to the group and to ruin <br />
Dulston for good.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 02:02, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Honestly I just combined my first name with a name from the [[Families of Malton|Families of Malton]] page. Names don't matter so much when the only person who will see it are revivers, contact listers, and any survivors you run into while fetching yourself a flak jacket or buying body building.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 14:15, 13 September 2008 (BST)</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Department_of_Emergency_Management&diff=1272711Talk:Department of Emergency Management2008-09-13T13:11:21Z<p>Janine: /* What's with the anti-DEM sentiment? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Attacks on Bigger Mortice members. ==<br />
<br />
Just to point out that our only enemies are [[Dragonhead]]. We are not pkers as such. We kill members of [[Dragonhead]] because of their crimes against us, and their crimes against the Zog of Marrinium. <br />
<br />
'''All other players and groups are safe.''' We deem it a great shame that [[Dragonhead]] seem unable to fight their own battles. Signed: [[Bigger Mortice]].--[[User:Zombiek|Zombiek]] 22:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==[[Malton Murder Awards]] Nominees==<br />
{{Malton Murder Award}}<br />
Most Inept (Group): the DEM<br />
<br />
Most Inept (Individual): Labine50<br />
<br />
Most Inept (Individual): Zombie/ Blue Crow 90<br />
<br />
Most Inept (Individual): Runis 707<br />
<br />
Good Luck! --[[User:Karloth vois|Karloth Vois]] <sup>[[RR]]</sup> 00:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Survivor Security Zone==<br />
The [[Survivor Security Zone]] is a specific area near the center of Malton, where four malls and other resources are located closely together, allowing for efficient territory protection. The Survivor Security Zone (aka, "The SSZ" or "The Zone") has a high concentration of resources, compared to all other areas of Malton. The Zone is different from other tactical initiative in that it spans multiple suburbs (at least five have important resources), and cuts some suburbs in half.<br />
<br />
The physical boundaries of the Survivor Security Zone are defined by the proximity of four malls: [[Tynte Mall]] to the north, [[Woodroffe Mall]] to the South, [[Hildebrand Mall]] to the east, and [[Nichols Mall]] to the west. Projecting out a 10-block "square of influence" from each of these malls, and combining the overlapping areas, will define the boundaries of the Security Survivor Zone. The boundary has also been extended a couple blocks in a couple places to "annex" some police stations on the perimeter. <br />
<br />
We could use the support of the various forces that make up the DEM in supporting the SSZ as policy. There's much more information on the wiki page, but what do you say? - [[User:Benigno|Benigno]] , [[Zone Defenders]]<br />
<br />
==The Junkyard Bandits==<br />
Please help us in ridding Pitneybank of these pests! http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Junkyard_Bandits They raid the zombies at your Revivification Point as well, so you've got an interest in this too. -- [[User:Cyarus|Cyarus]] 16:10, 21 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Attention usergroup, [[Malton Hospitals Group]] needs your help. If your running a hospital, please notify us as soon as it's on our list of hospitals.<br />
04:48, 16 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
"How does one find one's own ID number? I want to submit a request but can't find my ID number." - posted on the front page.<br />
:While playing UD, look below the grid displaying the nearby blocks of the city, and you should see a block of text that starts with "You are " followed by your characters name. Click on that link and you will get to your profile page. Now, look up to your browsers toolbar, where the location (URL) of the page is listed. Something like <nowiki>http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=</nowiki> + some numbers at the end. Those numbers at the end are your characters UD ID#, and the entire URL is the link to your profile. You can also get this information by right clicking on your name (the link you found under the map) and choosing 'Copy link location' (or your browsers equivilent) and then pasting that somewhere. --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] 18:57, 7 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
== Remember, remember the [[5th of November]] == <br />
You are all urged to storm the infected heart of our fair city of Malton on the 5th of November. We shall not lie down, we shall take back what is ours! [[User:Codename V|Codename V]] 14:45, 4 April 2006 (BST)<br />
{{Last Hope Mercenaries for Hire}}<br />
<br />
==Starlingtown Resistance Front==<br />
I think I may know how we got onto your page, but I don't know for sure.<br />
During the earlier stages of the groups days, I was contacted by a fireman in starlingtown, I'm not realesing names for absolutly no reason what so ever, and they said we should coordnate our efforts. I said yes but didn't realise I was joining this group. It came as a suprise for me because when I saw us on the list, as I had already dissolved the group. Anyway, the group is finished now and I just thought you should know to avoid any confusion.--[[User:Labine50|Labine50]] <sup>'''[[Malton Hospitals Group|MHG]]'''</sup> 02:56, 28 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Member group applicants ==<br />
<br />
===[[South Paynterton Aces]]===<br />
<br />
Hey there, DEM. I'm Dr. [[User:Diano/Diano|Diano]] Cervantes, Paynterton Leader of the [[South Paynterton Aces]] (I specify because [[User:EzriSun/EzriSun|EzriSun]] is the Starlingtown Leader). I've tried getting your attention on Brainstock, but apparently there are no nibbles on my bait, so I'll try here, instead. The Aces are the largest group based in either Paynterton and Starlingtown right now, and we focus primarily on reviving folks and keeping buildings safe for survivors. We're interested in being allies with the DEM, but we have no idea if you even have a presence in our 'burbs. Mainly we're just looking to establish contact, trade info, and start looking at the bigger picture. We're uniting local groups into a coalition called the Paynterton Pact, and have made some really strong inroads with groups like the Imperium of Man and the Creedy Defense Force which have helped solidify the suburb and keep it safe. I hope to hear back from you guys, and maybe trade some intel about what's up in our crazy world. -- [[User:Diano/Diano|Diano]] 02:03, 24 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===Flustered Brethren===<br />
We've been watching and admiring your work for quite a while, and want to sign on as a supporter/ally.<br />
<br>Having recently been accepted into the [[Dulston Alliance]], the [[Flustered Brethren]] wish to extend a hand to [[DEM]] and voice loudly our support of your hard, good work in Malton. Please consider us as an ally in the future. We consider you so now. <br />
<br>Or, well, at least, *I* do, and I'm the only one in the group who's both sober and awake this early on a Saturday afternoon.<br />
<br>Best wishes, and please attend the Monday Morning Kegger at [[Clewett Alley Police Department]] beginning at 11 a.m., or whenever we find another table upon which to place the keg. The zombies broke the last one as we were bringing it inside Thursday night.<br />
<br>If you have a table -- or corkscrews, which are rare as hen's teeth in this burg -- please attend and bring it/them. Thanks. -- [[User:Flustered Fred|Freddy]] 14:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br><br />
===E.N.D.===<br />
We here at [[E.N.D.]] are a nomadic survivor group that would like to help Malton by traveling through every town, and taking out any threat in order to return our beloved city to its old glory. If we are in need, call upon us and we will give our lives if we mustto heal the sick, and return your loved ones to thier living bodies.<br />
E.N.D. asks for an alliance with every survivor group. <br />
If all survivors can work in harmony, together, our children will grow up to think zeds are only a ghost story. <br />
http://z11.invisionfree.com/END_Forums/index.php?act=idx<br />
--[[User:XxPale HorsexX|XxPale HorsexX]] 11:14, 26 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''They have raised the bar...'''<br />
<br />
:... so we must raise it higher!<br />
<br />
:I have made efforts to call upon every major survivor group to join in a full frontal assault into the red zones.<br />
<br />
:The plan:<br />
:Have a major and a minor group take a red suburb. The bigger group will take the TRP of choice while the minor group will employ the '''DEAD E.N.D.*''' strategy outside. <br />
<br />
:Have a few floating groups (which can be alive or undead) that will be kill units taking out any and all zeds it finds. <br />
<br />
:With these groups taking out the zeds, it will allow the survivor teams to raise the ruined buildings and, also allow the time to search for needles, and other supplies.<br />
<br />
:I won't lie, this effort will take some massive under taking, but, if done right with proper communication between teams. <br />
<br />
:Each team will spend time working on restoring the outside red zones and then working there way to the north western corner.<br />
<br />
:While this is being done, other groups will of course stay within their borders restoring their own suburb, which will hopefully slow down the efforts of it spreading further.<br />
<br />
:The major issue is if we do this, the zeds will counter by joining forces as well. LUE, RRF, Extinction ect, will be fighting back, and we will have to double the efforts even more.<br />
<br />
:To me, this is the only way this "ruined" status will be over taken by the survivors.<br />
<br />
'''*DEAD E.N.D.'''<br />
<br />
:There will be times, (especially with this new ruin status) where we will be put in harms way. In these times of danger there will be a standing order, called Operation: DEAD E.N.D.<br />
<br />
:Those of us that have fallen, will stay outside and guard a NT, while those still alive will stay inside caid, and revive when possible.<br />
<br />
:Those that are dead will attack ONLY zombies, and the living members will mention that we are fighting the undead outside, to greatly increase the chances of survivors staying to defend the NT. Also as a new update, (Not officially mentioned) survivors that do not have construction to barricade, search around for a lead pipe. Even without the construction skill, you too can do some minor helping.<br />
[[Length of Pipe]]<br />
<br />
:In extreme cases DIRT:NAP may be employed in mass:<br />
[[DIRT:NAP]]<br />
<br />
:This will keep the zeds busy, while the survivors gain more AP, and, hopefully increase the chances of having a working NT, threwout a siege.<br />
--[[User:XxPale HorsexX|XxPale HorsexX / XxCannon FodderxX]] 23:51, 3 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
===The Electric Light Torchestra===<br />
This is [[User:PsychoLychee|PsychoLychee]], proud co-leader of the [[ELT]]. We are a very young and very small group up to now and our contribution to the wellbeing of Malton is also only small. But we consider ourselves helpful and peaceful and are dedicated to enlighten the town (starting at only one suburb, however: [[Dulston]]. Organized pretty well by dividing the work into 2 tours, and currently recruiting to be able to expand.). We hate the [[zombies|undead hordes]] as much as you do and would feel more than honored, if you considered our work and decided to form an alliance with us.--[[User:PsychoLychee|PsychoLychee]]<sup>[[The Electric Light Torchestra|ELT]]</sup> 00:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Bagehot Way Precinct===<br />
Hello, [[User:BelPierce|Belinda Pierce]] here from [[Bagehot Way Precinct]]. I've got a group of people working to keep two police stations ([[Bagehot Way Police Department]] and Breeden Way Police Department) clear of zombies as well as the other blocks in that area of [[Pashenton]]. We've mostly cleared our immediate area, though fresh outbreaks are frequent as we're surrounded by zombie territory on several sides. We've got a fairly decent sized survivor population that we're keeping safe to the best of our ability; maintianing barricades, killing zeds, maintaining a revive point, and some small amount of medical assistance though that's difficult given we don't have a hospital in our sphere of influence.<br />
<br />
We're a fairly new and still pretty small group, and I'm not a real cop, but we doing police work as best we can so if you want to count us as allies, we're here. If you don't, well, we're still here and Bagehot is mine. I cleared it first. [[User:BelPierce|Belinda]] out.<br />
<br />
===woamm warriors===<br />
my name is homang, leader of woamm warriors, we are always looking for allies around malton. we are a group that is based out of kempsterbank, helping whomever nearby that needs our service, we are currently working closely with the Kempsterbank Neighbourhood Watch to help survivors in any way possible.<br />
<br />
If you guys are interested to ally up, please drop me a [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Homang line] whenever at your convience. thanks for your time.<br />
here is our [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/woamm_warriors<br />
group page] if you are interested to check it out.<br />
<br />
===U.S. ARMY INFANTRY===<br />
<br />
Hi, I'm Johnny lunchpail commander [[U.S. ARMY INFANTRY]] I wish for you to add us to your allies section I'm not sure what type of ally we are considered at this time. Actaully if you could clear this up for me it would help to know what we are in respct to DEM allies. We have worked with DEM closely in grigg heights, eastonwood, dunningwood, gulsonside, and at caiger. Thanks --[[User:Johnny Lunchpail|Johnny Lunchpail]] 07:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Johnny, it sounds like you are already an ally. If you have worked with our members and friendships have been built between members of our groups, then you are a friend and ally already. As such I've already added your group to our Friends & Allies list on this page. I see you have already added yourself to the DEM Ally category, so you are ahead of the curve there. You are also already listed as a DEM Ally on Brainstock and as such have access to the private Ally Intelligence forum within the DEM area. You can also authorize any members of your group for access to that forum as well, just contact any Brainstock Admin. So you are all set as you are. Please accept my gratitude for the work you do for the survivors of Malton! The only thing further, as far as the relationships between our groups, would be to become a [[Department_of_Emergency_Management#Strategic_Partners|Strategic Partner]]. --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]|[[DEM]]</sup> 02:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Black Berets==<br />
Hello, this is [[User:Iluliaq|Iluliaq]] from the [[Black Berets]]. Our forum is experiencing technical difficulties, so the Black Berets and GHDU will be operating off a temporary forum: http://s14.invisionfree.com/ghdu If you register for this forum under your earlier usernames, you will be added to the temporary forum shortly. Thank you for your patience.<br />
<br />
== Tags - Observed & Suggestions ==<br />
<br />
Have you seen a DEM tag out in Malton? Do you have a suggestion for a new one? Please put them here!<br />
* wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/DEM - Here to help!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Whittenside medical corps==<br />
The Whittenside medical corps, or WMC if you prefer, is a dedicated group of medical proffesionals that has come together in order to provide medical and revival support to all of Whittenside. Based out of Anne General Hospital, the Corps have taken it upon themselves to maintain the generators in the hospital as well as the Colglough Building (a Necrotech establishment) and the Sherwel Building (the local cell tower). Although we're willing to defend the hospital and the surrounding area the WMC is a non-militant fraction that prefers to support the other local groups through excellent medical support rather then carrying on the fight ourselves. --[[User:Changchad|Changchad]] 14:19, 30 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
===GKers===<br />
<br />
I am interested with your [[GKer|anti-GKing]] policy, but I have not seen anything about in your policies section. Without any indication of such, it seems that everyone can get away with GKing if they don't PK?<br />
<br />
The DEM does not view GKing equivalent to PKing in any way, and the [[PK Reporting]] tool we support, the [[Rogues Gallery]] does not assign bounty points for GKing. In our view, while it can be quite annoying, it does not remove any functional capacity other than Necronet access, and requires no special skills, and generally fewer AP, to replace than getting a revive. Particularly with the long lines at [[revivification points]] these days. We do support placing GKers on Do Not Revive lists and their equivalent. --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]|[[DEM]]</sup> 16:16, 30 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
But surely you aware of the new effect with generators in terms of search rate? Also with generators comes with the healing bonus if the skill surgery is obtained? --[[User:Changchad|Changchad]] 18:41, 30 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== PK Misinformation ==<br />
<br />
Take me off your list. You want proof I'm not a PKer you send someone to Dulston and ask around. You'll get your answer. Besides, I was reported by a member of DORIS who is the real player killer. --[[User:Officer Murphy|Officer Murphy]] 11:44, 18th November 2006 (CST)<br />
:Then quit killing people. If you actually targeted people on the pk lists, that argument might work. Yes, you got put on the pk list because you killed a bounty hunter, which is a legal pker.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 18:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I (DerekJeter) am reported on your site as being a PKer, with a screenshot as evidence. However, if you look at the screenshot http://www.ud-malton.info/PK_list.cgi?State=Reports&id=399609 I am in no way involved in that little scuttle. I appreciate your service, but this is a case of "you've got the wrong guy" - I never killed the person that reported it. If Amazing or any other CDF want to repost my name there, that's fine! [[User:Rasher|Rasher]] 01:46, 6 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't know what standards you're using to put people on your PK list, but they could use lots of work. I only kill people who've attacked me without provocation, and every time I do I announce the fact so others in the room won't mistake me for a PKer. AND YET I'VE BEEN KILLED TWICE BY people claiming affiliation with you. I am currently being harrassed by a known PK group, and I suspect they've submitted my name to you as a way to grief me (my in-game name is different from my wiki name). [[User:SmartyMart|SmartyMart]] 04:40, 14 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Not an unknown tactic. I know members of Mall Security have been on my ass because I go after Revive Point Abusers on a regular basis. -[[User:Singular quartet|Singular Quartet]] 15:27, 14 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
: <div style="border: solid 2px #000080; padding: 2px; color: #000000; background-color: #F0FFFF; text-align: center; font-size:110%; -moz-border-radius:6px">Our reporting policies can be reviewed on the [[Rogues Gallery]] wiki page. You can also find links to the tools for reviewing reports and posting to the PKer databases thread on the the forum from that page. Post your argument to the PK list moderators on the forum and it will be reviewed. To facilitate review, please include any links to screenshots, wiki pages, profiles etc that may be relevant to your case. --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]|[[DEM]]</sup> 22:12, 14 June 2006 (BST)</div><br />
<br />
== 151st Brigade and ICB ==<br />
<br />
Hello I am [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:B0ba_Fett B0ba Fett] leader of the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/151st_Brigade 151st Brigade] and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Iron_Cross_Brothers The Iron Cross Brothers]. I was wondering if we could be allies during this catastrophe. So if you would like to become allies just give me a message<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== You are Cordially Invited ==<br />
<br />
You are cordially invited to send a member/members to our forums to act as liason officers between the groups, in the spirit of the alliance we have together. Out boards can be found at; http://z14.invisionfree.com/The_Randoms/index.php?&CODE=00<br />
<br />
We hope to be hearing from you soon<br />
<br />
[[User:HerrStefantheGreat|Commander Stephano2]] 17:06, 4 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
The Randoms<br />
<br />
== Rock'n'Roll ==<br />
<br />
sorry, guess this is the wrong place but if you had an exhausting day and want to relax with some good rock music 28.93 is the right frequency. spread the word!<br />
<br />
==[[Revive Point]]==<br />
<br />
Well I have suggested changes to the revive point page which will change the complete layout of the list of revive points. You can see what changes I have outlines [[Revivification Point/Redesign|here]] and also my reasoning.<br />
<br />
I am already working on these changes although I will not put them into use yet as it will more than likley disrupt your revive request system. I strongly feel the page needs an update to give it a better look and I would like the community to comment on this.<br />
<br />
If you can look this over and also an example of the new list will soon be available at [[User:Pillsy/Sandbox]]. It works the same as the [[Mobile Phone Mast]] list. Any questions then please leave them on the talk page of the revive point redesign page. Thanks. {{User:Pillsy/Sig}} 22:19, 17 October 2006 (BST)<br />
*The example is now available for viewing. {{User:Pillsy/Sig}} 22:53, 17 October 2006 (BST)<br />
**I think it looks great, although a color legend and links to revive request tools are hopefully going to be there too. It's easy to use, maintaining might be a bitch although you might do what Conndraka does with the recruitment page and tag maintaining group talks with reminders before you downgrade their RP to a different color level. Will there be a notes section? -- [[User:Atticus Rex|Atticus Rex]] <sup>[[AMS|A]][[Malton Hospitals Group|M]][[Project Wiki Patrol|P]] ' [[User talk:Atticus Rex|T]]</sup> 23:18, 17 October 2006 (BST) '''ETA:''' Whoops, just went back and you've answered all my questions. Cool. -- [[User:Atticus Rex|Atticus Rex]] <sup>[[AMS|A]][[Malton Hospitals Group|M]][[Project Wiki Patrol|P]] ' [[User talk:Atticus Rex|T]]</sup> 23:21, 17 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==DHPD: Rotters Relief and DEM==<br />
Some of you may know me already from my work as PR Chief for DHPD. I was recently promoted to First Commisioner and am now second in command. <br />
<br />
The ferals spreading from Shacknews prompted us to seek a backup NT in case Dury was seiged. We sent some officers to collect syringes from Woodborne which is the office of Rotters Relief. Until now we'd had little contact with them. Some minor tension has developed and thus far been handled by my local command staff and new PR officer.<br />
<br />
A new development brings me here to ask your policy regarding PKers in the RR facilities. dontaco2000 of the RR has taken the position that the DHPD is forbidden from executing our warrants in their buildings. I wondered if he has placed a similar ban on bounties being collected by the DEM. To my knowledge our warrant procedure has been recognized and accepted by our allies and many other groups as legitimate. I base this on the fact that when properly executed our officers are not listed as PKers by DEM or the Ressens List.<br />
<br />
The Woodborne building falls within our area of operations (the DMZ), we do not claim this as our territory but we are the primary group in the area. We will not allow the RR clinic to serve as a safe house for PKers and the like from which they can escape our warrants only to strike again.<br />
<br />
I will be handling future discussion with Rotters Relief myself hence my interest. [[User:DHPD-SDC FmrPFCBob|FmrPFCBob]] 05:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Serving your warrants to PKers under any circumstances in general is something that should be discussed with Karija & the current lead PK mod on Brainstock, and with TBM on Resensitized. However, where known PKers on the [[Rogues Gallery]] are concerned, there is no such thing as a place where a valid bounty [b]can't[/b] be collected. So in general I'd say if the bounty is valid, it can be collected anywhere. I don't believe PKers should have a right to expect safe haven anywhere, as I know of no place in Malton that is safe from them. --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]|[[DEM]]</sup> 23:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Query.==<br />
<br />
I'd like to know if the DEM manage a revive point in one of the streets adjacent to the Nich Building, in South Blythville. It's come to my attention that the two members of a notorious RK/Griefer group ([[Silent Storm]]) are continually getting revives there.<br />
<br />
If this is the case, I demand you '''STOP'''. It's difficult enough tracking them down and killing them in the first place, without some do-gooder sticking needles into random zeds, and reviving the wrong people. Should they continue, then I'll simply consider them assisting an enemy of South Blythville, and be forced to take them out.<br />
<br />
If this isn't the case, then I apologise for pretty much wasting your time with this rant/complaint.<br />
<br />
A prompt reply would be much appreciated. --[[User:Flatliner|Flatliner]] 12:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:'''Re''': The DEM is not running any official revive points in South Blythville. The only known revive point we're monitoring is at Gee Avenue, as well as certain ad hoc RP locations. I believe the [[Blythville Gang]] is running a RP at Park Walk (1W of Nich NT). If that's the place you're referring to, then please raise your issue with them. --[[User:Halomarine34|Winnan]] 19:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Shall do just that. Thanks for the clarification. =) --[[User:Flatliner|Flatliner]] 18:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==A proposal==<br />
I have a proposal that could benefit everyone involved. Please come here and post what you think. http://z8.invisionfree.com/AOG2_Home/index.php?act=idx I believe everyone has something to gain from this.--[[User:Franz Molotov|Franz Molotov]] 19:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Revive Tool Combination ==<br />
<br />
As a dedicated reviver, I find it a little difficult knowing which tool to use, the CDF's CIT or the DEM's Rev Tool. I know that both share their information, but I am unsure how fast and efficient this is. Secondly, when setting up a revive point, I am unsure with which program I should register the point. Perhaps there is some way the two tools can be combined to form one solid tool, that acts as the premier revive request centre for those who wish to return from unlife? While the CDF tool is easier to add a request to, I find that the DEM tool is better for searching for non-area-specific requests. So, both tools have strengths and this would be a good reason to combine. Also, we could look into creating a Greasemonkey script or Firefox plug-in that uses the current co-ordinates of a player and link directly to the tool with co-ords already inserted (and even the profile link, if possible), thus making it easier for requesters and thus more likely they will use the tool. Hope you are at least interested in these ideas. As a prior member of both the CDF and the DEM, I wish you both all the best. --[[User:Rip purr|Rip purr]] 06:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
:Thanks for the suggestions! First, there is no way to 'combine' these tools. What I think you are suggesting is that a new tool be written with the features you like most from each incorporated? Do you happen to have specifics in mind. or perhaps a mock-up of the UI you would like? Also, the CDFs is part of their mostly internal tool set, and I don't expect them to be interested in breaking it loose. Not to mention the fact that I am unsure if the CDF currently has any coders active who would be willing and able to work on this project. As you point out, they both have different strengths, but also adherents. FYI, the request data is synced between the two 4 times a day.<br />
:<br />
:As for submitting requests, the[http://z14.invisionfree.com/Brainstock/index.php?showtopic=342 UD Graphics Enhancer] has had a direct submit option from the UD page for a long time now. And we are currently working on a new version which will streamline the process even further, as well as provide a way to see requests at your location, find nearby requests, and link to a map view of requests, all from the UD interface. As for listing RPs, I'd prefer to continue to parse RP locations off of the wiki list, which seems a good neutral place for the community to maintain and correct records. --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]|[[DEM]]</sup> 15:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks very much for the thorough answer. After looking through both tools and weighing up all sorts of pros and cons, I believe a major combination of the tool is unnecessary. Not that I'm playing a game of 'yours is better than mine', but I feel the DEM tool is far more suited to wide spread usage within the extended reviver community. The UD Interface plug-in you mentioned really clinched the deal. I was unaware it carried this direct request feature! Fantastic. I'd been using UDTool and thus had turned my mind off to any alternative. I shall be combining both on my firefox after I finish this post! Syncing 4 times a day is incredible! How do you get enough volunteers to keep that up? Or is it done robotically? Also, you answered my unasked question about where I should post new or adjusted RP points. You say the DEM parse from the wiki list? Is that this list here: [[List of Revivification Points]]? I only ask because I'm aware of the move from [[Revive points]]. As you can tell, I'm not very schooled in coding, but find it fascinating. Well, keep up the fine revive work, and I'll continue to use your grand DEM revive suite to help the fair citizens of Malton. --[[User:Rip purr|Rip purr]] 05:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
:::Rip, the sync is done automatically by code that Aypok of the CDF and I wrote specifically for that purpose. As for the revive points, the parse is currently of the original [[Revivification_Point#List|Revive points]] page, but only because I'm a few weeks behind on finishing updating the parser and making the final page move. Hopefully I'll get that finished this weekend sometime. --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]|[[DEM]]</sup> 13:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Dartside Revive Point==<br />
We have a message on one of our revive points in Dartside that has come from what appears to be a DEM member. I would like to know, if this is so. The message stated that the revive point has been closed by the DEM, it is still an active point (on a regular basis) maintained by the Regulators Alliance. Can you explain this?--[[User:John Blast|John Blast]] 15:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
:While I have no direct knowledge of this case, I can hazard some guesses. It would help if you could provide the coordinates of the RP ro which you are referring as well. Looking at the [[Revivification_Point#List|RP list]], I do not see an entry for an RP in Dartside maintained by the Regulators Alliance. My guess would be that the member who tagged that was being reassigned and, not seeing any other groups with declared responsibility for the RP marked it as inactive to save people seeking revives from waiting for one that might not come. If the RA is maintaining an RP, I would suggest adding it to the list (well, to the [[List_of_Revivification_Points|new list]] I suppose since the switch is pending), which also gets it's status updated to the [http://ud-malton.info/revive_requests.cgi DEM RevReq tool]. In the meantime I know Evl Kitty has an account on Brainstock and DEM Ally access, so she (or any other known RA member registered on that forum) could post in our allies section for more information. I'll also point out this discussion to the head of the [[MFU]]. HTH! --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]-[[DEM]]</sup> 16:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
::Gilant I seem to have made a mistake, the group was the DEA (not sure who they are). We do maintain an RP at the Abarrow Monument [37-81] listed on the Dartside page. I also have an account on Brainstock, so I can post there if you'd like. Can you tell me, who the DEA is? I was unable to find a reference for them in the groups. Thanks, and I apologize again for the mistaken identity.--[[User:John Blast|John Blast]] 18:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
:::Apparently the DEA are/were a PK group who target "pushers of the drug 'Revive'". They also appear to be inactive as a group, but some members may still be active. [[Malton DEA]] --[[User:Turner Calton|Turner Calton]] 19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
::::Thanks guys, much appreciated. By the way Evl Kitty said to say hi.--[[User:John Blast|John Blast]] 04:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Revivification Points ==<br />
<br />
You group/organization are attributed on the [[List of Revivification Points]] for maintaining the following RP(s) whose status have not been updated recently and are scheduled for deletion from the list:<br />
<br />
* <s>Gibsonton Harold Square 84, 27</s><br />
* Gibsonton Germain Way 88, 26<br />
* Raines Hills Cemetery 66, 13<br />
* Shackleville Swaffield Plaza 55, 67<br />
* Shearbank Allder Row 53, 21<br />
* Shearbank Male Way 55, 27<br />
<br />
Please make sure to update the status and timestamp of your RP(s) at least once every two weeks. Thank you! --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]-[[DEM]]</sup> 23:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
:Struck the ones I updated. Thanks, Gilant. -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 19:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Radio Page Maintenance==<br />
<br />
A few of us have been trying to bring the [[Radio]] page up to date. We currently have 26.26 listed like this:<br />
<br />
* 26.26 MHz - <br />
** [[Department of Emergency Management]] - Emergency Services Radio Station<br />
*** [[Malton Police Department]] - All Malton police stations<br />
*** [[Malton Fire Department]] -- All Malton fire Stations<br />
*** [[Malton Emergency Medical Service]] -- All Malton hospitals and FAK providers<br />
*** [[Malton Forensics Unit]] -- All Malton NT buildings, syringe providers, and DNA scanners<br />
*** [[Malton Marshals]] -- Malton's anti-PK Unit<br />
** [[Malton Red Cross]]<br />
** [[Malton Civil Defense Unit]]<br />
<br />
This is perfectly all right -- however, we'd like you to know that there are unused frequencies (marked '''''AVAILABLE''''' if you wanted to spread things out a bit. Also, please let us know if your descriptions here are correct. Thanks. [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 22:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Actually, Malton Civil Defense Unit should be also be listed under the DEM, and Axes High should be added if we are listing all the groups within the DEM. Malton Red Cross is the only non-DEM group in that list, and they weren't there last I cecked (though that was a few weeks ago at least). --[[User:Gilant|Gilant]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gilant|talk]]-[[DEM]]</sup> 23:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I'll let you do the edits you think are best for this. Thanks for your attention! [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 23:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Mobile Phone status maintenance==<br />
I'd like to put out a general call to your membership for updating the phone mast status page at http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Mobile_Phone_Mast#Locations for the locations they pass through. AND, if they'd like to maintain the masts, that would be great, too. Sincerely, your friends at [[MalTel]] and [[User:Asheets|Asheets]] 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== The [[U.S. ARMY INFANTRY]] is in Dunningwood. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
This is Captain Mordac, commander of USAI's Bravo Platoon. We're currently in Dunningwood to lend assistance, but it doesn't really look like much is going on. We have worked with you in the past in Dunningwood and I was hoping you may have some intel to share. We need a large hostile force(s) to help us with this surplus of bullets we seem to have been plagued with. We can relocate to certain nearby suburbs as well - we'll follow the action. Get in touch with LTC Lunchpail and he'll set you up with a secure allied account on our forum if you don't already have one. --[[User:Stickman|Stickman]] 02:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC) (EDIT: Sorry about the multi-post, mods, I had a bad connection on FF)<br />
<br />
== RAMPAGE ==<br />
<br />
Hi.<br />
<br />
The Beatbox Kids have decided to hold a Santlerville/Huntley Heights-wide Rampage. We regularly have our own BBK Rampages in which our whole group goes out at the same pre-determined time to the same general area and kill every zombie in sight. So we'd like to expand this concept and invite all the groups from Santlerville and Huntley Heights and any lone characters to participate in a Rampage on Sunday the 8th of April at 8pm Australian Eastern Standard Time (which is GMT +10 for those outside Australia). Check to see what time that is your time zone so you can go Rampaging with the BBK. We'll aim to eradicate the zombie threat that has Huntleigh Heights coloured red on the danger level map. In doing this Rampage we also hope to strengthen ties with Santlerville/Huntley Heights groups such as yours. As Santlerville doesn't have enough of a zombie presence to support every group Rampaging at once, we will not be Rampaging in our home suburb of Santlerville - this will change should the danger level of Santlerville ever rise above yellow.<br />
<br />
So spend the next 5 days stocking up on ammo, reving your group members, and finding appropriate safe houses for after the Rampage. Let the BBK know via email, wiki, or in game whether or not your group will be participating. Also, we'd like to get a head count of rampagers and a zombie body count so we can see how successfully the Rampage went after it's over. Together, we can make this small, localised, weekly shooting trip a huge, wide spread kill-fest. Who knows? One day this could become a Malton-wide event...<br />
<br />
Good luck.<br />
<br />
Nick (Nallan) from the BBK.<br />
<br />
<br />
== SOS from Rolt Heights ==<br />
'''April, 6, 2007''' <BR><br />
Our entire suburb is under attack from almost EVERY group in the [[PKA]], and will be within the next week, and according to their threats on my group's forum, they plan on taking this suburb permanently as a safe haven for PKers. That's 200+ members on one suburb killing every non PKer, but you may already know about it because they say they have been attacking your base in [[Rolt Heights]] as well. They say not even you can stop them, but it'd be great if you tried with us to kick them out!! |m|_ [[User:Warstorm|Warstorm]]<br />
<br />
==[[Team Zombie Hardcore]] Operations in Marven Mall==<br />
<br />
The PKer/Zed Spy group known as "Malton Skeet Club", including members such as "Jack's Cold Sweat" have come to South Blythville. TZH is currently rooting them out, and killing them when we find them. We ask that the DEM approve of this policing action, as TZH is the only group in the area willing to deal with it. We have screenshot proof of their PKing, as well as their actions as zed spies. We will deal with them as we attempted to deal with the Gore-Corps during their occupation of [[South Blythville]]<br />
--[[User:Big Nixon|Big Nixon]] 23:13, 15 May 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== How long will it take for DEM to put LUE as first priority? ==<br />
<br />
They are killing everything in their pace. How long till we let this menace haunt Malton? All members should join forces and stop them dead in their tracks. The greatest joint effort in Malton is the history only way to stop this horde. {{unsigned|LuE Colo|13:56, July 19, 2007}}<br />
:sorry but his won't happen. The DEM doesn't make a priority of any hordes. Yes we watch them and warn others of their actions but we don't make a priority of any horde...be they the The Many, the RRF, Shacknews, or in this case LUE.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 03:35, 20 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Your Barricade plan for Randallbank ==<br />
<br />
Hi I am a member of the NNRC and have noticed you have NNRC as a enterable building This is harming our efforts to hold the suburb I ask you change it to make Littlehales EHB and have MacMillan Library as a Entry point--[[User:Matterfoot|Matterfoot]] 23:07, 22 July 2007 (BST)<br />
: I suggest you take this suggestion directly to [[Talk:Randallbank_Barricade_Plan]] ---[[User:Ashate|Ashate]] 06:53, 25 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==A little help please?==<br />
<br />
Hey there [[Shearbank]] Could really use some help, stickling mall has around 30 zombies inside and another 60 outside, the survivors are having a really hard time, any help you can send would be great. We ain't gunna last much longer. Lots of survivors are running and others are dying the Revives are starting to slow and ammo is starting to be a hassle, It's also hard to re'cade the building with that new ruined status. We really need some help here. Cheers --[[User:Annun|Annun]] 12:18, 23 August 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Cookie==<br />
{{Cookie|[[User:P4X639|P4X639]]|The DEM|reason=no good reason}}<br />
<br />
== Revive the DEM Tool? ==<br />
<br />
Hey, what's up with the DEM's Revivification Request tool? I heard that it fell to malicious hacking (is that true?), but I never thought it would be down this long. Quick, somebody poke it with a syringe! --{{User:Morgan Blair/sig}} 13:28, 1 September 2007 (BST)<br />
:Yes, there was a [http://z14.invisionfree.com/Brainstock/index.php?showtopic=6900 security issue] which forced our coder to take the tool offline until the problem can be fixed. We do expect the tool to be back up soon. -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 16:06, 1 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Criticisms ==<br />
<br />
On [[User:WanYao]]s page, there is a list of criticisms of the DEM. What do you make of these criticisms? --[[User:OPECOILER|OPECOILER]] 20:29, 26 September 2007 (BST)<br />
:I don't know I haven't ever really heard of him. Though the biggest part of his rant is that the RG is controlled by the DEM...It is not and is in fact run by a seperate group of leaders. The DEM along with the top 10 survivor groups + all use the RG for bounty hunting. So I guess my take on it is yet another person who doesn't really know what they're talking about ranting cause they desperately need a bad guy to hate.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 02:40, 27 September 2007 (BST)<br />
::And I don't know what's up with WanYao's "bedtime story", but the guy claiming to be MFD in his iWitness? Isn't. -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 07:13, 28 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Bouncing Beavers==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Hello, this is Falco94 from the Dribbling Beavers located in Santlerville. We have made a group of allies and beavers called the Bouncing Beavers that go and help where help is needed. First of all, we would like to know what you are doing at the moment, if you are not occupied with something else, we would like to extend our plea for help while we clean up Tapton from the aftermath of the Big Bash. If you would like to get in touch, email me at falconspeed94@hotmail.com or use this wiki talk page or go to our boards at http://tinyurl.com/o7ehp. Second of all, I would just like to say that we hope that you come and join us in Tapton and we hope that our alliance can be one that is fruitful.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Falco94<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Second Big Bash ==<br />
<br />
I note you already assisting in resisting [[The Second Big Bash]]. I have set up a page to help coordinate the efforts of [[Survivors vs The Second Big Bash]] and would be grateful if you would add any news or ideas you have. --[[User:Richardhg|Richardhg]] 14:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== MMA ==<br />
<br />
I like how the DEM was voted the most inept group! We're not a group. <br />
<br />
Also, AH could never be called inept... HA!<br />
--[[User:Hardcore Rockabilly|Hardcore Rockabilly]] 07:38, 1 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== [[The Great Suburb Group Massacre]] ==<br />
<br />
{{Template:Group Active!}}<br />
<br />
Thanks! --{{User:Pedentic/Sig}} 03:40, 31 July 2008 (BST)<br />
:This group is active.--[[User:Father Thompson|<span style="color: Black">FT</span>]] <sup>[[MCI|<span style="color: Black">MCI</span>]]</sup> 20:30, 31 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== What's with the anti-DEM sentiment? ==<br />
<br />
I am a bystander. I have never been in a group, but I have seen the DEM around. Now, I am seeing a lot of really violent and enthusiastic anti-DEM sentiment around, and I don't really understand, so I will ask you. Why do people hate you so?<br />
:Various reasons. Some people don't like how some of our groups operate, some people don't like our policies, some people don't like our tools, some people think we're arrogant, and some people have simply heard a lot of crap about us that isn't true.--[[User:William Told|William Told]] 04:35, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Don't forget the respraying of barricade info with recruitment spam and insults! Oh, and this of course: "Some people don't like how some of our groups operate, some people don't like our policies, some people don't like our tools, some people think we're arrogant" --[[User:ScouterTX|ScouterTX]] 22:59, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Our folks are lectured never to spray over useful tags or other groups' messages, and it's been my experience that most don't do so. Usually when someone finds their tags have been sprayed over with a DEM recruitment message, the useful tag had been replaced by something inane (''P00tie wuz heer, l0lz0rz'') before our team tagged it. -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 00:04, 13 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::I'd like to point out that there is no way for any DEM member to prove that the Revive/Entry point was sprayed before they sprayed it.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 14:11, 13 September 2008 (BST)</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Developing_Suggestions&diff=1271891Developing Suggestions2008-09-12T01:38:59Z<p>Janine: /* Discussion (Rethinking Ruined Building Mechanics) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Suggestion Navigation}}<br />
==Developing Suggestions==<br />
''This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which '''have not yet been submitted''' and are still being worked on.''<br />
<br />
===Further Discussion===<br />
Discussion concerning this page takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Discussion_About_Talk:Suggestions|here]].<br />
Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general (including policies about it) takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Suggestion_Discussion|here]].<br />
<br />
Nothing on this page will be archived.<br />
<br />
== Please Read Before Posting ==<br />
<br />
*''Be sure to check [[Frequently Suggested#The List|The Frequently Suggested List]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots | Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]] before you post your idea.'' There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a '''dupe''', or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. '''These include [[Suggestions/RejectedNovember2005#SMG.2FMachine_Pistol|Machine Guns]] and [[Suggestions/24th-Apr-2007#Rooftops.2C_Sniper_Rifle.2C_and_Sniper_Ammo|Sniper Rifles]]'''. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.<br />
*Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.<br />
*It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.<br />
<br />
== How To Make a Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
====Format for Suggestions under development====<br />
<br />
Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header <br />
"'''[[Talk:Suggestions#Suggestions|Suggestions]]'''", paste the copied text '''above''' the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in <span style="color: red">red</span> with the details of your suggestion.<br />
<br />
<nowiki><br />
===</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion</font><nowiki>===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=~~~~<br />
|suggest_type=</nowiki><font color="red">Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_scope=</nowiki><font color="red">Who or what it applies to.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_description=</nowiki><font color="red">Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.</font><nowiki><br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion Name</font><nowiki>)====<br />
----</nowiki><br />
<br />
====Cycling Suggestions====<br />
Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit. <br />
<br />
This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the [[Talk:Suggestions/Overflow1|Overflow]]-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.<br />
<br />
If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the <nowiki>{{SNRV|X}}</nowiki> at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:1.5em"><font color="red">'''Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.'''</font></span><br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Suggestions==<br />
===No Reading in the Dark===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=--[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 00:25, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Ruin Change...thing<br />
|suggest_scope=Poetry loving Survivors<br />
|suggest_description= This is a pretty small idea, so I'll get this over with. How is it we Can't see dead bodies, see graffiti, or be able to aim as good, yet we can read fine? In Dark buildings, We should not be able to read books/poetry books. It would just fit in with it better.<br />
<br />
First Suggestion, Spam me gently.<br />
(Also, If someone could fix the Keep/Kill thing, thanks. :p) }}<br />
====Discussion (No Reading in the Dark)====<br />
<br />
.....wow...I have nothing snarky to say so I am going to wait for Wan..[[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 00:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Sure, why not --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 02:04, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Good for both flavour, and a loss of the ability to gain xp in that certain way while more "protected" in a dark building. I'ed keep it.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Rethinking Ruined Building Decay and Repair===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 00:05, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Change Skill Effect<br />
|suggest_scope=Ruinous Zombies, Constructive Survivors<br />
|suggest_description=Reading the discussion on [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Suggestions#Repair_One_Day.27s_Decay_for_3AP Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP] by Deyo, I thought about an alternative way ruined buildings could work that might leave both breathing and breathing-impaired sides happy: Instead of having ruined buildings require 1 AP extra to repair every day, indefinately, I propose making it cost 1 AP to repair per hour (or 0.5 per 30 min.), to a maximum of 45 AP. <br />
Now Survivor players, you're thinking, ''1 AP per hour? How unfair is this?!'' but with a limit of 45 AP the final bill would never reach astronomical heights and one lone survivor could be able to fully repair it and escape (but you couldn't really barricade it).<br />
Now Zombie players, you're thinking ''So you're basically debuffing Ransack? '' Yes and No. You read the debuff, here's the buff: because buildings will accumulate repair costs 24x quicker, you'll be able to do a lot more damage by ruining multiple buildings quickly and repeatedly. Survivors will have to work together and retake, cade and repair buildings faster to make sure they don't get overwhelmed with 45 AP ruined buildings (so, it would still take some teamwork to achieve, as only one person repairing leaves the building vulnerable to further ransackings). This will force survivors to keep an even more watchful eye out on their neighbourhoods for ruined buildings.<br />
<br />
As a side-effect, during a siege this will slow Survivor's advancement even more when regaining grounds than the old Ransack skill.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Rethinking Ruined Building Mechanics)====<br />
Another Ruin nerf? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! Stop suggesting nerfs to ruin. If survivors cared they would go and fix it instead of whining about it and trying to change it through suggestions.'''STOP SUGGESTING RUIN NERFS!'''--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 01:07, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Please explain to me how one-AP decay per hour is a nerf? Especially during sieges. --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 01:50, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Maybe the fact it only goes to 45? --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 01:53, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::It goes to 45 in '''less than 2 days''', as opposed to '''6 weeks''' with the current system. How many ruined buildings outside of ghost towns do you see with a 45 ap repair bill? I'm surprised, I was actually expecting the harmanz to be against this --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 02:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
ANY LIMIT TO RUIN IS EFFECTIVELY A NERF! Keep this in mind. Also this isn't a survivor vs. zombie type of thing. Suggestions should be based on a perceived unbalanced game condition and a remedy. The only thing you suggested is nerfing ruin completely and making deserts impossible for zombies to maintain. I'll leave the rest of this argument about how lazy survivors are and why buildings get 85+ ap repair cost to Wan Yao.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 02:38, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Scavenging Version 2===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 14:40, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors.<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
<br />
Scavenging would '''''replace''''' Bargain Hunting as a Skill.<br />
<br />
'''Scavenging''' gives a +10% chance for a successful search in ANY building. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Advanced Scavenging''' (sub-skill of Scavenging)<br />
<br />
Costs: 100 points<br />
<br />
Each Powered Building has a new option to do a focused search. A building will have a drop down menu of every item you can find in it, and you can choose what you want to look for. You have a flat 5% chance to find the item. Unpowered buildings have no option at all to do a Focused Search.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Scavenging Version 2)====<br />
<br />
Still no. Give it up already. Go get drunk, or do some productive volunteer work, or something. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:43, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think it would look a little something like this: <br><br />
[[Image:Focused.jpg]]<br><br />
Shame about the high failure rates though ... --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 21:06, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I <3 my Bargain Hunting. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 00:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think even with 5% search rate it's too powerful, because if I can choose what to look for anywhere, I could hide in a lit bank where zombies rarely break into, and search for that genny or that 1 piece of equipement I need (toolbox, flak jacket, phone...). In about 20 APs chances are I will find it. So instead of running around to find the best place to get a knife, or having to travel far away from a siege to try and find a new generator, I could just use this skill and everything I need is at my disposal. (Then again isn't that how Malls work? Heh...) --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 00:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Bargain hunting only works in a powered mall block===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:34, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors in malls<br />
|suggest_description=Does what the title says. The search bonus from bargain hunting should only take effect when there is a powered generator in the mall block.<br />
<br />
Reason one: you should have a lot more light than usual to determine where to best find the supplies you need in the middle of a hundred other people in the mall.<br />
<br />
Reason two: the higher-tier skills of First Aid (Surgery) and NT Employment (NecroNet Access) both require power to use. <br />
<br />
Reason three: even without power, search rates within a mall with the current Bargain Hunting is still ridiculously high. With the reworked Bargain Hunting skill, non-powered mall search rates are in balance with other TRP search rates like in hospitals... and of course generator killing turns into serious business.<br />
<br />
By the way, props to WanYao and karek for pointing out that mall search rates need a bloody nerf.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bargain hunting only works in a powered mall block)====<br />
:shrug. malls are almost always powered and search rates take a hit without the power anyway to the point where the benefit of having power outweighs the hassle of installing a genny.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 14:07, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Yeah, most malls are powered anyway. At least the ones not under attack. I imagine this would be critical for malls under siege though, especially if the power keeps getting cut for hours. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:32, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Scavenging===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:01, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors.<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
<br />
Change the name of Bargain Hunting to Scavenging.<br />
<br />
Now the skill gives a flat +10% chance for a successful search in ANY building. What item you get would still be random as normal.<br />
<br />
Sub-skill:<br />
Focused Search<br />
Costs: 100 points<br />
<br />
Each building has a new option to do a focused search. A building will have a drop down menu of every item you can find in it, and you can choose what you want to look for, but you suffer a -10% to the base chance for a successful search. So it would be as if you didn't have the Scavenging skill at all, but still take a -10% to the unmodified base chance on top of that.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Scavenging)====<br />
Bnhr. Doesn't seem bad.. Your thoughts? {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 20:27, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:So its a global 10% increase in search rates? Justification? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:36, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: Well, There's that..<br />
::It would lower the Mall search rate to +10%, but let other buildings get the same. So instead of Bargain Hunting, you're just really good at scrounging things. Would make Malls less awesome fortresses, but make other resource buildings more useful so defensive battles would be more based on keeping lots of places open instead of just the Mall always being the best spot to search. That's the idea anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 04:03, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Would this skill also buff mall searches or just searches that are in regular buildings? Any search buff that includes malls will get spammed out of existence pretty fast.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:15, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The author said ANY building. Malls normally get +25% with that skill. This suggestion CHANGES it to +10%.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 01:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
The main problem with searching other buildings is that, except for PDs, Hospitals, NecroTech, Auto Repair and Factories, all the other places are pretty useless. Granted this MAY make them more useful (supposedly a generator can be found in the power stations, but there is no proof yet and a 10% bonus might be the proof necessary), your still limited in what you can FIND to begin with. I'd suggest ADDING some items to buildings.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 01:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
So... +10% chance to find syringes in NTs? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 04:09, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yeah. +10% to find anything in an NT, but you'd have the usual random breakdown to find DNA scanners and all that stuff. But since Kevan lowers and raises those NT rates to always keep the game in balance (which is gay), it probably wont matter to much.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 04:17, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Overpowered survivor buff that negates all the randomness and uncertaintly in searching. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:22, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I guess you are referring to the focused search part. And I agree, that part will never pass. I even doubt the change of Bargain Hunting would pass. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 13:10, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
So, in the eternal quest for searching for loot, this would de-emphasize the importance of malls (no longer +25%), but make all other decent resource buildings equal (+10% to all). This may mean that there would be less people in Malls, Malls would be less special. Which might mean less mall sieges. (or not... malls have almost everything under one roof). But it would mean that survivors would have a net search % debuff, as most would probably go to malls for searches, and they'd now have 15% less search probability. Considering the ratio of human:zombies, I'd be okay with this... "Scavenging" makes more sense than "Bargain Hunting" as a realistic survivor skill anyways --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:34, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
I <3 my Bargain Hunting. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 00:11, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Expand Malton Map===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 17:52, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Map Improvement / add-on<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, Zombies<br />
|suggest_description=This would make for a lot of work on Kevan's part, but I suggest adding a suburb-sized corridor of forest to one side of the map's edge, leading to a small town or a cluster of small towns a few suburbs large. This new area would have limited resource buildings (because it's out in the country) and no NT buildings so that it would be very difficult to revive there. It would be ideal for experienced survivors willing to take on the challenge, as it would be a little bit like Monroeville only instead of permanent death you'd have to travel very far to get revived or face a long revive queue. Survivors who don't like this area or think zombies have an unfair advantage can simply stay in urban Malton.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Expand Malton Map)====<br />
<br />
As much as I like the idea of introducing elemts of the Monroeville map to Malton, I just can't see it happening this way. Besides, we already have suburb sized survivor deserts - walked around Dunell Hills lately? Plus you couldn't justify it in game - why does the city have a line of forest nest to it? And why has the barricade zone been increased? --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 19:54, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Stay outta the Hills and off my lawn, you damn kids!!! --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 17:00, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:It could be made justifiable: The quarantine walls in some places has been breached (and some sneaky zombies made it to Monroeville) so they rebuilt it, but as they were repairing they also decided to link up with a nearby village / a small cluster of nearby villages to make management easier. --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:19, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
You've been [[PR_Malton#Fallback|Fallback'd]]. Still nice idea, And starting with T:S first. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 20:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I personally think that a new section to Malton would be cool, but there isn't a need really. right now, survivors can go NE if they want a challange. zombies can go east. as for justification, something like zombies overwellming the border and pushing into the country a bit before getting stopped again.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 03:35, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This already exists. We call it the North West. Now leave Pitneybank and go be challenged!--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 09:27, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What J3D said, which is what I always say... Also, damn dupey, '''STOP SUGGESTING NEW MAPS ALREADY'''. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:24, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Oh noes! I was about to suggest reshaping Malton to the shape of a brain, to encourage more people to become zombies --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 15:22, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
I didn't know this had been suggested already. Since Monroeville might close forever I thought I'd suggest to make a part of Malton Monroeville-y. But it is true that we already have a suburb with no NT buildings, Mornington. Still, it would be fun to have a wilderness area or two to break the monotony of buildings, streets and more buildings. --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:19, 11 September (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 20:57, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New usage of existing skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors in ruined, especially long-ruined buildings.<br />
|suggest_description=A survivor with the Construction skill and a toolbox has a new action button: "Repair One Day's Decay (3AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs, and reduce the building's number of days decayed, and the AP required to repair it, by one. This option would only appear if the building has been ruined for four or more days.<br />
<br />
This gives survivors who are repairing long-ruined buildings, such as forts which have been in zombie hands for weeks, an opportunity to coordinate and distribute the AP cost of repairs, which in some cases can drive a fully-rested survivor into negative AP. This coordination is extremely time-consuming, and thus requires triple the AP that repairing the building alone would consume. Eventually, this coordination would reduce the remaining work to a job that one survivor could finish, and that survivor can simply click "Repair" to complete the repairs.<br />
<br />
This suggestion is an attempt to build consensus for or against several previously [[Undecided Suggestions]], such as [[Suggestion:20080804 Repairing Really Ruined Buildings|Repairing Really Ruined Buildings]], [[Suggestion:20080625 Ruin Repairing change|Ruin Repairing Change]], and [[Suggestion:20080729 Partial Repair|Partial Repair]].<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP)====<br />
Oh look, a survivor complaining about how hard it is to coordinate efforts among several survivors. You have clearly never played as a zombie. Zombies have to coordinate efforts all the time to just get into buildings. You don't want to spend 40+ AP to repair a building? Get off your ass and take it back sooner. Organize a better defense of it in the first place. Changing the mechanics because some players suck at the game is retarded.<br />
Let's stop pitching in Major League Baseball because not everyone can get a home run. Let's make it like T-Ball. If the game is made easier for THE MAJORITY OF THE PLAYERS that will really make it fun for the minority! --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:21, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Sometimes, when I read your replies, I wonder which game you're playing. Just a heads-up, this is the suggestion discussion area for a browser-based casual game about humans and zombies called Urban Dead. Some people have commented that survivors, despite outnumbering the zombies, have Rambo syndrome and never cooperate. This suggestion would give them an option to cooperate, though at a higher total AP cost than sacrificing one human to repair the building and then reviving him later, which requires no cooperation beyond standing at an RP and saying, "Mrh?" [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::No, Dago, this suggestion will make it easier for strafing repairs without danger to the survivors and therefore completely nerf the ruin update. You seem to forget that there is no mechanic available to a zombie to speed up the AP needed to repair a building, so ideas like this that cost low AP to undo something that only time can change are stupid and horribly unbalanced. Using your numbers - 3 AP will remove 2 APs worth of damage. So,if a survivor has 40 AP to spend that is 13 clicks which equals 26 AP. '''So for 1 day's worth of AP a survivor can undo a month's worth of damage and still be able to get away.''' And you want to make this so more than one survivor can repair a ruin like this? The current system is much better because it is all or nothing. But please whine about how I don't offer constructive criticism since you didn't bother to read any of the comments on the suggestions you are raping to make this abortion of an idea. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:30, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Again, you add racial slurs and little else to the discussion. You also have a math error there. A building costs 1 AP per day to repair, so this suggestion would triple the AP required. A survivor who happens to have maximum AP can repair a month of ruin and get away, by spending 30 AP, and would not need to click anything 13 times. Also, you are correct that you don't offer constructive criticism, you only offer rage and spite. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You have reading errors then. You posted ''"Repair One Day's Decay (2AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs'' One day's decay is not 2 AP like you posted in the suggestion. If you are saying that it triples the amount of AP needed to repair then spending 30 AP should only undo 10 AP worth of damage. This goes back to my whole point about making strafing repair runs and how it isn't fair that zombies can't undo the exact amount of damage that survivors can repair, but you seemed to have missed all that you fuckstick. (are insults better than racial slurs? I could call you a wop if you would prefer that.) You know, the only reason I add the slurs and insults is so people like you and Galaxy have something to latch onto and reply to since you obviously don't listen to reason or experience. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Congratulations! You can spot typos and swear on the internet! I'm afraid I can only fix the first, though. Thanks! [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You can't even be bothered to proof read your own suggestion? Really now. How hard would that have been? It wasn't even that far into the suggestion. It was right toward the top. The fact that you didn't read your suggestion before you posted it also tells me that you didn't think about it too much and just hit SAVE PAGE. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 17:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Maybe if survivors don't act like Rambo and actually did teamwork, this would be a non-issue. After all you only need three people tops to repair a building: one to search for gennies and fuel and install them (for dark), one to repair, and one to barricade. On the other hand it takes more than three zombies to take one EHB building with those same three survivors in it. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 00:53, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Actually, this suggestion would ''encourage'' teamwork. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Therefore, you admit that survivors don't actually do much teamwork in the first place if they have to get a massive buff for them to get their asses moving to repair all those dark buildings. Quite a sad state of affairs, isn't it? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:55, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::It is. Want to fix it? [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You do not solve social problems such as survivor laziness by changing the game's design; if you do that, all it would do is show that their laziness is perfectly fine, and that mocks all the organized effort zombie groups do just to keep your shit ruined. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 14:08, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I look forward to your suggestion on how to solve social problems. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I look forward to you making a non-crappy suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Don't hold your breath. I would miss you if you died.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:26, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bitching about how hard it is for one group and how crap the other plays is hardly constructive now is it? The main use for this would not be for survivors to co-operate (it should be but wouldn't get used in that way) instead this would enable altruistic survivors the chance to slowly fix up a ruin without leaving them self out in the open! Sadly that very fact means that this would just attract hordes of low level zergs to gradually rebuild an area with less risk of needing revives :( --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:11, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, but at a higher AP cost than repairing and reviving. It gives survivors options, but doesn't take anything away from Zombies except for APs that would otherwise be used pumping shotgun shells into them. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This isn't needed. shit, Fort Perryn was just taken back and it was ruined for a while (not as long as some buildings up north, granted). oh, and DCC: calm down.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 03:12, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Needed? Maybe not. But it makes sense, it encourages survivor cooperation, and it soaks survivor APs. All are things that both zombie and survivor players have said the game needs. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::How in the fuck is survivors cooperating something zombies need? When did any ZOMBIE player say they needed survivors to pull together? Survivors are really fucking lucky this game doesn't have perma-death and that the creator steps in to help them out when their own stupidity leads them to the brink of destruction. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:39, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::How long have you been around? Zombie players have been some of the main ones bit*hing that survivors are too damn uncoordinated, not that it would help zombies, but it would make the game funner to play. Not everything is about game-mechanics, and if there were no survivors left why would you play? Sounds to me you're putting down the game because survivors are stupid, yet are bit*hing they shoulden't be forced to be smart, like zombies are... and that my friend, is more f**ked up then any susgestion ever made.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 03:02, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::[http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=97517 I've] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Many been] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/DARIS around] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Dead awhile.] The survivors being coordinated or not does not make the zombie aspect of the game "funner". And when zombie players bitch that the survivors suck it is because instead of trying to get together and work as a team they all just suggest buffs to themselves or nerfs to zombies to solve the problem. Buffing them unfairly does not "force them to be smart". --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Remember that what is fun for you is not fun for all zombie players. Some zombie players want to do something other than turn brainz into Mrh? cows. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Enlighten me, Oh Zombie Master, what else a zombie can do in this fucking game. They can't spread zombie grafitti, play on the radio, or even hold IC conversations (since their alphabet is so fucking limited). They can't even get XP through any means other than hitting survivors (or other zombies). Other than killing what the fuck can a person that plays a zombie do? That's why it is so frustrating when assholes like you want to come along and make things harder on the few people that actually fucking play zombies in this zombie "apocalypse" game. Keep suggesting stupid shit and drive off the zed players. Then you and the rest of the dipstick survivors can have your little circle jerk in peace without those pesky undead. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::And we can have campfires and sing "Kumbaya". I'm glad to see you're keeping an open mind. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::Who said buffing them forced them to be smart? I said that a buff to save the population may be required to keep playing the game, while other zombie buffs may force (Able to kill easier is not forceful, as things take time to adjust and with survivors, no quick option is aviable to get back up that causes this lapse of time) them to be smarter, which would elimate the need for those survivor buffs to come into place. Instead of a structured and logical approach on why this is a bad idea, I.E. ''constructive critism''^(this susgestion would counteract a zombie buff designed in a way to help towards this, much better then if this system was put into place), you b*tched about how survivors have it easy. I never provided support for this susgestion and yet you seem to imply I have? In all of this you managed to accomplish hardening the authors stance against the reasoning that this susgestion would be poor in practice, and therefore paving the way for simular susgestions in the future, or turning players away due to a hostile enviroment. Congrats, *Hands Clapping*, im sure they'll put your name in a plaque, on the UD wall for your contributions here today.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:00, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Ah, the snowball argument. Classic. And I laughed heartily when you said there must be a 'buff to save the population'... got a bit of messianic streak lately? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:07, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::: I didn't say "Must", I said may be "required", by which I mean at times of rediculous peril where the game may truly end. If the population can't adapt to a change and shows signs that they won't, and the game ends, then so ends UD (At least Malton in any true form), and has us all starting from square one on a system proven to fail. A broken system can get you farther then a failed system.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:57, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::'''Standing Survivors : 14295 (61%) Standing Zombies : 9022 (39%)''' HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH SOMEBODY SAVE THE SURVIVORS! ''a buff to save the population may be required to keep playing the game'' They are in serious danger of overcrowding at the malls. <br />
:::::::::::You said I didn't offer any constructive criticism. You are wrong. It's in there. You are also ignoring the fact that he said he took this idea from 3 previous ideas which one would assume meant that he FUCKING READ the other suggestions, but since he can't even be bothered to READ HIS OWN suggestion I doubt he did. In the other suggestions there are a lot of constructive criticism and comments. I am not "hardening the author's stance" by disagreeing with him. If I am then he is a stubborn douchebag that will continue to ignore reason and just throw a temper tantrum because he thinks he is right. We have had a few of those before and we nailgunned them. <br />
:::::::::::I think we should turn newbies away from here. I think anyone that hasn't been playing UD for more than 8 months should shut the fuck up and keep their ideas to themselves. You can't contribute to the game if you haven't played the fucking game. And if you bothered to read my links above you would see my contributions to UD. They are much better than a shitty survivor buff suggestion that steals from 3 failed attempts before it.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:26, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::DCC, your a fucking prick. why do you treat this page as a place to insult and belittle others? really, i dont get it. is there actually a reason, or are you just an angry person whos missed taking their meds? i think it was decided that this suggestion sucks, and isnt needed. no need to continue to respond to everything the author says with an insult and justification as to why your right.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 04:01, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::Wow DCC, Im beginning to wonder if you can read... I said "may be required at times", not that "it is needed now", large difference, my saying susgesting when the odds are against survivors, I believe that zombies need a few more buffs as it stands, because as you pointed out the numbers are very sad. Next critism mixed in with ten insults won't do anybody any help, except piss people off and have them pull reasons out of thin air to conclude that there way is better (Note yourself in your previvous comment, you have been harped on for your chosen response, and now this has turned into a conversation on your conduct in response to this sugestion instead of on the susgestion itself, perhaps we should continue elsewhere instead of wasting space here?). As well many people read other peoples susgestions and gain there own idea, and don't use spell check (I fall into that category, as im sure you noticed from "simular" and other mistakes). Oh and I did read the links, my oldest self happens to be [http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=944459 zach016], here a bit over a year, if it would so please you to have my opinon count over your 8 month limit, I truly believe it woulden't make that much of a difference other then introduce those people of eight months on how to use the wiki at a further period of time, they would still quote old susgestions that failed and would have more time to come up with needless buffs that no one wants.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 22:09, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Quit having such a smarmy attitude and responding to everyone's comments with something that you seem to consider a comeback, Deyo. People are offering straight forward critiques of this, and all of the similar ideas. Reaching a compromise of idea's that were spammed or duped or otherwise rejected for their overall um-workability is still just an unworkable idea. The whole point of saying dupe is that what needs to be said has been said, and we don't need to hash over all the arguments all over again. its up to you to read through those and realize for yourself that it won't work, and try to come up with something actually creative or unique, otherwise you will simply be spam voted or dupe voted down. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 07:25, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Between smarmy and hateful, I'll take smarmy every time. Zombie replies to any suggestion that gives survivors any additional options have been akin to "YOU RAEPD MAI DOG!" I don't claim to understand it, so I attempt to defuse it by turning their own words against them. For example, you say that the ideas were spammed, duped, or otherwise rejected. This is untrue. The suggestions were all '''Undecided''' at the end of voting. My hope is that by making this option unattractive to all but the most organized survivor groups, it will be less offensive to the zombie players who seem to be the most vocal and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war impassioned] contributors to this wiki. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. You say this is to encourage them to work together, but really, all this does is make it so that ''individuals'' can do the damage rather than groups, as currently exists. This doesnt in any way encourage group play, it instead encourages the opposite, lone wolf stupid survivor play thats been a huge detriment to the survivor game since the dawn of UD and its that attitude that has resulted in all the nasty holocausts performed by zombies. (I know, i helped plan several of them). You have an "Us versus Them" mentality, which definately isnt going to serve you well here.<br>You have probably already noted that they have stopped discussing reasonably and started flaming you. This isnt because they are zombies and dont want the humans to get new toys, this is because you are being, to put it mildly, a stubborn intransigent nullwit. You dont see the game from both sides, and therefore have a false impression of the other side. Having been zombie fodder, zombie leader, survivor, bounty hunter, pker and specialty reviver on various alts through the years, i can tell you right off the bat that this kind of suggestion is a bad idea, not as bad as your headshot one you suggested previously, but only because that was so horrendous that it makes Cthulhu look handsome by comparison.<br>What is needed is some way for humans to work together (Current ruin does this, with one person clearing, another fixing, and more cading). This isnt to make the game more fun for zombies, but so humans such as yourself stop bitching and moaning on this page for buffs every time som e treasured area goes up the creek without a paddle, or when some large area of the city is devestated by a huge confederation of allied zombies pulling a gargantuan cloud of ferals. The other, and more important reason follows on from that: If you know how to play properly, alone or in a group, you wouldnt get in that kind of mess in the first place. The only reason you think this is needed at all is because some buildings have ruin repair costs of as much as a hundred ap at this time (Best ive seen anyway), but you dont realise that its been ages since the zombies were even there, and the only reason the costs got anywhere near that is because you guys were fucking lazy.<br>Fortunately there are some groups out there actually getting off thier arses and fixing those regions so the braindead fuckwits that make up the majority of the survivor population have a place to live when the zombies come and rape the rest of the city out from under them. Those people fixing those eareas in the city are the real heroes, not the stupid twits who it in a buiolding as the horde advances shouting our orders to barricade and whatnot.<br>This suggestion simply defies the entire concept of making survivors play better and smarter, alone or in groups, encouraging retarded recovery operations that, while they would probably work, would leave the survivor population as the bunch of gibbering morons they are now. Forcing them to play smarter, like kevan forced zombies to do, is the only way to even out the game properly. Giving one side toys because its losing doesnt make things fair, it only shores up the innat unfairness already there.<br>Ugh thats long and rambling, but it has some key points in there you should consider. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 06:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thank you for a considered and reasonable response, Grimch. Obviously, I agree with you that the game needs both methods and reasons for survivors to cooperate, but most of the suggestions I've seen to encourage, enforce, or enable cooperation have been unbalanced, overcomplicated, or both. What I had hoped to provide here was a mechanism for cooperation that was simple and balanced, allowing three survivors to do the work of one, bit by bit. You mention the 100+AP buildings in the north, and I'll admit that you've topped my record -- the worst I've seen was 86AP. Even that building would take more than five survivor-days work to repair cooperatively, whereas a single survivor could run in with max AP, repair it, and walk to a revive point two days later, where a second survivor could revive him, for a net cost of 110APs, or just over two survivor-days total. Those who vociferously decry this suggestion as a "survivor buff" don't seem to me to be looking at the hard numbers. A single survivor using this system to repair a 100+ AP building would be spending 4+ AP per day just to walk back and forth between a ruined and a barricaded building, and the remaining AP fighting back entropy two weeks at a time. That method would take four days to get the building down to a single day's repair job, for five days' total repair time. It's unrealistic to me to think that there's a survivor out there willing to spend weeks "Rambo repairing" ruined buildings. And if there is, what's the harm? If there are more than 20 buildings in such a state, they'll be decaying faster than he's repairing them. I remain unconvinced that this suggestion would lead to "vigilante repairmen". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 07:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::No, but if it leads to wasted AP, why promote it? Its a new but DUMBER way to do things. OTOH, theres a small but growing group of people who do "suicide repairs" just for fun and giggles, and they are kicking repair costs on those 80+ AP buildings back down to 1, and having fun doing it. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:58, 10 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
I '''like''' this idea, because it means that GROUPS of humans can work together to fix a building, instead of ''one'' person losing two days as an immobile stone while the building is zerged. 74 AP building... that means I'm a rock for a loooong time. Doesn't it make sense that the AP repair costs could be shared? Especially if it costs MORE AP to do distributed repair... it would be worth it if it meant the survivors could remain active. Just as a note: I play ''dual nature'', so I'm aware of the ransack-ruin drama from a zed's point of view quite intimately. [[User:Soror Repentia Azalea|Qızılbaş]] 15:53, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:You can pretty much do this right now. Again, you only need at most three people to repair any building block in the game, provided they have been emptied of zombies. What this only provides is a massive survivor buff against ruin by getting rid for a measly 3 AP to remove one ruin point while zombies wait for ''one whole day'' to achieve the same. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:00, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Mister Deyo, I suggest that you '''stop''' suggesting Survivor Buffs that nerf Ruin. Matter of fact I might suggest a new zombie skill specifically to double the ruin already in place in any building just so people stop trying to nerf ruin and darkness. Seriously buffing survivors to get them to work together is just a horrible idea. There are how many survivor groups already in place? If a survivor doesn't join a group, it's because most groups are the same. Not because they have no reason to join a group.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:11, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm not even going to bother reading any of this. Go look at my user page. Read the report I cut and pasted... And look at the last of my wiki templates... And then go earn yourself one of those triple-digit repair templates which I made for the select few of us who are working together and ''doing it'' and ''dealing with it'' -- rather than sitting on our asses in Pitneybank and whining about how hard survivors have it because of ruin. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:28, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Loot dead bodys===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 03:02, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=People how like to steal.<br />
|suggest_description=Looting dead bodys is pretty self explantory. This would be a 100 XP skill that allows you to loot from peoples dead bodys with a 20% succes rate. When you loot a dead body you dont know what you will get, so you could get a genrator to a baseball bat. I will go into more detail if this idea is well accepted.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Loot dead bodys)====<br />
Looting dead bodies = trading. And that one's been spammed and duped so many times it's in the do-not-suggest list. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 03:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
except for the fact about wastin alot of AP, and not knowing what your goint to get. Yes it is like trading :[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 03:59, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is a [[Suggestion:20080310 Unzergable Lootin'|dupe]], probably more than one. Taking items from people is a bad thing (and if it's magically conjured items looted from bodies, that's bad as well and likely a dupe too). --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 04:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Don't be lazy. Its obvious you think this is going to tank if you'll "go into more detail if this idea is well accepted". This isn't even a dupe since there is hardly anything IN the suggestion to dupe. From what I can tell, your suggesting that a single dead body of any level, regardless of the corpse's actual equipment, becomes an instant reservoir of unlimited equipment of any type. The fact it is 20% and "you don't know what you get" is irrelevant. This, as I read it, would make a single zerge (level 1 corpse) a perma-search item.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Dupe-o--bloody-rific and utterly spam-o-fucking-licious. Nequa, please just read and comment on other peoples' suggestions and comments for about a month -- at least! -- before suggesting anything more of your own. Seriously. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:33, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Improve the Banks===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 23:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Add to Bank.<br />
|suggest_scope=All people how enter a bank.<br />
|suggest_description=I belive banks need a improvement becuase of how usless they are. The only good thing I can think about them is becuase they are so useless no zombie would go near it, and it would make a good hiding place. But the problem is what good could a bank be in a place like Malton. The only iteam I could think about finding there would be a pistol and clip becuase of securtity guards. So if not iteams why not something else?<br />
<br />
What is a bank if not a big place to safly guard your valuables? Why not allow the bank to be more heavly barricaded or use the vault? This is still a rough idea, which is why I am talking here. Now, allow me to address two problems I can see with my idea. One is why you would even want to have a extra lelvel of barricades or a vault, the bank does not have anything. And the other being that you should not mess with the barricades, to those people look here [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/PR_Buildings:_Multiple_Types]]. and then go to "Max Cades Varies by Building Type" sujestion.<br />
<br />
As I said, this is still a rough idea and I would like inmput, and not just "this wont work so shut up".<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bank improvment)====<br />
Don't banks go dark? If so why isn't that defensive buff enough?--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:16, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure the bank description says the vaults are already looted empty. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:24, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
"The vault lies open, its contents either looted or transferred." thats what the text is. They make great forward bases and safe houses so they are fine as they are. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 01:31, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I meant using the vaults as a defensive measure, any way banks are useless.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 01:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:They make great safehouses for PKers. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:46, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Okay go look at the 2-10 player sized groups. They thrive in banks. As a defensive measure they would be useless to begin with, as entry points, safe houses and lit, they keep zombie hordes down enough.[[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 02:17, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
True, but that is really it. You dont get anything from the bank or find any purpose for it execpt from what you already said, I just want banks to contribute to Malton in a bigger way.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 01:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The same can be said for wastelands. You think we should plant flowers in them? I'm all for multi-colored wastelands... pink is nice... --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:05, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We need flowers for wastlands dude, there a eye sore. But sersouly, ther is a diffrence between a wastland and a bank.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yeah, banks make great safehouses. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:35, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
It appears this is a bad Suggestion, so I will think of a new one.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Dupe-o-rific. And, some buildings are useless. Not everything is a TRP. This is a ''good'' thing. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:49, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A FUCKING MEN! Next thing these assholes will suggest will be clips and ammo found in the street.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::They can be, you just have a horrible horrible search rate for them though. Ive found a shotgun shell and a flare gun. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 05:13, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::My Monroe PKer accidentally searched the street and found ''a rusty knife''. I took especial joy in shanking people with it, and with luck they got tetanus. <tt>:></tt> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 02:32, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Maybe a powered bank will "close" the vault for ? hours a day (Random times), and anyone entering the bank can't enter the vault during this time, but can destroy the generator. If the Generator is destroyed the locks are once again unpowered and the vault opens up. Entering the vault costs 1AP and is treated as a seperate room (Outside cannot be seen, and it must be exited for 1AP before movement once again). No-one can leave the vault while it is locked and the vault cannot be entered if the building is ruined (Treated as one building once again, with anyone inside "pushed" out.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 22:00, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Switch FAK search rates between Hospitals and Malls===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=search rate adjustment for First Aid Kits. <br />
|suggest_scope=survivors<br />
|suggest_description=''I can't find this in PR or Undecided, I looked. But if someone can find the dupe, please do.''<br />
<br />
'''The suggestion:''' Reverse the search rates for First Aid Kits in Hospital and Malls, i.e. make it easier to find FAKs in Hospitals and harder in Malls. <br />
<br />
'''The rationale:''' Pretty self-explanatory, I think. Hospitals should be the easiest place to find/jury rig first aid kits. Not malls. This would also be a nerf to mall-centric play, which I don't think is a bad thing at all. But it's a highly logical nerf, and far from unbalanced or game-breaking. <br />
<br />
'''Extra details:''' As it is, you have about a 50% chance of finding a FAK in a drugstore. In a hospital, I'd guestimate it's about 20% (I might tally my stats and see... others' experiences would be useful, too). Perhaps an ''exact'' reversal isn't in order: say 25-30% in Malls, 40-45% in Hospitals, something like that. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Switch FAKs search rates between Hospitals and Malls)====<br />
<br />
No to exact reversal, yes to your suggested percentages. That is because there are one hell of a lot of hospitals compared to mall squares. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 14:32, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We could apply the same logic to police departments and forts, in that they should have higher search rates for firearms and ammo there than malls. Not that I'm totally against your suggestion, but the way the game is designed it strikes me that Kevan intentionally made malls as the ultimate stronghold and as such they have the highest search rates for most items in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:33, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Police Stations don't keep ammo lying around. It is actually a bad idea to have excessive weapons and ammo stored where you are holding prisoners. Wal-Mart has more weapons in the sporting section than my local police station. Police Depts. have armories and firing ranges to keep weapons. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 22:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Hospitals don't keep stockpiles of first aid kits, too (or at least here they don't). The fact that there aren't any ready-made FAKs and you have to build one in a hospital reflects that. And going by supply and demand the one which is filled up with all sorts of supplies would still be the malls, and that's why they have much higher search rates for everything than all other TRPs. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:28, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: Malls would have First Aid Kits lying around in a drug store during the zombie apocalypse, Hospitals tend not to keep First Aid kits stockpiled.. If any at all, Perhaps a few.. A local sports store has far too many guns in plain sight right beside the doors. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 04:51, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::: Even if you think of FAKs are mostly badages and tape and some ointment... and I think of them as somewhat more complicated than that... Hospitals have TONS of this stuff stashed around. TONS of it. Everywhere. Moreover, they have all kinds of other medical supplies that you'd use in reality in dealing with the serious injuries that zombies cause: scissors, scalpels, sutures and needles, etc. etc. No, I just can't buy that you'd be able to get such a plethora of medical supplies in a Mall, but not in a hospital. It just makes no sense. And... Mall drugstores are overpowered. Period. 50% find rates for the second most powerful pro-survivor item in the game is just outrageous IMNSHO. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Utility != economics. Hospitals might need those materials the most, but since malls still face the greatest demand for everything it naturally follows that they will have the greatest supplies for everything. And no, mall drugstores aren't overpowered when you consider 50% of the zombie population tend to congregate within a few blocks of one. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You're whole view on this is based on cyclic thinking and is confusing cause and effect. If the malls weren't so resource independent they wouldn't need as many resources, just look at the Mall-Necrotech relationship. Right now malls are making hospitals, which are meant to be a major building, all but useless. That leads to a very simple truth, malls give FAKs too freely. Malls are too resource intensive and it's causing them to be too central to the game, zombies are near malls because all the survivors are in malls, all the survivors are in malls because they get freakishly good find rates in them. Claiming that you don't weaken that because of the thing it causes is completely backwards.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:26, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::karek pretty much hit it right on the head there. in other words, malls are overpowered. and i feel the freakish search rates for FAKs are primary to that. meanwhile, find me a shopping mall that specialises in selling the man on the street medical supplies over consumer goods, and i'll drop this suggestion and revive all my zombies and use proxies to gather all my alts in Caiger and NEVER leave. CAIGAR 4 EVAR!!! --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I agree with Wan Yuo, since it is a hospital of course you would be more likely to find a FAK there, and anyway Malls have alot of other stuff you can gain there.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 16:10, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Uhm, it's "Yao", not "Yuo"... It's a lame old joke alias, but it's still my alias, and it means something... Anyhooo... <br />
<br />
Cop shops are not armouries -- but gun stores in US malls practically are. So I don't really see a need to change that. You might disagree, but, c'est la vie. (And, yes, Malton is in the UK, but the city is a mix of the UK and US, it's not really one or the other in practice... so please don't go ''there''... please.) Perhaps search rates in Fort Armouries need to be boosted, but this suggestion is not addressing that... And, yes, malls are supposed to be strongholds -- however, I think the 50% search rate for FAKs is absurd. Especially when it's so hard to find FAKs in Hospitals, by comparison. And, even if you nerfed search rates in Malls -- even hypothetically across the board -- they are still going to be "fortresses" by virtue of being "one-stop-shopping" places -- you can get everything you need at a mall other than syringes. That ''alone'' makes them very powerful... I, however, appreciate Whitehouse's comments about the fact that are more Hospitals than Malls, and the modified search rates ought to reflect that. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then surgery becomes OMGMEGA-SUPER-GODLY. Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls. If it weren't for that I would support this, I don't think that this would change where people get FAKs from though which would mean it would just be a slight nerf to Malls and a big buff to Hospitals.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
First of, sorry for mispelling your name Yao, and also you dont need a 50% chance for the hospital but maybe like 40%, or something that makes the hospitals be just as good as finding FAKs in the mall.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:29, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Surgery]].--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:47, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I am well aware of what Surgery does. This is how likley you can find a FAK in a hospital and a mall drug store, from the wiki:Mall Drugstores (20%/34%), Hospitals (14%),. If they even made it 25 percent I would love it. [[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:''"Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls"'' -- Well, maybe Surgery ought to be more than just "a little" better in a Hospital. I mean we're dealing with ''Surgery''... in a ''hospital''... come on! And to AHLG below, I don't want Hospitals buffed without Malls being nerfed at the same time. That's kind of the point... Also, I did search for a dupe, but couldn't find one... maybe someone else will? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:01, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The problem with that is that healing is already the most efficient thing in the game, even without surgery, with Surgery it's more efficient, buff surgery and it makes barricades look like a joke(surgery already does 10:1 vs zombie claws). The fix would have to be in weakening something unless you start buffing the ability to do damage.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I would agree with a small percentage increase in hospitals. But check for a dupe. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:19, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd support this as well. Malls need to be reworked a bit. The percentages are too high to warrant going any where else in the game for supply purposes. But I'd also support people who use the word "Glock" to describe their pistols have them blow up upon first use.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 23:38, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Did you take Bargain Hunting into consideration? It is MORE than just a percentage switch. Hospitals also have newspapers where as Bargain Hunting automatically precludes such a find. A FAK in a hospital has a base 14% find, while the FAK in the mall has a base 20%. +14% if you have bargain hunting. This is according to the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Useful_Items#First_Aid_Kit wiki (First Aid Kit)]. So which percentage is being switched? If is the base, then the hospital will be 20% and the mall will be 14%/28%. If it is the max, the hospital would be 34%, the mall would be 14%/28% (presuming Bargain Hunting). And, again, what about newspapers?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:21, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:In actual fact, Mall search rates for a skilled Shopper are around 50%, or very close. And in a Hospital, a bit more than 14%, but not by much. Those stats on the Items page are grossly out of date and inaccurate. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also... honestly, I don't know what you're getting at with all those numbers ... they don't make sense. FAK find rates in Malls would get nerfed, and %ages in Hospitals buffed. This would ''not'' affect the %ages for anything else, there is no connection. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:03, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::What do you mean "no connection"? Yeah, I'm sure they are out of date, but they are intended to illustrate a point. Did you even check the link? The reason FAK find rates are so high in malls is because of the shopper skills. But the shopper skills do MORE than just buff the search. The also negate the search for useless items (ie. newspapers). Searching for a FAK in a hospital maybe be higher, with this suggestion, but you STILL find newspapers. Which you DON'T find in malls. So, again, why are you not taking into consideration the mall skills or newspapers?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 03:31, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Probably because you're misunderstanding what they represent. Not finding spam items doesn't mean the search rate is better for FAKs(what you want to find) it means that the search rate for what you don't want to find is dropped to 0. The only effect that would have is reducing encumbrance, which is already done by being checking it in your profile so you don't have to waste the IP hit dropping it. That there is no connection would be about right, buffing the search rate would still mean you're finding two FAKs in 3 AP even if that third AP digs up a newspaper every once in a while.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:16, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Pesatyel, what you're saying makes no sense. And the link you provided is irrelevant. Say in 12 searches right now you find 1 FAK and one newspaper. If I double FAK search rates... now, I find 2 FAKs and 1 newspaper in 12 searches. ''There is no connection'' between the two different items: the latter is totally unaffected by the former. Also, you don't find newspapers in Malls. Drug stores are spam-free FAKtories... And, the full set of Mall Skillz allows you (for 200 measly XP) to search these spam-free FAKtories at almost a 50% success rate -- a search rate totally unparallelled anywhere else in the game -- and an unparallelled find %age for ''the second most powerful pro-survivor item'' in game, after NT syringes. <br />
<br />
::::'''Q.E.D.''' - In. Need. Of. Fixing. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:48, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I do think FAKs in hospitals need a buff but i am not certain of these numbers... lowering the find rate for malls so it tops out at about 30% would be good (sure the drugstore has pain killers and elastoplast but wide specrum anti-biotics and morphine? I think not!) Rather than a straight buff to the hospital search rates i would rather see the "medical" classes able to build Faks much like syringe creation. Searching already says something like "you gather supplies" so why not make it possible for those with a few pre-req skills choose to build those kits with some certainty (at a cost comparable to the Malls find rate) I would suggest 5AP for anyone with 1st aid and possible 4AP for anyone with a new skill :trauma nurse or some such! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:26, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Not a bad idea, but the proliferation of hospitals would mean an already prevelant item would become even more so. Malls are difficult to hold, hence benefits are found there. Drop the search rate in malls to closer to 30% and make surgery a 20hp hit, making holding a powered hospital useful, rather than powering one, hording FAKs and bailing.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:46, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Bloodletting===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}02:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=PKer buff.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors. PKers, mostly.<br />
|suggest_description=Update revivification syringes to allow for self-targeting. If used on yourself while infected, it becomes a "virus syringe," essentially transforming the item within your inventory. "Virus syringes" cannot be found or made except by infected individuals using revivification syringes on themselves. Like a normal syringe, they have a 2% encumbrance.<br />
<br />
If used on a survivor, there's an X percent chance that this new "virus syringe" will deal 1 HP damage to the survivor and infect the survivor, and a 100-X percent chance that the virus syringe will do nothing. X is the current HP of the PKer. "Virus syringes" do nothing against zombies.<br />
<br />
As it is highly corrosive to glass, the virus will eat through the syringe in a matter of hours. Therefore, "virus syringes" are removed from an inventory after 6 hours of existing.<br />
<br />
...Because bioterrorism is an inherent part of the genre, and because it might entertain some PKers (and thus keep them from actual killing). Yes, the central idea is that the syringe is emptied outside your body, then you draw out your own blood, which contains the infection.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bloodletting)====<br />
<br />
I really wish I could be "constructive"... but this is just too retarded to comment on. Would you like some spam with that cheese, sir? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:11, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:No, sir, nor did I want that frosty. "Retarded" is happily synonymous with "belated," so I'll assume you mean this suggestion is just a little behind its time. Speaking of which, some old-fashioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Logs Lincoln logs] might help with your construction problem. Spend a few hours with those and let your dad back on his computer, okay? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}04:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Survivor infecting other survivors is a dupe, I'm fairly sure. It would be more greify than tactically useful for a PKer / death cultist, which is why (iirc) it wasn't worth keeping. Also, if you want to infect somebody, I fancy that axe you've been splitting infected zombie skulls (or the knife you just pulled from the guts of an infected survivor) would do the job rather as well as a syringe. So if infections COULD be spread that way, pretty much every sharp weapon in Malton would spread them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:23, 6 September 2008 (BST) ''edit- also, if the infection were so corrosive, every blood stained weapon or piece f clothing in the city would crumble to dust. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)''<br />
:It is a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I'd been considering [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofluoric_acid hydrofluoric acid] for that, which wouldn't damage polyester clothes, although I am not a chemist. And blood-stained weapons tend to degrade in real life, hence the NRA's preoccupation with gun cleaning. That aside, do you think (at least) that the X% likelihood is an interesting mechanic that might be able to contribute to gameplay in some other fashion?--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}00:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
PKing may be part of the game, but it does NOT need any emphasis. The game is, primarily, about survivors and zombies fighting each other with some PKing thrown in, NOT about PKing with some zombies thrown in.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I must agree with Pesatyel, this game is mainly about the Living VS Undead... with the abnormal ones mixing it up to make it more interesting (just like in reality). Emphasizing PKing just doesn't fit in well with me (although I really should ''"get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit"'' to quote Wanyao). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Ehh, when I PK, I prefer "Bang. BANG BANG." And the kill is done. The idea would be something I would never use, and as Swiers stated, it's more useful for greifers then PKers like me.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::K-B, I was referring to your comments, somewhere, which alluded to "pro-zombies" and "pro-survivors" as these inimical factions at each others' throats. That's an illusion, and a destructive one at that: most players play both sides, even if some do tend to focus more on one than the other... And most people judge suggestions on the basis of merit, not simply whether they help their "side". For example, this suggestion would be a giant-sized buff for my death cultists -- but that doesn't mean I support it... because it's just a griefing tool, and little more. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Does it grief more than, for instance, one of your death cultists outright killing someone? PKing '''is''' griefing, because survivors only ever want to be killed if they're feeding the hungry n00b zed masses. Sure, I can see survivors getting annoyed by being infected by a PKer, but it would be less aggravating than having to spend AP hunting a revive (which costs more AP than a FAK). Thank you for your constructive criticism. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
NEEDLE SHARING IS NEVER SAFE! THIS SUGGESTION SPREADS HEPATITIS Z! Not to mention it's stupid as fuck and so out of genre gameplay here. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:If you consider "fuck" stupid, does that means I can apply for a timeshare with your girlfriend? Although, for reference, I invite you to check out how the Fantastic Four were infected in ''Marvel Zombies''. Or talk to me on my talk page and I'll happily spoil it for you.--{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::You see, this is what I am on about. I call your suggestion stupid and make a bad pun. You make a personal slur against my girlfriend. Then you bring up a comic book that isn't a survival horror comic, but just a zombie alternate universe. Yet you are still going to bitch about what I said even though you are the one making this personal. Get fucked and stop suggesting things. There that was personal. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:32, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Marvel Zombies'' isn't a zombie alternate universe. The scene in question within the comic is not dependent upon any of the fantastical elements of the Marvel universe. I understand that you're unhappy that you unsuccessfully trolled for lols with 'NEEDLE SHARING IS...HEPATITIS Z,' so my deconstruction of your single-cheeked argument is just rubbing salt in the wound. But please, don't take it personally. I don't object to you, just your casual use of expletives. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::''An alternate reality in which mutants are turned into flesh eating zombies, set on Earth-2149. In the end of the series, The Zombies eat Zombie Silver Surfer and get infused with the power cosmic.'' SPOILER ALERT! You are right. I didn't get as many "lulz" as your initial suggestion did. You bested me, good sir! I didn't add more than a quick comment because why would I need to repeat all of the other reasons that your suggestion is bad? Oh right, because you are a fucking retard. I forgot. And as far as my use of "expletives" that's a really bad argument seeing that this wiki is international and what is an expletive to you might not be one to me, you bloody cunt. And for the record, you couldn't handle [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Katthew MY GIRLFRIEND]--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:38, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::The only criticism you offered was saying that this suggestion is out-of-genre. That could've been done in six words, possibly fewer, without wasting your precious time with your, erm, "pun." And, moreover, you haven't yet discussed (or apparently thought about) that criticism, instead just quoting Comiczine where your own knowledge failed you. While I usually try to use the same profanity standards as the game, I take special exception with poor or improper use of words such as "fuck," as such tends to cause them to eventually lose their meaning. You, sir, are killing the English language. And for the record, I wouldn't want to handle your girlfriend. Ability is not equivalent to desire. --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:47, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Wait wait wait.. this stick is up your ass because I said more than "this is out of genre" and I called your idea stupid? You're all butthurt because I didn't like your idea and therefore by extension you? You resorted to personal attacks and some faggy rant about a shitty comic because I didn't come all over myself with joy at you sharing this EARTH SHATTERINGLY NEW (dupe) IDEA WITH THE UNWORTHY ?!?! Go cry more, you shit stain.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:03, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Calm down. Pop some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laxative pills], you're wound too tight. Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic) thought that zombification was a positive evolutionary step, so he injected Susan Storm (The Invisible Woman), Johnny Storm (The Human Torch) and Ben Grimm (The Thing) with the zombie virus from that universe. After they turned, they infected him by eating parts of him. So, as there exists commonly-accepted (''Marvel Zombies'' was very successful) prior art for my suggestion, it's in-genre. And if this rant sounds faggy, it's because I'm bisexual. And I'm annoyed that you keep dragging this discussion off-topic because you're incapable of supporting your argument. --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::Oh wait a minute! You are the guy that suggested '''horses'''. I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to comment on this suggestion. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I has plastic syringes. Gawd. Oh, I forgot the part were I wake up when you starting moving and poking me, and I kick your ass.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 00:02, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What about the part where zombies you are poking with a syringe do NOT wake up and kick... er, EAT your ass? {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Recharging AP != sleeping. You might as well object to zombies not reacting to a knife or a shotgun, or humans not reacting to being clawed. It's how the game works. We've been over this before. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:50, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Exhausted, you can go no further.'' That pretty much sounds like you are going to sleep to me. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:17, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::So having 0 AP = Sleeping. But Recharging AP != Sleeping. Because I could play the game without ever having to see that message, provided I logged out with at least 1 AP. These arguments have been made before. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
This has been suggested before. It's a bad idea, and encourages out-of-character play - ie survivors deliberately seeking infection and wasting syringes. Also, and I've said this before, there is a very easy way to harm someone with a hypodermic syringe. Empty out whatever's in it, fill it with air, and inject the victim to induce a potentially fatal gas embolism. Too overpowered to be considered in UD though. --[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 23:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's true, it was made for PKing. Thanks for the point about embolisms, I'd forgotten about them. Do you have any thoughts on the X% hit likelihood as a possible mechanic for a later suggestion? --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Latent Infection===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies, their victims.<br />
|suggest_description=''After countless days of fending off the zombies, Malton's best and brightest have discovered an entirely new strain of the virus that the zombies have been using to infect their victims.''<br />
<br />
''Called the Sleeper strain, it typically has an incubation period of 6 hours before it becomes active, rapidly spreading through the victim's circulatory system, degrading living tissue at an alarming speed. The incubation period can be extended if the victim remains motionless, however.''<br />
<br />
''This new strain has proven to be almost completely immune to all forms of medicine when it is in its incubation period, however the virus seems to be easier to eradicate once it has 'awakened'. It can still resist medicine half of the time, however with surgery the virus can be always removed.''<br />
<br />
''Unfortunately, due to it's long incubation period, carriers of the virus often are not aware of when they have become infected until the virus begins to attack them. However, if the victim then gets bitten by a zombie with the more common strain of the virus, the Sleeper strain acts like an antibody, preventing the more common strain from taking hold.''<br />
<br />
New skill: Latent Infection<br />
<br />
Subskill of: Infection<br />
<br />
Abilities:<br />
* Takes 6 hours to kick in.<br />
* Causes 2 damage per AP.<br />
* Does not stack with standard Infection.<br />
* 5% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd during incubation period.<br />
* 50% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd when 'awakened'.<br />
* 100% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd by 'Surgery' in powered hospital.<br />
* Kicks in upon first movement after 6 hour incubation period.<br />
* Victim not told of infection until it 'awakens'.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Latent Infection)====<br />
in all this time have you ever even read the frequently suggested and D&DN pages? this is a dupey infection buff, the likes of which we've seen a bazillion times, and it has nothing special or redeeming about it except for a vry pointless 6 hour delay. such a delay is a) out of genre game-mechanically because time is abstract in UD b) griefs newbies c) griefs everyone who logs in only once a day d) it's overpowered -- zombies kill best by killing, and where they are weak, deal with that, instead. <br />
<br />
i'm also sure someone will be less lazy and find about 30 dupes for this. please... GIVE IT UP ALREADY, blake. go design your own game, print up the rules, get together with some friends over dice and doritos. and give ''us'' a break. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:38, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's... Urghh, it just over complicates a part of the game which doesn't need it, and is a huge buff to zombies. I'm a zombie player, but I don't like things like this. Just do what WanYao said and read the [[Frequently Suggested]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]]. Seriously, just commit them to memory.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd vote keep. And ignore the Hive Mind Kool-Aid Drinkers, Blake. The D&DN page is for wimps.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 13:38, 7 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
After three years they just now find an infection that incubates in 6 hours? somehow, that doesn't quite add up right in my mind. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 00:06, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:50, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance Change<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Ankle Grab<br />
|suggest_description='''The cost to stand up after a [[Zombie Hunter skills|Headshot]] is 15AP, whether or not the target has the [[Zombie Skills|Ankle Grab]] skill.'''<br />
<br />
This suggestion is somewhat slanted toward a Monroeville survivor's perspective.<br />
<br />
In Malton, the survivor's best chance for survival is to find a location which zombies are not currently massing to attack. The only time attacking is a viable option is when zombies are already inside a strategic building, and the survivor wants to repair the structure. Even [[Trenchcoater|Trenchcoaters]] know that when the zeds open the doors, it's time to run.<br />
<br />
In Monroeville, there is never a time when attacking is the best choice. If zombies are near, the survivor runs or the survivor dies. Attacking, even with a massive numeric advantage, is ultimately suicide.<br />
<br />
Currently, a Headshot costs a zombie 6AP, or 15AP if it doesn't have the Ankle Grab skill. To kill a 50HP unarmored zombie costs a minimum of 8AP: Three to find three shotguns loaded with five shells total, and five to bring down the zombie. A more typical number would be 24 -- 6 to find a pistol and two clips, and 18 to fire the pistol at the zombie 16 times, reloading twice, with a 65% hit rate. This means that by purchasing four skills, with seven additional skills required to reach level ten, a survivor can spend 24 AP to take 6AP from a zombie who has purchased two skills.<br />
<br />
If the AP cost to stand up from a Headshot were 15 ''regardless'' of the Ankle Grab skill, the ratio would go from 4:1 to almost 3:2, still strongly favoring the zombie, but making offense a viable tactic in Malton. In Monroeville, the few who remain might actually come out and play once in a while, instead of running like hell when one zombie gets within a block.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab)====<br />
Sure. I just fear its too late. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:59, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
You understand nothing of this game. The AP balance on barricades is 4-1 in favour of survivors at best. Add to that the fact that it takes 35-40 AP for a zombie to kill a survivor, only for the victim to get a revive for 10 AP and the cost of the syringe search. Then factor in that any survivor who isn't killed straight away can be saved with a simple FAK. I could go on and on about this, but in reality I said all that was needed in the first sentence. And seriously people, stop whining about fucking Monroeville. It's a temporary city which is going to be shut down, which makes it entirely irrelevant when discussing the mechanics of Urban Dead as a game. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 20:04, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:"and the cost of the syringe search". I love how you abstract away about 10-15 APs and call it "balanced". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And that only turns out to 20-25 AP, even if you factor in the syringe search. we could keep on discussing the maths of this, but Grim did it for us a few months back: read his rant on the [[User:Grim_s/Rants/Revival_Imbalance|revive imbalance]]. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 05:14, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Total Zombie AP spent (Including recovering from kills by Humans, thank you for padding your numbers): 483. Total Human AP spent: 322. Ratio: 3/2, compared to 4/1 for survivors headshotting zombies. Zombies win, again, by whining louder than the humans. I thought you were supposed to moan. In any event, thank you for showing us the math that proves that zombies have a massive combat AP advantage. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 17:30, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You really haven't grasped this game at all. Allow me to explain: This is a game of 'classes' in which zombies are designed to kill whilst survivors are designed to, get this '''survive'''! Therefore zombies are the attacking class and survivors are the defending class. What a shock to absolutely no-one with a modicum of intellect then that zombies get a combat advantage whilst survivors get a defensive advantage. The greatest 'weapons' that survivors have in this game are revivification syringes, first aid kits and barricades, so whilst it may not appeal to your BOOM! HEADSHOT! masturbation fantasies to have killing zombies be far less important than barricading buildings, healing and reviving, that's the way the game works. Your job is to survive. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 08:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Revivification syringes mean that survivors can go on the offensive, which nulls your given simplification. If each survivor revived two zombies and then died, the game would slowly progress to the survivor side of things. And that's with no barricading or defensive gameplay necessary.--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::That's a byproduct of design and one forced by the nature of the game rather than intent. The only way to make combat revives impossible would be to make revives themselves impossible. As such the existence of combat revives in no way undermines the identification of the offensive-defensive class dynamic. Zombie skills are all created with a view to creating damage, whilst survivor skills are designed for preventing or undoing it; yes, that's right, even the combat skills for survivors are about that. They're there to clear zombies out of buildings and allow those buildings to be secured, not to 'kill' the zombies. The sooner people realise that the sooner they'll start enjoying their game, just as I do with all my characters. Oh and your combat revive scenario neglects to consider death culting and window-diving as responses to such actions. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 19:27, 8 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::Also Brain Rot. My scenario worked from the assumption that all players were true dual-natured players, albeit dual-natured players who don't pick up Brain Rot. However, I would argue that (while zombie skills are indeed designed to deal damage) human skills revolve around maximizing the efficiency of revivification. Securing buildings just allows survivors to stave off death for a few more days, which in turn allows them to revive others more efficiently. Admittedly, this assumes a simplified version of survivors without death-culting and window-diving, etc., etc., but I think it is hard to argue the (relatively) balanced nature of the zombie/survivor ratio just from those extremes. The Mrh? cows tend to equalize that anyway. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Moloch, it's possible for me to completely understand every aspect of this game and still disagree with you. It's also possible for me to refute your arguments without attacking you personally. Here's an example: '''This is not a survival horror game.''' It's World of Warcraft in text. The only difference is that here you can switch sides. Just like WoW, the "human" side is more popular. Just like WoW, the "other" side wants to get more and more advantages because they believe it will offset the numeric disadvantage. Here's a heads-up: WoW proved you wrong there. I proved you wrong here. And I'll do it again. Zombies attack humans with 483 AP, costing the humans 322 AP. Humans attack the zombies with 500 AP, costing the Zombies '''nothing'''. Why nothing? Because the cost of recovery is included in the 483 AP the zombies already spent. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:20, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Wow, nice numbers. Got the math to prove that? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:58, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Not a survival horror game? So what does this: ''A Massively Multi-Player Web-Based Zombie Apocalypse'' mean? But no you are right. I must be forgetting that the innkeeper at Jacomb Arms sent me on the quest to recovery the Holy Golf Club of Lockettside while on my way to slay the Bank Manager of Ruddlebank. This is '''exactly''' like WoW!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 16:20, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
No dude. Just no. Monroeville is freaking dead anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Says the ''Zombie'' Lord... I actually had a nice killing spree a couple of weeks back, 5 survivors in 6 days...<br />
:It would be nice if we waited till there was one survivor, gave him a [[Red_Rum/Tommy_Gun|Tommy_Gun]], ammo and every zombie his location to see how long he would last... --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: :D I'm not sure if he means it as a Monroeville only thing or not, which would be fine with me if it was just contained to that city and not Malton. Seems like Kevan just wanted to kill it off anyway with those last changes to Monroeville. But yeah, the Tommy Gun goes the the last Monroeville Survivor! Would be a cool prize anyway :) --[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::The Tommy Gun is a seasonal weapon, found around 31st October/1st November. They'll have to survive til then and search really hard...--[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 00:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Kamakazie Bunny, get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit, it's tired as all hell. In any event, as much as he is usually an idiot, zombie lord is correct this time. And Moloch hit it on the head even more squarely. Don't fucking nerf Ankle Grab. Period. Even in Moronville. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:46, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::And don't forget, give him or her unlimited AP and IP hits. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:14, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:36, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:How about "Remove Headshot" then? Has that been suggested? It's currently a waste of 100 XP. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
You might have better luck if you suggest that headshot DOESN'T affect those without Ankle Grab.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:37, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Where.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''Balance Change'' HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA ''IMA GONNA RAEP YUO OF UR AP AND CALL IT BALANCED!'' Fuck off, Dago. You can't possibly justify taking away over 1/5th of the AP of just one class. Zombies can't do it to survivors in any amount and you want to increase it? Fucking play as a zombie for a year before you suggest anything that affects zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:59, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Suggestion:20080901_Feeding_Drag_in_Large_Buildings|Yanking a live survivor from a mall]] for 2/5 the AP cost of dumping a dead body from a fort is balanced, then? I don't see you railing against that. Oh, but feel free to turn my username into a racial slur if you can't think of any ''good'' reason to reject the suggestion. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::We've already posted enough reasons why it's a crap idea. Feel free to post it though, because even if it gets passed, Kevan won't touch it. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 05:25, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::How would you know? ANKLE GRAB was in PEER REJECTED when it came to vote here.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Which should give you an idea of how Kevan feels on the subject of the Headshot dynamic. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 08:53, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::It also shows you how fucking survivor-centric this damn wiki is. I'm not surprised that AG was voted down and a shit load of weapons and survivor buffs fill this page constantly. I'm pretty sure even if this ridiculous crap passed Kevan wouldn't implement it since last time I checked survivors outnumbered the zombies 61% to 39%. But hey! the survivors have it so fucking hard with all those damn zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::But OHNOES DCC some people think it's because no one wants to play zombies instead of the fact that their so boring because of their intellectuality and lack of competetivity. Who cares that that's disproved every time zombies make some big event so they can actually do something.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:37, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Actually it is when you consider that it's not a bargain and it's an additional 4 AP per kill that will be payed regularly. All Feeding Drag ever does is transfer AP cost from the individual to the horde, you know, that central play mechanic that zombies are forced to deal with. This would just make it so that all zombies always lose nearly half the AP they get a day, that's not balanced. You're also proposing buffing what is the only skill in the game that is considered to exist for the sole purpose of pissing players off and not balance.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Im not going to argue the game balance here. What i am going to say is that you dont make a game more balanced by making it less fun. Taking away 15 zombie ap a day makes the game much less fun for zombies, which will drive them away. Given how many of them are hanging onto the game out of habit rather than out of any sense of enjoyment, i dont think making playing a zombie feel like pulling teeth is the solution to any balance problem, real or imagined. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:37, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
This is not terribly effective. I mean, the search chances in Mville are all in ruined buildings. 8AP to load a shotgun I think not... ain't nothin' but ruined buildings. [[User:Soror Repentia Azalea|Qızılbaş]] 16:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Riot Shield===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Item<br />
|suggest_scope=All Players<br />
|suggest_description= <BR><br />
:''[[Building Types|Locations]]: Armouries (2%), Police Stations (2%), Junkyards (1%?)''<br />
:''[[Encumberment|Encumbrance]]: 16%''<br />
<br />
- Grants a 10% (5% in dark buildings) chance to deflect any attack <S>that deals less than 5 damage</S> (it does not reduce the chance to hit, only those which would normally hit). Having a Riot Shield in your inventory automatically means that you are using it; no action is required to activate it. Zombies may use and benefit from Riot Shields. Using multiple Riot Shields has no additional effect; having two or more in your inventory will not give any further protection.<br />
<br />
- They may also be used as an improvised weapon with the following stats:<br />
<br />
:''Damage: 1 point''<br />
:''Base Accuracy: 10%''<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Riot Shield)====<br />
<br />
Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield (although rotters will have a harder time getting them but that applies to any cross-class skill/item from the humans). Also the zombie populace should be aware that a Riot shield is the equivalent of 8 clips/shells/Faks/Syringes that can be used against their cause. Survivors now have an active defence against the hordes (in my opinion barricades do not count as they do not directly protect the player or go with them on their journeys). <BR><br />
Things I'm unsure of:<BR><br />
:Encumbrance<br />
:Chance to deflect<br />
:Findable in museums (Medieval / war exhibitions)<br />
:Zombies with a reduced protection chance (as they are more sluggish)<br />
:Flavour text for deflected attacks!<br />
--[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''You fire at target zombie for 10 damage, but it deflects off their riot shield. They are unharmed''<br />
--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:05, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: Whilst I do agree with the flavour text the shot gun does not deal '''less than 5 damage'''. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:13, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Balls. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hi Kamikazie, this is an interesting idea. Given that zombies can't use melee weapons, it seems odd they might continue to use (and effectively position) a riot shield. Additionally, it seems it would get in the way of typical zombie attacks: grabbing, holding, biting. I don't want to seem like I'm favoring survivors, but this, like all other objects, seems it should be survivor-specific. Would players be able to use a shotgun while holding one? Shields of any kind make sense, especially in close-range combat. I'd see the value in making it "equippable" rather than simply automatically active if in inventory. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 18:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ummm... zombies can use melee weapons, although it would get in the way of their normal attacks I don't want to hinder them or make this one sided although realism would want it so. Zombies are people to! Interfering with other functions is something else I disagree with. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hordes are the exception, not the rule. Lets see, a maxed zombie would traditionally score a total of 29 hits in 50 swings. Now, if 10% of those hits are negated, it goes down to 26. Given that the majority of zombies are not horde zombies, and that zombies have a seriously hard time getting past little things you call barricades (Which already are your defenses, not to mention your mobility, which is another, chronically underused one), this puts a serious dent in zombie ability across the board for the sake of defending yourself from the exception to the rule based on a flase assumption of defenselessness. Go away and think things through before you return to plague this page with your stupidity again. The description as written has this as a pure zombie nerf, they cant even use it, ebcause regardless of flaks, a pistol hits for five damage at first, with one subsequently negated, thus pistols will still go through. Given humans use firearms almost exclusively, becauuse axes and improvised weapons suck, they will most often suffer no penalty against a zombie with such a device. Zombies have no 5+ damage attacks. This is one sided zombie rape. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:although I hardly ever agree with grims choice of words, the fact that flare guns and shotguns arent nerfed but all zed attacks are is a fair point. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:29, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sorry if you misunderstood when I used the word horde, I used it to describe the zombies populace as a whole, not in a specific location. The pistol glitch is something which I must admit I did not anticipate and overlooked, thanks for pointing that out. The rest just seems negative for the sake of zombie-jeebus. Whilst this does primarily affect zombie attacks it also affects all survivor melee attacks, you say that survivors depend on guns because everything else sucks, I don't think you need reminding that the Jacket only benefits zombies and PK/DC victims (which their very actions benefit zombies). Zombies have no fear of death and any defence boosts through items come at no cost, survivors have to balance their inventory for survival/defense and the retaking of ruins. If you feel that 26 instead of 29 hits is too many feel free to suggest a change to the values. This is a discussion for whittling out 'stupid' ideas not for insulting them (which I consider pointless). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:47, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
''Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield ...'' Can, but won't. The vast majority of the damage zombies take s from guns, and this also provides no protection vs combat revives. HtH combat damage trails a distant third behind those in terms of impact on zombies. '''So really, this IS a pure zombie nerf.''' {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 19:08, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:Any proposes for a fix? Reducing deflection to 5% (that sounds so geekish). Lowering the limit to Less than 4 (which would account for the gun-bug and allow zombies still to get in their max claws) or would that be seen to be nerfing infection/bite/newbies/survivor melee? I know you might think this is the wrong school of thought but I feel there needs to be some active defence from zombies (running away is not defending) and barricades can't be taken with you, but due to the limited amount of high-powered zombie attacks any thing is essentially a nerf. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 19:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this suggestion if it was to affect ALL attacks regardless of damage... however I am concerned about it stacking with flak jackets to nerf firearms but if you lot are ok with it then I have no objections.... opinions please? --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I think it's a neat idea, just not sure if its passable. Maybe if the Shield had a chance to be broken, or taken away by zombies? For every "deflection" there is a 10% chance the shield breaks as well? Maybe a zombie that gets a Tangling Grasp has a 10% chance to wrench the shield away and toss it aside for each attack it makes while it maintains the Grasp?--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:25, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This fails flavour as it implies active usage to gain its benefit, you must move the shield to cover the attack. A flak jacket is passive, it protects your torso regardless. In short, this would (or rather should) be useless while you are asleep...which for most UD characters is 23 hours and 50 minutes of each day.<br />
<br />
Also it's a nasty zombie nerf. '''All''' zombie attacks are less than 5 damage, meaning all survivors would get a 10% chance to avoid every single zombie attack in the game. This suggestion will discourage zombie play and turn Malton into Monroeville after the first quarantine, tag with PKers. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:42, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''"After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this..."'' We are not okay with this idea. It's awful. It's nothing but a horrible zombie nerf, and no changes are going to save it. Riot shields do not protect against firearms. Period. Any attempt to make them do so is just stupidity. But if riot shields work against melee attacks only, then you are nerfing an already underdog ability -- for both zambahz and survivors. Just drop it, it sucks and it can't be fixed. Also, Izzy, you've failed in your Dupe-meister duties, this is in there somewhere, I know it ;) And, Zhani, once again you demonstrated why you should stay away from making suggestions: please wait until you actually know the game, thanks. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:01, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:As far as I understood from the comments people were making, the two major complaints were that it did not affect guns and that it affected zombie attacks. Including the ability to affect guns as well (which you ''conveniently'' failed to include in your quote) was the change that some people may approve of, as for affecting zombie attacks that kinda goes with the idea of a riot shield. "''Riot shields do not protect against firearms''" it may upset you to know that some do, although if you were arguing for true realism I think the zombies need to go... In defence of Izzy failing to dupe I could only find 2 similar suggestions, both from 2005 and both with completely different mechanics if it is that big an issue to dupe it go put in the effort and do it yourself. As for Zhani, he's learning don't try shoot him down because he's trying to be involved. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Next person to shorten my name gets Jihad declared against them.<br />
<br />
::Wan; what he said about dupes <nowiki>:p</nowiki><br />
<br />
::Bunny; would you care to comment on the point I made about active usage? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Falling asleep from exhaustion is a good reason why your character runs out of AP, it only takes 30min before you can 'wake up'. Whilst I do agree that a player would have to actively use it to defend themselves, the idea that I can hit someone who is asleep repeatedly with a fire axe and with such poor accuracy doesn't make sense (especially considering they don't wake up), I actually assume all players are awake and attempting to defend themselves if attacked which is why hit accuracy is not too high. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait wut? How do zombies benefit from something that will only effect them and low level survivors? Last I heard pistols and shotguns did >= 5 damage, Claws and bites did <= 4.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies would gain more defence from melee weapons, however it has now been changed to include pistols and shotguns. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::It just doesn't seem right. It destroys all zombie attack, survivor players could get them easier then zombie players... Even if Shotguns no longer worked, that would create an atmosphere where it would be CRing only.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 17:56, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::How would this new version work in dark buildings? And Also, I still don't like it for the same reason why I think halving in dark buildings was a horrendous idea, 10% from 50% is a lot more significant than 10% from 65%, especially with the RNG the way it is But if you're going to go on with it might as well answer all questions that might come up.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::As the Riot shield only affects the attacks that hit the player, the environment which the attack is performed in should have make no difference but since the user is making an effort, the same penalty as attacks receive should logically apply. (Chance of success halved in dark buildings added to suggestion) Thanks for that, the more holes you guys help me fill the better. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it. Rather logical especially when considering that several suburbs were just bad neighborhoods (Even BEFORE the zombies!). I think that his would be a bit more efficient if you kept it as a melee reducing item, the hand to hand flak jacket in other words, say knock off 1-2 Damage per non-firearm attacks. Take it to that level and THEN I'll probably vote a keep on this. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 19:33, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, I'm sure new players will appreciate 0-1 damage at 25% to hit.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Well the zombies are getting Uber Buffs. Survivors have always been a bit better than the zombies at base level. I think that just the 1 Reduced Damage is sufficient at say...30% but if we want to get technical with this option lets say Hand to Hand Combat skill gives the 15% bonus to this so base is 15% chance to block 1 damage and then with HtH skill 30% chance to block 1 damage and we drop that improvised attack method because it's going to be the same as a punch. Now for the zombies think of Virgour Mortis as a +10% Chance to block 1 Damage. So again, 15% base and with Vigour Mortis a nice little 25% because Zeds aren't quick enough to keep up with the survivors. It is a bit sketchy but I am going to support this method over sitting around fiddling with percentages. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 20:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I would like for this to apply exclusive to melee weapons, but that would mean ALL zombie attacks and not the attacks used by high-level survivors which was a problem. I'm also unsure if the game distinguishes between damage types, if it does great, if not, going on damage inflicted presents a problem when pistols are reduced by flak jackets. The idea to reduce damage instead of deflecting it completely is possible, however it would just end up as 'a flak for melee attacks' different mechanics for each one helps to keep them unique but if people prefer that option let me know. The skills bit does have merits but I was hoping it would be independent of the skill tree although if people want it to upgrade as you buy skills your way is certainly an excellent way to do it, especially the uniqueness between the live/dead. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:18, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Consider the flak jacket. -1 point for firearms, hand to hand attacks still go through. As for the zombies...well survivors run out of ammunition every now and again, even in the sieges. To combine this item with hand to hand combat training is the most logical approach based off of common sense and lightens the work load if Kevan likes this. Like you stated, zombies and survivors can both hold them, lets apply our minds and think about how well a zombie would be able to block a hit. When you think of next to never apply this big piece of reinforced fiberglass and then you get your answer here. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 03:53, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Zombies holding riot shields? I'd love to have some of that crack you're on. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 04:08, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dude the odd thing is that it is not crack! It's Jello powder! [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:23, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies hold and use all sorts of items... Anyway, this idea is just awful and can't be saved, please give it up. All it does in any form is act as a zombie/PK nerf. Period. Drop it. There is NO NEED for this, and it doesn't improve the game, make it more interesting, or offer a solution to a problem. It's just... dumb. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===No More Walking Armories: Less weapons, more ammo.===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 21:39, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Change to firearm usage<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, firearms.<br />
|suggest_description=Add Equipped Weapon feature, adjust weapon balance numbers to encourage reloading over trenchcoatism. See below for details.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
As things stand, players in Malton become [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|walking armories]], with as many loaded pistols and shotguns strapped to their bodies as they can carry. Essentially, everyone is a [[:Image:Trenchcoater03.gif|trenchcoater]] by default. This is due to how firearms currently work and their game statistics. Players are rewarded for carrying multiple loaded firearms, and there's little penalty for doing so. Guns have very little encumbrance ''relative to their ammunition'', and there's no cost at all to moving on to your next loaded weapon. I think this is [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Arguing_for_Your_Suggestion|unbelievable]] and out of genre. <br />
<br />
My proposal is to add a new game feature and tweak weapon encumbrance, find rates, and damage in order to encourage the carrying and use of only primary weapons, with plenty of ammo for those weapons.<br />
<br />
'''1. Equipped Weapon''' The game supports selecting items that are "worn"; however, this is only used for clothing and flavor at the moment. With this addition, survivor players select any weapon in their inventory to be ''equipped''. <br />
* Above "'''Inventory (click to use):'''" there is "'''Weapon (select):'''". There will be a new drop-down list in this section: '''<code>Equip [Weapon List] as weapon</code>'''. This lets the player choose any existing weapon in their inventory, or an improvised weapon like a fuel can or crowbar. <br />
* Equipping a weapon costs '''2 AP'''. This represents getting it out of your backpack/belt and having it ready for combat. ''The AP cost of switching weapons provides an incentive to reload over switching between a stocked series of weapons.'' <br />
* You can only attack with your equipped weapon. The "attack player" option no longer offers multiple weapons as a choice, but instead lists your ''equipped weapon'': '''<code>Attack [Joe Zombie] with pistol</code>'''. If no weapon is equipped, all attacks are punches.<br />
* Once a weapon is equipped, the "Weapon:" section no longer displays "(select)", and the selected weapon is displayed there, instead of in the inventory section. Below that, the weapon-selection control remains available to select another weapon.<br />
* Clicking ammo to reload defaults to reloading the equipped weapon if it is unloaded. Clicking the equipped weapon removes it. Clicking a weapon that does not have a dual usage (most of them) will equip them as well (this is necessary so you can still click fuel cans to use them on generators, fire flare guns, etc.) <br />
* Upon dying, the equipped weapon is removed and remains in the player's inventory. Zombies do not have equipped weapons. Revivified survivors must reequip their weapon.<br />
* The currently equipped weapon can be seen in the profile description, along with clothing.<br />
<br />
'''2. Weapon Encumbrance Values''' Firearm encumbrance values are increased. Guns can get heavy to carry, and shotguns are unwieldy. Pistols: 10%. Shotgun: 18%. '''Ammunition encumbrance is minimized'''. Bullets and shells take up relatively little space, and can be kept in backpacks, fannypacks, pockets, etc. Clips & Shells: 1%. <br />
<br />
'''3. Reloading''' Reloading a clip or shell remains at 1 AP.<br />
<br />
'''4. Weapon Balance:''' This change slightly increases the in-combat AP costs for survivors. With 8 loaded pistols in inventory, a player can currently do 240 damage in 48 turns at 65% rate, or 156 damage, or 3.25 damage/AP. With 1 equipped pistol and plenty of ammo, in 48 turns the player can empty 7 clips, doing 210 damage @65%, or 136.5 damage, or 2.84 damage/AP; a 12% decrease. <br />
<br />
With current shotguns, 8 shotguns in inventory do 160 damage in 16 turns @ 65%, or 104 damage: 6.5damage/AP. With the change, two shots requires either switching (2AP) or reloading (2AP). Alternately, we can simply think of the unloaded shotgun as 2AP/shot. With the change, the shotgun would do 80 damage in 16 turns @ 65% or 52 damage, a 50% decrease. The change makes the shotgun even more front-loaded damage however. <br />
<br />
'''''It is very difficult to make absolute recommendations on numbers for game balance.''''' Only in-game results can show whether items are unbalanced or not, and to what degree. However, as an initial rebalancing to make the change not appear so drastic, I suggest these figures:<br />
<br />
'''Pistol: 6 damage/shot. (5 flak).''' In 48 turns (finishing empty), a pistol would do (6*7*6*0.65) or 163.8 damage on average: 3.4damage/AP, a 5% increase. This is a very modest change, and sticks to whole-number damage. In 6 turns, the existing pistol does 30 max damage, 19.5 average, the new does 36 or 23.4 average, but on subsequent turns the reload time brings the average damage back down. With 6 shots/7AP, the true average becomes 3.34dam/AP. Total pistol increase: 2.9%<br><br />
Alternately: to kill 50HP enemy:<br />
:Current: 3.25dam/AP. (Assuming enough pistols in inventory) 16AP to kill<br />
:New: 3.34 dam/AP ((6*6*.65)/7). 15AP to kill.<br />
<br />
'''Shotgun: 12 damage/shot (10 flak).''' 2 turns=24 damage @65%=15.6damage. Compare to current: 2 turns = 20*65%=13dam. This is a small front-end increase. However, comparing 16 turns (8 loaded current shotguns, vs 1 shotgun with reloading): (10*16*0.65)/16=6.5dam/AP. New shotgun: 2 shots, then 2 shots per 4 turns for 12 turns, then 1 shot in the last two turns. 2*12+12((2*12)/4)+0+12=108. @65%=70.2 or 4.39dam/AP. The shotgun decreases over time. If we compare current and new shotguns starting unloaded, it's 10dam/2AP vs 12dam/2AP. The advantage of starting a fight with a loaded shotgun goes up, but the advantage of carrying a stack of them goes down. It becomes worthwhile to consider switching to a sidearm after using the shotgun. ''This appears consistent with game believability.''<br><br />
An alternate way of looking at shotgun damage: to kill a 50HP enemy: <br />
:Current: 6.5damage/AP (assuming enough shotguns in inventory). 8AP to kill.<br />
:New: 2*7.8damage=15.6 for 2AP, then 7.8damage/2AP (reload, fire). 7AP to kill.<br />
<br />
Shotgun opener + pistol: 15.6 average damage/2AP. 2AP to switch. 23.4 average damage/6AP. 1AP reload. 11.7 avg. dam. /3AP. = 50.7 damage in 14AP. Slightly more efficient than pistol alone, less than shotgun alone. (I have been working with current balance values; but the existing shotgun is much higher damage than the existing pistol. It requires more AP to find ammo, and reload.)<br />
<br />
'''5. Weapon search rates''' Firearm search rate decreases slightly (most people will only want or need one of each type). Ammunition search rate increases slightly. <br><br />
'''Pistols:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Streets (1%?), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
'''Shotguns:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Pubs (1%)<br><br />
'''Clips:''' Mall Gun Stores (13%/16%), Armories (13%), Police Departments (12%), Junkyards (2%?), Gatehouses (?%)<br><br />
'''Shotgun shells:''' Mall Gun Stores (12%/16%), Armories (11%), Police Departments (11%), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
* If a weapon is found, and the player has selected to discard that type of weapon, but they have NOT selected to discard the ammo, ''they retain the ammo that was in that firearm (if any)''.<br />
<br />
'''Potential objections:'''<br />
<br />
Game balance: the change to damage output/AP is relatively small. If game stats reveal survivors grow more powerful, or one weapon is more preferred than the other, damage values can be adjusted as necessary. The point of this change is not to drastically adjust game balance in any way, but to instead encourage a change in player behavior to something more consistent with genre. Any statistical flaws that benefit a weapon type or player group can be adjusted as necessary.<br />
<br />
Inventory changes: this deprecates the value of carrying multiple weapons. Despite the increase in encumbrance of a single weapon, this should actually free up some space for people. The changes do not severely affect the contents of anyone's inventory. <br />
<br />
Realism/Game fiction/Genre: Carrying an absurd amount of weapons is simply silly. The only reason people do is because the game mechanics encourage it. This change provides an incentive for players to behave much more akin to typical characters in zombie films: carrying a couple favored weapons, and enough ammo to keep them supplied.<br />
<br />
Too long/complicated: This idea consists of minor changes to game variables (encumbrance, damage, search), and adds a straightforward feature which should work consistently with the existing interface and game data structures. It requires tracking one more piece of data per character: which weapon is equipped, and removes one piece of data normally transmitted on each attack: the weapon used. This should not be a prohibitive amount of development work. Balance changes are necessary to coincide with changes to AP costs for using weapons to minimize the secondary impact on gameplay.<br />
<br />
Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit.<br />
<br />
'''Areas for input:'''<br />
<br />
How are the numbers? Are they reasonable to maintain balance while accomplishing the goal of this suggestion?<br />
<br />
====Discussion (No More Walking Armories)====<br />
#Pistols are usually no bigger than two clips. Having 10% pistols and 1% clips is completely unjustified.<br />
#Shotguns are nowhere near the size or unwieldiness of generators (18% vs 20%).<br />
Not just that, but raising the encumbrance of weapons doesn't really contribute to reducing the number of weapons and increasing the amount of ammunition carried. Changing the search percentages wouldn't affect much either. Just plain introducing the equipped-weapon gameplay would do it. It's simple; reloading costs 1 or 2 AP, changing a weapon would cost 2. Ammunition is lighter than weapons. For pistols this means you're paying 1 AP less per 6 bullets, and carrying double the amount of damage if you use clips over loaded pistols. For shotguns it means you're paying just as much, but still carrying one half more ammo by carrying shells instead of shotguns. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 23:28, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I don't believe the game's encumbrance values are based on real-world sizes or weights, but rather are a general reflection of carrying ability for the sake of game balance. They're arbitrary. No one can carry 5 portable generators at once, and being limited to carrying only 50 shotgun shells, when they're typically sold in small boxes of 24 to 48, reveals this. A Ruger Security Six revolver as listed on the [[firearms]] page weighs about 1 kilo; carrying 25 of them at 4% enc per, would mean 55 pounds of firearms. The point isn't to be completely accurate with size or weight, but present a tradeoff in carrying many vs. few. With 1 pistol (12%) and 8 clips (1%), for a total of 20% the user still comes ahead of carrying 8 current pistols (32%). While a shotgun does not weigh as much as a portable generator, carrying 16 of them (at 6%) is just as unreasonable. <br>The search values I adjust because finding new firearms becomes less important. This isn't critical to the suggestion however, especially if the part where I recommend that users be able to discard guns they find but keep the ammo in them. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 23:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The exact nature of encumbrance is pretty much irrelevant, as, like I said, changing the encumbrance values doesn't really contribute towards the goal of this suggestion. It just adds one more thing for people to find objectionable. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 09:59, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::If currently people are carrying 16 weapons, and suddenly they can be just as effective with 3, they now have much more space for first aid kits, ammo, syringes, generators, etc. It's also about balance. While there is extra space, increasing weapon encumbrance means it isn't so survivor-favored in that aspect. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 10:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::That reasoning would make more sense if you weren't halving the weight of ammunition. You still have to keep the values somewhat sensible when compared to others. 10% pistols and 18% shotguns are just too inconsistent. Something like 6/8% pistols and 12% shotguns would be better. Or you could bump up the encumbrance of '''everything else''' (which ''would'' make more sense, but would simply get spammed). --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:24, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Is it necessary for game-balance that survivors be limited to carrying a certain quantity of ammunition? To my mind, the limiting factor is search rates, more than carrying capacity. I halved the encumbrance of ammo to balance increasing the values for firearms, along with the fact that the new system encourages keeping plenty of loose ammo, rather than just that which fits in numerous weapons. As for game-realism, shotguns are large and unwieldy, it's implausible to carry more than two. Encumbrance can represent both weight and bulk. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this idea, both because it makes sense and it's better as flavour, but I don't think it will last two seconds in a vote..not that that's any reason not to suggest it, but all the trenchies will go "OMG ONLY 1 WEAPON + MORE RELOADS NOW I CAN ONLY KILL FOUR ZOMBIES A DAY KILL KILL KILL" <br>But I like it.. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 01:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thanks! :) Actually, I really am trying to keep the balance the about the same so that for purposes of killing speed, it's roughly neutral. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:07, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
All these fucking words to just hide the fact you want to bump up the shotgun's damage. Go to hell. Go back and play Resident Evil some more if you get hard-ons from selecting and equipping weapons. You miss the point that this is a damn text game that only gives you 50 AP a day. You can't unload weapons when you find them and you are just as likely to find a pistol with 3 bullets in it as a full clip, but thanks to this GENIUS suggestion even if you aren't a trenchy you will still get your AP raped by swapping weapons. I like to think that survivors are smart enough not to carry their weapons in a back pack but to have them hidden on their body for easy access. I fucking hate gun suggestions. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 02:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Hi DCC. As I pointed out, in front-loaded damage the shotgun sees an increase, but over time it has reduced damage/AP compared to currently. If you compare the current system with someone carrying 10 loaded shotguns and enough ammo to reload & fire again for their 50AP, the new system represents an 11% decrease in average damage done. As I clearly stated, this isn't about altering game balance or enhancing/damaging the effectiveness of any weapon. As for searching, I provided a suggestion that ammo found in other weapons could be unloaded if the user already has a weapon. Also, I don't think being abusive is very consistent with rational discussion of people's ideas. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:39, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::The game is not played in long term, at least for survivors it shouldn't be. They're more than mobile enough that they can pop in, do tons of damage, run out, and come back a few days later fully stocked and do the same thing. It's low risk and exactly why boosting short term gains for survivors anymore would be ridiculously overpowered.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::This doesn't create a boost for survivors. Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png the graph] I created. The intent is to create a change in behavior, without significantly affecting balance; which is why I'm happy to discuss the numbers used. The pistol remains almost exactly the same; the shotgun does very slightly more damage in the first two turns, quickly falls behind the damage put out by multiple preloaded existing shotguns. This is shifting the pre-combat AP investment to carry around all those loaded weapons, into combat itself, making it viable to have one weapon of each kind and reload during combat. This is more consistent with the game world and genre: frantically loading your weapon as the undead shamble towards you, than carrying 16 loaded weapons effortlessly. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::I wasn't critiquing your suggestion. Now I am. To keep it simple I'm just gonna say this, you can't half ammo encumbrance it would have to much of an effect on the time survivors have that they can spend ''without'' restocking. That amount of time is a significant limiter on their ability to use/abuse their AP efficiency. You're basically doubling their Ammo carrying capacity and attempting to claim it's balanced by slightly reducing their attack efficiency(which is still being left close to 8 damage per AP). Yes, it makes individuals very very slightly less effective, it will also make groups of survivors insanely more effective and it will let those individuals spend ''more'' time without a break. That ''is'' a significant boost. Now I don't actually have too much of a problem with it assuming Kevan ''finally'' allows some specific zombie boost in response, and by that I mean finally letting them do a significant amount of damage per AP and letting them get through barricades with something closer to twice as much AP as they take to build instead of 4-5x. I don't think that will happen though.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:17, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Thanks Karek, this is an interesting point. Assuming a player wants to maximize their combat potential, and disregarding all other concerns (assume they're backed up by other players who will heal/rebuild etc.), a player might carry 16 shotguns (@6%) & 2 shells (@2%). That's an average of ((32+2)*10*0.65)=221 damage in 36AP, then they're empty. 6.14damage/AP. That's not including the significant AP investment to find and load all those guns. Under the proposed system, player has 1 shotgun @18%, and 82 shells @1%. They get 2AP of attacks, then thereafter it's 1attack/2AP (load & shoot). Over 166AP, they do an average of ((2+82)*12*0.65)=655.2 damage, or 3.94 damage/AP. They would have invested more AP in advance to gather all those shells.<br><br />
:::::I understand what you're saying. The existing system allows a quick burst of high damage, then the survivor has to go replenish. The new system would allow large restocking in a "safe" are, then being able to do damage for an additional 4.6x AP; however, both the average damage is reduced, as well as being spread out over more AP. <br><br />
:::::Say we go with 1 shotgun @18%, but 41 shells @2%. ((2+41)*12*0.65)=335.4 in 84AP, or 3.99damage/AP. Roughly the same damage output, just half the cycle time between attacking & replenishing; as well as less AP invested up front. So the question is: is the length of the attack/scavenge cycle significant to game balance? Do zombies depend on survivors running out, even if they're doing 2/3rd the average damage per AP? --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::::That's not necessarily true either, with three, or even four, survivors striking together they can completely ignore the reduced efficiency. They would actually clear things faster and more efficiently then than they could now doing the same thing. Like I mentioned above, the average damage in the long term with shotguns is irrelevant because most of that cost occurs well outside of danger while most of the reward occurs when you want/need it to, all that would happen is who's holding the shotguns would change, that's actually what I like about an equipment based system. Lose everything else, keep that, the rest is irrelevant, likely impossible to balance, and seems generally based on the assumption that all Survivors are idiots; they aren't, they just don't have any real reason to work together. There's a good core idea here but the implementation needs work.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think i like the start of this. Right now i can't focus to tell if all the numbers are good with me over a long base of time. but, first impression is i like this... i just don't know exactly how this would affect things until i'm actually using it. Also, i disagree with DCC... chill out, man. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This sounds great but really this is more of an AP kill. Consider that the majority of us survivors depend on being a walking arsenal, making us pay 2AP to get a loaded pistol out can highly unbalance the basics for siege survival. I say you drop it down to 1AP or just drop it entirely and make this a weapon pump. This has potential and I love the stats given, but you just gotta fine tone it. Try getting together a study group, devise a neat little generator amongst yourselves, provide a report in place of the hypothesis that we do have now and then try getting this into voting. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:There AP cost is there to provide the incentive to reload the weapon you're using, rather than switch out to one loaded weapon after another. For the pistol, it makes it more advantageous, for the shotgun, it makes it equal with carrying other shotguns, but the drop in encumbrance acts as a bonus. The increase in damage for both pistol and shotgun help balance against the increased AP costs so damage/AP is roughly the same. With pistols, you currently do 6 attacks in 6 turns, then switch. With the new system, you'll do 6 attacks in 6 turns, 1 turn to reload, then go again. So you need 1 pistol, and just clips. 6 damage/attack instead of 5 makes them close in damage output. Likewise with the shotgun, with the current system you fire 1 shot per AP for as long as you have shotguns. With my proposal, you still get two shots for two AP with your pre-loaded gun, then you get 1 shot every 2 AP: reload 1 shell, fire, etc. In the first few turns you'll have done more damage than the existing system, but after a few turns, it does a little less on average. Oh, and remember: '''with the existing system, you still need to spend the AP to load your weapons. You just do it before combat, not during.''' Like I said, this brings it more in genre: desperately reloading as the zombies advance on you, instead of carrying a dozen loaded shotguns on your back. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 05:32, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''Re: weapon balance: Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png this graph].''' This compares current with proposed weapon damage. I'm somewhat inclined to increase the shotgun to 13 or 14, but the relative advantage between the old and new shotgun depends on how many loaded shotguns the player would have under the old system. I assumed 8 for this graph. If it's less, the difference is much narrower; it's unlikely a player would have many more. Note that the player has a damage advantage with the old shotgun ''until they run out''; but they had to spend the same AP in advance to load those 8 shotguns. The new shotgun merely incorporates that loading AP into combat. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 06:16, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''GRRRRRRRRRRH!!!''' KISS me, please. i.e., Keep. It. Simple. Stupid. This may be a fantastic idea, but I can't be arsed atm to read that wall of text. Please learn how to be more concise. Seriously. Thank you. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:22, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What I did read... led me here... This is unnecessary. Because carrying lots of loaded firearms is actually a very poor use of AP and encumbrance. The most Ap-encumbrance efficient weapon in the game is the pistol, by far. And the best way to use pistols is to have 2-3 of them and tonnes of ammo. Shotguns are spiffy weapons, but their ap-encumbrance efficiency is atrocious: if wind up with a few, use 'em... but once its empty? Drop it, don't reload it, that's a giant waste of AP... So, if people wanna waste their AP and encumbrance on carrying and reloading lots of firearms -- the zombies say go right ahead and be horribly inefficient! <br />
:That being said... What ticks me is that I never find pistol ammo in Malls. It's always shotguns. Graaaaagh! Which means... I don't think we need a big game mechanic overhaul, so much as search rates should be tweaked... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::More thoughts... If people wanna carry lots of guns, more power to them. Because that helps the zombies... Because zombies can't be killed. And survivors should be focusing on barricading and reviving and healing first -- and when they are not... then the zombies win! By default. <br />
::Also, "walking armouries" are ''totally'' in genre. You always have the Armah Manz with billions of b!g bang-bangz... Always. And usually, these are the idiots who end up getting killed... And the consumer type who focuses on helping others and getting the job done most effectively lives and helps more people... As in the genre, as in UD... Now, I kind of would like to see trenchcoating get a bit of a nerf... however, i am always very cautious about "legislating playing styles"... And that is what this suggestion does. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:37, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: I'm sorry you found the idea too long. However, I wanted to be specific in the reason for each change, and the expected effect. In order to make the change relatively balance-neutral while encouraging a behavioral change, adjusting numbers in several places is necessary. You said that carrying shotguns and reloading would be inefficient: that's part of what the change is attempting to address. People carry multiple weapons because they can front-load their AP to increase damage in a short time. This idea diminishes that effect while allowing them to output roughly the same damage/AP invested. <br />
::: I disagree that "walking armories" are in-genre. The "Army Mans" carry an assault rifle, a couple grenades, and maybe a sidearm. The only reason players will carry 16 loaded weapons around is because ''the current game mechanics encourage this behavior''; it's not something you'd typically see in a film. They can stock up on weapons and ammo in advance, then unleash that stored AP in the form of damage. What is more consistent with the genre and a plausible game-world, is carrying a couple reliable weapons, and reloading them as needed. This change isn't legislating playing styles: combat-oriented players will still be able to arm up and go to war. They'll just do it with a couple weapons and plenty of ammo, rather than 200 pounds of firearms on their back. Their combat effectiveness versus the zombies will be largely unchanged. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:55, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Instead of trying to play with the big boys in the flame department, I suggest picking up some reading comprehension skills. I addressed your "refutations" in my original post. First of all, the game does not actually encourage carrying 16 loaded weapons; in so far as you are able to do so, you're most assuredly ''not'' contributing to the pro-survivor cause. That you fail to understand ''why'' isn't my problem: do your homework. Secondly, dudes armed to the teeth shooting the shit out every zombie they see (and usually dying grisly deaths themselves because of their stupidity) are very common in both the movies and, yeah, even the video games. Pay attention next time, okay? And go re-read karek and DCC's comments and try to understand the words of your intellectual superiors. THEN get back to us. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:12, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm afraid that you really haven't supported your objections, despite claiming you have. Whether choosing combat-oriented activities in-game helps or hinders the survivor cause is ''irrelevant'': you mentioned that we shouldn't be dictating player style. This suggestion as I've stated is largely balance-neutral. What is does, is discourages exactly what I describe: the "walking armory" effect, and encourages carrying only needed weapons with sufficient ammunition. This doesn't prevent or penalize anyone from walking in with guns blaring, it just means they don't look like [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|this guy]] while doing it. More like [http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1003/988120768_87c5ce1538.jpg this]. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::''Balance neutral'' ? What's this shit? How can something be "neutral" -balance or otherwise- when it tries to change the way people play? '''Don't tell people how to play their characters.''' It's just that simple. Who cares if someone fills all of their inventory with weapons or with GPS units? So what if some trenchies want to carry 100 shotguns? I can tell you haven't been playing this game long. More likely you don't even play a zombie. Which makes your bitching about weapons even weirder. Your suggestion doesn't solve a problem. Your suggestion does not make gameplay more interesting. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::: Could you be specific about how you feel it's unbalanced? And the suggestion is not telling people how to play. The intention of [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Gameplay_and_Flavor|that guideline]] for suggestions I believe is that we shouldn't discourage RP or encourage non-RP. People can play their characters how they choose, and fill their inventory with what they want. However, the current game mechanics ''actively encourages players to be walking arsenals'' if they want to maximize their combat effectiveness. The problem the suggestion solves is that carrying a huge stack of weapons is anti-RP, contrary to the genre and game-fiction. As I've said, it's [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|silly]]. Carrying a shotgun, revolver, and melee weapon seems much more plausible, and something you'd see in a zombie movie, don't you think? This lets someone who does that, be viable in combat. Additionally, I have attempted to balance this so it's neutral towards zombies, not shifting the advantage. Again, I invite you to show me how it is not. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 00:35, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::: You say you don't want to legislate how people play the game one moment, then the next you say that's ''exactly'' what you want to do! Make up your mind. Now... Zombies don't care if they get shot. If you actually ''played'' a zombie full-time, you'd understand this. Shot me all you bloody well want, I'll dirt nap and stand up again with, at worst, 44 AP and be ready to go. Therefore, shooting zombies is ''completely'' pointless except when you need to clear a building. To that end, you carry some guns. But ''smart'' survivors don't carry lots of guns: they carry maybe 2-4 pistol and 2-4 shotguns, tops. Why? Well... because the most powerful pro-survivor thing in the whole game is the revive-needle. Next come barricading and FAKing. Smart survivors know this, thus they carry several needles (sometimes a hell of a lot), a toolbox and a big whack o' FAKs. ''These'' are the survivors who benefit the "pro-survivor" cause. By contrast, anyone who just carries a whole bunch of guns is ''not'' really benefiting the survivor cause all that much, they are just parasiting off others' barricades, revives and FAKs. Nor are they ''really'' hurting zombies, because zombies don't care if they die. Capiche? You say I haven't backed up my arguments, but I ''have''. I actually made an argument -- it's just that you either don't understand, or you're wilfully ignoring the argument. Meanwhile, you've just provided statistics and a flawed idea, which you haven't put in any kind of rational or argumentative or bona-fide in-game context... Meanwhile, I don't care if someone wants to carry 16 shotguns -- as a survivor ''or'' a zombie. As a survivor, I think that guy is a parasitic waste of space and I will make fun of him and belittle him for being a trenchcoating wanker -- but he's not really ''hurting'' me. And, as your picture of Ash demonstrates, all said and done, he is actually RPing ''in-genre''. And as a zombie I outright ''laugh'' at his stupidity and I smash his barricades and eat bra!nz with a hearty GRAAAAGH!!... However, I do not wish to legislate how he plays the game in such a heavy-handed way... Which is ''exactly'' what your suggestion intends to do -- by your own fucking admission! This is not a good idea, and by clinging to it and not accepting ''constructive'' and ''reasonable'' criticism, you're proving yourself to be fucking git, a disruptive and non-contributive member of the community. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:12, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hmm. When I said that, you criticized me for having a superficial understanding of the game. The shoe's on the other foot now, eh? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:19, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hi WanYao. How many shotguns is Ash carrying? One. How many firearms will a typical person in a zombie film carry? One, or one rifle/shotgun and one sidearm. In UrbanDead as it stands, how many firearms will a person carry if they want to ''maximize their combat potential''? '''16'''. The game mechanics are already telling them "how to play", it's saying that if you want to devote yourself to dealing damage, you carry a silly and fiction-breaking number of weapons.<br />
:::::::::I'm afraid your comments about what is actually optimal strategy are irrelevant and a red herring. This suggestion makes no change in what players ''should'' do in order to be maximally effective. It simply alters the game mechanics so that the optimal number of weapons to carry is one of each, and not 16. This is what is more in keeping with the genre, more plausible in the game fiction. There's no advocated or encouraged change in "player behavior": a combat-oriented player will choose ammo over other objects, while others will stock sufficient ammo and keep their FAKs and toolkits etc. You've already said that with the status-quo, even ''good'' players will have 4-8 weapons. Again, this is silliness that is a result solely of the game mechanics, not because they believe their fictional roleplaying character would actually be that kind of badass. The game dictates how many weapons they should carry. I'm for reducing that number, without significantly affecting game balance itself.<br />
:::::::::Now if you want to make the case that 1% encumbrance ammo too greatly reduces the tradeoff between being combat-oriented or rebuild/heal oriented, I'm happy to hear it. Karek's provided his support for a similar argument above. And as usual, your personal attacks are completely off-base. I've been giving all reasoned criticism due weight. I get that some people ''don't like'' the idea, based on personal biases, but so far, I've only seen one specific argument for what might be wrong. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:44, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::This wall of text is getting pathetic... Anyhoo, there is another principle that no one has mentioned yet, but it bears emphasis: greater realism =/= better. Anyway, I'm done with this, it's arguing in circles now. Good luck. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:45, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::That's just your luck. I find TONS of clips and pistols with 4+ shots. Last time I loaded up, such stuff was easily 75% of what I found in the gun store. In fact, I would have stopped searching, but it took me a long time to find a shotgun shell to top up the half-loaded shotgun I had. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 16:40, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I fucking hate you. This comment in particular - ''"Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit."''<br />
<br />
Put it up for voting, right fucking now. Watch me dupe it on basis of weapons damage buff, selected weaponry and ammunition encumbrance buff. Just because your 'suggestion' contains many shit suggestions does not mean I cannot find those many mindless trenchie buffs and rightfully kill it, it means you are fucking deluded for thinking I can't and typing such a moronic suggestion.<br />
<br />
Shit, I wish karma was real, then some really bad things would happen to you, I'd find out about them and chortle my arse off. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:45, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Get arsed, yourself, Iscariot. Assuming trolls have arses, that is. Do they? Or does ''all'' your shit come out of your mouth?<br />
:Meanwhile, karek, swiers and DCC have pretty much show this suggestion for the BAD IDEA it is... So let's move on, kay, class? Next lesson please... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:44, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissocial_personality_disorder Please seek help.] --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Alrighty then... See, there is a time and place for being an asshole. I felt the situation was not appropriate, thus my comments to Iscariot. I take them all back now: go nuts, Izzy. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:56, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::What makes you believe it's ever acceptable or appropriate to behave abusively towards people? This sort of behavior certainly isn't conducive to rational discussion and addressing the merits or problems in a suggestion. It simply brings the quality of the wiki down, and reflects poorly on the community. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:02, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Other than Iscariot, no one is trolling you. And, in context -- while I don't really think his comments are particularly helpful -- you've brought it on yourself. In any event, if you want a love-in, where everyone is nice to each other and they let you cry on their should if someone was mean to you, please go [http://www.oprah.com/index here]. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm not trolling at all, trolling implies I'm after a certain response from him. I don't. It would be nice if he'd listened to all the nice people explaining it to him, but he didn't. The comment about duping is pure arrogance on his part, and I don't take kindly to it. The dupe system stops moronic suggestions entering PR because everyone reasonable gets bored of killing it. |I notice he hasn't taken me up on my challenge to see if I could dupe it....<br />
<br />
:::::Also Zhani, feel free to go and whine on any sysop talk page you like. The one you're after is Vandal Banning. Good luck with that, there is no civility policy on this wiki and until we remove to moronic-trenchie-weapons-buff gene from the general population, there never will be. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
...Well isn't that one long suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:...Well isn't that one long discussion. -- [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::... Speaking of things long... ''::looks down::'' Oh, is that a banana in my pocket, or am I just happy to see a zombie in my safehouse? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:07, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Thats a whole lot of SPAM you typed up there... what's wrong with just making weapons assignable? Allow everyone to carry a weapon in each hand and have it cost 1AP per hand to change (shotguns requiring a free hand or having a -60% to hit!) reload or re-arm then cost the same and it becomes a matter of choice which style you prefer. Of course that makes maxed out survivors a lot <br />
less like the combat monsters they currently are but thats probably not a real problem! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 12:38, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Personally, I dislike this, but that's partly because i only carry two pistols and one shotty, thus giving room for more reasonable things. Like fencing foils, Wine, and poetry books. --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 06:41, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Body Bonfires===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:48, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Perma-death option.<br />
|suggest_scope=Characters in citys with perma-death alternatives.<br />
|suggest_description=I've got a zombie character currently running around Monroeville looking for the precious few survivors there are in order to eat them.<br />
<br />
One of Monroeville's biggest problems, I think, is that there was no way for low-level survivors from killing zombies permanently. Zombies could take out survivors, no problem, but unless you had Headshot, you couldn't take down a zombie.<br />
<br />
I know that's in-genre, given that they're the freaking undead and all, but it sucks game-wise.<br />
<br />
Thus, I came up with 'Body Bonfires', after watching the movie ''Night of the Living Dead''.<br />
<br />
Should this get implemented, survivors can now douse corpses in gasoline (from fuel cans) and set them alight with matches (find stats TBC), lighters (find stats TBC) or even a flare gun, if desperate. A burning corpse will degrade into a 'charred skeleton', after which time the character would be effectively 'perma-dead'.<br />
<br />
Note that this is meant to ''replace'' Headshot as the survivor perma-death, not co-incide with it.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Body Bonfires)====<br />
No. Why? Monroeville is quarantined and dead. Adding more items that make things even more difficult to find and implement will not suddenly change the dynamics of the city, nor will it make monroeville more fair. the point, i daresay, of that city is to more realistically show a zombie infestation, and the only way to do that is by making the limited amount of zombies unlimited, with only a small amount of very good zombie killers who can do anything about it, which still amounts to not much. its fine, and the city is pointless, and just leave it. and don't add matches and lighters to do what flare guns already do. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:33, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I think you misread my suggestion. For one, this is NOT for Monroeville. Monroeville is dead (or will be soon), this is for any new cities that will also have perma-death mechanics, should one ever be introduced. For another, you can only burn a zombie once they're on the ground having been 'temp-killed' (HP to 0). --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 09:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I didn't misread crap. Nothing in your post makes reference to any mythical city that is currently not existant. You only mention monroeville, and imply that is what your suggestion is about. And after reading it again, i've decided this is a) a dupe; b) spamtastic, given the non-existant nature of your supposed city; and c) incomplete, given that you don't actually talk about where it is implemented, or if its a skill, or how its done in the user interface. just allow it to die, and then we'll burn the suggestions corpse out of our memories. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 20:44, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Completely pointless because such a hypothetical perma-death city does not exist. You can't get more spamtastic than suggesting a mechanic for something that doesn't even exist. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:56, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Reminds me of both [[Suggestion:20070816 Burning Bodies]] and another suggestion which I can't quite find at the moment. It is entirely possible that this may be substantially a dupe. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:50, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I found [[Suggestions/RejectedFebruary2007#Flare Gun / Fuel Attack|Flare Gun / Fuel Attack]] interesting reading, to say the least. How many [[User:MrAushvitz|MrAushvitz]] suggestions have been implemented, now? Surely the apocalypse is extremely nigh... {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:57, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Sorry, no, perma-death would not go over in this game. It's simply not fun for the players, and gives a person a reason to give up playing. Favors survivors overwhelmingly, and doesn't really improve the game. I hate to be one of those types shooting down ideas, but this doesn't work. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:36, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A) You only mentioned Monroeville, the dead city. B) MV has one purpose now, and one purpose only: ZKing. [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 02:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Make graffiti readable in dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Logic Flaw Fix<br />
|suggest_scope=Graffiti in dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Graffiti disappears when the lights go out in dark buildings. Since it is unreasonable to assume that absolutely no light can get in any parts of dark buildings, why wouldn’t the graffiti just be sprayed in the areas that the little light can get in? Such places would be the front of cinemas (where the snack bar is, as there are usually windows out front), near the windows of the banks, and near the windows of standard buildings.<br />
<br />
I have never seen any buildings like these completely lacking windows in all areas, and windows would have to exist for Free Running to be possible, so even if the skylights haven’t been maintained, there’s no reason people wouldn’t be spraying the signs near the window areas where it’d be visible, even if the rest of the building is dark.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Make graffiti readable in dark buildings)====<br />
<br />
It's dark. You can't see dead bodies. Combat abilities are nerfed for everyone. You can't repair a building in the dark. Barricading and reviving are also disadvangtaged. So there's no logic flaw here, not at all. It's bloody ''dark''!!--[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:The logic is fine as is - after years of the outbreak, the walls will be pocked, peeling and covered in grime and blood, not to mention layers of graffiti in different colours. You'd need fairly good light to make out the latest message.<br />
:I was thinking of suggesting an item, book of matches, the sole purpose of which would be to let the user (only) read graffiti in the dark. But I couldn't be arsed looking for dupes etc. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 10:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::But..but.. what about all those blank rectangles I sprayed onto the walls to keep them clean and in one colour! In all seriousness, no to this suggestion. As Garum says, those walls are a mess, no matter how many blank rectangles you spray. :P - [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:03, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::We don't need a silly, pointless item like matches to spam our searches. Meh. It's dark. Deal with it. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:26, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
WE DEMAND BRAILLE GRAFFITI! Fuck you, cripple haters. I need to be able to read ''I like to poop'' no matter how much light is in the building. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 00:31, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Now ''That'' I would vote keep on.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:21, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And human civilization has truly gone full circle, as survivors have come back to the art of making stone tables with toolboxes. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 14:11, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===picking some one up===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 19:44, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=helping others.<br />
|suggest_scope=humans.<br />
|suggest_description=Almost all of us can say that we have been killed while sleeping, or have been a zombie and killed all the humans becuase most of them were sleeping. So why not allow people to carry some one out of danger? Lets say that you and some of your buddys are fleeing a horde, and one of them is out of AP, so why not pick him/her up? It would cost one AP to pick the player up, and 2 AP to move around, and you would not be able to free run {you are carrying another person). You also cant attack since, it would be to diffuclt.<br />
<br />
You would rengenrate AP as you would normally would, and can be put down for one AP. If the person carrying you is killed, you fall down and be as vunerable as you would be normally. Now comes the PKer question. Being able to pick some one up and carry them of to some were else to kill them would become a PKers best tool. So I sujest there should be a check box in the settings, which you can check yes or no to being picked up. If you try to pick some one up how has checked the box no, this happens.<br />
<br />
''you try to pick the person up, but they push you away: Italic text'' <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Picking some one up)====<br />
Pied Piper skills are a great no no. Specifically because of the griefing possibilities. Even with the block you suggested, I don't think it would be acceptable. A better way of determining who can pick you up would be to check for mutual contacts, and not ignored. Not that I think this would pass even with that, because I'm pretty sure this is a dupe. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:54, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Pied Piper? Whats that?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:15, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A pied piper skill is one that involves one player moving another (like the pied piper of hamelin and rats/children) Within game the closest we have is [[Feeding Drag]] which has on it very specific limiting factors. This is too prone to abuse. New players especially may not know its a feature, and one griefer could pick up a huge number of people and carry them directly outside. Where they would get et. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Just as Ross said, [[Frequently_Suggested#Pied_Piper_Skills|here]] is a link to it on the frequently suggested page. I suggest reading that page, will give you an idea of suggestions to avoid. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 20:31, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nequa please read Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested pages. They are linked to above, at the top of this page. Zangz. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:28, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I see what you mean, but I still think that the check box would stop that. And if you are tricked, well thats just bad luck.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:49, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Only way this would be prevented is if everyone had it set to "Do not allow me to be dragged away", and only switched back when they knew a rescue was on the way. It is simply to abusable in it's current form. And try telling the poor newbies, who weren't aware of the checkbox, that it was just bad luck and that they have to live with it after being dragged away from their VSB safehouse into an area full of EHB cades. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 21:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nothings perfect, and anyway you could kill somebody quickly and no one could stop you.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:17, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:surely the default should be ''dont allow carrying''. Stop a lot of griefing there? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sure, you could have that checkbox turned off as a default. But then, how would people who have this skill know who they could pick up, and who they could not?<br>Moving other players is a bad idea to begin with, play wise, so picking at th details is turd polishing at best. If you want to "rescue" people from danger , give them fist aid, try to fix the barricades, and recruit others to help them survive until they log back in, but don't presume to play the game for them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:30, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait, what? You think this is a skill? A skill you need to get by having enough XP? No, no, no, you dont need to purchase it. Also your other point about knowing if the person has the thing checked or not is a good point. You should probally put it on your describtion if you have it on or not, like the hydra defence.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:47, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Right. Other issues. If I pick up a level 1 survivor, this seems to allow me to carry him inside, and then free run to another building whilst carrying him. Regardless of his skills. Besides Im pretty sure its also a partial dup of firemans carry. Anyone got the link. I just feel its unworkable. sorry. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
[[PR_Skill_New:_Survivor:_Civilian#Fireman.27s_Carry_.28Bring_12HP_Survivor_Indoors.29|Fireman's Carry]], which is in Reviewed. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 22:55, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
LOL, that guy pretty much says the same thing I do. It appears great minds think alike. Now do I seem like a idiot?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:05, 2 September 2008 (BST<br />
:More so, now that you've said that. quit being unwilling to learn. everyones been very nice. now go actually FREAKING READ THE DO AND DO NOTS!<br />
:No one is pointing out the worst part of this. What if i create fifteen drones, and use them to carry a full army of survivors into zombie territory. you don't put it plainly, but you seem to infer that you can only be carried while sleeping (or at least, i'm hoping, because otherwise those zergs could carry armies of full ap'd characters) but either way, its a free trip for my sleeping characters, who spent their AP stocking on ammo. my zergs carry them in, dump them off in a zerg-repaired building, and let them sleep. now i have an army, 2 for one. thats what makes this bad. adding a penalty of 2 for one doesn't fix that.<br />
:and the griefing is absolutly grieftastic. what if i rescue someone with low HP out of a mall into a quiet factory where i show him my gun?... i mean... pk him. errm... or how about if i spend a whole 50 ap 'rescuing' any of the barricaders in a seige with a death culter. the check box doesn't solve this, because the only time that someone would want to be rescued is the same time where its worth abusing the feature. it fails because it will never work. if you can't free run with it, (can you enter/exit buildings?) then its worthless for doing anything but costing the zombie horde half the amount of AP to keep up with you.<br />
:This was long... sorry. but this suggestion is silly silly silly. NOW READ THE FAQ's and DO AND DO NOTS! Please. and don't read them and then try to come up with a better way to do what it tells you not to do... just DON'T suggest those things. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:15, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also, wan yao... i think one of my alts was just combat revived by you. Ha. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:22, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Combat Reviving FTW!!! ;P .... Up Roftwoodish or something, right? I vaguely remember CRing some zambah somewhere for some old reason or another, heheh... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:40, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::As for the suggestion... Yeah... you seem like an idiot at this moment, Nequa. This is a broken and unworkable idea. People are trying to explain that to you. But you're not listening, and you can't even be bothered to read the help pages for Suggestion development -- which are clearly linked to -- and which people have been providing you with links to, above... Smarten the fuck up, please, and quit wasting our time. Seriously. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:44, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I distinctly remember telling you to stop suggesting... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:49, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Feeding Drag in Large Buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:necrodeus/sig}} 02:46, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=improvement<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with feeding drag in large buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Hello team.<br />
<br />
The feeding drag skill allows zombies to drag survivors of less than 12HP outside through an ''open door'' at the cost of 1AP. Therefore, if a zombie enters a large building through an open door, then makes its way through the building unimpeded (ie, through more open doors or just empty space), beats a survivor down to 12HP or below, there should exist the option to feeding drag said survivor through the building.<br />
<br />
It makes sense, as you are inside a building and simply dragging the unfortunate survivor somewhere else in the building, presumably towards the horde that generally congregates in the opened block.<br />
<br />
Now I know that this is the same as suggesting that I could feeding drag a wounded survivor through open streets, but I do think that as it is limited to the insides of large buildings it is hardly useful as a griefing tool, neither would it be game breaking, and it fits in with the idea behind the feeding drag as well - if a zombie feels the need to drag someone outside, why should the fact that it's slightly longer distance than normal dissuade him?<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Feeding Drag in Large Buildings)====<br />
Kind of like a zombie equivalent for the fort body dump? I like it. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 04:02, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Seems out of genre, normally a zombie will feed for itself with absolutely NO consideration for a horde. Though this skill is a good idea, it would be a bit pointless because if you have a survivor at 12 HP and most of the time the only large building you are in would be a mall, it would mean you drag someone near dead to a horde, either way, the survivor was already HIGHLY LIKELY to die unless terribly low on AP this skill is just useless. I say just stick with infectious bite. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:No. Feeding Drag and zambahz helping babahz is ''totally'' part of the genre -- as in, it's ''in the game'' ... So it's part of the genre. Zombies in Urban Dead have intelligence, more like in Return of the Living Dead than in Romero's movies. Regarding the suggestion, I think this is a great idea! But it should cost at least 2 AP to so, perhaps more. You usually don't have to drag as far, or through as complicated a series of buildings as in a fort, so I'm not sure if the same AP costs is in order... but perhaps... Still, in siege situations where this matters, we tend to just tend to kill rather than worry about dragging... However, even then, this ability would be FAR from "useless". --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:08, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ok.. I'm out of it.. I understood this as the equivalent of dragging a body outside the Forts. Which would mean you click the ability and you drag your target outside -- and you go with him, just like you would a normal feeding drag. No "half drags" to another corner of the mall -- it's all or nothing, all the way outside, or not at all. And that would cost 2 AP. And of course you'd still have to spend AP getting back inside and to the action, if that's your desire. There are some tricks to overcome with this... but it's a cool idea, nonetheless. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:37, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Yeah, I like it as well. Some people might call it greifing though [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 04:21, 31 August 2008 (BST).<br />
<br />
I was 50/50 between making it just like a body dump costing 2AP and making it like it is now, but certainly a feeding drag all the way outside for 2AP - like the survivor body dump - is just as keeping in genre and could be considered less of a potential griefing tool.<br />
<br />
What if it just acted the same as feeding drag, so I end up outside. It costs 2AP, and then if I want to get back inside it just costs me the same as normal movement rates - so at least 1AP to just re-enter the building, and 2 AP to get back to where I was originally? It's hardly a griefing tool, you're only ever going to end up outside the building you were in, and at most 1 block away from where you were {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 12:38, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:That's exactly what I just said, man... The only issue could be as follows: you're in mall, all corners are heavily barricaded except one, which is wide open... you're in another (non-open) corner killing some folk, and you want to use this ability. Now, do you drag the victim to the outside of your ''current'' corner, or do you end up moving to the open corner? What if there is more than one open corner? Or, if you drag to the outside of your current corner, then how do you justify bypassing barricades -- because even just a closed door negates feeding drag... See the problems? This is a very spiffy idea IMO, but these things need to be worked out... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:00, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::I was agreeing with you! I was thinking that the feeding drag took them out of the open corner, rather than through the barricades. As for what would happen if more than one door was open, I would say go to the nearest one, except that in a four block square, every sqaure is as near as any of the others...I couldn't see it making too much of a difference which one you drag someone out of, so I would make it random; the zombie just heads towards the light, any light. That way, as long as there is a door open when the button is pressed, the feeding drag will be successful, rather than allowing the user a choice. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 17:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Probably won't matter a lot now since this suggestion would likely get implemented (if ever) after Monroeville closes, but in that city there are non-standard large building shapes, like [[Monroeville Mall]]. You can like drag someone across four blocks. :O Also, how would a zombie know which building block is open from where he/she stands? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:22, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Malls, Mansions, Power Stations ... are large buildings which means they are functionally ''one building''. With fours sets of barricades. And four ''zmargahzbargz, GRAAAAGH!'' The zombies knew how to get inside and move around when there was only one entry point, so why couldn't they know how to get back out? And, I mean, like he could just look around... Also, yeah, no-one cares about MV, it's over... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:48, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Well, ''you'' as the player know there's an entrance to the building, at least recently. In contrast, your zombie can only check within the block he's in -- even adjacent ruined blocks [[Pinata|aren't guaranteed]] that there are no cades there. Unless the zombie is actually looking at every block in the building (something which implies free moves), then without metagaming he/she won't really know there is an exit should dragging be done. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::But like Wan said, you're basically inside one large building. If you try and feeding drag inside a regular building, and the doors been closed, or whatever, you get a message and lose an AP, like for any failed attack. It's the same here. And the whole point of feeding drag is that zombies *do* know where the exit is --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. Its not needed. Once zombies get into a large building, they almost always take it down by keeping one corner ruined, or at least unbarricaded. The babah zombies can just come inside to feed, entering by spotting the ruined corner and then gorging themselves. Besides not being needed, its got a lot of potential complications. What if a large building has multiple open sections? Which one does the zombie drag them to? If zombies really wanted to use feeding drag in every section, they could just spend a few AP each to tear down the barricades, even getting a bonus for attacking from the inside in most cases.<br>I think its safe to say, if a zombie tries to drag a survivor across one or more blocks inside a large building, the survivor struggles and breaks free. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:36, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I'm afraid I disagree; you seem to have a fairly convincing argument against feeding drag itself; namely that if your baby zombah is standing outside any old building, he can see it's open and shamble on in. So why do we need feeding drag at all? I've already answered the point about which exit to be used as well. And yes, I could spend a whole load of AP tearing down the barricades to feeding drag a wounded survivor outside, or I could just spend 2AP and drag the human outside the exit that's already open. <br>And surely the point of feeding drag is that the survivor is wounded enough to not be able to stop it happening? And why should a human be able to drag a zombie across several squares of fort without it reviving? In both cases, if the player is online, they are better able to defend against this, with the difference being that all a survivor needs to do to 'break free' is simply walk back inside the building. <br> If I'm way off here, let me know, but it makes sense to me --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Not of base, but my point is, if zombies on a whole really cared about feeding drag, each of the ~20 or so in a large building could kick in 4 AP and blow away any barricades on that building quarter. That's really only enough AP to kill 2-3 survivors- not enough to slow down a siege once zombies are comping on a SECOND building corner. So it seems to me that zombies themselves do not put much importance on whether they can use feeding drag or not, as evidenced by their own actions in raids. Its not needed to make zombies vs large buidings work, nor would it really make it much better.<br>Truth told, feeding drag was originally used mostly to combat the "yo-yo barricade" syndrome by getting a building emptied (and ransacked) faster; now that zombies can block barricade building, its a bit of an atavism. Its main use is as a "visible" version of feeding groan. For a mall, if you want to let zombies know there is an active strike with some visible cue, just killing the generator is often good enough. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:16, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Fait enough for a horde sweeping through a building, but in my experience, I use eeding Drag for two reasons: Firstly, when I break into a building with one or two others, I know there is a chance that it will escalate into a horde swarming in, but more often that not, it won't. But by dragging a human outside, that's one less defender, and a drain on resources, because that person is outside regardless of whether I get headshot and evicted or not. Secondly, the FU tends to use it as a in game piece of flavour as much as a way of feeding the zedlings. So for a horde, I agree, Feeding Drag is unneccessary, and if you've got the resources to tear down the barricades with ease, then I'm all for that too, but for feral zombies, or smaller groups it's a slightly different ball game --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 00:39, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::When playing a feral (and my death cultist, too, actually) I use and think of Feeding Drag the same way necrodeus describes. It helps small numbers of zombies get the ransack faster. Also, if the cades go up, that drag-meat is suddenly isolated. And drag-meat is fantastic feral bait. And, yup, I do it very much for flavour/RP effect as well. Although, it doesn't work thar well for feeding babahz, b/c usually some big zambah comes along and eats them :( ... This is all in very big contrast to striking with the MOB, where we only drag if we are very intent on getting that damn biulding cleared -- because we can always tag-team to finish someone off if we have to. And if we are feeding a babah, we bring the babah inside with us. This suggestion is more for the ferals than for highly organised hordes... <br />
::::And a few other things: killing a gennie is not enough: GKing is too common... And swiers you know how annoying barricades are -- it really is asking a lot for a smaller number of ferals zombies to invest what it takes to open up EHB cades... But all that being said... Perhaps this isn't necessary, not really. And, it might in the end be a zombie buff that is just a tiny, tiny bit too much... Particularly with cade blocking... But... I still like it... ;) --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:36, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Well, I'm going to put it up, and see what the people / merciless flamers have to say.. {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:45, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I'm not gonna flame it; it can;t do enough harm to deserve that. My personal issue is that I'd like (as much as possible) to avoid moving other characters to different blocks (I even proposed [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20070616_Fort_Revision:_dumping_bodies_over_walls|a fort dumping mechanic that avoided this]]), and that its benefit is so small for the coding effort involved. Mall raids are already a smorgashboard for ferals, so I don't see the point of arguing it helps feed them there. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:37, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Private homes===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:18, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=new building.<br />
|suggest_scope=anybody how enters it.<br />
|suggest_description=Why does it appear that there are no private homes in Malton? I know its a city and your more likely to find a privat home in the subburbs, but I do know there are private homes in the city. We dont really need private homes but it would add realism to the game. There could also be another benafit. Since anybody could have lived in that house, from a NRA gun nut, to some tech loving nerd, you could find anything in thear. But there should be list of items you could not find in the house.<br />
<br />
List of items you could NOT find in a house:<br />
<br />
Necrotech syringe<br />
<br />
DNA scanner<br />
<br />
Flak vest (there could be one there, but it seems hard to belive)<br />
<br />
fire ax<br />
---------------<br />
Also here is the describtion you would see if you went in the building.<br />
<br />
-With power: You enter a well lit home, you start to feel like you were before the out break.<br />
<br />
-With no power: You enter a dark house.<br />
<br />
-when ruined: You enter a house and notice how everything is thrown apart, which grimly reminds you of what has happend here. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Private home)====<br />
If I may ask, how long have you been playing the game? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:36, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
To answer your question, about a week, I have been running around rhodenbank. Let me guess? There are private homes and I have just not found them yet?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:39, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There are [[Mansion|mansions]], and various [[Building_Types#Building|buildings]] around the city can be thought of as offices/condominiums, where you can imaging living places in.<br><br />
There are other reasons why private homes aren't found on the map.<br />
*One is that they're too small, same reason why you don't put a single tree on the map (and for those that are large enough, see mansions).<br />
*Another is that with most survivors just looting around the city and zombie hordes chasing after them, most houses are in such a state of ruin that they are essentially unrecognizable, turning residential districts into [[wasteland]].<br />
*Finally, they are quite insignificant in the grand scale of the survivor-zombie conflict that adding them now three years after the game has launched simply doesn't make the game any more enjoyable or fulfilling than it is before, and frankly it'll only be a waste of time and effort to put them in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:51, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then instead of adding homes how about updating the regular buildings to be more like apartments? Because most buildings have a RP (EX:pubs,police stations,forts) thing you can do with it, but the regular office buildings are boring. Maybe they could add my search idea without the need of a new building type?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:19, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Your search idea is horrible. Normal buildings already do not have items; what you're doing here is the opposite in that you can find ''anything'' in them, and just for that it will be spammed. As for your roleplaying bit, that will take a much lower priority than improving UD gameplay, especially when you consider there is a suitable alternative (once again, mansions, and normal buildings aren't too shabby -- just add some decorations) and multiple other possible roleplaying locations. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:30, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There's no private homes because the private homes are usually at the outskirts of a city, and what we have in Malton...Is the big city. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 19:16, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I usually just think of the street blocks as containing such houses. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:52, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Private homes are not really appropriate to the game. They can be assumed to exist on many blocks... because it's generally accepted that the block description refers to the most prominent or most utilised building on the block... <br />
<br />
But... yeah... Nequa... please play the game for a while before posting suggestion ideas. Hang out and read this page for a while. And start playing some zombies, PKers, death cultists, whatever, as well a survivors. And join a good group or three. Barhah.com is a great board, and though it's zombie-centric, everyone is welcome. Beerhah.com is a good place to go for survivor stuff. Anyhoooo... back to suggestions stuff... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:47, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Dump dead bodies from dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Restoring normal ability<br />
|suggest_scope=Dead bodies and dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Under current game mechanics, you can’t dump dead bodies from dark buildings. How does this make any sense? You can get in and out of the building, even through Free Running, yet somehow you can no longer remove dead bodies? Or do the exits magically close somehow when you try to remove someone?<br />
<br />
Currently, you can see anyone hiding in the shadows of very dark buildings, but you can’t see/dump dead bodies. Even if you just killed the thing, you somehow can’t find its body, even though you’d be tripping all over it!? Once again, it doesn’t make sense. Only once you light up the place does it become possible to dump the dead. Since I see no reason for it to be physically impossible to find or dump dead bodies, they should always be recognizable and dumpable.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Dump dead bodies from dark buildings)====<br />
A possible explanation is that people in dark buildings are found and attacked because they're breathing so loudly and their hearts are thumping. Similarly, standing zombies are wheezing. However, dead bodies emit no noise, and if you're tromping through a building hoping to step through a ribcage, you should be spending AP to do so. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}21:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Or because they are fumbling with heavy furniture in the dark to barricade the building, or shooting guns, or... {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:48, 29 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::Well, how about another take on it. Anyone who dies in the building...if their body is still inside when someone who witnessed the death takes a turn, they notice the body (since it wasn't cleared). The body wouldn't have moved from its original spot that fast.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:06, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Group Bonus===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:22, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance change<br />
|suggest_scope=All denizens of Malton who belong to groups<br />
|suggest_description= <br><br />
<br />
OK, so while I used the template, I’ve brought this to the discussion page in a fairly informal manner because I don’t pretend to be a programmer and I don’t pretend to know what is possible. I like this idea, but I can see my own problems with it from a technical standpoint – and I’m hoping that others here might be able to help with the solutions on that front.<br />
<br />
Here’s the basic idea – in the real world groups are much stronger than individuals. People en masse accomplish much more, whether it be construction projects, armies, or lobbying government. Organization has an additive effect to efficacy - pretty much every time. <br />
<br />
Also – there is a benefit to being part of an organization for humanity. There is community, the transfer of knowledge, the advancement of the overall ends of society.<br />
<br />
With that in mind, I think there should be an in-game bonus for group activity. This will encourage folks to join groups, which in turn will raise the overall level of gameplay across Malton. This bonus would apply to ANY group working in concert – be in human, PK’er, death cultist, or zombie – so there are no powering issues between warring factions – only a power difference between the grouped and the ungrouped. Given there are few restrictions to joining or forming groups, the ungrouped would hardly become a put-upon constituency.<br />
<br />
So how to do it? Originally, I thought a simple tiered bonus for group size measured by the number of folks who have a common group name in their profiles. Say a 5% to-hit/search/cading bonus for folks part of groups from 25-49 members, and maybe 7.5% for 50-74 members, and 10% for over 75 members.<br />
<br />
The problem there would be that it encourages a new form of zerging. Folks would make “Group Scarecrows” that they would park far away from active group activity, but who have the group name in their profile. They’d technically not be in violation of alt abuse, and it would be very hard for group leaders to prevent, and of course the incentive would be to do it.<br />
<br />
So, I am wondering if the UD engine would be able to detect proximity effects and award bonuses that way? In this case, I’d lower the numbers required for the bonuses a lot – say 10-24 for the 5% bonus, 25-39 for the 7.5% bonus, and 40+ for the 10% bonus – and say that if you’ve got that many folks operating in one XX block radius, you get the bonus.<br />
<br />
Is such possible? If so, I think it would reward all the right behaviors in this game, and be pretty darn cool. My parameters are suggestions - they could be lowered, raised, modified. I am really interested first and foremost what folks think of the concept, THEN hammering out rational details that might actually be taken to voting. So, first "Is there a reasonable way this could work?" then "Would we want it if it could?" then "How exactly should it work?"<br />
<br />
What do you think? <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion Group Bonus====<br />
<br />
I'd vote kill, simply because you are not given a hidden bonus in real life from being in a group. Moral boost, maybe. But the rest you accomplish by working closely with your group. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 16:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Impossible. proximity detection would kill the server. Assume a 5 block radius, the game would have to, on every action, harvest information on userlists for 81 blocks (inside and out), run zerg detection routines on that information, and it would have to then count the number in the group. Now, imagine this happening to the server 30,000+ times a day. You would basically increasing server load more than a hundredfold all up (Quite probably by a factor of well over a thousand). As for the rest, without proximity detection, it collapses under the obvious zerg abuse you mentioned. Proximity detection is a myth, despite claiims to the contrary. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 16:41, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think Grim_s is right - without some radical reorg of the account system it's just not possible. I was hoping some genius might have a work-around, but I bet he's right that there isn't one. Whitehouse - thanks for the comment - but I disagree with you. In real life you '''DO''' get the bonus - the door opens for the AARP in Washington that would never open for the unaligned individual. The group can clear a forest while the individual could spend a lifetime chopping a grove. I think it's moot though. --[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:59, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Even if possible, the advantage to being in a group should come from coordinating with other group members to do difficult tasks that an individual couldn't do. You get a big advantage from being in a well-organised group. You don't deserve an advantage from a bunch of people all spelling the group name correctly. This suggestion is a reward for crap metagaming, which we don't need. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 17:24, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:You misunderstood my point. And Garum probably phrased it better than me. You get those advantages from working together, not from simply being in a group (at least not the type of advantages you were thinking of). Being in a group is a moral boost, working together with it creates results far better than that of individuals. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 17:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Oh I see, you're saying that giving an incentive for group behavior beyond already existing benefits doesn't have merit. OK, thanks. Fair enough.--[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 17:45, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::If you want to encourage group work, then find ways for groups to work better together instead of just giving people buffs for having the same group tag. Zombie hordes have scent death, recently someone suggested a way for zombies to sniff out their buddies. Such suggestions, which strengthen the ties of a group, will give good results, the good results are the incentive. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 18:50, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Technical details aside, this simply isn't appropriate. This is an RPG, and in RPGs the benefits of groups are simply those of multiple players co-operating. When members of a group communicate and co-operate, they are more effective. If they don't, then they aren't- just like real life. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 20:07, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
i haveno clue about all the technical aspects, but this just isnt a good suggestion. kinda sucks to be on of those people who likes to stay unaffiliated, cause they get screwed on the deal.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:19, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
If this was implemented, it would be possible for a user, for example, to put the name of a large group into their profile, and get all the benefits, without being a member of the group. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 21:45, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is illogical. The only bonus people should recive from being in a group is having someone to cover their back. No magic bonuses. No special abilities. Just that. --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 02:48, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Take a look at Nexus War for group mechanics. The main problem is that ANYONE can be in ANY group at ANY time.-[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:04, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Restaurants===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 15:12, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New building<br />
|suggest_scope=People who take notice of buildings<br />
|suggest_description=If Malton has pubs, it really should have at least a few fancy restaurants, which could potentially replace a few of the pubs in the richer areas of town. The Maltonians can't all have only ever eaten/drunk beer, peanuts and crisps outside of their homes.<br />
<br />
:'''Mechanics'''<br />
<br />
''Restaurant''<br />
* Dark building<br />
* Can be barricaded, ransacked, ruined and have equipment installed normally.<br />
* Internal description<br />
** Unpowered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The once-busy dining area lies in darkness.''<br />
** Powered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant.''<br />
** Ransacked ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The chairs and tables are overturned, and cutlery and napkins litter the floor.''<br />
* Search rates (normal, if dark condition were not applied)<br />
** Knife (3%) (kitchen knives)<br />
** Wine (6%) (the finest in town)<br />
** Mobile Phone (1%) (some careless people...)<br />
** Menu (6%) (Flavour item, when used displays "The menu reads: <random fancy dishes>", and flavour text "''You think about them hungrily''" (currency not specified).)<br />
* Clothing<br />
** a chef's hat (white) (obviously)<br />
** an apron (white/black) (waiters)<br />
** standard generic formalwear (maitre d'hôtel, sommelier, general higher-ranking service staff)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Restaurants)====<br />
Can we have one at the corner of the map? We shall call it, "The Restaurant at the End of Malton"... :3 --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:44, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't see why not --[[User:Diablor|Diablor]] 01:53, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Whines* Pubs (Arms) aren't fancy enough for you?<br> Mah Pubs not fancy enough for you, foo? Only if there is a Pub at the end of the world.. Already.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 02:51, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it, but I think the menu should be just like a newspaper with different flavour text. For that matter, would newspapers be suitable to be found here? [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 03:07, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A ''dark'' restaurant? Dunno about where you're from but around here people put big ass windows on restaurants coz ppl like to see outside...also a stupid idea. Pointless and you would have to think up some ridiculous way to explain why everyone in malton thought it was a pub but it turned out to be a restaurant.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:54, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:It was always a restaurant and nobody ever thought it was a pub. And 2+2 has always equalled 5. And we have always been at war with Eurasia. And darkness really depends on the restaurant, but good point. --{{User:Anotherpongo/sig}} 11:45, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Not pointless. Knives are the best weapons for newbies, yet malls are the only places with > 1% chance of finding them. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:02, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
As much as I hate suggestions that don't seem to solve any problems, we do need a TRB for knives, and this seems like a great way to do it.{{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 16:33, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Absolutely! TRP for knives, and logical and fun flavor. --[[User:UCFSD|UCFSD]] 17:17, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
a suggestion so simple that it makes sence lol i say yea bring on the restaurants!--[[User:Fanglord2|Fanglord2]] 02:37, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I '''Always''' vote for building suggestions-always love a change [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 09:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Vote all you like, I'm pretty sure a building change suggestion has never been implemented. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 10:04, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Kevan has talked about doing it before<sub>(it's in his talk page archives for those curious few)</sub>, it's not entirely out of the question.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:51, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Building changes not implemented? Dark? Ruin? Fixing the fort walls? Its not without precedent.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:46, 31 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::::He meant changing one building (type) into another building (type). The first significant building change was to make large buildings into "1" building, but they were ALL still the same building to begin with.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:05, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I'll concede that the forts were revamped from just the armoury building to the 9-block compounds that they are now, but as far as I'm aware that wasn't based on a player suggestion. Large buildings and walls changed how some buildings worked, not what type of building they were per se. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this suggestion.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:16, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Asum(awesome)!!! Lol! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Face Rot===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Zombie Skill, subskill of brain rot.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Brain Rot.<br />
|suggest_description=The rot has spread, now it shrivels and distorts the facial features. The person underneath is hard to recognise.<br />
<br />
In game terms, its a buff for zombie anonymity. Unless the zombie is in your contacts you cannot recognise him if.<br />
<br />
*He stands up<br />
*Destroys barricades/equipment<br />
*Kills or injures.<br />
<br />
His profile can still be gained through a successful scan, or if you recognise them via your contacts. (You could be familiar with his limp, a watch or other item, his groaning etc.)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Face Rot)====<br />
Go on. Savage it, like my horribly ruined features. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I like it, what better way to implement Zombie Anonymity than through a skill? Plus. it promotes the Brain Rot! :D --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 18:54, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
How would this work when they're alive? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 19:38, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Then their profile just states they look like [http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=Gary+Busey&btnG=Search+Images Gary Busey] --{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:52, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bloody Brilliant!!! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 22:27, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Good, apart from one thing. How do you explain not being able to recognise a corpse you just saw die when it stands up. This case would only be when you are in the same location for the period of time in which a character dies and rises (in the case of first being a survivor which is recognisable to all anyway). Explanation could be that the face rot while cleared up by the revivification effect while alive, takes hold again almost instantaneous. But that still wouldn't change the fact that you saw that body die and rise, thereby knowing exactly who it was. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 23:36, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A good idea, except that Whitehouse's point might need addressing. How do looks change so quickly? {{User:Ariedartin/Nickname}} 06:22, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't like this idea. It's balanced and innovative but it disregards the true zombie mentality. Yes, I love zombie anonymity. But I am always in the belief that true zombie characters should be willing to do the *above* three actions '''and''' have their anonymity threatened to whoever wants to use it, in order to succeed their goal. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 12:04, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Interesting points. I'm off to make a ridiculous suggestion, and I'll think about this. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 14:24, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
In relation to Whitehouses point. How about an extra piece of text like. "Blah killed Example, their face decomposes before your eyes. "--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:37, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I saw no one pointed it out and I have a feeling you'll actually check before suggesting this. This isn't actually a buff to zombies, this is removing the one way in which zombie groups generally recruit. I like the idea of starting to get zombie anonymity back, it never should have left but, this hurts them, especially because survivors still get all the workarounds they want/use while zombies now have absolutely no way of knowing who to go to for help/advice/etc.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 09:07, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Suggestions up for voting==<br />
===Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080831 Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark]] as suggestion is up for voting. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:17, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Nurse===<br />
Moved to voting, under the new name of [[Suggestion:20080826_Doctor's_Clinic|Doctor's Clinic]]<br />
----<br />
===Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080827 Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:03, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Dead Reckoning===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion_talk:20080826_Dead_Reckoning]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 09:46, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Developing_Suggestions&diff=1271843Developing Suggestions2008-09-12T00:07:14Z<p>Janine: /* Discussion (Rethinking Ruined Building Mechanics) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Suggestion Navigation}}<br />
==Developing Suggestions==<br />
''This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which '''have not yet been submitted''' and are still being worked on.''<br />
<br />
===Further Discussion===<br />
Discussion concerning this page takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Discussion_About_Talk:Suggestions|here]].<br />
Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general (including policies about it) takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Suggestion_Discussion|here]].<br />
<br />
Nothing on this page will be archived.<br />
<br />
== Please Read Before Posting ==<br />
<br />
*''Be sure to check [[Frequently Suggested#The List|The Frequently Suggested List]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots | Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]] before you post your idea.'' There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a '''dupe''', or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. '''These include [[Suggestions/RejectedNovember2005#SMG.2FMachine_Pistol|Machine Guns]] and [[Suggestions/24th-Apr-2007#Rooftops.2C_Sniper_Rifle.2C_and_Sniper_Ammo|Sniper Rifles]]'''. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.<br />
*Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.<br />
*It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.<br />
<br />
== How To Make a Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
====Format for Suggestions under development====<br />
<br />
Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header <br />
"'''[[Talk:Suggestions#Suggestions|Suggestions]]'''", paste the copied text '''above''' the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in <span style="color: red">red</span> with the details of your suggestion.<br />
<br />
<nowiki><br />
===</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion</font><nowiki>===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=~~~~<br />
|suggest_type=</nowiki><font color="red">Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_scope=</nowiki><font color="red">Who or what it applies to.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_description=</nowiki><font color="red">Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.</font><nowiki><br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion Name</font><nowiki>)====<br />
----</nowiki><br />
<br />
====Cycling Suggestions====<br />
Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit. <br />
<br />
This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the [[Talk:Suggestions/Overflow1|Overflow]]-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.<br />
<br />
If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the <nowiki>{{SNRV|X}}</nowiki> at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:1.5em"><font color="red">'''Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.'''</font></span><br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Suggestions==<br />
===No Reading in the Dark===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=--[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 00:25, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Ruin Change...thing<br />
|suggest_scope=Poetry loving Survivors<br />
|suggest_description= This is a pretty small idea, so I'll get this over with. How is it we Can't see dead bodies, see graffiti, or be able to aim as good, yet we can read fine? In Dark buildings, We should not be able to read books/poetry books. It would just fit in with it better.<br />
<br />
First Suggestion, Spam me gently.<br />
(Also, If someone could fix the Keep/Kill thing, thanks. :p) }}<br />
====Discussion (No Reading in the Dark)====<br />
<br />
.....wow...I have nothing snarky to say so I am going to wait for Wan..[[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 00:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Rethinking Ruined Building Decay and Repair===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 00:05, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Change Skill Effect<br />
|suggest_scope=Ruinous Zombies, Constructive Survivors<br />
|suggest_description=Reading the discussion on [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Suggestions#Repair_One_Day.27s_Decay_for_3AP Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP] by Deyo, I thought about an alternative way ruined buildings could work that might leave both breathing and breathing-impaired sides happy: Instead of having ruined buildings require 1 AP extra to repair every day, indefinately, I propose making it cost 1 AP to repair per hour (or 0.5 per 30 min.), to a maximum of 45 AP. <br />
Now Survivor players, you're thinking, ''1 AP per hour? How unfair is this?!'' but with a limit of 45 AP the final bill would never reach astronomical heights and one lone survivor could be able to fully repair it and escape (but you couldn't really barricade it).<br />
Now Zombie players, you're thinking ''So you're basically debuffing Ransack? '' Yes and No. You read the debuff, here's the buff: because buildings will accumulate repair costs 24x quicker, you'll be able to do a lot more damage by ruining multiple buildings quickly and repeatedly. Survivors will have to work together and retake, cade and repair buildings faster to make sure they don't get overwhelmed with 45 AP ruined buildings (so, it would still take some teamwork to achieve, as only one person repairing leaves the building vulnerable to further ransackings). This will force survivors to keep an even more watchful eye out on their neighbourhoods for ruined buildings.<br />
<br />
As a side-effect, during a siege this will slow Survivor's advancement even more when regaining grounds than the old Ransack skill.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Rethinking Ruined Building Mechanics)====<br />
Another Ruin nerf? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! Stop suggesting nerfs to ruin. If survivors cared they would go and fix it instead of whining about it and trying to change it through suggestions.'''STOP SUGGESTING RUIN NERFS!'''--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 01:07, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Scavenging Version 2===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 14:40, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors.<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
<br />
Scavenging would '''''replace''''' Bargain Hunting as a Skill.<br />
<br />
'''Scavenging''' gives a +10% chance for a successful search in ANY building. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Advanced Scavenging''' (sub-skill of Scavenging)<br />
<br />
Costs: 100 points<br />
<br />
Each Powered Building has a new option to do a focused search. A building will have a drop down menu of every item you can find in it, and you can choose what you want to look for. You have a flat 5% chance to find the item. Unpowered buildings have no option at all to do a Focused Search.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Scavenging Version 2)====<br />
<br />
Still no. Give it up already. Go get drunk, or do some productive volunteer work, or something. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:43, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think it would look a little something like this: <br><br />
[[Image:Focused.jpg]]<br><br />
Shame about the high failure rates though ... --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 21:06, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I <3 my Bargain Hunting. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 00:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think even with 5% search rate it's too powerful, because if I can choose what to look for anywhere, I could hide in a lit bank where zombies rarely break into, and search for that genny or that 1 piece of equipement I need (toolbox, flak jacket, phone...). In about 20 APs chances are I will find it. So instead of running around to find the best place to get a knife, or having to travel far away from a siege to try and find a new generator, I could just use this skill and everything I need is at my disposal. (Then again isn't that how Malls work? Heh...) --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 00:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Bargain hunting only works in a powered mall block===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:34, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors in malls<br />
|suggest_description=Does what the title says. The search bonus from bargain hunting should only take effect when there is a powered generator in the mall block.<br />
<br />
Reason one: you should have a lot more light than usual to determine where to best find the supplies you need in the middle of a hundred other people in the mall.<br />
<br />
Reason two: the higher-tier skills of First Aid (Surgery) and NT Employment (NecroNet Access) both require power to use. <br />
<br />
Reason three: even without power, search rates within a mall with the current Bargain Hunting is still ridiculously high. With the reworked Bargain Hunting skill, non-powered mall search rates are in balance with other TRP search rates like in hospitals... and of course generator killing turns into serious business.<br />
<br />
By the way, props to WanYao and karek for pointing out that mall search rates need a bloody nerf.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bargain hunting only works in a powered mall block)====<br />
:shrug. malls are almost always powered and search rates take a hit without the power anyway to the point where the benefit of having power outweighs the hassle of installing a genny.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 14:07, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Yeah, most malls are powered anyway. At least the ones not under attack. I imagine this would be critical for malls under siege though, especially if the power keeps getting cut for hours. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:32, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Scavenging===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:01, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors.<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
<br />
Change the name of Bargain Hunting to Scavenging.<br />
<br />
Now the skill gives a flat +10% chance for a successful search in ANY building. What item you get would still be random as normal.<br />
<br />
Sub-skill:<br />
Focused Search<br />
Costs: 100 points<br />
<br />
Each building has a new option to do a focused search. A building will have a drop down menu of every item you can find in it, and you can choose what you want to look for, but you suffer a -10% to the base chance for a successful search. So it would be as if you didn't have the Scavenging skill at all, but still take a -10% to the unmodified base chance on top of that.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Scavenging)====<br />
Bnhr. Doesn't seem bad.. Your thoughts? {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 20:27, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:So its a global 10% increase in search rates? Justification? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:36, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: Well, There's that..<br />
::It would lower the Mall search rate to +10%, but let other buildings get the same. So instead of Bargain Hunting, you're just really good at scrounging things. Would make Malls less awesome fortresses, but make other resource buildings more useful so defensive battles would be more based on keeping lots of places open instead of just the Mall always being the best spot to search. That's the idea anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 04:03, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Would this skill also buff mall searches or just searches that are in regular buildings? Any search buff that includes malls will get spammed out of existence pretty fast.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:15, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The author said ANY building. Malls normally get +25% with that skill. This suggestion CHANGES it to +10%.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 01:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
The main problem with searching other buildings is that, except for PDs, Hospitals, NecroTech, Auto Repair and Factories, all the other places are pretty useless. Granted this MAY make them more useful (supposedly a generator can be found in the power stations, but there is no proof yet and a 10% bonus might be the proof necessary), your still limited in what you can FIND to begin with. I'd suggest ADDING some items to buildings.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 01:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
So... +10% chance to find syringes in NTs? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 04:09, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yeah. +10% to find anything in an NT, but you'd have the usual random breakdown to find DNA scanners and all that stuff. But since Kevan lowers and raises those NT rates to always keep the game in balance (which is gay), it probably wont matter to much.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 04:17, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Overpowered survivor buff that negates all the randomness and uncertaintly in searching. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:22, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I guess you are referring to the focused search part. And I agree, that part will never pass. I even doubt the change of Bargain Hunting would pass. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 13:10, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
So, in the eternal quest for searching for loot, this would de-emphasize the importance of malls (no longer +25%), but make all other decent resource buildings equal (+10% to all). This may mean that there would be less people in Malls, Malls would be less special. Which might mean less mall sieges. (or not... malls have almost everything under one roof). But it would mean that survivors would have a net search % debuff, as most would probably go to malls for searches, and they'd now have 15% less search probability. Considering the ratio of human:zombies, I'd be okay with this... "Scavenging" makes more sense than "Bargain Hunting" as a realistic survivor skill anyways --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:34, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
I <3 my Bargain Hunting. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 00:11, 12 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Expand Malton Map===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 17:52, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Map Improvement / add-on<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, Zombies<br />
|suggest_description=This would make for a lot of work on Kevan's part, but I suggest adding a suburb-sized corridor of forest to one side of the map's edge, leading to a small town or a cluster of small towns a few suburbs large. This new area would have limited resource buildings (because it's out in the country) and no NT buildings so that it would be very difficult to revive there. It would be ideal for experienced survivors willing to take on the challenge, as it would be a little bit like Monroeville only instead of permanent death you'd have to travel very far to get revived or face a long revive queue. Survivors who don't like this area or think zombies have an unfair advantage can simply stay in urban Malton.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Expand Malton Map)====<br />
<br />
As much as I like the idea of introducing elemts of the Monroeville map to Malton, I just can't see it happening this way. Besides, we already have suburb sized survivor deserts - walked around Dunell Hills lately? Plus you couldn't justify it in game - why does the city have a line of forest nest to it? And why has the barricade zone been increased? --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 19:54, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Stay outta the Hills and off my lawn, you damn kids!!! --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 17:00, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:It could be made justifiable: The quarantine walls in some places has been breached (and some sneaky zombies made it to Monroeville) so they rebuilt it, but as they were repairing they also decided to link up with a nearby village / a small cluster of nearby villages to make management easier. --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:19, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
You've been [[PR_Malton#Fallback|Fallback'd]]. Still nice idea, And starting with T:S first. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 20:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I personally think that a new section to Malton would be cool, but there isn't a need really. right now, survivors can go NE if they want a challange. zombies can go east. as for justification, something like zombies overwellming the border and pushing into the country a bit before getting stopped again.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 03:35, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This already exists. We call it the North West. Now leave Pitneybank and go be challenged!--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 09:27, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What J3D said, which is what I always say... Also, damn dupey, '''STOP SUGGESTING NEW MAPS ALREADY'''. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:24, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Oh noes! I was about to suggest reshaping Malton to the shape of a brain, to encourage more people to become zombies --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 15:22, 11 September (BST)<br />
<br />
I didn't know this had been suggested already. Since Monroeville might close forever I thought I'd suggest to make a part of Malton Monroeville-y. But it is true that we already have a suburb with no NT buildings, Mornington. Still, it would be fun to have a wilderness area or two to break the monotony of buildings, streets and more buildings. --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 14:19, 11 September (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 20:57, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New usage of existing skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors in ruined, especially long-ruined buildings.<br />
|suggest_description=A survivor with the Construction skill and a toolbox has a new action button: "Repair One Day's Decay (3AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs, and reduce the building's number of days decayed, and the AP required to repair it, by one. This option would only appear if the building has been ruined for four or more days.<br />
<br />
This gives survivors who are repairing long-ruined buildings, such as forts which have been in zombie hands for weeks, an opportunity to coordinate and distribute the AP cost of repairs, which in some cases can drive a fully-rested survivor into negative AP. This coordination is extremely time-consuming, and thus requires triple the AP that repairing the building alone would consume. Eventually, this coordination would reduce the remaining work to a job that one survivor could finish, and that survivor can simply click "Repair" to complete the repairs.<br />
<br />
This suggestion is an attempt to build consensus for or against several previously [[Undecided Suggestions]], such as [[Suggestion:20080804 Repairing Really Ruined Buildings|Repairing Really Ruined Buildings]], [[Suggestion:20080625 Ruin Repairing change|Ruin Repairing Change]], and [[Suggestion:20080729 Partial Repair|Partial Repair]].<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP)====<br />
Oh look, a survivor complaining about how hard it is to coordinate efforts among several survivors. You have clearly never played as a zombie. Zombies have to coordinate efforts all the time to just get into buildings. You don't want to spend 40+ AP to repair a building? Get off your ass and take it back sooner. Organize a better defense of it in the first place. Changing the mechanics because some players suck at the game is retarded.<br />
Let's stop pitching in Major League Baseball because not everyone can get a home run. Let's make it like T-Ball. If the game is made easier for THE MAJORITY OF THE PLAYERS that will really make it fun for the minority! --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:21, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Sometimes, when I read your replies, I wonder which game you're playing. Just a heads-up, this is the suggestion discussion area for a browser-based casual game about humans and zombies called Urban Dead. Some people have commented that survivors, despite outnumbering the zombies, have Rambo syndrome and never cooperate. This suggestion would give them an option to cooperate, though at a higher total AP cost than sacrificing one human to repair the building and then reviving him later, which requires no cooperation beyond standing at an RP and saying, "Mrh?" [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::No, Dago, this suggestion will make it easier for strafing repairs without danger to the survivors and therefore completely nerf the ruin update. You seem to forget that there is no mechanic available to a zombie to speed up the AP needed to repair a building, so ideas like this that cost low AP to undo something that only time can change are stupid and horribly unbalanced. Using your numbers - 3 AP will remove 2 APs worth of damage. So,if a survivor has 40 AP to spend that is 13 clicks which equals 26 AP. '''So for 1 day's worth of AP a survivor can undo a month's worth of damage and still be able to get away.''' And you want to make this so more than one survivor can repair a ruin like this? The current system is much better because it is all or nothing. But please whine about how I don't offer constructive criticism since you didn't bother to read any of the comments on the suggestions you are raping to make this abortion of an idea. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:30, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Again, you add racial slurs and little else to the discussion. You also have a math error there. A building costs 1 AP per day to repair, so this suggestion would triple the AP required. A survivor who happens to have maximum AP can repair a month of ruin and get away, by spending 30 AP, and would not need to click anything 13 times. Also, you are correct that you don't offer constructive criticism, you only offer rage and spite. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You have reading errors then. You posted ''"Repair One Day's Decay (2AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs'' One day's decay is not 2 AP like you posted in the suggestion. If you are saying that it triples the amount of AP needed to repair then spending 30 AP should only undo 10 AP worth of damage. This goes back to my whole point about making strafing repair runs and how it isn't fair that zombies can't undo the exact amount of damage that survivors can repair, but you seemed to have missed all that you fuckstick. (are insults better than racial slurs? I could call you a wop if you would prefer that.) You know, the only reason I add the slurs and insults is so people like you and Galaxy have something to latch onto and reply to since you obviously don't listen to reason or experience. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Congratulations! You can spot typos and swear on the internet! I'm afraid I can only fix the first, though. Thanks! [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You can't even be bothered to proof read your own suggestion? Really now. How hard would that have been? It wasn't even that far into the suggestion. It was right toward the top. The fact that you didn't read your suggestion before you posted it also tells me that you didn't think about it too much and just hit SAVE PAGE. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 17:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Maybe if survivors don't act like Rambo and actually did teamwork, this would be a non-issue. After all you only need three people tops to repair a building: one to search for gennies and fuel and install them (for dark), one to repair, and one to barricade. On the other hand it takes more than three zombies to take one EHB building with those same three survivors in it. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 00:53, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Actually, this suggestion would ''encourage'' teamwork. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Therefore, you admit that survivors don't actually do much teamwork in the first place if they have to get a massive buff for them to get their asses moving to repair all those dark buildings. Quite a sad state of affairs, isn't it? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:55, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::It is. Want to fix it? [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You do not solve social problems such as survivor laziness by changing the game's design; if you do that, all it would do is show that their laziness is perfectly fine, and that mocks all the organized effort zombie groups do just to keep your shit ruined. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 14:08, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I look forward to your suggestion on how to solve social problems. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I look forward to you making a non-crappy suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Don't hold your breath. I would miss you if you died.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:26, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bitching about how hard it is for one group and how crap the other plays is hardly constructive now is it? The main use for this would not be for survivors to co-operate (it should be but wouldn't get used in that way) instead this would enable altruistic survivors the chance to slowly fix up a ruin without leaving them self out in the open! Sadly that very fact means that this would just attract hordes of low level zergs to gradually rebuild an area with less risk of needing revives :( --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:11, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, but at a higher AP cost than repairing and reviving. It gives survivors options, but doesn't take anything away from Zombies except for APs that would otherwise be used pumping shotgun shells into them. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This isn't needed. shit, Fort Perryn was just taken back and it was ruined for a while (not as long as some buildings up north, granted). oh, and DCC: calm down.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 03:12, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Needed? Maybe not. But it makes sense, it encourages survivor cooperation, and it soaks survivor APs. All are things that both zombie and survivor players have said the game needs. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::How in the fuck is survivors cooperating something zombies need? When did any ZOMBIE player say they needed survivors to pull together? Survivors are really fucking lucky this game doesn't have perma-death and that the creator steps in to help them out when their own stupidity leads them to the brink of destruction. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:39, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::How long have you been around? Zombie players have been some of the main ones bit*hing that survivors are too damn uncoordinated, not that it would help zombies, but it would make the game funner to play. Not everything is about game-mechanics, and if there were no survivors left why would you play? Sounds to me you're putting down the game because survivors are stupid, yet are bit*hing they shoulden't be forced to be smart, like zombies are... and that my friend, is more f**ked up then any susgestion ever made.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 03:02, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::[http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=97517 I've] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Many been] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/DARIS around] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Dead awhile.] The survivors being coordinated or not does not make the zombie aspect of the game "funner". And when zombie players bitch that the survivors suck it is because instead of trying to get together and work as a team they all just suggest buffs to themselves or nerfs to zombies to solve the problem. Buffing them unfairly does not "force them to be smart". --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Remember that what is fun for you is not fun for all zombie players. Some zombie players want to do something other than turn brainz into Mrh? cows. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Enlighten me, Oh Zombie Master, what else a zombie can do in this fucking game. They can't spread zombie grafitti, play on the radio, or even hold IC conversations (since their alphabet is so fucking limited). They can't even get XP through any means other than hitting survivors (or other zombies). Other than killing what the fuck can a person that plays a zombie do? That's why it is so frustrating when assholes like you want to come along and make things harder on the few people that actually fucking play zombies in this zombie "apocalypse" game. Keep suggesting stupid shit and drive off the zed players. Then you and the rest of the dipstick survivors can have your little circle jerk in peace without those pesky undead. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::And we can have campfires and sing "Kumbaya". I'm glad to see you're keeping an open mind. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::Who said buffing them forced them to be smart? I said that a buff to save the population may be required to keep playing the game, while other zombie buffs may force (Able to kill easier is not forceful, as things take time to adjust and with survivors, no quick option is aviable to get back up that causes this lapse of time) them to be smarter, which would elimate the need for those survivor buffs to come into place. Instead of a structured and logical approach on why this is a bad idea, I.E. ''constructive critism''^(this susgestion would counteract a zombie buff designed in a way to help towards this, much better then if this system was put into place), you b*tched about how survivors have it easy. I never provided support for this susgestion and yet you seem to imply I have? In all of this you managed to accomplish hardening the authors stance against the reasoning that this susgestion would be poor in practice, and therefore paving the way for simular susgestions in the future, or turning players away due to a hostile enviroment. Congrats, *Hands Clapping*, im sure they'll put your name in a plaque, on the UD wall for your contributions here today.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:00, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Ah, the snowball argument. Classic. And I laughed heartily when you said there must be a 'buff to save the population'... got a bit of messianic streak lately? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:07, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::: I didn't say "Must", I said may be "required", by which I mean at times of rediculous peril where the game may truly end. If the population can't adapt to a change and shows signs that they won't, and the game ends, then so ends UD (At least Malton in any true form), and has us all starting from square one on a system proven to fail. A broken system can get you farther then a failed system.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:57, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::'''Standing Survivors : 14295 (61%) Standing Zombies : 9022 (39%)''' HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH SOMEBODY SAVE THE SURVIVORS! ''a buff to save the population may be required to keep playing the game'' They are in serious danger of overcrowding at the malls. <br />
:::::::::::You said I didn't offer any constructive criticism. You are wrong. It's in there. You are also ignoring the fact that he said he took this idea from 3 previous ideas which one would assume meant that he FUCKING READ the other suggestions, but since he can't even be bothered to READ HIS OWN suggestion I doubt he did. In the other suggestions there are a lot of constructive criticism and comments. I am not "hardening the author's stance" by disagreeing with him. If I am then he is a stubborn douchebag that will continue to ignore reason and just throw a temper tantrum because he thinks he is right. We have had a few of those before and we nailgunned them. <br />
:::::::::::I think we should turn newbies away from here. I think anyone that hasn't been playing UD for more than 8 months should shut the fuck up and keep their ideas to themselves. You can't contribute to the game if you haven't played the fucking game. And if you bothered to read my links above you would see my contributions to UD. They are much better than a shitty survivor buff suggestion that steals from 3 failed attempts before it.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:26, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::::DCC, your a fucking prick. why do you treat this page as a place to insult and belittle others? really, i dont get it. is there actually a reason, or are you just an angry person whos missed taking their meds? i think it was decided that this suggestion sucks, and isnt needed. no need to continue to respond to everything the author says with an insult and justification as to why your right.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 04:01, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::::::Wow DCC, Im beginning to wonder if you can read... I said "may be required at times", not that "it is needed now", large difference, my saying susgesting when the odds are against survivors, I believe that zombies need a few more buffs as it stands, because as you pointed out the numbers are very sad. Next critism mixed in with ten insults won't do anybody any help, except piss people off and have them pull reasons out of thin air to conclude that there way is better (Note yourself in your previvous comment, you have been harped on for your chosen response, and now this has turned into a conversation on your conduct in response to this sugestion instead of on the susgestion itself, perhaps we should continue elsewhere instead of wasting space here?). As well many people read other peoples susgestions and gain there own idea, and don't use spell check (I fall into that category, as im sure you noticed from "simular" and other mistakes). Oh and I did read the links, my oldest self happens to be [http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=944459 zach016], here a bit over a year, if it would so please you to have my opinon count over your 8 month limit, I truly believe it woulden't make that much of a difference other then introduce those people of eight months on how to use the wiki at a further period of time, they would still quote old susgestions that failed and would have more time to come up with needless buffs that no one wants.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 22:09, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Quit having such a smarmy attitude and responding to everyone's comments with something that you seem to consider a comeback, Deyo. People are offering straight forward critiques of this, and all of the similar ideas. Reaching a compromise of idea's that were spammed or duped or otherwise rejected for their overall um-workability is still just an unworkable idea. The whole point of saying dupe is that what needs to be said has been said, and we don't need to hash over all the arguments all over again. its up to you to read through those and realize for yourself that it won't work, and try to come up with something actually creative or unique, otherwise you will simply be spam voted or dupe voted down. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 07:25, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Between smarmy and hateful, I'll take smarmy every time. Zombie replies to any suggestion that gives survivors any additional options have been akin to "YOU RAEPD MAI DOG!" I don't claim to understand it, so I attempt to defuse it by turning their own words against them. For example, you say that the ideas were spammed, duped, or otherwise rejected. This is untrue. The suggestions were all '''Undecided''' at the end of voting. My hope is that by making this option unattractive to all but the most organized survivor groups, it will be less offensive to the zombie players who seem to be the most vocal and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war impassioned] contributors to this wiki. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. You say this is to encourage them to work together, but really, all this does is make it so that ''individuals'' can do the damage rather than groups, as currently exists. This doesnt in any way encourage group play, it instead encourages the opposite, lone wolf stupid survivor play thats been a huge detriment to the survivor game since the dawn of UD and its that attitude that has resulted in all the nasty holocausts performed by zombies. (I know, i helped plan several of them). You have an "Us versus Them" mentality, which definately isnt going to serve you well here.<br>You have probably already noted that they have stopped discussing reasonably and started flaming you. This isnt because they are zombies and dont want the humans to get new toys, this is because you are being, to put it mildly, a stubborn intransigent nullwit. You dont see the game from both sides, and therefore have a false impression of the other side. Having been zombie fodder, zombie leader, survivor, bounty hunter, pker and specialty reviver on various alts through the years, i can tell you right off the bat that this kind of suggestion is a bad idea, not as bad as your headshot one you suggested previously, but only because that was so horrendous that it makes Cthulhu look handsome by comparison.<br>What is needed is some way for humans to work together (Current ruin does this, with one person clearing, another fixing, and more cading). This isnt to make the game more fun for zombies, but so humans such as yourself stop bitching and moaning on this page for buffs every time som e treasured area goes up the creek without a paddle, or when some large area of the city is devestated by a huge confederation of allied zombies pulling a gargantuan cloud of ferals. The other, and more important reason follows on from that: If you know how to play properly, alone or in a group, you wouldnt get in that kind of mess in the first place. The only reason you think this is needed at all is because some buildings have ruin repair costs of as much as a hundred ap at this time (Best ive seen anyway), but you dont realise that its been ages since the zombies were even there, and the only reason the costs got anywhere near that is because you guys were fucking lazy.<br>Fortunately there are some groups out there actually getting off thier arses and fixing those regions so the braindead fuckwits that make up the majority of the survivor population have a place to live when the zombies come and rape the rest of the city out from under them. Those people fixing those eareas in the city are the real heroes, not the stupid twits who it in a buiolding as the horde advances shouting our orders to barricade and whatnot.<br>This suggestion simply defies the entire concept of making survivors play better and smarter, alone or in groups, encouraging retarded recovery operations that, while they would probably work, would leave the survivor population as the bunch of gibbering morons they are now. Forcing them to play smarter, like kevan forced zombies to do, is the only way to even out the game properly. Giving one side toys because its losing doesnt make things fair, it only shores up the innat unfairness already there.<br>Ugh thats long and rambling, but it has some key points in there you should consider. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 06:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thank you for a considered and reasonable response, Grimch. Obviously, I agree with you that the game needs both methods and reasons for survivors to cooperate, but most of the suggestions I've seen to encourage, enforce, or enable cooperation have been unbalanced, overcomplicated, or both. What I had hoped to provide here was a mechanism for cooperation that was simple and balanced, allowing three survivors to do the work of one, bit by bit. You mention the 100+AP buildings in the north, and I'll admit that you've topped my record -- the worst I've seen was 86AP. Even that building would take more than five survivor-days work to repair cooperatively, whereas a single survivor could run in with max AP, repair it, and walk to a revive point two days later, where a second survivor could revive him, for a net cost of 110APs, or just over two survivor-days total. Those who vociferously decry this suggestion as a "survivor buff" don't seem to me to be looking at the hard numbers. A single survivor using this system to repair a 100+ AP building would be spending 4+ AP per day just to walk back and forth between a ruined and a barricaded building, and the remaining AP fighting back entropy two weeks at a time. That method would take four days to get the building down to a single day's repair job, for five days' total repair time. It's unrealistic to me to think that there's a survivor out there willing to spend weeks "Rambo repairing" ruined buildings. And if there is, what's the harm? If there are more than 20 buildings in such a state, they'll be decaying faster than he's repairing them. I remain unconvinced that this suggestion would lead to "vigilante repairmen". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 07:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::No, but if it leads to wasted AP, why promote it? Its a new but DUMBER way to do things. OTOH, theres a small but growing group of people who do "suicide repairs" just for fun and giggles, and they are kicking repair costs on those 80+ AP buildings back down to 1, and having fun doing it. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:58, 10 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
I '''like''' this idea, because it means that GROUPS of humans can work together to fix a building, instead of ''one'' person losing two days as an immobile stone while the building is zerged. 74 AP building... that means I'm a rock for a loooong time. Doesn't it make sense that the AP repair costs could be shared? Especially if it costs MORE AP to do distributed repair... it would be worth it if it meant the survivors could remain active. Just as a note: I play ''dual nature'', so I'm aware of the ransack-ruin drama from a zed's point of view quite intimately. [[User:Soror Repentia Azalea|Qızılbaş]] 15:53, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:You can pretty much do this right now. Again, you only need at most three people to repair any building block in the game, provided they have been emptied of zombies. What this only provides is a massive survivor buff against ruin by getting rid for a measly 3 AP to remove one ruin point while zombies wait for ''one whole day'' to achieve the same. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:00, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Mister Deyo, I suggest that you '''stop''' suggesting Survivor Buffs that nerf Ruin. Matter of fact I might suggest a new zombie skill specifically to double the ruin already in place in any building just so people stop trying to nerf ruin and darkness. Seriously buffing survivors to get them to work together is just a horrible idea. There are how many survivor groups already in place? If a survivor doesn't join a group, it's because most groups are the same. Not because they have no reason to join a group.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:11, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm not even going to bother reading any of this. Go look at my user page. Read the report I cut and pasted... And look at the last of my wiki templates... And then go earn yourself one of those triple-digit repair templates which I made for the select few of us who are working together and ''doing it'' and ''dealing with it'' -- rather than sitting on our asses in Pitneybank and whining about how hard survivors have it because of ruin. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:28, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Loot dead bodys===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 03:02, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=People how like to steal.<br />
|suggest_description=Looting dead bodys is pretty self explantory. This would be a 100 XP skill that allows you to loot from peoples dead bodys with a 20% succes rate. When you loot a dead body you dont know what you will get, so you could get a genrator to a baseball bat. I will go into more detail if this idea is well accepted.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Loot dead bodys)====<br />
Looting dead bodies = trading. And that one's been spammed and duped so many times it's in the do-not-suggest list. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 03:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
except for the fact about wastin alot of AP, and not knowing what your goint to get. Yes it is like trading :[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 03:59, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is a [[Suggestion:20080310 Unzergable Lootin'|dupe]], probably more than one. Taking items from people is a bad thing (and if it's magically conjured items looted from bodies, that's bad as well and likely a dupe too). --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 04:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Don't be lazy. Its obvious you think this is going to tank if you'll "go into more detail if this idea is well accepted". This isn't even a dupe since there is hardly anything IN the suggestion to dupe. From what I can tell, your suggesting that a single dead body of any level, regardless of the corpse's actual equipment, becomes an instant reservoir of unlimited equipment of any type. The fact it is 20% and "you don't know what you get" is irrelevant. This, as I read it, would make a single zerge (level 1 corpse) a perma-search item.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Dupe-o--bloody-rific and utterly spam-o-fucking-licious. Nequa, please just read and comment on other peoples' suggestions and comments for about a month -- at least! -- before suggesting anything more of your own. Seriously. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:33, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Improve the Banks===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 23:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Add to Bank.<br />
|suggest_scope=All people how enter a bank.<br />
|suggest_description=I belive banks need a improvement becuase of how usless they are. The only good thing I can think about them is becuase they are so useless no zombie would go near it, and it would make a good hiding place. But the problem is what good could a bank be in a place like Malton. The only iteam I could think about finding there would be a pistol and clip becuase of securtity guards. So if not iteams why not something else?<br />
<br />
What is a bank if not a big place to safly guard your valuables? Why not allow the bank to be more heavly barricaded or use the vault? This is still a rough idea, which is why I am talking here. Now, allow me to address two problems I can see with my idea. One is why you would even want to have a extra lelvel of barricades or a vault, the bank does not have anything. And the other being that you should not mess with the barricades, to those people look here [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/PR_Buildings:_Multiple_Types]]. and then go to "Max Cades Varies by Building Type" sujestion.<br />
<br />
As I said, this is still a rough idea and I would like inmput, and not just "this wont work so shut up".<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bank improvment)====<br />
Don't banks go dark? If so why isn't that defensive buff enough?--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:16, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure the bank description says the vaults are already looted empty. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:24, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
"The vault lies open, its contents either looted or transferred." thats what the text is. They make great forward bases and safe houses so they are fine as they are. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 01:31, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I meant using the vaults as a defensive measure, any way banks are useless.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 01:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:They make great safehouses for PKers. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:46, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Okay go look at the 2-10 player sized groups. They thrive in banks. As a defensive measure they would be useless to begin with, as entry points, safe houses and lit, they keep zombie hordes down enough.[[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 02:17, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
True, but that is really it. You dont get anything from the bank or find any purpose for it execpt from what you already said, I just want banks to contribute to Malton in a bigger way.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 01:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The same can be said for wastelands. You think we should plant flowers in them? I'm all for multi-colored wastelands... pink is nice... --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:05, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We need flowers for wastlands dude, there a eye sore. But sersouly, ther is a diffrence between a wastland and a bank.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yeah, banks make great safehouses. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:35, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
It appears this is a bad Suggestion, so I will think of a new one.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Dupe-o-rific. And, some buildings are useless. Not everything is a TRP. This is a ''good'' thing. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:49, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A FUCKING MEN! Next thing these assholes will suggest will be clips and ammo found in the street.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::They can be, you just have a horrible horrible search rate for them though. Ive found a shotgun shell and a flare gun. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 05:13, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::My Monroe PKer accidentally searched the street and found ''a rusty knife''. I took especial joy in shanking people with it, and with luck they got tetanus. <tt>:></tt> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 02:32, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Maybe a powered bank will "close" the vault for ? hours a day (Random times), and anyone entering the bank can't enter the vault during this time, but can destroy the generator. If the Generator is destroyed the locks are once again unpowered and the vault opens up. Entering the vault costs 1AP and is treated as a seperate room (Outside cannot be seen, and it must be exited for 1AP before movement once again). No-one can leave the vault while it is locked and the vault cannot be entered if the building is ruined (Treated as one building once again, with anyone inside "pushed" out.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 22:00, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Switch FAK search rates between Hospitals and Malls===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=search rate adjustment for First Aid Kits. <br />
|suggest_scope=survivors<br />
|suggest_description=''I can't find this in PR or Undecided, I looked. But if someone can find the dupe, please do.''<br />
<br />
'''The suggestion:''' Reverse the search rates for First Aid Kits in Hospital and Malls, i.e. make it easier to find FAKs in Hospitals and harder in Malls. <br />
<br />
'''The rationale:''' Pretty self-explanatory, I think. Hospitals should be the easiest place to find/jury rig first aid kits. Not malls. This would also be a nerf to mall-centric play, which I don't think is a bad thing at all. But it's a highly logical nerf, and far from unbalanced or game-breaking. <br />
<br />
'''Extra details:''' As it is, you have about a 50% chance of finding a FAK in a drugstore. In a hospital, I'd guestimate it's about 20% (I might tally my stats and see... others' experiences would be useful, too). Perhaps an ''exact'' reversal isn't in order: say 25-30% in Malls, 40-45% in Hospitals, something like that. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Switch FAKs search rates between Hospitals and Malls)====<br />
<br />
No to exact reversal, yes to your suggested percentages. That is because there are one hell of a lot of hospitals compared to mall squares. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 14:32, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We could apply the same logic to police departments and forts, in that they should have higher search rates for firearms and ammo there than malls. Not that I'm totally against your suggestion, but the way the game is designed it strikes me that Kevan intentionally made malls as the ultimate stronghold and as such they have the highest search rates for most items in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:33, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Police Stations don't keep ammo lying around. It is actually a bad idea to have excessive weapons and ammo stored where you are holding prisoners. Wal-Mart has more weapons in the sporting section than my local police station. Police Depts. have armories and firing ranges to keep weapons. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 22:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Hospitals don't keep stockpiles of first aid kits, too (or at least here they don't). The fact that there aren't any ready-made FAKs and you have to build one in a hospital reflects that. And going by supply and demand the one which is filled up with all sorts of supplies would still be the malls, and that's why they have much higher search rates for everything than all other TRPs. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:28, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: Malls would have First Aid Kits lying around in a drug store during the zombie apocalypse, Hospitals tend not to keep First Aid kits stockpiled.. If any at all, Perhaps a few.. A local sports store has far too many guns in plain sight right beside the doors. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 04:51, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::: Even if you think of FAKs are mostly badages and tape and some ointment... and I think of them as somewhat more complicated than that... Hospitals have TONS of this stuff stashed around. TONS of it. Everywhere. Moreover, they have all kinds of other medical supplies that you'd use in reality in dealing with the serious injuries that zombies cause: scissors, scalpels, sutures and needles, etc. etc. No, I just can't buy that you'd be able to get such a plethora of medical supplies in a Mall, but not in a hospital. It just makes no sense. And... Mall drugstores are overpowered. Period. 50% find rates for the second most powerful pro-survivor item in the game is just outrageous IMNSHO. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Utility != economics. Hospitals might need those materials the most, but since malls still face the greatest demand for everything it naturally follows that they will have the greatest supplies for everything. And no, mall drugstores aren't overpowered when you consider 50% of the zombie population tend to congregate within a few blocks of one. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You're whole view on this is based on cyclic thinking and is confusing cause and effect. If the malls weren't so resource independent they wouldn't need as many resources, just look at the Mall-Necrotech relationship. Right now malls are making hospitals, which are meant to be a major building, all but useless. That leads to a very simple truth, malls give FAKs too freely. Malls are too resource intensive and it's causing them to be too central to the game, zombies are near malls because all the survivors are in malls, all the survivors are in malls because they get freakishly good find rates in them. Claiming that you don't weaken that because of the thing it causes is completely backwards.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:26, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::karek pretty much hit it right on the head there. in other words, malls are overpowered. and i feel the freakish search rates for FAKs are primary to that. meanwhile, find me a shopping mall that specialises in selling the man on the street medical supplies over consumer goods, and i'll drop this suggestion and revive all my zombies and use proxies to gather all my alts in Caiger and NEVER leave. CAIGAR 4 EVAR!!! --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I agree with Wan Yuo, since it is a hospital of course you would be more likely to find a FAK there, and anyway Malls have alot of other stuff you can gain there.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 16:10, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Uhm, it's "Yao", not "Yuo"... It's a lame old joke alias, but it's still my alias, and it means something... Anyhooo... <br />
<br />
Cop shops are not armouries -- but gun stores in US malls practically are. So I don't really see a need to change that. You might disagree, but, c'est la vie. (And, yes, Malton is in the UK, but the city is a mix of the UK and US, it's not really one or the other in practice... so please don't go ''there''... please.) Perhaps search rates in Fort Armouries need to be boosted, but this suggestion is not addressing that... And, yes, malls are supposed to be strongholds -- however, I think the 50% search rate for FAKs is absurd. Especially when it's so hard to find FAKs in Hospitals, by comparison. And, even if you nerfed search rates in Malls -- even hypothetically across the board -- they are still going to be "fortresses" by virtue of being "one-stop-shopping" places -- you can get everything you need at a mall other than syringes. That ''alone'' makes them very powerful... I, however, appreciate Whitehouse's comments about the fact that are more Hospitals than Malls, and the modified search rates ought to reflect that. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then surgery becomes OMGMEGA-SUPER-GODLY. Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls. If it weren't for that I would support this, I don't think that this would change where people get FAKs from though which would mean it would just be a slight nerf to Malls and a big buff to Hospitals.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
First of, sorry for mispelling your name Yao, and also you dont need a 50% chance for the hospital but maybe like 40%, or something that makes the hospitals be just as good as finding FAKs in the mall.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:29, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Surgery]].--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:47, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I am well aware of what Surgery does. This is how likley you can find a FAK in a hospital and a mall drug store, from the wiki:Mall Drugstores (20%/34%), Hospitals (14%),. If they even made it 25 percent I would love it. [[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:''"Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls"'' -- Well, maybe Surgery ought to be more than just "a little" better in a Hospital. I mean we're dealing with ''Surgery''... in a ''hospital''... come on! And to AHLG below, I don't want Hospitals buffed without Malls being nerfed at the same time. That's kind of the point... Also, I did search for a dupe, but couldn't find one... maybe someone else will? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:01, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The problem with that is that healing is already the most efficient thing in the game, even without surgery, with Surgery it's more efficient, buff surgery and it makes barricades look like a joke(surgery already does 10:1 vs zombie claws). The fix would have to be in weakening something unless you start buffing the ability to do damage.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I would agree with a small percentage increase in hospitals. But check for a dupe. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:19, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd support this as well. Malls need to be reworked a bit. The percentages are too high to warrant going any where else in the game for supply purposes. But I'd also support people who use the word "Glock" to describe their pistols have them blow up upon first use.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 23:38, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Did you take Bargain Hunting into consideration? It is MORE than just a percentage switch. Hospitals also have newspapers where as Bargain Hunting automatically precludes such a find. A FAK in a hospital has a base 14% find, while the FAK in the mall has a base 20%. +14% if you have bargain hunting. This is according to the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Useful_Items#First_Aid_Kit wiki (First Aid Kit)]. So which percentage is being switched? If is the base, then the hospital will be 20% and the mall will be 14%/28%. If it is the max, the hospital would be 34%, the mall would be 14%/28% (presuming Bargain Hunting). And, again, what about newspapers?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:21, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:In actual fact, Mall search rates for a skilled Shopper are around 50%, or very close. And in a Hospital, a bit more than 14%, but not by much. Those stats on the Items page are grossly out of date and inaccurate. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also... honestly, I don't know what you're getting at with all those numbers ... they don't make sense. FAK find rates in Malls would get nerfed, and %ages in Hospitals buffed. This would ''not'' affect the %ages for anything else, there is no connection. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:03, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::What do you mean "no connection"? Yeah, I'm sure they are out of date, but they are intended to illustrate a point. Did you even check the link? The reason FAK find rates are so high in malls is because of the shopper skills. But the shopper skills do MORE than just buff the search. The also negate the search for useless items (ie. newspapers). Searching for a FAK in a hospital maybe be higher, with this suggestion, but you STILL find newspapers. Which you DON'T find in malls. So, again, why are you not taking into consideration the mall skills or newspapers?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 03:31, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Probably because you're misunderstanding what they represent. Not finding spam items doesn't mean the search rate is better for FAKs(what you want to find) it means that the search rate for what you don't want to find is dropped to 0. The only effect that would have is reducing encumbrance, which is already done by being checking it in your profile so you don't have to waste the IP hit dropping it. That there is no connection would be about right, buffing the search rate would still mean you're finding two FAKs in 3 AP even if that third AP digs up a newspaper every once in a while.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:16, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Pesatyel, what you're saying makes no sense. And the link you provided is irrelevant. Say in 12 searches right now you find 1 FAK and one newspaper. If I double FAK search rates... now, I find 2 FAKs and 1 newspaper in 12 searches. ''There is no connection'' between the two different items: the latter is totally unaffected by the former. Also, you don't find newspapers in Malls. Drug stores are spam-free FAKtories... And, the full set of Mall Skillz allows you (for 200 measly XP) to search these spam-free FAKtories at almost a 50% success rate -- a search rate totally unparallelled anywhere else in the game -- and an unparallelled find %age for ''the second most powerful pro-survivor item'' in game, after NT syringes. <br />
<br />
::::'''Q.E.D.''' - In. Need. Of. Fixing. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:48, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I do think FAKs in hospitals need a buff but i am not certain of these numbers... lowering the find rate for malls so it tops out at about 30% would be good (sure the drugstore has pain killers and elastoplast but wide specrum anti-biotics and morphine? I think not!) Rather than a straight buff to the hospital search rates i would rather see the "medical" classes able to build Faks much like syringe creation. Searching already says something like "you gather supplies" so why not make it possible for those with a few pre-req skills choose to build those kits with some certainty (at a cost comparable to the Malls find rate) I would suggest 5AP for anyone with 1st aid and possible 4AP for anyone with a new skill :trauma nurse or some such! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:26, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Not a bad idea, but the proliferation of hospitals would mean an already prevelant item would become even more so. Malls are difficult to hold, hence benefits are found there. Drop the search rate in malls to closer to 30% and make surgery a 20hp hit, making holding a powered hospital useful, rather than powering one, hording FAKs and bailing.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:46, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Bloodletting===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}02:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=PKer buff.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors. PKers, mostly.<br />
|suggest_description=Update revivification syringes to allow for self-targeting. If used on yourself while infected, it becomes a "virus syringe," essentially transforming the item within your inventory. "Virus syringes" cannot be found or made except by infected individuals using revivification syringes on themselves. Like a normal syringe, they have a 2% encumbrance.<br />
<br />
If used on a survivor, there's an X percent chance that this new "virus syringe" will deal 1 HP damage to the survivor and infect the survivor, and a 100-X percent chance that the virus syringe will do nothing. X is the current HP of the PKer. "Virus syringes" do nothing against zombies.<br />
<br />
As it is highly corrosive to glass, the virus will eat through the syringe in a matter of hours. Therefore, "virus syringes" are removed from an inventory after 6 hours of existing.<br />
<br />
...Because bioterrorism is an inherent part of the genre, and because it might entertain some PKers (and thus keep them from actual killing). Yes, the central idea is that the syringe is emptied outside your body, then you draw out your own blood, which contains the infection.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bloodletting)====<br />
<br />
I really wish I could be "constructive"... but this is just too retarded to comment on. Would you like some spam with that cheese, sir? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:11, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:No, sir, nor did I want that frosty. "Retarded" is happily synonymous with "belated," so I'll assume you mean this suggestion is just a little behind its time. Speaking of which, some old-fashioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Logs Lincoln logs] might help with your construction problem. Spend a few hours with those and let your dad back on his computer, okay? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}04:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Survivor infecting other survivors is a dupe, I'm fairly sure. It would be more greify than tactically useful for a PKer / death cultist, which is why (iirc) it wasn't worth keeping. Also, if you want to infect somebody, I fancy that axe you've been splitting infected zombie skulls (or the knife you just pulled from the guts of an infected survivor) would do the job rather as well as a syringe. So if infections COULD be spread that way, pretty much every sharp weapon in Malton would spread them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:23, 6 September 2008 (BST) ''edit- also, if the infection were so corrosive, every blood stained weapon or piece f clothing in the city would crumble to dust. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)''<br />
:It is a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I'd been considering [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofluoric_acid hydrofluoric acid] for that, which wouldn't damage polyester clothes, although I am not a chemist. And blood-stained weapons tend to degrade in real life, hence the NRA's preoccupation with gun cleaning. That aside, do you think (at least) that the X% likelihood is an interesting mechanic that might be able to contribute to gameplay in some other fashion?--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}00:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
PKing may be part of the game, but it does NOT need any emphasis. The game is, primarily, about survivors and zombies fighting each other with some PKing thrown in, NOT about PKing with some zombies thrown in.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I must agree with Pesatyel, this game is mainly about the Living VS Undead... with the abnormal ones mixing it up to make it more interesting (just like in reality). Emphasizing PKing just doesn't fit in well with me (although I really should ''"get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit"'' to quote Wanyao). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Ehh, when I PK, I prefer "Bang. BANG BANG." And the kill is done. The idea would be something I would never use, and as Swiers stated, it's more useful for greifers then PKers like me.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::K-B, I was referring to your comments, somewhere, which alluded to "pro-zombies" and "pro-survivors" as these inimical factions at each others' throats. That's an illusion, and a destructive one at that: most players play both sides, even if some do tend to focus more on one than the other... And most people judge suggestions on the basis of merit, not simply whether they help their "side". For example, this suggestion would be a giant-sized buff for my death cultists -- but that doesn't mean I support it... because it's just a griefing tool, and little more. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Does it grief more than, for instance, one of your death cultists outright killing someone? PKing '''is''' griefing, because survivors only ever want to be killed if they're feeding the hungry n00b zed masses. Sure, I can see survivors getting annoyed by being infected by a PKer, but it would be less aggravating than having to spend AP hunting a revive (which costs more AP than a FAK). Thank you for your constructive criticism. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
NEEDLE SHARING IS NEVER SAFE! THIS SUGGESTION SPREADS HEPATITIS Z! Not to mention it's stupid as fuck and so out of genre gameplay here. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:If you consider "fuck" stupid, does that means I can apply for a timeshare with your girlfriend? Although, for reference, I invite you to check out how the Fantastic Four were infected in ''Marvel Zombies''. Or talk to me on my talk page and I'll happily spoil it for you.--{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::You see, this is what I am on about. I call your suggestion stupid and make a bad pun. You make a personal slur against my girlfriend. Then you bring up a comic book that isn't a survival horror comic, but just a zombie alternate universe. Yet you are still going to bitch about what I said even though you are the one making this personal. Get fucked and stop suggesting things. There that was personal. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:32, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Marvel Zombies'' isn't a zombie alternate universe. The scene in question within the comic is not dependent upon any of the fantastical elements of the Marvel universe. I understand that you're unhappy that you unsuccessfully trolled for lols with 'NEEDLE SHARING IS...HEPATITIS Z,' so my deconstruction of your single-cheeked argument is just rubbing salt in the wound. But please, don't take it personally. I don't object to you, just your casual use of expletives. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::''An alternate reality in which mutants are turned into flesh eating zombies, set on Earth-2149. In the end of the series, The Zombies eat Zombie Silver Surfer and get infused with the power cosmic.'' SPOILER ALERT! You are right. I didn't get as many "lulz" as your initial suggestion did. You bested me, good sir! I didn't add more than a quick comment because why would I need to repeat all of the other reasons that your suggestion is bad? Oh right, because you are a fucking retard. I forgot. And as far as my use of "expletives" that's a really bad argument seeing that this wiki is international and what is an expletive to you might not be one to me, you bloody cunt. And for the record, you couldn't handle [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Katthew MY GIRLFRIEND]--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:38, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::The only criticism you offered was saying that this suggestion is out-of-genre. That could've been done in six words, possibly fewer, without wasting your precious time with your, erm, "pun." And, moreover, you haven't yet discussed (or apparently thought about) that criticism, instead just quoting Comiczine where your own knowledge failed you. While I usually try to use the same profanity standards as the game, I take special exception with poor or improper use of words such as "fuck," as such tends to cause them to eventually lose their meaning. You, sir, are killing the English language. And for the record, I wouldn't want to handle your girlfriend. Ability is not equivalent to desire. --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:47, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Wait wait wait.. this stick is up your ass because I said more than "this is out of genre" and I called your idea stupid? You're all butthurt because I didn't like your idea and therefore by extension you? You resorted to personal attacks and some faggy rant about a shitty comic because I didn't come all over myself with joy at you sharing this EARTH SHATTERINGLY NEW (dupe) IDEA WITH THE UNWORTHY ?!?! Go cry more, you shit stain.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:03, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Calm down. Pop some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laxative pills], you're wound too tight. Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic) thought that zombification was a positive evolutionary step, so he injected Susan Storm (The Invisible Woman), Johnny Storm (The Human Torch) and Ben Grimm (The Thing) with the zombie virus from that universe. After they turned, they infected him by eating parts of him. So, as there exists commonly-accepted (''Marvel Zombies'' was very successful) prior art for my suggestion, it's in-genre. And if this rant sounds faggy, it's because I'm bisexual. And I'm annoyed that you keep dragging this discussion off-topic because you're incapable of supporting your argument. --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::Oh wait a minute! You are the guy that suggested '''horses'''. I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to comment on this suggestion. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I has plastic syringes. Gawd. Oh, I forgot the part were I wake up when you starting moving and poking me, and I kick your ass.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 00:02, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What about the part where zombies you are poking with a syringe do NOT wake up and kick... er, EAT your ass? {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Recharging AP != sleeping. You might as well object to zombies not reacting to a knife or a shotgun, or humans not reacting to being clawed. It's how the game works. We've been over this before. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:50, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Exhausted, you can go no further.'' That pretty much sounds like you are going to sleep to me. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:17, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::So having 0 AP = Sleeping. But Recharging AP != Sleeping. Because I could play the game without ever having to see that message, provided I logged out with at least 1 AP. These arguments have been made before. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
This has been suggested before. It's a bad idea, and encourages out-of-character play - ie survivors deliberately seeking infection and wasting syringes. Also, and I've said this before, there is a very easy way to harm someone with a hypodermic syringe. Empty out whatever's in it, fill it with air, and inject the victim to induce a potentially fatal gas embolism. Too overpowered to be considered in UD though. --[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 23:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's true, it was made for PKing. Thanks for the point about embolisms, I'd forgotten about them. Do you have any thoughts on the X% hit likelihood as a possible mechanic for a later suggestion? --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Latent Infection===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies, their victims.<br />
|suggest_description=''After countless days of fending off the zombies, Malton's best and brightest have discovered an entirely new strain of the virus that the zombies have been using to infect their victims.''<br />
<br />
''Called the Sleeper strain, it typically has an incubation period of 6 hours before it becomes active, rapidly spreading through the victim's circulatory system, degrading living tissue at an alarming speed. The incubation period can be extended if the victim remains motionless, however.''<br />
<br />
''This new strain has proven to be almost completely immune to all forms of medicine when it is in its incubation period, however the virus seems to be easier to eradicate once it has 'awakened'. It can still resist medicine half of the time, however with surgery the virus can be always removed.''<br />
<br />
''Unfortunately, due to it's long incubation period, carriers of the virus often are not aware of when they have become infected until the virus begins to attack them. However, if the victim then gets bitten by a zombie with the more common strain of the virus, the Sleeper strain acts like an antibody, preventing the more common strain from taking hold.''<br />
<br />
New skill: Latent Infection<br />
<br />
Subskill of: Infection<br />
<br />
Abilities:<br />
* Takes 6 hours to kick in.<br />
* Causes 2 damage per AP.<br />
* Does not stack with standard Infection.<br />
* 5% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd during incubation period.<br />
* 50% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd when 'awakened'.<br />
* 100% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd by 'Surgery' in powered hospital.<br />
* Kicks in upon first movement after 6 hour incubation period.<br />
* Victim not told of infection until it 'awakens'.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Latent Infection)====<br />
in all this time have you ever even read the frequently suggested and D&DN pages? this is a dupey infection buff, the likes of which we've seen a bazillion times, and it has nothing special or redeeming about it except for a vry pointless 6 hour delay. such a delay is a) out of genre game-mechanically because time is abstract in UD b) griefs newbies c) griefs everyone who logs in only once a day d) it's overpowered -- zombies kill best by killing, and where they are weak, deal with that, instead. <br />
<br />
i'm also sure someone will be less lazy and find about 30 dupes for this. please... GIVE IT UP ALREADY, blake. go design your own game, print up the rules, get together with some friends over dice and doritos. and give ''us'' a break. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:38, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's... Urghh, it just over complicates a part of the game which doesn't need it, and is a huge buff to zombies. I'm a zombie player, but I don't like things like this. Just do what WanYao said and read the [[Frequently Suggested]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]]. Seriously, just commit them to memory.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd vote keep. And ignore the Hive Mind Kool-Aid Drinkers, Blake. The D&DN page is for wimps.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 13:38, 7 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
After three years they just now find an infection that incubates in 6 hours? somehow, that doesn't quite add up right in my mind. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 00:06, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:50, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance Change<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Ankle Grab<br />
|suggest_description='''The cost to stand up after a [[Zombie Hunter skills|Headshot]] is 15AP, whether or not the target has the [[Zombie Skills|Ankle Grab]] skill.'''<br />
<br />
This suggestion is somewhat slanted toward a Monroeville survivor's perspective.<br />
<br />
In Malton, the survivor's best chance for survival is to find a location which zombies are not currently massing to attack. The only time attacking is a viable option is when zombies are already inside a strategic building, and the survivor wants to repair the structure. Even [[Trenchcoater|Trenchcoaters]] know that when the zeds open the doors, it's time to run.<br />
<br />
In Monroeville, there is never a time when attacking is the best choice. If zombies are near, the survivor runs or the survivor dies. Attacking, even with a massive numeric advantage, is ultimately suicide.<br />
<br />
Currently, a Headshot costs a zombie 6AP, or 15AP if it doesn't have the Ankle Grab skill. To kill a 50HP unarmored zombie costs a minimum of 8AP: Three to find three shotguns loaded with five shells total, and five to bring down the zombie. A more typical number would be 24 -- 6 to find a pistol and two clips, and 18 to fire the pistol at the zombie 16 times, reloading twice, with a 65% hit rate. This means that by purchasing four skills, with seven additional skills required to reach level ten, a survivor can spend 24 AP to take 6AP from a zombie who has purchased two skills.<br />
<br />
If the AP cost to stand up from a Headshot were 15 ''regardless'' of the Ankle Grab skill, the ratio would go from 4:1 to almost 3:2, still strongly favoring the zombie, but making offense a viable tactic in Malton. In Monroeville, the few who remain might actually come out and play once in a while, instead of running like hell when one zombie gets within a block.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab)====<br />
Sure. I just fear its too late. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:59, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
You understand nothing of this game. The AP balance on barricades is 4-1 in favour of survivors at best. Add to that the fact that it takes 35-40 AP for a zombie to kill a survivor, only for the victim to get a revive for 10 AP and the cost of the syringe search. Then factor in that any survivor who isn't killed straight away can be saved with a simple FAK. I could go on and on about this, but in reality I said all that was needed in the first sentence. And seriously people, stop whining about fucking Monroeville. It's a temporary city which is going to be shut down, which makes it entirely irrelevant when discussing the mechanics of Urban Dead as a game. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 20:04, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:"and the cost of the syringe search". I love how you abstract away about 10-15 APs and call it "balanced". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And that only turns out to 20-25 AP, even if you factor in the syringe search. we could keep on discussing the maths of this, but Grim did it for us a few months back: read his rant on the [[User:Grim_s/Rants/Revival_Imbalance|revive imbalance]]. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 05:14, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Total Zombie AP spent (Including recovering from kills by Humans, thank you for padding your numbers): 483. Total Human AP spent: 322. Ratio: 3/2, compared to 4/1 for survivors headshotting zombies. Zombies win, again, by whining louder than the humans. I thought you were supposed to moan. In any event, thank you for showing us the math that proves that zombies have a massive combat AP advantage. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 17:30, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You really haven't grasped this game at all. Allow me to explain: This is a game of 'classes' in which zombies are designed to kill whilst survivors are designed to, get this '''survive'''! Therefore zombies are the attacking class and survivors are the defending class. What a shock to absolutely no-one with a modicum of intellect then that zombies get a combat advantage whilst survivors get a defensive advantage. The greatest 'weapons' that survivors have in this game are revivification syringes, first aid kits and barricades, so whilst it may not appeal to your BOOM! HEADSHOT! masturbation fantasies to have killing zombies be far less important than barricading buildings, healing and reviving, that's the way the game works. Your job is to survive. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 08:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Revivification syringes mean that survivors can go on the offensive, which nulls your given simplification. If each survivor revived two zombies and then died, the game would slowly progress to the survivor side of things. And that's with no barricading or defensive gameplay necessary.--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::That's a byproduct of design and one forced by the nature of the game rather than intent. The only way to make combat revives impossible would be to make revives themselves impossible. As such the existence of combat revives in no way undermines the identification of the offensive-defensive class dynamic. Zombie skills are all created with a view to creating damage, whilst survivor skills are designed for preventing or undoing it; yes, that's right, even the combat skills for survivors are about that. They're there to clear zombies out of buildings and allow those buildings to be secured, not to 'kill' the zombies. The sooner people realise that the sooner they'll start enjoying their game, just as I do with all my characters. Oh and your combat revive scenario neglects to consider death culting and window-diving as responses to such actions. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 19:27, 8 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::Also Brain Rot. My scenario worked from the assumption that all players were true dual-natured players, albeit dual-natured players who don't pick up Brain Rot. However, I would argue that (while zombie skills are indeed designed to deal damage) human skills revolve around maximizing the efficiency of revivification. Securing buildings just allows survivors to stave off death for a few more days, which in turn allows them to revive others more efficiently. Admittedly, this assumes a simplified version of survivors without death-culting and window-diving, etc., etc., but I think it is hard to argue the (relatively) balanced nature of the zombie/survivor ratio just from those extremes. The Mrh? cows tend to equalize that anyway. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Moloch, it's possible for me to completely understand every aspect of this game and still disagree with you. It's also possible for me to refute your arguments without attacking you personally. Here's an example: '''This is not a survival horror game.''' It's World of Warcraft in text. The only difference is that here you can switch sides. Just like WoW, the "human" side is more popular. Just like WoW, the "other" side wants to get more and more advantages because they believe it will offset the numeric disadvantage. Here's a heads-up: WoW proved you wrong there. I proved you wrong here. And I'll do it again. Zombies attack humans with 483 AP, costing the humans 322 AP. Humans attack the zombies with 500 AP, costing the Zombies '''nothing'''. Why nothing? Because the cost of recovery is included in the 483 AP the zombies already spent. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:20, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Wow, nice numbers. Got the math to prove that? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:58, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Not a survival horror game? So what does this: ''A Massively Multi-Player Web-Based Zombie Apocalypse'' mean? But no you are right. I must be forgetting that the innkeeper at Jacomb Arms sent me on the quest to recovery the Holy Golf Club of Lockettside while on my way to slay the Bank Manager of Ruddlebank. This is '''exactly''' like WoW!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 16:20, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
No dude. Just no. Monroeville is freaking dead anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Says the ''Zombie'' Lord... I actually had a nice killing spree a couple of weeks back, 5 survivors in 6 days...<br />
:It would be nice if we waited till there was one survivor, gave him a [[Red_Rum/Tommy_Gun|Tommy_Gun]], ammo and every zombie his location to see how long he would last... --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: :D I'm not sure if he means it as a Monroeville only thing or not, which would be fine with me if it was just contained to that city and not Malton. Seems like Kevan just wanted to kill it off anyway with those last changes to Monroeville. But yeah, the Tommy Gun goes the the last Monroeville Survivor! Would be a cool prize anyway :) --[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::The Tommy Gun is a seasonal weapon, found around 31st October/1st November. They'll have to survive til then and search really hard...--[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 00:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Kamakazie Bunny, get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit, it's tired as all hell. In any event, as much as he is usually an idiot, zombie lord is correct this time. And Moloch hit it on the head even more squarely. Don't fucking nerf Ankle Grab. Period. Even in Moronville. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:46, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::And don't forget, give him or her unlimited AP and IP hits. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:14, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:36, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:How about "Remove Headshot" then? Has that been suggested? It's currently a waste of 100 XP. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
You might have better luck if you suggest that headshot DOESN'T affect those without Ankle Grab.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:37, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Where.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''Balance Change'' HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA ''IMA GONNA RAEP YUO OF UR AP AND CALL IT BALANCED!'' Fuck off, Dago. You can't possibly justify taking away over 1/5th of the AP of just one class. Zombies can't do it to survivors in any amount and you want to increase it? Fucking play as a zombie for a year before you suggest anything that affects zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:59, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Suggestion:20080901_Feeding_Drag_in_Large_Buildings|Yanking a live survivor from a mall]] for 2/5 the AP cost of dumping a dead body from a fort is balanced, then? I don't see you railing against that. Oh, but feel free to turn my username into a racial slur if you can't think of any ''good'' reason to reject the suggestion. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::We've already posted enough reasons why it's a crap idea. Feel free to post it though, because even if it gets passed, Kevan won't touch it. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 05:25, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::How would you know? ANKLE GRAB was in PEER REJECTED when it came to vote here.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Which should give you an idea of how Kevan feels on the subject of the Headshot dynamic. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 08:53, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::It also shows you how fucking survivor-centric this damn wiki is. I'm not surprised that AG was voted down and a shit load of weapons and survivor buffs fill this page constantly. I'm pretty sure even if this ridiculous crap passed Kevan wouldn't implement it since last time I checked survivors outnumbered the zombies 61% to 39%. But hey! the survivors have it so fucking hard with all those damn zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::But OHNOES DCC some people think it's because no one wants to play zombies instead of the fact that their so boring because of their intellectuality and lack of competetivity. Who cares that that's disproved every time zombies make some big event so they can actually do something.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:37, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Actually it is when you consider that it's not a bargain and it's an additional 4 AP per kill that will be payed regularly. All Feeding Drag ever does is transfer AP cost from the individual to the horde, you know, that central play mechanic that zombies are forced to deal with. This would just make it so that all zombies always lose nearly half the AP they get a day, that's not balanced. You're also proposing buffing what is the only skill in the game that is considered to exist for the sole purpose of pissing players off and not balance.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Im not going to argue the game balance here. What i am going to say is that you dont make a game more balanced by making it less fun. Taking away 15 zombie ap a day makes the game much less fun for zombies, which will drive them away. Given how many of them are hanging onto the game out of habit rather than out of any sense of enjoyment, i dont think making playing a zombie feel like pulling teeth is the solution to any balance problem, real or imagined. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:37, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
This is not terribly effective. I mean, the search chances in Mville are all in ruined buildings. 8AP to load a shotgun I think not... ain't nothin' but ruined buildings. [[User:Soror Repentia Azalea|Qızılbaş]] 16:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Riot Shield===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Item<br />
|suggest_scope=All Players<br />
|suggest_description= <BR><br />
:''[[Building Types|Locations]]: Armouries (2%), Police Stations (2%), Junkyards (1%?)''<br />
:''[[Encumberment|Encumbrance]]: 16%''<br />
<br />
- Grants a 10% (5% in dark buildings) chance to deflect any attack <S>that deals less than 5 damage</S> (it does not reduce the chance to hit, only those which would normally hit). Having a Riot Shield in your inventory automatically means that you are using it; no action is required to activate it. Zombies may use and benefit from Riot Shields. Using multiple Riot Shields has no additional effect; having two or more in your inventory will not give any further protection.<br />
<br />
- They may also be used as an improvised weapon with the following stats:<br />
<br />
:''Damage: 1 point''<br />
:''Base Accuracy: 10%''<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Riot Shield)====<br />
<br />
Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield (although rotters will have a harder time getting them but that applies to any cross-class skill/item from the humans). Also the zombie populace should be aware that a Riot shield is the equivalent of 8 clips/shells/Faks/Syringes that can be used against their cause. Survivors now have an active defence against the hordes (in my opinion barricades do not count as they do not directly protect the player or go with them on their journeys). <BR><br />
Things I'm unsure of:<BR><br />
:Encumbrance<br />
:Chance to deflect<br />
:Findable in museums (Medieval / war exhibitions)<br />
:Zombies with a reduced protection chance (as they are more sluggish)<br />
:Flavour text for deflected attacks!<br />
--[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''You fire at target zombie for 10 damage, but it deflects off their riot shield. They are unharmed''<br />
--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:05, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: Whilst I do agree with the flavour text the shot gun does not deal '''less than 5 damage'''. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:13, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Balls. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hi Kamikazie, this is an interesting idea. Given that zombies can't use melee weapons, it seems odd they might continue to use (and effectively position) a riot shield. Additionally, it seems it would get in the way of typical zombie attacks: grabbing, holding, biting. I don't want to seem like I'm favoring survivors, but this, like all other objects, seems it should be survivor-specific. Would players be able to use a shotgun while holding one? Shields of any kind make sense, especially in close-range combat. I'd see the value in making it "equippable" rather than simply automatically active if in inventory. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 18:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ummm... zombies can use melee weapons, although it would get in the way of their normal attacks I don't want to hinder them or make this one sided although realism would want it so. Zombies are people to! Interfering with other functions is something else I disagree with. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hordes are the exception, not the rule. Lets see, a maxed zombie would traditionally score a total of 29 hits in 50 swings. Now, if 10% of those hits are negated, it goes down to 26. Given that the majority of zombies are not horde zombies, and that zombies have a seriously hard time getting past little things you call barricades (Which already are your defenses, not to mention your mobility, which is another, chronically underused one), this puts a serious dent in zombie ability across the board for the sake of defending yourself from the exception to the rule based on a flase assumption of defenselessness. Go away and think things through before you return to plague this page with your stupidity again. The description as written has this as a pure zombie nerf, they cant even use it, ebcause regardless of flaks, a pistol hits for five damage at first, with one subsequently negated, thus pistols will still go through. Given humans use firearms almost exclusively, becauuse axes and improvised weapons suck, they will most often suffer no penalty against a zombie with such a device. Zombies have no 5+ damage attacks. This is one sided zombie rape. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:although I hardly ever agree with grims choice of words, the fact that flare guns and shotguns arent nerfed but all zed attacks are is a fair point. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:29, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sorry if you misunderstood when I used the word horde, I used it to describe the zombies populace as a whole, not in a specific location. The pistol glitch is something which I must admit I did not anticipate and overlooked, thanks for pointing that out. The rest just seems negative for the sake of zombie-jeebus. Whilst this does primarily affect zombie attacks it also affects all survivor melee attacks, you say that survivors depend on guns because everything else sucks, I don't think you need reminding that the Jacket only benefits zombies and PK/DC victims (which their very actions benefit zombies). Zombies have no fear of death and any defence boosts through items come at no cost, survivors have to balance their inventory for survival/defense and the retaking of ruins. If you feel that 26 instead of 29 hits is too many feel free to suggest a change to the values. This is a discussion for whittling out 'stupid' ideas not for insulting them (which I consider pointless). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:47, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
''Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield ...'' Can, but won't. The vast majority of the damage zombies take s from guns, and this also provides no protection vs combat revives. HtH combat damage trails a distant third behind those in terms of impact on zombies. '''So really, this IS a pure zombie nerf.''' {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 19:08, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:Any proposes for a fix? Reducing deflection to 5% (that sounds so geekish). Lowering the limit to Less than 4 (which would account for the gun-bug and allow zombies still to get in their max claws) or would that be seen to be nerfing infection/bite/newbies/survivor melee? I know you might think this is the wrong school of thought but I feel there needs to be some active defence from zombies (running away is not defending) and barricades can't be taken with you, but due to the limited amount of high-powered zombie attacks any thing is essentially a nerf. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 19:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this suggestion if it was to affect ALL attacks regardless of damage... however I am concerned about it stacking with flak jackets to nerf firearms but if you lot are ok with it then I have no objections.... opinions please? --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I think it's a neat idea, just not sure if its passable. Maybe if the Shield had a chance to be broken, or taken away by zombies? For every "deflection" there is a 10% chance the shield breaks as well? Maybe a zombie that gets a Tangling Grasp has a 10% chance to wrench the shield away and toss it aside for each attack it makes while it maintains the Grasp?--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:25, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This fails flavour as it implies active usage to gain its benefit, you must move the shield to cover the attack. A flak jacket is passive, it protects your torso regardless. In short, this would (or rather should) be useless while you are asleep...which for most UD characters is 23 hours and 50 minutes of each day.<br />
<br />
Also it's a nasty zombie nerf. '''All''' zombie attacks are less than 5 damage, meaning all survivors would get a 10% chance to avoid every single zombie attack in the game. This suggestion will discourage zombie play and turn Malton into Monroeville after the first quarantine, tag with PKers. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:42, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''"After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this..."'' We are not okay with this idea. It's awful. It's nothing but a horrible zombie nerf, and no changes are going to save it. Riot shields do not protect against firearms. Period. Any attempt to make them do so is just stupidity. But if riot shields work against melee attacks only, then you are nerfing an already underdog ability -- for both zambahz and survivors. Just drop it, it sucks and it can't be fixed. Also, Izzy, you've failed in your Dupe-meister duties, this is in there somewhere, I know it ;) And, Zhani, once again you demonstrated why you should stay away from making suggestions: please wait until you actually know the game, thanks. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:01, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:As far as I understood from the comments people were making, the two major complaints were that it did not affect guns and that it affected zombie attacks. Including the ability to affect guns as well (which you ''conveniently'' failed to include in your quote) was the change that some people may approve of, as for affecting zombie attacks that kinda goes with the idea of a riot shield. "''Riot shields do not protect against firearms''" it may upset you to know that some do, although if you were arguing for true realism I think the zombies need to go... In defence of Izzy failing to dupe I could only find 2 similar suggestions, both from 2005 and both with completely different mechanics if it is that big an issue to dupe it go put in the effort and do it yourself. As for Zhani, he's learning don't try shoot him down because he's trying to be involved. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Next person to shorten my name gets Jihad declared against them.<br />
<br />
::Wan; what he said about dupes <nowiki>:p</nowiki><br />
<br />
::Bunny; would you care to comment on the point I made about active usage? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Falling asleep from exhaustion is a good reason why your character runs out of AP, it only takes 30min before you can 'wake up'. Whilst I do agree that a player would have to actively use it to defend themselves, the idea that I can hit someone who is asleep repeatedly with a fire axe and with such poor accuracy doesn't make sense (especially considering they don't wake up), I actually assume all players are awake and attempting to defend themselves if attacked which is why hit accuracy is not too high. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait wut? How do zombies benefit from something that will only effect them and low level survivors? Last I heard pistols and shotguns did >= 5 damage, Claws and bites did <= 4.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies would gain more defence from melee weapons, however it has now been changed to include pistols and shotguns. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::It just doesn't seem right. It destroys all zombie attack, survivor players could get them easier then zombie players... Even if Shotguns no longer worked, that would create an atmosphere where it would be CRing only.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 17:56, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::How would this new version work in dark buildings? And Also, I still don't like it for the same reason why I think halving in dark buildings was a horrendous idea, 10% from 50% is a lot more significant than 10% from 65%, especially with the RNG the way it is But if you're going to go on with it might as well answer all questions that might come up.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::As the Riot shield only affects the attacks that hit the player, the environment which the attack is performed in should have make no difference but since the user is making an effort, the same penalty as attacks receive should logically apply. (Chance of success halved in dark buildings added to suggestion) Thanks for that, the more holes you guys help me fill the better. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it. Rather logical especially when considering that several suburbs were just bad neighborhoods (Even BEFORE the zombies!). I think that his would be a bit more efficient if you kept it as a melee reducing item, the hand to hand flak jacket in other words, say knock off 1-2 Damage per non-firearm attacks. Take it to that level and THEN I'll probably vote a keep on this. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 19:33, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, I'm sure new players will appreciate 0-1 damage at 25% to hit.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Well the zombies are getting Uber Buffs. Survivors have always been a bit better than the zombies at base level. I think that just the 1 Reduced Damage is sufficient at say...30% but if we want to get technical with this option lets say Hand to Hand Combat skill gives the 15% bonus to this so base is 15% chance to block 1 damage and then with HtH skill 30% chance to block 1 damage and we drop that improvised attack method because it's going to be the same as a punch. Now for the zombies think of Virgour Mortis as a +10% Chance to block 1 Damage. So again, 15% base and with Vigour Mortis a nice little 25% because Zeds aren't quick enough to keep up with the survivors. It is a bit sketchy but I am going to support this method over sitting around fiddling with percentages. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 20:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I would like for this to apply exclusive to melee weapons, but that would mean ALL zombie attacks and not the attacks used by high-level survivors which was a problem. I'm also unsure if the game distinguishes between damage types, if it does great, if not, going on damage inflicted presents a problem when pistols are reduced by flak jackets. The idea to reduce damage instead of deflecting it completely is possible, however it would just end up as 'a flak for melee attacks' different mechanics for each one helps to keep them unique but if people prefer that option let me know. The skills bit does have merits but I was hoping it would be independent of the skill tree although if people want it to upgrade as you buy skills your way is certainly an excellent way to do it, especially the uniqueness between the live/dead. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:18, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Consider the flak jacket. -1 point for firearms, hand to hand attacks still go through. As for the zombies...well survivors run out of ammunition every now and again, even in the sieges. To combine this item with hand to hand combat training is the most logical approach based off of common sense and lightens the work load if Kevan likes this. Like you stated, zombies and survivors can both hold them, lets apply our minds and think about how well a zombie would be able to block a hit. When you think of next to never apply this big piece of reinforced fiberglass and then you get your answer here. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 03:53, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Zombies holding riot shields? I'd love to have some of that crack you're on. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 04:08, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dude the odd thing is that it is not crack! It's Jello powder! [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:23, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies hold and use all sorts of items... Anyway, this idea is just awful and can't be saved, please give it up. All it does in any form is act as a zombie/PK nerf. Period. Drop it. There is NO NEED for this, and it doesn't improve the game, make it more interesting, or offer a solution to a problem. It's just... dumb. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===No More Walking Armories: Less weapons, more ammo.===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 21:39, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Change to firearm usage<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, firearms.<br />
|suggest_description=Add Equipped Weapon feature, adjust weapon balance numbers to encourage reloading over trenchcoatism. See below for details.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
As things stand, players in Malton become [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|walking armories]], with as many loaded pistols and shotguns strapped to their bodies as they can carry. Essentially, everyone is a [[:Image:Trenchcoater03.gif|trenchcoater]] by default. This is due to how firearms currently work and their game statistics. Players are rewarded for carrying multiple loaded firearms, and there's little penalty for doing so. Guns have very little encumbrance ''relative to their ammunition'', and there's no cost at all to moving on to your next loaded weapon. I think this is [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Arguing_for_Your_Suggestion|unbelievable]] and out of genre. <br />
<br />
My proposal is to add a new game feature and tweak weapon encumbrance, find rates, and damage in order to encourage the carrying and use of only primary weapons, with plenty of ammo for those weapons.<br />
<br />
'''1. Equipped Weapon''' The game supports selecting items that are "worn"; however, this is only used for clothing and flavor at the moment. With this addition, survivor players select any weapon in their inventory to be ''equipped''. <br />
* Above "'''Inventory (click to use):'''" there is "'''Weapon (select):'''". There will be a new drop-down list in this section: '''<code>Equip [Weapon List] as weapon</code>'''. This lets the player choose any existing weapon in their inventory, or an improvised weapon like a fuel can or crowbar. <br />
* Equipping a weapon costs '''2 AP'''. This represents getting it out of your backpack/belt and having it ready for combat. ''The AP cost of switching weapons provides an incentive to reload over switching between a stocked series of weapons.'' <br />
* You can only attack with your equipped weapon. The "attack player" option no longer offers multiple weapons as a choice, but instead lists your ''equipped weapon'': '''<code>Attack [Joe Zombie] with pistol</code>'''. If no weapon is equipped, all attacks are punches.<br />
* Once a weapon is equipped, the "Weapon:" section no longer displays "(select)", and the selected weapon is displayed there, instead of in the inventory section. Below that, the weapon-selection control remains available to select another weapon.<br />
* Clicking ammo to reload defaults to reloading the equipped weapon if it is unloaded. Clicking the equipped weapon removes it. Clicking a weapon that does not have a dual usage (most of them) will equip them as well (this is necessary so you can still click fuel cans to use them on generators, fire flare guns, etc.) <br />
* Upon dying, the equipped weapon is removed and remains in the player's inventory. Zombies do not have equipped weapons. Revivified survivors must reequip their weapon.<br />
* The currently equipped weapon can be seen in the profile description, along with clothing.<br />
<br />
'''2. Weapon Encumbrance Values''' Firearm encumbrance values are increased. Guns can get heavy to carry, and shotguns are unwieldy. Pistols: 10%. Shotgun: 18%. '''Ammunition encumbrance is minimized'''. Bullets and shells take up relatively little space, and can be kept in backpacks, fannypacks, pockets, etc. Clips & Shells: 1%. <br />
<br />
'''3. Reloading''' Reloading a clip or shell remains at 1 AP.<br />
<br />
'''4. Weapon Balance:''' This change slightly increases the in-combat AP costs for survivors. With 8 loaded pistols in inventory, a player can currently do 240 damage in 48 turns at 65% rate, or 156 damage, or 3.25 damage/AP. With 1 equipped pistol and plenty of ammo, in 48 turns the player can empty 7 clips, doing 210 damage @65%, or 136.5 damage, or 2.84 damage/AP; a 12% decrease. <br />
<br />
With current shotguns, 8 shotguns in inventory do 160 damage in 16 turns @ 65%, or 104 damage: 6.5damage/AP. With the change, two shots requires either switching (2AP) or reloading (2AP). Alternately, we can simply think of the unloaded shotgun as 2AP/shot. With the change, the shotgun would do 80 damage in 16 turns @ 65% or 52 damage, a 50% decrease. The change makes the shotgun even more front-loaded damage however. <br />
<br />
'''''It is very difficult to make absolute recommendations on numbers for game balance.''''' Only in-game results can show whether items are unbalanced or not, and to what degree. However, as an initial rebalancing to make the change not appear so drastic, I suggest these figures:<br />
<br />
'''Pistol: 6 damage/shot. (5 flak).''' In 48 turns (finishing empty), a pistol would do (6*7*6*0.65) or 163.8 damage on average: 3.4damage/AP, a 5% increase. This is a very modest change, and sticks to whole-number damage. In 6 turns, the existing pistol does 30 max damage, 19.5 average, the new does 36 or 23.4 average, but on subsequent turns the reload time brings the average damage back down. With 6 shots/7AP, the true average becomes 3.34dam/AP. Total pistol increase: 2.9%<br><br />
Alternately: to kill 50HP enemy:<br />
:Current: 3.25dam/AP. (Assuming enough pistols in inventory) 16AP to kill<br />
:New: 3.34 dam/AP ((6*6*.65)/7). 15AP to kill.<br />
<br />
'''Shotgun: 12 damage/shot (10 flak).''' 2 turns=24 damage @65%=15.6damage. Compare to current: 2 turns = 20*65%=13dam. This is a small front-end increase. However, comparing 16 turns (8 loaded current shotguns, vs 1 shotgun with reloading): (10*16*0.65)/16=6.5dam/AP. New shotgun: 2 shots, then 2 shots per 4 turns for 12 turns, then 1 shot in the last two turns. 2*12+12((2*12)/4)+0+12=108. @65%=70.2 or 4.39dam/AP. The shotgun decreases over time. If we compare current and new shotguns starting unloaded, it's 10dam/2AP vs 12dam/2AP. The advantage of starting a fight with a loaded shotgun goes up, but the advantage of carrying a stack of them goes down. It becomes worthwhile to consider switching to a sidearm after using the shotgun. ''This appears consistent with game believability.''<br><br />
An alternate way of looking at shotgun damage: to kill a 50HP enemy: <br />
:Current: 6.5damage/AP (assuming enough shotguns in inventory). 8AP to kill.<br />
:New: 2*7.8damage=15.6 for 2AP, then 7.8damage/2AP (reload, fire). 7AP to kill.<br />
<br />
Shotgun opener + pistol: 15.6 average damage/2AP. 2AP to switch. 23.4 average damage/6AP. 1AP reload. 11.7 avg. dam. /3AP. = 50.7 damage in 14AP. Slightly more efficient than pistol alone, less than shotgun alone. (I have been working with current balance values; but the existing shotgun is much higher damage than the existing pistol. It requires more AP to find ammo, and reload.)<br />
<br />
'''5. Weapon search rates''' Firearm search rate decreases slightly (most people will only want or need one of each type). Ammunition search rate increases slightly. <br><br />
'''Pistols:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Streets (1%?), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
'''Shotguns:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Pubs (1%)<br><br />
'''Clips:''' Mall Gun Stores (13%/16%), Armories (13%), Police Departments (12%), Junkyards (2%?), Gatehouses (?%)<br><br />
'''Shotgun shells:''' Mall Gun Stores (12%/16%), Armories (11%), Police Departments (11%), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
* If a weapon is found, and the player has selected to discard that type of weapon, but they have NOT selected to discard the ammo, ''they retain the ammo that was in that firearm (if any)''.<br />
<br />
'''Potential objections:'''<br />
<br />
Game balance: the change to damage output/AP is relatively small. If game stats reveal survivors grow more powerful, or one weapon is more preferred than the other, damage values can be adjusted as necessary. The point of this change is not to drastically adjust game balance in any way, but to instead encourage a change in player behavior to something more consistent with genre. Any statistical flaws that benefit a weapon type or player group can be adjusted as necessary.<br />
<br />
Inventory changes: this deprecates the value of carrying multiple weapons. Despite the increase in encumbrance of a single weapon, this should actually free up some space for people. The changes do not severely affect the contents of anyone's inventory. <br />
<br />
Realism/Game fiction/Genre: Carrying an absurd amount of weapons is simply silly. The only reason people do is because the game mechanics encourage it. This change provides an incentive for players to behave much more akin to typical characters in zombie films: carrying a couple favored weapons, and enough ammo to keep them supplied.<br />
<br />
Too long/complicated: This idea consists of minor changes to game variables (encumbrance, damage, search), and adds a straightforward feature which should work consistently with the existing interface and game data structures. It requires tracking one more piece of data per character: which weapon is equipped, and removes one piece of data normally transmitted on each attack: the weapon used. This should not be a prohibitive amount of development work. Balance changes are necessary to coincide with changes to AP costs for using weapons to minimize the secondary impact on gameplay.<br />
<br />
Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit.<br />
<br />
'''Areas for input:'''<br />
<br />
How are the numbers? Are they reasonable to maintain balance while accomplishing the goal of this suggestion?<br />
<br />
====Discussion (No More Walking Armories)====<br />
#Pistols are usually no bigger than two clips. Having 10% pistols and 1% clips is completely unjustified.<br />
#Shotguns are nowhere near the size or unwieldiness of generators (18% vs 20%).<br />
Not just that, but raising the encumbrance of weapons doesn't really contribute to reducing the number of weapons and increasing the amount of ammunition carried. Changing the search percentages wouldn't affect much either. Just plain introducing the equipped-weapon gameplay would do it. It's simple; reloading costs 1 or 2 AP, changing a weapon would cost 2. Ammunition is lighter than weapons. For pistols this means you're paying 1 AP less per 6 bullets, and carrying double the amount of damage if you use clips over loaded pistols. For shotguns it means you're paying just as much, but still carrying one half more ammo by carrying shells instead of shotguns. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 23:28, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I don't believe the game's encumbrance values are based on real-world sizes or weights, but rather are a general reflection of carrying ability for the sake of game balance. They're arbitrary. No one can carry 5 portable generators at once, and being limited to carrying only 50 shotgun shells, when they're typically sold in small boxes of 24 to 48, reveals this. A Ruger Security Six revolver as listed on the [[firearms]] page weighs about 1 kilo; carrying 25 of them at 4% enc per, would mean 55 pounds of firearms. The point isn't to be completely accurate with size or weight, but present a tradeoff in carrying many vs. few. With 1 pistol (12%) and 8 clips (1%), for a total of 20% the user still comes ahead of carrying 8 current pistols (32%). While a shotgun does not weigh as much as a portable generator, carrying 16 of them (at 6%) is just as unreasonable. <br>The search values I adjust because finding new firearms becomes less important. This isn't critical to the suggestion however, especially if the part where I recommend that users be able to discard guns they find but keep the ammo in them. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 23:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The exact nature of encumbrance is pretty much irrelevant, as, like I said, changing the encumbrance values doesn't really contribute towards the goal of this suggestion. It just adds one more thing for people to find objectionable. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 09:59, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::If currently people are carrying 16 weapons, and suddenly they can be just as effective with 3, they now have much more space for first aid kits, ammo, syringes, generators, etc. It's also about balance. While there is extra space, increasing weapon encumbrance means it isn't so survivor-favored in that aspect. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 10:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::That reasoning would make more sense if you weren't halving the weight of ammunition. You still have to keep the values somewhat sensible when compared to others. 10% pistols and 18% shotguns are just too inconsistent. Something like 6/8% pistols and 12% shotguns would be better. Or you could bump up the encumbrance of '''everything else''' (which ''would'' make more sense, but would simply get spammed). --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:24, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Is it necessary for game-balance that survivors be limited to carrying a certain quantity of ammunition? To my mind, the limiting factor is search rates, more than carrying capacity. I halved the encumbrance of ammo to balance increasing the values for firearms, along with the fact that the new system encourages keeping plenty of loose ammo, rather than just that which fits in numerous weapons. As for game-realism, shotguns are large and unwieldy, it's implausible to carry more than two. Encumbrance can represent both weight and bulk. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this idea, both because it makes sense and it's better as flavour, but I don't think it will last two seconds in a vote..not that that's any reason not to suggest it, but all the trenchies will go "OMG ONLY 1 WEAPON + MORE RELOADS NOW I CAN ONLY KILL FOUR ZOMBIES A DAY KILL KILL KILL" <br>But I like it.. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 01:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thanks! :) Actually, I really am trying to keep the balance the about the same so that for purposes of killing speed, it's roughly neutral. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:07, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
All these fucking words to just hide the fact you want to bump up the shotgun's damage. Go to hell. Go back and play Resident Evil some more if you get hard-ons from selecting and equipping weapons. You miss the point that this is a damn text game that only gives you 50 AP a day. You can't unload weapons when you find them and you are just as likely to find a pistol with 3 bullets in it as a full clip, but thanks to this GENIUS suggestion even if you aren't a trenchy you will still get your AP raped by swapping weapons. I like to think that survivors are smart enough not to carry their weapons in a back pack but to have them hidden on their body for easy access. I fucking hate gun suggestions. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 02:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Hi DCC. As I pointed out, in front-loaded damage the shotgun sees an increase, but over time it has reduced damage/AP compared to currently. If you compare the current system with someone carrying 10 loaded shotguns and enough ammo to reload & fire again for their 50AP, the new system represents an 11% decrease in average damage done. As I clearly stated, this isn't about altering game balance or enhancing/damaging the effectiveness of any weapon. As for searching, I provided a suggestion that ammo found in other weapons could be unloaded if the user already has a weapon. Also, I don't think being abusive is very consistent with rational discussion of people's ideas. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:39, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::The game is not played in long term, at least for survivors it shouldn't be. They're more than mobile enough that they can pop in, do tons of damage, run out, and come back a few days later fully stocked and do the same thing. It's low risk and exactly why boosting short term gains for survivors anymore would be ridiculously overpowered.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::This doesn't create a boost for survivors. Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png the graph] I created. The intent is to create a change in behavior, without significantly affecting balance; which is why I'm happy to discuss the numbers used. The pistol remains almost exactly the same; the shotgun does very slightly more damage in the first two turns, quickly falls behind the damage put out by multiple preloaded existing shotguns. This is shifting the pre-combat AP investment to carry around all those loaded weapons, into combat itself, making it viable to have one weapon of each kind and reload during combat. This is more consistent with the game world and genre: frantically loading your weapon as the undead shamble towards you, than carrying 16 loaded weapons effortlessly. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::I wasn't critiquing your suggestion. Now I am. To keep it simple I'm just gonna say this, you can't half ammo encumbrance it would have to much of an effect on the time survivors have that they can spend ''without'' restocking. That amount of time is a significant limiter on their ability to use/abuse their AP efficiency. You're basically doubling their Ammo carrying capacity and attempting to claim it's balanced by slightly reducing their attack efficiency(which is still being left close to 8 damage per AP). Yes, it makes individuals very very slightly less effective, it will also make groups of survivors insanely more effective and it will let those individuals spend ''more'' time without a break. That ''is'' a significant boost. Now I don't actually have too much of a problem with it assuming Kevan ''finally'' allows some specific zombie boost in response, and by that I mean finally letting them do a significant amount of damage per AP and letting them get through barricades with something closer to twice as much AP as they take to build instead of 4-5x. I don't think that will happen though.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:17, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Thanks Karek, this is an interesting point. Assuming a player wants to maximize their combat potential, and disregarding all other concerns (assume they're backed up by other players who will heal/rebuild etc.), a player might carry 16 shotguns (@6%) & 2 shells (@2%). That's an average of ((32+2)*10*0.65)=221 damage in 36AP, then they're empty. 6.14damage/AP. That's not including the significant AP investment to find and load all those guns. Under the proposed system, player has 1 shotgun @18%, and 82 shells @1%. They get 2AP of attacks, then thereafter it's 1attack/2AP (load & shoot). Over 166AP, they do an average of ((2+82)*12*0.65)=655.2 damage, or 3.94 damage/AP. They would have invested more AP in advance to gather all those shells.<br><br />
:::::I understand what you're saying. The existing system allows a quick burst of high damage, then the survivor has to go replenish. The new system would allow large restocking in a "safe" are, then being able to do damage for an additional 4.6x AP; however, both the average damage is reduced, as well as being spread out over more AP. <br><br />
:::::Say we go with 1 shotgun @18%, but 41 shells @2%. ((2+41)*12*0.65)=335.4 in 84AP, or 3.99damage/AP. Roughly the same damage output, just half the cycle time between attacking & replenishing; as well as less AP invested up front. So the question is: is the length of the attack/scavenge cycle significant to game balance? Do zombies depend on survivors running out, even if they're doing 2/3rd the average damage per AP? --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::::That's not necessarily true either, with three, or even four, survivors striking together they can completely ignore the reduced efficiency. They would actually clear things faster and more efficiently then than they could now doing the same thing. Like I mentioned above, the average damage in the long term with shotguns is irrelevant because most of that cost occurs well outside of danger while most of the reward occurs when you want/need it to, all that would happen is who's holding the shotguns would change, that's actually what I like about an equipment based system. Lose everything else, keep that, the rest is irrelevant, likely impossible to balance, and seems generally based on the assumption that all Survivors are idiots; they aren't, they just don't have any real reason to work together. There's a good core idea here but the implementation needs work.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think i like the start of this. Right now i can't focus to tell if all the numbers are good with me over a long base of time. but, first impression is i like this... i just don't know exactly how this would affect things until i'm actually using it. Also, i disagree with DCC... chill out, man. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This sounds great but really this is more of an AP kill. Consider that the majority of us survivors depend on being a walking arsenal, making us pay 2AP to get a loaded pistol out can highly unbalance the basics for siege survival. I say you drop it down to 1AP or just drop it entirely and make this a weapon pump. This has potential and I love the stats given, but you just gotta fine tone it. Try getting together a study group, devise a neat little generator amongst yourselves, provide a report in place of the hypothesis that we do have now and then try getting this into voting. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:There AP cost is there to provide the incentive to reload the weapon you're using, rather than switch out to one loaded weapon after another. For the pistol, it makes it more advantageous, for the shotgun, it makes it equal with carrying other shotguns, but the drop in encumbrance acts as a bonus. The increase in damage for both pistol and shotgun help balance against the increased AP costs so damage/AP is roughly the same. With pistols, you currently do 6 attacks in 6 turns, then switch. With the new system, you'll do 6 attacks in 6 turns, 1 turn to reload, then go again. So you need 1 pistol, and just clips. 6 damage/attack instead of 5 makes them close in damage output. Likewise with the shotgun, with the current system you fire 1 shot per AP for as long as you have shotguns. With my proposal, you still get two shots for two AP with your pre-loaded gun, then you get 1 shot every 2 AP: reload 1 shell, fire, etc. In the first few turns you'll have done more damage than the existing system, but after a few turns, it does a little less on average. Oh, and remember: '''with the existing system, you still need to spend the AP to load your weapons. You just do it before combat, not during.''' Like I said, this brings it more in genre: desperately reloading as the zombies advance on you, instead of carrying a dozen loaded shotguns on your back. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 05:32, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''Re: weapon balance: Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png this graph].''' This compares current with proposed weapon damage. I'm somewhat inclined to increase the shotgun to 13 or 14, but the relative advantage between the old and new shotgun depends on how many loaded shotguns the player would have under the old system. I assumed 8 for this graph. If it's less, the difference is much narrower; it's unlikely a player would have many more. Note that the player has a damage advantage with the old shotgun ''until they run out''; but they had to spend the same AP in advance to load those 8 shotguns. The new shotgun merely incorporates that loading AP into combat. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 06:16, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''GRRRRRRRRRRH!!!''' KISS me, please. i.e., Keep. It. Simple. Stupid. This may be a fantastic idea, but I can't be arsed atm to read that wall of text. Please learn how to be more concise. Seriously. Thank you. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:22, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What I did read... led me here... This is unnecessary. Because carrying lots of loaded firearms is actually a very poor use of AP and encumbrance. The most Ap-encumbrance efficient weapon in the game is the pistol, by far. And the best way to use pistols is to have 2-3 of them and tonnes of ammo. Shotguns are spiffy weapons, but their ap-encumbrance efficiency is atrocious: if wind up with a few, use 'em... but once its empty? Drop it, don't reload it, that's a giant waste of AP... So, if people wanna waste their AP and encumbrance on carrying and reloading lots of firearms -- the zombies say go right ahead and be horribly inefficient! <br />
:That being said... What ticks me is that I never find pistol ammo in Malls. It's always shotguns. Graaaaagh! Which means... I don't think we need a big game mechanic overhaul, so much as search rates should be tweaked... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::More thoughts... If people wanna carry lots of guns, more power to them. Because that helps the zombies... Because zombies can't be killed. And survivors should be focusing on barricading and reviving and healing first -- and when they are not... then the zombies win! By default. <br />
::Also, "walking armouries" are ''totally'' in genre. You always have the Armah Manz with billions of b!g bang-bangz... Always. And usually, these are the idiots who end up getting killed... And the consumer type who focuses on helping others and getting the job done most effectively lives and helps more people... As in the genre, as in UD... Now, I kind of would like to see trenchcoating get a bit of a nerf... however, i am always very cautious about "legislating playing styles"... And that is what this suggestion does. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:37, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: I'm sorry you found the idea too long. However, I wanted to be specific in the reason for each change, and the expected effect. In order to make the change relatively balance-neutral while encouraging a behavioral change, adjusting numbers in several places is necessary. You said that carrying shotguns and reloading would be inefficient: that's part of what the change is attempting to address. People carry multiple weapons because they can front-load their AP to increase damage in a short time. This idea diminishes that effect while allowing them to output roughly the same damage/AP invested. <br />
::: I disagree that "walking armories" are in-genre. The "Army Mans" carry an assault rifle, a couple grenades, and maybe a sidearm. The only reason players will carry 16 loaded weapons around is because ''the current game mechanics encourage this behavior''; it's not something you'd typically see in a film. They can stock up on weapons and ammo in advance, then unleash that stored AP in the form of damage. What is more consistent with the genre and a plausible game-world, is carrying a couple reliable weapons, and reloading them as needed. This change isn't legislating playing styles: combat-oriented players will still be able to arm up and go to war. They'll just do it with a couple weapons and plenty of ammo, rather than 200 pounds of firearms on their back. Their combat effectiveness versus the zombies will be largely unchanged. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:55, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Instead of trying to play with the big boys in the flame department, I suggest picking up some reading comprehension skills. I addressed your "refutations" in my original post. First of all, the game does not actually encourage carrying 16 loaded weapons; in so far as you are able to do so, you're most assuredly ''not'' contributing to the pro-survivor cause. That you fail to understand ''why'' isn't my problem: do your homework. Secondly, dudes armed to the teeth shooting the shit out every zombie they see (and usually dying grisly deaths themselves because of their stupidity) are very common in both the movies and, yeah, even the video games. Pay attention next time, okay? And go re-read karek and DCC's comments and try to understand the words of your intellectual superiors. THEN get back to us. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:12, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm afraid that you really haven't supported your objections, despite claiming you have. Whether choosing combat-oriented activities in-game helps or hinders the survivor cause is ''irrelevant'': you mentioned that we shouldn't be dictating player style. This suggestion as I've stated is largely balance-neutral. What is does, is discourages exactly what I describe: the "walking armory" effect, and encourages carrying only needed weapons with sufficient ammunition. This doesn't prevent or penalize anyone from walking in with guns blaring, it just means they don't look like [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|this guy]] while doing it. More like [http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1003/988120768_87c5ce1538.jpg this]. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::''Balance neutral'' ? What's this shit? How can something be "neutral" -balance or otherwise- when it tries to change the way people play? '''Don't tell people how to play their characters.''' It's just that simple. Who cares if someone fills all of their inventory with weapons or with GPS units? So what if some trenchies want to carry 100 shotguns? I can tell you haven't been playing this game long. More likely you don't even play a zombie. Which makes your bitching about weapons even weirder. Your suggestion doesn't solve a problem. Your suggestion does not make gameplay more interesting. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::: Could you be specific about how you feel it's unbalanced? And the suggestion is not telling people how to play. The intention of [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Gameplay_and_Flavor|that guideline]] for suggestions I believe is that we shouldn't discourage RP or encourage non-RP. People can play their characters how they choose, and fill their inventory with what they want. However, the current game mechanics ''actively encourages players to be walking arsenals'' if they want to maximize their combat effectiveness. The problem the suggestion solves is that carrying a huge stack of weapons is anti-RP, contrary to the genre and game-fiction. As I've said, it's [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|silly]]. Carrying a shotgun, revolver, and melee weapon seems much more plausible, and something you'd see in a zombie movie, don't you think? This lets someone who does that, be viable in combat. Additionally, I have attempted to balance this so it's neutral towards zombies, not shifting the advantage. Again, I invite you to show me how it is not. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 00:35, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::: You say you don't want to legislate how people play the game one moment, then the next you say that's ''exactly'' what you want to do! Make up your mind. Now... Zombies don't care if they get shot. If you actually ''played'' a zombie full-time, you'd understand this. Shot me all you bloody well want, I'll dirt nap and stand up again with, at worst, 44 AP and be ready to go. Therefore, shooting zombies is ''completely'' pointless except when you need to clear a building. To that end, you carry some guns. But ''smart'' survivors don't carry lots of guns: they carry maybe 2-4 pistol and 2-4 shotguns, tops. Why? Well... because the most powerful pro-survivor thing in the whole game is the revive-needle. Next come barricading and FAKing. Smart survivors know this, thus they carry several needles (sometimes a hell of a lot), a toolbox and a big whack o' FAKs. ''These'' are the survivors who benefit the "pro-survivor" cause. By contrast, anyone who just carries a whole bunch of guns is ''not'' really benefiting the survivor cause all that much, they are just parasiting off others' barricades, revives and FAKs. Nor are they ''really'' hurting zombies, because zombies don't care if they die. Capiche? You say I haven't backed up my arguments, but I ''have''. I actually made an argument -- it's just that you either don't understand, or you're wilfully ignoring the argument. Meanwhile, you've just provided statistics and a flawed idea, which you haven't put in any kind of rational or argumentative or bona-fide in-game context... Meanwhile, I don't care if someone wants to carry 16 shotguns -- as a survivor ''or'' a zombie. As a survivor, I think that guy is a parasitic waste of space and I will make fun of him and belittle him for being a trenchcoating wanker -- but he's not really ''hurting'' me. And, as your picture of Ash demonstrates, all said and done, he is actually RPing ''in-genre''. And as a zombie I outright ''laugh'' at his stupidity and I smash his barricades and eat bra!nz with a hearty GRAAAAGH!!... However, I do not wish to legislate how he plays the game in such a heavy-handed way... Which is ''exactly'' what your suggestion intends to do -- by your own fucking admission! This is not a good idea, and by clinging to it and not accepting ''constructive'' and ''reasonable'' criticism, you're proving yourself to be fucking git, a disruptive and non-contributive member of the community. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:12, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hmm. When I said that, you criticized me for having a superficial understanding of the game. The shoe's on the other foot now, eh? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:19, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hi WanYao. How many shotguns is Ash carrying? One. How many firearms will a typical person in a zombie film carry? One, or one rifle/shotgun and one sidearm. In UrbanDead as it stands, how many firearms will a person carry if they want to ''maximize their combat potential''? '''16'''. The game mechanics are already telling them "how to play", it's saying that if you want to devote yourself to dealing damage, you carry a silly and fiction-breaking number of weapons.<br />
:::::::::I'm afraid your comments about what is actually optimal strategy are irrelevant and a red herring. This suggestion makes no change in what players ''should'' do in order to be maximally effective. It simply alters the game mechanics so that the optimal number of weapons to carry is one of each, and not 16. This is what is more in keeping with the genre, more plausible in the game fiction. There's no advocated or encouraged change in "player behavior": a combat-oriented player will choose ammo over other objects, while others will stock sufficient ammo and keep their FAKs and toolkits etc. You've already said that with the status-quo, even ''good'' players will have 4-8 weapons. Again, this is silliness that is a result solely of the game mechanics, not because they believe their fictional roleplaying character would actually be that kind of badass. The game dictates how many weapons they should carry. I'm for reducing that number, without significantly affecting game balance itself.<br />
:::::::::Now if you want to make the case that 1% encumbrance ammo too greatly reduces the tradeoff between being combat-oriented or rebuild/heal oriented, I'm happy to hear it. Karek's provided his support for a similar argument above. And as usual, your personal attacks are completely off-base. I've been giving all reasoned criticism due weight. I get that some people ''don't like'' the idea, based on personal biases, but so far, I've only seen one specific argument for what might be wrong. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:44, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::This wall of text is getting pathetic... Anyhoo, there is another principle that no one has mentioned yet, but it bears emphasis: greater realism =/= better. Anyway, I'm done with this, it's arguing in circles now. Good luck. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:45, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::That's just your luck. I find TONS of clips and pistols with 4+ shots. Last time I loaded up, such stuff was easily 75% of what I found in the gun store. In fact, I would have stopped searching, but it took me a long time to find a shotgun shell to top up the half-loaded shotgun I had. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 16:40, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I fucking hate you. This comment in particular - ''"Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit."''<br />
<br />
Put it up for voting, right fucking now. Watch me dupe it on basis of weapons damage buff, selected weaponry and ammunition encumbrance buff. Just because your 'suggestion' contains many shit suggestions does not mean I cannot find those many mindless trenchie buffs and rightfully kill it, it means you are fucking deluded for thinking I can't and typing such a moronic suggestion.<br />
<br />
Shit, I wish karma was real, then some really bad things would happen to you, I'd find out about them and chortle my arse off. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:45, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Get arsed, yourself, Iscariot. Assuming trolls have arses, that is. Do they? Or does ''all'' your shit come out of your mouth?<br />
:Meanwhile, karek, swiers and DCC have pretty much show this suggestion for the BAD IDEA it is... So let's move on, kay, class? Next lesson please... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:44, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissocial_personality_disorder Please seek help.] --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Alrighty then... See, there is a time and place for being an asshole. I felt the situation was not appropriate, thus my comments to Iscariot. I take them all back now: go nuts, Izzy. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:56, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::What makes you believe it's ever acceptable or appropriate to behave abusively towards people? This sort of behavior certainly isn't conducive to rational discussion and addressing the merits or problems in a suggestion. It simply brings the quality of the wiki down, and reflects poorly on the community. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:02, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Other than Iscariot, no one is trolling you. And, in context -- while I don't really think his comments are particularly helpful -- you've brought it on yourself. In any event, if you want a love-in, where everyone is nice to each other and they let you cry on their should if someone was mean to you, please go [http://www.oprah.com/index here]. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm not trolling at all, trolling implies I'm after a certain response from him. I don't. It would be nice if he'd listened to all the nice people explaining it to him, but he didn't. The comment about duping is pure arrogance on his part, and I don't take kindly to it. The dupe system stops moronic suggestions entering PR because everyone reasonable gets bored of killing it. |I notice he hasn't taken me up on my challenge to see if I could dupe it....<br />
<br />
:::::Also Zhani, feel free to go and whine on any sysop talk page you like. The one you're after is Vandal Banning. Good luck with that, there is no civility policy on this wiki and until we remove to moronic-trenchie-weapons-buff gene from the general population, there never will be. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
...Well isn't that one long suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:...Well isn't that one long discussion. -- [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::... Speaking of things long... ''::looks down::'' Oh, is that a banana in my pocket, or am I just happy to see a zombie in my safehouse? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:07, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Thats a whole lot of SPAM you typed up there... what's wrong with just making weapons assignable? Allow everyone to carry a weapon in each hand and have it cost 1AP per hand to change (shotguns requiring a free hand or having a -60% to hit!) reload or re-arm then cost the same and it becomes a matter of choice which style you prefer. Of course that makes maxed out survivors a lot <br />
less like the combat monsters they currently are but thats probably not a real problem! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 12:38, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Personally, I dislike this, but that's partly because i only carry two pistols and one shotty, thus giving room for more reasonable things. Like fencing foils, Wine, and poetry books. --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 06:41, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Body Bonfires===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:48, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Perma-death option.<br />
|suggest_scope=Characters in citys with perma-death alternatives.<br />
|suggest_description=I've got a zombie character currently running around Monroeville looking for the precious few survivors there are in order to eat them.<br />
<br />
One of Monroeville's biggest problems, I think, is that there was no way for low-level survivors from killing zombies permanently. Zombies could take out survivors, no problem, but unless you had Headshot, you couldn't take down a zombie.<br />
<br />
I know that's in-genre, given that they're the freaking undead and all, but it sucks game-wise.<br />
<br />
Thus, I came up with 'Body Bonfires', after watching the movie ''Night of the Living Dead''.<br />
<br />
Should this get implemented, survivors can now douse corpses in gasoline (from fuel cans) and set them alight with matches (find stats TBC), lighters (find stats TBC) or even a flare gun, if desperate. A burning corpse will degrade into a 'charred skeleton', after which time the character would be effectively 'perma-dead'.<br />
<br />
Note that this is meant to ''replace'' Headshot as the survivor perma-death, not co-incide with it.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Body Bonfires)====<br />
No. Why? Monroeville is quarantined and dead. Adding more items that make things even more difficult to find and implement will not suddenly change the dynamics of the city, nor will it make monroeville more fair. the point, i daresay, of that city is to more realistically show a zombie infestation, and the only way to do that is by making the limited amount of zombies unlimited, with only a small amount of very good zombie killers who can do anything about it, which still amounts to not much. its fine, and the city is pointless, and just leave it. and don't add matches and lighters to do what flare guns already do. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:33, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I think you misread my suggestion. For one, this is NOT for Monroeville. Monroeville is dead (or will be soon), this is for any new cities that will also have perma-death mechanics, should one ever be introduced. For another, you can only burn a zombie once they're on the ground having been 'temp-killed' (HP to 0). --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 09:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I didn't misread crap. Nothing in your post makes reference to any mythical city that is currently not existant. You only mention monroeville, and imply that is what your suggestion is about. And after reading it again, i've decided this is a) a dupe; b) spamtastic, given the non-existant nature of your supposed city; and c) incomplete, given that you don't actually talk about where it is implemented, or if its a skill, or how its done in the user interface. just allow it to die, and then we'll burn the suggestions corpse out of our memories. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 20:44, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Completely pointless because such a hypothetical perma-death city does not exist. You can't get more spamtastic than suggesting a mechanic for something that doesn't even exist. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:56, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Reminds me of both [[Suggestion:20070816 Burning Bodies]] and another suggestion which I can't quite find at the moment. It is entirely possible that this may be substantially a dupe. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:50, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I found [[Suggestions/RejectedFebruary2007#Flare Gun / Fuel Attack|Flare Gun / Fuel Attack]] interesting reading, to say the least. How many [[User:MrAushvitz|MrAushvitz]] suggestions have been implemented, now? Surely the apocalypse is extremely nigh... {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:57, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Sorry, no, perma-death would not go over in this game. It's simply not fun for the players, and gives a person a reason to give up playing. Favors survivors overwhelmingly, and doesn't really improve the game. I hate to be one of those types shooting down ideas, but this doesn't work. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:36, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A) You only mentioned Monroeville, the dead city. B) MV has one purpose now, and one purpose only: ZKing. [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 02:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Make graffiti readable in dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Logic Flaw Fix<br />
|suggest_scope=Graffiti in dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Graffiti disappears when the lights go out in dark buildings. Since it is unreasonable to assume that absolutely no light can get in any parts of dark buildings, why wouldn’t the graffiti just be sprayed in the areas that the little light can get in? Such places would be the front of cinemas (where the snack bar is, as there are usually windows out front), near the windows of the banks, and near the windows of standard buildings.<br />
<br />
I have never seen any buildings like these completely lacking windows in all areas, and windows would have to exist for Free Running to be possible, so even if the skylights haven’t been maintained, there’s no reason people wouldn’t be spraying the signs near the window areas where it’d be visible, even if the rest of the building is dark.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Make graffiti readable in dark buildings)====<br />
<br />
It's dark. You can't see dead bodies. Combat abilities are nerfed for everyone. You can't repair a building in the dark. Barricading and reviving are also disadvangtaged. So there's no logic flaw here, not at all. It's bloody ''dark''!!--[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:The logic is fine as is - after years of the outbreak, the walls will be pocked, peeling and covered in grime and blood, not to mention layers of graffiti in different colours. You'd need fairly good light to make out the latest message.<br />
:I was thinking of suggesting an item, book of matches, the sole purpose of which would be to let the user (only) read graffiti in the dark. But I couldn't be arsed looking for dupes etc. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 10:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::But..but.. what about all those blank rectangles I sprayed onto the walls to keep them clean and in one colour! In all seriousness, no to this suggestion. As Garum says, those walls are a mess, no matter how many blank rectangles you spray. :P - [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:03, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::We don't need a silly, pointless item like matches to spam our searches. Meh. It's dark. Deal with it. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:26, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
WE DEMAND BRAILLE GRAFFITI! Fuck you, cripple haters. I need to be able to read ''I like to poop'' no matter how much light is in the building. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 00:31, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Now ''That'' I would vote keep on.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:21, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And human civilization has truly gone full circle, as survivors have come back to the art of making stone tables with toolboxes. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 14:11, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===picking some one up===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 19:44, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=helping others.<br />
|suggest_scope=humans.<br />
|suggest_description=Almost all of us can say that we have been killed while sleeping, or have been a zombie and killed all the humans becuase most of them were sleeping. So why not allow people to carry some one out of danger? Lets say that you and some of your buddys are fleeing a horde, and one of them is out of AP, so why not pick him/her up? It would cost one AP to pick the player up, and 2 AP to move around, and you would not be able to free run {you are carrying another person). You also cant attack since, it would be to diffuclt.<br />
<br />
You would rengenrate AP as you would normally would, and can be put down for one AP. If the person carrying you is killed, you fall down and be as vunerable as you would be normally. Now comes the PKer question. Being able to pick some one up and carry them of to some were else to kill them would become a PKers best tool. So I sujest there should be a check box in the settings, which you can check yes or no to being picked up. If you try to pick some one up how has checked the box no, this happens.<br />
<br />
''you try to pick the person up, but they push you away: Italic text'' <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Picking some one up)====<br />
Pied Piper skills are a great no no. Specifically because of the griefing possibilities. Even with the block you suggested, I don't think it would be acceptable. A better way of determining who can pick you up would be to check for mutual contacts, and not ignored. Not that I think this would pass even with that, because I'm pretty sure this is a dupe. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:54, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Pied Piper? Whats that?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:15, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A pied piper skill is one that involves one player moving another (like the pied piper of hamelin and rats/children) Within game the closest we have is [[Feeding Drag]] which has on it very specific limiting factors. This is too prone to abuse. New players especially may not know its a feature, and one griefer could pick up a huge number of people and carry them directly outside. Where they would get et. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Just as Ross said, [[Frequently_Suggested#Pied_Piper_Skills|here]] is a link to it on the frequently suggested page. I suggest reading that page, will give you an idea of suggestions to avoid. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 20:31, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nequa please read Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested pages. They are linked to above, at the top of this page. Zangz. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:28, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I see what you mean, but I still think that the check box would stop that. And if you are tricked, well thats just bad luck.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:49, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Only way this would be prevented is if everyone had it set to "Do not allow me to be dragged away", and only switched back when they knew a rescue was on the way. It is simply to abusable in it's current form. And try telling the poor newbies, who weren't aware of the checkbox, that it was just bad luck and that they have to live with it after being dragged away from their VSB safehouse into an area full of EHB cades. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 21:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nothings perfect, and anyway you could kill somebody quickly and no one could stop you.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:17, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:surely the default should be ''dont allow carrying''. Stop a lot of griefing there? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sure, you could have that checkbox turned off as a default. But then, how would people who have this skill know who they could pick up, and who they could not?<br>Moving other players is a bad idea to begin with, play wise, so picking at th details is turd polishing at best. If you want to "rescue" people from danger , give them fist aid, try to fix the barricades, and recruit others to help them survive until they log back in, but don't presume to play the game for them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:30, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait, what? You think this is a skill? A skill you need to get by having enough XP? No, no, no, you dont need to purchase it. Also your other point about knowing if the person has the thing checked or not is a good point. You should probally put it on your describtion if you have it on or not, like the hydra defence.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:47, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Right. Other issues. If I pick up a level 1 survivor, this seems to allow me to carry him inside, and then free run to another building whilst carrying him. Regardless of his skills. Besides Im pretty sure its also a partial dup of firemans carry. Anyone got the link. I just feel its unworkable. sorry. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
[[PR_Skill_New:_Survivor:_Civilian#Fireman.27s_Carry_.28Bring_12HP_Survivor_Indoors.29|Fireman's Carry]], which is in Reviewed. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 22:55, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
LOL, that guy pretty much says the same thing I do. It appears great minds think alike. Now do I seem like a idiot?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:05, 2 September 2008 (BST<br />
:More so, now that you've said that. quit being unwilling to learn. everyones been very nice. now go actually FREAKING READ THE DO AND DO NOTS!<br />
:No one is pointing out the worst part of this. What if i create fifteen drones, and use them to carry a full army of survivors into zombie territory. you don't put it plainly, but you seem to infer that you can only be carried while sleeping (or at least, i'm hoping, because otherwise those zergs could carry armies of full ap'd characters) but either way, its a free trip for my sleeping characters, who spent their AP stocking on ammo. my zergs carry them in, dump them off in a zerg-repaired building, and let them sleep. now i have an army, 2 for one. thats what makes this bad. adding a penalty of 2 for one doesn't fix that.<br />
:and the griefing is absolutly grieftastic. what if i rescue someone with low HP out of a mall into a quiet factory where i show him my gun?... i mean... pk him. errm... or how about if i spend a whole 50 ap 'rescuing' any of the barricaders in a seige with a death culter. the check box doesn't solve this, because the only time that someone would want to be rescued is the same time where its worth abusing the feature. it fails because it will never work. if you can't free run with it, (can you enter/exit buildings?) then its worthless for doing anything but costing the zombie horde half the amount of AP to keep up with you.<br />
:This was long... sorry. but this suggestion is silly silly silly. NOW READ THE FAQ's and DO AND DO NOTS! Please. and don't read them and then try to come up with a better way to do what it tells you not to do... just DON'T suggest those things. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:15, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also, wan yao... i think one of my alts was just combat revived by you. Ha. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:22, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Combat Reviving FTW!!! ;P .... Up Roftwoodish or something, right? I vaguely remember CRing some zambah somewhere for some old reason or another, heheh... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:40, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::As for the suggestion... Yeah... you seem like an idiot at this moment, Nequa. This is a broken and unworkable idea. People are trying to explain that to you. But you're not listening, and you can't even be bothered to read the help pages for Suggestion development -- which are clearly linked to -- and which people have been providing you with links to, above... Smarten the fuck up, please, and quit wasting our time. Seriously. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:44, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I distinctly remember telling you to stop suggesting... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:49, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Feeding Drag in Large Buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:necrodeus/sig}} 02:46, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=improvement<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with feeding drag in large buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Hello team.<br />
<br />
The feeding drag skill allows zombies to drag survivors of less than 12HP outside through an ''open door'' at the cost of 1AP. Therefore, if a zombie enters a large building through an open door, then makes its way through the building unimpeded (ie, through more open doors or just empty space), beats a survivor down to 12HP or below, there should exist the option to feeding drag said survivor through the building.<br />
<br />
It makes sense, as you are inside a building and simply dragging the unfortunate survivor somewhere else in the building, presumably towards the horde that generally congregates in the opened block.<br />
<br />
Now I know that this is the same as suggesting that I could feeding drag a wounded survivor through open streets, but I do think that as it is limited to the insides of large buildings it is hardly useful as a griefing tool, neither would it be game breaking, and it fits in with the idea behind the feeding drag as well - if a zombie feels the need to drag someone outside, why should the fact that it's slightly longer distance than normal dissuade him?<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Feeding Drag in Large Buildings)====<br />
Kind of like a zombie equivalent for the fort body dump? I like it. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 04:02, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Seems out of genre, normally a zombie will feed for itself with absolutely NO consideration for a horde. Though this skill is a good idea, it would be a bit pointless because if you have a survivor at 12 HP and most of the time the only large building you are in would be a mall, it would mean you drag someone near dead to a horde, either way, the survivor was already HIGHLY LIKELY to die unless terribly low on AP this skill is just useless. I say just stick with infectious bite. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:No. Feeding Drag and zambahz helping babahz is ''totally'' part of the genre -- as in, it's ''in the game'' ... So it's part of the genre. Zombies in Urban Dead have intelligence, more like in Return of the Living Dead than in Romero's movies. Regarding the suggestion, I think this is a great idea! But it should cost at least 2 AP to so, perhaps more. You usually don't have to drag as far, or through as complicated a series of buildings as in a fort, so I'm not sure if the same AP costs is in order... but perhaps... Still, in siege situations where this matters, we tend to just tend to kill rather than worry about dragging... However, even then, this ability would be FAR from "useless". --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:08, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ok.. I'm out of it.. I understood this as the equivalent of dragging a body outside the Forts. Which would mean you click the ability and you drag your target outside -- and you go with him, just like you would a normal feeding drag. No "half drags" to another corner of the mall -- it's all or nothing, all the way outside, or not at all. And that would cost 2 AP. And of course you'd still have to spend AP getting back inside and to the action, if that's your desire. There are some tricks to overcome with this... but it's a cool idea, nonetheless. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:37, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Yeah, I like it as well. Some people might call it greifing though [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 04:21, 31 August 2008 (BST).<br />
<br />
I was 50/50 between making it just like a body dump costing 2AP and making it like it is now, but certainly a feeding drag all the way outside for 2AP - like the survivor body dump - is just as keeping in genre and could be considered less of a potential griefing tool.<br />
<br />
What if it just acted the same as feeding drag, so I end up outside. It costs 2AP, and then if I want to get back inside it just costs me the same as normal movement rates - so at least 1AP to just re-enter the building, and 2 AP to get back to where I was originally? It's hardly a griefing tool, you're only ever going to end up outside the building you were in, and at most 1 block away from where you were {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 12:38, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:That's exactly what I just said, man... The only issue could be as follows: you're in mall, all corners are heavily barricaded except one, which is wide open... you're in another (non-open) corner killing some folk, and you want to use this ability. Now, do you drag the victim to the outside of your ''current'' corner, or do you end up moving to the open corner? What if there is more than one open corner? Or, if you drag to the outside of your current corner, then how do you justify bypassing barricades -- because even just a closed door negates feeding drag... See the problems? This is a very spiffy idea IMO, but these things need to be worked out... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:00, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::I was agreeing with you! I was thinking that the feeding drag took them out of the open corner, rather than through the barricades. As for what would happen if more than one door was open, I would say go to the nearest one, except that in a four block square, every sqaure is as near as any of the others...I couldn't see it making too much of a difference which one you drag someone out of, so I would make it random; the zombie just heads towards the light, any light. That way, as long as there is a door open when the button is pressed, the feeding drag will be successful, rather than allowing the user a choice. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 17:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Probably won't matter a lot now since this suggestion would likely get implemented (if ever) after Monroeville closes, but in that city there are non-standard large building shapes, like [[Monroeville Mall]]. You can like drag someone across four blocks. :O Also, how would a zombie know which building block is open from where he/she stands? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:22, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Malls, Mansions, Power Stations ... are large buildings which means they are functionally ''one building''. With fours sets of barricades. And four ''zmargahzbargz, GRAAAAGH!'' The zombies knew how to get inside and move around when there was only one entry point, so why couldn't they know how to get back out? And, I mean, like he could just look around... Also, yeah, no-one cares about MV, it's over... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:48, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Well, ''you'' as the player know there's an entrance to the building, at least recently. In contrast, your zombie can only check within the block he's in -- even adjacent ruined blocks [[Pinata|aren't guaranteed]] that there are no cades there. Unless the zombie is actually looking at every block in the building (something which implies free moves), then without metagaming he/she won't really know there is an exit should dragging be done. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::But like Wan said, you're basically inside one large building. If you try and feeding drag inside a regular building, and the doors been closed, or whatever, you get a message and lose an AP, like for any failed attack. It's the same here. And the whole point of feeding drag is that zombies *do* know where the exit is --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. Its not needed. Once zombies get into a large building, they almost always take it down by keeping one corner ruined, or at least unbarricaded. The babah zombies can just come inside to feed, entering by spotting the ruined corner and then gorging themselves. Besides not being needed, its got a lot of potential complications. What if a large building has multiple open sections? Which one does the zombie drag them to? If zombies really wanted to use feeding drag in every section, they could just spend a few AP each to tear down the barricades, even getting a bonus for attacking from the inside in most cases.<br>I think its safe to say, if a zombie tries to drag a survivor across one or more blocks inside a large building, the survivor struggles and breaks free. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:36, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I'm afraid I disagree; you seem to have a fairly convincing argument against feeding drag itself; namely that if your baby zombah is standing outside any old building, he can see it's open and shamble on in. So why do we need feeding drag at all? I've already answered the point about which exit to be used as well. And yes, I could spend a whole load of AP tearing down the barricades to feeding drag a wounded survivor outside, or I could just spend 2AP and drag the human outside the exit that's already open. <br>And surely the point of feeding drag is that the survivor is wounded enough to not be able to stop it happening? And why should a human be able to drag a zombie across several squares of fort without it reviving? In both cases, if the player is online, they are better able to defend against this, with the difference being that all a survivor needs to do to 'break free' is simply walk back inside the building. <br> If I'm way off here, let me know, but it makes sense to me --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Not of base, but my point is, if zombies on a whole really cared about feeding drag, each of the ~20 or so in a large building could kick in 4 AP and blow away any barricades on that building quarter. That's really only enough AP to kill 2-3 survivors- not enough to slow down a siege once zombies are comping on a SECOND building corner. So it seems to me that zombies themselves do not put much importance on whether they can use feeding drag or not, as evidenced by their own actions in raids. Its not needed to make zombies vs large buidings work, nor would it really make it much better.<br>Truth told, feeding drag was originally used mostly to combat the "yo-yo barricade" syndrome by getting a building emptied (and ransacked) faster; now that zombies can block barricade building, its a bit of an atavism. Its main use is as a "visible" version of feeding groan. For a mall, if you want to let zombies know there is an active strike with some visible cue, just killing the generator is often good enough. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:16, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Fait enough for a horde sweeping through a building, but in my experience, I use eeding Drag for two reasons: Firstly, when I break into a building with one or two others, I know there is a chance that it will escalate into a horde swarming in, but more often that not, it won't. But by dragging a human outside, that's one less defender, and a drain on resources, because that person is outside regardless of whether I get headshot and evicted or not. Secondly, the FU tends to use it as a in game piece of flavour as much as a way of feeding the zedlings. So for a horde, I agree, Feeding Drag is unneccessary, and if you've got the resources to tear down the barricades with ease, then I'm all for that too, but for feral zombies, or smaller groups it's a slightly different ball game --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 00:39, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::When playing a feral (and my death cultist, too, actually) I use and think of Feeding Drag the same way necrodeus describes. It helps small numbers of zombies get the ransack faster. Also, if the cades go up, that drag-meat is suddenly isolated. And drag-meat is fantastic feral bait. And, yup, I do it very much for flavour/RP effect as well. Although, it doesn't work thar well for feeding babahz, b/c usually some big zambah comes along and eats them :( ... This is all in very big contrast to striking with the MOB, where we only drag if we are very intent on getting that damn biulding cleared -- because we can always tag-team to finish someone off if we have to. And if we are feeding a babah, we bring the babah inside with us. This suggestion is more for the ferals than for highly organised hordes... <br />
::::And a few other things: killing a gennie is not enough: GKing is too common... And swiers you know how annoying barricades are -- it really is asking a lot for a smaller number of ferals zombies to invest what it takes to open up EHB cades... But all that being said... Perhaps this isn't necessary, not really. And, it might in the end be a zombie buff that is just a tiny, tiny bit too much... Particularly with cade blocking... But... I still like it... ;) --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:36, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Well, I'm going to put it up, and see what the people / merciless flamers have to say.. {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:45, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I'm not gonna flame it; it can;t do enough harm to deserve that. My personal issue is that I'd like (as much as possible) to avoid moving other characters to different blocks (I even proposed [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20070616_Fort_Revision:_dumping_bodies_over_walls|a fort dumping mechanic that avoided this]]), and that its benefit is so small for the coding effort involved. Mall raids are already a smorgashboard for ferals, so I don't see the point of arguing it helps feed them there. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:37, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Private homes===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:18, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=new building.<br />
|suggest_scope=anybody how enters it.<br />
|suggest_description=Why does it appear that there are no private homes in Malton? I know its a city and your more likely to find a privat home in the subburbs, but I do know there are private homes in the city. We dont really need private homes but it would add realism to the game. There could also be another benafit. Since anybody could have lived in that house, from a NRA gun nut, to some tech loving nerd, you could find anything in thear. But there should be list of items you could not find in the house.<br />
<br />
List of items you could NOT find in a house:<br />
<br />
Necrotech syringe<br />
<br />
DNA scanner<br />
<br />
Flak vest (there could be one there, but it seems hard to belive)<br />
<br />
fire ax<br />
---------------<br />
Also here is the describtion you would see if you went in the building.<br />
<br />
-With power: You enter a well lit home, you start to feel like you were before the out break.<br />
<br />
-With no power: You enter a dark house.<br />
<br />
-when ruined: You enter a house and notice how everything is thrown apart, which grimly reminds you of what has happend here. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Private home)====<br />
If I may ask, how long have you been playing the game? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:36, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
To answer your question, about a week, I have been running around rhodenbank. Let me guess? There are private homes and I have just not found them yet?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:39, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There are [[Mansion|mansions]], and various [[Building_Types#Building|buildings]] around the city can be thought of as offices/condominiums, where you can imaging living places in.<br><br />
There are other reasons why private homes aren't found on the map.<br />
*One is that they're too small, same reason why you don't put a single tree on the map (and for those that are large enough, see mansions).<br />
*Another is that with most survivors just looting around the city and zombie hordes chasing after them, most houses are in such a state of ruin that they are essentially unrecognizable, turning residential districts into [[wasteland]].<br />
*Finally, they are quite insignificant in the grand scale of the survivor-zombie conflict that adding them now three years after the game has launched simply doesn't make the game any more enjoyable or fulfilling than it is before, and frankly it'll only be a waste of time and effort to put them in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:51, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then instead of adding homes how about updating the regular buildings to be more like apartments? Because most buildings have a RP (EX:pubs,police stations,forts) thing you can do with it, but the regular office buildings are boring. Maybe they could add my search idea without the need of a new building type?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:19, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Your search idea is horrible. Normal buildings already do not have items; what you're doing here is the opposite in that you can find ''anything'' in them, and just for that it will be spammed. As for your roleplaying bit, that will take a much lower priority than improving UD gameplay, especially when you consider there is a suitable alternative (once again, mansions, and normal buildings aren't too shabby -- just add some decorations) and multiple other possible roleplaying locations. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:30, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There's no private homes because the private homes are usually at the outskirts of a city, and what we have in Malton...Is the big city. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 19:16, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I usually just think of the street blocks as containing such houses. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:52, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Private homes are not really appropriate to the game. They can be assumed to exist on many blocks... because it's generally accepted that the block description refers to the most prominent or most utilised building on the block... <br />
<br />
But... yeah... Nequa... please play the game for a while before posting suggestion ideas. Hang out and read this page for a while. And start playing some zombies, PKers, death cultists, whatever, as well a survivors. And join a good group or three. Barhah.com is a great board, and though it's zombie-centric, everyone is welcome. Beerhah.com is a good place to go for survivor stuff. Anyhoooo... back to suggestions stuff... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:47, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Dump dead bodies from dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Restoring normal ability<br />
|suggest_scope=Dead bodies and dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Under current game mechanics, you can’t dump dead bodies from dark buildings. How does this make any sense? You can get in and out of the building, even through Free Running, yet somehow you can no longer remove dead bodies? Or do the exits magically close somehow when you try to remove someone?<br />
<br />
Currently, you can see anyone hiding in the shadows of very dark buildings, but you can’t see/dump dead bodies. Even if you just killed the thing, you somehow can’t find its body, even though you’d be tripping all over it!? Once again, it doesn’t make sense. Only once you light up the place does it become possible to dump the dead. Since I see no reason for it to be physically impossible to find or dump dead bodies, they should always be recognizable and dumpable.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Dump dead bodies from dark buildings)====<br />
A possible explanation is that people in dark buildings are found and attacked because they're breathing so loudly and their hearts are thumping. Similarly, standing zombies are wheezing. However, dead bodies emit no noise, and if you're tromping through a building hoping to step through a ribcage, you should be spending AP to do so. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}21:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Or because they are fumbling with heavy furniture in the dark to barricade the building, or shooting guns, or... {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:48, 29 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::Well, how about another take on it. Anyone who dies in the building...if their body is still inside when someone who witnessed the death takes a turn, they notice the body (since it wasn't cleared). The body wouldn't have moved from its original spot that fast.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:06, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Group Bonus===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:22, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance change<br />
|suggest_scope=All denizens of Malton who belong to groups<br />
|suggest_description= <br><br />
<br />
OK, so while I used the template, I’ve brought this to the discussion page in a fairly informal manner because I don’t pretend to be a programmer and I don’t pretend to know what is possible. I like this idea, but I can see my own problems with it from a technical standpoint – and I’m hoping that others here might be able to help with the solutions on that front.<br />
<br />
Here’s the basic idea – in the real world groups are much stronger than individuals. People en masse accomplish much more, whether it be construction projects, armies, or lobbying government. Organization has an additive effect to efficacy - pretty much every time. <br />
<br />
Also – there is a benefit to being part of an organization for humanity. There is community, the transfer of knowledge, the advancement of the overall ends of society.<br />
<br />
With that in mind, I think there should be an in-game bonus for group activity. This will encourage folks to join groups, which in turn will raise the overall level of gameplay across Malton. This bonus would apply to ANY group working in concert – be in human, PK’er, death cultist, or zombie – so there are no powering issues between warring factions – only a power difference between the grouped and the ungrouped. Given there are few restrictions to joining or forming groups, the ungrouped would hardly become a put-upon constituency.<br />
<br />
So how to do it? Originally, I thought a simple tiered bonus for group size measured by the number of folks who have a common group name in their profiles. Say a 5% to-hit/search/cading bonus for folks part of groups from 25-49 members, and maybe 7.5% for 50-74 members, and 10% for over 75 members.<br />
<br />
The problem there would be that it encourages a new form of zerging. Folks would make “Group Scarecrows” that they would park far away from active group activity, but who have the group name in their profile. They’d technically not be in violation of alt abuse, and it would be very hard for group leaders to prevent, and of course the incentive would be to do it.<br />
<br />
So, I am wondering if the UD engine would be able to detect proximity effects and award bonuses that way? In this case, I’d lower the numbers required for the bonuses a lot – say 10-24 for the 5% bonus, 25-39 for the 7.5% bonus, and 40+ for the 10% bonus – and say that if you’ve got that many folks operating in one XX block radius, you get the bonus.<br />
<br />
Is such possible? If so, I think it would reward all the right behaviors in this game, and be pretty darn cool. My parameters are suggestions - they could be lowered, raised, modified. I am really interested first and foremost what folks think of the concept, THEN hammering out rational details that might actually be taken to voting. So, first "Is there a reasonable way this could work?" then "Would we want it if it could?" then "How exactly should it work?"<br />
<br />
What do you think? <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion Group Bonus====<br />
<br />
I'd vote kill, simply because you are not given a hidden bonus in real life from being in a group. Moral boost, maybe. But the rest you accomplish by working closely with your group. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 16:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Impossible. proximity detection would kill the server. Assume a 5 block radius, the game would have to, on every action, harvest information on userlists for 81 blocks (inside and out), run zerg detection routines on that information, and it would have to then count the number in the group. Now, imagine this happening to the server 30,000+ times a day. You would basically increasing server load more than a hundredfold all up (Quite probably by a factor of well over a thousand). As for the rest, without proximity detection, it collapses under the obvious zerg abuse you mentioned. Proximity detection is a myth, despite claiims to the contrary. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 16:41, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think Grim_s is right - without some radical reorg of the account system it's just not possible. I was hoping some genius might have a work-around, but I bet he's right that there isn't one. Whitehouse - thanks for the comment - but I disagree with you. In real life you '''DO''' get the bonus - the door opens for the AARP in Washington that would never open for the unaligned individual. The group can clear a forest while the individual could spend a lifetime chopping a grove. I think it's moot though. --[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:59, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Even if possible, the advantage to being in a group should come from coordinating with other group members to do difficult tasks that an individual couldn't do. You get a big advantage from being in a well-organised group. You don't deserve an advantage from a bunch of people all spelling the group name correctly. This suggestion is a reward for crap metagaming, which we don't need. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 17:24, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:You misunderstood my point. And Garum probably phrased it better than me. You get those advantages from working together, not from simply being in a group (at least not the type of advantages you were thinking of). Being in a group is a moral boost, working together with it creates results far better than that of individuals. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 17:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Oh I see, you're saying that giving an incentive for group behavior beyond already existing benefits doesn't have merit. OK, thanks. Fair enough.--[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 17:45, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::If you want to encourage group work, then find ways for groups to work better together instead of just giving people buffs for having the same group tag. Zombie hordes have scent death, recently someone suggested a way for zombies to sniff out their buddies. Such suggestions, which strengthen the ties of a group, will give good results, the good results are the incentive. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 18:50, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Technical details aside, this simply isn't appropriate. This is an RPG, and in RPGs the benefits of groups are simply those of multiple players co-operating. When members of a group communicate and co-operate, they are more effective. If they don't, then they aren't- just like real life. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 20:07, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
i haveno clue about all the technical aspects, but this just isnt a good suggestion. kinda sucks to be on of those people who likes to stay unaffiliated, cause they get screwed on the deal.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:19, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
If this was implemented, it would be possible for a user, for example, to put the name of a large group into their profile, and get all the benefits, without being a member of the group. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 21:45, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is illogical. The only bonus people should recive from being in a group is having someone to cover their back. No magic bonuses. No special abilities. Just that. --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 02:48, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Take a look at Nexus War for group mechanics. The main problem is that ANYONE can be in ANY group at ANY time.-[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:04, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Restaurants===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 15:12, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New building<br />
|suggest_scope=People who take notice of buildings<br />
|suggest_description=If Malton has pubs, it really should have at least a few fancy restaurants, which could potentially replace a few of the pubs in the richer areas of town. The Maltonians can't all have only ever eaten/drunk beer, peanuts and crisps outside of their homes.<br />
<br />
:'''Mechanics'''<br />
<br />
''Restaurant''<br />
* Dark building<br />
* Can be barricaded, ransacked, ruined and have equipment installed normally.<br />
* Internal description<br />
** Unpowered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The once-busy dining area lies in darkness.''<br />
** Powered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant.''<br />
** Ransacked ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The chairs and tables are overturned, and cutlery and napkins litter the floor.''<br />
* Search rates (normal, if dark condition were not applied)<br />
** Knife (3%) (kitchen knives)<br />
** Wine (6%) (the finest in town)<br />
** Mobile Phone (1%) (some careless people...)<br />
** Menu (6%) (Flavour item, when used displays "The menu reads: <random fancy dishes>", and flavour text "''You think about them hungrily''" (currency not specified).)<br />
* Clothing<br />
** a chef's hat (white) (obviously)<br />
** an apron (white/black) (waiters)<br />
** standard generic formalwear (maitre d'hôtel, sommelier, general higher-ranking service staff)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Restaurants)====<br />
Can we have one at the corner of the map? We shall call it, "The Restaurant at the End of Malton"... :3 --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:44, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't see why not --[[User:Diablor|Diablor]] 01:53, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Whines* Pubs (Arms) aren't fancy enough for you?<br> Mah Pubs not fancy enough for you, foo? Only if there is a Pub at the end of the world.. Already.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 02:51, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it, but I think the menu should be just like a newspaper with different flavour text. For that matter, would newspapers be suitable to be found here? [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 03:07, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A ''dark'' restaurant? Dunno about where you're from but around here people put big ass windows on restaurants coz ppl like to see outside...also a stupid idea. Pointless and you would have to think up some ridiculous way to explain why everyone in malton thought it was a pub but it turned out to be a restaurant.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:54, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:It was always a restaurant and nobody ever thought it was a pub. And 2+2 has always equalled 5. And we have always been at war with Eurasia. And darkness really depends on the restaurant, but good point. --{{User:Anotherpongo/sig}} 11:45, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Not pointless. Knives are the best weapons for newbies, yet malls are the only places with > 1% chance of finding them. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:02, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
As much as I hate suggestions that don't seem to solve any problems, we do need a TRB for knives, and this seems like a great way to do it.{{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 16:33, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Absolutely! TRP for knives, and logical and fun flavor. --[[User:UCFSD|UCFSD]] 17:17, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
a suggestion so simple that it makes sence lol i say yea bring on the restaurants!--[[User:Fanglord2|Fanglord2]] 02:37, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I '''Always''' vote for building suggestions-always love a change [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 09:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Vote all you like, I'm pretty sure a building change suggestion has never been implemented. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 10:04, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Kevan has talked about doing it before<sub>(it's in his talk page archives for those curious few)</sub>, it's not entirely out of the question.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:51, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Building changes not implemented? Dark? Ruin? Fixing the fort walls? Its not without precedent.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:46, 31 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::::He meant changing one building (type) into another building (type). The first significant building change was to make large buildings into "1" building, but they were ALL still the same building to begin with.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:05, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I'll concede that the forts were revamped from just the armoury building to the 9-block compounds that they are now, but as far as I'm aware that wasn't based on a player suggestion. Large buildings and walls changed how some buildings worked, not what type of building they were per se. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this suggestion.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:16, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Asum(awesome)!!! Lol! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Face Rot===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Zombie Skill, subskill of brain rot.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Brain Rot.<br />
|suggest_description=The rot has spread, now it shrivels and distorts the facial features. The person underneath is hard to recognise.<br />
<br />
In game terms, its a buff for zombie anonymity. Unless the zombie is in your contacts you cannot recognise him if.<br />
<br />
*He stands up<br />
*Destroys barricades/equipment<br />
*Kills or injures.<br />
<br />
His profile can still be gained through a successful scan, or if you recognise them via your contacts. (You could be familiar with his limp, a watch or other item, his groaning etc.)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Face Rot)====<br />
Go on. Savage it, like my horribly ruined features. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I like it, what better way to implement Zombie Anonymity than through a skill? Plus. it promotes the Brain Rot! :D --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 18:54, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
How would this work when they're alive? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 19:38, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Then their profile just states they look like [http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=Gary+Busey&btnG=Search+Images Gary Busey] --{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:52, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bloody Brilliant!!! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 22:27, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Good, apart from one thing. How do you explain not being able to recognise a corpse you just saw die when it stands up. This case would only be when you are in the same location for the period of time in which a character dies and rises (in the case of first being a survivor which is recognisable to all anyway). Explanation could be that the face rot while cleared up by the revivification effect while alive, takes hold again almost instantaneous. But that still wouldn't change the fact that you saw that body die and rise, thereby knowing exactly who it was. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 23:36, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A good idea, except that Whitehouse's point might need addressing. How do looks change so quickly? {{User:Ariedartin/Nickname}} 06:22, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't like this idea. It's balanced and innovative but it disregards the true zombie mentality. Yes, I love zombie anonymity. But I am always in the belief that true zombie characters should be willing to do the *above* three actions '''and''' have their anonymity threatened to whoever wants to use it, in order to succeed their goal. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 12:04, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Interesting points. I'm off to make a ridiculous suggestion, and I'll think about this. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 14:24, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
In relation to Whitehouses point. How about an extra piece of text like. "Blah killed Example, their face decomposes before your eyes. "--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:37, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I saw no one pointed it out and I have a feeling you'll actually check before suggesting this. This isn't actually a buff to zombies, this is removing the one way in which zombie groups generally recruit. I like the idea of starting to get zombie anonymity back, it never should have left but, this hurts them, especially because survivors still get all the workarounds they want/use while zombies now have absolutely no way of knowing who to go to for help/advice/etc.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 09:07, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Suggestions up for voting==<br />
===Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080831 Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark]] as suggestion is up for voting. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:17, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Nurse===<br />
Moved to voting, under the new name of [[Suggestion:20080826_Doctor's_Clinic|Doctor's Clinic]]<br />
----<br />
===Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080827 Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:03, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Dead Reckoning===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion_talk:20080826_Dead_Reckoning]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 09:46, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Janine&diff=1271737User:Janine2008-09-11T20:20:10Z<p>Janine: /* Projects */</p>
<hr />
<div>And now for a little about myself without the cut and paste templates. I'm from Baltimore, currently enrolled in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Institute_College_of_Art MICA] and I work as a Creative Assistant for a publishing company. My character [http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1237352 Janine Eelms] is part of the pker auxiliary of the Hel's Daughters. If you want to leave a comment, feel free to do so.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Current Projects ==<br />
# Currently I'm writing for the [[Families of Malton|Families of Malton]] pages.<br />
:[[The Eelms Family|The Eelms Family]]<br />
# Recruiting for Hel's Daughters.<br />
# Writing the following Guides.<br />
:A PKer Guide, Survivor Tactics, Zombie Tactics, and a starting zombie guide.<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
<center><br />
{{CS}}<br />
{{Female}}<br />
{{Boobies}} <br />
{{Second Ammendment}}<br />
{{Atheist}} <br />
{{Crucifix}}<br />
{{Firefox}}<br />
{{PKing}} <br />
{{Too Much Free Time}} <br />
{{Axe}} <br />
{{American}}<br />
{{Monk}}<br />
{{Socialism}}<br />
{{carlin}}<br />
{{HATP}}<br />
{{Junk}}<br />
{{ThereCanOnlyBeOne}} <br />
</center></div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Malton_Uprising&diff=1271235Talk:Malton Uprising2008-09-11T01:19:06Z<p>Janine: /* Great Job */</p>
<hr />
<div>([[Malton Uprising/Archive|Archive of Old Discussions]])<br />
== Great Job ==<br />
While you all are wasting your time killing survivors who are only protecting other survivors, Dulston is in zombie hands.<br />
<br />
Thanks for all your hard work! What would we do without you? {{User:Lemonhead7t7/Sig}} 01:17, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:No Dulston would've fallen no matter how focused the defenders were. The zombies had a better plan, lower numbers,help from pkers/gkers and the coincidental mall rat apathy towards protecting the suburb. Now all that's left to do is never moving.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 02:19, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Please Stop Talking ==<br />
<br />
Don't most of you guys have to get back to trolling each other on Brainstock? I wished I had as much time and what appears to be either patience, or insulting disregard, for the repetitive arguments that do more to strengthen the points made by the badly worded Manifesto that is apparently being held-hostage. For the love of Sappho, please stop posting. When Secruss and Alphy start sounding reasonable and sober, it should tell you that it's just time to stop arguing and start violence.<br />
<br />
Which is why I am suggesting that Secruss, Alphy, and Kikashie all fight Father Tom(?), Labine, and Kristi of the Dead to a Caged Death Match.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:09, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Fuck you. I'm important too, you know. Put me in the ring with Garviel. I'll kick his miniature painting ass. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 01:56, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::You important? To who?--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 13:06, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I don't wanna be [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVDDRZQtiyQ nobody's hero]... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:25, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:When Secruss and Alphy start sounding reasonable and sober, I'll be the first to let you know. So far all I've seen is a tempest in a teacup about the RG (which has about as much impact on PKers as the Toyota Prius had on global warming), and the DEM (which is so thinly spread it's got a lower population density than Antarctica). Even if DEM and the RG were bad for the game, dicking about with a retarded "Let's encourage butthurt players to PK and pretend that it's not PKing" campaign in green suburbs instead of actually doing something about zombies is worse. [[User:Turkmenbashi|Turkmenbashi]] 13:46, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I see the light Turk! The DEM is not evil! It's just the internet! Morals don't exist on the internet! Holy shit! I've wasted so much time! I quit Urban Dead! I kill myself! I kill my cat! I kill my iguana! I kill my mold spores! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm4ohAcGJWg {{User:Secruss/Sig}}00:12, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Spore? Who has Spore? I'm jealous... --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 00:29, 11 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==In the hopes of a more accurate map.==<br />
I like using the tool provided on Rogue's Gallery to see where the DEM is absent. If you try to locate PKers with in n-number of blocks of location x and y, then you can see how many days it has been since a spotter went through the area. [http://www.ud-malton.info/Rogues_Gallery?State=Search&X=10&Y=10&Distance=10&Type=Location Example] - [[User:Sir Fred of Etruria|Sir Fred of Etruria]]<br />
<br />
:That can work, but what if there's simply been no reported PKers in the area? --{{User:DT/Signature}} 22:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Or DEMs who aren't running IMP? -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 22:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Couldn't you just use some allies/supporters who are low on ammunition/FAKS go through the area and check the hot spots and declared head quarters? And if you wanted to find out if they were zombie or active you could steal their profiles off of the Brainstock recruitment area to check. --[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions&diff=1271121Frequently Asked Questions2008-09-10T21:34:11Z<p>Janine: /* Firefox */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| align="center"<br />
{{Template:Game_Information}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The [http://www.urbandead.com/faq.html official Urban Dead FAQ] covers a number of common issues - this page is for users to help one another with other, less frequently-asked questions about the game. For questions about the wiki, try [[Wiki Questions]].<br />
<br />
==Firefox==<br />
If you use the firefox connection, is the game any diffrent? On Wikipedia I saw a pic of urban dead with alot more detail and it said it was using the fire fox connection. [[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 22:30, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I haven't noticed any change between Firefox, Explorer, Chrome, or Opera. You likely saw the screenshot with the UDtoolbar or one of those other add-ons that have been player-produced.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:33, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Rhodenbank==<br />
I am currently hunkerd down in Rhodenbank, and I am trying to look for a radio channel that is focused on events happening in Rhodenbank. [[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 22:30, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Forums==<br />
Any forums that Urban dead uses? The Wiki great, but it would be cool to have a place where you could talk about Urban dead, by which I mean a place that you can talk about in game stuff. If ther is, is it here on the wiki, or on some other site?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 19:58, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Unofficial_UD_Forums]]. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:17, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==External Military Reports==<br />
How often do External Military Reports happen? Thanks in advance.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 19:19, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Tune in and find out. From what I see, there's like 2-5 reports a day, but I could be wrong. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 19:22, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==A Gritty Detail of the 5-day Idle Thing==<br />
So I was talking to a friend one day who's been idle for 5+ days, and his character doesn't show up on the block he's in. He logs in, but I still don't see him. He had to spend an AP before his character was visible, and it seems merely logging in doesn't make you appear. I concluded that you must spend an AP to make yourself an active character again, and merely logging in is not enough. My question is, BEFORE you turn inactive, does logging in count as an action in the 5-day idle period? If you only log in, but do not spend any AP or make an actions, does it interrupt your "idleness?" --{{User:Asylum/sig}} 06:00, 16 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== I can't play?==<br />
<br />
I tried to play urbandead. when i login it takes me to the main page and when i click an action it takes me back to the login page. Please help.<br />
:You most likely have your browser set to not accept cookies from urban dead or at all. -- {{User:KF/PKsig}} 06:09, 30 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Where are the armouries? ==<br />
<br />
I've been told i can find guns 'n ammo at armouries but i cant find any armouries. Have they been deleted from the game? Please help!!<br />
:Armories are the central block of each of the two [[forts]] in the game, [[Fort Perryn]] and [[Fort Creedy]], they're both located near the south east corner of [[Suburb|Malton]].--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 20:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== I've been killed, now what? ==<br />
<br />
You can either play as a zombie or attempt to get brought back to life. See [[Guides#Guides_for_Zombies|guides for zombie play]] for information on how to enjoy the afterlife after party. See [[Revivification Point]] to get brought back.<br />
<br />
== What will Kevan implement next? ==<br />
Where the Heck is a list where Kevan lists the things that he is working on implementing to make the game work better? --[[User:Mattiator|Mattiator]] [[User:Mattiator|Mattiator]] 01:53, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:It doesn't exist (except in Kevan's head, presumably) - he's a pretty modest sort of guy. He doesn't post what features he's "working on", nor does he say updates are "just around the corner." He doesn't even make disappointing promises about improving server performance. In fact, he focuses almost entirely on '''making''' updates, instead of talking about them. It's a good policy. --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 02:21, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
::However, you can head on over to the Suggestions pages to take a look at the user-submitted ideas that have been approved. There is a chance that some of these will be implemented in the future, when Kevan finally has time to get around to them. For example, I remember seeing the original suggestion for improving search odds in lighted buildings quite a few months ago. It was implemented a couple weeks ago. --[[User:Mewarmo990|Mewarmo990]] 05:31, 23 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== How do Revivification Points work? ==<br />
What protocol? Standing outside as a Z I get killed again, which means 10 AP to stand up. When I've been inside I've gotten help, but the last two I checked were both very strongly barricaded. Are we supposed to wait outside?<br />
:There is no real protocol. There are some revivification points established by various groups, including the [[Yagoton_Revivification_Clinic|Yagotown Revivification Clinic]]. You can also sometimes find directions to revivification points sprayed on walls. Often these are established at churches. You can also try standing near a necrotech building (but please not on the same block, lest they think you are attacking their barricades). If there are survivors on your block, saying Mrh? will often get you revived...if one of them has a syringe. Mostly, it's trial and error unless you are a member of a [[:Category:Human_Groups|human group]] which will revive you. --[[User:Argus Blood|Argus Blood]] 09:17, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
Be aware that some graffiti will point you to revivification points that simply no longer exist - I've found EHB churches with survivors resting inside, even though the graffiti claims that we shouldn't barricade. Hanging around near a NT building is a safe bet to an eventual revive. You may wish to consider playing as a zombie until you get revived randomly. --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 20:53, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:Also, according to the [[Sacred Ground Policy]], to which several adhere, all cemeteries are safe places to wait for a revive. Hopefully this will become a more widespread practice in future.--[[User:Guardian of Nekops|Guardian of Nekops]] 03:08, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
:The use of a revive request tool will also increase the chances of getting a quick revive. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Revivification_Request#Tools for details.--[[User:DI Marc Sweeny|DI Sweeny]] 15:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
See [[Revivification Point]] for a fuller answer to this question.<br />
<br />
==Is there a maximum inventory limit?==<br />
<br />
Is there a maximum inventory size of how many items a player can carry? Is there a max limit on the maximum number of one particular item a player can carry around?<br />
<br />
:As of 03-06-07 all items take up variable inventory space which a much lower limit on total items. -[[User:Tiak|Tiak]] 00:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I think that would come under "encumbrance" that is, "You are x% encumbered." --{{User:P02 Samuel/sig}} 13:36, 17 August 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, but then there's ''Inventory [28/50 weight]'' above the ''100% Encumbered'' status. Is there any value to the 28/50?[[User:Pakopako|Pakopako]] 04:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Someone healed me. How did they know I was hurt?==<br />
<br />
From the Diagnosis skill. Per the Skills page, "Scientific Skills * Diagnosis (The HP values of nearby survivors are displayed next to their name.)"<br />
<br />
:However, it is possible that they have just guessed. This is especially true of members of the [[Medic]] class, who depend on healing as a major XP source, but is possible for any survivor who has a FAK but not the Diagnosis skill. Since they can't see everyone's HP value, they have to simply try everyone they see and hope to get lucky. It is not surprising, therefore, that many Medics purchase Diagnosis as soon as they possibly can. Still, this means that asking for help can benefit both parties. You get healed, and the other survivor gets closer to getting Diagnosis. --[[User:James Ennis|James Ennis]] 06:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Do zombies gain XP from Infectious Bites?==<br />
<br />
Do zombies get XP for the damage caused by infectious bites?<br />
[[User:Kenny Eatabagadonuts|Kenny Eatabagadonuts]]<br />
:No. --[[User:Dayfat|dayfat]] 03:48, 17 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
<br />
Zombies get XP for the damage caused by the initial bite. They do not get XP for damage caused by the infection. [[User:Bentley Foss|Bentley Foss]] 08:37, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
but what if the infection kills you? [[User:Auronk|Auronk]]<br />
:That has no effect on the XP a zombie gets. There are currently no situations in game in wich infection gives XP to the zombie.--<small><span style="border: 1px solid MediumSeaGreen">[[User:Vista|'''<span style="background-color: Ivory; color:Black">&nbsp;Vista&nbsp;</span>''']][[Signature_Race|<span style="background-color: MediumSeaGreen; color: Ivory ">&nbsp;+1&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 14:53, 28 June 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==When does the 160-limit reset?==<br />
<br />
No one knows. Just guess.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that it restarts at 12:00 AM BST (Midnight in Britain.) I say this because I operate off of US Eastern Standard time, and my IP usage restores at roughly 7:00 PM. [[User:Tetha2|Tetha2]] 23:00, 30 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
I can confirm this. I live in Norway (GMT +1), and I regain my 160 IP hits at 01:00 am.<br />
:The EST time given is wrong(although that's probably due to DST), it should, currently, reset at 8 pm EST as it resets at 5 pm PST.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 18:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, 8 pm EST has been my experience. --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 02:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==How do you find a profile by username?==<br />
<br />
How do you look up a profile by username if the person doesn't happen to be standing right next to you and isn't on your contacts?--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel]] 21:09, 16 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:There's currently no easy way to do this other than asking around or manually entering each 100,000+ profile. --[[User:Dayfat|dayfat]] 03:48, 17 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::along the same line of questioning, how does one look up your OWN profile?--[[User:Spellbinder|Spellbinder]] 15:39, 4 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
:::Just click on your character's name when you're logged in. --[[User:Papal Bull|Papal Bull]] 15:43, 4 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
:Googling for "urban dead profile {name}" sometimes works. --[[User:Spiro|Spiro]] 04:31, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Alright, a lot has happened since this was asked. There is now a complete database of Urban Dead character profiles. It's not currently accessible to the public, but if you ask [[User:Mia Kristos|Mia Kristos]] she might give you access or the profile you are after. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 09:48, 14 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
The Urban Dead profile database is [http://profiles.urbandead.info/ here].--[[User:Scott Timewell|Scott Timewell]] 23:22, 16 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==What order are characters listed in, in a location?==<br />
<br />
Is there a pattern to the order that character names appear in your location? It seems to be that whoever's been standing there the longest is nearest the top but I could be wrong. --[[User:MoonLayHidden|MoonLayHidden]] 18:06, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
:Profile numbers, I think--[[User:Milo|Milo]] 18:36, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
::Nope, that's definitely not it. The players in my room are all out of order, profile-number-wise. --[[User:MoonLayHidden|MoonLayHidden]] 18:58, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
::It's based on the most recently active one--they're either at the top of bottom of the list, I'm not sure which.--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]] 19:59, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
:Used to be profile numbers, but it's been changed to least to most active in terms of last action taken. --[[User:Daxx|Daxx]] 15:40, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:For survivors, they're listed by activity. The most recently active ones are on the bottom. [[User:Dickus Maximus|Dickus Maximus]] 21:39, 30 March 2006 (BST)<br />
::This is helpful if you want to find out if any of your buddies have been playing or not. Players at the top of the list have been there for a while and might be on a vacation where they don't play for several days.<br />
:::Players at the top have definitely been inactive the longest. Those at the bottom have recently refreshed the screen or taken an action. Yes, merely refreshing resets you to the bottom of the list.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:30, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==How do you get ranks?==<br />
<br />
How do you get ranks in UD? Is it by kills or some other system?<br />
:Whenever you purchase skills with your accumulated XP your character increases by one rank. -- [[User:FindBosco|FindBosco]] 16:10, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
<br />
In that case, you mean levels. I'm curious about the note on the sign-up screen about titles (''this [name] may get a "Doctor" or "Sergeant" prefix later in game, depending on your class, so don't add one here'') - has anyone received a title like "Doctor" or "Sergeant" from their accomplishments in-game? --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 16:33, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
:Kevan probably had something in mind when he wrote it, but it has yet to be implemented. Anyway, with people having character names like bobo831, that wouldn't work. --[[User:ZheAldo|ZheAldo]] 05:01, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
Is it the most active ones or the most recent ones to move into an area ?<br />
:Actually, I've seen many people with the prefix Pvt, but that's probably there because of the player.<br />
<br />
==What are "Home Bases"?==<br />
<br />
Can anyone tell me what the home base feature is? I've noticed it in screenshots of several users where it indicates the distance to their home base. Is this enabled by a new skill or item? Thanks in advance. ( Example:http://tinyurl.com/aqsfm ) -- [[User:FindBosco|FindBosco]] 04:12, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
:I think I've found my own answer. It appears to be an extension that only works for Firefox. Go here for more info on it: http://www.pete.nu/software/udhoming/ -- [[User:FindBosco|FindBosco]] 16:17, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
<br />
I tried doing that but it didn't work for me? Can someone help me I have firefox I installed the plug in I right clicked and there was nothing there? {{Unsigned|systemerror1}}<br />
:Hard to do tech support without the full details. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 06:19, 7 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Do search percentages vary between individual buildings?==<br />
<br />
Do different buildings of the same type have different search percentages? i.e. is there a particular NecroTech building that gives out more syringes than other NecroTech buildings? [[User:RabidChipmunk|RabidChipmunk]]<br />
:No. See the [[Search Odds]] page. --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 17:18, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
:Buildings which are lit have better search odds than buildings which are not. Apart from that, search odds are the same in buildings of the same type. --[[User:Jack Grudge|Jack Grudge]] 10:52, 3 Nov 2006 (AEST)<br />
:also, ransacked buildings have lower search odds. [[user:chaosvolt|chaosvolt]]<br />
<br />
==How far away can flares be seen from?==<br />
<br />
When somebody fires a flare, how many blocks away can people see it? --[[User:Lord Kelvin|Lord Kelvin]] 12:51, 28 Nov 2005 (CST)<br />
:Since I started keeping track, 14 was the furthest I've seen. --[[User:Dayfat|dayfat]] 18:58, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
::I think it's farther, I saw a 15 once, and I thought I even saw an 18 once or twice before as well. --[[User:Lord Kelvin|Lord Kelvin]] 17:48, 28 Nov 2005 (CST)<br />
:::I saw 19 twice on the same page. Maybe the limit is 20? --[[User:Spook|Spook]] 17:35, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:::Just saw 22. --[[User:Spook|Spook]] 16:54, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
Spooky - I've never seen one that far, although I hardly pay attention. Could it be possible that there's a chance to notice flares which decreases as distance increases? --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 17:32, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:If that were the case, there would be a point where the chance is 0%, else you would still have a chance to see a flare at the other end of Malton [[User:Spook|Spook]] 13:25, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT) 13:25, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
*The [[Institute of Independant Studies]] is currently preparing to do an experiment on flare range. The first test will show if flares operate on a fixed radius or an odds basis as described above and will take place in a few days time when the participants have gathered enough flares. Results will be posted here as well as on the ISS page. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 09:31, 13 April 2006 (BST)<br />
:*The first ISS test fired 5 flares from 25 to 19 blocks away from another character. None were seen. The test will be repeated in the 20-15 bracket once enough flares are found again. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 09:38, 15 April 2006 (BST)<br />
::*The 2nd ISS test suggests the range may be 14 blocks. However further tests will be carried out to see if an odds system exists beyond that. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 13:53, 22 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==How do Survivors have higher levels than Zombies?==<br />
Alright, how can some Civilians and Military have the highest level rating? Isn't it impossible for survivors to have the max level--Brain Rot counts for a level, yes? Or is it just that bug with Infection and rev'd-ness counting as skills, since you can possibly either have a rev marker or Brain Rot but not both?--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]] 23:44, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
*It's not a bug. "Revivification and Infection flags are treated as skills for the purposes of this extract" (From the stats page). A person with brain rot has to be a zombie and therefore won't be counted towards the survivor level rating (because they are a zombie). However a survivor who just recently revived (not standing up yet) would count as being two levels higher then what they are. This is because there would also be the infection tag on the survivor as well because you are automatically infected after revivification. [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 13:06, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
**Okay all of that makes sense, except are you sure about that infection thing? I'm pretty sure it's just that if you were infected when you died, you stay infected. It doesn't actually happen automatically.--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]] 02:19, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
***So would this explain why in the levels section of the wiki, it states that level 42 is the highest possible level, however in the game status page, there are people who have reached level 43?--[[User:MegaManX|MegaManX]] 06:24, 27 June 2007 (BST)<br />
****New skills were added, thus increasing the higher possible skill level.--[[User:Pt da silva|Pt da silva]] 00:14, 28 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Is Brain Rot reversible?==<br />
What are the chances of getting an [http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=128351 accidental purchase of Brain Rot] undone? :F &#8212; [[User:Ceejayoz|ceejayoz]] <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Ceejayoz|&#9733;]]</font> <font color="darkred">[http://ceejayoz.com/ .com]</font></sup> 05:54, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:If the cold-hearted folks over at the [[Suggestions]] page were in charge, your character'd be screwed forever. Which he currently is, unfortunately. --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 19:35, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
::Well, I added a thing to [[Suggestions]] re: a warning on purchase, which so far seems to be a unanimous keep. Perhaps others will be spared my fate. :p &#8212; [[User:Ceejayoz|ceejayoz]] <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Ceejayoz|&#9733;]]</font> <font color="darkred">[http://ceejayoz.com/ .com]</font></sup> 03:17, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
::: This is not confirmed as far as I know, but it seems that zombies with Brain Rot can be revivied only in NecroTech building with the NecroNet Access skill. (Moved this up from the question below and edited for readability.)--[[User:Guardian of Nekops|Guardian of Nekops]] 03:14, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
::::I can confirm that a Brain-rotted individual can be revivified with the new NecroNet Access skill. I have had at least [http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=115713 one brain rotted character] revivified. It is a little difficult, you must be inside a powered Necrotech building and be revivified by someone with the Necronet skill.<br />
:::::If you need reviving from brain rot then try the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Brain_Rot_Revive_Clinic Brain Rot Revive Clinic]; it's an unbarricaded NecroTech building, being used for powered revival - the only possible way to get a brain rotted player back to life.<br />
I have another question about brain rot. If you buy it, and get revived by a necrotech person, do you have to buy it again? Or does it just so happen when you die you have to go through the process of being revived like a rotter? --[[User:Alevins|Alevins]] 20:27, 1 July 2007 (BST)<br />
:Everytime a character with brain rot dies the only way to be revived is through a powered NecroTech building by character that has the Necronet skill. Like all skills it can only be purchased once and will not go away after you are revived.- [[User:Vantar|Vantar]] 21:00, 1 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Why is the game being slow?==<br />
It seems the game has become extremely slow to load again, recently. It's gotten to the point where I can visit several other websites every time I click on "attack". Anyone else experiencing this? --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 19:48, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
<br />
* I have noticed the game is extremely slow in the evening for the past 2 days, but seems to pick up and be very fast after 09:00 GMT, of course I am usually too sleepy to play by then. I have already donated, but if this is a bandwidth problem to needing $$ to be fixed, please let us know.--[[User:Atrayo|Atrayo]] 01:05, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
<br />
::The game is slowest around exact 30 minute increments (X:00 and X:30) as these are the times when every single player in the game is given an AP. These 30 minute updates seem to start slightly before and end slightly after each 30 minute increment (about 2-3 minutes, before and after). If you avoid making actions during this 6ish minute period of time, you will avoid the worst of the slowdown. --[[User:Steakfish|Steakfish]] 07:23, 20 October 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::The 30 minute mark is not true. You are given a restored AP 30 minutes AFTER you spent your first. So if you spent it at 7:15, it gets restored at 7:45, and so on along that line, until all 50 are back, so it is not those specific :00 and :30 moments that it happens. However, the moments before and after server reset, especially before, often see massive, severe lag, as everybody tries to finish their stuff before the IP hits reset.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:37, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Why does it cost AP to stand when revived?==<br />
Even if the AP cost for standing up after death is 10, should the cost after being revived be 10? <br />
You expect to die, even headshots happen (losing XP), but being revived is kinda like a random<br />
good thing happening (unless you're a zombie that just hasn't rotted yet). One doesn't ask to get <br />
revived (of course we want to), but then having to spend so much AP to get up from that, it's like<br />
"yay! I'm alive, but I have to stay on the ground to charge AP before I can play..". What's the rationale for 10 AP after being revived? The slow acting vaccine?<br />
:I don't see the problem with waiting for AP to charge before standing - it's what non-Ankle Grab zombies do. Keep in mind that this is a medicine that converts you from a semi-mindless, shambling mass of decay, into a good-as-new human. It also does "slow, molecular work" according to the flavor. --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 03:34, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
::Also keep in mind that if you have to Ankle-Grab skill, that reduces the AP spent standing up as a Zombie ''and'' as a revived survivor.--[[User:Cheeser|Cheeser]] 21:01, 30 August 2006 (BST)<br />
:::One of the cool things about this game is that you cannot be permanently killed. You may have to spend some time as a zombie, or lying on the ground--but if there was no penalty for being killed then everyone would essentially be invincible. Especially zombies, who would stand right back up in battle after being killed. It does suck waiting for the AP so you can stand up etc., but it promotes the player to choose his moves and actions carefully, and play strategically to avoid the consequences of death. This in turn makes the game more fun, for me at least.--[[User:Tser|Tser]] 11:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==How was I attacked for 72 damage?==<br />
I'm fairly sure that this isn't right. But I have been attacked for 72 Damage in total. As a zombie I was attacked by other zombies and lost hp, however I was not attacked by a survivor player. Any ideas on why this would happen? - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 03:18, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:Either you were healed between attacks, or you had 60 HP in the beginning, lost all but 3, and a [[flare gun]] hit you, then the survivor died (and showed up as "a zombie".) --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 03:29, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
::I can tell you for a fact that the most I was hurt by was 4HP each time. And I also checked if I was healed when it happened but that was not the case. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 08:53, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:::Bullets (if you wear a flak jacket) or zombie claws would inflict such damage. As Louis said, maybe someone healed you by, or maybe you have the Digestion skill? --[[User:ZheAldo|ZheAldo]] 05:09, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
::::During an extremely active combat, sequential processing can break down. As a result, sometimes two to four players are awarded the same kill. If this were implemented in the same way on the receiver's side, that victim would receive more than the minimum damage necessary to be killed. --[[User:Tycho44|Tycho44]] 16:28, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
:::::I have a better explanation and it comes from personal experience. If you're like me and sometimes get impatient waiting on the server, you just keep hitting the "Attack _____ with ______" button counting your AP. What can happen is you can kill someone and have several successful attacks after they have died. I know this has worked because I know how much XP you get from a successful kill starting from 50 HP with the Fire Axe and Ive sometimes gotten more PLUS the message was "You successfully hit the zombie for three damage (or whatever the hell it says exactly... I forget) even though on the screen they are listed as a dead body and there is no zombie on the block. Furthermore, my characters all are Zombie Hunters. If it was the last successful hit, it should say "Headshot" but it doesn't. Also, if someone is dead and their profile is in your contacts, you can attack their body too. This has worked for me on several computers. -- [[User:EBA|EBA]]<br />
<br />
==What do the name colors mean on the map?==<br />
Whats the deal with all those color shades over people's names? The blue, red, and green.I've always assumed it meant online status.--[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]] 22:56, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:I'm almost certain they correspond to Scientist, Civilian, and Military, respectively. I almost never bother looking at the people on the map, anyway, unless I'm scanning for zombies, which show up as white. --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 00:25, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Yup. "Other citizens of Malton appear on the map as names in coloured boxes (the colour matching their class; green for Military, blue for Science, red for Civilian and grey for Zombie); they also appear in the location's description." --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]] 03:30, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
<br />
==Are the Firefox extensions broken?==<br />
Has anyone noticed that Greasemonkey scripts for Firefox that reorganize the buttons in UD have stopped working? I have used the [http://www.cs.uoregon.edu/~ryanf/ud/ud-item_organizer.user.js UD Item Organizer] for quite some time and it worked well, but since earlier today neither it or the [http://jmason.org/software/ud/ Urban Dead HUD] work at all. I have tried reinstalling them and Greasemonkey. Other scripts, like the [http://torbjorn.org/urbandead/gm/map.nav.buttons.user.js Show navigation on map] one, work fine. I apologize if this isn't the correct place to ask this - please direct me if it is not. - [[User:FindBosco|FindBosco]] 01:38, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:Some time ago the [http://www.cs.uoregon.edu/~ryanf/ud/ud-item_organizer.user.js UD Item Organizer] stopped working for me also. Now I have been spending time in the same crowded location and I noticed that normally it doesn't work, but when I click the [list names]-link it starts to work again. So it might be that the functioning of the script is dependent on whether the names are listed or not. I have been in the same location so I haven't yet tested my theory. - [[User:Wilhelm Von Strand|Wilhelm Von Strand]] 20:32, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
:: Ok. Now the script worked before I clicked the list of names to be visible. So it seems to be more random than I thought. - [[User:Wilhelm Von Strand|Wilhelm Von Strand]] 00:10, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
i have a related question: in the main article there is an image of urban dead, but in the screenshot the buildings are shown in great detail. how do i go about aquiring this extension? i use IE normally, but also firefox, and cant find a way to aquire these new aestetics... whiskey tango foxtrot?<br />
:Those detailed buildings come from a firefox extension, the Urban Dead Toolbar. It's available to download from http://udtoolbar.mozdev.org/. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 23:43, 10 April 2007 (BST)<br />
you are my gawd! thnx--[[User:Gass mask|Gass mask]] 23:54, 19 October 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Are separate multiple characters penalised?==<br />
I have created multiple characters (3 in all) which all work separately and therefore, should not be penalised. However, I have named them "voota", "voota's pharmacist" and "voota's militia" and lately I have been getting terrible search percentages. Has my account been blacklisted for having (similar) multiple accounts even though they are not linked, or is it just a coincidence (,or just me being paranoid)? Any way of finding out? - [[User:voota|Voota]] 15:08, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
If there's a penalisation, is it automatically lifted after sometime? If so, for how long? I've just started playing this game and I have two characters very closeby, although not cooperating, I've run them one after the other's AP has finished. I've noticed that hit percentage isn't what it used to be...--[[User:Wcervantes|Wcervantes]] 22:35, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
::It is commonly believed that if both characters attack the same target (who may have moved), hit percentage becomes 0%. This type of penalty disappears when attacking valid targets (i.e., not cooperating with your alt). As far as anyone knows, Kevan doesn't blacklist (egregious violators get banned instead). Some players and groups maintain blacklists, but they'll just yell at you or shoot you -- they can't affect your percentages. --[[User:Tycho44|Tycho44]] 18:26, 15 March 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
I don't think Kevan is that sadistic. As I understand it accounts that are under suspicion of working together just disappear in the night, never to be seen again. I have never heard of search results getting nerfed. Some days are just bad, I spent 30 AP and found a newspaper once. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]] 07:45, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
:Yeah, I think I was just being paranoid. Thanks. --[[User:voota|Voota]] 02:46, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Well under the heading of zerging in the wiki it says that that a countermeasure of suspicious activity (e.g. characters from same IP in close proximity) is to have a negative effect on search percentages...so voota, that could be your problem [[User:Ozz|Ozz]] 12:19, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
:Maybe, but they are all around 3-4 suburbs apart so I shouldn't be penalised. I may have just had a bad day. Thanks for the help anyway. --[[User:voota|Voota]] 02:46, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
I am aware that if the characters are within 5 blocks of each other, any actions cost them double the AP's - been moving my main to a reviv point, forgetting that my NecroTech alt was waiting a block or two away.--[[User:The Fifth Horseman|The Fifth Horseman]] 15:05, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
: Let me guess. Your main doesn't have Lurching Gait. - [[User:CthulhuFhtagn|CthulhuFhtagn]] 21:14, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
:: He didn't have it back then, but it's NOT about the 2 AP/block move cost as a zed. It's about being charged '''20 AP''' (I had 11, stood up and ended with -9 AP) for standing up from a headshot he received along the way. Now, you know it's normally 10 AP... |<br />
Also, when I was moving out my other alt - alive and breathing - from the proximity, his _every_ move cost him 2 AP instead of 1. |<br />
Try explaining that, genius.--[[User:The Fifth Horseman|The Fifth Horseman]] 15:36, 21 February 2006 (GMT)<br />
::: That sounds like a glitch that cost you double points. Bitch when it happens on a 10-point action, but it really seems that was the problem. I've sometimes moved into a building with 1 AP left (as a survivor) only to find I've got -1 AP instead of 0 AP. --[[User:DeadMeatGF|DeadMeatGF]] 15:07, 5 June 2006 (BST)<br />
:: It ''is'' a glitch. I try to keep my four characters some distance from each other so they can work as independent, non-overlapping individuals; once, however, one of my roaming healers stumbled into the hospital in which another of my characters was staying. There was ''no'' AP penalty. --[[User:Forlorad|Forlorad]]<br />
never dun this before but ive had enuf i cant create a second character it just sends me to my first one every time<br />
: You need to use the "Log out" button before making a new character, or clear your cookies. --[[User:Pooky Romero|Pooky Romero]] 18:55, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hmm. I believe what you're saying, Zarathustra, about them disappearing, might not be limited to "working together," for instance, I created a Necrotech character recently, and it vanished overnight. Its name wasn't similar to my other two (GWARRRRR and Monset) and they're all on opposite ends of the map. Maybe there's something about having no more than two or three characters at a time.<br />
<br />
- It can't be the case that they deleted because you already have 2 chars. I routinely operate 2-5 characters and none have been deleted thus far. But they are all in separate suburbs and I access from 3 different computers in any given day. But it should not be because you already have 2 chars.<br />
<br />
- Is there a way to have characters deleted? I have an old alt and my search percentages seem to be terrible (note: this alt is inactive). Is this just bad luck or is it effecting my searches? -- [[user: Norminator 2|Norminator 2]]<br />
: Bad luck. Inactive characters do nothing. Also, the anti-zerging measures only kick in when the characters are in the same square. - [[User:CthulhuFhtagn|CthulhuFhtagn]] 21:15, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:: I have four characters all frequently in four consecutive blocks. They don't really work together in the sense that, although they are around each other, they don't heal each other or things like that. I just one day put them all in the same place. The ONLY penalty I've noticed is that if you attack the same player with more than one character your rate of success is dismal. It happens far too often to be coincidence. I haven't lost AP, my characters find items easily... maybe it's because they don't work together. -- [[User:EBA|EBA]]<br />
<br />
- I have recently gotten into Urban Dead, and have been enjoying it fully. However, it was getting boring playing all by my lonesome so i managed to convince a few of my buddies to play with me. However, I created two of the accounts on the same PC. (Both my friends accounts were created on one PC). We also chose names that were similar, (EG. John Joe Jake [something like that]) and for the first week of their playing, I would check up on their accounts to make sure they wern't lying in the street or something. I did not do much on their accounts, just made sure they were okay. Anyway, my main concern is that if the three of us interact, (we chose classes that could help each other, 1 doctor 1 cop 1 fireman) will our percentages be lowered, or any other sort of penalty? If you know the answer, it would be much appreciated if you share. {{Unsigned|CptKeys|03:10, 1 May 2008}}<br />
<br />
<br />
===A (Mostly) Definitive Answer to the "Multiple Characters" Question===<br />
I had two characters unintentionally work together once. They were in adjacent neighborhoods and the second ended up shooting at a zombie the first had shot but not killed. This character, with max firearm skills, <b>missed 35 pistol shots in a row</b>. Kevan wasn't kidding when he said that characters that work together will have their percentages changed. However, it seems that characters can be in the same neighborhood without ill effects. I would imagine it will likely look suspicious if one of your characters starts giving preferential heals/revives/etc. to one of your other characters, though. <br />
<br />
There is no truth to the rumor that characters in close proximity are charged more AP for their actions. Also, characters can inhabit the same building and their search odds will not be modified-- assuming, of course, you don't interact with your other account.<br />
<br />
As always, these are my personal experiences, and your mileage may vary depending upon changes made in any future patch. <br />
[[User:Bentley Foss|Bentley Foss]] 08:24, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hey i have one character and i just started playing with a friend who goes to a boarding school, and other people play the game at his school. The problem is that his whole school shares the same IP. I moved his character for him once, and now my character can almost never hit people when he attacks. I moved him one suburb away from my character and moved it to the suburb later that day. What could cause this? --[[User:Mrs Fitting|Mrs Fitting]] 01:09, 24 February 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:"What could cause this?" A run of bad luck. I've had characters at 50 AP fail to land an axe hit and I've missed 13 times in a row with a 65% pistol. It happens. My characters maintain at least a full suburb of distance between each other, so zerging is never an issue. It is believed that UD's zerg penalty is temporary and only applies to shared targets -- although getting your name posted on some group's zerg-list could last forever. Unfortunately Urban Dead isn't suitable for a massively shared IP address, so I'd recommend continuing to play from a different IP. Your friends from school could e-mail Kevan about their plight, but please avoid suggesting changes that permit a few 100+ character unrepentant cheaters to harm the gaming experience for everyone. --[[User:Tycho44|Tycho44]] 17:32, 25 February 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
I don't get it. so if a friend of mine WAS playing UD from my computer, but he doesn't anymore,for a few weeks now and if we would meet, would the anti - cheating systems kick in? - Berserkas, a simple UD player. http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=420604<br />
<br />
'''From the FAQ''' - I attacked 50 times at 30%, and only hit seven times! Is this a bug?<br />
<br />
Or you searched and found nothing, or weren't able to break down some barricades. It's either a run of bad luck, which can happen, or it's the game's anti-abuse countermeasures kicking in - if the system detects a number of characters apparently controlled by the same player and working together, it will adjust their dice rolls to stop them gaining an unfair advantage over other players. [[User:Dickus Maximus|Dickus Maximus]] 16:19, 1 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
I have 4 characters and they are no where near each other, three of them are always inactive and have been cleared up by the server will my remaining active character be penalised in any way for this? [[User:Emoch Noh 2|Emoch Noh 2]] 11:19, 17 April 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
I'm not aware of any penalty for reviving your own character-I did it way back before the mark 2 came out when you came back standing up and you'd be killed before getting to safety. I revived my own character then logged in as him and got to safety. (This was after a 2 month long revive wait so don't blame me) [[User:EMAG_TRESNI|EMAG_TRESNI]] 18:32, 17 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm playing two characters -- a survivor in NE corner, and a zombie in SW corner. I often play them consecutively, on the same computer. Both characters' hit percentages are consistently nowhere close to what they're supposed to be. (40% axe attack hits about 20% or less of time, for example.) Anyone else have similar experience? -Hyphenator, 24 June 2006<br />
<br />
:I've got a civilian on SW and a zombie on NE, and my hit rates are pretty low. My firefighter's Axe success % is NOT 4/10. My zombie spends more AP walking/missing than actually hitting fools... Hit % should be raised... [[User:RealRoux|RealRoux]] 11:18, 13 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
There is no penalty for just having multiple characters. I have 3 and play them all consecutively once or twice a day. It's generally good practice to keep them separated (by how much specifically, I don't know) just to avoid any confusion about your intent. All 3 of my characters have been having good or average luck as far as rolls. You may get a run of bad luck, but that's chance for ya. For things not involving luck (e.g. having one of your chars revive another) I can't see why that would affect anything; run in, revive, then separate.<br />
<br />
<br />
I have 3 characters in the same clan. None of them ever work together, but are usually within 10 blocks of each other. They have never crossed paths, never inhabited the same square, and have never attacked the same enemy. Is there any chance that some may be deleted?[[User:Crazylilvietguy|Crazylilvietguy]] 00:43, 26 August 2006 (BST)<br />
:You are breaking the multiple characters rule. so yes there is a chance that some may be deleted. Although there is no direct contact you still receive benefits from having your character in the same place and clan. The enemy you kill with one character is less of a threat to one of your other characters. Your action help your clan, making them stronger giving them both an unfair edge over other non-cheating clans, and raises their ability to protect your characters in return. So while your are not directly working together, You're using go betweens And that too is just as unsporting and just as against the rules.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 00:28, 14 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
-Okay here's one for you. I have two characters. They're never anywhere near each other *I don't think* and they never work together. One of them is dead. Has been for about a week. Because every time I go to get the dead one to stand up, it takes me to the other's page. I've logged out with the other one (having played it already to the point where it has no AP) and want to make the first one *the dead one* stand up so I can get him revivified. But I can't. Why is it doing that?? [[User: TigerEyes21|TigerEyes21]] 21:17, 31 October 2006 (CST)<br />
:Clear your cookies, clear your cache and try again. If it still doesn't work, report back. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.com F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 11:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
-Now it makes me log in when I stand up. [[User: TigerEyes21|TigerEyes21]] 08:02, 1 November 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
Will I be penalized for repeatedly killing my zombie character with my survivor character to gain XP? <br />
<BR/><BR/>Yes you will, thats not allowed.<br />
Now i want to ask, I have multiple characters and want them removing, since i can't do that, if i place them both outside a building will they get deleted, or will all my characters be removed? Also I notice if you dont log in for five days, your character isnt marked in game as a player. But if i stand outside a building next to a character effected by that rule, will they both be removed or will it not matter? Thanks. --[[User:Reviverion|Reviverion]] 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I have no clue on that, but the Anti-Abuse thing seems to work only if you're logged on on that same computer were it was 'flagged'. At my school, we have 1 IP address, and me and at least two others play this game there. Now, One of the people in my group has granted all of us (Note that his only alt is in the RRF) permission to attack him for XP as long as we don't kill him and we heal him. Now, Me and my friend sit next to each other in one class, and we've recently experienced unbelievably bad luck with the RNG when attacking, and searching from on the school's computers (Note we are in the same group, and we are attacking the before mentioned person... No zeds in Roftwood...). However, when I go home and spend the new AP I have at home, I hit the 65% and 40% I'm supposed to, and I find a FAK every other search. --[[User:Driaquer|Driaquer]]<br />
<br />
This is (mostly) an observation. I recently started playing, while staying with family, 'cause my brother-in-law was telling me about the game. While I'm on my own comp, obviously, we're sharing the same IP. Well, I'd started a number of characters over the first few days, just testing the waters and such, and one of them was a doctor, located in a hospital with a running generator, close to one of the forts. It took 26 consecutive searches to find a single FAK, and in the process, I unearthed 7 newspapers. A couple of days later, I leaned that one of my brother-in-laws characters is, in fact, located in that region, so it leads me to believe that my search rate was being penalized due to proximity. In addition, as another character, in another part of Malton, was NOT having excessive difficulty searching for FAKs in a powered hospital, it leads me to speculate that any same-IP characters incurring a search rate penalty due to their proximity to each other does NOT impact any other characters under the same IP.<br />
--[[User:Morgan Blair|Morgan Blair]] 17:42, 13 August 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
Im just asking Kevin, can you please make it possible for people to delete thier characters.when i had just started the game i didnt know about multiple character rules and stuff so i made 3 characters. now i only want my main one cause my other ones are making me suck at fighting. please make it so i can delete players!{{Unsigned|Officer Lirette}}<br />
:First off, the multiple characters thing only triggers if your characters are too close to one another, so move them away if that's the case, second, just stop playing them, in 1 week without being played they will magically idle out<small>(no one will be able to interact with or see them)</small>, and, in 1 month, they'll be flagged as MIA so anyone with them in contacts will no that they are no longer active.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 23:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==I was "teleported" - was I hacked?==<br />
so, when i logged out last time, i was inside the Oram Walk PD in the Gibsonton.<br />
But when i logged back in at the same evening, i was lying outside the same PD where i was when i logged out(I was dead ofcourse!) <br />
Beauty of this is that that box where everything that has happened to you since you logged out was totally empty...no one attacked at me according to that. so, has anyone ever encountered bugs like that? Or was it just hacking...<br />
--[[User:Harbingerofdespair|Harbingerofdespair]] 20:55, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:Sounds like a random bug, same thing happened to me once. I was killed and my body got dumped outside. I'm pretty sure it was legit since there was a pile of 20 other bodies outside with me.--[[User:Pulpanator|Pulpanator]] 07:59, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
actually,probably someone bumped your body out of the building when you logged out.Happens sometimes.<br />
<br />
...someone threw me out i admit...but there were no reports on attacks, or about something else as i said...--[[User:Harbingerofdespair|Harbingerofdespair]] 14:15, 24 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Was there a lot of chat activity when you logged in? Perhaps there is a limit to the number of event messages that are kept per character? [[User:BryceHarrington|BryceHarrington]] 21:26, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Hi, I'd like to know if I was hacked too...<br />
Yesterday I had taken refuge in a building and should've been safe. Today I logged on and I was outside the building with only 33AP. I hadn't played for a day and should've had at least 45AP. <br />
It said that a zombie had attacked me until I died but gave no explanation for the lost AP or how I wound up outside the building. I accessed the same building with an alt character and noticed that the same survivors from yesterday were still in the building, untouched.<br />
<br />
I think you got dumped outside and killed by someone inside the building.-HHlouis<br />
Anyone know what's going on??<br />
--[[User:Saffron|Saffron]] 06:05, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:If you are lying dead outside of a building you used to be alive in, after "a zombie attacked you for X damage" messages, then you probably weren't teleported. Someone killed you, and then someone (possibly a different person) dumped your body outside. <br />
#For barricaded safehouses, a large zombie horde can break in several times during the night but only kill one survivor before the attack is repelled and the safehouse rebarricaded. <br />
#If someone forgot to dump bodies, any dead body inside your building can stand up and ambush sleepers, killing one survivor before wandering off. <br />
#A human PK'er can come through and kill you and wander off and get killed before you log in, thus yielding the message: "A zombie attacked you" instead of "gRiEfEr0605 attacked you". <br />
#Any disgruntled revived zombie-wannabe can enter your safehouse as an infected human (perhaps with Free Running), then search themselves to death to turn into a zombie, then attack you as a zombie (before being repulsed or wandering off). <br />
:Other scenarios are also possible. As far as lost AP goes, the usual reason that I've lost 10 AP is that I've clicked "Stand Up (costs 10AP)" while trying to figure out what's going on. --[[User:Tycho44|Tycho44]] 16:56, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Okay, if I remember correctly, i think that the list which says that what happened since you last logged out was EMPTY(exept some flare messages)...And yeah, I think that message limit is 25...<br />
--[[User:Harbingerofdespair|Harbingerofdespair]] 13:22, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Perhaps the lost AP is a result of you having an alt close enough to check out that building. Having alts close together can do weird stuff to your characters, as the game engine thinks you're zerging.--[[User:Guardian of Nekops|Guardian of Nekops]] 23:44, 14 March 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
So here's one. Standing outside at the Feaver monument a zombie, not dead, I log in and I've moved several spaces away. My info also says I've died three times, and I only recall two of them. --[[User:TehFluffeh|TehFluffeh]] 01:05, 29 June 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
==Can I spend XP gained as a survivor when I'm a zombie?==<br />
If I have exped up 70 exp as a survivor and get turned into a zombie, will I be able to use it as a zombie? If I get it as a zombie and get revived, will I be able to use it as a survivor? If I die as a zombie, will I be able to use it when I stand up?<br />
--[[User:Janzak|Janzak]] 10:21, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Yes to all of your questions. XP stays with you no matter what, at least from my experience. Feel free to change this statement if it is incorrect though.<br />
--[[User:Ed base|Ed base]] 05:52, 24 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
No, you're right, exp is carried over. I recently died with 303 exp, spent 300 on some zombie skills, was revived and still had three, then died again, keeping all the xperience.<br />
<br />
In fact, I'd recommend this! I was struggling to raise XP as a survivor, but as a Zombie with a 50% hit chance, I quite quickly racked up over 400XP by killing off other Zeds (it's even quicker if you can find humans!) then managed to get myself revived, and racked up 4 skills. A very useful level boost :) The hard part is getting the revive, but if you're a bit more organised than me you can contact a group and point out how useful you'll be once you've spent your 400+ XPs on human skills.<br />
--[[User:DeadMeatGF|DeadMeatGF]] 14:58, 5 June 2006 (BST)<br />
:Same experience here. I actually found it harder to level as a human. That could just be because I was incredibly lucky as a zmobie though. (Q: What kind of silly harman enters a wide open, ransacked building with a zombie in it and stays there? A: Bra!nz! Haha. Oh how I suck.) {{User:Xoid/sig}} 05:39, 16 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Can I choose which zombie to attack/revive?==<br />
Is it possible to select which zombie to revive from within a horde? Syringes are expensive so I'd rather use them on those who's profiles look more like humans and who will appreciate revivication. I'd also like to attack the strongest zombies first if I'm on a killing spree.<br />
--[[User:Reverend Norm|Reverend Norm]] 13:39, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
There is some limited ability to do this: if any of the zombies appear in your contact list, you will recognize them and be able to select them for actions like revivification, healing, or combat. Except for that, no, zombies all look alike to you.<br />
--[[User:Fred Dullard|Fred Dullard]] 21:44, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
::* Recent changes to the way the [[DNA Extractor]] works makes this quite possible. A sucessful extraction, which may take a few times if the target has [[Brain Rot]], will display the extracted targets profile link which you can use to assist in your revivification/attack selection. For example, the [[YRC]] suggests that its members and volunteers use this method to help them determine on their own if a target should be revived, ignored, or attacked, rather than having the [[YRC]] maintain a public 'Do Not Revive' blacklist. --17:59, 20 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Yes, but only under certain circumstances. You must have the zombie in your contacts list in order to choose any targe but "the zombie". If you happen to be in an active battle with a zombie, you can click and add their profile during the battle, enabling you to select their name and fight the one which is attacking you at the time. [[User:Bentley Foss|Bentley Foss]] 08:31, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:Also, if your browser's "back" button is enabled, you can resolve your combat first, and then click back through your history to recover the Profile ID#s of zombies that spoke or attacked you. Using back doesn't cost AP or IP hits (but don't confuse yourself by leaving open your out-of-date window). --[[User:Tycho44|Tycho44]] 18:31, 15 March 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
==Do worn flak jackets show up in inventory?==<br />
<br />
If I started with a flak jacket, can I drop all flak jackets in my inventory without stopping wearing the one I started with?<br />
<br />
- It makes no difference what Flak jacket you wear; they don't take damage and last for ever (unless you drop all your jackets). If you want to drop all but one just make sure you've always got one left! -- [[User:Norminator 2|Norminator 2 ]]<br />
<br />
- Uh, I'm not quite sure what that entails. I think that my flak jacket disappeared when I put it on--do I just keep it forever or did I drop it when I dropped the ones visible in my invo?<br />
<br />
- Jackets are not useable items to be put on. When you acquire your jacket, and it appears in your inventory, that means you are wearing it. It is ''being'' worn if it is visible in your inventory.<br />
<br />
==Will there be further Zombie Hunter skills?==<br />
<br />
This may be a bit of an ambiguous question, but are there any plans for further zombie hunter skills? It seems a bit of a shame that there's only one at the moment. -- [[User:Norminator 2|Norminator 2 ]]<br />
<br />
Only Kevan knows. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]] 03:19, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
: It is quite a powerful one, though ;) --[[User:DeadMeatGF|DeadMeatGF]] 21:12, 17 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:: You should check the Suggestions pages to see if there are any ideas for new skills. --[[User:Mewarmo990|Mewarmo990]] 05:28, 23 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Class Only Skills ==<br />
<br />
Will there be any class(eg scientist/millitary) only skills? -- [[User:Talos935|Talos935]]<br />
<br />
Only Kevan knows. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]] 03:19, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Doesn't really matter. Skills are cheaper depending on which class you pick anyway. Is that class specific enough? - Apocalyptic Doom<br />
<br />
== ...And Again ==<br />
<br />
Is there any game effects that happens when it says "...and again"? -- [[User:Shadow213|Shadow213]] 02:58, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Yes: If more than one zombie (or the same zombie multiple times) uses their Feeding Groan skill between two of your actions, it'll say "...and again".<br />
<br />
Actually, it doesn't have to be Feeding Groan, though that's more likely. If the same message repeats uninterrupted, subsequent messages are reduced to "...and again" messages to save space. --[[User:Snikers|Snikers]] 18:56, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
To clarify what they said: successive (uninterrupted) strings of actions ("X attacked you for 4 damage" or "feeding groan x blocks here and x blocks there") will be replaced with "...and again" and the timestamp of that action. If the attacker does a different amount of damage or another action occurs and interrupts the succession, the list will begin anew. (This change was made to save a bit of data transmission.) [[User:Bentley Foss|Bentley Foss]] 08:35, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:Just noticed this, if more than one zombie is killed in the timespace it becomes 'another'. Eg "XXX killed a zombie (15:26PM), ... and another(15:27PM)" --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 13:36, 5 March 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:I recently noticed that if a flare is fired from the same spot in close repition it will say "...and again" <br />
:--[[User:crazygerbil|crazygerbil]] 20:43, 22 May 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Contact List Limit ==<br />
<br />
Is there a limit of how many people I can add to the contact list? I keep getting told I'm not logged in. -- [[User:ToRsO bOy|ToRsO bOy]] 05:10PM, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
:150 I belive. It will tell you the limit when you hit it. The not-logged-in is probably because the address doesn't start with www. For example, [http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=194859 http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=194859] should be fine, but [http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=194859 http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=194859] will probably give you not-logged-in error. At least I had that problem. --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 17:14, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
::Thanks. Much appreciated. -- [[User:ToRsO bOy|ToRsO bOy]] 05:44PM, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
== Large Negative AP ==<br />
<br />
Should there perhaps be a limit on how negative one's AP can get? I found the effect of manufacturing a syringe with 1 AP left to be humorous rather than annoying, but maybe alot of people recharge fully before going around again, so a cap of maybe -10 would be nice. [[User:JoeHunt|JoeHunt]] 20:08, 20 February 2006 (GMT)<br />
:If you think this should be the case, visit the [[Suggestions]] page and create a suggestion for it. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]] 03:44, 23 February 2006 (GMT)<br />
::Incidentally, scientists trying to circumvent the 50AP limit by manufacturing syringes at 1AP just give Zombies another good reason to smash NT buildings and devour everyone foolish enough to sleep inside. --[[User:Tycho44|Tycho44]] 17:16, 23 February 2006 (GMT)<br />
:That's the reason why most players keep an eye on their AP! ;P --[[User:Forlorad|Forlorad]]<br />
::You can get way more syringes using 20 AP to search - Apocalyptic Doom<br />
:::To further note on this, that negative AP must still be recovered slowly, so the only reason to do this would be if the next login won't be in well over 25 hours. It also comes with the risk of sleeping in an NT, a high-profile target.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:47, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Will Ankle Grab be of use to a survivor? ==<br />
<br />
I play as a survivor, but I'm wondering if I could use Ankle Grab. If a survivor with AG gets killed, he probably only has to spend 1 AP to stand up as a zombie. But if a zombie with AG is revivified, does he spend 1 AP at standing up as a human? If so, it could probably be pretty useful for standing up at clogged Revivification Points. --[[User:Janzak|Janzak]] 13:15, 4 March 2006 (GMT)<br />
:Yes. Ankle Grab reduces all standing actions to 1AP regardless of status. Unless of course you die as a zombie from a headshot, then it costs 6AP. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 14:31, 4 March 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
== Character Deletion? ==<br />
<br />
I had two characters working. The day after I started my second account, I tried to login in as him again and it logged me in as my primary character. They were almost on the opposite side of Malton and my alternate was an entirely different class. My password was the same. Could that have something to do with it even if both accounts worked fine for about a day and a half before the second one disappeared? --[[User:Walrus Greg|Walrus Greg]] 1:05, 27 march 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:I found this, I think it's a minor glitch with cookies ...<br />
:The solution that worked for me was to log out, then log back in again. It has been my experience that closing the browser window is not as effective at clearing the cookies as using the logout feature.<br />
:--[[User:DeadMeatGF|DeadMeatGF]] 13:47, 27 March 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:It's a login problem, not a character deletion problem, there's a really big section on it above here. Logging out and back in works, but another trick you can use if it's being stubborn is to manually delete the UD cookie inside your Temporary Internet Files folder. --[[User:Lord Kelvin|Lord Kelvin]] 06:08, 28 March 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Maximum characters for speaking?==<br />
<br />
What is the maximum number of characters that can be used in a single speak action? For now I'm assuming that it's around 256 characters based on the length of the messages that I've seen, but does anyone know for certain? --[[User:Lord Kelvin|Lord Kelvin]] 18:05, 27 March 2006 (BST)<br />
:Yes, it's 256. After typing 256 characters into word and pasting it in, the box wouldn't accept any more. The profile descriptions are 256 as well, so that makes sense. Spray cans it's 50, and it's the same for the group field on your profile.--[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 09:43, 13 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==You can't attack yourself.==<br />
<br />
Okay, when i was standing as a zombie with 3 other zombies, i decided to attack them.<br />
When i tried to attack them, there was a text "You can't attack yourself."<br />
What is this? Are zombies so good pals with each other, that attacking one feels like attacking yourself, or what?<br />
'''And i am 100% sure that there were zombies with me'''<br />
--[[User:Harbingerofdespair|Harbingerofdespair]] 17:57, 28 March 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:To the right of the attack button is a drop-down box with a list of players/zombies in the area. You must select someone to attack from this box before you press the attack button. I'm pretty sure there's no "self" option in this box as there is in other actions that require a target, but you could have been in a small window of time when something was being changed. --[[User:coleProtocol|coleProtocol]] 06:38, 06 April 2006 (GMT)<br />
*There's actually something about this in either [[Bug Reports]] or [[Known Bugs]]. Go find it and post your experience of the bug. --[[User:V2Blast|V2Blast]] <sup>[[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 04:00, 10 June 2006 (BST)<br />
*I'm pretty sure if you attack a person but they've already moved out of the area you get this message. I don't know for sure, and if this does happen, I don't know if it carries over to zombies. --[[User:Swmono|Swmono]] <sup> [[User_talk:Swmono|talk]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]] - [[Sacred Ground Policy|SGP]] </sup> 02:51, 13 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Syringes counts infinity against IP hits?==<br />
<br />
I'm running 3 characters. I've been carefully budgeting my IP hits, since I logged on too early with the first one and she had a few extra APs for the day she hadn't gotten yet. I was well under 160 when my third (with 21 AP left) made a syringe. I was told then I had hit the server too often. How could I have gone from no warning at all to more than 10 with one click? In fact, by my calculating I'd only hit the server 122 times. And I don't believe this is the first time making a syringe counted as more than 20 IP hits. So what gives? Is this a bug? How do we report it?<br />
<br />
--[[User:nezumi|nezumi]] 16:34, 14 April 2006 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Probably a bug, report it in the [[Bug reports]] section of the wiki.--[[User:The General|The General]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 12:00, 17 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Could be a bug, or an earlier multi-click - playing around with the effects of this, and found it can kick in ten or more clicks later! --[[User:DeadMeatGF|DeadMeatGF]] 21:09, 17 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is not a bug. Syringes take 20 AP ''and'' 20 server hits to manufacture, to prevent people from having harvesting alternate accounts that just sit there and manufacture syringes all day. -[[User:Pinkgothic|pinkgothic]] 16:17, 14 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Does Kevan ever post in the wiki/play the game?==<br />
<br />
A stupid question maybe, and this might not be the right place, but does anyone know?<br />
:Kevan posts in certain parts of the wiki such as the [[bug reports]] section and his talk page. I imagine he plays the game but I can't be sure.--[[User:The General|The General]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 12:03, 17 April 2006 (BST)<br />
::Kevan does indeed have several known characters, and I know I have run across some of them in my travels. As to how active he is, that I can't answer. [[User:Nervie|Nervie]] 08:19, 19 April 2006 (BST)<br />
:::Its a good assumption that he does (people tend to care/dedicate themselves more to things they personally enjoy). But a more justified assumption would be that regardles if he does or not, his 'character' information would be kept secret from the public for various reasons. --[[User:MorthBabid|MorthBabid]] 18:03, 20 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Kevan plays the game and has a small host of test characters, as well as a couple of "real" ones. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 03:18, 21 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
I found these... http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=11 & http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=14 They might answer your question a little. [[User:Jason Clemons|Jason Clemons]] 04:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Those 2 profiles are probably just people pretending to be him. I know a lot of people do that sort of thing anyway. I mean they could be genuine, but whats the chance of you running into '''2''' of his chars when there are thousands of people playing the game?<br />
And another thing, ask yourself, would he actually tell people who his characters are? Does he want people following him around, pestering him about the next updates, etc? Not very likely, eh?<br />
[[User:Jsrbrunty|Jsrbrunty]] 16:10 3 Jan 2008 (GMT)<br />
:Those were gotten from Kevan himself, [[User_talk:Kevan/Archive#Annoying_Sigs|here]], I couldn't find anything for the other one.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
<br />
== how do you post pics on the wiki ==<br />
i am a new user and i am trying to get my group pic on the web from paint or do i have to use a differant program I NEED HELP --[[User:Nuts monk|Nuts monk]] 18:03, 19 April 2006 (BST)<br />
:It doesn't matter what program you use. After you've made the picture you then have to upload it to the wiki by clicking the [[Special:Upload|upload file]] button (it's on the left hand side in below the search bar). You then have to put the code: [[Image:''insert name of image here''.jpg]]. If you have any problems then feel free to come back here and ask for more help.--[[User:The General|The General]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 18:49, 19 April 2006 (BST)<br />
:Also, the help pages have something on this: [[Help:Images_and_other_Media]] --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]][[Moderation/Promotions#Brizth|M]]</sup> 18:55, 19 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
THANK YOU GUYS i owe you --[[User:Nuts monk|Nuts monk]] 17:56, 20 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==DNA extractors, Revive Syringes and Zombie stacks==<br />
<br />
Ok, the basic question is this: how does the game select which Zed in a Stack of Zeds is going to be affected by the action of a DNA extractor or Revive syringe?<br />
<br />
Let me give a scenario which might help make this less of a "short essay" question and more of a "multiple choice" question. Say the servers have reset and you have a stack of 5 unscanned Zeds; 3 unrotted, 2 rotted. You press "DNA extract" five times, and get lucky; five successful scans including the 2 Rotted Zeds. You now know where in the stack the Rotters are located; they were scans number one and five. You want to revive a Zed. You extract twice more, which loops you to the beginning of the stack and successfully extracts DNA from Zeds #1 and #2 (for no XP of course). If you use a syringe as your next action, will it be applied to <nowiki>:</nowiki> <br />
:A) the next Zed in the stack (which in this scenario is the third Zed, who is not rotted) <br />
<br />
:B) the most recently DNA Extracted (#2, who is also not rotted)<br />
<br />
:C) the game completely ignores who/how many Extractions you have done when you switch to a different instrument (the syringe), and automatically starts you at the 'top' of the list (which is a rotted Zed)<br />
<br />
:D) this is a trick question because once you have fully scanned a stack of zeds you can't scan through them again, so you never get back to Zed 2, let alone Zed 3. You are f**ked, your wimpy scientist has to kill (with his fists) Zed #1 (who is maxed out and "bodybuilt") before he can do anything with any of the other Zeds.<br />
<br />
Follow up question (for extra credit of course), how does Zed activity affect this? If you get attacked, will a revive syringe automatically target the zed attacking you? (I think the answer is yes). Can you DNA extract them first (to make sure they are not a rotter) and still have them be the target of the syringe? Thanks all. [[User:TheBerts|TheBerts]] 02:34, 4 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:From my experience, it is definately not B, and I don't think it is C either, although I cannot be 100% sure. I would guess it is A, and will try to test that soon, if I get a chance. If you're being attacked, you can use the [[Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_choose_which_zombie_to_attack.2Frevive.3F|Can I choose which zombie to attack/revive?]] response above, I believe. --[[User:MBread|mBread]] 22:14, 10 May 2006 (BST)--<br />
<br />
Thanks for the response. I have been getting more experience with this problem, and I agree that "B" is right out. However, I also suspect that "A" is incorrect. <br />
I am actually starting to think that a "modified C" scenario takes place; the game does ignore which Zed was scanned last, but switching instruments moves one to a second list tracking which Zeds have had revives attempted on them (ie. it does '''not''' move you to the top of the overall list, it moves you to the next "unsyringed" Zed, skipping past all Zeds upon which unsuccessful revive attempts were made by other survivors). <br />
The game definitely tracks '''all''' scans from DNA extractors, in sequence, even when made by multiple survivors. If every survivor was independant from others, they would each start from the top of a stack, and noone would ever reach the bottom of a 50+ stack of Zeds. I did receive a "all specimens scanned" message while scanning a stack of 66 Zeds at a revive point. <br />
So, I think that for each stack the game has two lists, one tracking which Zeds have been DNA extracted, and one tracking which Zeds have had revives attempted. '''If''' this is true, it would be immensely frustrating, because there would be no way to use DNA extraction to help avoid wasting revive syringes on rotters.--[[User:TheBerts|TheBerts]] 05:45, 11 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Well, to add my share to this topic, with my Necrotech account I scaned in a stack of Zeds at revive point and found that this zombie was not a rotter. So naturally I used my syringe and found out that my attempt was foiled by a rotter! This deffintly falls into anything but B. (pardon my spelling) (also I'm new to this, how do I add the date in whatever time we use around here?) [[Logster]]<br />
<br />
==Changing Real Name/Web Page in game profile?==<br />
When you sign up, you are asked for a "real name" and "web page." The official FAQ says you cannot change your password. It appears you cannot change "real name" or "web page" either? (Cannot find a way and cannot find help.) I would like to change my profile to update my web page to the wiki page. --[[User:SearchDerelict|SearchDerelict]] 22:30, 13 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:Well... You cant. Put it in your description if you realy want them shown anywhere. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 07:36, 14 May 2006 (BST)<br />
I don't like the fact that your real name is shown in-game as I thought it was just for password retrieval purposes... it should state this at the point of joining up or have some kind of hidden check box. I don't have a URL either but somehow it is linked to WIKI<br />
--[[User:Jake T Weber|Jake T Weber]] 15:20, 7 August 2006 (BST)<br />
You can change your information now due to the update.<br />
<br />
==What to Do About Players That Kill Zombies Who Want Revive==<br />
What should I do about evil humans that kill me when I'm waiting for a revive? I just got killed by Jordan Jacobs, despite the fact that my player profile cleary indicates that I should be revived, not killed. [[User:Mstcrow5429|Mstcrow5429]] 04:28, 17 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:Write angry cease and desist letters threatening vague legal action. Or, just grin and bear it. In Mr. Jacobs' defense, you can't see a zombie's profile unless the zombie speaks or attacks you. Anyways, some people use revive points as a cheap XP farm. Thems the haps, paps. --[[User:Mookiemookie|Mookiemookie]] 14:40, 17 May 2006 (BST)<br />
::In short, this is an MMORPG, and with all MMOs come your PKers and XP farmers. Live with it. --[[User:Mewarmo990|Mewarmo990]] 05:40, 23 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:Well. To give that person the benefit of the doubt, he couldn't have seen your profile, unless you two happen to be contacts, or he DNA extracted you, managed to scare up your profile on Google, and then read it and realised you were an unwilling zombie. Of course, standing at a revive point SUGGESTS that you wish to be revived, but don't count on profile descriptions to do anything. --[[User:Kenny Matthews|Kenny Matthews]] 05:27, 16 June 2006 (BST)<br />
:It's more than possible that the average trenchcoater passing through is not aware it was a revive point. Revive points get tagged over all the time. If said revive killer happened to headshot you while the revive point said "I scratch my balls." or similiar, and then someone came and replaced that with the correct tag&hellip; see where I'm going with this? {{User:Xoid/sig}} 05:35, 16 June 2006 (BST)<br />
::* Xoid sums the situation up quite well. Keep in mind, many players might [[metagaming|metagame]] but not via the offical Wiki. They may be organized to a degree but unaware. Or it could be that the number of 'patients' at a revive point begins to attract genuine horde behavior, and 'innocent' zombies are caught in the crossfire. As a general rule? The saftey level of the suburb for survivors and the smaller the cue at the revive point '''directly influences''' the speed and safety the revive point for the patient. --[[User:MorthBabid|MorthBabid]] 18:10, 20 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
I guess you could grief them back, by making a human and barricading every building you see to impossible levels, so that all humans without Free-Running get trapped outside and eaten. That's apparently what's being done already, since there are entire neighborhoods without a single enterable building.<br />
<br />
I have a question that borders on this topic. I was recently revived and holding up inside a building safe and sound when i logged off. but upon returning one of the living survivors in the building had up and killed everyone in the place. i know he was alive when he killed me becaus he used a shotgun to do it. was this a "legal" move on his part? (djzomboy )--[[User:DJZOMBOY|DJZOMBOY]] 10:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
:It is within the game rules to attack any player, whether they are alive, or undead. However killing survivor while alive is likely to get the player listed as a [[PKer]], that [[Bounty Hunter]]s target for execution -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 10:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
::thanks boxy that eases my anger a little. but how do i go about reporting this guy so that when i catch up with him and blast him a new one i dont get pked? ()--[[User:DJZOMBOY|DJZOMBOY]] 09:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
:::DJZOMBOY, your questions are answered in the [[PKer|article about PKing]] --[[User:ZaqWer|ZaqWer]] 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
:Something that I do if I'm really hurting for XP and have a full box of AP--I find a zombie that inquires, "Mrh?", then I say "I am going to kill you, then revive you. Say 'brnhr' if that's alright." They usually reply in the affirmative, at which point I kill them then revive them.<br />
--[[User:ChrisRetnam|Chris Retnam]] 19:29, 21 June 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Sharing Items==<br />
Can I give an item to another player that is in my inventory? If I drop an item, then another player searches the area, do they find the item? Or does the item disappear? Thanks.[[User:Mstcrow5429|Mstcrow5429]] 08:05, 21 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:No, their is currently no way of trading items with other players, due to its easily abused nature. Trading may be added in the future. Dropped items simply dissappear.--[[User:The General|The General]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 09:03, 21 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:there might be less potential for abuse if you could only give and not trade, that way we wouldn't have an inflated economy like runescape. but zerg-hoarding would still be a problem. maybe they could turn off the option when you try to give to your alts? [[user:chaosvolt|chaosvolt]] 12:36pm, 3 sept 2007(central)<br />
<br />
==Infection Kill==<br />
Can an infection kill? I'm hiding out in a building with 1hp and an infection with no First Aid Kits. Oh, if someone near North Blythville could heal me, that would be awesome. I won't give my location on here, send me an e-mail at brekkeboy@yahoo.com with a link to your profile so I know you're human and don't want to eat my brains. --[[User:Andrew Past|Andrew Past]] 13:42, 21 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:Yes. Yes it can. --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 14:03, 21 May 2006 (BST)<br />
Darn... Well, I'll need someone to come heal me then. I just hope a zed doesn't find me first. :( {{Unsigned|Andrew Past|}}<br />
<br />
==Flak Jackets==<br />
Do flak jackets wear out after receiving enough damage, or are they a constant? Thanks. [[User:Mstcrow5429|Mstcrow5429]] 01:46, 22 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:they're a constant and don't wear out. if you are a brainrotted zombie, you might want to have two for safety though, in case of accidental dropping. --[[User:Vista|Vista]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 08:57, 22 May 2006 (BST)<br />
::That just happened to my zombie alt... :( --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 09:09, 22 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:::Brainrot causes zombies to randomly drop items? --[[User:Mstcrow5429|Mstcrow5429]] 09:14, 22 May 2006 (BST)<br />
::::If only...</daydream> No, but if you have Brain Rot and you accidentally drop your only flak jacket it's ''very'' hard to get revived so you can find another. --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup><br />
<br />
==?rise==<br />
What is the ?rise command?<br />
:When you take an action in game the gets requested like http://www.urbandead.com/map.cgi?barricade (for barricading) or http://www.urbandead.com/map.cgi?use-h. (for using a first aid pack)in the adress balk. Due to the fact that the stand up button only appears when the zombie is dead some zombies are manually typing the command ?rise in the adress balk of the browser and keep refreshing the page untill they have died. They do this try to make sure that they stand up before their bodies are dumped. It is used as a way to cost the active defenders more AP to remove zombies from their safe houses.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 17:59, 27 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Are there any dedicated roleplaying areas/forums?==<br />
There are a lot of player profiles that I've seen in which the character descriptions look really interesting and thought-out by the player, as much as one can be with the 256 text limit. Given that it's a bit clunky to try and role-play with others in the game, is there a discussion forum or somesuch where RP takes place between all these colorful characters? Thanks! --[[User:Madelena|Madelena]] 13:57, 3 June 2006 (BST)<br />
:http://z14.invisionfree.com/Brainstock/ has a place for that. There are probably others. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 14:04, 3 June 2006 (BST)<br />
:-gasp- Xoid! Resensitized has a place as well. http://zombies.dementiastudios.org/boards/index.php?topic=88.0--[[User:AnimeSucks|The Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks]] <sup> [[User_talk:AnimeSucks|Talk]] | [[Cannibal Corps|CC]] [[Close Personal Friends of Anime Sucks|CPFOAS]] [[DORIS|DOЯIS]] [[Malton_War_Crimes_Trial|Judge]] [[Legion of Evil|LOE]] [[Zerg Hunters Unlimited|ZHU]]</sup> 05:38, 26 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
The people from [[Malton Tours Inc.]] are active roleplayers in UD, not on their board. If you should hook up with them on a Tour you're bound to roleplay. My Gingerbread Men char hooked up with them for a while. I spend a lot of AP's just talking and roleplaying. It was very fun. Try to get into contact with them if you want some roleplaying. Though I have encountered a fair ammount of boards with a roleplaying section.--[[User:Vykos|Vykos]] 15:51, 3 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Reporting Inappropriate Links==<br />
Is there any way to report an inapprorpiate link that has been spray painted onto a wall? Such as a link to a porn site.<br />
P.S. I apologize if I mess this up, I'm new to Wiki editing. {{Unsigned|Radfae|}}<br />
:Well, no. Except of course directly emailing Kevan, the creator of Urban Dead. Other, probably a lot slower way would be posting on his wiki talk page, [[User_talk:Kevan]]. But he's not exactly active in the wiki. But if you see links to some actually ''illegal'' content Kevan probably would like to hear about it and ban the offender. <br />
:Oh and you forgot to sign your post. It's done by either clicking on one of the buttons at the top (second from right) or just writing <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> where you want your signature. You should always sign your posts on talk pages (although technically this is not a talk page in wiki sense, but, um, yeah.) --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] <sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Brizth|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 22:50, 20 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Zerg flags==<br />
Can someone explain fully what a zerg flag is? How long do they stay? How do you know if you have one? Thank you. --[[User:Swmono|Swmono]] <sup> [[User_talk:Swmono|talk]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]] - [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]] - [[Sacred Ground Policy|SGP]] </sup> 01:46, 6 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:From What I posted on Bulgakov's talk page:<br />
{| width=80%<br />
|{{code|What a 'zerg flag' is&hellip;}}<br />
Mr. non-programmer, a flag is boolean variable that tells you whether something is true or not.<br />
{{code|How one acquires one, how long it lasts, and how one gets rid of it&hellip;}}<br />
A character's "zerg flag" is set to true when the server detects that the character is zerging. <br />
{{code|How whatever "zerg profiling" might be in effect is actually acting to the detriment of zombie actions as opposed to survivor actions&hellip;}}<br />
This flag is then read when performing calculations, like when hitting a barricade or firing a gun. A character with the "zerg flag" set to true recieves '''''harsh''''' penalties. Like a 0% chance to hit.<br />
|}<br />
:An answer to how long they stay? No one knows for sure. Perhaps it is until you stop zerging. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 15:01, 6 July 2006 (BST)<br />
::So they get a zero % chance of everything? Like searching, barricading, stuff like that too? --[[User:Swmono|Swmono]] <sup> [[User_talk:Swmono|talk]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]] - [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]] - [[Sacred Ground Policy|SGP]] </sup> 14:54, 7 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:::Exact penalties are impossible to quantify, and even if they were not, I still wouldn't reveal them &mdash; doing so enables intential zergers to skirt the zerging countermeasures. Essentially: if you are getting screwed by the [[RNG]] '''''really''''' badly&hellip; like 100 AP used on searching and you get ''nothing'', then it's a fair bet that you've been flagged as zerging. In pretty much all similiar, but lesser cases, it's impossible to tell. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 17:12, 7 July 2006 (BST)<br />
::::Thank you for answering my question! --[[User:Swmono|Swmono]] <sup> [[User_talk:Swmono|talk]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]] - [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]] - [[Sacred Ground Policy|SGP]] </sup> 00:34, 12 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Historical Events==<br />
Is there a complete list of UrbanDead's historical events somewhere? Things like the Mall Tour '06, and the Strike, etc. I have searched but haven't found a comprehensive list. [[User:Darkxarth|Darkxarth]] 00:27, 11 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:Nope. It has been mentioned in passing, it's also been thought upon heavily, but for a comprehensive listing we'd need people who have long since left the game to contribute, many of who will work vigorously to discredit each other and de-rail any accurate listing of events due to their inherit bias. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 00:50, 12 July 2006 (BST)<br />
::I could help with anything from the 31st July 2005.--{{User:The General/sig}} 08:54, 12 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:::Like I said&hellip; &lt;/yahoo serious&gt; &mdash; Go nuts. Just be sure to put it on the current projects page and see if you can get some others to contribute. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 19:08, 12 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Text set on Unicode when you want it on cyrillic ==<br />
At the moment the only way i can fix this is by right clicking on the text and going to encoding. This does get annoying however because you have to do it again every time you perform an action. Does anyone know of a better way?<br />
<br />
==Are players allowed to sell their character(s) for real money on eBay?==<br />
{{unsigned|Blurb|15:50, 15 July 2006 (BST)}}<br />
:Something gives me the strong impression that Kevan's official answer would be "no". My own (not so) humble opinion: I do not think we need to take a step in the direction of other MMORPGs where all and sundry is up for sale. If someone is too lazy to spend their time working on a character, fuck 'em. They do it the hard way, or not at all. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 16:14, 15 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Multiple Floors==<br />
Will there be more that one level in some buildings ever in the game,l ike a police dept would have 2 or 3 and a tower would have like 10 or 20. And if they were put in would you be able to move freely through the stair well/elevator and the floor door be blocked off or would a floor being fully blocked of mean you cant move up to the next floor.<br />
:First of all: Sign. Your. Goddamn. Posts. (I'm beginning to see a need for a giant, blinking, multi-hued "Sign your posts" marquee at the top of *every* page where people are supposed to post.)<br />
:Second of all: Who. Knows. Kevan may decide to, Kevan may decide not to. Considering his seeming disinterest in the game, I don't think something as fundamentally 'different' as this would be implemented anytime soon. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 02:42, 18 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==IP Hit limit==<br />
Is Kevan still exempting people from the 160 IP hit limit for $5 donations? If so, how long should it take for the limit to be removed? --[[User:Kiltric|Kiltric]] 08:05, 18 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:He is, give him a week to do it. Mine came through in a couple of days.--{{User:The General/sig}} 09:08, 18 July 2006 (BST)<br />
::Thank you General. --[[User:Kiltric|Kiltric]] 23:18, 18 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:::No problem.--{{User:The General/sig}} 23:21, 18 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Is anyone else on the UK ISP ntlworld now finding that they have hit the IP limit without doing anything? Myself and a friend both have. Anyone know what's changed, or how to fix? {{Unsigned|Tad Allagash|}}<br />
:Probably an open proxy. Not much that can be done, I'm afraid. Worse still: if you actually work together, odds are you are being "caught" zerging. My advice? You can do two things:<br />
:#Donate, and move far apart.<br />
:#Get cable internet.<br />
:{{User:Xoid/sig}} 20:18, 23 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
I've got NTL cable, logged on myself last night, created an account and I had hit my IP limit, I hadn't even moved or anything, whats happening there?!?!<br />
--[[User:PorterPayne|PorterPayne]] 09:30, 25 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:No idea. If you're smart, you'll find a proxy server and use it to play Urban Dead while you vehemently bitch to this about NTL (who are the only people who can really fix it). {{User:Xoid/sig}} 09:40, 25 July 2006 (BST)<br />
::How do I find a proxy server?!?!?!?--[[User:PorterPayne|PorterPayne]] 16:52, 25 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:::Were it not for the excessive ?s and !s, I might have helped you. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 19:08, 25 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Yeah I'm on ntl and getting the same problem at the moment. As soon as I log in I hit the limit. I'm having to play at work at the moment :) ntl uses transparent proxies so the only way of getting round it is to specify another proxy in the browser. --[[User:Bink|Bink]] 07:40, 27 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
How do you do that?? [[Spag89]]<br />
<br />
Funny question. If I have three characters that are exempt, and I start a fourth profile, then will any IP hits from the first three count towards the fourth? --[[User:Kiltric|Kiltric]] 21:16, 29 August 2006 (BST)<br />
:Nope. Trust me on that, I've used 50 AP on top of dropping multiple items, etc, with each character and I can still run two unpaid for ones. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 13:16, 1 September 2006 (BST)<br />
::Awsome, thanks Xoid. --[[User:Kiltric|Kiltric]] 02:00, 2 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
earlier it's said "get cable internet" . well i do and i'm still finding that i often will make just afew moves and get the "your ip has used all...." message. and it is curently 2am and it still hasn't reset. what can i do besides get a creditcard just to play this "free" game? yer pal....dj zomboy --[[User:DJZOMBOY|DJZOMBOY]] 09:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The [http://www.urbandead.com/faq.html#limit official FAQ page] says "Players of Urban Dead are limited to hitting the main game script 160 times per day". What could be happening is that you have the same IP address as another player, which would mean the game wouldn't realise that there's two of you, it would think there's only one, and so if the other player uses up the 160 hits, then there's none left for you. To get round this, you could try and change your IP address - you can see your current one at http://www.whatismyip.com . You can change your address using a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_server proxy] (you can find them with google). Alternatively, and this may or may not work, you could disconnect from the internet then reconnect, or try using a different browser. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== What do I do?, Game says I have hit my IP limit ==<br />
What can I do a few days ago I hit my IP limit for the day, but now it won't reset to aloow me to play the game. Anyone else had that problem? How did you fix it? --[[User:kinesis916|kinesis916]] 16:54, 31 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Are you playing from a public place? Using Dialup? Home computer? --[[User:Technerd|Technerd]] <sup>[[Coalition for Fair Tactics|CFT]]</sup> 16:59, 31 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
I am playing on my home PC and no no-one else plays the game. --[[User:kinesis916|kinesis916]] 14:17, 1st August 2006 (BST)<br />
:If you use a dial-up somone nearbyw might have had the same ip and used up the ip hits. I believe the ip hits refresh at Midnight GMT. --[[User:Technerd|Technerd]] <sup>[[Coalition for Fair Tactics|CFT]]</sup> 16:02, 1 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:If you happen to be one of the people using something like AOL, then it's quite unfortunate -- AOL and some other ISPs re-use a ''very'' small range of IP addresses. This causes the game to think you're someone else, and can even trigger zerg flags if you happen to be near someone who is also with the same ISP. There is not much that can be done about that. See the topic above this one. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 16:39, 1 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Is it possible to make 2 payments to have a ip restriction free acount b/c i got 2 prepaid cards that have $4 on both {{Unsigned|Spag89|}}<br />
:You'll need to ask Kevan himself. Odds are the answer would be "no". Too much stuffing around IMO. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 16:05, 8 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
My IP limit does not reset over night what should i do??? {{Unsigned|Spag89}}<br />
:Did you read ''any'' of what was already written here? {{Unsigned|Xoid}}<br />
<br />
<br />
But I'm not using aol and i have high speed internet. {{Unsigned|Spag89}}<br />
:I didn't say "if you have AOL, only AOL, and nothing but AOL", I said "AOL and ''some other ISPs''". The entirety of that comment applies — just because you have high speed internet does not ensure that you have a static IP address. Odds are you are with one of those ISPs that re-uses a small range of IP addresses. There is little to nothing that can be done beyond finding a proxy server and using it to play Urban Dead, switch ISPs and hope for the best, or complain to your ISP directly. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 16:21, 8 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
I, too, found that my IP hits were used up the first time I logged in. I'd appreciate an explanation of how to find proxy servers (note the absence of multiple question marks). {{Unsigned|Dr Bowman}}<br />
:Google might help. Or maybe [http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Proxying_and_Filtering/Hosted_Proxy_Services/Free/Proxy_Lists/ this] (Note: I haven't checked any of these, use at your own discretion)--{{User:Brizth/sig}} 23:31, 29 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
big question:i waited for 2-5months and the 160 limit hasnt been reseted.why???????????????? {{unsigned|q105090}}<br />
:In the future please, for the love of god, ''read'' the FAQ. This has been asked a dozen times before and more and the answer remains the same: some ISPs reuse a limited number of IP addresses meaning that all your IP hits are used up by the time you come online. You could try changing ISPs to one that gives you a static address, but some say they do and then don't. The only surefire way around the IP restriction is donating. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 09:43, 14 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
::i didnt really get that.mind speaking in english?? {{unsigned|q105090}}<br />
:::Donate. The easiest way to fix the problem is to pony up some cash. If you can't afford five bucks, then learn that ISP stands for "Internet Service Provider" and start reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address this]. Then ask your ISP to give you a static address. (You will need to have a permanent connection &mdash; dialup doesn't count. Failing that learn how to use a proxy.<br />
:::Too complicated? Take my advice, if you don't have the requisite neurons to use even semi-decent grammar, five bucks is easier. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 20:09, 16 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
dont have a credit card, mom will kill me if i ask for it!!!!!! what now?? {{unsigned|q105090}}<br />
:Then you're out of luck. Either use a proxy or give up. There's not much more that can be done. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 16:49, 21 October 2006 (BST)<br />
::would changing my cookies help?havent tried it yet.--[[User:Q105090|Q105090]] 03:10, 22 October 2006 (BST)<br />
:::No, it wouldn't. IP hits aren't stored in cookies; they're logged on the server. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 07:59, 22 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
then how come it did work??--[[User:Q105090|Q105090]] 12:05, 28 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==What time does the count reset?==<br />
What time zone does the game run on? And does the "hit limit" reset right at midnight there or some other time? [[User:Tengwar|Tengwar]] 12:11, August 14 2006 <-- I think I did that right...<br />
:Resets at 00:00 BST, IIRC. Could be wrong though. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 12:14, 1 September 2006 (BST)<br />
::So that's 20:00 EST? BST is -1:00 GMT, right?--[[User:Blue Command Vic|Blue Command Vic]] 12:16, 1 September 2006 (BST)<br />
:It's 19:00 EST, I think... 7 PM. --[[User:Forlorad|Forlorad]]<br />
:19:00 EST to 20:00 EST seems right.<br />
<br />
==Urban Dead News==<br />
Is there any place to discuss the news and game changes? Thanks. --[[User:Swmono|Swmono]] <sup> [[User_talk:Swmono|talk]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]] - [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]] - [[Sacred Ground Policy|SGP]] </sup> 01:44, 23 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:[[Talk:News]]. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 03:20, 23 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:Thank you. --[[User:Swmono|Swmono]] <sup> [[User_talk:Swmono|talk]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]] - [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]] - [[Sacred Ground Policy|SGP]] </sup> 11:11, 30 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Getting XP==<br />
How do you gain XP points or something that are required to gain skills?Eating live bodies,ext.? {{Unsigned|Tgump}}<br />
:Have a look at [[Experience Points]]. It lists the different forms of collecting XP such as First aid and combact. :) --[[User:Marie|''Marie'']]<sup>''[[The Grove]]''</sup> 17:52, 10 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== How do I get into a mall? ==<br />
If you're starting out as a consumer, your main ability is that you can search malls. Until you've searched a few, you can't arm yourself up, and get the experience points needed to get skills like Free Running, and since you can't get into a Mall without Free Running... do you see where I'm going with this? What's the hapless new Consumer to do? --[[User:Detective Flash|Detective Flash]] 11:54, 1 September 2006 (BST)<br />
:You don't. You go into a hospital, search for FAKs, punch someone and then heal them. Just like the scout, the consumer is nearly impossible to level up. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 12:13, 1 September 2006 (BST)<br />
::xoid, the scout has free runnning, so he is easier to level up, he just needs to get supplies. [[user:chaosvolt|chaosvolt]] 12:26 sept 2007(central)<br />
:I'd suggest becoming a zombie, going to a low-key area, and getting a couple hundred XP as a Zed, then get a revive and buy a few skills to get yourself started. --[[User:Kiltric|Kiltric]] 02:07, 2 September 2006 (BST)<br />
Get a knife. Go to work. -Apocalyptic Doom <br /><br />
: I took a consumer, and it's not impossible to lvl up. Find a hospital, get a lot of First Aid Kit, and heal people. You can even heal zombies. After healing 20 times, you got Free Running. And by the time you will get some real experience about playing the game as human :) And because you started as consumer, people will respect your balls after ;) --[[User:GoLookAndKill|GoLookAndKill]] 20:23, 20 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::It's not impossible. But you might as well start as a doctor so you have diagnosis or a fireman so you have more accurate and stronger attacks. It's not "impossible" but in terms of practicality there is no reason to start as anything other than doc, fireman or corpse. Also why are you saying this now? This convo's from 2 years ago :P --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:56, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Cannibal Zombies==<br />
Hey, is it considered bad form to attack other zombies if you're also a zombie? I'm fairly sure human on human PKing is frowned upon, but I'm not sure about zombie PKing. {{Unsigned|Cookiemobsta}}<br />
:Not really. Most zombies prefer getting ZKed to getting headshot, and practically everyone realises that it is the only viable way for younglings to level up. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 10:45, 6 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:i got stuck as a zombie and don't want to hunt humans(i wanna get revived), so i attack zeds instead. i bet zking a zombie who doesn't want to die is bad to him, but most humans i met didn't care. the zombies did, though. [[User:chaosvolt|chaosvolt]] 12:22pm, 3 sept 2007(central)<br />
<br />
:It is a generally well received practice. I much rather give another zed some XP and stand up for 1 AP than to make a Zombie Hunter stronger and stand up for 6. --[[User:Trunksoul|Trunksoul]] 20:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Recently killed humans will often continue fighting as zeds, especially in situations where they're killed indoors and dumped with invading zombies. There's not much chance of getting revived if there's a siege going on. [[User:Tirdun|Tirdun]] 14:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
so humans killing humans is illegal? were do i go to rat on someone? and what are the punishments if any? (dj zomboy) --[[User:DJZOMBOY|DJZOMBOY]] 09:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
:DJZOMBOY same answer as above. Your questions are answered in the [[PKer|article on PKing]]. Also, please be careful with how you write your questions. You have created several formatting errors with your questions. Carefully follow what other people are doing and/or read [[Editing help]]. --[[User:ZaqWer|ZaqWer]] 23:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==How Do You Use Pre-made Templates?==<br />
I've seen that alot of tmplates are frequently used. How do you use a template, such as the Sacred Ground template, on your user page? Do you have to construct the template from scratch? [[User:Humuhumuhumu...Ted|Humuhumuhumu...Ted]] 19:39, 21 October 2006 (BST)<br />
:nope, you use a template call, so <nowiki>{{SacredGroundPolicy}}</nowiki> gives you the SacredGroundPolicy on you page like <nowiki>{{WikiForum|user}}</nowiki> creates: {{WikiForum|user}}.--{{User:The General/sig}} 19:45, 21 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Have a look through the [[:Category:Templates|Templates]]. Most of them have a copy and paste thing saying the wiki code for using the template. --[[User:Marie|''Marie'']]<sup>''[[The Grove]]''</sup> 19:51, 21 October 2006 (BST)<br />
:Yeah, and for the ones that don't you just put <nowiki>{{}}</nowiki> around the name of the page.--{{User:The General/sig}} 20:10, 21 October 2006 (BST)<br />
:Edited this comment to remove the automatic Category placement.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] <sup>[[Signature_Race|+1]]</sup> 14:28, 27 May 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==How Do You Get a Screenshot?==<br />
In many forums you need proof to show that an incident actually occured. How do you screenshot so that you'll have undeniable proof? [[User:Humuhumuhumu...Ted|Humuhumuhumu...Ted]] 01:01, 23 October 2006 (BST)<br />
:There should be a button called "Print Screen" on your computer keyboard. It should be above the arrow keys, at the very top. When you are looking the the screen, click that. Open a program such as Paint and then paste the copied screenshot in. Trim it to whatever size you want, and then save.--{{User:Gage/sig}} 01:03, 23 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Thanks. It took me a while to figure out what you were telling me to do exactly, but I got it. [[User:Humuhumuhumu...Ted|Humuhumuhumu...Ted]] 18:00, 23 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Another way: Irfanview (http://irfanview.com) is a free image viewer & editor tool that is quick and useful for many things. Scrrencaps being one of them. You just open it up, press 'C' or go into the options dropdown and choose 'Capture', then you cna define your own hotkey for screencaps. From there you can crop, edit, and save in a multitude of formats. I love this free software, I can't praise it enough.--[[User:Tser|Tser]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.gimp.org the gimp] is a fully featured image editing suite. It is open source. Kinda hard to get the hang of, but to just get a screenie, it is quite simple. --[[User:Ev933n|Ev933n]] / [[User talk:Ev933n|Talk]] <sub>[[User:Ev933n#PPGC|PPGC]]</sub> 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I seem to enjoy using the traditional Shift+Sys Rq/Print Scr. Then I pop open my MS Paint and press CTRL+V. Simple fast, easy, save it as a PNG, the smallest reliable image I have found.<br />
[[User:OmegaLord|OmegaLord]] 16:58, 7 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Hi, I'm new here, but I'd just like to mention that for Mac users, this works a little differently. They press command (the apple key) + shift + 4. This turns the cursor into a crosshairs. Then just drag the cursor across the area of the screen you want to capture, (in this case, all of it.) and your screenshot will appear as a file named "Picture 1" on the desktop.--[[User:Munkel|Munkel]] 17:42, 31 August 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::Also, if you're using OS X, then you use a program called Grab. It's in the Utilities folder of your Applications folder. Select Capture Window from the menu, and then click on the window you want to grab, or select Capture Screen to get the whole screen.--[[User:Haflinger|Haflinger]] 18:45, 31 August 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==What are the ways to heal?==<br />
<br />
Could someone give a comprehensive list of this, or point me to one on the wiki?<br />
<br />
I was under the impression that you could only regenerate hitpoints by application of healing skills, or standing up from death/revivification, but now I have more hitpoints than I remember having before, and I didn't die in between. Does that necessarily mean someone went by and healed me, without me noticing? -- [[User:BjornLindstrom|bkhl]] 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
:Everyone in the game has a maximum of 50HP or if they have bought the skill ''body building'' then they have a maximum of 60HP. <br> You can be healed by :<br>1. First Aid Kits (FAK's) which you find in hospitals and malls. You can heal yourself or other people can heal you so they gain XP. <br> 2. Wine and Beer can heal you for 1 or 2 HP, but its slow and inefficient. You can find them in pubs and clubs. <br> 3. If you are a zombie or die in general and you are killed then you stand up with your maximum HP. <br> 4. If you are a zombie with ''digestion'' when you successfully bite a survivor you gain 4HP. <br> 5. When you are revived you stand up with half your maximum HP (25/50HP). <br />
<br />
Note: If a zombie bites you and they have ''infectious bite'' then every move that you make apart from talking will cost you HP as well as AP, until it is cured with a FAK. If you buy bodybuilding it does not automatically put you up to 60HP you have to heal the extra 10HP to get it. --[[User:Marie|''Marie'']]<sup>''[[The Grove]]''</sup> 14:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==How Do I create a group==<br />
<br />
I have looked around this site and have not been able find how to create my own group.<br />
: To create a group you need some members ;) To make the page on wiki though type the name of the group you want into the search bar at the side. Say you wanted your group to be called The Dragon Fighters you would type that into the search bar and at the top of that page it says: '''There is no page titled "The Dragon Fighters". You can create this page.'''. If you click the bit of that which is red the link takes you to a page entitled The Dragon Fighters and you can type what you want onto the page about your group to make the page.<br> To make the page appear in the groups page you need to put the categorys you want it to appear on in your page. The categorys are listed on the [[Groups]] page. For the category add '''<nowiki>[[Category:Human Group]]</nowiki>''' (replace ''Human Group'' with whatever category fits your group) and that will add it onto the group lists you want it to appear on. --[[User:Marie|''Marie'']]<sup>''[[The Grove]]''</sup> 09:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I Have created the group but I am having trouble uploading pictures. Any help would be appreciated.--[[User:WendyllHayes|WendyllHayes]] 17:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
[[Z.I.T.A.N]]<br />
: To upload pictures click on '''Upload File''' from the toolbox links at the top of the page (below the navigation stuff) then upload the image there. Once on your group page click the image button on the editing toolbar and replace the '''[ [ Image:Example.jpg ] ]''' with the file name from the page where you uploaded the image. --[[User:Marie|''Marie'']]<sup>''[[The Grove]]''</sup> 20:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Created a group, got 10 members, now how to get it confirmed?==<br />
<br />
Ok, I'm in a group that has 10+ members however it is not confirmed. How do we go about becoming a confirmed goup?<br /><br />
[[User:Darkvengance|Darkvengance]] 21:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If your group is on the [http://urbandead.com/stats.html stats page] then you can add the <nowiki>[[Category:Confirmed Groups]]</nowiki> to your group page. That will confirm you on the wiki.--[[User:Lachryma|Lachryma]] 21:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
But my group isn't on the stats page, that's what where we're wanting to get it.<br />
[[User:Darkvengance|Darkvengance]] 21:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ah, got you. You need to have all of your members list your group (exactly as it's spelled on the wiki) on their profile, where it says 'Group Name'--[[User:Lachryma|Lachryma]] 21:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Oh, ok thanks<br />
[[User:Darkvengance|Darkvengance]] 21:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==How do I edit my character's profile?==<br />
<br />
how do i edit my guy like his discription and group??? {{unsigned|Zombine5555555}}<br />
:When you are logged in as the character you want to change the description of, click on the character name (just below the map) to bring up your profile page. In the bottom left hand corner there is a button to "edit your profile". Click that, and enter the descriptions and group name in the appropriate boxes -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 02:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==My friends got banned from the game for abuse, why is that?==<br />
<br />
Well, my friend Nastybiker and some of his friends got thrown out of the game for abuse, which really is a shame because they have been playing for more than a year now. To make a long story short, I guess I'll post the mail he sent me today.<br />
<br />
----<br />
Zeph...need your help. Kevan's system has locked all of us out except for my wife (she is at the NT near the mall trying to get a revive). Apparently, his system registered the boys and I as abusers. We often play together, but it is no different than any organized group...I had just helped two of them get revives (they were bored being zeds after Xmas). <br />
<br />
Perhaps an email simply saying that you know us from play...and that we did not abuse anything (for example) during the Xmas no-kill.<br />
<br />
If not...I understand...but it would be nice to play again. The boys were heading out on their own again anyway...they just wanted to visit the Egleton to show off their breathing skills and say Hi annd thank the guys for the nice Xmas visit. <br />
<br />
Ah well...<br />
<br />
Best to you my friend,<br />
Nasty<br />
----<br />
<br />
I couldn't find any direct email to send this problem to, so I posted it here. Now, to explain the Xmas no-kill. We've been a few people sitting in the same house for a year now, a couple of the guys left to try being Zombies for a while, but during the 24th to 27th december, we had a spray on the wall saying this was a no-kill zone, so that our zombie friends could stay during the holidays. I dont know if that is the reason for abuse. -- [[User:Zephyer|Zephyer]] [[User:Zephyer|Zephyer]] 02:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:If players from the same IP have been seen to be co-operating (reviving each other, or using the same safehouse, for example) that's against the rules. You say you've been in the same safehouse for year? Then the game has used up your chances and banned you for multi-abuse. Had you just bumped into each other a few times or sayed in the same region for a few days the system wouldn't have done anything, but after too much persistant interation you're gone. You broke the rules, and the game has punished you for it. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 16:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Stats==<br />
<br />
Where can i go to view the OFFICIAL stats of certain Groups. Many people say they have 100 members when they really probably only have 3 or 4. Is there any way to verify? [[User:Terrible Man|Terrible Man]] 14:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
:Group numbers are shown at http://www.urbandead.com/stats.html --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 16:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Infection question==<br />
<br />
If you have 1AP with an infection, and you use a first-aid kit, do you die or get healed? [[User:Jonny12|Jonny12]] <sup> [[User_talk:Jonny12|Talk]]</sup> 23:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
:Good question...I don't know, and I have been playing this game for a year now. Guess I will have to try it some time!--[[User:Mayor Fitting|Mayor Fitting]] 01:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
You will heal yourself before you die. -[[User:Skoadathon|Skoadathon]] 11:39, 4 Feburary 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==I started with a book. Why?==<br />
<br />
Why did I start with a book? I'm a Necrotech Lab Assistant. I started with the usual DNA Extractor, but I also started with a book. [[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 08:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I thought they always started out with a book. --{{User:Cap'n Silly/Sig}} 08:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Oh. Thanks. --[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 13:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Another thing. Does everyone start with a book or only Necrotech Lab Assistants? --[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
:Well, I'm a Scout, and I certainly didn't start with a book.--[[User:Andre Aloisius|Andre Aloisius]] 20:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
::It's probably a flavour thing, since Books are hardly used in UD nowadays. Perhaps it's supposed to mean that Lab Assistants are inherently bookish... [[User:Robert McFarlane|Robert McFarlane]] 12:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Is an abundance of zombie skills a bad thing for a survivor to have?==<br />
<br />
Recently, I was waiting for a revive and when I logged in, I saw that a survivor who was at the RP earlier (injecting zombies)had made a comment(spoken) referring to my profile.<br />
My zombie description read along the lines of "faint humanity visible in eyes...not built for the zombie life". The survivor extracted a DNA sample and then said something like "for someone not built for zombie life, you sure seem to be built for zombie life". He was referring to my character having 2 total survivor skills and 6 or so zombie skills. He had a good point in his observation, and displayed some good forethought for a survivor interested in human safety, although it was a misjudgement. The abundance of skills was due to me spending a lot of time wandering, waiting for a revive and the accumulating AP burning a hole in my virtual pocket. I was skipped for revifification. <br />
I'll get to the point; "if a character has noticeably more zombie skills than human skills, is this seen as a sign that the character wants to be a zombie, or plays mainly against the survivors?"--[[User:Tser|Tser]] 12:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
:It can be seen that way. However the real 'flag' for a dedicated zombie player is Brain Rot.Unless you have that, I'd say the reviver was over reacting a bit. If some one is standing at a revive point I will revive them unless they have that skill or they are someone I know to be a pker. I'd do that even if they had no human skills at all. Sometimes people want to switch sides for awhile. Thats fine. Virtually everyone does it. [[User:The Mad Axeman|The Mad Axeman]] 12:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
::Someone PKed my level one Cop because my profile said "He has a look of death in his eyes." Go figure. --[[User:Ev933n|Ev933n]] / [[User talk:Ev933n|Talk]] <sub>[[User:Ev933n#PPGC|PPGC]]</sub> 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
:If one with much zombie skills wants a revive, then there's a larger possibility that he's a zombie spy or just wants to get some armor, skill to recognize NT buildings and +10 to HP. --[[User:Niilomaan|Niilomaan]] <sup>[[GCM Radical Redeemers|GRR!]]•[[Project Mentor|M!]]</sup> 08:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
:I won't revive someone with a more zombie skills than survivor unless they provide a very convincing sob story. I won't even fully heal up a survivor with many more zombie skills than survivor skills. If I'm feeling generous up to 25HP is okay, but I won't go more. With a six to two zombie:survivor skill ratio, you've demonstrated a pretty good commitment to zombie-dom. There are some survivor groups who won't deal with you if you have even one zombie skill. But, most people aren't so picky. So, you'll probably get by. --[[User:ZaqWer|ZaqWer]] 01:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
::That's just silly. While caution makes sense, of course, there are many, many reasons why a player who genuinely wants to be revived could have more zombie skills. For example, it's often very hard for a newbie to get a revive -- many people pass newblets up for higher level characters in revive queues. So the player says, "Screw it..." and eats some brains. I've done it... Then there are dual natures. And just people who want to change sides for a while. Not rezzing and not healing "SPAIZ!" is just trenchy, except in situations where you know there are actually "operatives", then it makes sense. However, since the prejudice is so common, it ''is'' a good idea to put something in your profile to make people more at ease rezzing you. But ... then again ... PKers and Death Cultist often put "sob stories" exactly for that reason... See... Being trenchy really doesn't pay off, just play and habe fun. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 00:33, 30 May 2008 (BST)<br />
i have plenty of z skills, but this is mostly to boost my level. i am a level 14 zombie in fryerbank, and have absolutely no commitment to either side. i like surviving the most i guess, but zombies have life pretty easy with the whole 50% to attack with hands thing. if i weren't such a noob, i would heal or revive without descrimination, it's all xp to you, and it's all hp to him. {{unsigned|Gass mask|01:59, 19 October 2007}}<br />
<br />
I have a PKer character who targets anyone at level 10 or higher but with zero zombie skills, in an attempt to balance this out. And the only skills I'm prejudiced against are Ransack and Knife Combat (but maybe that's just me.) And if you have a lot of zombie skills and are seeking a revive consider putting an explanation in your profile. That should improve your chances. --[[User:Explodey|Explodey]] 00:07, 30 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==If I drop an item near others, will they find it by searching? Or if I drop something is it effectively destroyed/deleted?==<br />
:&mdash; [[User:Qwip|Qwip]] 02:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
::To my knowledge, dropping an item makes it go away. Others cannot find it. [[User:Pedentic|Pedentic]] 02:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
:::Pedentic is right, once an item is dropped it's gone. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 14:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
::Well I guess if I find something I don't need (e.g. my 3rd length of pipe), there's no point in trying to drop it near a group of other survivors. &mdash; [[User:Qwip|Qwip]] 14:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==I think I tried out the game a while ago, and didn't like it.==<br />
I can't remember the name, password or location of my old account. Could I be unknowingly penalised if I happen to land on the same square that I left my account on? --[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 18:21, 30 March 2007 (BST)<br />
: after 5 days unused acounts drop from the game. They only reappear if you log in on that account. So you wouldn't get penalized as your old account has probably timed out and has been removed from the game. (I'm figuring you didn't forget your account name within 5 days :) Have fun retrying the game!--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 20:11, 30 March 2007 (BST)<br />
:: I know, I just wasn't sure if inactive accounts counted. Thanks. --[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 16:24, 31 March 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Using feeding drag==<br />
I tried simply walking out of a building while holding onto someone low on health and they didn't come along with me. How are you supposed to use this skill?--[[User:Bluish wolf|Bluish wolf]] 04:24, 5 April 2007 (BST)<br />
:It's a special attack. You select in your attack dropbox like like you do with a bite or claw attack. The target/victim must be at 12HP or lower or the attack doesn't work. The attack deposits both you and the victim outside. I have no knowledge if barricading prevents it as well, maybe somebody else can answer that.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 08:48, 5 April 2007 (BST)<br />
::Barricades do stop feeding drag from working. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 12:34, 5 April 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Where did these graphics come from?==<br />
On a whim, I looked up Urban Dead on wikipedia and came across the following screen shot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Urbandead.jpg Who made those graphics, and are they available to the public? If so, how may I go about acquiring them? --[[User:Pyrranha|Pyrranha]] 04:28, 10 April 2007 (BST)<br />
:That's a screenshot of a firefox extension, the Urban Dead Toolbar. It's available to download from [http://udtoolbar.mozdev.org/ http://udtoolbar.mozdev.org/], where you'll also find contact information for the extension's creator. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 23:43, 10 April 2007 (BST)<br />
::Thanks, I appreciate the fast response. --[[User:Pyrranha|Pyrranha]] 03:39, 11 April 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
NOTE!!: I tried the toolbar for FireFox 2, and it doesn't work. Is there a fix?<br />
[[User:ShinobiSlider|ShinobiSlider]] 02:50, 6 May 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
:: I currently use some of the features of the UDToolbar but not all of them work due to recent updates. I am using Firefox version 2.0.0.4 and i stopped using the name colorizer feature because using the contact list colorization feature is much simpler. I have recently thought of switching back to using the colorizer due to potential implementation of suggestions that would make having all these people I don't trust(IC) on my contact list a liability. In summary it still works you just might need to close and open firefox to get the toolbar to update. --[[User:Sephikus|Sephikus]] 11:23, 7 June 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==How is the suburbs map updated?==<br />
Two questions in two days; I'm on a roll. I was surfing the wiki for a method by which to edit the [[Suburb|map of Malton suburbs]], but found none. Can this be done manually, or is the map automatically updated via data taken straight from the game? --[[User:Pyrranha|Pyrranha]] 03:39, 11 April 2007 (BST)<br />
:Everything on the wiki is updated by players like you and I. You can edit the Suburb Map (or any other page here) just like you did to this page. But please know what you're doing before trying to take on community pages like the map, or you'll just make work for others to clean up, and possibly get yourself into trouble for vandalism -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 03:55, 11 April 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Is there a specific best class? ==<br />
<br />
See above.<br />
<br />
:There's no definitive best class, but the easiest classes to start with are the ones with a ready-made [[XP]] source available: [[Civilian#Cop|Cops]], [[Military#Private|Privates]], [[Scientist#NecroTech Lab Assistant|NecroTech Lab Assistants]], [[Scientist#Doctor|Doctors]] and [[Civilian#Firefighter|Firefighters]]. Of those five, Privates are arguably the best since their military character class allows them to buy gun skills cheaply, and so get faster XP gain. Alternatively, since you'll inevitably be a zombie for at least a while, you might want to get a head start on that path and go for the [[Zombie#Corpse|Corpse]] class. Ultimately it's a matter of opinion. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] (revised 14:42, 30 April 2007 (BST))<br />
<br />
:[[Military#Scout|Scouts]] are also good, as free running lets you bypass barricades, and most survivers over-barricade safehouses. however, the lack of starting weapons is problem.<br />
(added 12:11, 3 september 2007 (central time)) -chaosvolt-<br />
<br />
i started out as a firefighter and i bought the melle 15% skill and it worked for a bit but it doesnt show anymore why?-welcome2urmooseyfate-<br />
<br />
:[http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1307855 This] is you, right? Says you have the skills there. So what exactly do you mean by that it doesn't show any more? Is the problem elsewhere (such as attack percentage)? - [[User:Whitehouse]] 07:55, 20 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
no it was workin then i got on it and it didnt say fireaxe 40% blah blah blah it said fire axe 25% and now its working im realy confused<br />
<br />
:No idea why that would be. But if as you say it's working again then we should just hope it keeps working. If it does however revert to being lower than expected, try the [[bugs]] section. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 08:02, 22 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Rifle? ==<br />
<br />
Are there any plans to introduce additional guns to this game, like, say some sort of full auto rifle? Firearms selection seems kinda lacking...and IMO it's really illogical that the military would not have any rifles like, say, an M4 carbine.<br />
<br />
:Rifles are generally seen as out of genre - they are frequently suggested but nearly always shot down on the [[suggestions]] page. General consensus is that another firearm isn't needed. (also, sign your posts by adding '<nowiki>--~~~~'</nowiki>) --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 19:01, 20 April 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
grenades would be cool ;) -chaosvolt-<br />
:No they wouldn't. This is another frequently suggested idea that always gets shot down. --[[User:Explodey|Explodey]] 23:58, 30 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Lv 41... ==<br />
<br />
Looking at the stats, why are there so many people at lv 41? Why is it that much harder to get to 42 and 43? --[[User:Clyde Randall|Clyde Randall]] 19:26, 23 April 2007 (BST)<br />
:The level system used in Urban Dead is setup so that a characters level is equal to the number of skills a player has, there are currently 42 levels but since Brain Rot makes it extremely difficult to become revived most survivors do not get it. If I recall correctly Infected characters are recorded on the game stats page as being a level higher then they are, thus creating a level 43. - [[User:Vantar|Vantar]] 21:15, 23 April 2007 (BST)<br />
::I think that being revived is the flag that gets people to be level 43. -- [[User:SgtBop|<font color="black"><b>SgtBop</b></font>]]<sup>[[User talk:SgtBop|<font color="black"><small>Talk</small></font>]]|[[Maris Viridis|<font color="black"><small>Maris Viridis</small></font>]]</sup> 03:40, 10 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== How can view another player's HP? ==<br />
<br />
How can I do this? I don't want to waste HP trying to heal someone that has full health.<br />
<br />
:There are three ways to see another player's HP:<br />
:*Heal them,<br />
:*Attack them,<br />
:*Or buy a skill to do it ([[Zombie Skills|Scent Blood]] and [[Science skills|Diagnosis]] let you see a player's exact HP, [[Zombie Skills|Scent Fear]] gives you a rough indication.)<br />
<br />
:Those are the only ways to see other people's health. So if you want to heal people, you just need to try using your first aid kits on random people. Healing gets '''''much''''' easier when you buy diagnosis. Until then, your best bet is to ask if there are any injured people in the building, or head out to [[Suburb|a suburb where there are likely to be lots of injured people]], or [[Knife|create some injuries yourself]]. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 17:12, 30 April 2007 (BST) Another good tip from the [[Guides:A_Guide_for_Doctors|Doctor's guide]] is to try using FAKs on survivors beginning from the bottom of the stack (the pull-down menu next to the "Use first-aid kit on" button). Start from the bottom because the characters at the top have been there longer and if they needed healing when they arrived, they're more likely to have been healed already by some other character who can diagnose.<br />
<br />
== Is it zerging to make radio broadcasts with an alt? ==<br />
The alt is in a different suburb to my usual character. I've just used him to make a few mindless radio broadcasts, that are not specific to any group's tactics. Is that okay? --[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 20:09, 19 June 2007 (BST)<br />
:Alts are perfectly okay as long as they aren't collaborating. Here's the official line: http://www.urbandead.com/faq.html#mult .--[[User_talk:Toejam|T]][[User:Toejam|oejam]] 21:02, 20 June 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== How do you see your own profile URL? ==<br />
I was joining a group when I realized I didn't know what the url for my character was. I look and googled it and stuff but at most it said something like www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi<br />
It doesn't have a number like the other profiles when I search them. I don't want to move my alt so I can see it either... PLZ HELP!--[[User:TheCapn157|TheCapn157]] 04:23, 7 July 2007 (BST)<br />
:Wow, you're really freaking out. Just try clicking your name at the bottom of the page and... look at the URL at the top. Don't yell at me telling me you've tried it until you have, and make sure to click "Back To The City", not pressing that lil' nifty "BACK" button on the browser. Pressing the Back To The City (BTTC) allows you to see if anyone said something in response to... a question you asked, or. if. anyone. [http://www.drmcninja.com/issue2/2p5.gif stabbedyouintheeyeballs.] These are important things to know.<br />
[[User:OmegaLord|OmegaLord]] 17:12, 7 July 2007 (BST)<br />
[[Category:Player Resources]]<br />
<br />
== Can zombies view each others profiles and add them as contacts?==<br />
:Yes they can, but not as easily as survivors can. When a zombie speaks, kills someone, attacks you, destroys the barricades/genny/radio then a link is available so that you can add them to your contact list -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 02:51, 22 June 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Is there anything that can be done if an account is no longer secure? ==<br />
I logged in today, and it seemed that I had less AP than when I had logged out hours ago. Perhaps I merely forgot about some searching I had done, but it made me wonder- what can be done if your account has been hacked or w/e you want to call it, so that someone else can access it?<br />
[[User:Rebel147|Rebel147]] 04:04, 27 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
:There's no way to change your password, so if an account got hacked, then your options would be...<br />
:*abandon the old character and make a new one, or<br />
:*email the game's creator (kevan at kevan dot org) and request that he'll change the password.<br />
:--&nbsp;[[User:Toejam|<small><span style="border:solid #000000 1px; background-color: #FFFFFF; color: black">{{ht|toejam|&nbsp;T&nbsp;}}</span></small>]]&nbsp; 04:49, 27 July 2007 (BST) PS Having less AP than expected ''might'' be because of some actions using [[Action Points|multiple AP]].<br />
<br />
== Can you see when a player drops stuff? ==<br />
My question is, can you tell when a player drops an item, and if so, can you tell what he dropped? by: chaosvolt<br />
:Nope, it's totally secret. --&nbsp;[[User:Toejam|<small><span style="border:solid #000000 1px; background-color: #FFFFFF; color: black">&nbsp;T&nbsp;</span></small>]]&nbsp; 10:51, 24 August 2007 (BST)<br />
i see, thanks. -chaosvolt-<br />
<br />
==How Do I Update the Dangermap?==<br />
How do I update the the danger colors on the dangermap of the [[Suburbs]]? Like change it from red to orange to yellow to green? --[[User:Secruss|Secruss]] 19:06, 3 September 2007 (BST)<br />
:On the suburb's wiki page, there should be a big blue box on the right hand side, and at the bottom of it there'll be a link saying ''"Update Roywood's danger level"'' or something similar. Follow that link, then add {{tl|MapSafe}} or {{tl|MapModerate}} or whatever is appropriate according to [[Template:MapColors|this guide]] and save the page. That's the danger level updated, and it'll show up on the [[suburb]] page whenever that page gets edited. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] <sup>[[Project Atmosphere|A]]</sup> 20:06, 3 September 2007 (BST) NB [[:Category:Danger_Reports#How to update a suburb danger report|Here's an alternative guide.]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Zombie Skills==<br />
do some zombie skills work even when you are human? Jason Cane<br />
:Yes, a couple do - see [[Zombie Skills Usable by Survivors]]. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] <sup>[[Project Atmosphere|A]] [http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/23138202?graph%5Bscale%5D=absolute Stats Graph]</sup> 21:20, 6 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Is a headbutt the same as a bite?==<br />
Does a zombie's headbutt attack(obtained by wearing a mask) have the same accuracy and damage as the bite(attack replaced by headbutt)?<br />
The description for the haedbutt in [[Headbutt]] says, "you headbutt XX for 3 damage." Is that right? If so, is there a balance for the lower damage(maybe higher accuracy?)<br />
:Yes damage and accuracy is the same for both attacks. However unlike Bite, Headbutt does not cause infections.--<small><span style="border: 1px solid MediumSeaGreen">[[User:Vista|'''<span style="background-color: Ivory; color:Black">&nbsp;Vista&nbsp;</span>''']][[Signature_Race|<span style="background-color: MediumSeaGreen; color: Ivory ">&nbsp;+1&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 07:26, 16 September 2007 (BST)<br />
::Doesn't bite do 4 damage and headbutt do only 3, both at 30% accuracy (all skills except tangling grasp)? That would make bite the better attack, unless headbutt is particularly good for low-level players or something. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 14:36, 17 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
::The [[headbutt]] page says it does 3 damage, bite does 4...headbutt has to higher accuracy.<br />
<br />
==What skills are avialible when you're dead?==<br />
Since you can only have the option to buy surviver OR zombie skills at any one point in time, what skills can you buy when you're a dead body? Maybe you choose the skill tree you could use last(e.g. dieing as a surviver means you can buy surviver skills as long as you stay down)?--[[User:Chaosvolt|volt]] 03:48, 25 September 2007 (BST)<br />
:I was a survivor then got killed; IIRC before I stood up I could still buy survivor skills, so I assume that before they stand up, bodies of killed survivors can buy zombie skills, and bodies of killed/revived zombies can buy zombies skills. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]]<sup>[http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/23575027?graph%5Bscale%5D=absolute Stats Graph Updated]</sup> 19:22, 25 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Zerging flag and similar names?==<br />
I'm currently engaged in a siege where at least one of the zombie players outside has resorted to making new accounts impersonating defenders of our building. For example, my ingame name is Commie Woman. There's a relatively new zed account that's been outside and in the vicinity named CommieWoman. They've done this for other defenders of the building as well. My question is, would this set off the zerging flag or is it something strictly related to your IP? It would really suck for it to be harder to barricade/attack/etc. because someone out there is impersonating us. My inclination is that it doesn't have any bearing on our successful barricade/hit percentages, but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks! --[[User:Commie Woman|Commie Woman]] 04:32, 1 October 2007 (BST)<br />
:Only Kevan knows for sure what triggers the anti-zerg measures and he likes to keep it secret so that the measures are harder to work around. But there have been player groups in past where all the characters had almost identical names like the [[Pathetic Bill]]s or [[SillyLillyPilly]]s and they didn't seem to have any problems, so I doubt your impostor will set off any countermeasures. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 17:45, 1 October 2007 (BST)<br />
::As far as I know, Ye Olde Zerge Flages have nothing to with character names, but with IP addresses and such. If you are not zerging, or sharing IP addesses, you have nothing to worry about. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==I wonder what Kevan will do for Halloween?==<br />
If Kevan is reading, please give us a hint what you'll do do the game this Halloween. Anyone else, say what you THINK he'll add to game to make the classic horror holiday fun for players. my guesses:<br />
*Nerf us poor humans<br />
*make humans and zed party together<br />
*do something lame like reuse the vampire/werewolf joke<br />
So, what do think he throw at us?<br />
<br />
==Question on radio messages==<br />
Okay, I know I ask a lot of questions, but I can't being curious. My current question involves the messages you recieve when retuning your radio. One time I retuned it, it said "The radio begins to hiss static" but when I went to another station, it said "The radio's reception becomes clear". Does it have to do with when it was last used or something?<br />
:This came up on [[Talk:News]] once, and here's the relevant part:<br />
{{Quote|Swiers|It tells you whether there is a transmitter in the city tuned to that freq. If there is not, you get a message like "The radio hisses static and then fades to silence". Only If the freq is actively in use (IE, there is a transmitter tuned to that freq somewhere) will it say "reception remains clear".}}<br />
:--[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 13:11, 13 October 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Question on strange Zombie Attack Message==<br />
This might be covered somewhere already but I cant seem to find it. Basically have recently become a zombie and am waiting in a revive que with 20 other Zombies. On the same block is a known Pker on my contact list who also happens to be a zombie at this point in time. So I thought I would use my AP to make his life a bit more difficult. I can target him no problem to attack but everytime I try to attack I get a message that says "Your target moves away before you can attack them." Why is this? {{Unsigned|Mikeb35}}}}<br />
<br />
It's because your target is either revified or dead. {{Unsigned|PudgeisImba}}<br />
<br />
Maybe target isn't a zombie but a corpse. He can be target but attack will have no result. - [[User:Bug MacLock|Bug MacLock]] 09:51, 8 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== After Level 41 ==<br />
Is there really any reason to keep playing after you have gained all of the skills (excluding Brain Rot, because that skill is horrible...)- Are there plans to create new skills, or add new variables to gameplay? If so, does anyone know how often such things are implemented? I really enjoy this game, but I cannot see myself just playing it just to play it. I play it now to achieve a goal, and I am fairly close to achieving that goal. But the 50 AP-a-day style really limits the ability to solely play for fun... I do not know if I worded that in a way that effectively explains the "way I feel" about it, but I am just wondering if I should be expecting the end of the game (for me) soon.--[[User:Sic Re Mortem|Sic Re Mortem]] 21:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
:It's hard to tell if Kevan will implement any new skills but I can assure there will ''always'' be new updates (and not just flavour ones). We can never know for sure how long it will be between significant updates, sometimes months, other times only a week. In the meantime, you can always find new challenges. Try going solo in a very dangerous suburb or find a group to go with you. If you're a zombie, you can search for mega hordes like the [[Second Big Bash]] to roll with or you can even try out PKing.--{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks for the quick response! As for the going solo thing: unfortunately, that is already what I do. I have never been able to work in a group. I find myself playing when no-one else in that suburb is, so I often do things on my own. Thank you very much for the help, though! --[[User:Sic Re Mortem|Sic Re Mortem]] 21:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Is there anyway to access a log of messages you get throughout the game? ==<br />
:No.--{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 04:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It is possible press the back button on your browser to view what has occured in your session. --[[User:Twin paradox|Twin paradox]] 10:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Yes, on some browsers. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 05:01, 1 May 2008 (BST)<br />
::It's possible for someone to write an extensions to output game logs but as of current the closest thing is Mortal's GM script.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:12, 1 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Can an infection be cured while you're a zombie? ==<br />
I had an infection when I died. If someone uses a first aid kit on me before they revive me, will I have an infection when I stand up? --[[User:Ms.Panes|Ms.Panes]] 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
:No, your infection will be cured. In fact, it's considered good practice among revivers to use a fak on a zombie before reviving them, although this does not seem to be a very common practice. --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 08:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
:I don't understand Pdeq's response. The infection is gone once you die. If you get revived, you get up at half your hit points and have no infection. You don't re-die because no one healed you. --[[User:Ram Charger|Ram Charger]] 09:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
::Actually, thats nonsense. When you die of an infection, you keep the infection. If you subsequently get revived, you will start losing hp again every action you take, starting with standing up. I have been revived enough times against my will to know this to be true. There are plenty of suggestions in the archives to make infection go away on death or be cured with the syringe. None have been implimented, because, to be blunt, being infected is a minor nuisance, no more, no less. Carry a FAK or two at all times and you are pretty much immune to infection harm. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 10:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
::Listen to Grim, he is right. Infection doesn't go away until someone, anyone, uses an FAK on you, when they do it doesn't matter if you're alive or dead it will cure the infection. Nothing else will cure infection, only FAKs.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
:My apologies;I stand corrected then. Perhaps I was just cured at the same time as being revived. Guess I need to carry a FAK with my syringes now... Seems kind of silly, but we don't make the rules.--[[User:Ram Charger|Ram Charger]] 10:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
::It is more efficient for the infected/revived person to carry their own FAK, and cure their infection when they stand up after revivification. That way they also get an additional 10HP on top of the 30 (25) they stand up with after revivification. If you heal a zombie, then revive them, they still stand up with half their maximum HP, regardless <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 10:11 27 December 2007 (BST)</small><br />
:::True, but you can't count on people (especially new players) always having a fak on them, so I suppose a reviver has to judge if it is worth the extra ap expenditure to make sure every person they revive gets cured of infection. --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 18:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
::::They'll learn sooner if you don't mollycoddle 'em ;) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 10:01 29 January 2008 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Nothing like death to teach folks a lesson, eh? --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 08:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::They'll learn pretty fast never to stray far from a hospital.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 10:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Is there a bot that can shield you from harm?==<br />
I spent 20+ AP and only dealt 3 damage to this mushroom guy(I have maxed out hand attacks) -[[User:Ottotorrens|Ottotorrens]] 14:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
:There's no bot that could do that in urban dead, it must just have been bad luck. Better luck next time! --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 15:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
::But this happens all the time (twice today) --[[User:Ottotorrens|Ottotorrens]] 14:42, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Bad luck. There'll be times when you're not having a good week, and times when you are. This time, Lady Luck isn't on your side. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 14:52, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Can I request a user to be deleted due to an offensive username?==<br />
I would like to see the following user deleted:<br />
http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=641207<br />
How do I request this and to who and where? I would assume Urban Dead does not accept racial hate messages in any form. <br />
--[[User:Twin paradox|Twin paradox]] 09:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm going to assume from the lack of response to my question that no it is not possible to have a user deleted from Urban Dead due to an offensive username. I suppose just as bigots live in our society, bigots live in Malton but I'm hoping this is a very small proportion of people. It would be nice to think that this person is unbiggoted and just trying to be funny by making a bad joke. --[[User:Twin paradox|Twin paradox]] 11:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
:I believe [[User_talk:Kevan/Archive#Not_a_Bug|this]], from [[Kevan]], is the most that's ever been said on the topic, and it sounds like a big no. Although, there are apparently game countermeasures to deal with such things on at least some level.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 11:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
::That's a fair enough explaination. I came across some similar rubbish spray painted on the inside of one of Malton's buildings today. That's 2 1/2 months after I sighted that user with the offensive name so it good that this type of thing is uncommon. I removed the message by spray painting over it with a friendlier comment which, from the link above, is how these things are regulated in this game.--[[User:Twin paradox|Twin paradox]] 11:18, 14 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Can I request a group to be deleted due to an offensive page and name?==<br />
I would like very much to see [[Columbine Kids|The Columbine Kids]] removed. How can I see to it that this will be removed? 'http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Columbine_Kids' is very offensive, and I personally find it disgusting. [[User:Comrade 47|Comrade 47]] 23:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
:You can request a page be deleted at [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions]], although I see no criterion that would make it eligible for deletion. --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 08:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
:: [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/Aug_2007#Columbine_Kids|'''Double Jeopardy''']], mate. Out of interest, did you actually read ''any'' of the main page (beyond baulking at the title)? -- {{User:CrystalEyes/Sig}}<br />
::: Maybe you guys can add that to your talk page or an NPOV section of the main page, for easy access and incase a request comes up in the future. Oh, and I don't believe we actually have a double jeopardy type rule here for deletions.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 22:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::: [[Talk:Columbine_Kids|'''Done''']], although it surprises me that you can repeatedly put a page up for deletion just because you don't like it. Surely once it's gone through the voting system that should be the end of it? -- {{User:CrystalEyes/Sig}}<br />
:::I didn't read your page, as I'm not the one requesting it be deleted. Hopefully you meant to direct your question to Comrade<s>whoever left the question (their signature seems to be missing)</s> (sig fixed). I also do not see this "double jeopardy" criterion you are referring to. --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 08:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::: No, it was aimed at the guy requesting its deletion; i apologise for any confusion. And, since he's added his sig, i wish i hadn't bothered - he's a griefer and a complete waste of oxygen. I'm not even entirely sure he ''can'' read. Anyway, my apologies Pgeq. --{{User:CrystalEyes/Sig}}<br />
::::: Offensive page and name? Ever heard of SHOCK VALUE!? No to delete.--[[User:Forgotten86|Forgotten86]] 06:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::::Such voting would take place on [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions]] if this is put up for deletion. This FAQ is simply for answering questions. --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 05:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==I have the infection skill, but not every bite causes infection. Is this a bug?==<br />
I bit someone and got the message "You bite ''playername'' for 4 damage. They drop to 46 HP." but the thing is, I have infection. Sometimes it has the text saying I infect them, sometimes it doesn't, even if it's my first time biting them. I thought infection was supposed to be 100% effective, so why didn't it work? --[[User:Ms.Panes|Ms.Panes]] 17:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Do you also have [[Scent Blood]]? If not get it, as you might be biting people who are already infected and might not have [[Body Building]]. Otherwise, yes, it is a bug, a rather old and constant one at that. You should be able to find it in [[Known Bugs]] or in the Bugs Reported More Than Once section of [[Bug Reports]].--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 18:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== I am running out of pistol bullets what do I do ==<br />
plese help me<br />
Ryal<br />
:Look for a [[Police Department]] or [[Mall]] near your location by going to [[Suburb]] and clicking on the name of the suburb you are currently in(it will lead to a page with a map). --<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 03:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Pistol clips can be found at [[Police Department]]s, [[Mall Gun Stores]], and [[Fort Armories]]. [[User:Ioncannon11|Ioncannon11]] 22:09, 21 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== The Stack ==<br />
<br />
Playing as a zombie for the first time, when I enter a building and all the players are listed, what defines the order? Is it order of last action? From least to most active?--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
:The target list is ordered the same way it is for fighting zombies. Least active at the top, most active at the bottom. Zombies always under Survivors, Non-mobile objects(generators, barricade, etc.) at the bottom. The only difference is that you can target each individual character in the stack.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 02:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Sharing accounts ==<br />
i have 2 account in separate areas, my friends want to start playing Urban dead, could i give him one of those accounts or is that zerging? --RAUNEMASTERYX 21:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Thats fine, hopefully your accounts don't have the same password though :P --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Harmans ==<br />
Is harmans a misspelling or a joke? Look at this search page. <br />
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Search?search=harmans ([[User:IRMacGuyver|IRMacGuyver]] 05:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC))<br />
:"Harman" is the [[KiZombie]] word for a "human" aka a survivor. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 05:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Its the most common way zombies say the word 'human' in-game, as they are limited it what letters they can say. Some people like to use it out of the game as well.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Contact List==<br />
Is there any way I can find out who adds me to their contact list? {{Unsigned|John Kingston|02:26, 28 April 2008}}<br />
:No. --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 08:17, 28 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== HELP!!!! ==<br />
<br />
Okay, I have two profiles, in two different suburbs on different sides of the city. However, everytime I go to me original profile, I try to move, then it switches to the other. I tried changing the e-mail address on my second, and running out of AP, but it doesn't work. What should I DO????--[[User:John Kingston]] 0:54, 9 May 2008 (BST)<br />
:try clearing your cookies and using one with IE and one with firefox - if i problems with my contacts if i run all 3 characters on firefox sometimes. Oh and always log out, instead of just redirecting your browser. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:12, 10 May 2008 (BST)<br />
::Personally, I would like to point out that clearing your cookies will remove all instant remembered passwords from your computer, and if you have any playlists on itunes, these will often ALL be deleted. [[User:Yonnua Koponen|Yonnua Koponen]] 21:48, 12 May 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Your browser cookies shouldn't affect your itunes program. And in firefox clearing your cookies will not clear your saved passwords. --[[User:Pdeq|<span style="color: green">Pdeq</span>]]<sup><span style="color: blue">[[User_talk:Pdeq|Talk]][[Signature Race|*]]</span></sup> 07:41, 13 May 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Are you signing out of the first one before you play the other one? [[User:No-genius|No-genius]] 11:49, 13 May 2008 (BST)<br />
:When you switch to another character, log out of the one you are on at the time. Your cookies are probably messed up. [[User:Ioncannon11|Ioncannon11]] 22:05, 21 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Is this Zerging - PLEASE HELP ==<br />
<br />
Hi - I've been playing UD for several months now with my profile usually based in Willimasville. Now my younger brother has started playing and wants to join the group im in. We DONT use the same computer BUT we are in the same house on the same network. While the IPs on our computers are slightly different and vary will we still be flagged as Zerging (does it read the computers IP or the Modem that we go through - we use AOL)????. I hope you understand and please help - while I want to play with my brother I dont want to flagged as Zerging --[[User:Feon Kensai|Feon Kensai]] 20:52, 12 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Assuming that your IP addresses are different, it shouldn't be flagged as zerging, but you might want to test it with him there. It doesn't sound like zerging to me, even if you help him find zombies to attack, its no more than what someone in your group might do for someone they don't even know. So, I think it should be fine. [[User:No-genius|No-genius]] 11:47, 13 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:No, there are a ton of people who do this with their family. AOL does this whole switcharoo thing with your ip anyway, so it would be different in any case. [[User:Ioncannon11|Ioncannon11]] 22:03, 21 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Reviving?==<br />
<br />
I have been trying to figure out how to revive for a while now. every time i use the syringe, it never produces a button to ask me if i want to revive. is there a certain place i should be looking? i always read the profile, but i can't find any button where i can revive the zombie. --[[User:Lozer killa|Lozer killa]] 03:49, 28 July 2008 (BST)<br />
:The first question that I'll ask you is if you have the skill "Lab Experience." Without that skill, you cannot use revivification syringes. If you're scanning zombie profiles, you're using a DNA extractor and have the "Necrotech Employment" Skill, but cannot yet use syringes. -- {{User:KF/PKsig}} 08:36, 28 July 2008 (BST)<br />
:: I do have all of the reviving skills, but i think i have discovered why. <br />
----</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Frequently_Asked_Questions&diff=1271120Frequently Asked Questions2008-09-10T21:33:51Z<p>Janine: /* Firefox */</p>
<hr />
<div>{| align="center"<br />
{{Template:Game_Information}}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The [http://www.urbandead.com/faq.html official Urban Dead FAQ] covers a number of common issues - this page is for users to help one another with other, less frequently-asked questions about the game. For questions about the wiki, try [[Wiki Questions]].<br />
<br />
==Firefox==<br />
If you use the firefox connection, is the game any diffrent? On Wikipedia I saw a pic of urban dead with alot more detail and it said it was using the fire fox connection. [[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 22:30, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I haven't noticed any change between Firefox, Explorer, Chrome, or Opera. You likely saw the screenshot with the UDtoolbar or one of those other add-ons that have been player-produced.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:33, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Rhodenbank==<br />
I am currently hunkerd down in Rhodenbank, and I am trying to look for a radio channel that is focused on events happening in Rhodenbank. [[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 22:30, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Forums==<br />
Any forums that Urban dead uses? The Wiki great, but it would be cool to have a place where you could talk about Urban dead, by which I mean a place that you can talk about in game stuff. If ther is, is it here on the wiki, or on some other site?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 19:58, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Unofficial_UD_Forums]]. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:17, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==External Military Reports==<br />
How often do External Military Reports happen? Thanks in advance.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 19:19, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Tune in and find out. From what I see, there's like 2-5 reports a day, but I could be wrong. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 19:22, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==A Gritty Detail of the 5-day Idle Thing==<br />
So I was talking to a friend one day who's been idle for 5+ days, and his character doesn't show up on the block he's in. He logs in, but I still don't see him. He had to spend an AP before his character was visible, and it seems merely logging in doesn't make you appear. I concluded that you must spend an AP to make yourself an active character again, and merely logging in is not enough. My question is, BEFORE you turn inactive, does logging in count as an action in the 5-day idle period? If you only log in, but do not spend any AP or make an actions, does it interrupt your "idleness?" --{{User:Asylum/sig}} 06:00, 16 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== I can't play?==<br />
<br />
I tried to play urbandead. when i login it takes me to the main page and when i click an action it takes me back to the login page. Please help.<br />
:You most likely have your browser set to not accept cookies from urban dead or at all. -- {{User:KF/PKsig}} 06:09, 30 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Where are the armouries? ==<br />
<br />
I've been told i can find guns 'n ammo at armouries but i cant find any armouries. Have they been deleted from the game? Please help!!<br />
:Armories are the central block of each of the two [[forts]] in the game, [[Fort Perryn]] and [[Fort Creedy]], they're both located near the south east corner of [[Suburb|Malton]].--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 20:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== I've been killed, now what? ==<br />
<br />
You can either play as a zombie or attempt to get brought back to life. See [[Guides#Guides_for_Zombies|guides for zombie play]] for information on how to enjoy the afterlife after party. See [[Revivification Point]] to get brought back.<br />
<br />
== What will Kevan implement next? ==<br />
Where the Heck is a list where Kevan lists the things that he is working on implementing to make the game work better? --[[User:Mattiator|Mattiator]] [[User:Mattiator|Mattiator]] 01:53, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:It doesn't exist (except in Kevan's head, presumably) - he's a pretty modest sort of guy. He doesn't post what features he's "working on", nor does he say updates are "just around the corner." He doesn't even make disappointing promises about improving server performance. In fact, he focuses almost entirely on '''making''' updates, instead of talking about them. It's a good policy. --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 02:21, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
::However, you can head on over to the Suggestions pages to take a look at the user-submitted ideas that have been approved. There is a chance that some of these will be implemented in the future, when Kevan finally has time to get around to them. For example, I remember seeing the original suggestion for improving search odds in lighted buildings quite a few months ago. It was implemented a couple weeks ago. --[[User:Mewarmo990|Mewarmo990]] 05:31, 23 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== How do Revivification Points work? ==<br />
What protocol? Standing outside as a Z I get killed again, which means 10 AP to stand up. When I've been inside I've gotten help, but the last two I checked were both very strongly barricaded. Are we supposed to wait outside?<br />
:There is no real protocol. There are some revivification points established by various groups, including the [[Yagoton_Revivification_Clinic|Yagotown Revivification Clinic]]. You can also sometimes find directions to revivification points sprayed on walls. Often these are established at churches. You can also try standing near a necrotech building (but please not on the same block, lest they think you are attacking their barricades). If there are survivors on your block, saying Mrh? will often get you revived...if one of them has a syringe. Mostly, it's trial and error unless you are a member of a [[:Category:Human_Groups|human group]] which will revive you. --[[User:Argus Blood|Argus Blood]] 09:17, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
Be aware that some graffiti will point you to revivification points that simply no longer exist - I've found EHB churches with survivors resting inside, even though the graffiti claims that we shouldn't barricade. Hanging around near a NT building is a safe bet to an eventual revive. You may wish to consider playing as a zombie until you get revived randomly. --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 20:53, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:Also, according to the [[Sacred Ground Policy]], to which several adhere, all cemeteries are safe places to wait for a revive. Hopefully this will become a more widespread practice in future.--[[User:Guardian of Nekops|Guardian of Nekops]] 03:08, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
:The use of a revive request tool will also increase the chances of getting a quick revive. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Revivification_Request#Tools for details.--[[User:DI Marc Sweeny|DI Sweeny]] 15:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
See [[Revivification Point]] for a fuller answer to this question.<br />
<br />
==Is there a maximum inventory limit?==<br />
<br />
Is there a maximum inventory size of how many items a player can carry? Is there a max limit on the maximum number of one particular item a player can carry around?<br />
<br />
:As of 03-06-07 all items take up variable inventory space which a much lower limit on total items. -[[User:Tiak|Tiak]] 00:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I think that would come under "encumbrance" that is, "You are x% encumbered." --{{User:P02 Samuel/sig}} 13:36, 17 August 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Yes, but then there's ''Inventory [28/50 weight]'' above the ''100% Encumbered'' status. Is there any value to the 28/50?[[User:Pakopako|Pakopako]] 04:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Someone healed me. How did they know I was hurt?==<br />
<br />
From the Diagnosis skill. Per the Skills page, "Scientific Skills * Diagnosis (The HP values of nearby survivors are displayed next to their name.)"<br />
<br />
:However, it is possible that they have just guessed. This is especially true of members of the [[Medic]] class, who depend on healing as a major XP source, but is possible for any survivor who has a FAK but not the Diagnosis skill. Since they can't see everyone's HP value, they have to simply try everyone they see and hope to get lucky. It is not surprising, therefore, that many Medics purchase Diagnosis as soon as they possibly can. Still, this means that asking for help can benefit both parties. You get healed, and the other survivor gets closer to getting Diagnosis. --[[User:James Ennis|James Ennis]] 06:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Do zombies gain XP from Infectious Bites?==<br />
<br />
Do zombies get XP for the damage caused by infectious bites?<br />
[[User:Kenny Eatabagadonuts|Kenny Eatabagadonuts]]<br />
:No. --[[User:Dayfat|dayfat]] 03:48, 17 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
<br />
Zombies get XP for the damage caused by the initial bite. They do not get XP for damage caused by the infection. [[User:Bentley Foss|Bentley Foss]] 08:37, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
but what if the infection kills you? [[User:Auronk|Auronk]]<br />
:That has no effect on the XP a zombie gets. There are currently no situations in game in wich infection gives XP to the zombie.--<small><span style="border: 1px solid MediumSeaGreen">[[User:Vista|'''<span style="background-color: Ivory; color:Black">&nbsp;Vista&nbsp;</span>''']][[Signature_Race|<span style="background-color: MediumSeaGreen; color: Ivory ">&nbsp;+1&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 14:53, 28 June 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==When does the 160-limit reset?==<br />
<br />
No one knows. Just guess.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that it restarts at 12:00 AM BST (Midnight in Britain.) I say this because I operate off of US Eastern Standard time, and my IP usage restores at roughly 7:00 PM. [[User:Tetha2|Tetha2]] 23:00, 30 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
I can confirm this. I live in Norway (GMT +1), and I regain my 160 IP hits at 01:00 am.<br />
:The EST time given is wrong(although that's probably due to DST), it should, currently, reset at 8 pm EST as it resets at 5 pm PST.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 18:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Yes, 8 pm EST has been my experience. --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 02:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==How do you find a profile by username?==<br />
<br />
How do you look up a profile by username if the person doesn't happen to be standing right next to you and isn't on your contacts?--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel]] 21:09, 16 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
:There's currently no easy way to do this other than asking around or manually entering each 100,000+ profile. --[[User:Dayfat|dayfat]] 03:48, 17 Oct 2005 (BST)<br />
::along the same line of questioning, how does one look up your OWN profile?--[[User:Spellbinder|Spellbinder]] 15:39, 4 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
:::Just click on your character's name when you're logged in. --[[User:Papal Bull|Papal Bull]] 15:43, 4 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
:Googling for "urban dead profile {name}" sometimes works. --[[User:Spiro|Spiro]] 04:31, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Alright, a lot has happened since this was asked. There is now a complete database of Urban Dead character profiles. It's not currently accessible to the public, but if you ask [[User:Mia Kristos|Mia Kristos]] she might give you access or the profile you are after. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 09:48, 14 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
The Urban Dead profile database is [http://profiles.urbandead.info/ here].--[[User:Scott Timewell|Scott Timewell]] 23:22, 16 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==What order are characters listed in, in a location?==<br />
<br />
Is there a pattern to the order that character names appear in your location? It seems to be that whoever's been standing there the longest is nearest the top but I could be wrong. --[[User:MoonLayHidden|MoonLayHidden]] 18:06, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
:Profile numbers, I think--[[User:Milo|Milo]] 18:36, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
::Nope, that's definitely not it. The players in my room are all out of order, profile-number-wise. --[[User:MoonLayHidden|MoonLayHidden]] 18:58, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
::It's based on the most recently active one--they're either at the top of bottom of the list, I'm not sure which.--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]] 19:59, 10 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
:Used to be profile numbers, but it's been changed to least to most active in terms of last action taken. --[[User:Daxx|Daxx]] 15:40, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:For survivors, they're listed by activity. The most recently active ones are on the bottom. [[User:Dickus Maximus|Dickus Maximus]] 21:39, 30 March 2006 (BST)<br />
::This is helpful if you want to find out if any of your buddies have been playing or not. Players at the top of the list have been there for a while and might be on a vacation where they don't play for several days.<br />
:::Players at the top have definitely been inactive the longest. Those at the bottom have recently refreshed the screen or taken an action. Yes, merely refreshing resets you to the bottom of the list.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:30, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==How do you get ranks?==<br />
<br />
How do you get ranks in UD? Is it by kills or some other system?<br />
:Whenever you purchase skills with your accumulated XP your character increases by one rank. -- [[User:FindBosco|FindBosco]] 16:10, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
<br />
In that case, you mean levels. I'm curious about the note on the sign-up screen about titles (''this [name] may get a "Doctor" or "Sergeant" prefix later in game, depending on your class, so don't add one here'') - has anyone received a title like "Doctor" or "Sergeant" from their accomplishments in-game? --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 16:33, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
:Kevan probably had something in mind when he wrote it, but it has yet to be implemented. Anyway, with people having character names like bobo831, that wouldn't work. --[[User:ZheAldo|ZheAldo]] 05:01, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
Is it the most active ones or the most recent ones to move into an area ?<br />
:Actually, I've seen many people with the prefix Pvt, but that's probably there because of the player.<br />
<br />
==What are "Home Bases"?==<br />
<br />
Can anyone tell me what the home base feature is? I've noticed it in screenshots of several users where it indicates the distance to their home base. Is this enabled by a new skill or item? Thanks in advance. ( Example:http://tinyurl.com/aqsfm ) -- [[User:FindBosco|FindBosco]] 04:12, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
:I think I've found my own answer. It appears to be an extension that only works for Firefox. Go here for more info on it: http://www.pete.nu/software/udhoming/ -- [[User:FindBosco|FindBosco]] 16:17, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
<br />
I tried doing that but it didn't work for me? Can someone help me I have firefox I installed the plug in I right clicked and there was nothing there? {{Unsigned|systemerror1}}<br />
:Hard to do tech support without the full details. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 06:19, 7 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Do search percentages vary between individual buildings?==<br />
<br />
Do different buildings of the same type have different search percentages? i.e. is there a particular NecroTech building that gives out more syringes than other NecroTech buildings? [[User:RabidChipmunk|RabidChipmunk]]<br />
:No. See the [[Search Odds]] page. --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 17:18, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
:Buildings which are lit have better search odds than buildings which are not. Apart from that, search odds are the same in buildings of the same type. --[[User:Jack Grudge|Jack Grudge]] 10:52, 3 Nov 2006 (AEST)<br />
:also, ransacked buildings have lower search odds. [[user:chaosvolt|chaosvolt]]<br />
<br />
==How far away can flares be seen from?==<br />
<br />
When somebody fires a flare, how many blocks away can people see it? --[[User:Lord Kelvin|Lord Kelvin]] 12:51, 28 Nov 2005 (CST)<br />
:Since I started keeping track, 14 was the furthest I've seen. --[[User:Dayfat|dayfat]] 18:58, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
::I think it's farther, I saw a 15 once, and I thought I even saw an 18 once or twice before as well. --[[User:Lord Kelvin|Lord Kelvin]] 17:48, 28 Nov 2005 (CST)<br />
:::I saw 19 twice on the same page. Maybe the limit is 20? --[[User:Spook|Spook]] 17:35, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:::Just saw 22. --[[User:Spook|Spook]] 16:54, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
Spooky - I've never seen one that far, although I hardly pay attention. Could it be possible that there's a chance to notice flares which decreases as distance increases? --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 17:32, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:If that were the case, there would be a point where the chance is 0%, else you would still have a chance to see a flare at the other end of Malton [[User:Spook|Spook]] 13:25, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT) 13:25, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
*The [[Institute of Independant Studies]] is currently preparing to do an experiment on flare range. The first test will show if flares operate on a fixed radius or an odds basis as described above and will take place in a few days time when the participants have gathered enough flares. Results will be posted here as well as on the ISS page. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 09:31, 13 April 2006 (BST)<br />
:*The first ISS test fired 5 flares from 25 to 19 blocks away from another character. None were seen. The test will be repeated in the 20-15 bracket once enough flares are found again. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 09:38, 15 April 2006 (BST)<br />
::*The 2nd ISS test suggests the range may be 14 blocks. However further tests will be carried out to see if an odds system exists beyond that. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 13:53, 22 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==How do Survivors have higher levels than Zombies?==<br />
Alright, how can some Civilians and Military have the highest level rating? Isn't it impossible for survivors to have the max level--Brain Rot counts for a level, yes? Or is it just that bug with Infection and rev'd-ness counting as skills, since you can possibly either have a rev marker or Brain Rot but not both?--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]] 23:44, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
*It's not a bug. "Revivification and Infection flags are treated as skills for the purposes of this extract" (From the stats page). A person with brain rot has to be a zombie and therefore won't be counted towards the survivor level rating (because they are a zombie). However a survivor who just recently revived (not standing up yet) would count as being two levels higher then what they are. This is because there would also be the infection tag on the survivor as well because you are automatically infected after revivification. [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 13:06, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
**Okay all of that makes sense, except are you sure about that infection thing? I'm pretty sure it's just that if you were infected when you died, you stay infected. It doesn't actually happen automatically.--[[User:SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel|'STER]] 02:19, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
***So would this explain why in the levels section of the wiki, it states that level 42 is the highest possible level, however in the game status page, there are people who have reached level 43?--[[User:MegaManX|MegaManX]] 06:24, 27 June 2007 (BST)<br />
****New skills were added, thus increasing the higher possible skill level.--[[User:Pt da silva|Pt da silva]] 00:14, 28 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Is Brain Rot reversible?==<br />
What are the chances of getting an [http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=128351 accidental purchase of Brain Rot] undone? :F &#8212; [[User:Ceejayoz|ceejayoz]] <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Ceejayoz|&#9733;]]</font> <font color="darkred">[http://ceejayoz.com/ .com]</font></sup> 05:54, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:If the cold-hearted folks over at the [[Suggestions]] page were in charge, your character'd be screwed forever. Which he currently is, unfortunately. --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 19:35, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
::Well, I added a thing to [[Suggestions]] re: a warning on purchase, which so far seems to be a unanimous keep. Perhaps others will be spared my fate. :p &#8212; [[User:Ceejayoz|ceejayoz]] <sup><font color="darkred">[[User_talk:Ceejayoz|&#9733;]]</font> <font color="darkred">[http://ceejayoz.com/ .com]</font></sup> 03:17, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
::: This is not confirmed as far as I know, but it seems that zombies with Brain Rot can be revivied only in NecroTech building with the NecroNet Access skill. (Moved this up from the question below and edited for readability.)--[[User:Guardian of Nekops|Guardian of Nekops]] 03:14, 2 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
::::I can confirm that a Brain-rotted individual can be revivified with the new NecroNet Access skill. I have had at least [http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=115713 one brain rotted character] revivified. It is a little difficult, you must be inside a powered Necrotech building and be revivified by someone with the Necronet skill.<br />
:::::If you need reviving from brain rot then try the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Brain_Rot_Revive_Clinic Brain Rot Revive Clinic]; it's an unbarricaded NecroTech building, being used for powered revival - the only possible way to get a brain rotted player back to life.<br />
I have another question about brain rot. If you buy it, and get revived by a necrotech person, do you have to buy it again? Or does it just so happen when you die you have to go through the process of being revived like a rotter? --[[User:Alevins|Alevins]] 20:27, 1 July 2007 (BST)<br />
:Everytime a character with brain rot dies the only way to be revived is through a powered NecroTech building by character that has the Necronet skill. Like all skills it can only be purchased once and will not go away after you are revived.- [[User:Vantar|Vantar]] 21:00, 1 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Why is the game being slow?==<br />
It seems the game has become extremely slow to load again, recently. It's gotten to the point where I can visit several other websites every time I click on "attack". Anyone else experiencing this? --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 19:48, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
<br />
* I have noticed the game is extremely slow in the evening for the past 2 days, but seems to pick up and be very fast after 09:00 GMT, of course I am usually too sleepy to play by then. I have already donated, but if this is a bandwidth problem to needing $$ to be fixed, please let us know.--[[User:Atrayo|Atrayo]] 01:05, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
<br />
::The game is slowest around exact 30 minute increments (X:00 and X:30) as these are the times when every single player in the game is given an AP. These 30 minute updates seem to start slightly before and end slightly after each 30 minute increment (about 2-3 minutes, before and after). If you avoid making actions during this 6ish minute period of time, you will avoid the worst of the slowdown. --[[User:Steakfish|Steakfish]] 07:23, 20 October 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::The 30 minute mark is not true. You are given a restored AP 30 minutes AFTER you spent your first. So if you spent it at 7:15, it gets restored at 7:45, and so on along that line, until all 50 are back, so it is not those specific :00 and :30 moments that it happens. However, the moments before and after server reset, especially before, often see massive, severe lag, as everybody tries to finish their stuff before the IP hits reset.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:37, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Why does it cost AP to stand when revived?==<br />
Even if the AP cost for standing up after death is 10, should the cost after being revived be 10? <br />
You expect to die, even headshots happen (losing XP), but being revived is kinda like a random<br />
good thing happening (unless you're a zombie that just hasn't rotted yet). One doesn't ask to get <br />
revived (of course we want to), but then having to spend so much AP to get up from that, it's like<br />
"yay! I'm alive, but I have to stay on the ground to charge AP before I can play..". What's the rationale for 10 AP after being revived? The slow acting vaccine?<br />
:I don't see the problem with waiting for AP to charge before standing - it's what non-Ankle Grab zombies do. Keep in mind that this is a medicine that converts you from a semi-mindless, shambling mass of decay, into a good-as-new human. It also does "slow, molecular work" according to the flavor. --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 03:34, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
::Also keep in mind that if you have to Ankle-Grab skill, that reduces the AP spent standing up as a Zombie ''and'' as a revived survivor.--[[User:Cheeser|Cheeser]] 21:01, 30 August 2006 (BST)<br />
:::One of the cool things about this game is that you cannot be permanently killed. You may have to spend some time as a zombie, or lying on the ground--but if there was no penalty for being killed then everyone would essentially be invincible. Especially zombies, who would stand right back up in battle after being killed. It does suck waiting for the AP so you can stand up etc., but it promotes the player to choose his moves and actions carefully, and play strategically to avoid the consequences of death. This in turn makes the game more fun, for me at least.--[[User:Tser|Tser]] 11:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==How was I attacked for 72 damage?==<br />
I'm fairly sure that this isn't right. But I have been attacked for 72 Damage in total. As a zombie I was attacked by other zombies and lost hp, however I was not attacked by a survivor player. Any ideas on why this would happen? - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 03:18, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:Either you were healed between attacks, or you had 60 HP in the beginning, lost all but 3, and a [[flare gun]] hit you, then the survivor died (and showed up as "a zombie".) --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 03:29, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
::I can tell you for a fact that the most I was hurt by was 4HP each time. And I also checked if I was healed when it happened but that was not the case. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] 08:53, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:::Bullets (if you wear a flak jacket) or zombie claws would inflict such damage. As Louis said, maybe someone healed you by, or maybe you have the Digestion skill? --[[User:ZheAldo|ZheAldo]] 05:09, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
::::During an extremely active combat, sequential processing can break down. As a result, sometimes two to four players are awarded the same kill. If this were implemented in the same way on the receiver's side, that victim would receive more than the minimum damage necessary to be killed. --[[User:Tycho44|Tycho44]] 16:28, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
:::::I have a better explanation and it comes from personal experience. If you're like me and sometimes get impatient waiting on the server, you just keep hitting the "Attack _____ with ______" button counting your AP. What can happen is you can kill someone and have several successful attacks after they have died. I know this has worked because I know how much XP you get from a successful kill starting from 50 HP with the Fire Axe and Ive sometimes gotten more PLUS the message was "You successfully hit the zombie for three damage (or whatever the hell it says exactly... I forget) even though on the screen they are listed as a dead body and there is no zombie on the block. Furthermore, my characters all are Zombie Hunters. If it was the last successful hit, it should say "Headshot" but it doesn't. Also, if someone is dead and their profile is in your contacts, you can attack their body too. This has worked for me on several computers. -- [[User:EBA|EBA]]<br />
<br />
==What do the name colors mean on the map?==<br />
Whats the deal with all those color shades over people's names? The blue, red, and green.I've always assumed it meant online status.--[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]] 22:56, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:I'm almost certain they correspond to Scientist, Civilian, and Military, respectively. I almost never bother looking at the people on the map, anyway, unless I'm scanning for zombies, which show up as white. --[[User:LouisB3|LouisB3]] 00:25, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Yup. "Other citizens of Malton appear on the map as names in coloured boxes (the colour matching their class; green for Military, blue for Science, red for Civilian and grey for Zombie); they also appear in the location's description." --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]] 03:30, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
<br />
==Are the Firefox extensions broken?==<br />
Has anyone noticed that Greasemonkey scripts for Firefox that reorganize the buttons in UD have stopped working? I have used the [http://www.cs.uoregon.edu/~ryanf/ud/ud-item_organizer.user.js UD Item Organizer] for quite some time and it worked well, but since earlier today neither it or the [http://jmason.org/software/ud/ Urban Dead HUD] work at all. I have tried reinstalling them and Greasemonkey. Other scripts, like the [http://torbjorn.org/urbandead/gm/map.nav.buttons.user.js Show navigation on map] one, work fine. I apologize if this isn't the correct place to ask this - please direct me if it is not. - [[User:FindBosco|FindBosco]] 01:38, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)<br />
:Some time ago the [http://www.cs.uoregon.edu/~ryanf/ud/ud-item_organizer.user.js UD Item Organizer] stopped working for me also. Now I have been spending time in the same crowded location and I noticed that normally it doesn't work, but when I click the [list names]-link it starts to work again. So it might be that the functioning of the script is dependent on whether the names are listed or not. I have been in the same location so I haven't yet tested my theory. - [[User:Wilhelm Von Strand|Wilhelm Von Strand]] 20:32, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
:: Ok. Now the script worked before I clicked the list of names to be visible. So it seems to be more random than I thought. - [[User:Wilhelm Von Strand|Wilhelm Von Strand]] 00:10, 12 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
i have a related question: in the main article there is an image of urban dead, but in the screenshot the buildings are shown in great detail. how do i go about aquiring this extension? i use IE normally, but also firefox, and cant find a way to aquire these new aestetics... whiskey tango foxtrot?<br />
:Those detailed buildings come from a firefox extension, the Urban Dead Toolbar. It's available to download from http://udtoolbar.mozdev.org/. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 23:43, 10 April 2007 (BST)<br />
you are my gawd! thnx--[[User:Gass mask|Gass mask]] 23:54, 19 October 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Are separate multiple characters penalised?==<br />
I have created multiple characters (3 in all) which all work separately and therefore, should not be penalised. However, I have named them "voota", "voota's pharmacist" and "voota's militia" and lately I have been getting terrible search percentages. Has my account been blacklisted for having (similar) multiple accounts even though they are not linked, or is it just a coincidence (,or just me being paranoid)? Any way of finding out? - [[User:voota|Voota]] 15:08, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
If there's a penalisation, is it automatically lifted after sometime? If so, for how long? I've just started playing this game and I have two characters very closeby, although not cooperating, I've run them one after the other's AP has finished. I've noticed that hit percentage isn't what it used to be...--[[User:Wcervantes|Wcervantes]] 22:35, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
::It is commonly believed that if both characters attack the same target (who may have moved), hit percentage becomes 0%. This type of penalty disappears when attacking valid targets (i.e., not cooperating with your alt). As far as anyone knows, Kevan doesn't blacklist (egregious violators get banned instead). Some players and groups maintain blacklists, but they'll just yell at you or shoot you -- they can't affect your percentages. --[[User:Tycho44|Tycho44]] 18:26, 15 March 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
I don't think Kevan is that sadistic. As I understand it accounts that are under suspicion of working together just disappear in the night, never to be seen again. I have never heard of search results getting nerfed. Some days are just bad, I spent 30 AP and found a newspaper once. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]] 07:45, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
:Yeah, I think I was just being paranoid. Thanks. --[[User:voota|Voota]] 02:46, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Well under the heading of zerging in the wiki it says that that a countermeasure of suspicious activity (e.g. characters from same IP in close proximity) is to have a negative effect on search percentages...so voota, that could be your problem [[User:Ozz|Ozz]] 12:19, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
:Maybe, but they are all around 3-4 suburbs apart so I shouldn't be penalised. I may have just had a bad day. Thanks for the help anyway. --[[User:voota|Voota]] 02:46, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
I am aware that if the characters are within 5 blocks of each other, any actions cost them double the AP's - been moving my main to a reviv point, forgetting that my NecroTech alt was waiting a block or two away.--[[User:The Fifth Horseman|The Fifth Horseman]] 15:05, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
: Let me guess. Your main doesn't have Lurching Gait. - [[User:CthulhuFhtagn|CthulhuFhtagn]] 21:14, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
:: He didn't have it back then, but it's NOT about the 2 AP/block move cost as a zed. It's about being charged '''20 AP''' (I had 11, stood up and ended with -9 AP) for standing up from a headshot he received along the way. Now, you know it's normally 10 AP... |<br />
Also, when I was moving out my other alt - alive and breathing - from the proximity, his _every_ move cost him 2 AP instead of 1. |<br />
Try explaining that, genius.--[[User:The Fifth Horseman|The Fifth Horseman]] 15:36, 21 February 2006 (GMT)<br />
::: That sounds like a glitch that cost you double points. Bitch when it happens on a 10-point action, but it really seems that was the problem. I've sometimes moved into a building with 1 AP left (as a survivor) only to find I've got -1 AP instead of 0 AP. --[[User:DeadMeatGF|DeadMeatGF]] 15:07, 5 June 2006 (BST)<br />
:: It ''is'' a glitch. I try to keep my four characters some distance from each other so they can work as independent, non-overlapping individuals; once, however, one of my roaming healers stumbled into the hospital in which another of my characters was staying. There was ''no'' AP penalty. --[[User:Forlorad|Forlorad]]<br />
never dun this before but ive had enuf i cant create a second character it just sends me to my first one every time<br />
: You need to use the "Log out" button before making a new character, or clear your cookies. --[[User:Pooky Romero|Pooky Romero]] 18:55, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hmm. I believe what you're saying, Zarathustra, about them disappearing, might not be limited to "working together," for instance, I created a Necrotech character recently, and it vanished overnight. Its name wasn't similar to my other two (GWARRRRR and Monset) and they're all on opposite ends of the map. Maybe there's something about having no more than two or three characters at a time.<br />
<br />
- It can't be the case that they deleted because you already have 2 chars. I routinely operate 2-5 characters and none have been deleted thus far. But they are all in separate suburbs and I access from 3 different computers in any given day. But it should not be because you already have 2 chars.<br />
<br />
- Is there a way to have characters deleted? I have an old alt and my search percentages seem to be terrible (note: this alt is inactive). Is this just bad luck or is it effecting my searches? -- [[user: Norminator 2|Norminator 2]]<br />
: Bad luck. Inactive characters do nothing. Also, the anti-zerging measures only kick in when the characters are in the same square. - [[User:CthulhuFhtagn|CthulhuFhtagn]] 21:15, 31 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:: I have four characters all frequently in four consecutive blocks. They don't really work together in the sense that, although they are around each other, they don't heal each other or things like that. I just one day put them all in the same place. The ONLY penalty I've noticed is that if you attack the same player with more than one character your rate of success is dismal. It happens far too often to be coincidence. I haven't lost AP, my characters find items easily... maybe it's because they don't work together. -- [[User:EBA|EBA]]<br />
<br />
- I have recently gotten into Urban Dead, and have been enjoying it fully. However, it was getting boring playing all by my lonesome so i managed to convince a few of my buddies to play with me. However, I created two of the accounts on the same PC. (Both my friends accounts were created on one PC). We also chose names that were similar, (EG. John Joe Jake [something like that]) and for the first week of their playing, I would check up on their accounts to make sure they wern't lying in the street or something. I did not do much on their accounts, just made sure they were okay. Anyway, my main concern is that if the three of us interact, (we chose classes that could help each other, 1 doctor 1 cop 1 fireman) will our percentages be lowered, or any other sort of penalty? If you know the answer, it would be much appreciated if you share. {{Unsigned|CptKeys|03:10, 1 May 2008}}<br />
<br />
<br />
===A (Mostly) Definitive Answer to the "Multiple Characters" Question===<br />
I had two characters unintentionally work together once. They were in adjacent neighborhoods and the second ended up shooting at a zombie the first had shot but not killed. This character, with max firearm skills, <b>missed 35 pistol shots in a row</b>. Kevan wasn't kidding when he said that characters that work together will have their percentages changed. However, it seems that characters can be in the same neighborhood without ill effects. I would imagine it will likely look suspicious if one of your characters starts giving preferential heals/revives/etc. to one of your other characters, though. <br />
<br />
There is no truth to the rumor that characters in close proximity are charged more AP for their actions. Also, characters can inhabit the same building and their search odds will not be modified-- assuming, of course, you don't interact with your other account.<br />
<br />
As always, these are my personal experiences, and your mileage may vary depending upon changes made in any future patch. <br />
[[User:Bentley Foss|Bentley Foss]] 08:24, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Hey i have one character and i just started playing with a friend who goes to a boarding school, and other people play the game at his school. The problem is that his whole school shares the same IP. I moved his character for him once, and now my character can almost never hit people when he attacks. I moved him one suburb away from my character and moved it to the suburb later that day. What could cause this? --[[User:Mrs Fitting|Mrs Fitting]] 01:09, 24 February 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:"What could cause this?" A run of bad luck. I've had characters at 50 AP fail to land an axe hit and I've missed 13 times in a row with a 65% pistol. It happens. My characters maintain at least a full suburb of distance between each other, so zerging is never an issue. It is believed that UD's zerg penalty is temporary and only applies to shared targets -- although getting your name posted on some group's zerg-list could last forever. Unfortunately Urban Dead isn't suitable for a massively shared IP address, so I'd recommend continuing to play from a different IP. Your friends from school could e-mail Kevan about their plight, but please avoid suggesting changes that permit a few 100+ character unrepentant cheaters to harm the gaming experience for everyone. --[[User:Tycho44|Tycho44]] 17:32, 25 February 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
I don't get it. so if a friend of mine WAS playing UD from my computer, but he doesn't anymore,for a few weeks now and if we would meet, would the anti - cheating systems kick in? - Berserkas, a simple UD player. http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=420604<br />
<br />
'''From the FAQ''' - I attacked 50 times at 30%, and only hit seven times! Is this a bug?<br />
<br />
Or you searched and found nothing, or weren't able to break down some barricades. It's either a run of bad luck, which can happen, or it's the game's anti-abuse countermeasures kicking in - if the system detects a number of characters apparently controlled by the same player and working together, it will adjust their dice rolls to stop them gaining an unfair advantage over other players. [[User:Dickus Maximus|Dickus Maximus]] 16:19, 1 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
I have 4 characters and they are no where near each other, three of them are always inactive and have been cleared up by the server will my remaining active character be penalised in any way for this? [[User:Emoch Noh 2|Emoch Noh 2]] 11:19, 17 April 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
I'm not aware of any penalty for reviving your own character-I did it way back before the mark 2 came out when you came back standing up and you'd be killed before getting to safety. I revived my own character then logged in as him and got to safety. (This was after a 2 month long revive wait so don't blame me) [[User:EMAG_TRESNI|EMAG_TRESNI]] 18:32, 17 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm playing two characters -- a survivor in NE corner, and a zombie in SW corner. I often play them consecutively, on the same computer. Both characters' hit percentages are consistently nowhere close to what they're supposed to be. (40% axe attack hits about 20% or less of time, for example.) Anyone else have similar experience? -Hyphenator, 24 June 2006<br />
<br />
:I've got a civilian on SW and a zombie on NE, and my hit rates are pretty low. My firefighter's Axe success % is NOT 4/10. My zombie spends more AP walking/missing than actually hitting fools... Hit % should be raised... [[User:RealRoux|RealRoux]] 11:18, 13 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
There is no penalty for just having multiple characters. I have 3 and play them all consecutively once or twice a day. It's generally good practice to keep them separated (by how much specifically, I don't know) just to avoid any confusion about your intent. All 3 of my characters have been having good or average luck as far as rolls. You may get a run of bad luck, but that's chance for ya. For things not involving luck (e.g. having one of your chars revive another) I can't see why that would affect anything; run in, revive, then separate.<br />
<br />
<br />
I have 3 characters in the same clan. None of them ever work together, but are usually within 10 blocks of each other. They have never crossed paths, never inhabited the same square, and have never attacked the same enemy. Is there any chance that some may be deleted?[[User:Crazylilvietguy|Crazylilvietguy]] 00:43, 26 August 2006 (BST)<br />
:You are breaking the multiple characters rule. so yes there is a chance that some may be deleted. Although there is no direct contact you still receive benefits from having your character in the same place and clan. The enemy you kill with one character is less of a threat to one of your other characters. Your action help your clan, making them stronger giving them both an unfair edge over other non-cheating clans, and raises their ability to protect your characters in return. So while your are not directly working together, You're using go betweens And that too is just as unsporting and just as against the rules.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 00:28, 14 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
-Okay here's one for you. I have two characters. They're never anywhere near each other *I don't think* and they never work together. One of them is dead. Has been for about a week. Because every time I go to get the dead one to stand up, it takes me to the other's page. I've logged out with the other one (having played it already to the point where it has no AP) and want to make the first one *the dead one* stand up so I can get him revivified. But I can't. Why is it doing that?? [[User: TigerEyes21|TigerEyes21]] 21:17, 31 October 2006 (CST)<br />
:Clear your cookies, clear your cache and try again. If it still doesn't work, report back. –[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] <sup>[[Special:Listusers/sysop|M]]•[[User talk:Xoid|T]]•<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://urbandeadwiki.smfforfree.com F]</span>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 11:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
-Now it makes me log in when I stand up. [[User: TigerEyes21|TigerEyes21]] 08:02, 1 November 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
Will I be penalized for repeatedly killing my zombie character with my survivor character to gain XP? <br />
<BR/><BR/>Yes you will, thats not allowed.<br />
Now i want to ask, I have multiple characters and want them removing, since i can't do that, if i place them both outside a building will they get deleted, or will all my characters be removed? Also I notice if you dont log in for five days, your character isnt marked in game as a player. But if i stand outside a building next to a character effected by that rule, will they both be removed or will it not matter? Thanks. --[[User:Reviverion|Reviverion]] 18:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I have no clue on that, but the Anti-Abuse thing seems to work only if you're logged on on that same computer were it was 'flagged'. At my school, we have 1 IP address, and me and at least two others play this game there. Now, One of the people in my group has granted all of us (Note that his only alt is in the RRF) permission to attack him for XP as long as we don't kill him and we heal him. Now, Me and my friend sit next to each other in one class, and we've recently experienced unbelievably bad luck with the RNG when attacking, and searching from on the school's computers (Note we are in the same group, and we are attacking the before mentioned person... No zeds in Roftwood...). However, when I go home and spend the new AP I have at home, I hit the 65% and 40% I'm supposed to, and I find a FAK every other search. --[[User:Driaquer|Driaquer]]<br />
<br />
This is (mostly) an observation. I recently started playing, while staying with family, 'cause my brother-in-law was telling me about the game. While I'm on my own comp, obviously, we're sharing the same IP. Well, I'd started a number of characters over the first few days, just testing the waters and such, and one of them was a doctor, located in a hospital with a running generator, close to one of the forts. It took 26 consecutive searches to find a single FAK, and in the process, I unearthed 7 newspapers. A couple of days later, I leaned that one of my brother-in-laws characters is, in fact, located in that region, so it leads me to believe that my search rate was being penalized due to proximity. In addition, as another character, in another part of Malton, was NOT having excessive difficulty searching for FAKs in a powered hospital, it leads me to speculate that any same-IP characters incurring a search rate penalty due to their proximity to each other does NOT impact any other characters under the same IP.<br />
--[[User:Morgan Blair|Morgan Blair]] 17:42, 13 August 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
Im just asking Kevin, can you please make it possible for people to delete thier characters.when i had just started the game i didnt know about multiple character rules and stuff so i made 3 characters. now i only want my main one cause my other ones are making me suck at fighting. please make it so i can delete players!{{Unsigned|Officer Lirette}}<br />
:First off, the multiple characters thing only triggers if your characters are too close to one another, so move them away if that's the case, second, just stop playing them, in 1 week without being played they will magically idle out<small>(no one will be able to interact with or see them)</small>, and, in 1 month, they'll be flagged as MIA so anyone with them in contacts will no that they are no longer active.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 23:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==I was "teleported" - was I hacked?==<br />
so, when i logged out last time, i was inside the Oram Walk PD in the Gibsonton.<br />
But when i logged back in at the same evening, i was lying outside the same PD where i was when i logged out(I was dead ofcourse!) <br />
Beauty of this is that that box where everything that has happened to you since you logged out was totally empty...no one attacked at me according to that. so, has anyone ever encountered bugs like that? Or was it just hacking...<br />
--[[User:Harbingerofdespair|Harbingerofdespair]] 20:55, 10 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:Sounds like a random bug, same thing happened to me once. I was killed and my body got dumped outside. I'm pretty sure it was legit since there was a pile of 20 other bodies outside with me.--[[User:Pulpanator|Pulpanator]] 07:59, 11 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
actually,probably someone bumped your body out of the building when you logged out.Happens sometimes.<br />
<br />
...someone threw me out i admit...but there were no reports on attacks, or about something else as i said...--[[User:Harbingerofdespair|Harbingerofdespair]] 14:15, 24 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Was there a lot of chat activity when you logged in? Perhaps there is a limit to the number of event messages that are kept per character? [[User:BryceHarrington|BryceHarrington]] 21:26, 26 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Hi, I'd like to know if I was hacked too...<br />
Yesterday I had taken refuge in a building and should've been safe. Today I logged on and I was outside the building with only 33AP. I hadn't played for a day and should've had at least 45AP. <br />
It said that a zombie had attacked me until I died but gave no explanation for the lost AP or how I wound up outside the building. I accessed the same building with an alt character and noticed that the same survivors from yesterday were still in the building, untouched.<br />
<br />
I think you got dumped outside and killed by someone inside the building.-HHlouis<br />
Anyone know what's going on??<br />
--[[User:Saffron|Saffron]] 06:05, 27 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:If you are lying dead outside of a building you used to be alive in, after "a zombie attacked you for X damage" messages, then you probably weren't teleported. Someone killed you, and then someone (possibly a different person) dumped your body outside. <br />
#For barricaded safehouses, a large zombie horde can break in several times during the night but only kill one survivor before the attack is repelled and the safehouse rebarricaded. <br />
#If someone forgot to dump bodies, any dead body inside your building can stand up and ambush sleepers, killing one survivor before wandering off. <br />
#A human PK'er can come through and kill you and wander off and get killed before you log in, thus yielding the message: "A zombie attacked you" instead of "gRiEfEr0605 attacked you". <br />
#Any disgruntled revived zombie-wannabe can enter your safehouse as an infected human (perhaps with Free Running), then search themselves to death to turn into a zombie, then attack you as a zombie (before being repulsed or wandering off). <br />
:Other scenarios are also possible. As far as lost AP goes, the usual reason that I've lost 10 AP is that I've clicked "Stand Up (costs 10AP)" while trying to figure out what's going on. --[[User:Tycho44|Tycho44]] 16:56, 9 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Okay, if I remember correctly, i think that the list which says that what happened since you last logged out was EMPTY(exept some flare messages)...And yeah, I think that message limit is 25...<br />
--[[User:Harbingerofdespair|Harbingerofdespair]] 13:22, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Perhaps the lost AP is a result of you having an alt close enough to check out that building. Having alts close together can do weird stuff to your characters, as the game engine thinks you're zerging.--[[User:Guardian of Nekops|Guardian of Nekops]] 23:44, 14 March 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
So here's one. Standing outside at the Feaver monument a zombie, not dead, I log in and I've moved several spaces away. My info also says I've died three times, and I only recall two of them. --[[User:TehFluffeh|TehFluffeh]] 01:05, 29 June 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
==Can I spend XP gained as a survivor when I'm a zombie?==<br />
If I have exped up 70 exp as a survivor and get turned into a zombie, will I be able to use it as a zombie? If I get it as a zombie and get revived, will I be able to use it as a survivor? If I die as a zombie, will I be able to use it when I stand up?<br />
--[[User:Janzak|Janzak]] 10:21, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Yes to all of your questions. XP stays with you no matter what, at least from my experience. Feel free to change this statement if it is incorrect though.<br />
--[[User:Ed base|Ed base]] 05:52, 24 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
No, you're right, exp is carried over. I recently died with 303 exp, spent 300 on some zombie skills, was revived and still had three, then died again, keeping all the xperience.<br />
<br />
In fact, I'd recommend this! I was struggling to raise XP as a survivor, but as a Zombie with a 50% hit chance, I quite quickly racked up over 400XP by killing off other Zeds (it's even quicker if you can find humans!) then managed to get myself revived, and racked up 4 skills. A very useful level boost :) The hard part is getting the revive, but if you're a bit more organised than me you can contact a group and point out how useful you'll be once you've spent your 400+ XPs on human skills.<br />
--[[User:DeadMeatGF|DeadMeatGF]] 14:58, 5 June 2006 (BST)<br />
:Same experience here. I actually found it harder to level as a human. That could just be because I was incredibly lucky as a zmobie though. (Q: What kind of silly harman enters a wide open, ransacked building with a zombie in it and stays there? A: Bra!nz! Haha. Oh how I suck.) {{User:Xoid/sig}} 05:39, 16 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Can I choose which zombie to attack/revive?==<br />
Is it possible to select which zombie to revive from within a horde? Syringes are expensive so I'd rather use them on those who's profiles look more like humans and who will appreciate revivication. I'd also like to attack the strongest zombies first if I'm on a killing spree.<br />
--[[User:Reverend Norm|Reverend Norm]] 13:39, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
There is some limited ability to do this: if any of the zombies appear in your contact list, you will recognize them and be able to select them for actions like revivification, healing, or combat. Except for that, no, zombies all look alike to you.<br />
--[[User:Fred Dullard|Fred Dullard]] 21:44, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)<br />
::* Recent changes to the way the [[DNA Extractor]] works makes this quite possible. A sucessful extraction, which may take a few times if the target has [[Brain Rot]], will display the extracted targets profile link which you can use to assist in your revivification/attack selection. For example, the [[YRC]] suggests that its members and volunteers use this method to help them determine on their own if a target should be revived, ignored, or attacked, rather than having the [[YRC]] maintain a public 'Do Not Revive' blacklist. --17:59, 20 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Yes, but only under certain circumstances. You must have the zombie in your contacts list in order to choose any targe but "the zombie". If you happen to be in an active battle with a zombie, you can click and add their profile during the battle, enabling you to select their name and fight the one which is attacking you at the time. [[User:Bentley Foss|Bentley Foss]] 08:31, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:Also, if your browser's "back" button is enabled, you can resolve your combat first, and then click back through your history to recover the Profile ID#s of zombies that spoke or attacked you. Using back doesn't cost AP or IP hits (but don't confuse yourself by leaving open your out-of-date window). --[[User:Tycho44|Tycho44]] 18:31, 15 March 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
==Do worn flak jackets show up in inventory?==<br />
<br />
If I started with a flak jacket, can I drop all flak jackets in my inventory without stopping wearing the one I started with?<br />
<br />
- It makes no difference what Flak jacket you wear; they don't take damage and last for ever (unless you drop all your jackets). If you want to drop all but one just make sure you've always got one left! -- [[User:Norminator 2|Norminator 2 ]]<br />
<br />
- Uh, I'm not quite sure what that entails. I think that my flak jacket disappeared when I put it on--do I just keep it forever or did I drop it when I dropped the ones visible in my invo?<br />
<br />
- Jackets are not useable items to be put on. When you acquire your jacket, and it appears in your inventory, that means you are wearing it. It is ''being'' worn if it is visible in your inventory.<br />
<br />
==Will there be further Zombie Hunter skills?==<br />
<br />
This may be a bit of an ambiguous question, but are there any plans for further zombie hunter skills? It seems a bit of a shame that there's only one at the moment. -- [[User:Norminator 2|Norminator 2 ]]<br />
<br />
Only Kevan knows. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]] 03:19, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
: It is quite a powerful one, though ;) --[[User:DeadMeatGF|DeadMeatGF]] 21:12, 17 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:: You should check the Suggestions pages to see if there are any ideas for new skills. --[[User:Mewarmo990|Mewarmo990]] 05:28, 23 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Class Only Skills ==<br />
<br />
Will there be any class(eg scientist/millitary) only skills? -- [[User:Talos935|Talos935]]<br />
<br />
Only Kevan knows. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]] 03:19, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Doesn't really matter. Skills are cheaper depending on which class you pick anyway. Is that class specific enough? - Apocalyptic Doom<br />
<br />
== ...And Again ==<br />
<br />
Is there any game effects that happens when it says "...and again"? -- [[User:Shadow213|Shadow213]] 02:58, 8 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
Yes: If more than one zombie (or the same zombie multiple times) uses their Feeding Groan skill between two of your actions, it'll say "...and again".<br />
<br />
Actually, it doesn't have to be Feeding Groan, though that's more likely. If the same message repeats uninterrupted, subsequent messages are reduced to "...and again" messages to save space. --[[User:Snikers|Snikers]] 18:56, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
To clarify what they said: successive (uninterrupted) strings of actions ("X attacked you for 4 damage" or "feeding groan x blocks here and x blocks there") will be replaced with "...and again" and the timestamp of that action. If the attacker does a different amount of damage or another action occurs and interrupts the succession, the list will begin anew. (This change was made to save a bit of data transmission.) [[User:Bentley Foss|Bentley Foss]] 08:35, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:Just noticed this, if more than one zombie is killed in the timespace it becomes 'another'. Eg "XXX killed a zombie (15:26PM), ... and another(15:27PM)" --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 13:36, 5 March 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:I recently noticed that if a flare is fired from the same spot in close repition it will say "...and again" <br />
:--[[User:crazygerbil|crazygerbil]] 20:43, 22 May 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Contact List Limit ==<br />
<br />
Is there a limit of how many people I can add to the contact list? I keep getting told I'm not logged in. -- [[User:ToRsO bOy|ToRsO bOy]] 05:10PM, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
:150 I belive. It will tell you the limit when you hit it. The not-logged-in is probably because the address doesn't start with www. For example, [http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=194859 http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=194859] should be fine, but [http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=194859 http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=194859] will probably give you not-logged-in error. At least I had that problem. --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 17:14, 12 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
::Thanks. Much appreciated. -- [[User:ToRsO bOy|ToRsO bOy]] 05:44PM, 11 Feb 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
== Large Negative AP ==<br />
<br />
Should there perhaps be a limit on how negative one's AP can get? I found the effect of manufacturing a syringe with 1 AP left to be humorous rather than annoying, but maybe alot of people recharge fully before going around again, so a cap of maybe -10 would be nice. [[User:JoeHunt|JoeHunt]] 20:08, 20 February 2006 (GMT)<br />
:If you think this should be the case, visit the [[Suggestions]] page and create a suggestion for it. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]] 03:44, 23 February 2006 (GMT)<br />
::Incidentally, scientists trying to circumvent the 50AP limit by manufacturing syringes at 1AP just give Zombies another good reason to smash NT buildings and devour everyone foolish enough to sleep inside. --[[User:Tycho44|Tycho44]] 17:16, 23 February 2006 (GMT)<br />
:That's the reason why most players keep an eye on their AP! ;P --[[User:Forlorad|Forlorad]]<br />
::You can get way more syringes using 20 AP to search - Apocalyptic Doom<br />
:::To further note on this, that negative AP must still be recovered slowly, so the only reason to do this would be if the next login won't be in well over 25 hours. It also comes with the risk of sleeping in an NT, a high-profile target.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:47, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Will Ankle Grab be of use to a survivor? ==<br />
<br />
I play as a survivor, but I'm wondering if I could use Ankle Grab. If a survivor with AG gets killed, he probably only has to spend 1 AP to stand up as a zombie. But if a zombie with AG is revivified, does he spend 1 AP at standing up as a human? If so, it could probably be pretty useful for standing up at clogged Revivification Points. --[[User:Janzak|Janzak]] 13:15, 4 March 2006 (GMT)<br />
:Yes. Ankle Grab reduces all standing actions to 1AP regardless of status. Unless of course you die as a zombie from a headshot, then it costs 6AP. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 14:31, 4 March 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
== Character Deletion? ==<br />
<br />
I had two characters working. The day after I started my second account, I tried to login in as him again and it logged me in as my primary character. They were almost on the opposite side of Malton and my alternate was an entirely different class. My password was the same. Could that have something to do with it even if both accounts worked fine for about a day and a half before the second one disappeared? --[[User:Walrus Greg|Walrus Greg]] 1:05, 27 march 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:I found this, I think it's a minor glitch with cookies ...<br />
:The solution that worked for me was to log out, then log back in again. It has been my experience that closing the browser window is not as effective at clearing the cookies as using the logout feature.<br />
:--[[User:DeadMeatGF|DeadMeatGF]] 13:47, 27 March 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:It's a login problem, not a character deletion problem, there's a really big section on it above here. Logging out and back in works, but another trick you can use if it's being stubborn is to manually delete the UD cookie inside your Temporary Internet Files folder. --[[User:Lord Kelvin|Lord Kelvin]] 06:08, 28 March 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Maximum characters for speaking?==<br />
<br />
What is the maximum number of characters that can be used in a single speak action? For now I'm assuming that it's around 256 characters based on the length of the messages that I've seen, but does anyone know for certain? --[[User:Lord Kelvin|Lord Kelvin]] 18:05, 27 March 2006 (BST)<br />
:Yes, it's 256. After typing 256 characters into word and pasting it in, the box wouldn't accept any more. The profile descriptions are 256 as well, so that makes sense. Spray cans it's 50, and it's the same for the group field on your profile.--[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 09:43, 13 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==You can't attack yourself.==<br />
<br />
Okay, when i was standing as a zombie with 3 other zombies, i decided to attack them.<br />
When i tried to attack them, there was a text "You can't attack yourself."<br />
What is this? Are zombies so good pals with each other, that attacking one feels like attacking yourself, or what?<br />
'''And i am 100% sure that there were zombies with me'''<br />
--[[User:Harbingerofdespair|Harbingerofdespair]] 17:57, 28 March 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:To the right of the attack button is a drop-down box with a list of players/zombies in the area. You must select someone to attack from this box before you press the attack button. I'm pretty sure there's no "self" option in this box as there is in other actions that require a target, but you could have been in a small window of time when something was being changed. --[[User:coleProtocol|coleProtocol]] 06:38, 06 April 2006 (GMT)<br />
*There's actually something about this in either [[Bug Reports]] or [[Known Bugs]]. Go find it and post your experience of the bug. --[[User:V2Blast|V2Blast]] <sup>[[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 04:00, 10 June 2006 (BST)<br />
*I'm pretty sure if you attack a person but they've already moved out of the area you get this message. I don't know for sure, and if this does happen, I don't know if it carries over to zombies. --[[User:Swmono|Swmono]] <sup> [[User_talk:Swmono|talk]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]] - [[Sacred Ground Policy|SGP]] </sup> 02:51, 13 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Syringes counts infinity against IP hits?==<br />
<br />
I'm running 3 characters. I've been carefully budgeting my IP hits, since I logged on too early with the first one and she had a few extra APs for the day she hadn't gotten yet. I was well under 160 when my third (with 21 AP left) made a syringe. I was told then I had hit the server too often. How could I have gone from no warning at all to more than 10 with one click? In fact, by my calculating I'd only hit the server 122 times. And I don't believe this is the first time making a syringe counted as more than 20 IP hits. So what gives? Is this a bug? How do we report it?<br />
<br />
--[[User:nezumi|nezumi]] 16:34, 14 April 2006 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Probably a bug, report it in the [[Bug reports]] section of the wiki.--[[User:The General|The General]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 12:00, 17 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Could be a bug, or an earlier multi-click - playing around with the effects of this, and found it can kick in ten or more clicks later! --[[User:DeadMeatGF|DeadMeatGF]] 21:09, 17 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is not a bug. Syringes take 20 AP ''and'' 20 server hits to manufacture, to prevent people from having harvesting alternate accounts that just sit there and manufacture syringes all day. -[[User:Pinkgothic|pinkgothic]] 16:17, 14 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Does Kevan ever post in the wiki/play the game?==<br />
<br />
A stupid question maybe, and this might not be the right place, but does anyone know?<br />
:Kevan posts in certain parts of the wiki such as the [[bug reports]] section and his talk page. I imagine he plays the game but I can't be sure.--[[User:The General|The General]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 12:03, 17 April 2006 (BST)<br />
::Kevan does indeed have several known characters, and I know I have run across some of them in my travels. As to how active he is, that I can't answer. [[User:Nervie|Nervie]] 08:19, 19 April 2006 (BST)<br />
:::Its a good assumption that he does (people tend to care/dedicate themselves more to things they personally enjoy). But a more justified assumption would be that regardles if he does or not, his 'character' information would be kept secret from the public for various reasons. --[[User:MorthBabid|MorthBabid]] 18:03, 20 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Kevan plays the game and has a small host of test characters, as well as a couple of "real" ones. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 03:18, 21 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
I found these... http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=11 & http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=14 They might answer your question a little. [[User:Jason Clemons|Jason Clemons]] 04:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Those 2 profiles are probably just people pretending to be him. I know a lot of people do that sort of thing anyway. I mean they could be genuine, but whats the chance of you running into '''2''' of his chars when there are thousands of people playing the game?<br />
And another thing, ask yourself, would he actually tell people who his characters are? Does he want people following him around, pestering him about the next updates, etc? Not very likely, eh?<br />
[[User:Jsrbrunty|Jsrbrunty]] 16:10 3 Jan 2008 (GMT)<br />
:Those were gotten from Kevan himself, [[User_talk:Kevan/Archive#Annoying_Sigs|here]], I couldn't find anything for the other one.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
----<br />
<br />
== how do you post pics on the wiki ==<br />
i am a new user and i am trying to get my group pic on the web from paint or do i have to use a differant program I NEED HELP --[[User:Nuts monk|Nuts monk]] 18:03, 19 April 2006 (BST)<br />
:It doesn't matter what program you use. After you've made the picture you then have to upload it to the wiki by clicking the [[Special:Upload|upload file]] button (it's on the left hand side in below the search bar). You then have to put the code: [[Image:''insert name of image here''.jpg]]. If you have any problems then feel free to come back here and ask for more help.--[[User:The General|The General]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 18:49, 19 April 2006 (BST)<br />
:Also, the help pages have something on this: [[Help:Images_and_other_Media]] --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]][[Moderation/Promotions#Brizth|M]]</sup> 18:55, 19 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
THANK YOU GUYS i owe you --[[User:Nuts monk|Nuts monk]] 17:56, 20 April 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==DNA extractors, Revive Syringes and Zombie stacks==<br />
<br />
Ok, the basic question is this: how does the game select which Zed in a Stack of Zeds is going to be affected by the action of a DNA extractor or Revive syringe?<br />
<br />
Let me give a scenario which might help make this less of a "short essay" question and more of a "multiple choice" question. Say the servers have reset and you have a stack of 5 unscanned Zeds; 3 unrotted, 2 rotted. You press "DNA extract" five times, and get lucky; five successful scans including the 2 Rotted Zeds. You now know where in the stack the Rotters are located; they were scans number one and five. You want to revive a Zed. You extract twice more, which loops you to the beginning of the stack and successfully extracts DNA from Zeds #1 and #2 (for no XP of course). If you use a syringe as your next action, will it be applied to <nowiki>:</nowiki> <br />
:A) the next Zed in the stack (which in this scenario is the third Zed, who is not rotted) <br />
<br />
:B) the most recently DNA Extracted (#2, who is also not rotted)<br />
<br />
:C) the game completely ignores who/how many Extractions you have done when you switch to a different instrument (the syringe), and automatically starts you at the 'top' of the list (which is a rotted Zed)<br />
<br />
:D) this is a trick question because once you have fully scanned a stack of zeds you can't scan through them again, so you never get back to Zed 2, let alone Zed 3. You are f**ked, your wimpy scientist has to kill (with his fists) Zed #1 (who is maxed out and "bodybuilt") before he can do anything with any of the other Zeds.<br />
<br />
Follow up question (for extra credit of course), how does Zed activity affect this? If you get attacked, will a revive syringe automatically target the zed attacking you? (I think the answer is yes). Can you DNA extract them first (to make sure they are not a rotter) and still have them be the target of the syringe? Thanks all. [[User:TheBerts|TheBerts]] 02:34, 4 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:From my experience, it is definately not B, and I don't think it is C either, although I cannot be 100% sure. I would guess it is A, and will try to test that soon, if I get a chance. If you're being attacked, you can use the [[Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_choose_which_zombie_to_attack.2Frevive.3F|Can I choose which zombie to attack/revive?]] response above, I believe. --[[User:MBread|mBread]] 22:14, 10 May 2006 (BST)--<br />
<br />
Thanks for the response. I have been getting more experience with this problem, and I agree that "B" is right out. However, I also suspect that "A" is incorrect. <br />
I am actually starting to think that a "modified C" scenario takes place; the game does ignore which Zed was scanned last, but switching instruments moves one to a second list tracking which Zeds have had revives attempted on them (ie. it does '''not''' move you to the top of the overall list, it moves you to the next "unsyringed" Zed, skipping past all Zeds upon which unsuccessful revive attempts were made by other survivors). <br />
The game definitely tracks '''all''' scans from DNA extractors, in sequence, even when made by multiple survivors. If every survivor was independant from others, they would each start from the top of a stack, and noone would ever reach the bottom of a 50+ stack of Zeds. I did receive a "all specimens scanned" message while scanning a stack of 66 Zeds at a revive point. <br />
So, I think that for each stack the game has two lists, one tracking which Zeds have been DNA extracted, and one tracking which Zeds have had revives attempted. '''If''' this is true, it would be immensely frustrating, because there would be no way to use DNA extraction to help avoid wasting revive syringes on rotters.--[[User:TheBerts|TheBerts]] 05:45, 11 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Well, to add my share to this topic, with my Necrotech account I scaned in a stack of Zeds at revive point and found that this zombie was not a rotter. So naturally I used my syringe and found out that my attempt was foiled by a rotter! This deffintly falls into anything but B. (pardon my spelling) (also I'm new to this, how do I add the date in whatever time we use around here?) [[Logster]]<br />
<br />
==Changing Real Name/Web Page in game profile?==<br />
When you sign up, you are asked for a "real name" and "web page." The official FAQ says you cannot change your password. It appears you cannot change "real name" or "web page" either? (Cannot find a way and cannot find help.) I would like to change my profile to update my web page to the wiki page. --[[User:SearchDerelict|SearchDerelict]] 22:30, 13 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:Well... You cant. Put it in your description if you realy want them shown anywhere. --[[User:Grim s|Grim s]]-<sup>[[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 07:36, 14 May 2006 (BST)<br />
I don't like the fact that your real name is shown in-game as I thought it was just for password retrieval purposes... it should state this at the point of joining up or have some kind of hidden check box. I don't have a URL either but somehow it is linked to WIKI<br />
--[[User:Jake T Weber|Jake T Weber]] 15:20, 7 August 2006 (BST)<br />
You can change your information now due to the update.<br />
<br />
==What to Do About Players That Kill Zombies Who Want Revive==<br />
What should I do about evil humans that kill me when I'm waiting for a revive? I just got killed by Jordan Jacobs, despite the fact that my player profile cleary indicates that I should be revived, not killed. [[User:Mstcrow5429|Mstcrow5429]] 04:28, 17 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:Write angry cease and desist letters threatening vague legal action. Or, just grin and bear it. In Mr. Jacobs' defense, you can't see a zombie's profile unless the zombie speaks or attacks you. Anyways, some people use revive points as a cheap XP farm. Thems the haps, paps. --[[User:Mookiemookie|Mookiemookie]] 14:40, 17 May 2006 (BST)<br />
::In short, this is an MMORPG, and with all MMOs come your PKers and XP farmers. Live with it. --[[User:Mewarmo990|Mewarmo990]] 05:40, 23 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:Well. To give that person the benefit of the doubt, he couldn't have seen your profile, unless you two happen to be contacts, or he DNA extracted you, managed to scare up your profile on Google, and then read it and realised you were an unwilling zombie. Of course, standing at a revive point SUGGESTS that you wish to be revived, but don't count on profile descriptions to do anything. --[[User:Kenny Matthews|Kenny Matthews]] 05:27, 16 June 2006 (BST)<br />
:It's more than possible that the average trenchcoater passing through is not aware it was a revive point. Revive points get tagged over all the time. If said revive killer happened to headshot you while the revive point said "I scratch my balls." or similiar, and then someone came and replaced that with the correct tag&hellip; see where I'm going with this? {{User:Xoid/sig}} 05:35, 16 June 2006 (BST)<br />
::* Xoid sums the situation up quite well. Keep in mind, many players might [[metagaming|metagame]] but not via the offical Wiki. They may be organized to a degree but unaware. Or it could be that the number of 'patients' at a revive point begins to attract genuine horde behavior, and 'innocent' zombies are caught in the crossfire. As a general rule? The saftey level of the suburb for survivors and the smaller the cue at the revive point '''directly influences''' the speed and safety the revive point for the patient. --[[User:MorthBabid|MorthBabid]] 18:10, 20 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
I guess you could grief them back, by making a human and barricading every building you see to impossible levels, so that all humans without Free-Running get trapped outside and eaten. That's apparently what's being done already, since there are entire neighborhoods without a single enterable building.<br />
<br />
I have a question that borders on this topic. I was recently revived and holding up inside a building safe and sound when i logged off. but upon returning one of the living survivors in the building had up and killed everyone in the place. i know he was alive when he killed me becaus he used a shotgun to do it. was this a "legal" move on his part? (djzomboy )--[[User:DJZOMBOY|DJZOMBOY]] 10:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
:It is within the game rules to attack any player, whether they are alive, or undead. However killing survivor while alive is likely to get the player listed as a [[PKer]], that [[Bounty Hunter]]s target for execution -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 10:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
::thanks boxy that eases my anger a little. but how do i go about reporting this guy so that when i catch up with him and blast him a new one i dont get pked? ()--[[User:DJZOMBOY|DJZOMBOY]] 09:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
:::DJZOMBOY, your questions are answered in the [[PKer|article about PKing]] --[[User:ZaqWer|ZaqWer]] 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
:Something that I do if I'm really hurting for XP and have a full box of AP--I find a zombie that inquires, "Mrh?", then I say "I am going to kill you, then revive you. Say 'brnhr' if that's alright." They usually reply in the affirmative, at which point I kill them then revive them.<br />
--[[User:ChrisRetnam|Chris Retnam]] 19:29, 21 June 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Sharing Items==<br />
Can I give an item to another player that is in my inventory? If I drop an item, then another player searches the area, do they find the item? Or does the item disappear? Thanks.[[User:Mstcrow5429|Mstcrow5429]] 08:05, 21 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:No, their is currently no way of trading items with other players, due to its easily abused nature. Trading may be added in the future. Dropped items simply dissappear.--[[User:The General|The General]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Moderation|Mod]]</sup> 09:03, 21 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:there might be less potential for abuse if you could only give and not trade, that way we wouldn't have an inflated economy like runescape. but zerg-hoarding would still be a problem. maybe they could turn off the option when you try to give to your alts? [[user:chaosvolt|chaosvolt]] 12:36pm, 3 sept 2007(central)<br />
<br />
==Infection Kill==<br />
Can an infection kill? I'm hiding out in a building with 1hp and an infection with no First Aid Kits. Oh, if someone near North Blythville could heal me, that would be awesome. I won't give my location on here, send me an e-mail at brekkeboy@yahoo.com with a link to your profile so I know you're human and don't want to eat my brains. --[[User:Andrew Past|Andrew Past]] 13:42, 21 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:Yes. Yes it can. --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 14:03, 21 May 2006 (BST)<br />
Darn... Well, I'll need someone to come heal me then. I just hope a zed doesn't find me first. :( {{Unsigned|Andrew Past|}}<br />
<br />
==Flak Jackets==<br />
Do flak jackets wear out after receiving enough damage, or are they a constant? Thanks. [[User:Mstcrow5429|Mstcrow5429]] 01:46, 22 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:they're a constant and don't wear out. if you are a brainrotted zombie, you might want to have two for safety though, in case of accidental dropping. --[[User:Vista|Vista]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 08:57, 22 May 2006 (BST)<br />
::That just happened to my zombie alt... :( --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 09:09, 22 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:::Brainrot causes zombies to randomly drop items? --[[User:Mstcrow5429|Mstcrow5429]] 09:14, 22 May 2006 (BST)<br />
::::If only...</daydream> No, but if you have Brain Rot and you accidentally drop your only flak jacket it's ''very'' hard to get revived so you can find another. --[[User:Cyberbob240|A Bothan Spy]]<sup>[[Creedy Defense Force|CDF]] - [[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]] - [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup><br />
<br />
==?rise==<br />
What is the ?rise command?<br />
:When you take an action in game the gets requested like http://www.urbandead.com/map.cgi?barricade (for barricading) or http://www.urbandead.com/map.cgi?use-h. (for using a first aid pack)in the adress balk. Due to the fact that the stand up button only appears when the zombie is dead some zombies are manually typing the command ?rise in the adress balk of the browser and keep refreshing the page untill they have died. They do this try to make sure that they stand up before their bodies are dumped. It is used as a way to cost the active defenders more AP to remove zombies from their safe houses.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 17:59, 27 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Are there any dedicated roleplaying areas/forums?==<br />
There are a lot of player profiles that I've seen in which the character descriptions look really interesting and thought-out by the player, as much as one can be with the 256 text limit. Given that it's a bit clunky to try and role-play with others in the game, is there a discussion forum or somesuch where RP takes place between all these colorful characters? Thanks! --[[User:Madelena|Madelena]] 13:57, 3 June 2006 (BST)<br />
:http://z14.invisionfree.com/Brainstock/ has a place for that. There are probably others. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 14:04, 3 June 2006 (BST)<br />
:-gasp- Xoid! Resensitized has a place as well. http://zombies.dementiastudios.org/boards/index.php?topic=88.0--[[User:AnimeSucks|The Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks]] <sup> [[User_talk:AnimeSucks|Talk]] | [[Cannibal Corps|CC]] [[Close Personal Friends of Anime Sucks|CPFOAS]] [[DORIS|DOЯIS]] [[Malton_War_Crimes_Trial|Judge]] [[Legion of Evil|LOE]] [[Zerg Hunters Unlimited|ZHU]]</sup> 05:38, 26 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
The people from [[Malton Tours Inc.]] are active roleplayers in UD, not on their board. If you should hook up with them on a Tour you're bound to roleplay. My Gingerbread Men char hooked up with them for a while. I spend a lot of AP's just talking and roleplaying. It was very fun. Try to get into contact with them if you want some roleplaying. Though I have encountered a fair ammount of boards with a roleplaying section.--[[User:Vykos|Vykos]] 15:51, 3 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Reporting Inappropriate Links==<br />
Is there any way to report an inapprorpiate link that has been spray painted onto a wall? Such as a link to a porn site.<br />
P.S. I apologize if I mess this up, I'm new to Wiki editing. {{Unsigned|Radfae|}}<br />
:Well, no. Except of course directly emailing Kevan, the creator of Urban Dead. Other, probably a lot slower way would be posting on his wiki talk page, [[User_talk:Kevan]]. But he's not exactly active in the wiki. But if you see links to some actually ''illegal'' content Kevan probably would like to hear about it and ban the offender. <br />
:Oh and you forgot to sign your post. It's done by either clicking on one of the buttons at the top (second from right) or just writing <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> where you want your signature. You should always sign your posts on talk pages (although technically this is not a talk page in wiki sense, but, um, yeah.) --[[User:Brizth|Brizth]] <sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Brizth|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 22:50, 20 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Zerg flags==<br />
Can someone explain fully what a zerg flag is? How long do they stay? How do you know if you have one? Thank you. --[[User:Swmono|Swmono]] <sup> [[User_talk:Swmono|talk]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]] - [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]] - [[Sacred Ground Policy|SGP]] </sup> 01:46, 6 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:From What I posted on Bulgakov's talk page:<br />
{| width=80%<br />
|{{code|What a 'zerg flag' is&hellip;}}<br />
Mr. non-programmer, a flag is boolean variable that tells you whether something is true or not.<br />
{{code|How one acquires one, how long it lasts, and how one gets rid of it&hellip;}}<br />
A character's "zerg flag" is set to true when the server detects that the character is zerging. <br />
{{code|How whatever "zerg profiling" might be in effect is actually acting to the detriment of zombie actions as opposed to survivor actions&hellip;}}<br />
This flag is then read when performing calculations, like when hitting a barricade or firing a gun. A character with the "zerg flag" set to true recieves '''''harsh''''' penalties. Like a 0% chance to hit.<br />
|}<br />
:An answer to how long they stay? No one knows for sure. Perhaps it is until you stop zerging. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 15:01, 6 July 2006 (BST)<br />
::So they get a zero % chance of everything? Like searching, barricading, stuff like that too? --[[User:Swmono|Swmono]] <sup> [[User_talk:Swmono|talk]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]] - [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]] - [[Sacred Ground Policy|SGP]] </sup> 14:54, 7 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:::Exact penalties are impossible to quantify, and even if they were not, I still wouldn't reveal them &mdash; doing so enables intential zergers to skirt the zerging countermeasures. Essentially: if you are getting screwed by the [[RNG]] '''''really''''' badly&hellip; like 100 AP used on searching and you get ''nothing'', then it's a fair bet that you've been flagged as zerging. In pretty much all similiar, but lesser cases, it's impossible to tell. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 17:12, 7 July 2006 (BST)<br />
::::Thank you for answering my question! --[[User:Swmono|Swmono]] <sup> [[User_talk:Swmono|talk]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]] - [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]] - [[Sacred Ground Policy|SGP]] </sup> 00:34, 12 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Historical Events==<br />
Is there a complete list of UrbanDead's historical events somewhere? Things like the Mall Tour '06, and the Strike, etc. I have searched but haven't found a comprehensive list. [[User:Darkxarth|Darkxarth]] 00:27, 11 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:Nope. It has been mentioned in passing, it's also been thought upon heavily, but for a comprehensive listing we'd need people who have long since left the game to contribute, many of who will work vigorously to discredit each other and de-rail any accurate listing of events due to their inherit bias. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 00:50, 12 July 2006 (BST)<br />
::I could help with anything from the 31st July 2005.--{{User:The General/sig}} 08:54, 12 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:::Like I said&hellip; &lt;/yahoo serious&gt; &mdash; Go nuts. Just be sure to put it on the current projects page and see if you can get some others to contribute. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 19:08, 12 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Text set on Unicode when you want it on cyrillic ==<br />
At the moment the only way i can fix this is by right clicking on the text and going to encoding. This does get annoying however because you have to do it again every time you perform an action. Does anyone know of a better way?<br />
<br />
==Are players allowed to sell their character(s) for real money on eBay?==<br />
{{unsigned|Blurb|15:50, 15 July 2006 (BST)}}<br />
:Something gives me the strong impression that Kevan's official answer would be "no". My own (not so) humble opinion: I do not think we need to take a step in the direction of other MMORPGs where all and sundry is up for sale. If someone is too lazy to spend their time working on a character, fuck 'em. They do it the hard way, or not at all. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 16:14, 15 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Multiple Floors==<br />
Will there be more that one level in some buildings ever in the game,l ike a police dept would have 2 or 3 and a tower would have like 10 or 20. And if they were put in would you be able to move freely through the stair well/elevator and the floor door be blocked off or would a floor being fully blocked of mean you cant move up to the next floor.<br />
:First of all: Sign. Your. Goddamn. Posts. (I'm beginning to see a need for a giant, blinking, multi-hued "Sign your posts" marquee at the top of *every* page where people are supposed to post.)<br />
:Second of all: Who. Knows. Kevan may decide to, Kevan may decide not to. Considering his seeming disinterest in the game, I don't think something as fundamentally 'different' as this would be implemented anytime soon. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 02:42, 18 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==IP Hit limit==<br />
Is Kevan still exempting people from the 160 IP hit limit for $5 donations? If so, how long should it take for the limit to be removed? --[[User:Kiltric|Kiltric]] 08:05, 18 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:He is, give him a week to do it. Mine came through in a couple of days.--{{User:The General/sig}} 09:08, 18 July 2006 (BST)<br />
::Thank you General. --[[User:Kiltric|Kiltric]] 23:18, 18 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:::No problem.--{{User:The General/sig}} 23:21, 18 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Is anyone else on the UK ISP ntlworld now finding that they have hit the IP limit without doing anything? Myself and a friend both have. Anyone know what's changed, or how to fix? {{Unsigned|Tad Allagash|}}<br />
:Probably an open proxy. Not much that can be done, I'm afraid. Worse still: if you actually work together, odds are you are being "caught" zerging. My advice? You can do two things:<br />
:#Donate, and move far apart.<br />
:#Get cable internet.<br />
:{{User:Xoid/sig}} 20:18, 23 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
I've got NTL cable, logged on myself last night, created an account and I had hit my IP limit, I hadn't even moved or anything, whats happening there?!?!<br />
--[[User:PorterPayne|PorterPayne]] 09:30, 25 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:No idea. If you're smart, you'll find a proxy server and use it to play Urban Dead while you vehemently bitch to this about NTL (who are the only people who can really fix it). {{User:Xoid/sig}} 09:40, 25 July 2006 (BST)<br />
::How do I find a proxy server?!?!?!?--[[User:PorterPayne|PorterPayne]] 16:52, 25 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:::Were it not for the excessive ?s and !s, I might have helped you. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 19:08, 25 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Yeah I'm on ntl and getting the same problem at the moment. As soon as I log in I hit the limit. I'm having to play at work at the moment :) ntl uses transparent proxies so the only way of getting round it is to specify another proxy in the browser. --[[User:Bink|Bink]] 07:40, 27 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
How do you do that?? [[Spag89]]<br />
<br />
Funny question. If I have three characters that are exempt, and I start a fourth profile, then will any IP hits from the first three count towards the fourth? --[[User:Kiltric|Kiltric]] 21:16, 29 August 2006 (BST)<br />
:Nope. Trust me on that, I've used 50 AP on top of dropping multiple items, etc, with each character and I can still run two unpaid for ones. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 13:16, 1 September 2006 (BST)<br />
::Awsome, thanks Xoid. --[[User:Kiltric|Kiltric]] 02:00, 2 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
earlier it's said "get cable internet" . well i do and i'm still finding that i often will make just afew moves and get the "your ip has used all...." message. and it is curently 2am and it still hasn't reset. what can i do besides get a creditcard just to play this "free" game? yer pal....dj zomboy --[[User:DJZOMBOY|DJZOMBOY]] 09:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:The [http://www.urbandead.com/faq.html#limit official FAQ page] says "Players of Urban Dead are limited to hitting the main game script 160 times per day". What could be happening is that you have the same IP address as another player, which would mean the game wouldn't realise that there's two of you, it would think there's only one, and so if the other player uses up the 160 hits, then there's none left for you. To get round this, you could try and change your IP address - you can see your current one at http://www.whatismyip.com . You can change your address using a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_server proxy] (you can find them with google). Alternatively, and this may or may not work, you could disconnect from the internet then reconnect, or try using a different browser. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== What do I do?, Game says I have hit my IP limit ==<br />
What can I do a few days ago I hit my IP limit for the day, but now it won't reset to aloow me to play the game. Anyone else had that problem? How did you fix it? --[[User:kinesis916|kinesis916]] 16:54, 31 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Are you playing from a public place? Using Dialup? Home computer? --[[User:Technerd|Technerd]] <sup>[[Coalition for Fair Tactics|CFT]]</sup> 16:59, 31 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
I am playing on my home PC and no no-one else plays the game. --[[User:kinesis916|kinesis916]] 14:17, 1st August 2006 (BST)<br />
:If you use a dial-up somone nearbyw might have had the same ip and used up the ip hits. I believe the ip hits refresh at Midnight GMT. --[[User:Technerd|Technerd]] <sup>[[Coalition for Fair Tactics|CFT]]</sup> 16:02, 1 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:If you happen to be one of the people using something like AOL, then it's quite unfortunate -- AOL and some other ISPs re-use a ''very'' small range of IP addresses. This causes the game to think you're someone else, and can even trigger zerg flags if you happen to be near someone who is also with the same ISP. There is not much that can be done about that. See the topic above this one. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 16:39, 1 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Is it possible to make 2 payments to have a ip restriction free acount b/c i got 2 prepaid cards that have $4 on both {{Unsigned|Spag89|}}<br />
:You'll need to ask Kevan himself. Odds are the answer would be "no". Too much stuffing around IMO. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 16:05, 8 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
My IP limit does not reset over night what should i do??? {{Unsigned|Spag89}}<br />
:Did you read ''any'' of what was already written here? {{Unsigned|Xoid}}<br />
<br />
<br />
But I'm not using aol and i have high speed internet. {{Unsigned|Spag89}}<br />
:I didn't say "if you have AOL, only AOL, and nothing but AOL", I said "AOL and ''some other ISPs''". The entirety of that comment applies — just because you have high speed internet does not ensure that you have a static IP address. Odds are you are with one of those ISPs that re-uses a small range of IP addresses. There is little to nothing that can be done beyond finding a proxy server and using it to play Urban Dead, switch ISPs and hope for the best, or complain to your ISP directly. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 16:21, 8 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
I, too, found that my IP hits were used up the first time I logged in. I'd appreciate an explanation of how to find proxy servers (note the absence of multiple question marks). {{Unsigned|Dr Bowman}}<br />
:Google might help. Or maybe [http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Proxying_and_Filtering/Hosted_Proxy_Services/Free/Proxy_Lists/ this] (Note: I haven't checked any of these, use at your own discretion)--{{User:Brizth/sig}} 23:31, 29 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
big question:i waited for 2-5months and the 160 limit hasnt been reseted.why???????????????? {{unsigned|q105090}}<br />
:In the future please, for the love of god, ''read'' the FAQ. This has been asked a dozen times before and more and the answer remains the same: some ISPs reuse a limited number of IP addresses meaning that all your IP hits are used up by the time you come online. You could try changing ISPs to one that gives you a static address, but some say they do and then don't. The only surefire way around the IP restriction is donating. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 09:43, 14 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
::i didnt really get that.mind speaking in english?? {{unsigned|q105090}}<br />
:::Donate. The easiest way to fix the problem is to pony up some cash. If you can't afford five bucks, then learn that ISP stands for "Internet Service Provider" and start reading [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address this]. Then ask your ISP to give you a static address. (You will need to have a permanent connection &mdash; dialup doesn't count. Failing that learn how to use a proxy.<br />
:::Too complicated? Take my advice, if you don't have the requisite neurons to use even semi-decent grammar, five bucks is easier. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 20:09, 16 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
dont have a credit card, mom will kill me if i ask for it!!!!!! what now?? {{unsigned|q105090}}<br />
:Then you're out of luck. Either use a proxy or give up. There's not much more that can be done. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 16:49, 21 October 2006 (BST)<br />
::would changing my cookies help?havent tried it yet.--[[User:Q105090|Q105090]] 03:10, 22 October 2006 (BST)<br />
:::No, it wouldn't. IP hits aren't stored in cookies; they're logged on the server. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 07:59, 22 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
then how come it did work??--[[User:Q105090|Q105090]] 12:05, 28 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==What time does the count reset?==<br />
What time zone does the game run on? And does the "hit limit" reset right at midnight there or some other time? [[User:Tengwar|Tengwar]] 12:11, August 14 2006 <-- I think I did that right...<br />
:Resets at 00:00 BST, IIRC. Could be wrong though. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 12:14, 1 September 2006 (BST)<br />
::So that's 20:00 EST? BST is -1:00 GMT, right?--[[User:Blue Command Vic|Blue Command Vic]] 12:16, 1 September 2006 (BST)<br />
:It's 19:00 EST, I think... 7 PM. --[[User:Forlorad|Forlorad]]<br />
:19:00 EST to 20:00 EST seems right.<br />
<br />
==Urban Dead News==<br />
Is there any place to discuss the news and game changes? Thanks. --[[User:Swmono|Swmono]] <sup> [[User_talk:Swmono|talk]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]] - [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]] - [[Sacred Ground Policy|SGP]] </sup> 01:44, 23 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:[[Talk:News]]. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 03:20, 23 July 2006 (BST)<br />
:Thank you. --[[User:Swmono|Swmono]] <sup> [[User_talk:Swmono|talk]] - [[Project Welcome|W!]] - [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]] - [[Sacred Ground Policy|SGP]] </sup> 11:11, 30 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Getting XP==<br />
How do you gain XP points or something that are required to gain skills?Eating live bodies,ext.? {{Unsigned|Tgump}}<br />
:Have a look at [[Experience Points]]. It lists the different forms of collecting XP such as First aid and combact. :) --[[User:Marie|''Marie'']]<sup>''[[The Grove]]''</sup> 17:52, 10 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== How do I get into a mall? ==<br />
If you're starting out as a consumer, your main ability is that you can search malls. Until you've searched a few, you can't arm yourself up, and get the experience points needed to get skills like Free Running, and since you can't get into a Mall without Free Running... do you see where I'm going with this? What's the hapless new Consumer to do? --[[User:Detective Flash|Detective Flash]] 11:54, 1 September 2006 (BST)<br />
:You don't. You go into a hospital, search for FAKs, punch someone and then heal them. Just like the scout, the consumer is nearly impossible to level up. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 12:13, 1 September 2006 (BST)<br />
::xoid, the scout has free runnning, so he is easier to level up, he just needs to get supplies. [[user:chaosvolt|chaosvolt]] 12:26 sept 2007(central)<br />
:I'd suggest becoming a zombie, going to a low-key area, and getting a couple hundred XP as a Zed, then get a revive and buy a few skills to get yourself started. --[[User:Kiltric|Kiltric]] 02:07, 2 September 2006 (BST)<br />
Get a knife. Go to work. -Apocalyptic Doom <br /><br />
: I took a consumer, and it's not impossible to lvl up. Find a hospital, get a lot of First Aid Kit, and heal people. You can even heal zombies. After healing 20 times, you got Free Running. And by the time you will get some real experience about playing the game as human :) And because you started as consumer, people will respect your balls after ;) --[[User:GoLookAndKill|GoLookAndKill]] 20:23, 20 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::It's not impossible. But you might as well start as a doctor so you have diagnosis or a fireman so you have more accurate and stronger attacks. It's not "impossible" but in terms of practicality there is no reason to start as anything other than doc, fireman or corpse. Also why are you saying this now? This convo's from 2 years ago :P --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:56, 21 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Cannibal Zombies==<br />
Hey, is it considered bad form to attack other zombies if you're also a zombie? I'm fairly sure human on human PKing is frowned upon, but I'm not sure about zombie PKing. {{Unsigned|Cookiemobsta}}<br />
:Not really. Most zombies prefer getting ZKed to getting headshot, and practically everyone realises that it is the only viable way for younglings to level up. {{User:Xoid/sig}} 10:45, 6 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:i got stuck as a zombie and don't want to hunt humans(i wanna get revived), so i attack zeds instead. i bet zking a zombie who doesn't want to die is bad to him, but most humans i met didn't care. the zombies did, though. [[User:chaosvolt|chaosvolt]] 12:22pm, 3 sept 2007(central)<br />
<br />
:It is a generally well received practice. I much rather give another zed some XP and stand up for 1 AP than to make a Zombie Hunter stronger and stand up for 6. --[[User:Trunksoul|Trunksoul]] 20:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Recently killed humans will often continue fighting as zeds, especially in situations where they're killed indoors and dumped with invading zombies. There's not much chance of getting revived if there's a siege going on. [[User:Tirdun|Tirdun]] 14:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
so humans killing humans is illegal? were do i go to rat on someone? and what are the punishments if any? (dj zomboy) --[[User:DJZOMBOY|DJZOMBOY]] 09:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
:DJZOMBOY same answer as above. Your questions are answered in the [[PKer|article on PKing]]. Also, please be careful with how you write your questions. You have created several formatting errors with your questions. Carefully follow what other people are doing and/or read [[Editing help]]. --[[User:ZaqWer|ZaqWer]] 23:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==How Do You Use Pre-made Templates?==<br />
I've seen that alot of tmplates are frequently used. How do you use a template, such as the Sacred Ground template, on your user page? Do you have to construct the template from scratch? [[User:Humuhumuhumu...Ted|Humuhumuhumu...Ted]] 19:39, 21 October 2006 (BST)<br />
:nope, you use a template call, so <nowiki>{{SacredGroundPolicy}}</nowiki> gives you the SacredGroundPolicy on you page like <nowiki>{{WikiForum|user}}</nowiki> creates: {{WikiForum|user}}.--{{User:The General/sig}} 19:45, 21 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Have a look through the [[:Category:Templates|Templates]]. Most of them have a copy and paste thing saying the wiki code for using the template. --[[User:Marie|''Marie'']]<sup>''[[The Grove]]''</sup> 19:51, 21 October 2006 (BST)<br />
:Yeah, and for the ones that don't you just put <nowiki>{{}}</nowiki> around the name of the page.--{{User:The General/sig}} 20:10, 21 October 2006 (BST)<br />
:Edited this comment to remove the automatic Category placement.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] <sup>[[Signature_Race|+1]]</sup> 14:28, 27 May 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==How Do You Get a Screenshot?==<br />
In many forums you need proof to show that an incident actually occured. How do you screenshot so that you'll have undeniable proof? [[User:Humuhumuhumu...Ted|Humuhumuhumu...Ted]] 01:01, 23 October 2006 (BST)<br />
:There should be a button called "Print Screen" on your computer keyboard. It should be above the arrow keys, at the very top. When you are looking the the screen, click that. Open a program such as Paint and then paste the copied screenshot in. Trim it to whatever size you want, and then save.--{{User:Gage/sig}} 01:03, 23 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Thanks. It took me a while to figure out what you were telling me to do exactly, but I got it. [[User:Humuhumuhumu...Ted|Humuhumuhumu...Ted]] 18:00, 23 October 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Another way: Irfanview (http://irfanview.com) is a free image viewer & editor tool that is quick and useful for many things. Scrrencaps being one of them. You just open it up, press 'C' or go into the options dropdown and choose 'Capture', then you cna define your own hotkey for screencaps. From there you can crop, edit, and save in a multitude of formats. I love this free software, I can't praise it enough.--[[User:Tser|Tser]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[http://www.gimp.org the gimp] is a fully featured image editing suite. It is open source. Kinda hard to get the hang of, but to just get a screenie, it is quite simple. --[[User:Ev933n|Ev933n]] / [[User talk:Ev933n|Talk]] <sub>[[User:Ev933n#PPGC|PPGC]]</sub> 13:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I seem to enjoy using the traditional Shift+Sys Rq/Print Scr. Then I pop open my MS Paint and press CTRL+V. Simple fast, easy, save it as a PNG, the smallest reliable image I have found.<br />
[[User:OmegaLord|OmegaLord]] 16:58, 7 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Hi, I'm new here, but I'd just like to mention that for Mac users, this works a little differently. They press command (the apple key) + shift + 4. This turns the cursor into a crosshairs. Then just drag the cursor across the area of the screen you want to capture, (in this case, all of it.) and your screenshot will appear as a file named "Picture 1" on the desktop.--[[User:Munkel|Munkel]] 17:42, 31 August 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::Also, if you're using OS X, then you use a program called Grab. It's in the Utilities folder of your Applications folder. Select Capture Window from the menu, and then click on the window you want to grab, or select Capture Screen to get the whole screen.--[[User:Haflinger|Haflinger]] 18:45, 31 August 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==What are the ways to heal?==<br />
<br />
Could someone give a comprehensive list of this, or point me to one on the wiki?<br />
<br />
I was under the impression that you could only regenerate hitpoints by application of healing skills, or standing up from death/revivification, but now I have more hitpoints than I remember having before, and I didn't die in between. Does that necessarily mean someone went by and healed me, without me noticing? -- [[User:BjornLindstrom|bkhl]] 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
:Everyone in the game has a maximum of 50HP or if they have bought the skill ''body building'' then they have a maximum of 60HP. <br> You can be healed by :<br>1. First Aid Kits (FAK's) which you find in hospitals and malls. You can heal yourself or other people can heal you so they gain XP. <br> 2. Wine and Beer can heal you for 1 or 2 HP, but its slow and inefficient. You can find them in pubs and clubs. <br> 3. If you are a zombie or die in general and you are killed then you stand up with your maximum HP. <br> 4. If you are a zombie with ''digestion'' when you successfully bite a survivor you gain 4HP. <br> 5. When you are revived you stand up with half your maximum HP (25/50HP). <br />
<br />
Note: If a zombie bites you and they have ''infectious bite'' then every move that you make apart from talking will cost you HP as well as AP, until it is cured with a FAK. If you buy bodybuilding it does not automatically put you up to 60HP you have to heal the extra 10HP to get it. --[[User:Marie|''Marie'']]<sup>''[[The Grove]]''</sup> 14:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==How Do I create a group==<br />
<br />
I have looked around this site and have not been able find how to create my own group.<br />
: To create a group you need some members ;) To make the page on wiki though type the name of the group you want into the search bar at the side. Say you wanted your group to be called The Dragon Fighters you would type that into the search bar and at the top of that page it says: '''There is no page titled "The Dragon Fighters". You can create this page.'''. If you click the bit of that which is red the link takes you to a page entitled The Dragon Fighters and you can type what you want onto the page about your group to make the page.<br> To make the page appear in the groups page you need to put the categorys you want it to appear on in your page. The categorys are listed on the [[Groups]] page. For the category add '''<nowiki>[[Category:Human Group]]</nowiki>''' (replace ''Human Group'' with whatever category fits your group) and that will add it onto the group lists you want it to appear on. --[[User:Marie|''Marie'']]<sup>''[[The Grove]]''</sup> 09:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I Have created the group but I am having trouble uploading pictures. Any help would be appreciated.--[[User:WendyllHayes|WendyllHayes]] 17:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
[[Z.I.T.A.N]]<br />
: To upload pictures click on '''Upload File''' from the toolbox links at the top of the page (below the navigation stuff) then upload the image there. Once on your group page click the image button on the editing toolbar and replace the '''[ [ Image:Example.jpg ] ]''' with the file name from the page where you uploaded the image. --[[User:Marie|''Marie'']]<sup>''[[The Grove]]''</sup> 20:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Created a group, got 10 members, now how to get it confirmed?==<br />
<br />
Ok, I'm in a group that has 10+ members however it is not confirmed. How do we go about becoming a confirmed goup?<br /><br />
[[User:Darkvengance|Darkvengance]] 21:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
If your group is on the [http://urbandead.com/stats.html stats page] then you can add the <nowiki>[[Category:Confirmed Groups]]</nowiki> to your group page. That will confirm you on the wiki.--[[User:Lachryma|Lachryma]] 21:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
But my group isn't on the stats page, that's what where we're wanting to get it.<br />
[[User:Darkvengance|Darkvengance]] 21:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Ah, got you. You need to have all of your members list your group (exactly as it's spelled on the wiki) on their profile, where it says 'Group Name'--[[User:Lachryma|Lachryma]] 21:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Oh, ok thanks<br />
[[User:Darkvengance|Darkvengance]] 21:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==How do I edit my character's profile?==<br />
<br />
how do i edit my guy like his discription and group??? {{unsigned|Zombine5555555}}<br />
:When you are logged in as the character you want to change the description of, click on the character name (just below the map) to bring up your profile page. In the bottom left hand corner there is a button to "edit your profile". Click that, and enter the descriptions and group name in the appropriate boxes -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 02:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==My friends got banned from the game for abuse, why is that?==<br />
<br />
Well, my friend Nastybiker and some of his friends got thrown out of the game for abuse, which really is a shame because they have been playing for more than a year now. To make a long story short, I guess I'll post the mail he sent me today.<br />
<br />
----<br />
Zeph...need your help. Kevan's system has locked all of us out except for my wife (she is at the NT near the mall trying to get a revive). Apparently, his system registered the boys and I as abusers. We often play together, but it is no different than any organized group...I had just helped two of them get revives (they were bored being zeds after Xmas). <br />
<br />
Perhaps an email simply saying that you know us from play...and that we did not abuse anything (for example) during the Xmas no-kill.<br />
<br />
If not...I understand...but it would be nice to play again. The boys were heading out on their own again anyway...they just wanted to visit the Egleton to show off their breathing skills and say Hi annd thank the guys for the nice Xmas visit. <br />
<br />
Ah well...<br />
<br />
Best to you my friend,<br />
Nasty<br />
----<br />
<br />
I couldn't find any direct email to send this problem to, so I posted it here. Now, to explain the Xmas no-kill. We've been a few people sitting in the same house for a year now, a couple of the guys left to try being Zombies for a while, but during the 24th to 27th december, we had a spray on the wall saying this was a no-kill zone, so that our zombie friends could stay during the holidays. I dont know if that is the reason for abuse. -- [[User:Zephyer|Zephyer]] [[User:Zephyer|Zephyer]] 02:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:If players from the same IP have been seen to be co-operating (reviving each other, or using the same safehouse, for example) that's against the rules. You say you've been in the same safehouse for year? Then the game has used up your chances and banned you for multi-abuse. Had you just bumped into each other a few times or sayed in the same region for a few days the system wouldn't have done anything, but after too much persistant interation you're gone. You broke the rules, and the game has punished you for it. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 16:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Official Stats==<br />
<br />
Where can i go to view the OFFICIAL stats of certain Groups. Many people say they have 100 members when they really probably only have 3 or 4. Is there any way to verify? [[User:Terrible Man|Terrible Man]] 14:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
:Group numbers are shown at http://www.urbandead.com/stats.html --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 16:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Infection question==<br />
<br />
If you have 1AP with an infection, and you use a first-aid kit, do you die or get healed? [[User:Jonny12|Jonny12]] <sup> [[User_talk:Jonny12|Talk]]</sup> 23:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)<br />
:Good question...I don't know, and I have been playing this game for a year now. Guess I will have to try it some time!--[[User:Mayor Fitting|Mayor Fitting]] 01:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
You will heal yourself before you die. -[[User:Skoadathon|Skoadathon]] 11:39, 4 Feburary 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==I started with a book. Why?==<br />
<br />
Why did I start with a book? I'm a Necrotech Lab Assistant. I started with the usual DNA Extractor, but I also started with a book. [[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 08:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I thought they always started out with a book. --{{User:Cap'n Silly/Sig}} 08:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Oh. Thanks. --[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 13:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Another thing. Does everyone start with a book or only Necrotech Lab Assistants? --[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
:Well, I'm a Scout, and I certainly didn't start with a book.--[[User:Andre Aloisius|Andre Aloisius]] 20:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
::It's probably a flavour thing, since Books are hardly used in UD nowadays. Perhaps it's supposed to mean that Lab Assistants are inherently bookish... [[User:Robert McFarlane|Robert McFarlane]] 12:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Is an abundance of zombie skills a bad thing for a survivor to have?==<br />
<br />
Recently, I was waiting for a revive and when I logged in, I saw that a survivor who was at the RP earlier (injecting zombies)had made a comment(spoken) referring to my profile.<br />
My zombie description read along the lines of "faint humanity visible in eyes...not built for the zombie life". The survivor extracted a DNA sample and then said something like "for someone not built for zombie life, you sure seem to be built for zombie life". He was referring to my character having 2 total survivor skills and 6 or so zombie skills. He had a good point in his observation, and displayed some good forethought for a survivor interested in human safety, although it was a misjudgement. The abundance of skills was due to me spending a lot of time wandering, waiting for a revive and the accumulating AP burning a hole in my virtual pocket. I was skipped for revifification. <br />
I'll get to the point; "if a character has noticeably more zombie skills than human skills, is this seen as a sign that the character wants to be a zombie, or plays mainly against the survivors?"--[[User:Tser|Tser]] 12:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
:It can be seen that way. However the real 'flag' for a dedicated zombie player is Brain Rot.Unless you have that, I'd say the reviver was over reacting a bit. If some one is standing at a revive point I will revive them unless they have that skill or they are someone I know to be a pker. I'd do that even if they had no human skills at all. Sometimes people want to switch sides for awhile. Thats fine. Virtually everyone does it. [[User:The Mad Axeman|The Mad Axeman]] 12:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
::Someone PKed my level one Cop because my profile said "He has a look of death in his eyes." Go figure. --[[User:Ev933n|Ev933n]] / [[User talk:Ev933n|Talk]] <sub>[[User:Ev933n#PPGC|PPGC]]</sub> 21:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
:If one with much zombie skills wants a revive, then there's a larger possibility that he's a zombie spy or just wants to get some armor, skill to recognize NT buildings and +10 to HP. --[[User:Niilomaan|Niilomaan]] <sup>[[GCM Radical Redeemers|GRR!]]•[[Project Mentor|M!]]</sup> 08:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
:I won't revive someone with a more zombie skills than survivor unless they provide a very convincing sob story. I won't even fully heal up a survivor with many more zombie skills than survivor skills. If I'm feeling generous up to 25HP is okay, but I won't go more. With a six to two zombie:survivor skill ratio, you've demonstrated a pretty good commitment to zombie-dom. There are some survivor groups who won't deal with you if you have even one zombie skill. But, most people aren't so picky. So, you'll probably get by. --[[User:ZaqWer|ZaqWer]] 01:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)<br />
::That's just silly. While caution makes sense, of course, there are many, many reasons why a player who genuinely wants to be revived could have more zombie skills. For example, it's often very hard for a newbie to get a revive -- many people pass newblets up for higher level characters in revive queues. So the player says, "Screw it..." and eats some brains. I've done it... Then there are dual natures. And just people who want to change sides for a while. Not rezzing and not healing "SPAIZ!" is just trenchy, except in situations where you know there are actually "operatives", then it makes sense. However, since the prejudice is so common, it ''is'' a good idea to put something in your profile to make people more at ease rezzing you. But ... then again ... PKers and Death Cultist often put "sob stories" exactly for that reason... See... Being trenchy really doesn't pay off, just play and habe fun. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 00:33, 30 May 2008 (BST)<br />
i have plenty of z skills, but this is mostly to boost my level. i am a level 14 zombie in fryerbank, and have absolutely no commitment to either side. i like surviving the most i guess, but zombies have life pretty easy with the whole 50% to attack with hands thing. if i weren't such a noob, i would heal or revive without descrimination, it's all xp to you, and it's all hp to him. {{unsigned|Gass mask|01:59, 19 October 2007}}<br />
<br />
I have a PKer character who targets anyone at level 10 or higher but with zero zombie skills, in an attempt to balance this out. And the only skills I'm prejudiced against are Ransack and Knife Combat (but maybe that's just me.) And if you have a lot of zombie skills and are seeking a revive consider putting an explanation in your profile. That should improve your chances. --[[User:Explodey|Explodey]] 00:07, 30 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==If I drop an item near others, will they find it by searching? Or if I drop something is it effectively destroyed/deleted?==<br />
:&mdash; [[User:Qwip|Qwip]] 02:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
::To my knowledge, dropping an item makes it go away. Others cannot find it. [[User:Pedentic|Pedentic]] 02:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
:::Pedentic is right, once an item is dropped it's gone. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 14:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
::Well I guess if I find something I don't need (e.g. my 3rd length of pipe), there's no point in trying to drop it near a group of other survivors. &mdash; [[User:Qwip|Qwip]] 14:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==I think I tried out the game a while ago, and didn't like it.==<br />
I can't remember the name, password or location of my old account. Could I be unknowingly penalised if I happen to land on the same square that I left my account on? --[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 18:21, 30 March 2007 (BST)<br />
: after 5 days unused acounts drop from the game. They only reappear if you log in on that account. So you wouldn't get penalized as your old account has probably timed out and has been removed from the game. (I'm figuring you didn't forget your account name within 5 days :) Have fun retrying the game!--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 20:11, 30 March 2007 (BST)<br />
:: I know, I just wasn't sure if inactive accounts counted. Thanks. --[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 16:24, 31 March 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Using feeding drag==<br />
I tried simply walking out of a building while holding onto someone low on health and they didn't come along with me. How are you supposed to use this skill?--[[User:Bluish wolf|Bluish wolf]] 04:24, 5 April 2007 (BST)<br />
:It's a special attack. You select in your attack dropbox like like you do with a bite or claw attack. The target/victim must be at 12HP or lower or the attack doesn't work. The attack deposits both you and the victim outside. I have no knowledge if barricading prevents it as well, maybe somebody else can answer that.--[[User:Vista|Vista]] 08:48, 5 April 2007 (BST)<br />
::Barricades do stop feeding drag from working. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 12:34, 5 April 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Where did these graphics come from?==<br />
On a whim, I looked up Urban Dead on wikipedia and came across the following screen shot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Urbandead.jpg Who made those graphics, and are they available to the public? If so, how may I go about acquiring them? --[[User:Pyrranha|Pyrranha]] 04:28, 10 April 2007 (BST)<br />
:That's a screenshot of a firefox extension, the Urban Dead Toolbar. It's available to download from [http://udtoolbar.mozdev.org/ http://udtoolbar.mozdev.org/], where you'll also find contact information for the extension's creator. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 23:43, 10 April 2007 (BST)<br />
::Thanks, I appreciate the fast response. --[[User:Pyrranha|Pyrranha]] 03:39, 11 April 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
NOTE!!: I tried the toolbar for FireFox 2, and it doesn't work. Is there a fix?<br />
[[User:ShinobiSlider|ShinobiSlider]] 02:50, 6 May 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
:: I currently use some of the features of the UDToolbar but not all of them work due to recent updates. I am using Firefox version 2.0.0.4 and i stopped using the name colorizer feature because using the contact list colorization feature is much simpler. I have recently thought of switching back to using the colorizer due to potential implementation of suggestions that would make having all these people I don't trust(IC) on my contact list a liability. In summary it still works you just might need to close and open firefox to get the toolbar to update. --[[User:Sephikus|Sephikus]] 11:23, 7 June 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==How is the suburbs map updated?==<br />
Two questions in two days; I'm on a roll. I was surfing the wiki for a method by which to edit the [[Suburb|map of Malton suburbs]], but found none. Can this be done manually, or is the map automatically updated via data taken straight from the game? --[[User:Pyrranha|Pyrranha]] 03:39, 11 April 2007 (BST)<br />
:Everything on the wiki is updated by players like you and I. You can edit the Suburb Map (or any other page here) just like you did to this page. But please know what you're doing before trying to take on community pages like the map, or you'll just make work for others to clean up, and possibly get yourself into trouble for vandalism -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 03:55, 11 April 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Is there a specific best class? ==<br />
<br />
See above.<br />
<br />
:There's no definitive best class, but the easiest classes to start with are the ones with a ready-made [[XP]] source available: [[Civilian#Cop|Cops]], [[Military#Private|Privates]], [[Scientist#NecroTech Lab Assistant|NecroTech Lab Assistants]], [[Scientist#Doctor|Doctors]] and [[Civilian#Firefighter|Firefighters]]. Of those five, Privates are arguably the best since their military character class allows them to buy gun skills cheaply, and so get faster XP gain. Alternatively, since you'll inevitably be a zombie for at least a while, you might want to get a head start on that path and go for the [[Zombie#Corpse|Corpse]] class. Ultimately it's a matter of opinion. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] (revised 14:42, 30 April 2007 (BST))<br />
<br />
:[[Military#Scout|Scouts]] are also good, as free running lets you bypass barricades, and most survivers over-barricade safehouses. however, the lack of starting weapons is problem.<br />
(added 12:11, 3 september 2007 (central time)) -chaosvolt-<br />
<br />
i started out as a firefighter and i bought the melle 15% skill and it worked for a bit but it doesnt show anymore why?-welcome2urmooseyfate-<br />
<br />
:[http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1307855 This] is you, right? Says you have the skills there. So what exactly do you mean by that it doesn't show any more? Is the problem elsewhere (such as attack percentage)? - [[User:Whitehouse]] 07:55, 20 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
no it was workin then i got on it and it didnt say fireaxe 40% blah blah blah it said fire axe 25% and now its working im realy confused<br />
<br />
:No idea why that would be. But if as you say it's working again then we should just hope it keeps working. If it does however revert to being lower than expected, try the [[bugs]] section. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 08:02, 22 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Rifle? ==<br />
<br />
Are there any plans to introduce additional guns to this game, like, say some sort of full auto rifle? Firearms selection seems kinda lacking...and IMO it's really illogical that the military would not have any rifles like, say, an M4 carbine.<br />
<br />
:Rifles are generally seen as out of genre - they are frequently suggested but nearly always shot down on the [[suggestions]] page. General consensus is that another firearm isn't needed. (also, sign your posts by adding '<nowiki>--~~~~'</nowiki>) --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 19:01, 20 April 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
grenades would be cool ;) -chaosvolt-<br />
:No they wouldn't. This is another frequently suggested idea that always gets shot down. --[[User:Explodey|Explodey]] 23:58, 30 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Lv 41... ==<br />
<br />
Looking at the stats, why are there so many people at lv 41? Why is it that much harder to get to 42 and 43? --[[User:Clyde Randall|Clyde Randall]] 19:26, 23 April 2007 (BST)<br />
:The level system used in Urban Dead is setup so that a characters level is equal to the number of skills a player has, there are currently 42 levels but since Brain Rot makes it extremely difficult to become revived most survivors do not get it. If I recall correctly Infected characters are recorded on the game stats page as being a level higher then they are, thus creating a level 43. - [[User:Vantar|Vantar]] 21:15, 23 April 2007 (BST)<br />
::I think that being revived is the flag that gets people to be level 43. -- [[User:SgtBop|<font color="black"><b>SgtBop</b></font>]]<sup>[[User talk:SgtBop|<font color="black"><small>Talk</small></font>]]|[[Maris Viridis|<font color="black"><small>Maris Viridis</small></font>]]</sup> 03:40, 10 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== How can view another player's HP? ==<br />
<br />
How can I do this? I don't want to waste HP trying to heal someone that has full health.<br />
<br />
:There are three ways to see another player's HP:<br />
:*Heal them,<br />
:*Attack them,<br />
:*Or buy a skill to do it ([[Zombie Skills|Scent Blood]] and [[Science skills|Diagnosis]] let you see a player's exact HP, [[Zombie Skills|Scent Fear]] gives you a rough indication.)<br />
<br />
:Those are the only ways to see other people's health. So if you want to heal people, you just need to try using your first aid kits on random people. Healing gets '''''much''''' easier when you buy diagnosis. Until then, your best bet is to ask if there are any injured people in the building, or head out to [[Suburb|a suburb where there are likely to be lots of injured people]], or [[Knife|create some injuries yourself]]. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 17:12, 30 April 2007 (BST) Another good tip from the [[Guides:A_Guide_for_Doctors|Doctor's guide]] is to try using FAKs on survivors beginning from the bottom of the stack (the pull-down menu next to the "Use first-aid kit on" button). Start from the bottom because the characters at the top have been there longer and if they needed healing when they arrived, they're more likely to have been healed already by some other character who can diagnose.<br />
<br />
== Is it zerging to make radio broadcasts with an alt? ==<br />
The alt is in a different suburb to my usual character. I've just used him to make a few mindless radio broadcasts, that are not specific to any group's tactics. Is that okay? --[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 20:09, 19 June 2007 (BST)<br />
:Alts are perfectly okay as long as they aren't collaborating. Here's the official line: http://www.urbandead.com/faq.html#mult .--[[User_talk:Toejam|T]][[User:Toejam|oejam]] 21:02, 20 June 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== How do you see your own profile URL? ==<br />
I was joining a group when I realized I didn't know what the url for my character was. I look and googled it and stuff but at most it said something like www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi<br />
It doesn't have a number like the other profiles when I search them. I don't want to move my alt so I can see it either... PLZ HELP!--[[User:TheCapn157|TheCapn157]] 04:23, 7 July 2007 (BST)<br />
:Wow, you're really freaking out. Just try clicking your name at the bottom of the page and... look at the URL at the top. Don't yell at me telling me you've tried it until you have, and make sure to click "Back To The City", not pressing that lil' nifty "BACK" button on the browser. Pressing the Back To The City (BTTC) allows you to see if anyone said something in response to... a question you asked, or. if. anyone. [http://www.drmcninja.com/issue2/2p5.gif stabbedyouintheeyeballs.] These are important things to know.<br />
[[User:OmegaLord|OmegaLord]] 17:12, 7 July 2007 (BST)<br />
[[Category:Player Resources]]<br />
<br />
== Can zombies view each others profiles and add them as contacts?==<br />
:Yes they can, but not as easily as survivors can. When a zombie speaks, kills someone, attacks you, destroys the barricades/genny/radio then a link is available so that you can add them to your contact list -- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User_talk:boxy|T]] [[User:Boxy/Locations|L]] [[Zombie Squad|ZS]] [[Location Nuts|Nuts2U]] [[Dead Animals/Redux|DA]]</sup> 02:51, 22 June 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Is there anything that can be done if an account is no longer secure? ==<br />
I logged in today, and it seemed that I had less AP than when I had logged out hours ago. Perhaps I merely forgot about some searching I had done, but it made me wonder- what can be done if your account has been hacked or w/e you want to call it, so that someone else can access it?<br />
[[User:Rebel147|Rebel147]] 04:04, 27 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
:There's no way to change your password, so if an account got hacked, then your options would be...<br />
:*abandon the old character and make a new one, or<br />
:*email the game's creator (kevan at kevan dot org) and request that he'll change the password.<br />
:--&nbsp;[[User:Toejam|<small><span style="border:solid #000000 1px; background-color: #FFFFFF; color: black">{{ht|toejam|&nbsp;T&nbsp;}}</span></small>]]&nbsp; 04:49, 27 July 2007 (BST) PS Having less AP than expected ''might'' be because of some actions using [[Action Points|multiple AP]].<br />
<br />
== Can you see when a player drops stuff? ==<br />
My question is, can you tell when a player drops an item, and if so, can you tell what he dropped? by: chaosvolt<br />
:Nope, it's totally secret. --&nbsp;[[User:Toejam|<small><span style="border:solid #000000 1px; background-color: #FFFFFF; color: black">&nbsp;T&nbsp;</span></small>]]&nbsp; 10:51, 24 August 2007 (BST)<br />
i see, thanks. -chaosvolt-<br />
<br />
==How Do I Update the Dangermap?==<br />
How do I update the the danger colors on the dangermap of the [[Suburbs]]? Like change it from red to orange to yellow to green? --[[User:Secruss|Secruss]] 19:06, 3 September 2007 (BST)<br />
:On the suburb's wiki page, there should be a big blue box on the right hand side, and at the bottom of it there'll be a link saying ''"Update Roywood's danger level"'' or something similar. Follow that link, then add {{tl|MapSafe}} or {{tl|MapModerate}} or whatever is appropriate according to [[Template:MapColors|this guide]] and save the page. That's the danger level updated, and it'll show up on the [[suburb]] page whenever that page gets edited. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] <sup>[[Project Atmosphere|A]]</sup> 20:06, 3 September 2007 (BST) NB [[:Category:Danger_Reports#How to update a suburb danger report|Here's an alternative guide.]]<br />
<br />
<br />
==Zombie Skills==<br />
do some zombie skills work even when you are human? Jason Cane<br />
:Yes, a couple do - see [[Zombie Skills Usable by Survivors]]. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] <sup>[[Project Atmosphere|A]] [http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/23138202?graph%5Bscale%5D=absolute Stats Graph]</sup> 21:20, 6 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Is a headbutt the same as a bite?==<br />
Does a zombie's headbutt attack(obtained by wearing a mask) have the same accuracy and damage as the bite(attack replaced by headbutt)?<br />
The description for the haedbutt in [[Headbutt]] says, "you headbutt XX for 3 damage." Is that right? If so, is there a balance for the lower damage(maybe higher accuracy?)<br />
:Yes damage and accuracy is the same for both attacks. However unlike Bite, Headbutt does not cause infections.--<small><span style="border: 1px solid MediumSeaGreen">[[User:Vista|'''<span style="background-color: Ivory; color:Black">&nbsp;Vista&nbsp;</span>''']][[Signature_Race|<span style="background-color: MediumSeaGreen; color: Ivory ">&nbsp;+1&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 07:26, 16 September 2007 (BST)<br />
::Doesn't bite do 4 damage and headbutt do only 3, both at 30% accuracy (all skills except tangling grasp)? That would make bite the better attack, unless headbutt is particularly good for low-level players or something. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 14:36, 17 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
::The [[headbutt]] page says it does 3 damage, bite does 4...headbutt has to higher accuracy.<br />
<br />
==What skills are avialible when you're dead?==<br />
Since you can only have the option to buy surviver OR zombie skills at any one point in time, what skills can you buy when you're a dead body? Maybe you choose the skill tree you could use last(e.g. dieing as a surviver means you can buy surviver skills as long as you stay down)?--[[User:Chaosvolt|volt]] 03:48, 25 September 2007 (BST)<br />
:I was a survivor then got killed; IIRC before I stood up I could still buy survivor skills, so I assume that before they stand up, bodies of killed survivors can buy zombie skills, and bodies of killed/revived zombies can buy zombies skills. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]]<sup>[http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/23575027?graph%5Bscale%5D=absolute Stats Graph Updated]</sup> 19:22, 25 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Zerging flag and similar names?==<br />
I'm currently engaged in a siege where at least one of the zombie players outside has resorted to making new accounts impersonating defenders of our building. For example, my ingame name is Commie Woman. There's a relatively new zed account that's been outside and in the vicinity named CommieWoman. They've done this for other defenders of the building as well. My question is, would this set off the zerging flag or is it something strictly related to your IP? It would really suck for it to be harder to barricade/attack/etc. because someone out there is impersonating us. My inclination is that it doesn't have any bearing on our successful barricade/hit percentages, but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks! --[[User:Commie Woman|Commie Woman]] 04:32, 1 October 2007 (BST)<br />
:Only Kevan knows for sure what triggers the anti-zerg measures and he likes to keep it secret so that the measures are harder to work around. But there have been player groups in past where all the characters had almost identical names like the [[Pathetic Bill]]s or [[SillyLillyPilly]]s and they didn't seem to have any problems, so I doubt your impostor will set off any countermeasures. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 17:45, 1 October 2007 (BST)<br />
::As far as I know, Ye Olde Zerge Flages have nothing to with character names, but with IP addresses and such. If you are not zerging, or sharing IP addesses, you have nothing to worry about. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==I wonder what Kevan will do for Halloween?==<br />
If Kevan is reading, please give us a hint what you'll do do the game this Halloween. Anyone else, say what you THINK he'll add to game to make the classic horror holiday fun for players. my guesses:<br />
*Nerf us poor humans<br />
*make humans and zed party together<br />
*do something lame like reuse the vampire/werewolf joke<br />
So, what do think he throw at us?<br />
<br />
==Question on radio messages==<br />
Okay, I know I ask a lot of questions, but I can't being curious. My current question involves the messages you recieve when retuning your radio. One time I retuned it, it said "The radio begins to hiss static" but when I went to another station, it said "The radio's reception becomes clear". Does it have to do with when it was last used or something?<br />
:This came up on [[Talk:News]] once, and here's the relevant part:<br />
{{Quote|Swiers|It tells you whether there is a transmitter in the city tuned to that freq. If there is not, you get a message like "The radio hisses static and then fades to silence". Only If the freq is actively in use (IE, there is a transmitter tuned to that freq somewhere) will it say "reception remains clear".}}<br />
:--[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 13:11, 13 October 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Question on strange Zombie Attack Message==<br />
This might be covered somewhere already but I cant seem to find it. Basically have recently become a zombie and am waiting in a revive que with 20 other Zombies. On the same block is a known Pker on my contact list who also happens to be a zombie at this point in time. So I thought I would use my AP to make his life a bit more difficult. I can target him no problem to attack but everytime I try to attack I get a message that says "Your target moves away before you can attack them." Why is this? {{Unsigned|Mikeb35}}}}<br />
<br />
It's because your target is either revified or dead. {{Unsigned|PudgeisImba}}<br />
<br />
Maybe target isn't a zombie but a corpse. He can be target but attack will have no result. - [[User:Bug MacLock|Bug MacLock]] 09:51, 8 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== After Level 41 ==<br />
Is there really any reason to keep playing after you have gained all of the skills (excluding Brain Rot, because that skill is horrible...)- Are there plans to create new skills, or add new variables to gameplay? If so, does anyone know how often such things are implemented? I really enjoy this game, but I cannot see myself just playing it just to play it. I play it now to achieve a goal, and I am fairly close to achieving that goal. But the 50 AP-a-day style really limits the ability to solely play for fun... I do not know if I worded that in a way that effectively explains the "way I feel" about it, but I am just wondering if I should be expecting the end of the game (for me) soon.--[[User:Sic Re Mortem|Sic Re Mortem]] 21:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
:It's hard to tell if Kevan will implement any new skills but I can assure there will ''always'' be new updates (and not just flavour ones). We can never know for sure how long it will be between significant updates, sometimes months, other times only a week. In the meantime, you can always find new challenges. Try going solo in a very dangerous suburb or find a group to go with you. If you're a zombie, you can search for mega hordes like the [[Second Big Bash]] to roll with or you can even try out PKing.--{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
::Thanks for the quick response! As for the going solo thing: unfortunately, that is already what I do. I have never been able to work in a group. I find myself playing when no-one else in that suburb is, so I often do things on my own. Thank you very much for the help, though! --[[User:Sic Re Mortem|Sic Re Mortem]] 21:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Is there anyway to access a log of messages you get throughout the game? ==<br />
:No.--{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 04:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It is possible press the back button on your browser to view what has occured in your session. --[[User:Twin paradox|Twin paradox]] 10:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Yes, on some browsers. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 05:01, 1 May 2008 (BST)<br />
::It's possible for someone to write an extensions to output game logs but as of current the closest thing is Mortal's GM script.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:12, 1 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Can an infection be cured while you're a zombie? ==<br />
I had an infection when I died. If someone uses a first aid kit on me before they revive me, will I have an infection when I stand up? --[[User:Ms.Panes|Ms.Panes]] 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)<br />
:No, your infection will be cured. In fact, it's considered good practice among revivers to use a fak on a zombie before reviving them, although this does not seem to be a very common practice. --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 08:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
:I don't understand Pdeq's response. The infection is gone once you die. If you get revived, you get up at half your hit points and have no infection. You don't re-die because no one healed you. --[[User:Ram Charger|Ram Charger]] 09:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
::Actually, thats nonsense. When you die of an infection, you keep the infection. If you subsequently get revived, you will start losing hp again every action you take, starting with standing up. I have been revived enough times against my will to know this to be true. There are plenty of suggestions in the archives to make infection go away on death or be cured with the syringe. None have been implimented, because, to be blunt, being infected is a minor nuisance, no more, no less. Carry a FAK or two at all times and you are pretty much immune to infection harm. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 10:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
::Listen to Grim, he is right. Infection doesn't go away until someone, anyone, uses an FAK on you, when they do it doesn't matter if you're alive or dead it will cure the infection. Nothing else will cure infection, only FAKs.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
:My apologies;I stand corrected then. Perhaps I was just cured at the same time as being revived. Guess I need to carry a FAK with my syringes now... Seems kind of silly, but we don't make the rules.--[[User:Ram Charger|Ram Charger]] 10:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
::It is more efficient for the infected/revived person to carry their own FAK, and cure their infection when they stand up after revivification. That way they also get an additional 10HP on top of the 30 (25) they stand up with after revivification. If you heal a zombie, then revive them, they still stand up with half their maximum HP, regardless <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 10:11 27 December 2007 (BST)</small><br />
:::True, but you can't count on people (especially new players) always having a fak on them, so I suppose a reviver has to judge if it is worth the extra ap expenditure to make sure every person they revive gets cured of infection. --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 18:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
::::They'll learn sooner if you don't mollycoddle 'em ;) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 10:01 29 January 2008 (BST)</small><br />
:::::Nothing like death to teach folks a lesson, eh? --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 08:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::They'll learn pretty fast never to stray far from a hospital.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 10:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Is there a bot that can shield you from harm?==<br />
I spent 20+ AP and only dealt 3 damage to this mushroom guy(I have maxed out hand attacks) -[[User:Ottotorrens|Ottotorrens]] 14:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
:There's no bot that could do that in urban dead, it must just have been bad luck. Better luck next time! --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 15:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
::But this happens all the time (twice today) --[[User:Ottotorrens|Ottotorrens]] 14:42, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Bad luck. There'll be times when you're not having a good week, and times when you are. This time, Lady Luck isn't on your side. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 14:52, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Can I request a user to be deleted due to an offensive username?==<br />
I would like to see the following user deleted:<br />
http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=641207<br />
How do I request this and to who and where? I would assume Urban Dead does not accept racial hate messages in any form. <br />
--[[User:Twin paradox|Twin paradox]] 09:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I'm going to assume from the lack of response to my question that no it is not possible to have a user deleted from Urban Dead due to an offensive username. I suppose just as bigots live in our society, bigots live in Malton but I'm hoping this is a very small proportion of people. It would be nice to think that this person is unbiggoted and just trying to be funny by making a bad joke. --[[User:Twin paradox|Twin paradox]] 11:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
:I believe [[User_talk:Kevan/Archive#Not_a_Bug|this]], from [[Kevan]], is the most that's ever been said on the topic, and it sounds like a big no. Although, there are apparently game countermeasures to deal with such things on at least some level.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 11:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
::That's a fair enough explaination. I came across some similar rubbish spray painted on the inside of one of Malton's buildings today. That's 2 1/2 months after I sighted that user with the offensive name so it good that this type of thing is uncommon. I removed the message by spray painting over it with a friendlier comment which, from the link above, is how these things are regulated in this game.--[[User:Twin paradox|Twin paradox]] 11:18, 14 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Can I request a group to be deleted due to an offensive page and name?==<br />
I would like very much to see [[Columbine Kids|The Columbine Kids]] removed. How can I see to it that this will be removed? 'http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Columbine_Kids' is very offensive, and I personally find it disgusting. [[User:Comrade 47|Comrade 47]] 23:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
:You can request a page be deleted at [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions]], although I see no criterion that would make it eligible for deletion. --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 08:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
:: [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/Aug_2007#Columbine_Kids|'''Double Jeopardy''']], mate. Out of interest, did you actually read ''any'' of the main page (beyond baulking at the title)? -- {{User:CrystalEyes/Sig}}<br />
::: Maybe you guys can add that to your talk page or an NPOV section of the main page, for easy access and incase a request comes up in the future. Oh, and I don't believe we actually have a double jeopardy type rule here for deletions.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 22:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::: [[Talk:Columbine_Kids|'''Done''']], although it surprises me that you can repeatedly put a page up for deletion just because you don't like it. Surely once it's gone through the voting system that should be the end of it? -- {{User:CrystalEyes/Sig}}<br />
:::I didn't read your page, as I'm not the one requesting it be deleted. Hopefully you meant to direct your question to Comrade<s>whoever left the question (their signature seems to be missing)</s> (sig fixed). I also do not see this "double jeopardy" criterion you are referring to. --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 08:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::: No, it was aimed at the guy requesting its deletion; i apologise for any confusion. And, since he's added his sig, i wish i hadn't bothered - he's a griefer and a complete waste of oxygen. I'm not even entirely sure he ''can'' read. Anyway, my apologies Pgeq. --{{User:CrystalEyes/Sig}}<br />
::::: Offensive page and name? Ever heard of SHOCK VALUE!? No to delete.--[[User:Forgotten86|Forgotten86]] 06:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
::::::Such voting would take place on [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions]] if this is put up for deletion. This FAQ is simply for answering questions. --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 05:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==I have the infection skill, but not every bite causes infection. Is this a bug?==<br />
I bit someone and got the message "You bite ''playername'' for 4 damage. They drop to 46 HP." but the thing is, I have infection. Sometimes it has the text saying I infect them, sometimes it doesn't, even if it's my first time biting them. I thought infection was supposed to be 100% effective, so why didn't it work? --[[User:Ms.Panes|Ms.Panes]] 17:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Do you also have [[Scent Blood]]? If not get it, as you might be biting people who are already infected and might not have [[Body Building]]. Otherwise, yes, it is a bug, a rather old and constant one at that. You should be able to find it in [[Known Bugs]] or in the Bugs Reported More Than Once section of [[Bug Reports]].--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 18:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
== I am running out of pistol bullets what do I do ==<br />
plese help me<br />
Ryal<br />
:Look for a [[Police Department]] or [[Mall]] near your location by going to [[Suburb]] and clicking on the name of the suburb you are currently in(it will lead to a page with a map). --<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 03:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Pistol clips can be found at [[Police Department]]s, [[Mall Gun Stores]], and [[Fort Armories]]. [[User:Ioncannon11|Ioncannon11]] 22:09, 21 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== The Stack ==<br />
<br />
Playing as a zombie for the first time, when I enter a building and all the players are listed, what defines the order? Is it order of last action? From least to most active?--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
:The target list is ordered the same way it is for fighting zombies. Least active at the top, most active at the bottom. Zombies always under Survivors, Non-mobile objects(generators, barricade, etc.) at the bottom. The only difference is that you can target each individual character in the stack.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 02:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Sharing accounts ==<br />
i have 2 account in separate areas, my friends want to start playing Urban dead, could i give him one of those accounts or is that zerging? --RAUNEMASTERYX 21:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
:Thats fine, hopefully your accounts don't have the same password though :P --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Harmans ==<br />
Is harmans a misspelling or a joke? Look at this search page. <br />
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Special:Search?search=harmans ([[User:IRMacGuyver|IRMacGuyver]] 05:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC))<br />
:"Harman" is the [[KiZombie]] word for a "human" aka a survivor. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 05:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Its the most common way zombies say the word 'human' in-game, as they are limited it what letters they can say. Some people like to use it out of the game as well.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Contact List==<br />
Is there any way I can find out who adds me to their contact list? {{Unsigned|John Kingston|02:26, 28 April 2008}}<br />
:No. --{{User:Pdeq/sig}} 08:17, 28 April 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== HELP!!!! ==<br />
<br />
Okay, I have two profiles, in two different suburbs on different sides of the city. However, everytime I go to me original profile, I try to move, then it switches to the other. I tried changing the e-mail address on my second, and running out of AP, but it doesn't work. What should I DO????--[[User:John Kingston]] 0:54, 9 May 2008 (BST)<br />
:try clearing your cookies and using one with IE and one with firefox - if i problems with my contacts if i run all 3 characters on firefox sometimes. Oh and always log out, instead of just redirecting your browser. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:12, 10 May 2008 (BST)<br />
::Personally, I would like to point out that clearing your cookies will remove all instant remembered passwords from your computer, and if you have any playlists on itunes, these will often ALL be deleted. [[User:Yonnua Koponen|Yonnua Koponen]] 21:48, 12 May 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Your browser cookies shouldn't affect your itunes program. And in firefox clearing your cookies will not clear your saved passwords. --[[User:Pdeq|<span style="color: green">Pdeq</span>]]<sup><span style="color: blue">[[User_talk:Pdeq|Talk]][[Signature Race|*]]</span></sup> 07:41, 13 May 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Are you signing out of the first one before you play the other one? [[User:No-genius|No-genius]] 11:49, 13 May 2008 (BST)<br />
:When you switch to another character, log out of the one you are on at the time. Your cookies are probably messed up. [[User:Ioncannon11|Ioncannon11]] 22:05, 21 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Is this Zerging - PLEASE HELP ==<br />
<br />
Hi - I've been playing UD for several months now with my profile usually based in Willimasville. Now my younger brother has started playing and wants to join the group im in. We DONT use the same computer BUT we are in the same house on the same network. While the IPs on our computers are slightly different and vary will we still be flagged as Zerging (does it read the computers IP or the Modem that we go through - we use AOL)????. I hope you understand and please help - while I want to play with my brother I dont want to flagged as Zerging --[[User:Feon Kensai|Feon Kensai]] 20:52, 12 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Assuming that your IP addresses are different, it shouldn't be flagged as zerging, but you might want to test it with him there. It doesn't sound like zerging to me, even if you help him find zombies to attack, its no more than what someone in your group might do for someone they don't even know. So, I think it should be fine. [[User:No-genius|No-genius]] 11:47, 13 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:No, there are a ton of people who do this with their family. AOL does this whole switcharoo thing with your ip anyway, so it would be different in any case. [[User:Ioncannon11|Ioncannon11]] 22:03, 21 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Reviving?==<br />
<br />
I have been trying to figure out how to revive for a while now. every time i use the syringe, it never produces a button to ask me if i want to revive. is there a certain place i should be looking? i always read the profile, but i can't find any button where i can revive the zombie. --[[User:Lozer killa|Lozer killa]] 03:49, 28 July 2008 (BST)<br />
:The first question that I'll ask you is if you have the skill "Lab Experience." Without that skill, you cannot use revivification syringes. If you're scanning zombie profiles, you're using a DNA extractor and have the "Necrotech Employment" Skill, but cannot yet use syringes. -- {{User:KF/PKsig}} 08:36, 28 July 2008 (BST)<br />
:: I do have all of the reviving skills, but i think i have discovered why. <br />
----</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Developing_Suggestions&diff=1271110Developing Suggestions2008-09-10T21:15:50Z<p>Janine: /* Discussion (Scavenging) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Suggestion Navigation}}<br />
==Developing Suggestions==<br />
''This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which '''have not yet been submitted''' and are still being worked on.''<br />
<br />
===Further Discussion===<br />
Discussion concerning this page takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Discussion_About_Talk:Suggestions|here]].<br />
Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general (including policies about it) takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Suggestion_Discussion|here]].<br />
<br />
Nothing on this page will be archived.<br />
<br />
== Please Read Before Posting ==<br />
<br />
*''Be sure to check [[Frequently Suggested#The List|The Frequently Suggested List]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots | Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]] before you post your idea.'' There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a '''dupe''', or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. '''These include [[Suggestions/RejectedNovember2005#SMG.2FMachine_Pistol|Machine Guns]] and [[Suggestions/24th-Apr-2007#Rooftops.2C_Sniper_Rifle.2C_and_Sniper_Ammo|Sniper Rifles]]'''. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.<br />
*Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.<br />
*It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.<br />
<br />
== How To Make a Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
====Format for Suggestions under development====<br />
<br />
Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header <br />
"'''[[Talk:Suggestions#Suggestions|Suggestions]]'''", paste the copied text '''above''' the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in <span style="color: red">red</span> with the details of your suggestion.<br />
<br />
<nowiki><br />
===</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion</font><nowiki>===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=~~~~<br />
|suggest_type=</nowiki><font color="red">Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_scope=</nowiki><font color="red">Who or what it applies to.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_description=</nowiki><font color="red">Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.</font><nowiki><br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion Name</font><nowiki>)====<br />
----</nowiki><br />
<br />
====Cycling Suggestions====<br />
Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit. <br />
<br />
This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the [[Talk:Suggestions/Overflow1|Overflow]]-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.<br />
<br />
If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the <nowiki>{{SNRV|X}}</nowiki> at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:1.5em"><font color="red">'''Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.'''</font></span><br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Suggestions==<br />
<br />
===Scavenging===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:01, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors.<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
<br />
Change the name of Bargain Hunting to Scavenging.<br />
<br />
Now the skill gives a flat +10% chance for a successful search in ANY building. What item you get would still be random as normal.<br />
<br />
Sub-skill:<br />
Focused Search<br />
Costs: 100 points<br />
<br />
Each building has a new option to do a focused search. A building will have a drop down menu of every item you can find in it, and you can choose what you want to look for, but you suffer a -10% to the base chance for a successful search. So it would be as if you didn't have the Scavenging skill at all, but still take a -10% to the unmodified base chance on top of that.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Scavenging)====<br />
Bnhr. Doesn't seem bad.. Your thoughts? {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 20:27, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:So its a global 10% increase in search rates? Justification? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:36, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Would this skill also buff mall searches or just searches that are in regular buildings? Any search buff that includes malls will get spammed out of existence pretty fast.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:15, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Expand Malton Map===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 17:52, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Map Improvement / add-on<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, Zombies<br />
|suggest_description=This would make for a lot of work on Kevan's part, but I suggest adding a suburb-sized corridor of forest to one side of the map's edge, leading to a small town or a cluster of small towns a few suburbs large. This new area would have limited resource buildings (because it's out in the country) and no NT buildings so that it would be very difficult to revive there. It would be ideal for experienced survivors willing to take on the challenge, as it would be a little bit like Monroeville only instead of permanent death you'd have to travel very far to get revived or face a long revive queue. Survivors who don't like this area or think zombies have an unfair advantage can simply stay in urban Malton.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Expand Malton Map)====<br />
<br />
As much as I like the idea of introducing elemts of the Monroeville map to Malton, I just can't see it happening this way. Besides, we already have suburb sized survivor deserts - walked around Dunell Hills lately? Plus you couldn't justify it in game - why does the city have a line of forest nest to it? And why has the barricade zone been increased? --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 19:54, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
You've been [[PR_Malton#Fallback|Fallback'd]]. Still nice idea, And starting with T:S first. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 20:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 20:57, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New usage of existing skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors in ruined, especially long-ruined buildings.<br />
|suggest_description=A survivor with the Construction skill and a toolbox has a new action button: "Repair One Day's Decay (3AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs, and reduce the building's number of days decayed, and the AP required to repair it, by one. This option would only appear if the building has been ruined for four or more days.<br />
<br />
This gives survivors who are repairing long-ruined buildings, such as forts which have been in zombie hands for weeks, an opportunity to coordinate and distribute the AP cost of repairs, which in some cases can drive a fully-rested survivor into negative AP. This coordination is extremely time-consuming, and thus requires triple the AP that repairing the building alone would consume. Eventually, this coordination would reduce the remaining work to a job that one survivor could finish, and that survivor can simply click "Repair" to complete the repairs.<br />
<br />
This suggestion is an attempt to build consensus for or against several previously [[Undecided Suggestions]], such as [[Suggestion:20080804 Repairing Really Ruined Buildings|Repairing Really Ruined Buildings]], [[Suggestion:20080625 Ruin Repairing change|Ruin Repairing Change]], and [[Suggestion:20080729 Partial Repair|Partial Repair]].<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP)====<br />
Oh look, a survivor complaining about how hard it is to coordinate efforts among several survivors. You have clearly never played as a zombie. Zombies have to coordinate efforts all the time to just get into buildings. You don't want to spend 40+ AP to repair a building? Get off your ass and take it back sooner. Organize a better defense of it in the first place. Changing the mechanics because some players suck at the game is retarded.<br />
Let's stop pitching in Major League Baseball because not everyone can get a home run. Let's make it like T-Ball. If the game is made easier for THE MAJORITY OF THE PLAYERS that will really make it fun for the minority! --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:21, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Sometimes, when I read your replies, I wonder which game you're playing. Just a heads-up, this is the suggestion discussion area for a browser-based casual game about humans and zombies called Urban Dead. Some people have commented that survivors, despite outnumbering the zombies, have Rambo syndrome and never cooperate. This suggestion would give them an option to cooperate, though at a higher total AP cost than sacrificing one human to repair the building and then reviving him later, which requires no cooperation beyond standing at an RP and saying, "Mrh?" [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::No, Dago, this suggestion will make it easier for strafing repairs without danger to the survivors and therefore completely nerf the ruin update. You seem to forget that there is no mechanic available to a zombie to speed up the AP needed to repair a building, so ideas like this that cost low AP to undo something that only time can change are stupid and horribly unbalanced. Using your numbers - 3 AP will remove 2 APs worth of damage. So,if a survivor has 40 AP to spend that is 13 clicks which equals 26 AP. '''So for 1 day's worth of AP a survivor can undo a month's worth of damage and still be able to get away.''' And you want to make this so more than one survivor can repair a ruin like this? The current system is much better because it is all or nothing. But please whine about how I don't offer constructive criticism since you didn't bother to read any of the comments on the suggestions you are raping to make this abortion of an idea. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:30, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Again, you add racial slurs and little else to the discussion. You also have a math error there. A building costs 1 AP per day to repair, so this suggestion would triple the AP required. A survivor who happens to have maximum AP can repair a month of ruin and get away, by spending 30 AP, and would not need to click anything 13 times. Also, you are correct that you don't offer constructive criticism, you only offer rage and spite. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You have reading errors then. You posted ''"Repair One Day's Decay (2AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs'' One day's decay is not 2 AP like you posted in the suggestion. If you are saying that it triples the amount of AP needed to repair then spending 30 AP should only undo 10 AP worth of damage. This goes back to my whole point about making strafing repair runs and how it isn't fair that zombies can't undo the exact amount of damage that survivors can repair, but you seemed to have missed all that you fuckstick. (are insults better than racial slurs? I could call you a wop if you would prefer that.) You know, the only reason I add the slurs and insults is so people like you and Galaxy have something to latch onto and reply to since you obviously don't listen to reason or experience. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Congratulations! You can spot typos and swear on the internet! I'm afraid I can only fix the first, though. Thanks! [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You can't even be bothered to proof read your own suggestion? Really now. How hard would that have been? It wasn't even that far into the suggestion. It was right toward the top. The fact that you didn't read your suggestion before you posted it also tells me that you didn't think about it too much and just hit SAVE PAGE. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 17:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Maybe if survivors don't act like Rambo and actually did teamwork, this would be a non-issue. After all you only need three people tops to repair a building: one to search for gennies and fuel and install them (for dark), one to repair, and one to barricade. On the other hand it takes more than three zombies to take one EHB building with those same three survivors in it. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 00:53, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Actually, this suggestion would ''encourage'' teamwork. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Therefore, you admit that survivors don't actually do much teamwork in the first place if they have to get a massive buff for them to get their asses moving to repair all those dark buildings. Quite a sad state of affairs, isn't it? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:55, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::It is. Want to fix it? [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You do not solve social problems such as survivor laziness by changing the game's design; if you do that, all it would do is show that their laziness is perfectly fine, and that mocks all the organized effort zombie groups do just to keep your shit ruined. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 14:08, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I look forward to your suggestion on how to solve social problems. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I look forward to you making a non-crappy suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bitching about how hard it is for one group and how crap the other plays is hardly constructive now is it? The main use for this would not be for survivors to co-operate (it should be but wouldn't get used in that way) instead this would enable altruistic survivors the chance to slowly fix up a ruin without leaving them self out in the open! Sadly that very fact means that this would just attract hordes of low level zergs to gradually rebuild an area with less risk of needing revives :( --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:11, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, but at a higher AP cost than repairing and reviving. It gives survivors options, but doesn't take anything away from Zombies except for APs that would otherwise be used pumping shotgun shells into them. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This isn't needed. shit, Fort Perryn was just taken back and it was ruined for a while (not as long as some buildings up north, granted). oh, and DCC: calm down.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 03:12, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Needed? Maybe not. But it makes sense, it encourages survivor cooperation, and it soaks survivor APs. All are things that both zombie and survivor players have said the game needs. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::How in the fuck is survivors cooperating something zombies need? When did any ZOMBIE player say they needed survivors to pull together? Survivors are really fucking lucky this game doesn't have perma-death and that the creator steps in to help them out when their own stupidity leads them to the brink of destruction. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:39, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::How long have you been around? Zombie players have been some of the main ones bit*hing that survivors are too damn uncoordinated, not that it would help zombies, but it would make the game funner to play. Not everything is about game-mechanics, and if there were no survivors left why would you play? Sounds to me you're putting down the game because survivors are stupid, yet are bit*hing they shoulden't be forced to be smart, like zombies are... and that my friend, is more f**ked up then any susgestion ever made.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 03:02, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::[http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=97517 I've] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Many been] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/DARIS around] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Dead awhile.] The survivors being coordinated or not does not make the zombie aspect of the game "funner". And when zombie players bitch that the survivors suck it is because instead of trying to get together and work as a team they all just suggest buffs to themselves or nerfs to zombies to solve the problem. Buffing them unfairly does not "force them to be smart". --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Remember that what is fun for you is not fun for all zombie players. Some zombie players want to do something other than turn brainz into Mrh? cows. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Enlighten me, Oh Zombie Master, what else a zombie can do in this fucking game. They can't spread zombie grafitti, play on the radio, or even hold IC conversations (since their alphabet is so fucking limited). They can't even get XP through any means other than hitting survivors (or other zombies). Other than killing what the fuck can a person that plays a zombie do? That's why it is so frustrating when assholes like you want to come along and make things harder on the few people that actually fucking play zombies in this zombie "apocalypse" game. Keep suggesting stupid shit and drive off the zed players. Then you and the rest of the dipstick survivors can have your little circle jerk in peace without those pesky undead. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::And we can have campfires and sing "Kumbaya". I'm glad to see you're keeping an open mind. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Quit having such a smarmy attitude and responding to everyone's comments with something that you seem to consider a comeback, Deyo. People are offering straight forward critiques of this, and all of the similar ideas. Reaching a compromise of idea's that were spammed or duped or otherwise rejected for their overall um-workability is still just an unworkable idea. The whole point of saying dupe is that what needs to be said has been said, and we don't need to hash over all the arguments all over again. its up to you to read through those and realize for yourself that it won't work, and try to come up with something actually creative or unique, otherwise you will simply be spam voted or dupe voted down. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 07:25, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Between smarmy and hateful, I'll take smarmy every time. Zombie replies to any suggestion that gives survivors any additional options have been akin to "YOU RAEPD MAI DOG!" I don't claim to understand it, so I attempt to defuse it by turning their own words against them. For example, you say that the ideas were spammed, duped, or otherwise rejected. This is untrue. The suggestions were all '''Undecided''' at the end of voting. My hope is that by making this option unattractive to all but the most organized survivor groups, it will be less offensive to the zombie players who seem to be the most vocal and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war impassioned] contributors to this wiki. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. You say this is to encourage them to work together, but really, all this does is make it so that ''individuals'' can do the damage rather than groups, as currently exists. This doesnt in any way encourage group play, it instead encourages the opposite, lone wolf stupid survivor play thats been a huge detriment to the survivor game since the dawn of UD and its that attitude that has resulted in all the nasty holocausts performed by zombies. (I know, i helped plan several of them). You have an "Us versus Them" mentality, which definately isnt going to serve you well here.<br>You have probably already noted that they have stopped discussing reasonably and started flaming you. This isnt because they are zombies and dont want the humans to get new toys, this is because you are being, to put it mildly, a stubborn intransigent nullwit. You dont see the game from both sides, and therefore have a false impression of the other side. Having been zombie fodder, zombie leader, survivor, bounty hunter, pker and specialty reviver on various alts through the years, i can tell you right off the bat that this kind of suggestion is a bad idea, not as bad as your headshot one you suggested previously, but only because that was so horrendous that it makes Cthulhu look handsome by comparison.<br>What is needed is some way for humans to work together (Current ruin does this, with one person clearing, another fixing, and more cading). This isnt to make the game more fun for zombies, but so humans such as yourself stop bitching and moaning on this page for buffs every time som e treasured area goes up the creek without a paddle, or when some large area of the city is devestated by a huge confederation of allied zombies pulling a gargantuan cloud of ferals. The other, and more important reason follows on from that: If you know how to play properly, alone or in a group, you wouldnt get in that kind of mess in the first place. The only reason you think this is needed at all is because some buildings have ruin repair costs of as much as a hundred ap at this time (Best ive seen anyway), but you dont realise that its been ages since the zombies were even there, and the only reason the costs got anywhere near that is because you guys were fucking lazy.<br>Fortunately there are some groups out there actually getting off thier arses and fixing those regions so the braindead fuckwits that make up the majority of the survivor population have a place to live when the zombies come and rape the rest of the city out from under them. Those people fixing those eareas in the city are the real heroes, not the stupid twits who it in a buiolding as the horde advances shouting our orders to barricade and whatnot.<br>This suggestion simply defies the entire concept of making survivors play better and smarter, alone or in groups, encouraging retarded recovery operations that, while they would probably work, would leave the survivor population as the bunch of gibbering morons they are now. Forcing them to play smarter, like kevan forced zombies to do, is the only way to even out the game properly. Giving one side toys because its losing doesnt make things fair, it only shores up the innat unfairness already there.<br>Ugh thats long and rambling, but it has some key points in there you should consider. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 06:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thank you for a considered and reasonable response, Grimch. Obviously, I agree with you that the game needs both methods and reasons for survivors to cooperate, but most of the suggestions I've seen to encourage, enforce, or enable cooperation have been unbalanced, overcomplicated, or both. What I had hoped to provide here was a mechanism for cooperation that was simple and balanced, allowing three survivors to do the work of one, bit by bit. You mention the 100+AP buildings in the north, and I'll admit that you've topped my record -- the worst I've seen was 86AP. Even that building would take more than five survivor-days work to repair cooperatively, whereas a single survivor could run in with max AP, repair it, and walk to a revive point two days later, where a second survivor could revive him, for a net cost of 110APs, or just over two survivor-days total. Those who vociferously decry this suggestion as a "survivor buff" don't seem to me to be looking at the hard numbers. A single survivor using this system to repair a 100+ AP building would be spending 4+ AP per day just to walk back and forth between a ruined and a barricaded building, and the remaining AP fighting back entropy two weeks at a time. That method would take four days to get the building down to a single day's repair job, for five days' total repair time. It's unrealistic to me to think that there's a survivor out there willing to spend weeks "Rambo repairing" ruined buildings. And if there is, what's the harm? If there are more than 20 buildings in such a state, they'll be decaying faster than he's repairing them. I remain unconvinced that this suggestion would lead to "vigilante repairmen". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 07:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::No, but if it leads to wasted AP, why promote it? Its a new but DUMBER way to do things. OTOH, theres a small but growing group of people who do "suicide repairs" just for fun and giggles, and they are kicking repair costs on those 80+ AP buildings back down to 1, and having fun doing it. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:58, 10 September 2008 (BST) <br />
----<br />
I '''like''' this idea, because it means that GROUPS of humans can work together to fix a building, instead of ''one'' person losing two days as an immobile stone while the building is zerged. 74 AP building... that means I'm a rock for a loooong time. Doesn't it make sense that the AP repair costs could be shared? Especially if it costs MORE AP to do distributed repair... it would be worth it if it meant the survivors could remain active. Just as a note: I play ''dual nature'', so I'm aware of the ransack-ruin drama from a zed's point of view quite intimately. [[User:Soror Repentia Azalea|Qızılbaş]] 15:53, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:You can pretty much do this right now. Again, you only need at most three people to repair any building block in the game, provided they have been emptied of zombies. What this only provides is a massive survivor buff against ruin by getting rid for a measly 3 AP to remove one ruin point while zombies wait for ''one whole day'' to achieve the same. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:00, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Mister Deyo, I suggest that you '''stop''' suggesting Survivor Buffs that nerf Ruin. Matter of fact I might suggest a new zombie skill specifically to double the ruin already in place in any building just so people stop trying to nerf ruin and darkness. Seriously buffing survivors to get them to work together is just a horrible idea. There are how many survivor groups already in place? If a survivor doesn't join a group, it's because most groups are the same. Not because they have no reason to join a group.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:11, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===Loot dead bodys===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 03:02, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=People how like to steal.<br />
|suggest_description=Looting dead bodys is pretty self explantory. This would be a 100 XP skill that allows you to loot from peoples dead bodys with a 20% succes rate. When you loot a dead body you dont know what you will get, so you could get a genrator to a baseball bat. I will go into more detail if this idea is well accepted.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Loot dead bodys)====<br />
Looting dead bodies = trading. And that one's been spammed and duped so many times it's in the do-not-suggest list. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 03:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
except for the fact about wastin alot of AP, and not knowing what your goint to get. Yes it is like trading :[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 03:59, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is a [[Suggestion:20080310 Unzergable Lootin'|dupe]], probably more than one. Taking items from people is a bad thing (and if it's magically conjured items looted from bodies, that's bad as well and likely a dupe too). --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 04:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Don't be lazy. Its obvious you think this is going to tank if you'll "go into more detail if this idea is well accepted". This isn't even a dupe since there is hardly anything IN the suggestion to dupe. From what I can tell, your suggesting that a single dead body of any level, regardless of the corpse's actual equipment, becomes an instant reservoir of unlimited equipment of any type. The fact it is 20% and "you don't know what you get" is irrelevant. This, as I read it, would make a single zerge (level 1 corpse) a perma-search item.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Dupe-o-fucking-rama. And spam-o-fucking-licious. Seriously, man... Read the Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested, already. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:47, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Improve the Banks===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 23:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Add to Bank.<br />
|suggest_scope=All people how enter a bank.<br />
|suggest_description=I belive banks need a improvement becuase of how usless they are. The only good thing I can think about them is becuase they are so useless no zombie would go near it, and it would make a good hiding place. But the problem is what good could a bank be in a place like Malton. The only iteam I could think about finding there would be a pistol and clip becuase of securtity guards. So if not iteams why not something else?<br />
<br />
What is a bank if not a big place to safly guard your valuables? Why not allow the bank to be more heavly barricaded or use the vault? This is still a rough idea, which is why I am talking here. Now, allow me to address two problems I can see with my idea. One is why you would even want to have a extra lelvel of barricades or a vault, the bank does not have anything. And the other being that you should not mess with the barricades, to those people look here [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/PR_Buildings:_Multiple_Types]]. and then go to "Max Cades Varies by Building Type" sujestion.<br />
<br />
As I said, this is still a rough idea and I would like inmput, and not just "this wont work so shut up".<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bank improvment)====<br />
Don't banks go dark? If so why isn't that defensive buff enough?--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:16, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure the bank description says the vaults are already looted empty. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:24, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
"The vault lies open, its contents either looted or transferred." thats what the text is. They make great forward bases and safe houses so they are fine as they are. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 01:31, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I meant using the vaults as a defensive measure, any way banks are useless.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 01:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:They make great safehouses for PKers. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:46, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Okay go look at the 2-10 player sized groups. They thrive in banks. As a defensive measure they would be useless to begin with, as entry points, safe houses and lit, they keep zombie hordes down enough.[[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 02:17, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
True, but that is really it. You dont get anything from the bank or find any purpose for it execpt from what you already said, I just want banks to contribute to Malton in a bigger way.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 01:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The same can be said for wastelands. You think we should plant flowers in them? I'm all for multi-colored wastelands... pink is nice... --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:05, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We need flowers for wastlands dude, there a eye sore. But sersouly, ther is a diffrence between a wastland and a bank.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yeah, banks make great safehouses. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:35, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
It appears this is a bad Suggestion, so I will think of a new one.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Dupe-o-rific. And, some buildings are useless. Not everything is a TRP. This is a ''good'' thing. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:49, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A FUCKING MEN! Next thing these assholes will suggest will be clips and ammo found in the street.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::They can be, you just have a horrible horrible search rate for them though. Ive found a shotgun shell and a flare gun. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 05:13, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::My Monroe PKer accidentally searched the street and found ''a rusty knife''. I took especial joy in shanking people with it, and with luck they got tetanus. <tt>:></tt> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 02:32, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Maybe a powered bank will "close" the vault for ? hours a day (Random times), and anyone entering the bank can't enter the vault during this time, but can destroy the generator. If the Generator is destroyed the locks are once again unpowered and the vault opens up. Entering the vault costs 1AP and is treated as a seperate room (Outside cannot be seen, and it must be exited for 1AP before movement once again). No-one can leave the vault while it is locked and the vault cannot be entered if the building is ruined (Treated as one building once again, with anyone inside "pushed" out.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 22:00, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Switch FAK search rates between Hospitals and Malls===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=search rate adjustment for First Aid Kits. <br />
|suggest_scope=survivors<br />
|suggest_description=''I can't find this in PR or Undecided, I looked. But if someone can find the dupe, please do.''<br />
<br />
'''The suggestion:''' Reverse the search rates for First Aid Kits in Hospital and Malls, i.e. make it easier to find FAKs in Hospitals and harder in Malls. <br />
<br />
'''The rationale:''' Pretty self-explanatory, I think. Hospitals should be the easiest place to find/jury rig first aid kits. Not malls. This would also be a nerf to mall-centric play, which I don't think is a bad thing at all. But it's a highly logical nerf, and far from unbalanced or game-breaking. <br />
<br />
'''Extra details:''' As it is, you have about a 50% chance of finding a FAK in a drugstore. In a hospital, I'd guestimate it's about 20% (I might tally my stats and see... others' experiences would be useful, too). Perhaps an ''exact'' reversal isn't in order: say 25-30% in Malls, 40-45% in Hospitals, something like that. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Switch FAKs search rates between Hospitals and Malls)====<br />
<br />
No to exact reversal, yes to your suggested percentages. That is because there are one hell of a lot of hospitals compared to mall squares. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 14:32, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We could apply the same logic to police departments and forts, in that they should have higher search rates for firearms and ammo there than malls. Not that I'm totally against your suggestion, but the way the game is designed it strikes me that Kevan intentionally made malls as the ultimate stronghold and as such they have the highest search rates for most items in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:33, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Police Stations don't keep ammo lying around. It is actually a bad idea to have excessive weapons and ammo stored where you are holding prisoners. Wal-Mart has more weapons in the sporting section than my local police station. Police Depts. have armories and firing ranges to keep weapons. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 22:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Hospitals don't keep stockpiles of first aid kits, too (or at least here they don't). The fact that there aren't any ready-made FAKs and you have to build one in a hospital reflects that. And going by supply and demand the one which is filled up with all sorts of supplies would still be the malls, and that's why they have much higher search rates for everything than all other TRPs. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:28, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: Malls would have First Aid Kits lying around in a drug store during the zombie apocalypse, Hospitals tend not to keep First Aid kits stockpiled.. If any at all, Perhaps a few.. A local sports store has far too many guns in plain sight right beside the doors. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 04:51, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::: Even if you think of FAKs are mostly badages and tape and some ointment... and I think of them as somewhat more complicated than that... Hospitals have TONS of this stuff stashed around. TONS of it. Everywhere. Moreover, they have all kinds of other medical supplies that you'd use in reality in dealing with the serious injuries that zombies cause: scissors, scalpels, sutures and needles, etc. etc. No, I just can't buy that you'd be able to get such a plethora of medical supplies in a Mall, but not in a hospital. It just makes no sense. And... Mall drugstores are overpowered. Period. 50% find rates for the second most powerful pro-survivor item in the game is just outrageous IMNSHO. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Utility != economics. Hospitals might need those materials the most, but since malls still face the greatest demand for everything it naturally follows that they will have the greatest supplies for everything. And no, mall drugstores aren't overpowered when you consider 50% of the zombie population tend to congregate within a few blocks of one. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You're whole view on this is based on cyclic thinking and is confusing cause and effect. If the malls weren't so resource independent they wouldn't need as many resources, just look at the Mall-Necrotech relationship. Right now malls are making hospitals, which are meant to be a major building, all but useless. That leads to a very simple truth, malls give FAKs too freely. Malls are too resource intensive and it's causing them to be too central to the game, zombies are near malls because all the survivors are in malls, all the survivors are in malls because they get freakishly good find rates in them. Claiming that you don't weaken that because of the thing it causes is completely backwards.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:26, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Wan Yuo, since it is a hospital of course you would be more likely to find a FAK there, and anyway Malls have alot of other stuff you can gain there.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 16:10, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Uhm, it's "Yao", not "Yuo"... It's a lame old joke alias, but it's still my alias, and it means something... Anyhooo... <br />
<br />
Cop shops are not armouries -- but gun stores in US malls practically are. So I don't really see a need to change that. You might disagree, but, c'est la vie. (And, yes, Malton is in the UK, but the city is a mix of the UK and US, it's not really one or the other in practice... so please don't go ''there''... please.) Perhaps search rates in Fort Armouries need to be boosted, but this suggestion is not addressing that... And, yes, malls are supposed to be strongholds -- however, I think the 50% search rate for FAKs is absurd. Especially when it's so hard to find FAKs in Hospitals, by comparison. And, even if you nerfed search rates in Malls -- even hypothetically across the board -- they are still going to be "fortresses" by virtue of being "one-stop-shopping" places -- you can get everything you need at a mall other than syringes. That ''alone'' makes them very powerful... I, however, appreciate Whitehouse's comments about the fact that are more Hospitals than Malls, and the modified search rates ought to reflect that. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then surgery becomes OMGMEGA-SUPER-GODLY. Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls. If it weren't for that I would support this, I don't think that this would change where people get FAKs from though which would mean it would just be a slight nerf to Malls and a big buff to Hospitals.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
First of, sorry for mispelling your name Yao, and also you dont need a 50% chance for the hospital but maybe like 40%, or something that makes the hospitals be just as good as finding FAKs in the mall.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:29, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Surgery]].--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:47, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I am well aware of what Surgery does. This is how likley you can find a FAK in a hospital and a mall drug store, from the wiki:Mall Drugstores (20%/34%), Hospitals (14%),. If they even made it 25 percent I would love it. [[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:''"Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls"'' -- Well, maybe Surgery ought to be more than just "a little" better in a Hospital. I mean we're dealing with ''Surgery''... in a ''hospital''... come on! And to AHLG below, I don't want Hospitals buffed without Malls being nerfed at the same time. That's kind of the point... Also, I did search for a dupe, but couldn't find one... maybe someone else will? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:01, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The problem with that is that healing is already the most efficient thing in the game, even without surgery, with Surgery it's more efficient, buff surgery and it makes barricades look like a joke(surgery already does 10:1 vs zombie claws). The fix would have to be in weakening something unless you start buffing the ability to do damage.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I would agree with a small percentage increase in hospitals. But check for a dupe. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:19, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd support this as well. Malls need to be reworked a bit. The percentages are too high to warrant going any where else in the game for supply purposes. But I'd also support people who use the word "Glock" to describe their pistols have them blow up upon first use.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 23:38, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Did you take Bargain Hunting into consideration? It is MORE than just a percentage switch. Hospitals also have newspapers where as Bargain Hunting automatically precludes such a find. A FAK in a hospital has a base 14% find, while the FAK in the mall has a base 20%. +14% if you have bargain hunting. This is according to the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Useful_Items#First_Aid_Kit wiki (First Aid Kit)]. So which percentage is being switched? If is the base, then the hospital will be 20% and the mall will be 14%/28%. If it is the max, the hospital would be 34%, the mall would be 14%/28% (presuming Bargain Hunting). And, again, what about newspapers?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:21, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:In actual fact, Mall search rates for a skilled Shopper are around 50%, or very close. And in a Hospital, a bit more than 14%, but not by much. Those stats on the Items page are grossly out of date and inaccurate. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also... honestly, I don't know what you're getting at with all those numbers ... they don't make sense. FAK find rates in Malls would get nerfed, and %ages in Hospitals buffed. This would ''not'' affect the %ages for anything else, there is no connection. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:03, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::What do you mean "no connection"? Yeah, I'm sure they are out of date, but they are intended to illustrate a point. Did you even check the link? The reason FAK find rates are so high in malls is because of the shopper skills. But the shopper skills do MORE than just buff the search. The also negate the search for useless items (ie. newspapers). Searching for a FAK in a hospital maybe be higher, with this suggestion, but you STILL find newspapers. Which you DON'T find in malls. So, again, why are you not taking into consideration the mall skills or newspapers?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 03:31, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Probably because you're misunderstanding what they represent. Not finding spam items doesn't mean the search rate is better for FAKs(what you want to find) it means that the search rate for what you don't want to find is dropped to 0. The only effect that would have is reducing encumbrance, which is already done by being checking it in your profile so you don't have to waste the IP hit dropping it. That there is no connection would be about right, buffing the search rate would still mean you're finding two FAKs in 3 AP even if that third AP digs up a newspaper every once in a while.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:16, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I do think FAKs in hospitals need a buff but i am not certain of these numbers... lowering the find rate for malls so it tops out at about 30% would be good (sure the drugstore has pain killers and elastoplast but wide specrum anti-biotics and morphine? I think not!) Rather than a straight buff to the hospital search rates i would rather see the "medical" classes able to build Faks much like syringe creation. Searching already says something like "you gather supplies" so why not make it possible for those with a few pre-req skills choose to build those kits with some certainty (at a cost comparable to the Malls find rate) I would suggest 5AP for anyone with 1st aid and possible 4AP for anyone with a new skill :trauma nurse or some such! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:26, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Not a bad idea, but the proliferation of hospitals would mean an already prevelant item would become even more so. Malls are difficult to hold, hence benefits are found there. Drop the search rate in malls to closer to 30% and make surgery a 20hp hit, making holding a powered hospital useful, rather than powering one, hording FAKs and bailing.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:46, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Bloodletting===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}02:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=PKer buff.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors. PKers, mostly.<br />
|suggest_description=Update revivification syringes to allow for self-targeting. If used on yourself while infected, it becomes a "virus syringe," essentially transforming the item within your inventory. "Virus syringes" cannot be found or made except by infected individuals using revivification syringes on themselves. Like a normal syringe, they have a 2% encumbrance.<br />
<br />
If used on a survivor, there's an X percent chance that this new "virus syringe" will deal 1 HP damage to the survivor and infect the survivor, and a 100-X percent chance that the virus syringe will do nothing. X is the current HP of the PKer. "Virus syringes" do nothing against zombies.<br />
<br />
As it is highly corrosive to glass, the virus will eat through the syringe in a matter of hours. Therefore, "virus syringes" are removed from an inventory after 6 hours of existing.<br />
<br />
...Because bioterrorism is an inherent part of the genre, and because it might entertain some PKers (and thus keep them from actual killing). Yes, the central idea is that the syringe is emptied outside your body, then you draw out your own blood, which contains the infection.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bloodletting)====<br />
<br />
I really wish I could be "constructive"... but this is just too retarded to comment on. Would you like some spam with that cheese, sir? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:11, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:No, sir, nor did I want that frosty. "Retarded" is happily synonymous with "belated," so I'll assume you mean this suggestion is just a little behind its time. Speaking of which, some old-fashioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Logs Lincoln logs] might help with your construction problem. Spend a few hours with those and let your dad back on his computer, okay? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}04:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Survivor infecting other survivors is a dupe, I'm fairly sure. It would be more greify than tactically useful for a PKer / death cultist, which is why (iirc) it wasn't worth keeping. Also, if you want to infect somebody, I fancy that axe you've been splitting infected zombie skulls (or the knife you just pulled from the guts of an infected survivor) would do the job rather as well as a syringe. So if infections COULD be spread that way, pretty much every sharp weapon in Malton would spread them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:23, 6 September 2008 (BST) ''edit- also, if the infection were so corrosive, every blood stained weapon or piece f clothing in the city would crumble to dust. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)''<br />
:It is a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I'd been considering [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofluoric_acid hydrofluoric acid] for that, which wouldn't damage polyester clothes, although I am not a chemist. And blood-stained weapons tend to degrade in real life, hence the NRA's preoccupation with gun cleaning. That aside, do you think (at least) that the X% likelihood is an interesting mechanic that might be able to contribute to gameplay in some other fashion?--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}00:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
PKing may be part of the game, but it does NOT need any emphasis. The game is, primarily, about survivors and zombies fighting each other with some PKing thrown in, NOT about PKing with some zombies thrown in.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I must agree with Pesatyel, this game is mainly about the Living VS Undead... with the abnormal ones mixing it up to make it more interesting (just like in reality). Emphasizing PKing just doesn't fit in well with me (although I really should ''"get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit"'' to quote Wanyao). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Ehh, when I PK, I prefer "Bang. BANG BANG." And the kill is done. The idea would be something I would never use, and as Swiers stated, it's more useful for greifers then PKers like me.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::K-B, I was referring to your comments, somewhere, which alluded to "pro-zombies" and "pro-survivors" as these inimical factions at each others' throats. That's an illusion, and a destructive one at that: most players play both sides, even if some do tend to focus more on one than the other... And most people judge suggestions on the basis of merit, not simply whether they help their "side". For example, this suggestion would be a giant-sized buff for my death cultists -- but that doesn't mean I support it... because it's just a griefing tool, and little more. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Does it grief more than, for instance, one of your death cultists outright killing someone? PKing '''is''' griefing, because survivors only ever want to be killed if they're feeding the hungry n00b zed masses. Sure, I can see survivors getting annoyed by being infected by a PKer, but it would be less aggravating than having to spend AP hunting a revive (which costs more AP than a FAK). Thank you for your constructive criticism. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
NEEDLE SHARING IS NEVER SAFE! THIS SUGGESTION SPREADS HEPATITIS Z! Not to mention it's stupid as fuck and so out of genre gameplay here. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:If you consider "fuck" stupid, does that means I can apply for a timeshare with your girlfriend? Although, for reference, I invite you to check out how the Fantastic Four were infected in ''Marvel Zombies''. Or talk to me on my talk page and I'll happily spoil it for you.--{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::You see, this is what I am on about. I call your suggestion stupid and make a bad pun. You make a personal slur against my girlfriend. Then you bring up a comic book that isn't a survival horror comic, but just a zombie alternate universe. Yet you are still going to bitch about what I said even though you are the one making this personal. Get fucked and stop suggesting things. There that was personal. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:32, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Marvel Zombies'' isn't a zombie alternate universe. The scene in question within the comic is not dependent upon any of the fantastical elements of the Marvel universe. I understand that you're unhappy that you unsuccessfully trolled for lols with 'NEEDLE SHARING IS...HEPATITIS Z,' so my deconstruction of your single-cheeked argument is just rubbing salt in the wound. But please, don't take it personally. I don't object to you, just your casual use of expletives. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::''An alternate reality in which mutants are turned into flesh eating zombies, set on Earth-2149. In the end of the series, The Zombies eat Zombie Silver Surfer and get infused with the power cosmic.'' SPOILER ALERT! You are right. I didn't get as many "lulz" as your initial suggestion did. You bested me, good sir! I didn't add more than a quick comment because why would I need to repeat all of the other reasons that your suggestion is bad? Oh right, because you are a fucking retard. I forgot. And as far as my use of "expletives" that's a really bad argument seeing that this wiki is international and what is an expletive to you might not be one to me, you bloody cunt. And for the record, you couldn't handle [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Katthew MY GIRLFRIEND]--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:38, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::The only criticism you offered was saying that this suggestion is out-of-genre. That could've been done in six words, possibly fewer, without wasting your precious time with your, erm, "pun." And, moreover, you haven't yet discussed (or apparently thought about) that criticism, instead just quoting Comiczine where your own knowledge failed you. While I usually try to use the same profanity standards as the game, I take special exception with poor or improper use of words such as "fuck," as such tends to cause them to eventually lose their meaning. You, sir, are killing the English language. And for the record, I wouldn't want to handle your girlfriend. Ability is not equivalent to desire. --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:47, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Wait wait wait.. this stick is up your ass because I said more than "this is out of genre" and I called your idea stupid? You're all butthurt because I didn't like your idea and therefore by extension you? You resorted to personal attacks and some faggy rant about a shitty comic because I didn't come all over myself with joy at you sharing this EARTH SHATTERINGLY NEW (dupe) IDEA WITH THE UNWORTHY ?!?! Go cry more, you shit stain.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:03, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Calm down. Pop some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laxative pills], you're wound too tight. Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic) thought that zombification was a positive evolutionary step, so he injected Susan Storm (The Invisible Woman), Johnny Storm (The Human Torch) and Ben Grimm (The Thing) with the zombie virus from that universe. After they turned, they infected him by eating parts of him. So, as there exists commonly-accepted (''Marvel Zombies'' was very successful) prior art for my suggestion, it's in-genre. And if this rant sounds faggy, it's because I'm bisexual. And I'm annoyed that you keep dragging this discussion off-topic because you're incapable of supporting your argument. --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::Oh wait a minute! You are the guy that suggested '''horses'''. I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to comment on this suggestion. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I has plastic syringes. Gawd. Oh, I forgot the part were I wake up when you starting moving and poking me, and I kick your ass.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 00:02, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What about the part where zombies you are poking with a syringe do NOT wake up and kick... er, EAT your ass? {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Recharging AP != sleeping. You might as well object to zombies not reacting to a knife or a shotgun, or humans not reacting to being clawed. It's how the game works. We've been over this before. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:50, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Exhausted, you can go no further.'' That pretty much sounds like you are going to sleep to me. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:17, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::So having 0 AP = Sleeping. But Recharging AP != Sleeping. Because I could play the game without ever having to see that message, provided I logged out with at least 1 AP. These arguments have been made before. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
This has been suggested before. It's a bad idea, and encourages out-of-character play - ie survivors deliberately seeking infection and wasting syringes. Also, and I've said this before, there is a very easy way to harm someone with a hypodermic syringe. Empty out whatever's in it, fill it with air, and inject the victim to induce a potentially fatal gas embolism. Too overpowered to be considered in UD though. --[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 23:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's true, it was made for PKing. Thanks for the point about embolisms, I'd forgotten about them. Do you have any thoughts on the X% hit likelihood as a possible mechanic for a later suggestion? --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Latent Infection===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies, their victims.<br />
|suggest_description=''After countless days of fending off the zombies, Malton's best and brightest have discovered an entirely new strain of the virus that the zombies have been using to infect their victims.''<br />
<br />
''Called the Sleeper strain, it typically has an incubation period of 6 hours before it becomes active, rapidly spreading through the victim's circulatory system, degrading living tissue at an alarming speed. The incubation period can be extended if the victim remains motionless, however.''<br />
<br />
''This new strain has proven to be almost completely immune to all forms of medicine when it is in its incubation period, however the virus seems to be easier to eradicate once it has 'awakened'. It can still resist medicine half of the time, however with surgery the virus can be always removed.''<br />
<br />
''Unfortunately, due to it's long incubation period, carriers of the virus often are not aware of when they have become infected until the virus begins to attack them. However, if the victim then gets bitten by a zombie with the more common strain of the virus, the Sleeper strain acts like an antibody, preventing the more common strain from taking hold.''<br />
<br />
New skill: Latent Infection<br />
<br />
Subskill of: Infection<br />
<br />
Abilities:<br />
* Takes 6 hours to kick in.<br />
* Causes 2 damage per AP.<br />
* Does not stack with standard Infection.<br />
* 5% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd during incubation period.<br />
* 50% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd when 'awakened'.<br />
* 100% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd by 'Surgery' in powered hospital.<br />
* Kicks in upon first movement after 6 hour incubation period.<br />
* Victim not told of infection until it 'awakens'.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Latent Infection)====<br />
in all this time have you ever even read the frequently suggested and D&DN pages? this is a dupey infection buff, the likes of which we've seen a bazillion times, and it has nothing special or redeeming about it except for a vry pointless 6 hour delay. such a delay is a) out of genre game-mechanically because time is abstract in UD b) griefs newbies c) griefs everyone who logs in only once a day d) it's overpowered -- zombies kill best by killing, and where they are weak, deal with that, instead. <br />
<br />
i'm also sure someone will be less lazy and find about 30 dupes for this. please... GIVE IT UP ALREADY, blake. go design your own game, print up the rules, get together with some friends over dice and doritos. and give ''us'' a break. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:38, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's... Urghh, it just over complicates a part of the game which doesn't need it, and is a huge buff to zombies. I'm a zombie player, but I don't like things like this. Just do what WanYao said and read the [[Frequently Suggested]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]]. Seriously, just commit them to memory.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd vote keep. And ignore the Hive Mind Kool-Aid Drinkers, Blake. The D&DN page is for wimps.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 13:38, 7 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
After three years they just now find an infection that incubates in 6 hours? somehow, that doesn't quite add up right in my mind. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 00:06, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:50, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance Change<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Ankle Grab<br />
|suggest_description='''The cost to stand up after a [[Zombie Hunter skills|Headshot]] is 15AP, whether or not the target has the [[Zombie Skills|Ankle Grab]] skill.'''<br />
<br />
This suggestion is somewhat slanted toward a Monroeville survivor's perspective.<br />
<br />
In Malton, the survivor's best chance for survival is to find a location which zombies are not currently massing to attack. The only time attacking is a viable option is when zombies are already inside a strategic building, and the survivor wants to repair the structure. Even [[Trenchcoater|Trenchcoaters]] know that when the zeds open the doors, it's time to run.<br />
<br />
In Monroeville, there is never a time when attacking is the best choice. If zombies are near, the survivor runs or the survivor dies. Attacking, even with a massive numeric advantage, is ultimately suicide.<br />
<br />
Currently, a Headshot costs a zombie 6AP, or 15AP if it doesn't have the Ankle Grab skill. To kill a 50HP unarmored zombie costs a minimum of 8AP: Three to find three shotguns loaded with five shells total, and five to bring down the zombie. A more typical number would be 24 -- 6 to find a pistol and two clips, and 18 to fire the pistol at the zombie 16 times, reloading twice, with a 65% hit rate. This means that by purchasing four skills, with seven additional skills required to reach level ten, a survivor can spend 24 AP to take 6AP from a zombie who has purchased two skills.<br />
<br />
If the AP cost to stand up from a Headshot were 15 ''regardless'' of the Ankle Grab skill, the ratio would go from 4:1 to almost 3:2, still strongly favoring the zombie, but making offense a viable tactic in Malton. In Monroeville, the few who remain might actually come out and play once in a while, instead of running like hell when one zombie gets within a block.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab)====<br />
Sure. I just fear its too late. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:59, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
You understand nothing of this game. The AP balance on barricades is 4-1 in favour of survivors at best. Add to that the fact that it takes 35-40 AP for a zombie to kill a survivor, only for the victim to get a revive for 10 AP and the cost of the syringe search. Then factor in that any survivor who isn't killed straight away can be saved with a simple FAK. I could go on and on about this, but in reality I said all that was needed in the first sentence. And seriously people, stop whining about fucking Monroeville. It's a temporary city which is going to be shut down, which makes it entirely irrelevant when discussing the mechanics of Urban Dead as a game. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 20:04, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:"and the cost of the syringe search". I love how you abstract away about 10-15 APs and call it "balanced". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And that only turns out to 20-25 AP, even if you factor in the syringe search. we could keep on discussing the maths of this, but Grim did it for us a few months back: read his rant on the [[User:Grim_s/Rants/Revival_Imbalance|revive imbalance]]. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 05:14, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Total Zombie AP spent (Including recovering from kills by Humans, thank you for padding your numbers): 483. Total Human AP spent: 322. Ratio: 3/2, compared to 4/1 for survivors headshotting zombies. Zombies win, again, by whining louder than the humans. I thought you were supposed to moan. In any event, thank you for showing us the math that proves that zombies have a massive combat AP advantage. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 17:30, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You really haven't grasped this game at all. Allow me to explain: This is a game of 'classes' in which zombies are designed to kill whilst survivors are designed to, get this '''survive'''! Therefore zombies are the attacking class and survivors are the defending class. What a shock to absolutely no-one with a modicum of intellect then that zombies get a combat advantage whilst survivors get a defensive advantage. The greatest 'weapons' that survivors have in this game are revivification syringes, first aid kits and barricades, so whilst it may not appeal to your BOOM! HEADSHOT! masturbation fantasies to have killing zombies be far less important than barricading buildings, healing and reviving, that's the way the game works. Your job is to survive. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 08:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Revivification syringes mean that survivors can go on the offensive, which nulls your given simplification. If each survivor revived two zombies and then died, the game would slowly progress to the survivor side of things. And that's with no barricading or defensive gameplay necessary.--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::That's a byproduct of design and one forced by the nature of the game rather than intent. The only way to make combat revives impossible would be to make revives themselves impossible. As such the existence of combat revives in no way undermines the identification of the offensive-defensive class dynamic. Zombie skills are all created with a view to creating damage, whilst survivor skills are designed for preventing or undoing it; yes, that's right, even the combat skills for survivors are about that. They're there to clear zombies out of buildings and allow those buildings to be secured, not to 'kill' the zombies. The sooner people realise that the sooner they'll start enjoying their game, just as I do with all my characters. Oh and your combat revive scenario neglects to consider death culting and window-diving as responses to such actions. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 19:27, 8 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::Also Brain Rot. My scenario worked from the assumption that all players were true dual-natured players, albeit dual-natured players who don't pick up Brain Rot. However, I would argue that (while zombie skills are indeed designed to deal damage) human skills revolve around maximizing the efficiency of revivification. Securing buildings just allows survivors to stave off death for a few more days, which in turn allows them to revive others more efficiently. Admittedly, this assumes a simplified version of survivors without death-culting and window-diving, etc., etc., but I think it is hard to argue the (relatively) balanced nature of the zombie/survivor ratio just from those extremes. The Mrh? cows tend to equalize that anyway. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Moloch, it's possible for me to completely understand every aspect of this game and still disagree with you. It's also possible for me to refute your arguments without attacking you personally. Here's an example: '''This is not a survival horror game.''' It's World of Warcraft in text. The only difference is that here you can switch sides. Just like WoW, the "human" side is more popular. Just like WoW, the "other" side wants to get more and more advantages because they believe it will offset the numeric disadvantage. Here's a heads-up: WoW proved you wrong there. I proved you wrong here. And I'll do it again. Zombies attack humans with 483 AP, costing the humans 322 AP. Humans attack the zombies with 500 AP, costing the Zombies '''nothing'''. Why nothing? Because the cost of recovery is included in the 483 AP the zombies already spent. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:20, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Wow, nice numbers. Got the math to prove that? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:58, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Not a survival horror game? So what does this: ''A Massively Multi-Player Web-Based Zombie Apocalypse'' mean? But no you are right. I must be forgetting that the innkeeper at Jacomb Arms sent me on the quest to recovery the Holy Golf Club of Lockettside while on my way to slay the Bank Manager of Ruddlebank. This is '''exactly''' like WoW!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 16:20, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
No dude. Just no. Monroeville is freaking dead anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Says the ''Zombie'' Lord... I actually had a nice killing spree a couple of weeks back, 5 survivors in 6 days...<br />
:It would be nice if we waited till there was one survivor, gave him a [[Red_Rum/Tommy_Gun|Tommy_Gun]], ammo and every zombie his location to see how long he would last... --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: :D I'm not sure if he means it as a Monroeville only thing or not, which would be fine with me if it was just contained to that city and not Malton. Seems like Kevan just wanted to kill it off anyway with those last changes to Monroeville. But yeah, the Tommy Gun goes the the last Monroeville Survivor! Would be a cool prize anyway :) --[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::The Tommy Gun is a seasonal weapon, found around 31st October/1st November. They'll have to survive til then and search really hard...--[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 00:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Kamakazie Bunny, get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit, it's tired as all hell. In any event, as much as he is usually an idiot, zombie lord is correct this time. And Moloch hit it on the head even more squarely. Don't fucking nerf Ankle Grab. Period. Even in Moronville. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:46, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::And don't forget, give him or her unlimited AP and IP hits. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:14, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:36, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:How about "Remove Headshot" then? Has that been suggested? It's currently a waste of 100 XP. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
You might have better luck if you suggest that headshot DOESN'T affect those without Ankle Grab.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:37, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Where.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''Balance Change'' HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA ''IMA GONNA RAEP YUO OF UR AP AND CALL IT BALANCED!'' Fuck off, Dago. You can't possibly justify taking away over 1/5th of the AP of just one class. Zombies can't do it to survivors in any amount and you want to increase it? Fucking play as a zombie for a year before you suggest anything that affects zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:59, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Suggestion:20080901_Feeding_Drag_in_Large_Buildings|Yanking a live survivor from a mall]] for 2/5 the AP cost of dumping a dead body from a fort is balanced, then? I don't see you railing against that. Oh, but feel free to turn my username into a racial slur if you can't think of any ''good'' reason to reject the suggestion. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::We've already posted enough reasons why it's a crap idea. Feel free to post it though, because even if it gets passed, Kevan won't touch it. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 05:25, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::How would you know? ANKLE GRAB was in PEER REJECTED when it came to vote here.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Which should give you an idea of how Kevan feels on the subject of the Headshot dynamic. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 08:53, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::It also shows you how fucking survivor-centric this damn wiki is. I'm not surprised that AG was voted down and a shit load of weapons and survivor buffs fill this page constantly. I'm pretty sure even if this ridiculous crap passed Kevan wouldn't implement it since last time I checked survivors outnumbered the zombies 61% to 39%. But hey! the survivors have it so fucking hard with all those damn zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::But OHNOES DCC some people think it's because no one wants to play zombies instead of the fact that their so boring because of their intellectuality and lack of competetivity. Who cares that that's disproved every time zombies make some big event so they can actually do something.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:37, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Actually it is when you consider that it's not a bargain and it's an additional 4 AP per kill that will be payed regularly. All Feeding Drag ever does is transfer AP cost from the individual to the horde, you know, that central play mechanic that zombies are forced to deal with. This would just make it so that all zombies always lose nearly half the AP they get a day, that's not balanced. You're also proposing buffing what is the only skill in the game that is considered to exist for the sole purpose of pissing players off and not balance.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Im not going to argue the game balance here. What i am going to say is that you dont make a game more balanced by making it less fun. Taking away 15 zombie ap a day makes the game much less fun for zombies, which will drive them away. Given how many of them are hanging onto the game out of habit rather than out of any sense of enjoyment, i dont think making playing a zombie feel like pulling teeth is the solution to any balance problem, real or imagined. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:37, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
This is not terribly effective. I mean, the search chances in Mville are all in ruined buildings. 8AP to load a shotgun I think not... ain't nothin' but ruined buildings. [[User:Soror Repentia Azalea|Qızılbaş]] 16:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===Bargain Hunting Change===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:07, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Improvement.<br />
|suggest_scope=Resource Buildings.<br />
|suggest_description=First, some buildings would get a flat bonus to search: Malls, Junkyards, and Libraries.<br />
<br />
'''Malls''' +10% Chance for a successful search.<br />
<br />
'''Junkyard''' +10% Chance for a successful search.<br />
<br />
'''Library''' Automatic success.<br />
<br />
Second, other buildings would get a new button. A player with Bargain Hunting would see both "Search the Building" AND the New Button. A regular search is the same as always. Clicking the New Button would work like this:<br />
<br />
'''Hospital''' New Button: "Search for FAK". +25% to find a FAK.<br />
<br />
'''Police Station''' New Button: "Search for Guns and Ammo". +25% to find a Pistol, Shotgun, Shotgun Shell, or Pistol Clip.<br />
<br />
'''Factory''' New Button: "Search for Portable Generator". +25% to find a Portable Generator.<br />
<br />
'''Auto Repair''' New Button: "Search for Toolbox". +25% to find a Toolbox.<br />
<br />
'''Fire Station''' New Button: "Search for Flare Gun". +25% to find a Flare Gun.<br />
<br />
'''Arms''' New Button: "Search for Beer". +25% to find a Beer.<br />
<br />
'''School''' New Button: "Search for Spray Can". +25% to find a Spray Can.<br />
<br />
'''Warehouse''' New Button: "Search for Fuel Can". +25% to find a Fuel Can.<br />
<br />
This idea is to make the other resource building more important, and make the Mall less the God of all Buildings.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bargain Hunting Change)====<br />
Auto repair toolbox, warehouse fuel can? Random.<br />
<br />
I dont like it for the following reason. Its actually 2 buffs. 1. You only search for what you want. 2 you are much more likely to find it. I also dont see a realistic justification (other than junkyards and libraries which i feel is fine).--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:11, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I figured your were more likely to find a Toolbox in an Auto Repair, but find Fuel stockpiled in Warehouses. Basically I'm aiming for the other buildings being important instead of the Mall being the best place to find pretty much anything, which sort of makes Hospitals and PD's kinda lame. Plus with the best places to find stuff spread out instead of being all in one spot, it would make Malls less of a Fortress you almost never need to leave, except to find Fuel. Survivors would need to keep their other buildings going to keep the "best search rate" spots open and usable. The two most important FAKS and Guns/Ammo already have a "you get exactly what you want" thing going in the Mall anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:16, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
"Bargain Hunting" implies knowledge specific to shopping: it's a consumer skill. Finding things in libraries, police stations, hospitals, and junkyards seems unrelated. I agree with Ross, this seems a bit overpowering. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It also worries me that you appear to have forgotten that survivors occasionally need needles. Wheres the search necrotech button? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:22, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Dude, Survivors get enough needles already. :P --[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:25, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Whilst I do agree with the idea of removing the focus from malls I do not agree with your choices I would imagine:<br />
:Toolbox for factories (working on/with machinery),<br />
:Fuel cans for auto repairs (cars need fuel),<br />
:Generators for factories (because they don't fit anywhere else and the others seem more plausible in their locations) although power stations and hardware stores would make sense but that takes you back to malls...<br />
::Also what about necrotechs and radios? whilst it is true you don't have to include everything, including beer and ignoring more important resources and buildings just doesn't agree with me. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Hey its all open to change. Thats kinda why I put this up here. Those NecroTechs though are already nasty enough. But moving the items around is cool. How about Fuel in Auto Repairs and Portable Generators in Warehouses. Like to keep it spread out as much as possible. Just leave the Toolboxes out since they are a one shot item anyway? And factories have both fuel and PG's so, maybe being a cenral fuel/PG resource is good enough for them.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:30, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
::::Personally id prefer it if it was the ''other'' way round. The one item choices (Knifes,toolboxes, dna extractors,radio transmitters,) were those items that could be found more easily. '''Then''' buildings other than malls would be the best place to find ''specific'' items.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:34, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Yeah, but you only need to find them once. Makes the other resources not so important again. Making it the recycle items makes them always useful to have up and running. Hmm, maybe just a flat +25% to find anything in the bottom 8 buildings would be better, then you'd have to wade through the "crap" like newspapers and the like and it would be less powerful. The Mall would still be a good bonus then with its 'FAK only" Drugstore and "Guns & Ammo only" Gun Store, which is kinda ugly combined with the current +25%, but might be more balances with 10%, but having the other buildings being the "best search spots".--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I think 25% might be a bit too much, 15% seems more reasonable, searching for something specific should give you more than searching for something in general but not too much more. I actually like the specific buildings for specific resources because it means your more likely to find what your looking for but the amount of buildings of each type in each suburb makes a big difference when the zombies start to move in and you don't want to move out! This way it emphasizes that point. Although I do see Rosslessness's point, items each person only needs one of would be more common than ones which people would be using up. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:57, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Yeah, the % could always be messed with. I think this would make other suburbs more attractive too though, like the ones that are far away from Malls, but maybe they have some insane number of PD's or Hospitals so they would become like "Centers of Healing, or "Ammo Dump Central". I guess we could throw Forts into the +10% category same as Malls. Would maybe shake up the population distribution a bit.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 19:07, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::I think you're right though. Cause with this there would be a lot a new place opened up that you could search good. Some burbs have like 6 Hospitals/PD's or more and that would be a lot of places. Maybe 10% for Malls, but 15% or 20% for the Hospitals/PD's and the others to balance out the fact that some places have crazy numbers of these buildings all lumped together. I dont know who the city planners where but sometime having 3 or 4 PD like all next to each other or a block away from each other is just nuts. :D--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 19:32, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::From a logical point of view yeah, Ross is right. But from a game balance view, I think "only need one" items should be not easier to find. Then Survivors could not just thrown down a toolbox to free up weight, confident that they could just snag another real easy with Bargain Hunting when they need one. It's a harder to weight choice as it is now. But making it the recycle items that are easier to find makes keeping those buildings up and running a much more important part of keeping your burb running smooth. I dunno, I'm arguing from a "Mall Suburb viewpoint" though too. This might make non-Mall suburbs even more powerful, but maybe in a balanced way, so that Malls suburbs and non Mall suburbs are not so lop-sided in their "resource gathering power".--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 19:23, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
I don't even need to read the commentary. 'Sides, mostly seems to be Zombie Lord's usual obnoxious arguing with everyone... <br />
<br />
'''The skinny:''' survivors don't need a search rate buff, their %ages are pretty fucking good already, especially in malls. I do concede that the randomness of searching, and all the junk you get in searches, contributes to the "Boring boring boring, Sidney!" syndrome ... However, giving survivors a search buff AND allowing them look for exactly what they want?? The "Zombie Lord" (whom I am still convinced is just some DA or TZH trenchcoater in disguise) proposing an utterly broken game mechanic is no surprise -- but an overpowered, spam-o-licious survivor buff, now ''that's'' a little shocking. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Sex is boring, Sidney''--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 00:05, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:My bad. For a change, Zombie Lord is being kind of, like, normal... However, this is still not a good idea. I am all for nerfing mall-centric play, but this is not the way to go about it. I still stand my my reasoning above. And, as it stands, Malls are not the best place to find generators and a few other items. And syringes and fuel can't be found in malls at all... But what is absurd is the 50% or so find rate for FAKs! Hospitals should be the best place for FAKs, and Malls only so-so. THAT needs to be changed... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:21, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
The Warehouse, Factory, Hospital, Fire Station, Toolbox, and Police Station buffs are all ''way'' too high. That and combined it's far too many benefits from one single 100xp skill.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 12:55, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I figured with the Mall search bonus lowered and that Survivors would need to defend more than the Fortress Malls to keep their best search spots open would counter the high bonus for searches in the new buildings. Going to come up with a version 2 with changes for all these comments though soon.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 13:27, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I really think switching FAK search rates -- so that Hospitals are the best place to find them -- would be sufficient to nerf mall-centric play in a fair, balanced and very logical way. the rest imo isn't needed. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:10, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The bonus is currently so high that some 1 in 10 items would get boosted to 1 in 3, some 1 in 5 items would get boosted to 1 in 2, and some 1 in 3 items would get boosted to 1 in ~1.2. I understand the intent but 25% really is a ''very'' significant amount, so significant you'd be removing almost all failure chance for things like FAKs.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:48, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Hmmm...so what about a "building related" search skill? Bargain Hunting is for malls. So what about a skill just for firestations, one just for warehouses, etc.? Myabe the skill would give a moderate search bonus and/or allow you to find more stuff?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 04:06, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Riot Shield===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Item<br />
|suggest_scope=All Players<br />
|suggest_description= <BR><br />
:''[[Building Types|Locations]]: Armouries (2%), Police Stations (2%), Junkyards (1%?)''<br />
:''[[Encumberment|Encumbrance]]: 16%''<br />
<br />
- Grants a 10% (5% in dark buildings) chance to deflect any attack <S>that deals less than 5 damage</S> (it does not reduce the chance to hit, only those which would normally hit). Having a Riot Shield in your inventory automatically means that you are using it; no action is required to activate it. Zombies may use and benefit from Riot Shields. Using multiple Riot Shields has no additional effect; having two or more in your inventory will not give any further protection.<br />
<br />
- They may also be used as an improvised weapon with the following stats:<br />
<br />
:''Damage: 1 point''<br />
:''Base Accuracy: 10%''<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Riot Shield)====<br />
<br />
Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield (although rotters will have a harder time getting them but that applies to any cross-class skill/item from the humans). Also the zombie populace should be aware that a Riot shield is the equivalent of 8 clips/shells/Faks/Syringes that can be used against their cause. Survivors now have an active defence against the hordes (in my opinion barricades do not count as they do not directly protect the player or go with them on their journeys). <BR><br />
Things I'm unsure of:<BR><br />
:Encumbrance<br />
:Chance to deflect<br />
:Findable in museums (Medieval / war exhibitions)<br />
:Zombies with a reduced protection chance (as they are more sluggish)<br />
:Flavour text for deflected attacks!<br />
--[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''You fire at target zombie for 10 damage, but it deflects off their riot shield. They are unharmed''<br />
--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:05, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: Whilst I do agree with the flavour text the shot gun does not deal '''less than 5 damage'''. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:13, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Balls. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hi Kamikazie, this is an interesting idea. Given that zombies can't use melee weapons, it seems odd they might continue to use (and effectively position) a riot shield. Additionally, it seems it would get in the way of typical zombie attacks: grabbing, holding, biting. I don't want to seem like I'm favoring survivors, but this, like all other objects, seems it should be survivor-specific. Would players be able to use a shotgun while holding one? Shields of any kind make sense, especially in close-range combat. I'd see the value in making it "equippable" rather than simply automatically active if in inventory. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 18:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ummm... zombies can use melee weapons, although it would get in the way of their normal attacks I don't want to hinder them or make this one sided although realism would want it so. Zombies are people to! Interfering with other functions is something else I disagree with. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hordes are the exception, not the rule. Lets see, a maxed zombie would traditionally score a total of 29 hits in 50 swings. Now, if 10% of those hits are negated, it goes down to 26. Given that the majority of zombies are not horde zombies, and that zombies have a seriously hard time getting past little things you call barricades (Which already are your defenses, not to mention your mobility, which is another, chronically underused one), this puts a serious dent in zombie ability across the board for the sake of defending yourself from the exception to the rule based on a flase assumption of defenselessness. Go away and think things through before you return to plague this page with your stupidity again. The description as written has this as a pure zombie nerf, they cant even use it, ebcause regardless of flaks, a pistol hits for five damage at first, with one subsequently negated, thus pistols will still go through. Given humans use firearms almost exclusively, becauuse axes and improvised weapons suck, they will most often suffer no penalty against a zombie with such a device. Zombies have no 5+ damage attacks. This is one sided zombie rape. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:although I hardly ever agree with grims choice of words, the fact that flare guns and shotguns arent nerfed but all zed attacks are is a fair point. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:29, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sorry if you misunderstood when I used the word horde, I used it to describe the zombies populace as a whole, not in a specific location. The pistol glitch is something which I must admit I did not anticipate and overlooked, thanks for pointing that out. The rest just seems negative for the sake of zombie-jeebus. Whilst this does primarily affect zombie attacks it also affects all survivor melee attacks, you say that survivors depend on guns because everything else sucks, I don't think you need reminding that the Jacket only benefits zombies and PK/DC victims (which their very actions benefit zombies). Zombies have no fear of death and any defence boosts through items come at no cost, survivors have to balance their inventory for survival/defense and the retaking of ruins. If you feel that 26 instead of 29 hits is too many feel free to suggest a change to the values. This is a discussion for whittling out 'stupid' ideas not for insulting them (which I consider pointless). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:47, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
''Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield ...'' Can, but won't. The vast majority of the damage zombies take s from guns, and this also provides no protection vs combat revives. HtH combat damage trails a distant third behind those in terms of impact on zombies. '''So really, this IS a pure zombie nerf.''' {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 19:08, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:Any proposes for a fix? Reducing deflection to 5% (that sounds so geekish). Lowering the limit to Less than 4 (which would account for the gun-bug and allow zombies still to get in their max claws) or would that be seen to be nerfing infection/bite/newbies/survivor melee? I know you might think this is the wrong school of thought but I feel there needs to be some active defence from zombies (running away is not defending) and barricades can't be taken with you, but due to the limited amount of high-powered zombie attacks any thing is essentially a nerf. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 19:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this suggestion if it was to affect ALL attacks regardless of damage... however I am concerned about it stacking with flak jackets to nerf firearms but if you lot are ok with it then I have no objections.... opinions please? --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I think it's a neat idea, just not sure if its passable. Maybe if the Shield had a chance to be broken, or taken away by zombies? For every "deflection" there is a 10% chance the shield breaks as well? Maybe a zombie that gets a Tangling Grasp has a 10% chance to wrench the shield away and toss it aside for each attack it makes while it maintains the Grasp?--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:25, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This fails flavour as it implies active usage to gain its benefit, you must move the shield to cover the attack. A flak jacket is passive, it protects your torso regardless. In short, this would (or rather should) be useless while you are asleep...which for most UD characters is 23 hours and 50 minutes of each day.<br />
<br />
Also it's a nasty zombie nerf. '''All''' zombie attacks are less than 5 damage, meaning all survivors would get a 10% chance to avoid every single zombie attack in the game. This suggestion will discourage zombie play and turn Malton into Monroeville after the first quarantine, tag with PKers. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:42, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''"After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this..."'' We are not okay with this idea. It's awful. It's nothing but a horrible zombie nerf, and no changes are going to save it. Riot shields do not protect against firearms. Period. Any attempt to make them do so is just stupidity. But if riot shields work against melee attacks only, then you are nerfing an already underdog ability -- for both zambahz and survivors. Just drop it, it sucks and it can't be fixed. Also, Izzy, you've failed in your Dupe-meister duties, this is in there somewhere, I know it ;) And, Zhani, once again you demonstrated why you should stay away from making suggestions: please wait until you actually know the game, thanks. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:01, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:As far as I understood from the comments people were making, the two major complaints were that it did not affect guns and that it affected zombie attacks. Including the ability to affect guns as well (which you ''conveniently'' failed to include in your quote) was the change that some people may approve of, as for affecting zombie attacks that kinda goes with the idea of a riot shield. "''Riot shields do not protect against firearms''" it may upset you to know that some do, although if you were arguing for true realism I think the zombies need to go... In defence of Izzy failing to dupe I could only find 2 similar suggestions, both from 2005 and both with completely different mechanics if it is that big an issue to dupe it go put in the effort and do it yourself. As for Zhani, he's learning don't try shoot him down because he's trying to be involved. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Next person to shorten my name gets Jihad declared against them.<br />
<br />
::Wan; what he said about dupes <nowiki>:p</nowiki><br />
<br />
::Bunny; would you care to comment on the point I made about active usage? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Falling asleep from exhaustion is a good reason why your character runs out of AP, it only takes 30min before you can 'wake up'. Whilst I do agree that a player would have to actively use it to defend themselves, the idea that I can hit someone who is asleep repeatedly with a fire axe and with such poor accuracy doesn't make sense (especially considering they don't wake up), I actually assume all players are awake and attempting to defend themselves if attacked which is why hit accuracy is not too high. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait wut? How do zombies benefit from something that will only effect them and low level survivors? Last I heard pistols and shotguns did >= 5 damage, Claws and bites did <= 4.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies would gain more defence from melee weapons, however it has now been changed to include pistols and shotguns. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::It just doesn't seem right. It destroys all zombie attack, survivor players could get them easier then zombie players... Even if Shotguns no longer worked, that would create an atmosphere where it would be CRing only.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 17:56, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::How would this new version work in dark buildings? And Also, I still don't like it for the same reason why I think halving in dark buildings was a horrendous idea, 10% from 50% is a lot more significant than 10% from 65%, especially with the RNG the way it is But if you're going to go on with it might as well answer all questions that might come up.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::As the Riot shield only affects the attacks that hit the player, the environment which the attack is performed in should have make no difference but since the user is making an effort, the same penalty as attacks receive should logically apply. (Chance of success halved in dark buildings added to suggestion) Thanks for that, the more holes you guys help me fill the better. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it. Rather logical especially when considering that several suburbs were just bad neighborhoods (Even BEFORE the zombies!). I think that his would be a bit more efficient if you kept it as a melee reducing item, the hand to hand flak jacket in other words, say knock off 1-2 Damage per non-firearm attacks. Take it to that level and THEN I'll probably vote a keep on this. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 19:33, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, I'm sure new players will appreciate 0-1 damage at 25% to hit.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Well the zombies are getting Uber Buffs. Survivors have always been a bit better than the zombies at base level. I think that just the 1 Reduced Damage is sufficient at say...30% but if we want to get technical with this option lets say Hand to Hand Combat skill gives the 15% bonus to this so base is 15% chance to block 1 damage and then with HtH skill 30% chance to block 1 damage and we drop that improvised attack method because it's going to be the same as a punch. Now for the zombies think of Virgour Mortis as a +10% Chance to block 1 Damage. So again, 15% base and with Vigour Mortis a nice little 25% because Zeds aren't quick enough to keep up with the survivors. It is a bit sketchy but I am going to support this method over sitting around fiddling with percentages. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 20:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I would like for this to apply exclusive to melee weapons, but that would mean ALL zombie attacks and not the attacks used by high-level survivors which was a problem. I'm also unsure if the game distinguishes between damage types, if it does great, if not, going on damage inflicted presents a problem when pistols are reduced by flak jackets. The idea to reduce damage instead of deflecting it completely is possible, however it would just end up as 'a flak for melee attacks' different mechanics for each one helps to keep them unique but if people prefer that option let me know. The skills bit does have merits but I was hoping it would be independent of the skill tree although if people want it to upgrade as you buy skills your way is certainly an excellent way to do it, especially the uniqueness between the live/dead. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:18, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Consider the flak jacket. -1 point for firearms, hand to hand attacks still go through. As for the zombies...well survivors run out of ammunition every now and again, even in the sieges. To combine this item with hand to hand combat training is the most logical approach based off of common sense and lightens the work load if Kevan likes this. Like you stated, zombies and survivors can both hold them, lets apply our minds and think about how well a zombie would be able to block a hit. When you think of next to never apply this big piece of reinforced fiberglass and then you get your answer here. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 03:53, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Zombies holding riot shields? I'd love to have some of that crack you're on. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 04:08, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dude the odd thing is that it is not crack! It's Jello powder! [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:23, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies hold and use all sorts of items... Anyway, this idea is just awful and can't be saved, please give it up. All it does in any form is act as a zombie/PK nerf. Period. Drop it. There is NO NEED for this, and it doesn't improve the game, make it more interesting, or offer a solution to a problem. It's just... dumb. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===No More Walking Armories: Less weapons, more ammo.===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 21:39, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Change to firearm usage<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, firearms.<br />
|suggest_description=Add Equipped Weapon feature, adjust weapon balance numbers to encourage reloading over trenchcoatism. See below for details.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
As things stand, players in Malton become [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|walking armories]], with as many loaded pistols and shotguns strapped to their bodies as they can carry. Essentially, everyone is a [[:Image:Trenchcoater03.gif|trenchcoater]] by default. This is due to how firearms currently work and their game statistics. Players are rewarded for carrying multiple loaded firearms, and there's little penalty for doing so. Guns have very little encumbrance ''relative to their ammunition'', and there's no cost at all to moving on to your next loaded weapon. I think this is [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Arguing_for_Your_Suggestion|unbelievable]] and out of genre. <br />
<br />
My proposal is to add a new game feature and tweak weapon encumbrance, find rates, and damage in order to encourage the carrying and use of only primary weapons, with plenty of ammo for those weapons.<br />
<br />
'''1. Equipped Weapon''' The game supports selecting items that are "worn"; however, this is only used for clothing and flavor at the moment. With this addition, survivor players select any weapon in their inventory to be ''equipped''. <br />
* Above "'''Inventory (click to use):'''" there is "'''Weapon (select):'''". There will be a new drop-down list in this section: '''<code>Equip [Weapon List] as weapon</code>'''. This lets the player choose any existing weapon in their inventory, or an improvised weapon like a fuel can or crowbar. <br />
* Equipping a weapon costs '''2 AP'''. This represents getting it out of your backpack/belt and having it ready for combat. ''The AP cost of switching weapons provides an incentive to reload over switching between a stocked series of weapons.'' <br />
* You can only attack with your equipped weapon. The "attack player" option no longer offers multiple weapons as a choice, but instead lists your ''equipped weapon'': '''<code>Attack [Joe Zombie] with pistol</code>'''. If no weapon is equipped, all attacks are punches.<br />
* Once a weapon is equipped, the "Weapon:" section no longer displays "(select)", and the selected weapon is displayed there, instead of in the inventory section. Below that, the weapon-selection control remains available to select another weapon.<br />
* Clicking ammo to reload defaults to reloading the equipped weapon if it is unloaded. Clicking the equipped weapon removes it. Clicking a weapon that does not have a dual usage (most of them) will equip them as well (this is necessary so you can still click fuel cans to use them on generators, fire flare guns, etc.) <br />
* Upon dying, the equipped weapon is removed and remains in the player's inventory. Zombies do not have equipped weapons. Revivified survivors must reequip their weapon.<br />
* The currently equipped weapon can be seen in the profile description, along with clothing.<br />
<br />
'''2. Weapon Encumbrance Values''' Firearm encumbrance values are increased. Guns can get heavy to carry, and shotguns are unwieldy. Pistols: 10%. Shotgun: 18%. '''Ammunition encumbrance is minimized'''. Bullets and shells take up relatively little space, and can be kept in backpacks, fannypacks, pockets, etc. Clips & Shells: 1%. <br />
<br />
'''3. Reloading''' Reloading a clip or shell remains at 1 AP.<br />
<br />
'''4. Weapon Balance:''' This change slightly increases the in-combat AP costs for survivors. With 8 loaded pistols in inventory, a player can currently do 240 damage in 48 turns at 65% rate, or 156 damage, or 3.25 damage/AP. With 1 equipped pistol and plenty of ammo, in 48 turns the player can empty 7 clips, doing 210 damage @65%, or 136.5 damage, or 2.84 damage/AP; a 12% decrease. <br />
<br />
With current shotguns, 8 shotguns in inventory do 160 damage in 16 turns @ 65%, or 104 damage: 6.5damage/AP. With the change, two shots requires either switching (2AP) or reloading (2AP). Alternately, we can simply think of the unloaded shotgun as 2AP/shot. With the change, the shotgun would do 80 damage in 16 turns @ 65% or 52 damage, a 50% decrease. The change makes the shotgun even more front-loaded damage however. <br />
<br />
'''''It is very difficult to make absolute recommendations on numbers for game balance.''''' Only in-game results can show whether items are unbalanced or not, and to what degree. However, as an initial rebalancing to make the change not appear so drastic, I suggest these figures:<br />
<br />
'''Pistol: 6 damage/shot. (5 flak).''' In 48 turns (finishing empty), a pistol would do (6*7*6*0.65) or 163.8 damage on average: 3.4damage/AP, a 5% increase. This is a very modest change, and sticks to whole-number damage. In 6 turns, the existing pistol does 30 max damage, 19.5 average, the new does 36 or 23.4 average, but on subsequent turns the reload time brings the average damage back down. With 6 shots/7AP, the true average becomes 3.34dam/AP. Total pistol increase: 2.9%<br><br />
Alternately: to kill 50HP enemy:<br />
:Current: 3.25dam/AP. (Assuming enough pistols in inventory) 16AP to kill<br />
:New: 3.34 dam/AP ((6*6*.65)/7). 15AP to kill.<br />
<br />
'''Shotgun: 12 damage/shot (10 flak).''' 2 turns=24 damage @65%=15.6damage. Compare to current: 2 turns = 20*65%=13dam. This is a small front-end increase. However, comparing 16 turns (8 loaded current shotguns, vs 1 shotgun with reloading): (10*16*0.65)/16=6.5dam/AP. New shotgun: 2 shots, then 2 shots per 4 turns for 12 turns, then 1 shot in the last two turns. 2*12+12((2*12)/4)+0+12=108. @65%=70.2 or 4.39dam/AP. The shotgun decreases over time. If we compare current and new shotguns starting unloaded, it's 10dam/2AP vs 12dam/2AP. The advantage of starting a fight with a loaded shotgun goes up, but the advantage of carrying a stack of them goes down. It becomes worthwhile to consider switching to a sidearm after using the shotgun. ''This appears consistent with game believability.''<br><br />
An alternate way of looking at shotgun damage: to kill a 50HP enemy: <br />
:Current: 6.5damage/AP (assuming enough shotguns in inventory). 8AP to kill.<br />
:New: 2*7.8damage=15.6 for 2AP, then 7.8damage/2AP (reload, fire). 7AP to kill.<br />
<br />
Shotgun opener + pistol: 15.6 average damage/2AP. 2AP to switch. 23.4 average damage/6AP. 1AP reload. 11.7 avg. dam. /3AP. = 50.7 damage in 14AP. Slightly more efficient than pistol alone, less than shotgun alone. (I have been working with current balance values; but the existing shotgun is much higher damage than the existing pistol. It requires more AP to find ammo, and reload.)<br />
<br />
'''5. Weapon search rates''' Firearm search rate decreases slightly (most people will only want or need one of each type). Ammunition search rate increases slightly. <br><br />
'''Pistols:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Streets (1%?), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
'''Shotguns:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Pubs (1%)<br><br />
'''Clips:''' Mall Gun Stores (13%/16%), Armories (13%), Police Departments (12%), Junkyards (2%?), Gatehouses (?%)<br><br />
'''Shotgun shells:''' Mall Gun Stores (12%/16%), Armories (11%), Police Departments (11%), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
* If a weapon is found, and the player has selected to discard that type of weapon, but they have NOT selected to discard the ammo, ''they retain the ammo that was in that firearm (if any)''.<br />
<br />
'''Potential objections:'''<br />
<br />
Game balance: the change to damage output/AP is relatively small. If game stats reveal survivors grow more powerful, or one weapon is more preferred than the other, damage values can be adjusted as necessary. The point of this change is not to drastically adjust game balance in any way, but to instead encourage a change in player behavior to something more consistent with genre. Any statistical flaws that benefit a weapon type or player group can be adjusted as necessary.<br />
<br />
Inventory changes: this deprecates the value of carrying multiple weapons. Despite the increase in encumbrance of a single weapon, this should actually free up some space for people. The changes do not severely affect the contents of anyone's inventory. <br />
<br />
Realism/Game fiction/Genre: Carrying an absurd amount of weapons is simply silly. The only reason people do is because the game mechanics encourage it. This change provides an incentive for players to behave much more akin to typical characters in zombie films: carrying a couple favored weapons, and enough ammo to keep them supplied.<br />
<br />
Too long/complicated: This idea consists of minor changes to game variables (encumbrance, damage, search), and adds a straightforward feature which should work consistently with the existing interface and game data structures. It requires tracking one more piece of data per character: which weapon is equipped, and removes one piece of data normally transmitted on each attack: the weapon used. This should not be a prohibitive amount of development work. Balance changes are necessary to coincide with changes to AP costs for using weapons to minimize the secondary impact on gameplay.<br />
<br />
Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit.<br />
<br />
'''Areas for input:'''<br />
<br />
How are the numbers? Are they reasonable to maintain balance while accomplishing the goal of this suggestion?<br />
<br />
====Discussion (No More Walking Armories)====<br />
#Pistols are usually no bigger than two clips. Having 10% pistols and 1% clips is completely unjustified.<br />
#Shotguns are nowhere near the size or unwieldiness of generators (18% vs 20%).<br />
Not just that, but raising the encumbrance of weapons doesn't really contribute to reducing the number of weapons and increasing the amount of ammunition carried. Changing the search percentages wouldn't affect much either. Just plain introducing the equipped-weapon gameplay would do it. It's simple; reloading costs 1 or 2 AP, changing a weapon would cost 2. Ammunition is lighter than weapons. For pistols this means you're paying 1 AP less per 6 bullets, and carrying double the amount of damage if you use clips over loaded pistols. For shotguns it means you're paying just as much, but still carrying one half more ammo by carrying shells instead of shotguns. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 23:28, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I don't believe the game's encumbrance values are based on real-world sizes or weights, but rather are a general reflection of carrying ability for the sake of game balance. They're arbitrary. No one can carry 5 portable generators at once, and being limited to carrying only 50 shotgun shells, when they're typically sold in small boxes of 24 to 48, reveals this. A Ruger Security Six revolver as listed on the [[firearms]] page weighs about 1 kilo; carrying 25 of them at 4% enc per, would mean 55 pounds of firearms. The point isn't to be completely accurate with size or weight, but present a tradeoff in carrying many vs. few. With 1 pistol (12%) and 8 clips (1%), for a total of 20% the user still comes ahead of carrying 8 current pistols (32%). While a shotgun does not weigh as much as a portable generator, carrying 16 of them (at 6%) is just as unreasonable. <br>The search values I adjust because finding new firearms becomes less important. This isn't critical to the suggestion however, especially if the part where I recommend that users be able to discard guns they find but keep the ammo in them. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 23:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The exact nature of encumbrance is pretty much irrelevant, as, like I said, changing the encumbrance values doesn't really contribute towards the goal of this suggestion. It just adds one more thing for people to find objectionable. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 09:59, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::If currently people are carrying 16 weapons, and suddenly they can be just as effective with 3, they now have much more space for first aid kits, ammo, syringes, generators, etc. It's also about balance. While there is extra space, increasing weapon encumbrance means it isn't so survivor-favored in that aspect. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 10:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::That reasoning would make more sense if you weren't halving the weight of ammunition. You still have to keep the values somewhat sensible when compared to others. 10% pistols and 18% shotguns are just too inconsistent. Something like 6/8% pistols and 12% shotguns would be better. Or you could bump up the encumbrance of '''everything else''' (which ''would'' make more sense, but would simply get spammed). --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:24, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Is it necessary for game-balance that survivors be limited to carrying a certain quantity of ammunition? To my mind, the limiting factor is search rates, more than carrying capacity. I halved the encumbrance of ammo to balance increasing the values for firearms, along with the fact that the new system encourages keeping plenty of loose ammo, rather than just that which fits in numerous weapons. As for game-realism, shotguns are large and unwieldy, it's implausible to carry more than two. Encumbrance can represent both weight and bulk. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this idea, both because it makes sense and it's better as flavour, but I don't think it will last two seconds in a vote..not that that's any reason not to suggest it, but all the trenchies will go "OMG ONLY 1 WEAPON + MORE RELOADS NOW I CAN ONLY KILL FOUR ZOMBIES A DAY KILL KILL KILL" <br>But I like it.. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 01:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thanks! :) Actually, I really am trying to keep the balance the about the same so that for purposes of killing speed, it's roughly neutral. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:07, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
All these fucking words to just hide the fact you want to bump up the shotgun's damage. Go to hell. Go back and play Resident Evil some more if you get hard-ons from selecting and equipping weapons. You miss the point that this is a damn text game that only gives you 50 AP a day. You can't unload weapons when you find them and you are just as likely to find a pistol with 3 bullets in it as a full clip, but thanks to this GENIUS suggestion even if you aren't a trenchy you will still get your AP raped by swapping weapons. I like to think that survivors are smart enough not to carry their weapons in a back pack but to have them hidden on their body for easy access. I fucking hate gun suggestions. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 02:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Hi DCC. As I pointed out, in front-loaded damage the shotgun sees an increase, but over time it has reduced damage/AP compared to currently. If you compare the current system with someone carrying 10 loaded shotguns and enough ammo to reload & fire again for their 50AP, the new system represents an 11% decrease in average damage done. As I clearly stated, this isn't about altering game balance or enhancing/damaging the effectiveness of any weapon. As for searching, I provided a suggestion that ammo found in other weapons could be unloaded if the user already has a weapon. Also, I don't think being abusive is very consistent with rational discussion of people's ideas. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:39, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::The game is not played in long term, at least for survivors it shouldn't be. They're more than mobile enough that they can pop in, do tons of damage, run out, and come back a few days later fully stocked and do the same thing. It's low risk and exactly why boosting short term gains for survivors anymore would be ridiculously overpowered.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::This doesn't create a boost for survivors. Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png the graph] I created. The intent is to create a change in behavior, without significantly affecting balance; which is why I'm happy to discuss the numbers used. The pistol remains almost exactly the same; the shotgun does very slightly more damage in the first two turns, quickly falls behind the damage put out by multiple preloaded existing shotguns. This is shifting the pre-combat AP investment to carry around all those loaded weapons, into combat itself, making it viable to have one weapon of each kind and reload during combat. This is more consistent with the game world and genre: frantically loading your weapon as the undead shamble towards you, than carrying 16 loaded weapons effortlessly. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::I wasn't critiquing your suggestion. Now I am. To keep it simple I'm just gonna say this, you can't half ammo encumbrance it would have to much of an effect on the time survivors have that they can spend ''without'' restocking. That amount of time is a significant limiter on their ability to use/abuse their AP efficiency. You're basically doubling their Ammo carrying capacity and attempting to claim it's balanced by slightly reducing their attack efficiency(which is still being left close to 8 damage per AP). Yes, it makes individuals very very slightly less effective, it will also make groups of survivors insanely more effective and it will let those individuals spend ''more'' time without a break. That ''is'' a significant boost. Now I don't actually have too much of a problem with it assuming Kevan ''finally'' allows some specific zombie boost in response, and by that I mean finally letting them do a significant amount of damage per AP and letting them get through barricades with something closer to twice as much AP as they take to build instead of 4-5x. I don't think that will happen though.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:17, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Thanks Karek, this is an interesting point. Assuming a player wants to maximize their combat potential, and disregarding all other concerns (assume they're backed up by other players who will heal/rebuild etc.), a player might carry 16 shotguns (@6%) & 2 shells (@2%). That's an average of ((32+2)*10*0.65)=221 damage in 36AP, then they're empty. 6.14damage/AP. That's not including the significant AP investment to find and load all those guns. Under the proposed system, player has 1 shotgun @18%, and 82 shells @1%. They get 2AP of attacks, then thereafter it's 1attack/2AP (load & shoot). Over 166AP, they do an average of ((2+82)*12*0.65)=655.2 damage, or 3.94 damage/AP. They would have invested more AP in advance to gather all those shells.<br><br />
:::::I understand what you're saying. The existing system allows a quick burst of high damage, then the survivor has to go replenish. The new system would allow large restocking in a "safe" are, then being able to do damage for an additional 4.6x AP; however, both the average damage is reduced, as well as being spread out over more AP. <br><br />
:::::Say we go with 1 shotgun @18%, but 41 shells @2%. ((2+41)*12*0.65)=335.4 in 84AP, or 3.99damage/AP. Roughly the same damage output, just half the cycle time between attacking & replenishing; as well as less AP invested up front. So the question is: is the length of the attack/scavenge cycle significant to game balance? Do zombies depend on survivors running out, even if they're doing 2/3rd the average damage per AP? --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::::That's not necessarily true either, with three, or even four, survivors striking together they can completely ignore the reduced efficiency. They would actually clear things faster and more efficiently then than they could now doing the same thing. Like I mentioned above, the average damage in the long term with shotguns is irrelevant because most of that cost occurs well outside of danger while most of the reward occurs when you want/need it to, all that would happen is who's holding the shotguns would change, that's actually what I like about an equipment based system. Lose everything else, keep that, the rest is irrelevant, likely impossible to balance, and seems generally based on the assumption that all Survivors are idiots; they aren't, they just don't have any real reason to work together. There's a good core idea here but the implementation needs work.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think i like the start of this. Right now i can't focus to tell if all the numbers are good with me over a long base of time. but, first impression is i like this... i just don't know exactly how this would affect things until i'm actually using it. Also, i disagree with DCC... chill out, man. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This sounds great but really this is more of an AP kill. Consider that the majority of us survivors depend on being a walking arsenal, making us pay 2AP to get a loaded pistol out can highly unbalance the basics for siege survival. I say you drop it down to 1AP or just drop it entirely and make this a weapon pump. This has potential and I love the stats given, but you just gotta fine tone it. Try getting together a study group, devise a neat little generator amongst yourselves, provide a report in place of the hypothesis that we do have now and then try getting this into voting. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:There AP cost is there to provide the incentive to reload the weapon you're using, rather than switch out to one loaded weapon after another. For the pistol, it makes it more advantageous, for the shotgun, it makes it equal with carrying other shotguns, but the drop in encumbrance acts as a bonus. The increase in damage for both pistol and shotgun help balance against the increased AP costs so damage/AP is roughly the same. With pistols, you currently do 6 attacks in 6 turns, then switch. With the new system, you'll do 6 attacks in 6 turns, 1 turn to reload, then go again. So you need 1 pistol, and just clips. 6 damage/attack instead of 5 makes them close in damage output. Likewise with the shotgun, with the current system you fire 1 shot per AP for as long as you have shotguns. With my proposal, you still get two shots for two AP with your pre-loaded gun, then you get 1 shot every 2 AP: reload 1 shell, fire, etc. In the first few turns you'll have done more damage than the existing system, but after a few turns, it does a little less on average. Oh, and remember: '''with the existing system, you still need to spend the AP to load your weapons. You just do it before combat, not during.''' Like I said, this brings it more in genre: desperately reloading as the zombies advance on you, instead of carrying a dozen loaded shotguns on your back. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 05:32, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''Re: weapon balance: Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png this graph].''' This compares current with proposed weapon damage. I'm somewhat inclined to increase the shotgun to 13 or 14, but the relative advantage between the old and new shotgun depends on how many loaded shotguns the player would have under the old system. I assumed 8 for this graph. If it's less, the difference is much narrower; it's unlikely a player would have many more. Note that the player has a damage advantage with the old shotgun ''until they run out''; but they had to spend the same AP in advance to load those 8 shotguns. The new shotgun merely incorporates that loading AP into combat. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 06:16, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''GRRRRRRRRRRH!!!''' KISS me, please. i.e., Keep. It. Simple. Stupid. This may be a fantastic idea, but I can't be arsed atm to read that wall of text. Please learn how to be more concise. Seriously. Thank you. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:22, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What I did read... led me here... This is unnecessary. Because carrying lots of loaded firearms is actually a very poor use of AP and encumbrance. The most Ap-encumbrance efficient weapon in the game is the pistol, by far. And the best way to use pistols is to have 2-3 of them and tonnes of ammo. Shotguns are spiffy weapons, but their ap-encumbrance efficiency is atrocious: if wind up with a few, use 'em... but once its empty? Drop it, don't reload it, that's a giant waste of AP... So, if people wanna waste their AP and encumbrance on carrying and reloading lots of firearms -- the zombies say go right ahead and be horribly inefficient! <br />
:That being said... What ticks me is that I never find pistol ammo in Malls. It's always shotguns. Graaaaagh! Which means... I don't think we need a big game mechanic overhaul, so much as search rates should be tweaked... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::More thoughts... If people wanna carry lots of guns, more power to them. Because that helps the zombies... Because zombies can't be killed. And survivors should be focusing on barricading and reviving and healing first -- and when they are not... then the zombies win! By default. <br />
::Also, "walking armouries" are ''totally'' in genre. You always have the Armah Manz with billions of b!g bang-bangz... Always. And usually, these are the idiots who end up getting killed... And the consumer type who focuses on helping others and getting the job done most effectively lives and helps more people... As in the genre, as in UD... Now, I kind of would like to see trenchcoating get a bit of a nerf... however, i am always very cautious about "legislating playing styles"... And that is what this suggestion does. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:37, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: I'm sorry you found the idea too long. However, I wanted to be specific in the reason for each change, and the expected effect. In order to make the change relatively balance-neutral while encouraging a behavioral change, adjusting numbers in several places is necessary. You said that carrying shotguns and reloading would be inefficient: that's part of what the change is attempting to address. People carry multiple weapons because they can front-load their AP to increase damage in a short time. This idea diminishes that effect while allowing them to output roughly the same damage/AP invested. <br />
::: I disagree that "walking armories" are in-genre. The "Army Mans" carry an assault rifle, a couple grenades, and maybe a sidearm. The only reason players will carry 16 loaded weapons around is because ''the current game mechanics encourage this behavior''; it's not something you'd typically see in a film. They can stock up on weapons and ammo in advance, then unleash that stored AP in the form of damage. What is more consistent with the genre and a plausible game-world, is carrying a couple reliable weapons, and reloading them as needed. This change isn't legislating playing styles: combat-oriented players will still be able to arm up and go to war. They'll just do it with a couple weapons and plenty of ammo, rather than 200 pounds of firearms on their back. Their combat effectiveness versus the zombies will be largely unchanged. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:55, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Instead of trying to play with the big boys in the flame department, I suggest picking up some reading comprehension skills. I addressed your "refutations" in my original post. First of all, the game does not actually encourage carrying 16 loaded weapons; in so far as you are able to do so, you're most assuredly ''not'' contributing to the pro-survivor cause. That you fail to understand ''why'' isn't my problem: do your homework. Secondly, dudes armed to the teeth shooting the shit out every zombie they see (and usually dying grisly deaths themselves because of their stupidity) are very common in both the movies and, yeah, even the video games. Pay attention next time, okay? And go re-read karek and DCC's comments and try to understand the words of your intellectual superiors. THEN get back to us. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:12, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm afraid that you really haven't supported your objections, despite claiming you have. Whether choosing combat-oriented activities in-game helps or hinders the survivor cause is ''irrelevant'': you mentioned that we shouldn't be dictating player style. This suggestion as I've stated is largely balance-neutral. What is does, is discourages exactly what I describe: the "walking armory" effect, and encourages carrying only needed weapons with sufficient ammunition. This doesn't prevent or penalize anyone from walking in with guns blaring, it just means they don't look like [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|this guy]] while doing it. More like [http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1003/988120768_87c5ce1538.jpg this]. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::''Balance neutral'' ? What's this shit? How can something be "neutral" -balance or otherwise- when it tries to change the way people play? '''Don't tell people how to play their characters.''' It's just that simple. Who cares if someone fills all of their inventory with weapons or with GPS units? So what if some trenchies want to carry 100 shotguns? I can tell you haven't been playing this game long. More likely you don't even play a zombie. Which makes your bitching about weapons even weirder. Your suggestion doesn't solve a problem. Your suggestion does not make gameplay more interesting. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::: Could you be specific about how you feel it's unbalanced? And the suggestion is not telling people how to play. The intention of [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Gameplay_and_Flavor|that guideline]] for suggestions I believe is that we shouldn't discourage RP or encourage non-RP. People can play their characters how they choose, and fill their inventory with what they want. However, the current game mechanics ''actively encourages players to be walking arsenals'' if they want to maximize their combat effectiveness. The problem the suggestion solves is that carrying a huge stack of weapons is anti-RP, contrary to the genre and game-fiction. As I've said, it's [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|silly]]. Carrying a shotgun, revolver, and melee weapon seems much more plausible, and something you'd see in a zombie movie, don't you think? This lets someone who does that, be viable in combat. Additionally, I have attempted to balance this so it's neutral towards zombies, not shifting the advantage. Again, I invite you to show me how it is not. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 00:35, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::: You say you don't want to legislate how people play the game one moment, then the next you say that's ''exactly'' what you want to do! Make up your mind. Now... Zombies don't care if they get shot. If you actually ''played'' a zombie full-time, you'd understand this. Shot me all you bloody well want, I'll dirt nap and stand up again with, at worst, 44 AP and be ready to go. Therefore, shooting zombies is ''completely'' pointless except when you need to clear a building. To that end, you carry some guns. But ''smart'' survivors don't carry lots of guns: they carry maybe 2-4 pistol and 2-4 shotguns, tops. Why? Well... because the most powerful pro-survivor thing in the whole game is the revive-needle. Next come barricading and FAKing. Smart survivors know this, thus they carry several needles (sometimes a hell of a lot), a toolbox and a big whack o' FAKs. ''These'' are the survivors who benefit the "pro-survivor" cause. By contrast, anyone who just carries a whole bunch of guns is ''not'' really benefiting the survivor cause all that much, they are just parasiting off others' barricades, revives and FAKs. Nor are they ''really'' hurting zombies, because zombies don't care if they die. Capiche? You say I haven't backed up my arguments, but I ''have''. I actually made an argument -- it's just that you either don't understand, or you're wilfully ignoring the argument. Meanwhile, you've just provided statistics and a flawed idea, which you haven't put in any kind of rational or argumentative or bona-fide in-game context... Meanwhile, I don't care if someone wants to carry 16 shotguns -- as a survivor ''or'' a zombie. As a survivor, I think that guy is a parasitic waste of space and I will make fun of him and belittle him for being a trenchcoating wanker -- but he's not really ''hurting'' me. And, as your picture of Ash demonstrates, all said and done, he is actually RPing ''in-genre''. And as a zombie I outright ''laugh'' at his stupidity and I smash his barricades and eat bra!nz with a hearty GRAAAAGH!!... However, I do not wish to legislate how he plays the game in such a heavy-handed way... Which is ''exactly'' what your suggestion intends to do -- by your own fucking admission! This is not a good idea, and by clinging to it and not accepting ''constructive'' and ''reasonable'' criticism, you're proving yourself to be fucking git, a disruptive and non-contributive member of the community. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:12, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hmm. When I said that, you criticized me for having a superficial understanding of the game. The shoe's on the other foot now, eh? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:19, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hi WanYao. How many shotguns is Ash carrying? One. How many firearms will a typical person in a zombie film carry? One, or one rifle/shotgun and one sidearm. In UrbanDead as it stands, how many firearms will a person carry if they want to ''maximize their combat potential''? '''16'''. The game mechanics are already telling them "how to play", it's saying that if you want to devote yourself to dealing damage, you carry a silly and fiction-breaking number of weapons.<br />
:::::::::I'm afraid your comments about what is actually optimal strategy are irrelevant and a red herring. This suggestion makes no change in what players ''should'' do in order to be maximally effective. It simply alters the game mechanics so that the optimal number of weapons to carry is one of each, and not 16. This is what is more in keeping with the genre, more plausible in the game fiction. There's no advocated or encouraged change in "player behavior": a combat-oriented player will choose ammo over other objects, while others will stock sufficient ammo and keep their FAKs and toolkits etc. You've already said that with the status-quo, even ''good'' players will have 4-8 weapons. Again, this is silliness that is a result solely of the game mechanics, not because they believe their fictional roleplaying character would actually be that kind of badass. The game dictates how many weapons they should carry. I'm for reducing that number, without significantly affecting game balance itself.<br />
:::::::::Now if you want to make the case that 1% encumbrance ammo too greatly reduces the tradeoff between being combat-oriented or rebuild/heal oriented, I'm happy to hear it. Karek's provided his support for a similar argument above. And as usual, your personal attacks are completely off-base. I've been giving all reasoned criticism due weight. I get that some people ''don't like'' the idea, based on personal biases, but so far, I've only seen one specific argument for what might be wrong. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:44, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::This wall of text is getting pathetic... Anyhoo, there is another principle that no one has mentioned yet, but it bears emphasis: greater realism =/= better. Anyway, I'm done with this, it's arguing in circles now. Good luck. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:45, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::That's just your luck. I find TONS of clips and pistols with 4+ shots. Last time I loaded up, such stuff was easily 75% of what I found in the gun store. In fact, I would have stopped searching, but it took me a long time to find a shotgun shell to top up the half-loaded shotgun I had. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 16:40, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I fucking hate you. This comment in particular - ''"Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit."''<br />
<br />
Put it up for voting, right fucking now. Watch me dupe it on basis of weapons damage buff, selected weaponry and ammunition encumbrance buff. Just because your 'suggestion' contains many shit suggestions does not mean I cannot find those many mindless trenchie buffs and rightfully kill it, it means you are fucking deluded for thinking I can't and typing such a moronic suggestion.<br />
<br />
Shit, I wish karma was real, then some really bad things would happen to you, I'd find out about them and chortle my arse off. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:45, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Get arsed, yourself, Iscariot. Assuming trolls have arses, that is. Do they? Or does ''all'' your shit come out of your mouth?<br />
:Meanwhile, karek, swiers and DCC have pretty much show this suggestion for the BAD IDEA it is... So let's move on, kay, class? Next lesson please... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:44, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissocial_personality_disorder Please seek help.] --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Alrighty then... See, there is a time and place for being an asshole. I felt the situation was not appropriate, thus my comments to Iscariot. I take them all back now: go nuts, Izzy. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:56, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::What makes you believe it's ever acceptable or appropriate to behave abusively towards people? This sort of behavior certainly isn't conducive to rational discussion and addressing the merits or problems in a suggestion. It simply brings the quality of the wiki down, and reflects poorly on the community. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:02, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Other than Iscariot, no one is trolling you. And, in context -- while I don't really think his comments are particularly helpful -- you've brought it on yourself. In any event, if you want a love-in, where everyone is nice to each other and they let you cry on their should if someone was mean to you, please go [http://www.oprah.com/index here]. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm not trolling at all, trolling implies I'm after a certain response from him. I don't. It would be nice if he'd listened to all the nice people explaining it to him, but he didn't. The comment about duping is pure arrogance on his part, and I don't take kindly to it. The dupe system stops moronic suggestions entering PR because everyone reasonable gets bored of killing it. |I notice he hasn't taken me up on my challenge to see if I could dupe it....<br />
<br />
:::::Also Zhani, feel free to go and whine on any sysop talk page you like. The one you're after is Vandal Banning. Good luck with that, there is no civility policy on this wiki and until we remove to moronic-trenchie-weapons-buff gene from the general population, there never will be. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
...Well isn't that one long suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:...Well isn't that one long discussion. -- [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::... Speaking of things long... ''::looks down::'' Oh, is that a banana in my pocket, or am I just happy to see a zombie in my safehouse? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:07, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Thats a whole lot of SPAM you typed up there... what's wrong with just making weapons assignable? Allow everyone to carry a weapon in each hand and have it cost 1AP per hand to change (shotguns requiring a free hand or having a -60% to hit!) reload or re-arm then cost the same and it becomes a matter of choice which style you prefer. Of course that makes maxed out survivors a lot <br />
less like the combat monsters they currently are but thats probably not a real problem! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 12:38, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Personally, I dislike this, but that's partly because i only carry two pistols and one shotty, thus giving room for more reasonable things. Like fencing foils, Wine, and poetry books. --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 06:41, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Body Bonfires===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:48, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Perma-death option.<br />
|suggest_scope=Characters in citys with perma-death alternatives.<br />
|suggest_description=I've got a zombie character currently running around Monroeville looking for the precious few survivors there are in order to eat them.<br />
<br />
One of Monroeville's biggest problems, I think, is that there was no way for low-level survivors from killing zombies permanently. Zombies could take out survivors, no problem, but unless you had Headshot, you couldn't take down a zombie.<br />
<br />
I know that's in-genre, given that they're the freaking undead and all, but it sucks game-wise.<br />
<br />
Thus, I came up with 'Body Bonfires', after watching the movie ''Night of the Living Dead''.<br />
<br />
Should this get implemented, survivors can now douse corpses in gasoline (from fuel cans) and set them alight with matches (find stats TBC), lighters (find stats TBC) or even a flare gun, if desperate. A burning corpse will degrade into a 'charred skeleton', after which time the character would be effectively 'perma-dead'.<br />
<br />
Note that this is meant to ''replace'' Headshot as the survivor perma-death, not co-incide with it.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Body Bonfires)====<br />
No. Why? Monroeville is quarantined and dead. Adding more items that make things even more difficult to find and implement will not suddenly change the dynamics of the city, nor will it make monroeville more fair. the point, i daresay, of that city is to more realistically show a zombie infestation, and the only way to do that is by making the limited amount of zombies unlimited, with only a small amount of very good zombie killers who can do anything about it, which still amounts to not much. its fine, and the city is pointless, and just leave it. and don't add matches and lighters to do what flare guns already do. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:33, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I think you misread my suggestion. For one, this is NOT for Monroeville. Monroeville is dead (or will be soon), this is for any new cities that will also have perma-death mechanics, should one ever be introduced. For another, you can only burn a zombie once they're on the ground having been 'temp-killed' (HP to 0). --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 09:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I didn't misread crap. Nothing in your post makes reference to any mythical city that is currently not existant. You only mention monroeville, and imply that is what your suggestion is about. And after reading it again, i've decided this is a) a dupe; b) spamtastic, given the non-existant nature of your supposed city; and c) incomplete, given that you don't actually talk about where it is implemented, or if its a skill, or how its done in the user interface. just allow it to die, and then we'll burn the suggestions corpse out of our memories. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 20:44, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Completely pointless because such a hypothetical perma-death city does not exist. You can't get more spamtastic than suggesting a mechanic for something that doesn't even exist. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:56, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Reminds me of both [[Suggestion:20070816 Burning Bodies]] and another suggestion which I can't quite find at the moment. It is entirely possible that this may be substantially a dupe. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:50, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I found [[Suggestions/RejectedFebruary2007#Flare Gun / Fuel Attack|Flare Gun / Fuel Attack]] interesting reading, to say the least. How many [[User:MrAushvitz|MrAushvitz]] suggestions have been implemented, now? Surely the apocalypse is extremely nigh... {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:57, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Sorry, no, perma-death would not go over in this game. It's simply not fun for the players, and gives a person a reason to give up playing. Favors survivors overwhelmingly, and doesn't really improve the game. I hate to be one of those types shooting down ideas, but this doesn't work. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:36, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A) You only mentioned Monroeville, the dead city. B) MV has one purpose now, and one purpose only: ZKing. [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 02:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Make graffiti readable in dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Logic Flaw Fix<br />
|suggest_scope=Graffiti in dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Graffiti disappears when the lights go out in dark buildings. Since it is unreasonable to assume that absolutely no light can get in any parts of dark buildings, why wouldn’t the graffiti just be sprayed in the areas that the little light can get in? Such places would be the front of cinemas (where the snack bar is, as there are usually windows out front), near the windows of the banks, and near the windows of standard buildings.<br />
<br />
I have never seen any buildings like these completely lacking windows in all areas, and windows would have to exist for Free Running to be possible, so even if the skylights haven’t been maintained, there’s no reason people wouldn’t be spraying the signs near the window areas where it’d be visible, even if the rest of the building is dark.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Make graffiti readable in dark buildings)====<br />
<br />
It's dark. You can't see dead bodies. Combat abilities are nerfed for everyone. You can't repair a building in the dark. Barricading and reviving are also disadvangtaged. So there's no logic flaw here, not at all. It's bloody ''dark''!!--[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:The logic is fine as is - after years of the outbreak, the walls will be pocked, peeling and covered in grime and blood, not to mention layers of graffiti in different colours. You'd need fairly good light to make out the latest message.<br />
:I was thinking of suggesting an item, book of matches, the sole purpose of which would be to let the user (only) read graffiti in the dark. But I couldn't be arsed looking for dupes etc. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 10:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::But..but.. what about all those blank rectangles I sprayed onto the walls to keep them clean and in one colour! In all seriousness, no to this suggestion. As Garum says, those walls are a mess, no matter how many blank rectangles you spray. :P - [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:03, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::We don't need a silly, pointless item like matches to spam our searches. Meh. It's dark. Deal with it. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:26, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
WE DEMAND BRAILLE GRAFFITI! Fuck you, cripple haters. I need to be able to read ''I like to poop'' no matter how much light is in the building. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 00:31, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Now ''That'' I would vote keep on.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:21, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And human civilization has truly gone full circle, as survivors have come back to the art of making stone tables with toolboxes. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 14:11, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===picking some one up===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 19:44, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=helping others.<br />
|suggest_scope=humans.<br />
|suggest_description=Almost all of us can say that we have been killed while sleeping, or have been a zombie and killed all the humans becuase most of them were sleeping. So why not allow people to carry some one out of danger? Lets say that you and some of your buddys are fleeing a horde, and one of them is out of AP, so why not pick him/her up? It would cost one AP to pick the player up, and 2 AP to move around, and you would not be able to free run {you are carrying another person). You also cant attack since, it would be to diffuclt.<br />
<br />
You would rengenrate AP as you would normally would, and can be put down for one AP. If the person carrying you is killed, you fall down and be as vunerable as you would be normally. Now comes the PKer question. Being able to pick some one up and carry them of to some were else to kill them would become a PKers best tool. So I sujest there should be a check box in the settings, which you can check yes or no to being picked up. If you try to pick some one up how has checked the box no, this happens.<br />
<br />
''you try to pick the person up, but they push you away: Italic text'' <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Picking some one up)====<br />
Pied Piper skills are a great no no. Specifically because of the griefing possibilities. Even with the block you suggested, I don't think it would be acceptable. A better way of determining who can pick you up would be to check for mutual contacts, and not ignored. Not that I think this would pass even with that, because I'm pretty sure this is a dupe. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:54, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Pied Piper? Whats that?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:15, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A pied piper skill is one that involves one player moving another (like the pied piper of hamelin and rats/children) Within game the closest we have is [[Feeding Drag]] which has on it very specific limiting factors. This is too prone to abuse. New players especially may not know its a feature, and one griefer could pick up a huge number of people and carry them directly outside. Where they would get et. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Just as Ross said, [[Frequently_Suggested#Pied_Piper_Skills|here]] is a link to it on the frequently suggested page. I suggest reading that page, will give you an idea of suggestions to avoid. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 20:31, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nequa please read Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested pages. They are linked to above, at the top of this page. Zangz. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:28, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I see what you mean, but I still think that the check box would stop that. And if you are tricked, well thats just bad luck.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:49, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Only way this would be prevented is if everyone had it set to "Do not allow me to be dragged away", and only switched back when they knew a rescue was on the way. It is simply to abusable in it's current form. And try telling the poor newbies, who weren't aware of the checkbox, that it was just bad luck and that they have to live with it after being dragged away from their VSB safehouse into an area full of EHB cades. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 21:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nothings perfect, and anyway you could kill somebody quickly and no one could stop you.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:17, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:surely the default should be ''dont allow carrying''. Stop a lot of griefing there? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sure, you could have that checkbox turned off as a default. But then, how would people who have this skill know who they could pick up, and who they could not?<br>Moving other players is a bad idea to begin with, play wise, so picking at th details is turd polishing at best. If you want to "rescue" people from danger , give them fist aid, try to fix the barricades, and recruit others to help them survive until they log back in, but don't presume to play the game for them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:30, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait, what? You think this is a skill? A skill you need to get by having enough XP? No, no, no, you dont need to purchase it. Also your other point about knowing if the person has the thing checked or not is a good point. You should probally put it on your describtion if you have it on or not, like the hydra defence.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:47, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Right. Other issues. If I pick up a level 1 survivor, this seems to allow me to carry him inside, and then free run to another building whilst carrying him. Regardless of his skills. Besides Im pretty sure its also a partial dup of firemans carry. Anyone got the link. I just feel its unworkable. sorry. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
[[PR_Skill_New:_Survivor:_Civilian#Fireman.27s_Carry_.28Bring_12HP_Survivor_Indoors.29|Fireman's Carry]], which is in Reviewed. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 22:55, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
LOL, that guy pretty much says the same thing I do. It appears great minds think alike. Now do I seem like a idiot?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:05, 2 September 2008 (BST<br />
:More so, now that you've said that. quit being unwilling to learn. everyones been very nice. now go actually FREAKING READ THE DO AND DO NOTS!<br />
:No one is pointing out the worst part of this. What if i create fifteen drones, and use them to carry a full army of survivors into zombie territory. you don't put it plainly, but you seem to infer that you can only be carried while sleeping (or at least, i'm hoping, because otherwise those zergs could carry armies of full ap'd characters) but either way, its a free trip for my sleeping characters, who spent their AP stocking on ammo. my zergs carry them in, dump them off in a zerg-repaired building, and let them sleep. now i have an army, 2 for one. thats what makes this bad. adding a penalty of 2 for one doesn't fix that.<br />
:and the griefing is absolutly grieftastic. what if i rescue someone with low HP out of a mall into a quiet factory where i show him my gun?... i mean... pk him. errm... or how about if i spend a whole 50 ap 'rescuing' any of the barricaders in a seige with a death culter. the check box doesn't solve this, because the only time that someone would want to be rescued is the same time where its worth abusing the feature. it fails because it will never work. if you can't free run with it, (can you enter/exit buildings?) then its worthless for doing anything but costing the zombie horde half the amount of AP to keep up with you.<br />
:This was long... sorry. but this suggestion is silly silly silly. NOW READ THE FAQ's and DO AND DO NOTS! Please. and don't read them and then try to come up with a better way to do what it tells you not to do... just DON'T suggest those things. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:15, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also, wan yao... i think one of my alts was just combat revived by you. Ha. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:22, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Combat Reviving FTW!!! ;P .... Up Roftwoodish or something, right? I vaguely remember CRing some zambah somewhere for some old reason or another, heheh... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:40, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::As for the suggestion... Yeah... you seem like an idiot at this moment, Nequa. This is a broken and unworkable idea. People are trying to explain that to you. But you're not listening, and you can't even be bothered to read the help pages for Suggestion development -- which are clearly linked to -- and which people have been providing you with links to, above... Smarten the fuck up, please, and quit wasting our time. Seriously. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:44, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I distinctly remember telling you to stop suggesting... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:49, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Feeding Drag in Large Buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:necrodeus/sig}} 02:46, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=improvement<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with feeding drag in large buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Hello team.<br />
<br />
The feeding drag skill allows zombies to drag survivors of less than 12HP outside through an ''open door'' at the cost of 1AP. Therefore, if a zombie enters a large building through an open door, then makes its way through the building unimpeded (ie, through more open doors or just empty space), beats a survivor down to 12HP or below, there should exist the option to feeding drag said survivor through the building.<br />
<br />
It makes sense, as you are inside a building and simply dragging the unfortunate survivor somewhere else in the building, presumably towards the horde that generally congregates in the opened block.<br />
<br />
Now I know that this is the same as suggesting that I could feeding drag a wounded survivor through open streets, but I do think that as it is limited to the insides of large buildings it is hardly useful as a griefing tool, neither would it be game breaking, and it fits in with the idea behind the feeding drag as well - if a zombie feels the need to drag someone outside, why should the fact that it's slightly longer distance than normal dissuade him?<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Feeding Drag in Large Buildings)====<br />
Kind of like a zombie equivalent for the fort body dump? I like it. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 04:02, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Seems out of genre, normally a zombie will feed for itself with absolutely NO consideration for a horde. Though this skill is a good idea, it would be a bit pointless because if you have a survivor at 12 HP and most of the time the only large building you are in would be a mall, it would mean you drag someone near dead to a horde, either way, the survivor was already HIGHLY LIKELY to die unless terribly low on AP this skill is just useless. I say just stick with infectious bite. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:No. Feeding Drag and zambahz helping babahz is ''totally'' part of the genre -- as in, it's ''in the game'' ... So it's part of the genre. Zombies in Urban Dead have intelligence, more like in Return of the Living Dead than in Romero's movies. Regarding the suggestion, I think this is a great idea! But it should cost at least 2 AP to so, perhaps more. You usually don't have to drag as far, or through as complicated a series of buildings as in a fort, so I'm not sure if the same AP costs is in order... but perhaps... Still, in siege situations where this matters, we tend to just tend to kill rather than worry about dragging... However, even then, this ability would be FAR from "useless". --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:08, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ok.. I'm out of it.. I understood this as the equivalent of dragging a body outside the Forts. Which would mean you click the ability and you drag your target outside -- and you go with him, just like you would a normal feeding drag. No "half drags" to another corner of the mall -- it's all or nothing, all the way outside, or not at all. And that would cost 2 AP. And of course you'd still have to spend AP getting back inside and to the action, if that's your desire. There are some tricks to overcome with this... but it's a cool idea, nonetheless. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:37, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Yeah, I like it as well. Some people might call it greifing though [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 04:21, 31 August 2008 (BST).<br />
<br />
I was 50/50 between making it just like a body dump costing 2AP and making it like it is now, but certainly a feeding drag all the way outside for 2AP - like the survivor body dump - is just as keeping in genre and could be considered less of a potential griefing tool.<br />
<br />
What if it just acted the same as feeding drag, so I end up outside. It costs 2AP, and then if I want to get back inside it just costs me the same as normal movement rates - so at least 1AP to just re-enter the building, and 2 AP to get back to where I was originally? It's hardly a griefing tool, you're only ever going to end up outside the building you were in, and at most 1 block away from where you were {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 12:38, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:That's exactly what I just said, man... The only issue could be as follows: you're in mall, all corners are heavily barricaded except one, which is wide open... you're in another (non-open) corner killing some folk, and you want to use this ability. Now, do you drag the victim to the outside of your ''current'' corner, or do you end up moving to the open corner? What if there is more than one open corner? Or, if you drag to the outside of your current corner, then how do you justify bypassing barricades -- because even just a closed door negates feeding drag... See the problems? This is a very spiffy idea IMO, but these things need to be worked out... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:00, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::I was agreeing with you! I was thinking that the feeding drag took them out of the open corner, rather than through the barricades. As for what would happen if more than one door was open, I would say go to the nearest one, except that in a four block square, every sqaure is as near as any of the others...I couldn't see it making too much of a difference which one you drag someone out of, so I would make it random; the zombie just heads towards the light, any light. That way, as long as there is a door open when the button is pressed, the feeding drag will be successful, rather than allowing the user a choice. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 17:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Probably won't matter a lot now since this suggestion would likely get implemented (if ever) after Monroeville closes, but in that city there are non-standard large building shapes, like [[Monroeville Mall]]. You can like drag someone across four blocks. :O Also, how would a zombie know which building block is open from where he/she stands? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:22, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Malls, Mansions, Power Stations ... are large buildings which means they are functionally ''one building''. With fours sets of barricades. And four ''zmargahzbargz, GRAAAAGH!'' The zombies knew how to get inside and move around when there was only one entry point, so why couldn't they know how to get back out? And, I mean, like he could just look around... Also, yeah, no-one cares about MV, it's over... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:48, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Well, ''you'' as the player know there's an entrance to the building, at least recently. In contrast, your zombie can only check within the block he's in -- even adjacent ruined blocks [[Pinata|aren't guaranteed]] that there are no cades there. Unless the zombie is actually looking at every block in the building (something which implies free moves), then without metagaming he/she won't really know there is an exit should dragging be done. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::But like Wan said, you're basically inside one large building. If you try and feeding drag inside a regular building, and the doors been closed, or whatever, you get a message and lose an AP, like for any failed attack. It's the same here. And the whole point of feeding drag is that zombies *do* know where the exit is --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. Its not needed. Once zombies get into a large building, they almost always take it down by keeping one corner ruined, or at least unbarricaded. The babah zombies can just come inside to feed, entering by spotting the ruined corner and then gorging themselves. Besides not being needed, its got a lot of potential complications. What if a large building has multiple open sections? Which one does the zombie drag them to? If zombies really wanted to use feeding drag in every section, they could just spend a few AP each to tear down the barricades, even getting a bonus for attacking from the inside in most cases.<br>I think its safe to say, if a zombie tries to drag a survivor across one or more blocks inside a large building, the survivor struggles and breaks free. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:36, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I'm afraid I disagree; you seem to have a fairly convincing argument against feeding drag itself; namely that if your baby zombah is standing outside any old building, he can see it's open and shamble on in. So why do we need feeding drag at all? I've already answered the point about which exit to be used as well. And yes, I could spend a whole load of AP tearing down the barricades to feeding drag a wounded survivor outside, or I could just spend 2AP and drag the human outside the exit that's already open. <br>And surely the point of feeding drag is that the survivor is wounded enough to not be able to stop it happening? And why should a human be able to drag a zombie across several squares of fort without it reviving? In both cases, if the player is online, they are better able to defend against this, with the difference being that all a survivor needs to do to 'break free' is simply walk back inside the building. <br> If I'm way off here, let me know, but it makes sense to me --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Not of base, but my point is, if zombies on a whole really cared about feeding drag, each of the ~20 or so in a large building could kick in 4 AP and blow away any barricades on that building quarter. That's really only enough AP to kill 2-3 survivors- not enough to slow down a siege once zombies are comping on a SECOND building corner. So it seems to me that zombies themselves do not put much importance on whether they can use feeding drag or not, as evidenced by their own actions in raids. Its not needed to make zombies vs large buidings work, nor would it really make it much better.<br>Truth told, feeding drag was originally used mostly to combat the "yo-yo barricade" syndrome by getting a building emptied (and ransacked) faster; now that zombies can block barricade building, its a bit of an atavism. Its main use is as a "visible" version of feeding groan. For a mall, if you want to let zombies know there is an active strike with some visible cue, just killing the generator is often good enough. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:16, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Fait enough for a horde sweeping through a building, but in my experience, I use eeding Drag for two reasons: Firstly, when I break into a building with one or two others, I know there is a chance that it will escalate into a horde swarming in, but more often that not, it won't. But by dragging a human outside, that's one less defender, and a drain on resources, because that person is outside regardless of whether I get headshot and evicted or not. Secondly, the FU tends to use it as a in game piece of flavour as much as a way of feeding the zedlings. So for a horde, I agree, Feeding Drag is unneccessary, and if you've got the resources to tear down the barricades with ease, then I'm all for that too, but for feral zombies, or smaller groups it's a slightly different ball game --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 00:39, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::When playing a feral (and my death cultist, too, actually) I use and think of Feeding Drag the same way necrodeus describes. It helps small numbers of zombies get the ransack faster. Also, if the cades go up, that drag-meat is suddenly isolated. And drag-meat is fantastic feral bait. And, yup, I do it very much for flavour/RP effect as well. Although, it doesn't work thar well for feeding babahz, b/c usually some big zambah comes along and eats them :( ... This is all in very big contrast to striking with the MOB, where we only drag if we are very intent on getting that damn biulding cleared -- because we can always tag-team to finish someone off if we have to. And if we are feeding a babah, we bring the babah inside with us. This suggestion is more for the ferals than for highly organised hordes... <br />
::::And a few other things: killing a gennie is not enough: GKing is too common... And swiers you know how annoying barricades are -- it really is asking a lot for a smaller number of ferals zombies to invest what it takes to open up EHB cades... But all that being said... Perhaps this isn't necessary, not really. And, it might in the end be a zombie buff that is just a tiny, tiny bit too much... Particularly with cade blocking... But... I still like it... ;) --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:36, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Well, I'm going to put it up, and see what the people / merciless flamers have to say.. {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:45, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I'm not gonna flame it; it can;t do enough harm to deserve that. My personal issue is that I'd like (as much as possible) to avoid moving other characters to different blocks (I even proposed [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20070616_Fort_Revision:_dumping_bodies_over_walls|a fort dumping mechanic that avoided this]]), and that its benefit is so small for the coding effort involved. Mall raids are already a smorgashboard for ferals, so I don't see the point of arguing it helps feed them there. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:37, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Private homes===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:18, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=new building.<br />
|suggest_scope=anybody how enters it.<br />
|suggest_description=Why does it appear that there are no private homes in Malton? I know its a city and your more likely to find a privat home in the subburbs, but I do know there are private homes in the city. We dont really need private homes but it would add realism to the game. There could also be another benafit. Since anybody could have lived in that house, from a NRA gun nut, to some tech loving nerd, you could find anything in thear. But there should be list of items you could not find in the house.<br />
<br />
List of items you could NOT find in a house:<br />
<br />
Necrotech syringe<br />
<br />
DNA scanner<br />
<br />
Flak vest (there could be one there, but it seems hard to belive)<br />
<br />
fire ax<br />
---------------<br />
Also here is the describtion you would see if you went in the building.<br />
<br />
-With power: You enter a well lit home, you start to feel like you were before the out break.<br />
<br />
-With no power: You enter a dark house.<br />
<br />
-when ruined: You enter a house and notice how everything is thrown apart, which grimly reminds you of what has happend here. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Private home)====<br />
If I may ask, how long have you been playing the game? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:36, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
To answer your question, about a week, I have been running around rhodenbank. Let me guess? There are private homes and I have just not found them yet?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:39, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There are [[Mansion|mansions]], and various [[Building_Types#Building|buildings]] around the city can be thought of as offices/condominiums, where you can imaging living places in.<br><br />
There are other reasons why private homes aren't found on the map.<br />
*One is that they're too small, same reason why you don't put a single tree on the map (and for those that are large enough, see mansions).<br />
*Another is that with most survivors just looting around the city and zombie hordes chasing after them, most houses are in such a state of ruin that they are essentially unrecognizable, turning residential districts into [[wasteland]].<br />
*Finally, they are quite insignificant in the grand scale of the survivor-zombie conflict that adding them now three years after the game has launched simply doesn't make the game any more enjoyable or fulfilling than it is before, and frankly it'll only be a waste of time and effort to put them in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:51, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then instead of adding homes how about updating the regular buildings to be more like apartments? Because most buildings have a RP (EX:pubs,police stations,forts) thing you can do with it, but the regular office buildings are boring. Maybe they could add my search idea without the need of a new building type?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:19, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Your search idea is horrible. Normal buildings already do not have items; what you're doing here is the opposite in that you can find ''anything'' in them, and just for that it will be spammed. As for your roleplaying bit, that will take a much lower priority than improving UD gameplay, especially when you consider there is a suitable alternative (once again, mansions, and normal buildings aren't too shabby -- just add some decorations) and multiple other possible roleplaying locations. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:30, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There's no private homes because the private homes are usually at the outskirts of a city, and what we have in Malton...Is the big city. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 19:16, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I usually just think of the street blocks as containing such houses. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:52, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Private homes are not really appropriate to the game. They can be assumed to exist on many blocks... because it's generally accepted that the block description refers to the most prominent or most utilised building on the block... <br />
<br />
But... yeah... Nequa... please play the game for a while before posting suggestion ideas. Hang out and read this page for a while. And start playing some zombies, PKers, death cultists, whatever, as well a survivors. And join a good group or three. Barhah.com is a great board, and though it's zombie-centric, everyone is welcome. Beerhah.com is a good place to go for survivor stuff. Anyhoooo... back to suggestions stuff... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:47, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Dump dead bodies from dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Restoring normal ability<br />
|suggest_scope=Dead bodies and dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Under current game mechanics, you can’t dump dead bodies from dark buildings. How does this make any sense? You can get in and out of the building, even through Free Running, yet somehow you can no longer remove dead bodies? Or do the exits magically close somehow when you try to remove someone?<br />
<br />
Currently, you can see anyone hiding in the shadows of very dark buildings, but you can’t see/dump dead bodies. Even if you just killed the thing, you somehow can’t find its body, even though you’d be tripping all over it!? Once again, it doesn’t make sense. Only once you light up the place does it become possible to dump the dead. Since I see no reason for it to be physically impossible to find or dump dead bodies, they should always be recognizable and dumpable.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Dump dead bodies from dark buildings)====<br />
A possible explanation is that people in dark buildings are found and attacked because they're breathing so loudly and their hearts are thumping. Similarly, standing zombies are wheezing. However, dead bodies emit no noise, and if you're tromping through a building hoping to step through a ribcage, you should be spending AP to do so. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}21:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Or because they are fumbling with heavy furniture in the dark to barricade the building, or shooting guns, or... {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:48, 29 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::Well, how about another take on it. Anyone who dies in the building...if their body is still inside when someone who witnessed the death takes a turn, they notice the body (since it wasn't cleared). The body wouldn't have moved from its original spot that fast.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:06, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Group Bonus===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:22, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance change<br />
|suggest_scope=All denizens of Malton who belong to groups<br />
|suggest_description= <br><br />
<br />
OK, so while I used the template, I’ve brought this to the discussion page in a fairly informal manner because I don’t pretend to be a programmer and I don’t pretend to know what is possible. I like this idea, but I can see my own problems with it from a technical standpoint – and I’m hoping that others here might be able to help with the solutions on that front.<br />
<br />
Here’s the basic idea – in the real world groups are much stronger than individuals. People en masse accomplish much more, whether it be construction projects, armies, or lobbying government. Organization has an additive effect to efficacy - pretty much every time. <br />
<br />
Also – there is a benefit to being part of an organization for humanity. There is community, the transfer of knowledge, the advancement of the overall ends of society.<br />
<br />
With that in mind, I think there should be an in-game bonus for group activity. This will encourage folks to join groups, which in turn will raise the overall level of gameplay across Malton. This bonus would apply to ANY group working in concert – be in human, PK’er, death cultist, or zombie – so there are no powering issues between warring factions – only a power difference between the grouped and the ungrouped. Given there are few restrictions to joining or forming groups, the ungrouped would hardly become a put-upon constituency.<br />
<br />
So how to do it? Originally, I thought a simple tiered bonus for group size measured by the number of folks who have a common group name in their profiles. Say a 5% to-hit/search/cading bonus for folks part of groups from 25-49 members, and maybe 7.5% for 50-74 members, and 10% for over 75 members.<br />
<br />
The problem there would be that it encourages a new form of zerging. Folks would make “Group Scarecrows” that they would park far away from active group activity, but who have the group name in their profile. They’d technically not be in violation of alt abuse, and it would be very hard for group leaders to prevent, and of course the incentive would be to do it.<br />
<br />
So, I am wondering if the UD engine would be able to detect proximity effects and award bonuses that way? In this case, I’d lower the numbers required for the bonuses a lot – say 10-24 for the 5% bonus, 25-39 for the 7.5% bonus, and 40+ for the 10% bonus – and say that if you’ve got that many folks operating in one XX block radius, you get the bonus.<br />
<br />
Is such possible? If so, I think it would reward all the right behaviors in this game, and be pretty darn cool. My parameters are suggestions - they could be lowered, raised, modified. I am really interested first and foremost what folks think of the concept, THEN hammering out rational details that might actually be taken to voting. So, first "Is there a reasonable way this could work?" then "Would we want it if it could?" then "How exactly should it work?"<br />
<br />
What do you think? <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion Group Bonus====<br />
<br />
I'd vote kill, simply because you are not given a hidden bonus in real life from being in a group. Moral boost, maybe. But the rest you accomplish by working closely with your group. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 16:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Impossible. proximity detection would kill the server. Assume a 5 block radius, the game would have to, on every action, harvest information on userlists for 81 blocks (inside and out), run zerg detection routines on that information, and it would have to then count the number in the group. Now, imagine this happening to the server 30,000+ times a day. You would basically increasing server load more than a hundredfold all up (Quite probably by a factor of well over a thousand). As for the rest, without proximity detection, it collapses under the obvious zerg abuse you mentioned. Proximity detection is a myth, despite claiims to the contrary. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 16:41, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think Grim_s is right - without some radical reorg of the account system it's just not possible. I was hoping some genius might have a work-around, but I bet he's right that there isn't one. Whitehouse - thanks for the comment - but I disagree with you. In real life you '''DO''' get the bonus - the door opens for the AARP in Washington that would never open for the unaligned individual. The group can clear a forest while the individual could spend a lifetime chopping a grove. I think it's moot though. --[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:59, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Even if possible, the advantage to being in a group should come from coordinating with other group members to do difficult tasks that an individual couldn't do. You get a big advantage from being in a well-organised group. You don't deserve an advantage from a bunch of people all spelling the group name correctly. This suggestion is a reward for crap metagaming, which we don't need. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 17:24, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:You misunderstood my point. And Garum probably phrased it better than me. You get those advantages from working together, not from simply being in a group (at least not the type of advantages you were thinking of). Being in a group is a moral boost, working together with it creates results far better than that of individuals. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 17:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Oh I see, you're saying that giving an incentive for group behavior beyond already existing benefits doesn't have merit. OK, thanks. Fair enough.--[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 17:45, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::If you want to encourage group work, then find ways for groups to work better together instead of just giving people buffs for having the same group tag. Zombie hordes have scent death, recently someone suggested a way for zombies to sniff out their buddies. Such suggestions, which strengthen the ties of a group, will give good results, the good results are the incentive. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 18:50, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Technical details aside, this simply isn't appropriate. This is an RPG, and in RPGs the benefits of groups are simply those of multiple players co-operating. When members of a group communicate and co-operate, they are more effective. If they don't, then they aren't- just like real life. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 20:07, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
i haveno clue about all the technical aspects, but this just isnt a good suggestion. kinda sucks to be on of those people who likes to stay unaffiliated, cause they get screwed on the deal.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:19, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
If this was implemented, it would be possible for a user, for example, to put the name of a large group into their profile, and get all the benefits, without being a member of the group. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 21:45, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is illogical. The only bonus people should recive from being in a group is having someone to cover their back. No magic bonuses. No special abilities. Just that. --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 02:48, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Take a look at Nexus War for group mechanics. The main problem is that ANYONE can be in ANY group at ANY time.-[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:04, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Restaurants===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 15:12, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New building<br />
|suggest_scope=People who take notice of buildings<br />
|suggest_description=If Malton has pubs, it really should have at least a few fancy restaurants, which could potentially replace a few of the pubs in the richer areas of town. The Maltonians can't all have only ever eaten/drunk beer, peanuts and crisps outside of their homes.<br />
<br />
:'''Mechanics'''<br />
<br />
''Restaurant''<br />
* Dark building<br />
* Can be barricaded, ransacked, ruined and have equipment installed normally.<br />
* Internal description<br />
** Unpowered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The once-busy dining area lies in darkness.''<br />
** Powered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant.''<br />
** Ransacked ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The chairs and tables are overturned, and cutlery and napkins litter the floor.''<br />
* Search rates (normal, if dark condition were not applied)<br />
** Knife (3%) (kitchen knives)<br />
** Wine (6%) (the finest in town)<br />
** Mobile Phone (1%) (some careless people...)<br />
** Menu (6%) (Flavour item, when used displays "The menu reads: <random fancy dishes>", and flavour text "''You think about them hungrily''" (currency not specified).)<br />
* Clothing<br />
** a chef's hat (white) (obviously)<br />
** an apron (white/black) (waiters)<br />
** standard generic formalwear (maitre d'hôtel, sommelier, general higher-ranking service staff)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Restaurants)====<br />
Can we have one at the corner of the map? We shall call it, "The Restaurant at the End of Malton"... :3 --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:44, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't see why not --[[User:Diablor|Diablor]] 01:53, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Whines* Pubs (Arms) aren't fancy enough for you?<br> Mah Pubs not fancy enough for you, foo? Only if there is a Pub at the end of the world.. Already.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 02:51, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it, but I think the menu should be just like a newspaper with different flavour text. For that matter, would newspapers be suitable to be found here? [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 03:07, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A ''dark'' restaurant? Dunno about where you're from but around here people put big ass windows on restaurants coz ppl like to see outside...also a stupid idea. Pointless and you would have to think up some ridiculous way to explain why everyone in malton thought it was a pub but it turned out to be a restaurant.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:54, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:It was always a restaurant and nobody ever thought it was a pub. And 2+2 has always equalled 5. And we have always been at war with Eurasia. And darkness really depends on the restaurant, but good point. --{{User:Anotherpongo/sig}} 11:45, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Not pointless. Knives are the best weapons for newbies, yet malls are the only places with > 1% chance of finding them. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:02, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
As much as I hate suggestions that don't seem to solve any problems, we do need a TRB for knives, and this seems like a great way to do it.{{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 16:33, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Absolutely! TRP for knives, and logical and fun flavor. --[[User:UCFSD|UCFSD]] 17:17, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
a suggestion so simple that it makes sence lol i say yea bring on the restaurants!--[[User:Fanglord2|Fanglord2]] 02:37, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I '''Always''' vote for building suggestions-always love a change [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 09:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Vote all you like, I'm pretty sure a building change suggestion has never been implemented. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 10:04, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Kevan has talked about doing it before<sub>(it's in his talk page archives for those curious few)</sub>, it's not entirely out of the question.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:51, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Building changes not implemented? Dark? Ruin? Fixing the fort walls? Its not without precedent.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:46, 31 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::::He meant changing one building (type) into another building (type). The first significant building change was to make large buildings into "1" building, but they were ALL still the same building to begin with.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:05, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I'll concede that the forts were revamped from just the armoury building to the 9-block compounds that they are now, but as far as I'm aware that wasn't based on a player suggestion. Large buildings and walls changed how some buildings worked, not what type of building they were per se. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this suggestion.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:16, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Asum(awesome)!!! Lol! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Face Rot===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Zombie Skill, subskill of brain rot.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Brain Rot.<br />
|suggest_description=The rot has spread, now it shrivels and distorts the facial features. The person underneath is hard to recognise.<br />
<br />
In game terms, its a buff for zombie anonymity. Unless the zombie is in your contacts you cannot recognise him if.<br />
<br />
*He stands up<br />
*Destroys barricades/equipment<br />
*Kills or injures.<br />
<br />
His profile can still be gained through a successful scan, or if you recognise them via your contacts. (You could be familiar with his limp, a watch or other item, his groaning etc.)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Face Rot)====<br />
Go on. Savage it, like my horribly ruined features. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I like it, what better way to implement Zombie Anonymity than through a skill? Plus. it promotes the Brain Rot! :D --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 18:54, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
How would this work when they're alive? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 19:38, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Then their profile just states they look like [http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=Gary+Busey&btnG=Search+Images Gary Busey] --{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:52, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bloody Brilliant!!! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 22:27, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Good, apart from one thing. How do you explain not being able to recognise a corpse you just saw die when it stands up. This case would only be when you are in the same location for the period of time in which a character dies and rises (in the case of first being a survivor which is recognisable to all anyway). Explanation could be that the face rot while cleared up by the revivification effect while alive, takes hold again almost instantaneous. But that still wouldn't change the fact that you saw that body die and rise, thereby knowing exactly who it was. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 23:36, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A good idea, except that Whitehouse's point might need addressing. How do looks change so quickly? {{User:Ariedartin/Nickname}} 06:22, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't like this idea. It's balanced and innovative but it disregards the true zombie mentality. Yes, I love zombie anonymity. But I am always in the belief that true zombie characters should be willing to do the *above* three actions '''and''' have their anonymity threatened to whoever wants to use it, in order to succeed their goal. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 12:04, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Interesting points. I'm off to make a ridiculous suggestion, and I'll think about this. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 14:24, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
In relation to Whitehouses point. How about an extra piece of text like. "Blah killed Example, their face decomposes before your eyes. "--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:37, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I saw no one pointed it out and I have a feeling you'll actually check before suggesting this. This isn't actually a buff to zombies, this is removing the one way in which zombie groups generally recruit. I like the idea of starting to get zombie anonymity back, it never should have left but, this hurts them, especially because survivors still get all the workarounds they want/use while zombies now have absolutely no way of knowing who to go to for help/advice/etc.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 09:07, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Suggestions up for voting==<br />
===Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080831 Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark]] as suggestion is up for voting. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:17, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Nurse===<br />
Moved to voting, under the new name of [[Suggestion:20080826_Doctor's_Clinic|Doctor's Clinic]]<br />
----<br />
===Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080827 Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:03, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Dead Reckoning===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion_talk:20080826_Dead_Reckoning]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 09:46, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Developing_Suggestions&diff=1271105Developing Suggestions2008-09-10T21:11:44Z<p>Janine: /* Discussion (Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Suggestion Navigation}}<br />
==Developing Suggestions==<br />
''This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which '''have not yet been submitted''' and are still being worked on.''<br />
<br />
===Further Discussion===<br />
Discussion concerning this page takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Discussion_About_Talk:Suggestions|here]].<br />
Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general (including policies about it) takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Suggestion_Discussion|here]].<br />
<br />
Nothing on this page will be archived.<br />
<br />
== Please Read Before Posting ==<br />
<br />
*''Be sure to check [[Frequently Suggested#The List|The Frequently Suggested List]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots | Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]] before you post your idea.'' There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a '''dupe''', or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. '''These include [[Suggestions/RejectedNovember2005#SMG.2FMachine_Pistol|Machine Guns]] and [[Suggestions/24th-Apr-2007#Rooftops.2C_Sniper_Rifle.2C_and_Sniper_Ammo|Sniper Rifles]]'''. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.<br />
*Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.<br />
*It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.<br />
<br />
== How To Make a Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
====Format for Suggestions under development====<br />
<br />
Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header <br />
"'''[[Talk:Suggestions#Suggestions|Suggestions]]'''", paste the copied text '''above''' the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in <span style="color: red">red</span> with the details of your suggestion.<br />
<br />
<nowiki><br />
===</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion</font><nowiki>===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=~~~~<br />
|suggest_type=</nowiki><font color="red">Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_scope=</nowiki><font color="red">Who or what it applies to.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_description=</nowiki><font color="red">Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.</font><nowiki><br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion Name</font><nowiki>)====<br />
----</nowiki><br />
<br />
====Cycling Suggestions====<br />
Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit. <br />
<br />
This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the [[Talk:Suggestions/Overflow1|Overflow]]-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.<br />
<br />
If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the <nowiki>{{SNRV|X}}</nowiki> at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:1.5em"><font color="red">'''Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.'''</font></span><br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Suggestions==<br />
<br />
===Scavenging===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:01, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill change.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors.<br />
|suggest_description=<br />
<br />
Change the name of Bargain Hunting to Scavenging.<br />
<br />
Now the skill gives a flat +10% chance for a successful search in ANY building. What item you get would still be random as normal.<br />
<br />
Sub-skill:<br />
Focused Search<br />
Costs: 100 points<br />
<br />
Each building has a new option to do a focused search. A building will have a drop down menu of every item you can find in it, and you can choose what you want to look for, but you suffer a -10% to the base chance for a successful search. So it would be as if you didn't have the Scavenging skill at all, but still take a -10% to the unmodified base chance on top of that.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Scavenging)====<br />
Bnhr. Doesn't seem bad.. Your thoughts? {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 20:27, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:So its a global 10% increase in search rates? Justification? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:36, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Expand Malton Map===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 17:52, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Map Improvement / add-on<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, Zombies<br />
|suggest_description=This would make for a lot of work on Kevan's part, but I suggest adding a suburb-sized corridor of forest to one side of the map's edge, leading to a small town or a cluster of small towns a few suburbs large. This new area would have limited resource buildings (because it's out in the country) and no NT buildings so that it would be very difficult to revive there. It would be ideal for experienced survivors willing to take on the challenge, as it would be a little bit like Monroeville only instead of permanent death you'd have to travel very far to get revived or face a long revive queue. Survivors who don't like this area or think zombies have an unfair advantage can simply stay in urban Malton.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Expand Malton Map)====<br />
<br />
As much as I like the idea of introducing elemts of the Monroeville map to Malton, I just can't see it happening this way. Besides, we already have suburb sized survivor deserts - walked around Dunell Hills lately? Plus you couldn't justify it in game - why does the city have a line of forest nest to it? And why has the barricade zone been increased? --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 19:54, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
You've been [[PR_Malton#Fallback|Fallback'd]]. Still nice idea, And starting with T:S first. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 20:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 20:57, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New usage of existing skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors in ruined, especially long-ruined buildings.<br />
|suggest_description=A survivor with the Construction skill and a toolbox has a new action button: "Repair One Day's Decay (3AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs, and reduce the building's number of days decayed, and the AP required to repair it, by one. This option would only appear if the building has been ruined for four or more days.<br />
<br />
This gives survivors who are repairing long-ruined buildings, such as forts which have been in zombie hands for weeks, an opportunity to coordinate and distribute the AP cost of repairs, which in some cases can drive a fully-rested survivor into negative AP. This coordination is extremely time-consuming, and thus requires triple the AP that repairing the building alone would consume. Eventually, this coordination would reduce the remaining work to a job that one survivor could finish, and that survivor can simply click "Repair" to complete the repairs.<br />
<br />
This suggestion is an attempt to build consensus for or against several previously [[Undecided Suggestions]], such as [[Suggestion:20080804 Repairing Really Ruined Buildings|Repairing Really Ruined Buildings]], [[Suggestion:20080625 Ruin Repairing change|Ruin Repairing Change]], and [[Suggestion:20080729 Partial Repair|Partial Repair]].<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP)====<br />
Oh look, a survivor complaining about how hard it is to coordinate efforts among several survivors. You have clearly never played as a zombie. Zombies have to coordinate efforts all the time to just get into buildings. You don't want to spend 40+ AP to repair a building? Get off your ass and take it back sooner. Organize a better defense of it in the first place. Changing the mechanics because some players suck at the game is retarded.<br />
Let's stop pitching in Major League Baseball because not everyone can get a home run. Let's make it like T-Ball. If the game is made easier for THE MAJORITY OF THE PLAYERS that will really make it fun for the minority! --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:21, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Sometimes, when I read your replies, I wonder which game you're playing. Just a heads-up, this is the suggestion discussion area for a browser-based casual game about humans and zombies called Urban Dead. Some people have commented that survivors, despite outnumbering the zombies, have Rambo syndrome and never cooperate. This suggestion would give them an option to cooperate, though at a higher total AP cost than sacrificing one human to repair the building and then reviving him later, which requires no cooperation beyond standing at an RP and saying, "Mrh?" [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::No, Dago, this suggestion will make it easier for strafing repairs without danger to the survivors and therefore completely nerf the ruin update. You seem to forget that there is no mechanic available to a zombie to speed up the AP needed to repair a building, so ideas like this that cost low AP to undo something that only time can change are stupid and horribly unbalanced. Using your numbers - 3 AP will remove 2 APs worth of damage. So,if a survivor has 40 AP to spend that is 13 clicks which equals 26 AP. '''So for 1 day's worth of AP a survivor can undo a month's worth of damage and still be able to get away.''' And you want to make this so more than one survivor can repair a ruin like this? The current system is much better because it is all or nothing. But please whine about how I don't offer constructive criticism since you didn't bother to read any of the comments on the suggestions you are raping to make this abortion of an idea. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:30, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Again, you add racial slurs and little else to the discussion. You also have a math error there. A building costs 1 AP per day to repair, so this suggestion would triple the AP required. A survivor who happens to have maximum AP can repair a month of ruin and get away, by spending 30 AP, and would not need to click anything 13 times. Also, you are correct that you don't offer constructive criticism, you only offer rage and spite. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You have reading errors then. You posted ''"Repair One Day's Decay (2AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs'' One day's decay is not 2 AP like you posted in the suggestion. If you are saying that it triples the amount of AP needed to repair then spending 30 AP should only undo 10 AP worth of damage. This goes back to my whole point about making strafing repair runs and how it isn't fair that zombies can't undo the exact amount of damage that survivors can repair, but you seemed to have missed all that you fuckstick. (are insults better than racial slurs? I could call you a wop if you would prefer that.) You know, the only reason I add the slurs and insults is so people like you and Galaxy have something to latch onto and reply to since you obviously don't listen to reason or experience. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Congratulations! You can spot typos and swear on the internet! I'm afraid I can only fix the first, though. Thanks! [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You can't even be bothered to proof read your own suggestion? Really now. How hard would that have been? It wasn't even that far into the suggestion. It was right toward the top. The fact that you didn't read your suggestion before you posted it also tells me that you didn't think about it too much and just hit SAVE PAGE. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 17:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Maybe if survivors don't act like Rambo and actually did teamwork, this would be a non-issue. After all you only need three people tops to repair a building: one to search for gennies and fuel and install them (for dark), one to repair, and one to barricade. On the other hand it takes more than three zombies to take one EHB building with those same three survivors in it. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 00:53, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Actually, this suggestion would ''encourage'' teamwork. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Therefore, you admit that survivors don't actually do much teamwork in the first place if they have to get a massive buff for them to get their asses moving to repair all those dark buildings. Quite a sad state of affairs, isn't it? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:55, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::It is. Want to fix it? [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You do not solve social problems such as survivor laziness by changing the game's design; if you do that, all it would do is show that their laziness is perfectly fine, and that mocks all the organized effort zombie groups do just to keep your shit ruined. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 14:08, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I look forward to your suggestion on how to solve social problems. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I look forward to you making a non-crappy suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bitching about how hard it is for one group and how crap the other plays is hardly constructive now is it? The main use for this would not be for survivors to co-operate (it should be but wouldn't get used in that way) instead this would enable altruistic survivors the chance to slowly fix up a ruin without leaving them self out in the open! Sadly that very fact means that this would just attract hordes of low level zergs to gradually rebuild an area with less risk of needing revives :( --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:11, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, but at a higher AP cost than repairing and reviving. It gives survivors options, but doesn't take anything away from Zombies except for APs that would otherwise be used pumping shotgun shells into them. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This isn't needed. shit, Fort Perryn was just taken back and it was ruined for a while (not as long as some buildings up north, granted). oh, and DCC: calm down.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 03:12, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Needed? Maybe not. But it makes sense, it encourages survivor cooperation, and it soaks survivor APs. All are things that both zombie and survivor players have said the game needs. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::How in the fuck is survivors cooperating something zombies need? When did any ZOMBIE player say they needed survivors to pull together? Survivors are really fucking lucky this game doesn't have perma-death and that the creator steps in to help them out when their own stupidity leads them to the brink of destruction. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:39, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::How long have you been around? Zombie players have been some of the main ones bit*hing that survivors are too damn uncoordinated, not that it would help zombies, but it would make the game funner to play. Not everything is about game-mechanics, and if there were no survivors left why would you play? Sounds to me you're putting down the game because survivors are stupid, yet are bit*hing they shoulden't be forced to be smart, like zombies are... and that my friend, is more f**ked up then any susgestion ever made.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 03:02, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::[http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=97517 I've] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Many been] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/DARIS around] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Dead awhile.] The survivors being coordinated or not does not make the zombie aspect of the game "funner". And when zombie players bitch that the survivors suck it is because instead of trying to get together and work as a team they all just suggest buffs to themselves or nerfs to zombies to solve the problem. Buffing them unfairly does not "force them to be smart". --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Remember that what is fun for you is not fun for all zombie players. Some zombie players want to do something other than turn brainz into Mrh? cows. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Enlighten me, Oh Zombie Master, what else a zombie can do in this fucking game. They can't spread zombie grafitti, play on the radio, or even hold IC conversations (since their alphabet is so fucking limited). They can't even get XP through any means other than hitting survivors (or other zombies). Other than killing what the fuck can a person that plays a zombie do? That's why it is so frustrating when assholes like you want to come along and make things harder on the few people that actually fucking play zombies in this zombie "apocalypse" game. Keep suggesting stupid shit and drive off the zed players. Then you and the rest of the dipstick survivors can have your little circle jerk in peace without those pesky undead. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::And we can have campfires and sing "Kumbaya". I'm glad to see you're keeping an open mind. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Quit having such a smarmy attitude and responding to everyone's comments with something that you seem to consider a comeback, Deyo. People are offering straight forward critiques of this, and all of the similar ideas. Reaching a compromise of idea's that were spammed or duped or otherwise rejected for their overall um-workability is still just an unworkable idea. The whole point of saying dupe is that what needs to be said has been said, and we don't need to hash over all the arguments all over again. its up to you to read through those and realize for yourself that it won't work, and try to come up with something actually creative or unique, otherwise you will simply be spam voted or dupe voted down. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 07:25, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Between smarmy and hateful, I'll take smarmy every time. Zombie replies to any suggestion that gives survivors any additional options have been akin to "YOU RAEPD MAI DOG!" I don't claim to understand it, so I attempt to defuse it by turning their own words against them. For example, you say that the ideas were spammed, duped, or otherwise rejected. This is untrue. The suggestions were all '''Undecided''' at the end of voting. My hope is that by making this option unattractive to all but the most organized survivor groups, it will be less offensive to the zombie players who seem to be the most vocal and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war impassioned] contributors to this wiki. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. You say this is to encourage them to work together, but really, all this does is make it so that ''individuals'' can do the damage rather than groups, as currently exists. This doesnt in any way encourage group play, it instead encourages the opposite, lone wolf stupid survivor play thats been a huge detriment to the survivor game since the dawn of UD and its that attitude that has resulted in all the nasty holocausts performed by zombies. (I know, i helped plan several of them). You have an "Us versus Them" mentality, which definately isnt going to serve you well here.<br>You have probably already noted that they have stopped discussing reasonably and started flaming you. This isnt because they are zombies and dont want the humans to get new toys, this is because you are being, to put it mildly, a stubborn intransigent nullwit. You dont see the game from both sides, and therefore have a false impression of the other side. Having been zombie fodder, zombie leader, survivor, bounty hunter, pker and specialty reviver on various alts through the years, i can tell you right off the bat that this kind of suggestion is a bad idea, not as bad as your headshot one you suggested previously, but only because that was so horrendous that it makes Cthulhu look handsome by comparison.<br>What is needed is some way for humans to work together (Current ruin does this, with one person clearing, another fixing, and more cading). This isnt to make the game more fun for zombies, but so humans such as yourself stop bitching and moaning on this page for buffs every time som e treasured area goes up the creek without a paddle, or when some large area of the city is devestated by a huge confederation of allied zombies pulling a gargantuan cloud of ferals. The other, and more important reason follows on from that: If you know how to play properly, alone or in a group, you wouldnt get in that kind of mess in the first place. The only reason you think this is needed at all is because some buildings have ruin repair costs of as much as a hundred ap at this time (Best ive seen anyway), but you dont realise that its been ages since the zombies were even there, and the only reason the costs got anywhere near that is because you guys were fucking lazy.<br>Fortunately there are some groups out there actually getting off thier arses and fixing those regions so the braindead fuckwits that make up the majority of the survivor population have a place to live when the zombies come and rape the rest of the city out from under them. Those people fixing those eareas in the city are the real heroes, not the stupid twits who it in a buiolding as the horde advances shouting our orders to barricade and whatnot.<br>This suggestion simply defies the entire concept of making survivors play better and smarter, alone or in groups, encouraging retarded recovery operations that, while they would probably work, would leave the survivor population as the bunch of gibbering morons they are now. Forcing them to play smarter, like kevan forced zombies to do, is the only way to even out the game properly. Giving one side toys because its losing doesnt make things fair, it only shores up the innat unfairness already there.<br>Ugh thats long and rambling, but it has some key points in there you should consider. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 06:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thank you for a considered and reasonable response, Grimch. Obviously, I agree with you that the game needs both methods and reasons for survivors to cooperate, but most of the suggestions I've seen to encourage, enforce, or enable cooperation have been unbalanced, overcomplicated, or both. What I had hoped to provide here was a mechanism for cooperation that was simple and balanced, allowing three survivors to do the work of one, bit by bit. You mention the 100+AP buildings in the north, and I'll admit that you've topped my record -- the worst I've seen was 86AP. Even that building would take more than five survivor-days work to repair cooperatively, whereas a single survivor could run in with max AP, repair it, and walk to a revive point two days later, where a second survivor could revive him, for a net cost of 110APs, or just over two survivor-days total. Those who vociferously decry this suggestion as a "survivor buff" don't seem to me to be looking at the hard numbers. A single survivor using this system to repair a 100+ AP building would be spending 4+ AP per day just to walk back and forth between a ruined and a barricaded building, and the remaining AP fighting back entropy two weeks at a time. That method would take four days to get the building down to a single day's repair job, for five days' total repair time. It's unrealistic to me to think that there's a survivor out there willing to spend weeks "Rambo repairing" ruined buildings. And if there is, what's the harm? If there are more than 20 buildings in such a state, they'll be decaying faster than he's repairing them. I remain unconvinced that this suggestion would lead to "vigilante repairmen". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 07:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::No, but if it leads to wasted AP, why promote it? Its a new but DUMBER way to do things. OTOH, theres a small but growing group of people who do "suicide repairs" just for fun and giggles, and they are kicking repair costs on those 80+ AP buildings back down to 1, and having fun doing it. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:58, 10 September 2008 (BST) <br />
----<br />
I '''like''' this idea, because it means that GROUPS of humans can work together to fix a building, instead of ''one'' person losing two days as an immobile stone while the building is zerged. 74 AP building... that means I'm a rock for a loooong time. Doesn't it make sense that the AP repair costs could be shared? Especially if it costs MORE AP to do distributed repair... it would be worth it if it meant the survivors could remain active. Just as a note: I play ''dual nature'', so I'm aware of the ransack-ruin drama from a zed's point of view quite intimately. [[User:Soror Repentia Azalea|Qızılbaş]] 15:53, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:You can pretty much do this right now. Again, you only need at most three people to repair any building block in the game, provided they have been emptied of zombies. What this only provides is a massive survivor buff against ruin by getting rid for a measly 3 AP to remove one ruin point while zombies wait for ''one whole day'' to achieve the same. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:00, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Mister Deyo, I suggest that you '''stop''' suggesting Survivor Buffs that nerf Ruin. Matter of fact I might suggest a new zombie skill specifically to double the ruin already in place in any building just so people stop trying to nerf ruin and darkness. Seriously buffing survivors to get them to work together is just a horrible idea. There are how many survivor groups already in place? If a survivor doesn't join a group, it's because most groups are the same. Not because they have no reason to join a group.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:11, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===Loot dead bodys===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 03:02, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=People how like to steal.<br />
|suggest_description=Looting dead bodys is pretty self explantory. This would be a 100 XP skill that allows you to loot from peoples dead bodys with a 20% succes rate. When you loot a dead body you dont know what you will get, so you could get a genrator to a baseball bat. I will go into more detail if this idea is well accepted.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Loot dead bodys)====<br />
Looting dead bodies = trading. And that one's been spammed and duped so many times it's in the do-not-suggest list. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 03:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
except for the fact about wastin alot of AP, and not knowing what your goint to get. Yes it is like trading :[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 03:59, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is a [[Suggestion:20080310 Unzergable Lootin'|dupe]], probably more than one. Taking items from people is a bad thing (and if it's magically conjured items looted from bodies, that's bad as well and likely a dupe too). --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 04:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Don't be lazy. Its obvious you think this is going to tank if you'll "go into more detail if this idea is well accepted". This isn't even a dupe since there is hardly anything IN the suggestion to dupe. From what I can tell, your suggesting that a single dead body of any level, regardless of the corpse's actual equipment, becomes an instant reservoir of unlimited equipment of any type. The fact it is 20% and "you don't know what you get" is irrelevant. This, as I read it, would make a single zerge (level 1 corpse) a perma-search item.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Dupe-o-fucking-rama. And spam-o-fucking-licious. Seriously, man... Read the Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested, already. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:47, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Improve the Banks===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 23:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Add to Bank.<br />
|suggest_scope=All people how enter a bank.<br />
|suggest_description=I belive banks need a improvement becuase of how usless they are. The only good thing I can think about them is becuase they are so useless no zombie would go near it, and it would make a good hiding place. But the problem is what good could a bank be in a place like Malton. The only iteam I could think about finding there would be a pistol and clip becuase of securtity guards. So if not iteams why not something else?<br />
<br />
What is a bank if not a big place to safly guard your valuables? Why not allow the bank to be more heavly barricaded or use the vault? This is still a rough idea, which is why I am talking here. Now, allow me to address two problems I can see with my idea. One is why you would even want to have a extra lelvel of barricades or a vault, the bank does not have anything. And the other being that you should not mess with the barricades, to those people look here [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/PR_Buildings:_Multiple_Types]]. and then go to "Max Cades Varies by Building Type" sujestion.<br />
<br />
As I said, this is still a rough idea and I would like inmput, and not just "this wont work so shut up".<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bank improvment)====<br />
Don't banks go dark? If so why isn't that defensive buff enough?--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:16, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure the bank description says the vaults are already looted empty. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:24, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
"The vault lies open, its contents either looted or transferred." thats what the text is. They make great forward bases and safe houses so they are fine as they are. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 01:31, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I meant using the vaults as a defensive measure, any way banks are useless.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 01:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:They make great safehouses for PKers. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:46, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Okay go look at the 2-10 player sized groups. They thrive in banks. As a defensive measure they would be useless to begin with, as entry points, safe houses and lit, they keep zombie hordes down enough.[[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 02:17, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
True, but that is really it. You dont get anything from the bank or find any purpose for it execpt from what you already said, I just want banks to contribute to Malton in a bigger way.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 01:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The same can be said for wastelands. You think we should plant flowers in them? I'm all for multi-colored wastelands... pink is nice... --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:05, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We need flowers for wastlands dude, there a eye sore. But sersouly, ther is a diffrence between a wastland and a bank.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yeah, banks make great safehouses. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 02:35, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
It appears this is a bad Suggestion, so I will think of a new one.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Dupe-o-rific. And, some buildings are useless. Not everything is a TRP. This is a ''good'' thing. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:49, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A FUCKING MEN! Next thing these assholes will suggest will be clips and ammo found in the street.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::They can be, you just have a horrible horrible search rate for them though. Ive found a shotgun shell and a flare gun. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 05:13, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::My Monroe PKer accidentally searched the street and found ''a rusty knife''. I took especial joy in shanking people with it, and with luck they got tetanus. <tt>:></tt> {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 02:32, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Maybe a powered bank will "close" the vault for ? hours a day (Random times), and anyone entering the bank can't enter the vault during this time, but can destroy the generator. If the Generator is destroyed the locks are once again unpowered and the vault opens up. Entering the vault costs 1AP and is treated as a seperate room (Outside cannot be seen, and it must be exited for 1AP before movement once again). No-one can leave the vault while it is locked and the vault cannot be entered if the building is ruined (Treated as one building once again, with anyone inside "pushed" out.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 22:00, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Switch FAK search rates between Hospitals and Malls===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=search rate adjustment for First Aid Kits. <br />
|suggest_scope=survivors<br />
|suggest_description=''I can't find this in PR or Undecided, I looked. But if someone can find the dupe, please do.''<br />
<br />
'''The suggestion:''' Reverse the search rates for First Aid Kits in Hospital and Malls, i.e. make it easier to find FAKs in Hospitals and harder in Malls. <br />
<br />
'''The rationale:''' Pretty self-explanatory, I think. Hospitals should be the easiest place to find/jury rig first aid kits. Not malls. This would also be a nerf to mall-centric play, which I don't think is a bad thing at all. But it's a highly logical nerf, and far from unbalanced or game-breaking. <br />
<br />
'''Extra details:''' As it is, you have about a 50% chance of finding a FAK in a drugstore. In a hospital, I'd guestimate it's about 20% (I might tally my stats and see... others' experiences would be useful, too). Perhaps an ''exact'' reversal isn't in order: say 25-30% in Malls, 40-45% in Hospitals, something like that. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Switch FAKs search rates between Hospitals and Malls)====<br />
<br />
No to exact reversal, yes to your suggested percentages. That is because there are one hell of a lot of hospitals compared to mall squares. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 14:32, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We could apply the same logic to police departments and forts, in that they should have higher search rates for firearms and ammo there than malls. Not that I'm totally against your suggestion, but the way the game is designed it strikes me that Kevan intentionally made malls as the ultimate stronghold and as such they have the highest search rates for most items in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:33, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Police Stations don't keep ammo lying around. It is actually a bad idea to have excessive weapons and ammo stored where you are holding prisoners. Wal-Mart has more weapons in the sporting section than my local police station. Police Depts. have armories and firing ranges to keep weapons. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 22:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Hospitals don't keep stockpiles of first aid kits, too (or at least here they don't). The fact that there aren't any ready-made FAKs and you have to build one in a hospital reflects that. And going by supply and demand the one which is filled up with all sorts of supplies would still be the malls, and that's why they have much higher search rates for everything than all other TRPs. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:28, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: Malls would have First Aid Kits lying around in a drug store during the zombie apocalypse, Hospitals tend not to keep First Aid kits stockpiled.. If any at all, Perhaps a few.. A local sports store has far too many guns in plain sight right beside the doors. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 04:51, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::: Even if you think of FAKs are mostly badages and tape and some ointment... and I think of them as somewhat more complicated than that... Hospitals have TONS of this stuff stashed around. TONS of it. Everywhere. Moreover, they have all kinds of other medical supplies that you'd use in reality in dealing with the serious injuries that zombies cause: scissors, scalpels, sutures and needles, etc. etc. No, I just can't buy that you'd be able to get such a plethora of medical supplies in a Mall, but not in a hospital. It just makes no sense. And... Mall drugstores are overpowered. Period. 50% find rates for the second most powerful pro-survivor item in the game is just outrageous IMNSHO. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Utility != economics. Hospitals might need those materials the most, but since malls still face the greatest demand for everything it naturally follows that they will have the greatest supplies for everything. And no, mall drugstores aren't overpowered when you consider 50% of the zombie population tend to congregate within a few blocks of one. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::You're whole view on this is based on cyclic thinking and is confusing cause and effect. If the malls weren't so resource independent they wouldn't need as many resources, just look at the Mall-Necrotech relationship. Right now malls are making hospitals, which are meant to be a major building, all but useless. That leads to a very simple truth, malls give FAKs too freely. Malls are too resource intensive and it's causing them to be too central to the game, zombies are near malls because all the survivors are in malls, all the survivors are in malls because they get freakishly good find rates in them. Claiming that you don't weaken that because of the thing it causes is completely backwards.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:26, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Wan Yuo, since it is a hospital of course you would be more likely to find a FAK there, and anyway Malls have alot of other stuff you can gain there.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 16:10, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Uhm, it's "Yao", not "Yuo"... It's a lame old joke alias, but it's still my alias, and it means something... Anyhooo... <br />
<br />
Cop shops are not armouries -- but gun stores in US malls practically are. So I don't really see a need to change that. You might disagree, but, c'est la vie. (And, yes, Malton is in the UK, but the city is a mix of the UK and US, it's not really one or the other in practice... so please don't go ''there''... please.) Perhaps search rates in Fort Armouries need to be boosted, but this suggestion is not addressing that... And, yes, malls are supposed to be strongholds -- however, I think the 50% search rate for FAKs is absurd. Especially when it's so hard to find FAKs in Hospitals, by comparison. And, even if you nerfed search rates in Malls -- even hypothetically across the board -- they are still going to be "fortresses" by virtue of being "one-stop-shopping" places -- you can get everything you need at a mall other than syringes. That ''alone'' makes them very powerful... I, however, appreciate Whitehouse's comments about the fact that are more Hospitals than Malls, and the modified search rates ought to reflect that. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then surgery becomes OMGMEGA-SUPER-GODLY. Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls. If it weren't for that I would support this, I don't think that this would change where people get FAKs from though which would mean it would just be a slight nerf to Malls and a big buff to Hospitals.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
First of, sorry for mispelling your name Yao, and also you dont need a 50% chance for the hospital but maybe like 40%, or something that makes the hospitals be just as good as finding FAKs in the mall.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:29, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Surgery]].--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:47, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I am well aware of what Surgery does. This is how likley you can find a FAK in a hospital and a mall drug store, from the wiki:Mall Drugstores (20%/34%), Hospitals (14%),. If they even made it 25 percent I would love it. [[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:''"Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls"'' -- Well, maybe Surgery ought to be more than just "a little" better in a Hospital. I mean we're dealing with ''Surgery''... in a ''hospital''... come on! And to AHLG below, I don't want Hospitals buffed without Malls being nerfed at the same time. That's kind of the point... Also, I did search for a dupe, but couldn't find one... maybe someone else will? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:01, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The problem with that is that healing is already the most efficient thing in the game, even without surgery, with Surgery it's more efficient, buff surgery and it makes barricades look like a joke(surgery already does 10:1 vs zombie claws). The fix would have to be in weakening something unless you start buffing the ability to do damage.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I would agree with a small percentage increase in hospitals. But check for a dupe. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:19, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd support this as well. Malls need to be reworked a bit. The percentages are too high to warrant going any where else in the game for supply purposes. But I'd also support people who use the word "Glock" to describe their pistols have them blow up upon first use.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 23:38, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Did you take Bargain Hunting into consideration? It is MORE than just a percentage switch. Hospitals also have newspapers where as Bargain Hunting automatically precludes such a find. A FAK in a hospital has a base 14% find, while the FAK in the mall has a base 20%. +14% if you have bargain hunting. This is according to the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Useful_Items#First_Aid_Kit wiki (First Aid Kit)]. So which percentage is being switched? If is the base, then the hospital will be 20% and the mall will be 14%/28%. If it is the max, the hospital would be 34%, the mall would be 14%/28% (presuming Bargain Hunting). And, again, what about newspapers?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:21, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:In actual fact, Mall search rates for a skilled Shopper are around 50%, or very close. And in a Hospital, a bit more than 14%, but not by much. Those stats on the Items page are grossly out of date and inaccurate. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also... honestly, I don't know what you're getting at with all those numbers ... they don't make sense. FAK find rates in Malls would get nerfed, and %ages in Hospitals buffed. This would ''not'' affect the %ages for anything else, there is no connection. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:03, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::What do you mean "no connection"? Yeah, I'm sure they are out of date, but they are intended to illustrate a point. Did you even check the link? The reason FAK find rates are so high in malls is because of the shopper skills. But the shopper skills do MORE than just buff the search. The also negate the search for useless items (ie. newspapers). Searching for a FAK in a hospital maybe be higher, with this suggestion, but you STILL find newspapers. Which you DON'T find in malls. So, again, why are you not taking into consideration the mall skills or newspapers?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 03:31, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Probably because you're misunderstanding what they represent. Not finding spam items doesn't mean the search rate is better for FAKs(what you want to find) it means that the search rate for what you don't want to find is dropped to 0. The only effect that would have is reducing encumbrance, which is already done by being checking it in your profile so you don't have to waste the IP hit dropping it. That there is no connection would be about right, buffing the search rate would still mean you're finding two FAKs in 3 AP even if that third AP digs up a newspaper every once in a while.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:16, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I do think FAKs in hospitals need a buff but i am not certain of these numbers... lowering the find rate for malls so it tops out at about 30% would be good (sure the drugstore has pain killers and elastoplast but wide specrum anti-biotics and morphine? I think not!) Rather than a straight buff to the hospital search rates i would rather see the "medical" classes able to build Faks much like syringe creation. Searching already says something like "you gather supplies" so why not make it possible for those with a few pre-req skills choose to build those kits with some certainty (at a cost comparable to the Malls find rate) I would suggest 5AP for anyone with 1st aid and possible 4AP for anyone with a new skill :trauma nurse or some such! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:26, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Not a bad idea, but the proliferation of hospitals would mean an already prevelant item would become even more so. Malls are difficult to hold, hence benefits are found there. Drop the search rate in malls to closer to 30% and make surgery a 20hp hit, making holding a powered hospital useful, rather than powering one, hording FAKs and bailing.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:46, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Bloodletting===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}02:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=PKer buff.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors. PKers, mostly.<br />
|suggest_description=Update revivification syringes to allow for self-targeting. If used on yourself while infected, it becomes a "virus syringe," essentially transforming the item within your inventory. "Virus syringes" cannot be found or made except by infected individuals using revivification syringes on themselves. Like a normal syringe, they have a 2% encumbrance.<br />
<br />
If used on a survivor, there's an X percent chance that this new "virus syringe" will deal 1 HP damage to the survivor and infect the survivor, and a 100-X percent chance that the virus syringe will do nothing. X is the current HP of the PKer. "Virus syringes" do nothing against zombies.<br />
<br />
As it is highly corrosive to glass, the virus will eat through the syringe in a matter of hours. Therefore, "virus syringes" are removed from an inventory after 6 hours of existing.<br />
<br />
...Because bioterrorism is an inherent part of the genre, and because it might entertain some PKers (and thus keep them from actual killing). Yes, the central idea is that the syringe is emptied outside your body, then you draw out your own blood, which contains the infection.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bloodletting)====<br />
<br />
I really wish I could be "constructive"... but this is just too retarded to comment on. Would you like some spam with that cheese, sir? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:11, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:No, sir, nor did I want that frosty. "Retarded" is happily synonymous with "belated," so I'll assume you mean this suggestion is just a little behind its time. Speaking of which, some old-fashioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Logs Lincoln logs] might help with your construction problem. Spend a few hours with those and let your dad back on his computer, okay? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}04:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Survivor infecting other survivors is a dupe, I'm fairly sure. It would be more greify than tactically useful for a PKer / death cultist, which is why (iirc) it wasn't worth keeping. Also, if you want to infect somebody, I fancy that axe you've been splitting infected zombie skulls (or the knife you just pulled from the guts of an infected survivor) would do the job rather as well as a syringe. So if infections COULD be spread that way, pretty much every sharp weapon in Malton would spread them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:23, 6 September 2008 (BST) ''edit- also, if the infection were so corrosive, every blood stained weapon or piece f clothing in the city would crumble to dust. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)''<br />
:It is a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I'd been considering [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrofluoric_acid hydrofluoric acid] for that, which wouldn't damage polyester clothes, although I am not a chemist. And blood-stained weapons tend to degrade in real life, hence the NRA's preoccupation with gun cleaning. That aside, do you think (at least) that the X% likelihood is an interesting mechanic that might be able to contribute to gameplay in some other fashion?--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}00:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
PKing may be part of the game, but it does NOT need any emphasis. The game is, primarily, about survivors and zombies fighting each other with some PKing thrown in, NOT about PKing with some zombies thrown in.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I must agree with Pesatyel, this game is mainly about the Living VS Undead... with the abnormal ones mixing it up to make it more interesting (just like in reality). Emphasizing PKing just doesn't fit in well with me (although I really should ''"get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit"'' to quote Wanyao). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Ehh, when I PK, I prefer "Bang. BANG BANG." And the kill is done. The idea would be something I would never use, and as Swiers stated, it's more useful for greifers then PKers like me.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::K-B, I was referring to your comments, somewhere, which alluded to "pro-zombies" and "pro-survivors" as these inimical factions at each others' throats. That's an illusion, and a destructive one at that: most players play both sides, even if some do tend to focus more on one than the other... And most people judge suggestions on the basis of merit, not simply whether they help their "side". For example, this suggestion would be a giant-sized buff for my death cultists -- but that doesn't mean I support it... because it's just a griefing tool, and little more. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Does it grief more than, for instance, one of your death cultists outright killing someone? PKing '''is''' griefing, because survivors only ever want to be killed if they're feeding the hungry n00b zed masses. Sure, I can see survivors getting annoyed by being infected by a PKer, but it would be less aggravating than having to spend AP hunting a revive (which costs more AP than a FAK). Thank you for your constructive criticism. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
NEEDLE SHARING IS NEVER SAFE! THIS SUGGESTION SPREADS HEPATITIS Z! Not to mention it's stupid as fuck and so out of genre gameplay here. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:If you consider "fuck" stupid, does that means I can apply for a timeshare with your girlfriend? Although, for reference, I invite you to check out how the Fantastic Four were infected in ''Marvel Zombies''. Or talk to me on my talk page and I'll happily spoil it for you.--{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::You see, this is what I am on about. I call your suggestion stupid and make a bad pun. You make a personal slur against my girlfriend. Then you bring up a comic book that isn't a survival horror comic, but just a zombie alternate universe. Yet you are still going to bitch about what I said even though you are the one making this personal. Get fucked and stop suggesting things. There that was personal. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:32, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Marvel Zombies'' isn't a zombie alternate universe. The scene in question within the comic is not dependent upon any of the fantastical elements of the Marvel universe. I understand that you're unhappy that you unsuccessfully trolled for lols with 'NEEDLE SHARING IS...HEPATITIS Z,' so my deconstruction of your single-cheeked argument is just rubbing salt in the wound. But please, don't take it personally. I don't object to you, just your casual use of expletives. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::''An alternate reality in which mutants are turned into flesh eating zombies, set on Earth-2149. In the end of the series, The Zombies eat Zombie Silver Surfer and get infused with the power cosmic.'' SPOILER ALERT! You are right. I didn't get as many "lulz" as your initial suggestion did. You bested me, good sir! I didn't add more than a quick comment because why would I need to repeat all of the other reasons that your suggestion is bad? Oh right, because you are a fucking retard. I forgot. And as far as my use of "expletives" that's a really bad argument seeing that this wiki is international and what is an expletive to you might not be one to me, you bloody cunt. And for the record, you couldn't handle [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Katthew MY GIRLFRIEND]--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 00:38, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::The only criticism you offered was saying that this suggestion is out-of-genre. That could've been done in six words, possibly fewer, without wasting your precious time with your, erm, "pun." And, moreover, you haven't yet discussed (or apparently thought about) that criticism, instead just quoting Comiczine where your own knowledge failed you. While I usually try to use the same profanity standards as the game, I take special exception with poor or improper use of words such as "fuck," as such tends to cause them to eventually lose their meaning. You, sir, are killing the English language. And for the record, I wouldn't want to handle your girlfriend. Ability is not equivalent to desire. --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:47, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Wait wait wait.. this stick is up your ass because I said more than "this is out of genre" and I called your idea stupid? You're all butthurt because I didn't like your idea and therefore by extension you? You resorted to personal attacks and some faggy rant about a shitty comic because I didn't come all over myself with joy at you sharing this EARTH SHATTERINGLY NEW (dupe) IDEA WITH THE UNWORTHY ?!?! Go cry more, you shit stain.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:03, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Calm down. Pop some [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laxative pills], you're wound too tight. Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic) thought that zombification was a positive evolutionary step, so he injected Susan Storm (The Invisible Woman), Johnny Storm (The Human Torch) and Ben Grimm (The Thing) with the zombie virus from that universe. After they turned, they infected him by eating parts of him. So, as there exists commonly-accepted (''Marvel Zombies'' was very successful) prior art for my suggestion, it's in-genre. And if this rant sounds faggy, it's because I'm bisexual. And I'm annoyed that you keep dragging this discussion off-topic because you're incapable of supporting your argument. --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::Oh wait a minute! You are the guy that suggested '''horses'''. I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to comment on this suggestion. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I has plastic syringes. Gawd. Oh, I forgot the part were I wake up when you starting moving and poking me, and I kick your ass.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 00:02, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What about the part where zombies you are poking with a syringe do NOT wake up and kick... er, EAT your ass? {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Recharging AP != sleeping. You might as well object to zombies not reacting to a knife or a shotgun, or humans not reacting to being clawed. It's how the game works. We've been over this before. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:50, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Exhausted, you can go no further.'' That pretty much sounds like you are going to sleep to me. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:17, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::So having 0 AP = Sleeping. But Recharging AP != Sleeping. Because I could play the game without ever having to see that message, provided I logged out with at least 1 AP. These arguments have been made before. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
This has been suggested before. It's a bad idea, and encourages out-of-character play - ie survivors deliberately seeking infection and wasting syringes. Also, and I've said this before, there is a very easy way to harm someone with a hypodermic syringe. Empty out whatever's in it, fill it with air, and inject the victim to induce a potentially fatal gas embolism. Too overpowered to be considered in UD though. --[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 23:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's true, it was made for PKing. Thanks for the point about embolisms, I'd forgotten about them. Do you have any thoughts on the X% hit likelihood as a possible mechanic for a later suggestion? --{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Latent Infection===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies, their victims.<br />
|suggest_description=''After countless days of fending off the zombies, Malton's best and brightest have discovered an entirely new strain of the virus that the zombies have been using to infect their victims.''<br />
<br />
''Called the Sleeper strain, it typically has an incubation period of 6 hours before it becomes active, rapidly spreading through the victim's circulatory system, degrading living tissue at an alarming speed. The incubation period can be extended if the victim remains motionless, however.''<br />
<br />
''This new strain has proven to be almost completely immune to all forms of medicine when it is in its incubation period, however the virus seems to be easier to eradicate once it has 'awakened'. It can still resist medicine half of the time, however with surgery the virus can be always removed.''<br />
<br />
''Unfortunately, due to it's long incubation period, carriers of the virus often are not aware of when they have become infected until the virus begins to attack them. However, if the victim then gets bitten by a zombie with the more common strain of the virus, the Sleeper strain acts like an antibody, preventing the more common strain from taking hold.''<br />
<br />
New skill: Latent Infection<br />
<br />
Subskill of: Infection<br />
<br />
Abilities:<br />
* Takes 6 hours to kick in.<br />
* Causes 2 damage per AP.<br />
* Does not stack with standard Infection.<br />
* 5% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd during incubation period.<br />
* 50% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd when 'awakened'.<br />
* 100% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd by 'Surgery' in powered hospital.<br />
* Kicks in upon first movement after 6 hour incubation period.<br />
* Victim not told of infection until it 'awakens'.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Latent Infection)====<br />
in all this time have you ever even read the frequently suggested and D&DN pages? this is a dupey infection buff, the likes of which we've seen a bazillion times, and it has nothing special or redeeming about it except for a vry pointless 6 hour delay. such a delay is a) out of genre game-mechanically because time is abstract in UD b) griefs newbies c) griefs everyone who logs in only once a day d) it's overpowered -- zombies kill best by killing, and where they are weak, deal with that, instead. <br />
<br />
i'm also sure someone will be less lazy and find about 30 dupes for this. please... GIVE IT UP ALREADY, blake. go design your own game, print up the rules, get together with some friends over dice and doritos. and give ''us'' a break. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:38, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's... Urghh, it just over complicates a part of the game which doesn't need it, and is a huge buff to zombies. I'm a zombie player, but I don't like things like this. Just do what WanYao said and read the [[Frequently Suggested]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]]. Seriously, just commit them to memory.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd vote keep. And ignore the Hive Mind Kool-Aid Drinkers, Blake. The D&DN page is for wimps.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 13:38, 7 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
After three years they just now find an infection that incubates in 6 hours? somehow, that doesn't quite add up right in my mind. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 00:06, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:50, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance Change<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Ankle Grab<br />
|suggest_description='''The cost to stand up after a [[Zombie Hunter skills|Headshot]] is 15AP, whether or not the target has the [[Zombie Skills|Ankle Grab]] skill.'''<br />
<br />
This suggestion is somewhat slanted toward a Monroeville survivor's perspective.<br />
<br />
In Malton, the survivor's best chance for survival is to find a location which zombies are not currently massing to attack. The only time attacking is a viable option is when zombies are already inside a strategic building, and the survivor wants to repair the structure. Even [[Trenchcoater|Trenchcoaters]] know that when the zeds open the doors, it's time to run.<br />
<br />
In Monroeville, there is never a time when attacking is the best choice. If zombies are near, the survivor runs or the survivor dies. Attacking, even with a massive numeric advantage, is ultimately suicide.<br />
<br />
Currently, a Headshot costs a zombie 6AP, or 15AP if it doesn't have the Ankle Grab skill. To kill a 50HP unarmored zombie costs a minimum of 8AP: Three to find three shotguns loaded with five shells total, and five to bring down the zombie. A more typical number would be 24 -- 6 to find a pistol and two clips, and 18 to fire the pistol at the zombie 16 times, reloading twice, with a 65% hit rate. This means that by purchasing four skills, with seven additional skills required to reach level ten, a survivor can spend 24 AP to take 6AP from a zombie who has purchased two skills.<br />
<br />
If the AP cost to stand up from a Headshot were 15 ''regardless'' of the Ankle Grab skill, the ratio would go from 4:1 to almost 3:2, still strongly favoring the zombie, but making offense a viable tactic in Malton. In Monroeville, the few who remain might actually come out and play once in a while, instead of running like hell when one zombie gets within a block.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab)====<br />
Sure. I just fear its too late. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:59, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
You understand nothing of this game. The AP balance on barricades is 4-1 in favour of survivors at best. Add to that the fact that it takes 35-40 AP for a zombie to kill a survivor, only for the victim to get a revive for 10 AP and the cost of the syringe search. Then factor in that any survivor who isn't killed straight away can be saved with a simple FAK. I could go on and on about this, but in reality I said all that was needed in the first sentence. And seriously people, stop whining about fucking Monroeville. It's a temporary city which is going to be shut down, which makes it entirely irrelevant when discussing the mechanics of Urban Dead as a game. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 20:04, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:"and the cost of the syringe search". I love how you abstract away about 10-15 APs and call it "balanced". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And that only turns out to 20-25 AP, even if you factor in the syringe search. we could keep on discussing the maths of this, but Grim did it for us a few months back: read his rant on the [[User:Grim_s/Rants/Revival_Imbalance|revive imbalance]]. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 05:14, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Total Zombie AP spent (Including recovering from kills by Humans, thank you for padding your numbers): 483. Total Human AP spent: 322. Ratio: 3/2, compared to 4/1 for survivors headshotting zombies. Zombies win, again, by whining louder than the humans. I thought you were supposed to moan. In any event, thank you for showing us the math that proves that zombies have a massive combat AP advantage. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 17:30, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You really haven't grasped this game at all. Allow me to explain: This is a game of 'classes' in which zombies are designed to kill whilst survivors are designed to, get this '''survive'''! Therefore zombies are the attacking class and survivors are the defending class. What a shock to absolutely no-one with a modicum of intellect then that zombies get a combat advantage whilst survivors get a defensive advantage. The greatest 'weapons' that survivors have in this game are revivification syringes, first aid kits and barricades, so whilst it may not appeal to your BOOM! HEADSHOT! masturbation fantasies to have killing zombies be far less important than barricading buildings, healing and reviving, that's the way the game works. Your job is to survive. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 08:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Revivification syringes mean that survivors can go on the offensive, which nulls your given simplification. If each survivor revived two zombies and then died, the game would slowly progress to the survivor side of things. And that's with no barricading or defensive gameplay necessary.--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::That's a byproduct of design and one forced by the nature of the game rather than intent. The only way to make combat revives impossible would be to make revives themselves impossible. As such the existence of combat revives in no way undermines the identification of the offensive-defensive class dynamic. Zombie skills are all created with a view to creating damage, whilst survivor skills are designed for preventing or undoing it; yes, that's right, even the combat skills for survivors are about that. They're there to clear zombies out of buildings and allow those buildings to be secured, not to 'kill' the zombies. The sooner people realise that the sooner they'll start enjoying their game, just as I do with all my characters. Oh and your combat revive scenario neglects to consider death culting and window-diving as responses to such actions. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 19:27, 8 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::Also Brain Rot. My scenario worked from the assumption that all players were true dual-natured players, albeit dual-natured players who don't pick up Brain Rot. However, I would argue that (while zombie skills are indeed designed to deal damage) human skills revolve around maximizing the efficiency of revivification. Securing buildings just allows survivors to stave off death for a few more days, which in turn allows them to revive others more efficiently. Admittedly, this assumes a simplified version of survivors without death-culting and window-diving, etc., etc., but I think it is hard to argue the (relatively) balanced nature of the zombie/survivor ratio just from those extremes. The Mrh? cows tend to equalize that anyway. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Moloch, it's possible for me to completely understand every aspect of this game and still disagree with you. It's also possible for me to refute your arguments without attacking you personally. Here's an example: '''This is not a survival horror game.''' It's World of Warcraft in text. The only difference is that here you can switch sides. Just like WoW, the "human" side is more popular. Just like WoW, the "other" side wants to get more and more advantages because they believe it will offset the numeric disadvantage. Here's a heads-up: WoW proved you wrong there. I proved you wrong here. And I'll do it again. Zombies attack humans with 483 AP, costing the humans 322 AP. Humans attack the zombies with 500 AP, costing the Zombies '''nothing'''. Why nothing? Because the cost of recovery is included in the 483 AP the zombies already spent. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:20, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Wow, nice numbers. Got the math to prove that? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:58, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::Not a survival horror game? So what does this: ''A Massively Multi-Player Web-Based Zombie Apocalypse'' mean? But no you are right. I must be forgetting that the innkeeper at Jacomb Arms sent me on the quest to recovery the Holy Golf Club of Lockettside while on my way to slay the Bank Manager of Ruddlebank. This is '''exactly''' like WoW!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 16:20, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
No dude. Just no. Monroeville is freaking dead anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Says the ''Zombie'' Lord... I actually had a nice killing spree a couple of weeks back, 5 survivors in 6 days...<br />
:It would be nice if we waited till there was one survivor, gave him a [[Red_Rum/Tommy_Gun|Tommy_Gun]], ammo and every zombie his location to see how long he would last... --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: :D I'm not sure if he means it as a Monroeville only thing or not, which would be fine with me if it was just contained to that city and not Malton. Seems like Kevan just wanted to kill it off anyway with those last changes to Monroeville. But yeah, the Tommy Gun goes the the last Monroeville Survivor! Would be a cool prize anyway :) --[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::The Tommy Gun is a seasonal weapon, found around 31st October/1st November. They'll have to survive til then and search really hard...--[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 00:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Kamakazie Bunny, get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit, it's tired as all hell. In any event, as much as he is usually an idiot, zombie lord is correct this time. And Moloch hit it on the head even more squarely. Don't fucking nerf Ankle Grab. Period. Even in Moronville. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:46, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::And don't forget, give him or her unlimited AP and IP hits. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:14, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:36, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:How about "Remove Headshot" then? Has that been suggested? It's currently a waste of 100 XP. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
You might have better luck if you suggest that headshot DOESN'T affect those without Ankle Grab.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:37, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Where.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''Balance Change'' HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA ''IMA GONNA RAEP YUO OF UR AP AND CALL IT BALANCED!'' Fuck off, Dago. You can't possibly justify taking away over 1/5th of the AP of just one class. Zombies can't do it to survivors in any amount and you want to increase it? Fucking play as a zombie for a year before you suggest anything that affects zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:59, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Suggestion:20080901_Feeding_Drag_in_Large_Buildings|Yanking a live survivor from a mall]] for 2/5 the AP cost of dumping a dead body from a fort is balanced, then? I don't see you railing against that. Oh, but feel free to turn my username into a racial slur if you can't think of any ''good'' reason to reject the suggestion. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::We've already posted enough reasons why it's a crap idea. Feel free to post it though, because even if it gets passed, Kevan won't touch it. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 05:25, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::How would you know? ANKLE GRAB was in PEER REJECTED when it came to vote here.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Which should give you an idea of how Kevan feels on the subject of the Headshot dynamic. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 08:53, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::It also shows you how fucking survivor-centric this damn wiki is. I'm not surprised that AG was voted down and a shit load of weapons and survivor buffs fill this page constantly. I'm pretty sure even if this ridiculous crap passed Kevan wouldn't implement it since last time I checked survivors outnumbered the zombies 61% to 39%. But hey! the survivors have it so fucking hard with all those damn zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::But OHNOES DCC some people think it's because no one wants to play zombies instead of the fact that their so boring because of their intellectuality and lack of competetivity. Who cares that that's disproved every time zombies make some big event so they can actually do something.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:37, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Actually it is when you consider that it's not a bargain and it's an additional 4 AP per kill that will be payed regularly. All Feeding Drag ever does is transfer AP cost from the individual to the horde, you know, that central play mechanic that zombies are forced to deal with. This would just make it so that all zombies always lose nearly half the AP they get a day, that's not balanced. You're also proposing buffing what is the only skill in the game that is considered to exist for the sole purpose of pissing players off and not balance.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Im not going to argue the game balance here. What i am going to say is that you dont make a game more balanced by making it less fun. Taking away 15 zombie ap a day makes the game much less fun for zombies, which will drive them away. Given how many of them are hanging onto the game out of habit rather than out of any sense of enjoyment, i dont think making playing a zombie feel like pulling teeth is the solution to any balance problem, real or imagined. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:37, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
This is not terribly effective. I mean, the search chances in Mville are all in ruined buildings. 8AP to load a shotgun I think not... ain't nothin' but ruined buildings. [[User:Soror Repentia Azalea|Qızılbaş]] 16:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===Bargain Hunting Change===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:07, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Improvement.<br />
|suggest_scope=Resource Buildings.<br />
|suggest_description=First, some buildings would get a flat bonus to search: Malls, Junkyards, and Libraries.<br />
<br />
'''Malls''' +10% Chance for a successful search.<br />
<br />
'''Junkyard''' +10% Chance for a successful search.<br />
<br />
'''Library''' Automatic success.<br />
<br />
Second, other buildings would get a new button. A player with Bargain Hunting would see both "Search the Building" AND the New Button. A regular search is the same as always. Clicking the New Button would work like this:<br />
<br />
'''Hospital''' New Button: "Search for FAK". +25% to find a FAK.<br />
<br />
'''Police Station''' New Button: "Search for Guns and Ammo". +25% to find a Pistol, Shotgun, Shotgun Shell, or Pistol Clip.<br />
<br />
'''Factory''' New Button: "Search for Portable Generator". +25% to find a Portable Generator.<br />
<br />
'''Auto Repair''' New Button: "Search for Toolbox". +25% to find a Toolbox.<br />
<br />
'''Fire Station''' New Button: "Search for Flare Gun". +25% to find a Flare Gun.<br />
<br />
'''Arms''' New Button: "Search for Beer". +25% to find a Beer.<br />
<br />
'''School''' New Button: "Search for Spray Can". +25% to find a Spray Can.<br />
<br />
'''Warehouse''' New Button: "Search for Fuel Can". +25% to find a Fuel Can.<br />
<br />
This idea is to make the other resource building more important, and make the Mall less the God of all Buildings.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bargain Hunting Change)====<br />
Auto repair toolbox, warehouse fuel can? Random.<br />
<br />
I dont like it for the following reason. Its actually 2 buffs. 1. You only search for what you want. 2 you are much more likely to find it. I also dont see a realistic justification (other than junkyards and libraries which i feel is fine).--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:11, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I figured your were more likely to find a Toolbox in an Auto Repair, but find Fuel stockpiled in Warehouses. Basically I'm aiming for the other buildings being important instead of the Mall being the best place to find pretty much anything, which sort of makes Hospitals and PD's kinda lame. Plus with the best places to find stuff spread out instead of being all in one spot, it would make Malls less of a Fortress you almost never need to leave, except to find Fuel. Survivors would need to keep their other buildings going to keep the "best search rate" spots open and usable. The two most important FAKS and Guns/Ammo already have a "you get exactly what you want" thing going in the Mall anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:16, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
"Bargain Hunting" implies knowledge specific to shopping: it's a consumer skill. Finding things in libraries, police stations, hospitals, and junkyards seems unrelated. I agree with Ross, this seems a bit overpowering. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It also worries me that you appear to have forgotten that survivors occasionally need needles. Wheres the search necrotech button? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:22, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Dude, Survivors get enough needles already. :P --[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:25, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Whilst I do agree with the idea of removing the focus from malls I do not agree with your choices I would imagine:<br />
:Toolbox for factories (working on/with machinery),<br />
:Fuel cans for auto repairs (cars need fuel),<br />
:Generators for factories (because they don't fit anywhere else and the others seem more plausible in their locations) although power stations and hardware stores would make sense but that takes you back to malls...<br />
::Also what about necrotechs and radios? whilst it is true you don't have to include everything, including beer and ignoring more important resources and buildings just doesn't agree with me. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Hey its all open to change. Thats kinda why I put this up here. Those NecroTechs though are already nasty enough. But moving the items around is cool. How about Fuel in Auto Repairs and Portable Generators in Warehouses. Like to keep it spread out as much as possible. Just leave the Toolboxes out since they are a one shot item anyway? And factories have both fuel and PG's so, maybe being a cenral fuel/PG resource is good enough for them.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:30, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
::::Personally id prefer it if it was the ''other'' way round. The one item choices (Knifes,toolboxes, dna extractors,radio transmitters,) were those items that could be found more easily. '''Then''' buildings other than malls would be the best place to find ''specific'' items.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:34, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Yeah, but you only need to find them once. Makes the other resources not so important again. Making it the recycle items makes them always useful to have up and running. Hmm, maybe just a flat +25% to find anything in the bottom 8 buildings would be better, then you'd have to wade through the "crap" like newspapers and the like and it would be less powerful. The Mall would still be a good bonus then with its 'FAK only" Drugstore and "Guns & Ammo only" Gun Store, which is kinda ugly combined with the current +25%, but might be more balances with 10%, but having the other buildings being the "best search spots".--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I think 25% might be a bit too much, 15% seems more reasonable, searching for something specific should give you more than searching for something in general but not too much more. I actually like the specific buildings for specific resources because it means your more likely to find what your looking for but the amount of buildings of each type in each suburb makes a big difference when the zombies start to move in and you don't want to move out! This way it emphasizes that point. Although I do see Rosslessness's point, items each person only needs one of would be more common than ones which people would be using up. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:57, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Yeah, the % could always be messed with. I think this would make other suburbs more attractive too though, like the ones that are far away from Malls, but maybe they have some insane number of PD's or Hospitals so they would become like "Centers of Healing, or "Ammo Dump Central". I guess we could throw Forts into the +10% category same as Malls. Would maybe shake up the population distribution a bit.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 19:07, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::I think you're right though. Cause with this there would be a lot a new place opened up that you could search good. Some burbs have like 6 Hospitals/PD's or more and that would be a lot of places. Maybe 10% for Malls, but 15% or 20% for the Hospitals/PD's and the others to balance out the fact that some places have crazy numbers of these buildings all lumped together. I dont know who the city planners where but sometime having 3 or 4 PD like all next to each other or a block away from each other is just nuts. :D--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 19:32, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::From a logical point of view yeah, Ross is right. But from a game balance view, I think "only need one" items should be not easier to find. Then Survivors could not just thrown down a toolbox to free up weight, confident that they could just snag another real easy with Bargain Hunting when they need one. It's a harder to weight choice as it is now. But making it the recycle items that are easier to find makes keeping those buildings up and running a much more important part of keeping your burb running smooth. I dunno, I'm arguing from a "Mall Suburb viewpoint" though too. This might make non-Mall suburbs even more powerful, but maybe in a balanced way, so that Malls suburbs and non Mall suburbs are not so lop-sided in their "resource gathering power".--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 19:23, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
I don't even need to read the commentary. 'Sides, mostly seems to be Zombie Lord's usual obnoxious arguing with everyone... <br />
<br />
'''The skinny:''' survivors don't need a search rate buff, their %ages are pretty fucking good already, especially in malls. I do concede that the randomness of searching, and all the junk you get in searches, contributes to the "Boring boring boring, Sidney!" syndrome ... However, giving survivors a search buff AND allowing them look for exactly what they want?? The "Zombie Lord" (whom I am still convinced is just some DA or TZH trenchcoater in disguise) proposing an utterly broken game mechanic is no surprise -- but an overpowered, spam-o-licious survivor buff, now ''that's'' a little shocking. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Sex is boring, Sidney''--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 00:05, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:My bad. For a change, Zombie Lord is being kind of, like, normal... However, this is still not a good idea. I am all for nerfing mall-centric play, but this is not the way to go about it. I still stand my my reasoning above. And, as it stands, Malls are not the best place to find generators and a few other items. And syringes and fuel can't be found in malls at all... But what is absurd is the 50% or so find rate for FAKs! Hospitals should be the best place for FAKs, and Malls only so-so. THAT needs to be changed... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:21, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
The Warehouse, Factory, Hospital, Fire Station, Toolbox, and Police Station buffs are all ''way'' too high. That and combined it's far too many benefits from one single 100xp skill.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 12:55, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I figured with the Mall search bonus lowered and that Survivors would need to defend more than the Fortress Malls to keep their best search spots open would counter the high bonus for searches in the new buildings. Going to come up with a version 2 with changes for all these comments though soon.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 13:27, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I really think switching FAK search rates -- so that Hospitals are the best place to find them -- would be sufficient to nerf mall-centric play in a fair, balanced and very logical way. the rest imo isn't needed. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:10, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The bonus is currently so high that some 1 in 10 items would get boosted to 1 in 3, some 1 in 5 items would get boosted to 1 in 2, and some 1 in 3 items would get boosted to 1 in ~1.2. I understand the intent but 25% really is a ''very'' significant amount, so significant you'd be removing almost all failure chance for things like FAKs.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:48, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Hmmm...so what about a "building related" search skill? Bargain Hunting is for malls. So what about a skill just for firestations, one just for warehouses, etc.? Myabe the skill would give a moderate search bonus and/or allow you to find more stuff?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 04:06, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Riot Shield===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Item<br />
|suggest_scope=All Players<br />
|suggest_description= <BR><br />
:''[[Building Types|Locations]]: Armouries (2%), Police Stations (2%), Junkyards (1%?)''<br />
:''[[Encumberment|Encumbrance]]: 16%''<br />
<br />
- Grants a 10% (5% in dark buildings) chance to deflect any attack <S>that deals less than 5 damage</S> (it does not reduce the chance to hit, only those which would normally hit). Having a Riot Shield in your inventory automatically means that you are using it; no action is required to activate it. Zombies may use and benefit from Riot Shields. Using multiple Riot Shields has no additional effect; having two or more in your inventory will not give any further protection.<br />
<br />
- They may also be used as an improvised weapon with the following stats:<br />
<br />
:''Damage: 1 point''<br />
:''Base Accuracy: 10%''<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Riot Shield)====<br />
<br />
Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield (although rotters will have a harder time getting them but that applies to any cross-class skill/item from the humans). Also the zombie populace should be aware that a Riot shield is the equivalent of 8 clips/shells/Faks/Syringes that can be used against their cause. Survivors now have an active defence against the hordes (in my opinion barricades do not count as they do not directly protect the player or go with them on their journeys). <BR><br />
Things I'm unsure of:<BR><br />
:Encumbrance<br />
:Chance to deflect<br />
:Findable in museums (Medieval / war exhibitions)<br />
:Zombies with a reduced protection chance (as they are more sluggish)<br />
:Flavour text for deflected attacks!<br />
--[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''You fire at target zombie for 10 damage, but it deflects off their riot shield. They are unharmed''<br />
--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:05, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: Whilst I do agree with the flavour text the shot gun does not deal '''less than 5 damage'''. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:13, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Balls. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hi Kamikazie, this is an interesting idea. Given that zombies can't use melee weapons, it seems odd they might continue to use (and effectively position) a riot shield. Additionally, it seems it would get in the way of typical zombie attacks: grabbing, holding, biting. I don't want to seem like I'm favoring survivors, but this, like all other objects, seems it should be survivor-specific. Would players be able to use a shotgun while holding one? Shields of any kind make sense, especially in close-range combat. I'd see the value in making it "equippable" rather than simply automatically active if in inventory. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 18:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ummm... zombies can use melee weapons, although it would get in the way of their normal attacks I don't want to hinder them or make this one sided although realism would want it so. Zombies are people to! Interfering with other functions is something else I disagree with. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hordes are the exception, not the rule. Lets see, a maxed zombie would traditionally score a total of 29 hits in 50 swings. Now, if 10% of those hits are negated, it goes down to 26. Given that the majority of zombies are not horde zombies, and that zombies have a seriously hard time getting past little things you call barricades (Which already are your defenses, not to mention your mobility, which is another, chronically underused one), this puts a serious dent in zombie ability across the board for the sake of defending yourself from the exception to the rule based on a flase assumption of defenselessness. Go away and think things through before you return to plague this page with your stupidity again. The description as written has this as a pure zombie nerf, they cant even use it, ebcause regardless of flaks, a pistol hits for five damage at first, with one subsequently negated, thus pistols will still go through. Given humans use firearms almost exclusively, becauuse axes and improvised weapons suck, they will most often suffer no penalty against a zombie with such a device. Zombies have no 5+ damage attacks. This is one sided zombie rape. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:although I hardly ever agree with grims choice of words, the fact that flare guns and shotguns arent nerfed but all zed attacks are is a fair point. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:29, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sorry if you misunderstood when I used the word horde, I used it to describe the zombies populace as a whole, not in a specific location. The pistol glitch is something which I must admit I did not anticipate and overlooked, thanks for pointing that out. The rest just seems negative for the sake of zombie-jeebus. Whilst this does primarily affect zombie attacks it also affects all survivor melee attacks, you say that survivors depend on guns because everything else sucks, I don't think you need reminding that the Jacket only benefits zombies and PK/DC victims (which their very actions benefit zombies). Zombies have no fear of death and any defence boosts through items come at no cost, survivors have to balance their inventory for survival/defense and the retaking of ruins. If you feel that 26 instead of 29 hits is too many feel free to suggest a change to the values. This is a discussion for whittling out 'stupid' ideas not for insulting them (which I consider pointless). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:47, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
''Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield ...'' Can, but won't. The vast majority of the damage zombies take s from guns, and this also provides no protection vs combat revives. HtH combat damage trails a distant third behind those in terms of impact on zombies. '''So really, this IS a pure zombie nerf.''' {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 19:08, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:Any proposes for a fix? Reducing deflection to 5% (that sounds so geekish). Lowering the limit to Less than 4 (which would account for the gun-bug and allow zombies still to get in their max claws) or would that be seen to be nerfing infection/bite/newbies/survivor melee? I know you might think this is the wrong school of thought but I feel there needs to be some active defence from zombies (running away is not defending) and barricades can't be taken with you, but due to the limited amount of high-powered zombie attacks any thing is essentially a nerf. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 19:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this suggestion if it was to affect ALL attacks regardless of damage... however I am concerned about it stacking with flak jackets to nerf firearms but if you lot are ok with it then I have no objections.... opinions please? --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I think it's a neat idea, just not sure if its passable. Maybe if the Shield had a chance to be broken, or taken away by zombies? For every "deflection" there is a 10% chance the shield breaks as well? Maybe a zombie that gets a Tangling Grasp has a 10% chance to wrench the shield away and toss it aside for each attack it makes while it maintains the Grasp?--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:25, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This fails flavour as it implies active usage to gain its benefit, you must move the shield to cover the attack. A flak jacket is passive, it protects your torso regardless. In short, this would (or rather should) be useless while you are asleep...which for most UD characters is 23 hours and 50 minutes of each day.<br />
<br />
Also it's a nasty zombie nerf. '''All''' zombie attacks are less than 5 damage, meaning all survivors would get a 10% chance to avoid every single zombie attack in the game. This suggestion will discourage zombie play and turn Malton into Monroeville after the first quarantine, tag with PKers. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:42, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''"After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this..."'' We are not okay with this idea. It's awful. It's nothing but a horrible zombie nerf, and no changes are going to save it. Riot shields do not protect against firearms. Period. Any attempt to make them do so is just stupidity. But if riot shields work against melee attacks only, then you are nerfing an already underdog ability -- for both zambahz and survivors. Just drop it, it sucks and it can't be fixed. Also, Izzy, you've failed in your Dupe-meister duties, this is in there somewhere, I know it ;) And, Zhani, once again you demonstrated why you should stay away from making suggestions: please wait until you actually know the game, thanks. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:01, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:As far as I understood from the comments people were making, the two major complaints were that it did not affect guns and that it affected zombie attacks. Including the ability to affect guns as well (which you ''conveniently'' failed to include in your quote) was the change that some people may approve of, as for affecting zombie attacks that kinda goes with the idea of a riot shield. "''Riot shields do not protect against firearms''" it may upset you to know that some do, although if you were arguing for true realism I think the zombies need to go... In defence of Izzy failing to dupe I could only find 2 similar suggestions, both from 2005 and both with completely different mechanics if it is that big an issue to dupe it go put in the effort and do it yourself. As for Zhani, he's learning don't try shoot him down because he's trying to be involved. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Next person to shorten my name gets Jihad declared against them.<br />
<br />
::Wan; what he said about dupes <nowiki>:p</nowiki><br />
<br />
::Bunny; would you care to comment on the point I made about active usage? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Falling asleep from exhaustion is a good reason why your character runs out of AP, it only takes 30min before you can 'wake up'. Whilst I do agree that a player would have to actively use it to defend themselves, the idea that I can hit someone who is asleep repeatedly with a fire axe and with such poor accuracy doesn't make sense (especially considering they don't wake up), I actually assume all players are awake and attempting to defend themselves if attacked which is why hit accuracy is not too high. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait wut? How do zombies benefit from something that will only effect them and low level survivors? Last I heard pistols and shotguns did >= 5 damage, Claws and bites did <= 4.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies would gain more defence from melee weapons, however it has now been changed to include pistols and shotguns. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::It just doesn't seem right. It destroys all zombie attack, survivor players could get them easier then zombie players... Even if Shotguns no longer worked, that would create an atmosphere where it would be CRing only.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 17:56, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::How would this new version work in dark buildings? And Also, I still don't like it for the same reason why I think halving in dark buildings was a horrendous idea, 10% from 50% is a lot more significant than 10% from 65%, especially with the RNG the way it is But if you're going to go on with it might as well answer all questions that might come up.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::As the Riot shield only affects the attacks that hit the player, the environment which the attack is performed in should have make no difference but since the user is making an effort, the same penalty as attacks receive should logically apply. (Chance of success halved in dark buildings added to suggestion) Thanks for that, the more holes you guys help me fill the better. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it. Rather logical especially when considering that several suburbs were just bad neighborhoods (Even BEFORE the zombies!). I think that his would be a bit more efficient if you kept it as a melee reducing item, the hand to hand flak jacket in other words, say knock off 1-2 Damage per non-firearm attacks. Take it to that level and THEN I'll probably vote a keep on this. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 19:33, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, I'm sure new players will appreciate 0-1 damage at 25% to hit.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Well the zombies are getting Uber Buffs. Survivors have always been a bit better than the zombies at base level. I think that just the 1 Reduced Damage is sufficient at say...30% but if we want to get technical with this option lets say Hand to Hand Combat skill gives the 15% bonus to this so base is 15% chance to block 1 damage and then with HtH skill 30% chance to block 1 damage and we drop that improvised attack method because it's going to be the same as a punch. Now for the zombies think of Virgour Mortis as a +10% Chance to block 1 Damage. So again, 15% base and with Vigour Mortis a nice little 25% because Zeds aren't quick enough to keep up with the survivors. It is a bit sketchy but I am going to support this method over sitting around fiddling with percentages. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 20:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I would like for this to apply exclusive to melee weapons, but that would mean ALL zombie attacks and not the attacks used by high-level survivors which was a problem. I'm also unsure if the game distinguishes between damage types, if it does great, if not, going on damage inflicted presents a problem when pistols are reduced by flak jackets. The idea to reduce damage instead of deflecting it completely is possible, however it would just end up as 'a flak for melee attacks' different mechanics for each one helps to keep them unique but if people prefer that option let me know. The skills bit does have merits but I was hoping it would be independent of the skill tree although if people want it to upgrade as you buy skills your way is certainly an excellent way to do it, especially the uniqueness between the live/dead. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:18, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Consider the flak jacket. -1 point for firearms, hand to hand attacks still go through. As for the zombies...well survivors run out of ammunition every now and again, even in the sieges. To combine this item with hand to hand combat training is the most logical approach based off of common sense and lightens the work load if Kevan likes this. Like you stated, zombies and survivors can both hold them, lets apply our minds and think about how well a zombie would be able to block a hit. When you think of next to never apply this big piece of reinforced fiberglass and then you get your answer here. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 03:53, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Zombies holding riot shields? I'd love to have some of that crack you're on. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 04:08, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dude the odd thing is that it is not crack! It's Jello powder! [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:23, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies hold and use all sorts of items... Anyway, this idea is just awful and can't be saved, please give it up. All it does in any form is act as a zombie/PK nerf. Period. Drop it. There is NO NEED for this, and it doesn't improve the game, make it more interesting, or offer a solution to a problem. It's just... dumb. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===No More Walking Armories: Less weapons, more ammo.===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 21:39, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Change to firearm usage<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, firearms.<br />
|suggest_description=Add Equipped Weapon feature, adjust weapon balance numbers to encourage reloading over trenchcoatism. See below for details.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
As things stand, players in Malton become [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|walking armories]], with as many loaded pistols and shotguns strapped to their bodies as they can carry. Essentially, everyone is a [[:Image:Trenchcoater03.gif|trenchcoater]] by default. This is due to how firearms currently work and their game statistics. Players are rewarded for carrying multiple loaded firearms, and there's little penalty for doing so. Guns have very little encumbrance ''relative to their ammunition'', and there's no cost at all to moving on to your next loaded weapon. I think this is [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Arguing_for_Your_Suggestion|unbelievable]] and out of genre. <br />
<br />
My proposal is to add a new game feature and tweak weapon encumbrance, find rates, and damage in order to encourage the carrying and use of only primary weapons, with plenty of ammo for those weapons.<br />
<br />
'''1. Equipped Weapon''' The game supports selecting items that are "worn"; however, this is only used for clothing and flavor at the moment. With this addition, survivor players select any weapon in their inventory to be ''equipped''. <br />
* Above "'''Inventory (click to use):'''" there is "'''Weapon (select):'''". There will be a new drop-down list in this section: '''<code>Equip [Weapon List] as weapon</code>'''. This lets the player choose any existing weapon in their inventory, or an improvised weapon like a fuel can or crowbar. <br />
* Equipping a weapon costs '''2 AP'''. This represents getting it out of your backpack/belt and having it ready for combat. ''The AP cost of switching weapons provides an incentive to reload over switching between a stocked series of weapons.'' <br />
* You can only attack with your equipped weapon. The "attack player" option no longer offers multiple weapons as a choice, but instead lists your ''equipped weapon'': '''<code>Attack [Joe Zombie] with pistol</code>'''. If no weapon is equipped, all attacks are punches.<br />
* Once a weapon is equipped, the "Weapon:" section no longer displays "(select)", and the selected weapon is displayed there, instead of in the inventory section. Below that, the weapon-selection control remains available to select another weapon.<br />
* Clicking ammo to reload defaults to reloading the equipped weapon if it is unloaded. Clicking the equipped weapon removes it. Clicking a weapon that does not have a dual usage (most of them) will equip them as well (this is necessary so you can still click fuel cans to use them on generators, fire flare guns, etc.) <br />
* Upon dying, the equipped weapon is removed and remains in the player's inventory. Zombies do not have equipped weapons. Revivified survivors must reequip their weapon.<br />
* The currently equipped weapon can be seen in the profile description, along with clothing.<br />
<br />
'''2. Weapon Encumbrance Values''' Firearm encumbrance values are increased. Guns can get heavy to carry, and shotguns are unwieldy. Pistols: 10%. Shotgun: 18%. '''Ammunition encumbrance is minimized'''. Bullets and shells take up relatively little space, and can be kept in backpacks, fannypacks, pockets, etc. Clips & Shells: 1%. <br />
<br />
'''3. Reloading''' Reloading a clip or shell remains at 1 AP.<br />
<br />
'''4. Weapon Balance:''' This change slightly increases the in-combat AP costs for survivors. With 8 loaded pistols in inventory, a player can currently do 240 damage in 48 turns at 65% rate, or 156 damage, or 3.25 damage/AP. With 1 equipped pistol and plenty of ammo, in 48 turns the player can empty 7 clips, doing 210 damage @65%, or 136.5 damage, or 2.84 damage/AP; a 12% decrease. <br />
<br />
With current shotguns, 8 shotguns in inventory do 160 damage in 16 turns @ 65%, or 104 damage: 6.5damage/AP. With the change, two shots requires either switching (2AP) or reloading (2AP). Alternately, we can simply think of the unloaded shotgun as 2AP/shot. With the change, the shotgun would do 80 damage in 16 turns @ 65% or 52 damage, a 50% decrease. The change makes the shotgun even more front-loaded damage however. <br />
<br />
'''''It is very difficult to make absolute recommendations on numbers for game balance.''''' Only in-game results can show whether items are unbalanced or not, and to what degree. However, as an initial rebalancing to make the change not appear so drastic, I suggest these figures:<br />
<br />
'''Pistol: 6 damage/shot. (5 flak).''' In 48 turns (finishing empty), a pistol would do (6*7*6*0.65) or 163.8 damage on average: 3.4damage/AP, a 5% increase. This is a very modest change, and sticks to whole-number damage. In 6 turns, the existing pistol does 30 max damage, 19.5 average, the new does 36 or 23.4 average, but on subsequent turns the reload time brings the average damage back down. With 6 shots/7AP, the true average becomes 3.34dam/AP. Total pistol increase: 2.9%<br><br />
Alternately: to kill 50HP enemy:<br />
:Current: 3.25dam/AP. (Assuming enough pistols in inventory) 16AP to kill<br />
:New: 3.34 dam/AP ((6*6*.65)/7). 15AP to kill.<br />
<br />
'''Shotgun: 12 damage/shot (10 flak).''' 2 turns=24 damage @65%=15.6damage. Compare to current: 2 turns = 20*65%=13dam. This is a small front-end increase. However, comparing 16 turns (8 loaded current shotguns, vs 1 shotgun with reloading): (10*16*0.65)/16=6.5dam/AP. New shotgun: 2 shots, then 2 shots per 4 turns for 12 turns, then 1 shot in the last two turns. 2*12+12((2*12)/4)+0+12=108. @65%=70.2 or 4.39dam/AP. The shotgun decreases over time. If we compare current and new shotguns starting unloaded, it's 10dam/2AP vs 12dam/2AP. The advantage of starting a fight with a loaded shotgun goes up, but the advantage of carrying a stack of them goes down. It becomes worthwhile to consider switching to a sidearm after using the shotgun. ''This appears consistent with game believability.''<br><br />
An alternate way of looking at shotgun damage: to kill a 50HP enemy: <br />
:Current: 6.5damage/AP (assuming enough shotguns in inventory). 8AP to kill.<br />
:New: 2*7.8damage=15.6 for 2AP, then 7.8damage/2AP (reload, fire). 7AP to kill.<br />
<br />
Shotgun opener + pistol: 15.6 average damage/2AP. 2AP to switch. 23.4 average damage/6AP. 1AP reload. 11.7 avg. dam. /3AP. = 50.7 damage in 14AP. Slightly more efficient than pistol alone, less than shotgun alone. (I have been working with current balance values; but the existing shotgun is much higher damage than the existing pistol. It requires more AP to find ammo, and reload.)<br />
<br />
'''5. Weapon search rates''' Firearm search rate decreases slightly (most people will only want or need one of each type). Ammunition search rate increases slightly. <br><br />
'''Pistols:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Streets (1%?), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
'''Shotguns:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Pubs (1%)<br><br />
'''Clips:''' Mall Gun Stores (13%/16%), Armories (13%), Police Departments (12%), Junkyards (2%?), Gatehouses (?%)<br><br />
'''Shotgun shells:''' Mall Gun Stores (12%/16%), Armories (11%), Police Departments (11%), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
* If a weapon is found, and the player has selected to discard that type of weapon, but they have NOT selected to discard the ammo, ''they retain the ammo that was in that firearm (if any)''.<br />
<br />
'''Potential objections:'''<br />
<br />
Game balance: the change to damage output/AP is relatively small. If game stats reveal survivors grow more powerful, or one weapon is more preferred than the other, damage values can be adjusted as necessary. The point of this change is not to drastically adjust game balance in any way, but to instead encourage a change in player behavior to something more consistent with genre. Any statistical flaws that benefit a weapon type or player group can be adjusted as necessary.<br />
<br />
Inventory changes: this deprecates the value of carrying multiple weapons. Despite the increase in encumbrance of a single weapon, this should actually free up some space for people. The changes do not severely affect the contents of anyone's inventory. <br />
<br />
Realism/Game fiction/Genre: Carrying an absurd amount of weapons is simply silly. The only reason people do is because the game mechanics encourage it. This change provides an incentive for players to behave much more akin to typical characters in zombie films: carrying a couple favored weapons, and enough ammo to keep them supplied.<br />
<br />
Too long/complicated: This idea consists of minor changes to game variables (encumbrance, damage, search), and adds a straightforward feature which should work consistently with the existing interface and game data structures. It requires tracking one more piece of data per character: which weapon is equipped, and removes one piece of data normally transmitted on each attack: the weapon used. This should not be a prohibitive amount of development work. Balance changes are necessary to coincide with changes to AP costs for using weapons to minimize the secondary impact on gameplay.<br />
<br />
Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit.<br />
<br />
'''Areas for input:'''<br />
<br />
How are the numbers? Are they reasonable to maintain balance while accomplishing the goal of this suggestion?<br />
<br />
====Discussion (No More Walking Armories)====<br />
#Pistols are usually no bigger than two clips. Having 10% pistols and 1% clips is completely unjustified.<br />
#Shotguns are nowhere near the size or unwieldiness of generators (18% vs 20%).<br />
Not just that, but raising the encumbrance of weapons doesn't really contribute to reducing the number of weapons and increasing the amount of ammunition carried. Changing the search percentages wouldn't affect much either. Just plain introducing the equipped-weapon gameplay would do it. It's simple; reloading costs 1 or 2 AP, changing a weapon would cost 2. Ammunition is lighter than weapons. For pistols this means you're paying 1 AP less per 6 bullets, and carrying double the amount of damage if you use clips over loaded pistols. For shotguns it means you're paying just as much, but still carrying one half more ammo by carrying shells instead of shotguns. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 23:28, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I don't believe the game's encumbrance values are based on real-world sizes or weights, but rather are a general reflection of carrying ability for the sake of game balance. They're arbitrary. No one can carry 5 portable generators at once, and being limited to carrying only 50 shotgun shells, when they're typically sold in small boxes of 24 to 48, reveals this. A Ruger Security Six revolver as listed on the [[firearms]] page weighs about 1 kilo; carrying 25 of them at 4% enc per, would mean 55 pounds of firearms. The point isn't to be completely accurate with size or weight, but present a tradeoff in carrying many vs. few. With 1 pistol (12%) and 8 clips (1%), for a total of 20% the user still comes ahead of carrying 8 current pistols (32%). While a shotgun does not weigh as much as a portable generator, carrying 16 of them (at 6%) is just as unreasonable. <br>The search values I adjust because finding new firearms becomes less important. This isn't critical to the suggestion however, especially if the part where I recommend that users be able to discard guns they find but keep the ammo in them. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 23:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The exact nature of encumbrance is pretty much irrelevant, as, like I said, changing the encumbrance values doesn't really contribute towards the goal of this suggestion. It just adds one more thing for people to find objectionable. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 09:59, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::If currently people are carrying 16 weapons, and suddenly they can be just as effective with 3, they now have much more space for first aid kits, ammo, syringes, generators, etc. It's also about balance. While there is extra space, increasing weapon encumbrance means it isn't so survivor-favored in that aspect. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 10:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::That reasoning would make more sense if you weren't halving the weight of ammunition. You still have to keep the values somewhat sensible when compared to others. 10% pistols and 18% shotguns are just too inconsistent. Something like 6/8% pistols and 12% shotguns would be better. Or you could bump up the encumbrance of '''everything else''' (which ''would'' make more sense, but would simply get spammed). --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:24, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Is it necessary for game-balance that survivors be limited to carrying a certain quantity of ammunition? To my mind, the limiting factor is search rates, more than carrying capacity. I halved the encumbrance of ammo to balance increasing the values for firearms, along with the fact that the new system encourages keeping plenty of loose ammo, rather than just that which fits in numerous weapons. As for game-realism, shotguns are large and unwieldy, it's implausible to carry more than two. Encumbrance can represent both weight and bulk. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this idea, both because it makes sense and it's better as flavour, but I don't think it will last two seconds in a vote..not that that's any reason not to suggest it, but all the trenchies will go "OMG ONLY 1 WEAPON + MORE RELOADS NOW I CAN ONLY KILL FOUR ZOMBIES A DAY KILL KILL KILL" <br>But I like it.. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 01:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thanks! :) Actually, I really am trying to keep the balance the about the same so that for purposes of killing speed, it's roughly neutral. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:07, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
All these fucking words to just hide the fact you want to bump up the shotgun's damage. Go to hell. Go back and play Resident Evil some more if you get hard-ons from selecting and equipping weapons. You miss the point that this is a damn text game that only gives you 50 AP a day. You can't unload weapons when you find them and you are just as likely to find a pistol with 3 bullets in it as a full clip, but thanks to this GENIUS suggestion even if you aren't a trenchy you will still get your AP raped by swapping weapons. I like to think that survivors are smart enough not to carry their weapons in a back pack but to have them hidden on their body for easy access. I fucking hate gun suggestions. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 02:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Hi DCC. As I pointed out, in front-loaded damage the shotgun sees an increase, but over time it has reduced damage/AP compared to currently. If you compare the current system with someone carrying 10 loaded shotguns and enough ammo to reload & fire again for their 50AP, the new system represents an 11% decrease in average damage done. As I clearly stated, this isn't about altering game balance or enhancing/damaging the effectiveness of any weapon. As for searching, I provided a suggestion that ammo found in other weapons could be unloaded if the user already has a weapon. Also, I don't think being abusive is very consistent with rational discussion of people's ideas. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:39, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::The game is not played in long term, at least for survivors it shouldn't be. They're more than mobile enough that they can pop in, do tons of damage, run out, and come back a few days later fully stocked and do the same thing. It's low risk and exactly why boosting short term gains for survivors anymore would be ridiculously overpowered.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::This doesn't create a boost for survivors. Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png the graph] I created. The intent is to create a change in behavior, without significantly affecting balance; which is why I'm happy to discuss the numbers used. The pistol remains almost exactly the same; the shotgun does very slightly more damage in the first two turns, quickly falls behind the damage put out by multiple preloaded existing shotguns. This is shifting the pre-combat AP investment to carry around all those loaded weapons, into combat itself, making it viable to have one weapon of each kind and reload during combat. This is more consistent with the game world and genre: frantically loading your weapon as the undead shamble towards you, than carrying 16 loaded weapons effortlessly. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::I wasn't critiquing your suggestion. Now I am. To keep it simple I'm just gonna say this, you can't half ammo encumbrance it would have to much of an effect on the time survivors have that they can spend ''without'' restocking. That amount of time is a significant limiter on their ability to use/abuse their AP efficiency. You're basically doubling their Ammo carrying capacity and attempting to claim it's balanced by slightly reducing their attack efficiency(which is still being left close to 8 damage per AP). Yes, it makes individuals very very slightly less effective, it will also make groups of survivors insanely more effective and it will let those individuals spend ''more'' time without a break. That ''is'' a significant boost. Now I don't actually have too much of a problem with it assuming Kevan ''finally'' allows some specific zombie boost in response, and by that I mean finally letting them do a significant amount of damage per AP and letting them get through barricades with something closer to twice as much AP as they take to build instead of 4-5x. I don't think that will happen though.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:17, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Thanks Karek, this is an interesting point. Assuming a player wants to maximize their combat potential, and disregarding all other concerns (assume they're backed up by other players who will heal/rebuild etc.), a player might carry 16 shotguns (@6%) & 2 shells (@2%). That's an average of ((32+2)*10*0.65)=221 damage in 36AP, then they're empty. 6.14damage/AP. That's not including the significant AP investment to find and load all those guns. Under the proposed system, player has 1 shotgun @18%, and 82 shells @1%. They get 2AP of attacks, then thereafter it's 1attack/2AP (load & shoot). Over 166AP, they do an average of ((2+82)*12*0.65)=655.2 damage, or 3.94 damage/AP. They would have invested more AP in advance to gather all those shells.<br><br />
:::::I understand what you're saying. The existing system allows a quick burst of high damage, then the survivor has to go replenish. The new system would allow large restocking in a "safe" are, then being able to do damage for an additional 4.6x AP; however, both the average damage is reduced, as well as being spread out over more AP. <br><br />
:::::Say we go with 1 shotgun @18%, but 41 shells @2%. ((2+41)*12*0.65)=335.4 in 84AP, or 3.99damage/AP. Roughly the same damage output, just half the cycle time between attacking & replenishing; as well as less AP invested up front. So the question is: is the length of the attack/scavenge cycle significant to game balance? Do zombies depend on survivors running out, even if they're doing 2/3rd the average damage per AP? --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::::That's not necessarily true either, with three, or even four, survivors striking together they can completely ignore the reduced efficiency. They would actually clear things faster and more efficiently then than they could now doing the same thing. Like I mentioned above, the average damage in the long term with shotguns is irrelevant because most of that cost occurs well outside of danger while most of the reward occurs when you want/need it to, all that would happen is who's holding the shotguns would change, that's actually what I like about an equipment based system. Lose everything else, keep that, the rest is irrelevant, likely impossible to balance, and seems generally based on the assumption that all Survivors are idiots; they aren't, they just don't have any real reason to work together. There's a good core idea here but the implementation needs work.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think i like the start of this. Right now i can't focus to tell if all the numbers are good with me over a long base of time. but, first impression is i like this... i just don't know exactly how this would affect things until i'm actually using it. Also, i disagree with DCC... chill out, man. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This sounds great but really this is more of an AP kill. Consider that the majority of us survivors depend on being a walking arsenal, making us pay 2AP to get a loaded pistol out can highly unbalance the basics for siege survival. I say you drop it down to 1AP or just drop it entirely and make this a weapon pump. This has potential and I love the stats given, but you just gotta fine tone it. Try getting together a study group, devise a neat little generator amongst yourselves, provide a report in place of the hypothesis that we do have now and then try getting this into voting. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:There AP cost is there to provide the incentive to reload the weapon you're using, rather than switch out to one loaded weapon after another. For the pistol, it makes it more advantageous, for the shotgun, it makes it equal with carrying other shotguns, but the drop in encumbrance acts as a bonus. The increase in damage for both pistol and shotgun help balance against the increased AP costs so damage/AP is roughly the same. With pistols, you currently do 6 attacks in 6 turns, then switch. With the new system, you'll do 6 attacks in 6 turns, 1 turn to reload, then go again. So you need 1 pistol, and just clips. 6 damage/attack instead of 5 makes them close in damage output. Likewise with the shotgun, with the current system you fire 1 shot per AP for as long as you have shotguns. With my proposal, you still get two shots for two AP with your pre-loaded gun, then you get 1 shot every 2 AP: reload 1 shell, fire, etc. In the first few turns you'll have done more damage than the existing system, but after a few turns, it does a little less on average. Oh, and remember: '''with the existing system, you still need to spend the AP to load your weapons. You just do it before combat, not during.''' Like I said, this brings it more in genre: desperately reloading as the zombies advance on you, instead of carrying a dozen loaded shotguns on your back. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 05:32, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''Re: weapon balance: Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png this graph].''' This compares current with proposed weapon damage. I'm somewhat inclined to increase the shotgun to 13 or 14, but the relative advantage between the old and new shotgun depends on how many loaded shotguns the player would have under the old system. I assumed 8 for this graph. If it's less, the difference is much narrower; it's unlikely a player would have many more. Note that the player has a damage advantage with the old shotgun ''until they run out''; but they had to spend the same AP in advance to load those 8 shotguns. The new shotgun merely incorporates that loading AP into combat. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 06:16, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''GRRRRRRRRRRH!!!''' KISS me, please. i.e., Keep. It. Simple. Stupid. This may be a fantastic idea, but I can't be arsed atm to read that wall of text. Please learn how to be more concise. Seriously. Thank you. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:22, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What I did read... led me here... This is unnecessary. Because carrying lots of loaded firearms is actually a very poor use of AP and encumbrance. The most Ap-encumbrance efficient weapon in the game is the pistol, by far. And the best way to use pistols is to have 2-3 of them and tonnes of ammo. Shotguns are spiffy weapons, but their ap-encumbrance efficiency is atrocious: if wind up with a few, use 'em... but once its empty? Drop it, don't reload it, that's a giant waste of AP... So, if people wanna waste their AP and encumbrance on carrying and reloading lots of firearms -- the zombies say go right ahead and be horribly inefficient! <br />
:That being said... What ticks me is that I never find pistol ammo in Malls. It's always shotguns. Graaaaagh! Which means... I don't think we need a big game mechanic overhaul, so much as search rates should be tweaked... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::More thoughts... If people wanna carry lots of guns, more power to them. Because that helps the zombies... Because zombies can't be killed. And survivors should be focusing on barricading and reviving and healing first -- and when they are not... then the zombies win! By default. <br />
::Also, "walking armouries" are ''totally'' in genre. You always have the Armah Manz with billions of b!g bang-bangz... Always. And usually, these are the idiots who end up getting killed... And the consumer type who focuses on helping others and getting the job done most effectively lives and helps more people... As in the genre, as in UD... Now, I kind of would like to see trenchcoating get a bit of a nerf... however, i am always very cautious about "legislating playing styles"... And that is what this suggestion does. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:37, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: I'm sorry you found the idea too long. However, I wanted to be specific in the reason for each change, and the expected effect. In order to make the change relatively balance-neutral while encouraging a behavioral change, adjusting numbers in several places is necessary. You said that carrying shotguns and reloading would be inefficient: that's part of what the change is attempting to address. People carry multiple weapons because they can front-load their AP to increase damage in a short time. This idea diminishes that effect while allowing them to output roughly the same damage/AP invested. <br />
::: I disagree that "walking armories" are in-genre. The "Army Mans" carry an assault rifle, a couple grenades, and maybe a sidearm. The only reason players will carry 16 loaded weapons around is because ''the current game mechanics encourage this behavior''; it's not something you'd typically see in a film. They can stock up on weapons and ammo in advance, then unleash that stored AP in the form of damage. What is more consistent with the genre and a plausible game-world, is carrying a couple reliable weapons, and reloading them as needed. This change isn't legislating playing styles: combat-oriented players will still be able to arm up and go to war. They'll just do it with a couple weapons and plenty of ammo, rather than 200 pounds of firearms on their back. Their combat effectiveness versus the zombies will be largely unchanged. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:55, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Instead of trying to play with the big boys in the flame department, I suggest picking up some reading comprehension skills. I addressed your "refutations" in my original post. First of all, the game does not actually encourage carrying 16 loaded weapons; in so far as you are able to do so, you're most assuredly ''not'' contributing to the pro-survivor cause. That you fail to understand ''why'' isn't my problem: do your homework. Secondly, dudes armed to the teeth shooting the shit out every zombie they see (and usually dying grisly deaths themselves because of their stupidity) are very common in both the movies and, yeah, even the video games. Pay attention next time, okay? And go re-read karek and DCC's comments and try to understand the words of your intellectual superiors. THEN get back to us. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:12, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm afraid that you really haven't supported your objections, despite claiming you have. Whether choosing combat-oriented activities in-game helps or hinders the survivor cause is ''irrelevant'': you mentioned that we shouldn't be dictating player style. This suggestion as I've stated is largely balance-neutral. What is does, is discourages exactly what I describe: the "walking armory" effect, and encourages carrying only needed weapons with sufficient ammunition. This doesn't prevent or penalize anyone from walking in with guns blaring, it just means they don't look like [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|this guy]] while doing it. More like [http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1003/988120768_87c5ce1538.jpg this]. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::''Balance neutral'' ? What's this shit? How can something be "neutral" -balance or otherwise- when it tries to change the way people play? '''Don't tell people how to play their characters.''' It's just that simple. Who cares if someone fills all of their inventory with weapons or with GPS units? So what if some trenchies want to carry 100 shotguns? I can tell you haven't been playing this game long. More likely you don't even play a zombie. Which makes your bitching about weapons even weirder. Your suggestion doesn't solve a problem. Your suggestion does not make gameplay more interesting. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::: Could you be specific about how you feel it's unbalanced? And the suggestion is not telling people how to play. The intention of [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Gameplay_and_Flavor|that guideline]] for suggestions I believe is that we shouldn't discourage RP or encourage non-RP. People can play their characters how they choose, and fill their inventory with what they want. However, the current game mechanics ''actively encourages players to be walking arsenals'' if they want to maximize their combat effectiveness. The problem the suggestion solves is that carrying a huge stack of weapons is anti-RP, contrary to the genre and game-fiction. As I've said, it's [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|silly]]. Carrying a shotgun, revolver, and melee weapon seems much more plausible, and something you'd see in a zombie movie, don't you think? This lets someone who does that, be viable in combat. Additionally, I have attempted to balance this so it's neutral towards zombies, not shifting the advantage. Again, I invite you to show me how it is not. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 00:35, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::: You say you don't want to legislate how people play the game one moment, then the next you say that's ''exactly'' what you want to do! Make up your mind. Now... Zombies don't care if they get shot. If you actually ''played'' a zombie full-time, you'd understand this. Shot me all you bloody well want, I'll dirt nap and stand up again with, at worst, 44 AP and be ready to go. Therefore, shooting zombies is ''completely'' pointless except when you need to clear a building. To that end, you carry some guns. But ''smart'' survivors don't carry lots of guns: they carry maybe 2-4 pistol and 2-4 shotguns, tops. Why? Well... because the most powerful pro-survivor thing in the whole game is the revive-needle. Next come barricading and FAKing. Smart survivors know this, thus they carry several needles (sometimes a hell of a lot), a toolbox and a big whack o' FAKs. ''These'' are the survivors who benefit the "pro-survivor" cause. By contrast, anyone who just carries a whole bunch of guns is ''not'' really benefiting the survivor cause all that much, they are just parasiting off others' barricades, revives and FAKs. Nor are they ''really'' hurting zombies, because zombies don't care if they die. Capiche? You say I haven't backed up my arguments, but I ''have''. I actually made an argument -- it's just that you either don't understand, or you're wilfully ignoring the argument. Meanwhile, you've just provided statistics and a flawed idea, which you haven't put in any kind of rational or argumentative or bona-fide in-game context... Meanwhile, I don't care if someone wants to carry 16 shotguns -- as a survivor ''or'' a zombie. As a survivor, I think that guy is a parasitic waste of space and I will make fun of him and belittle him for being a trenchcoating wanker -- but he's not really ''hurting'' me. And, as your picture of Ash demonstrates, all said and done, he is actually RPing ''in-genre''. And as a zombie I outright ''laugh'' at his stupidity and I smash his barricades and eat bra!nz with a hearty GRAAAAGH!!... However, I do not wish to legislate how he plays the game in such a heavy-handed way... Which is ''exactly'' what your suggestion intends to do -- by your own fucking admission! This is not a good idea, and by clinging to it and not accepting ''constructive'' and ''reasonable'' criticism, you're proving yourself to be fucking git, a disruptive and non-contributive member of the community. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:12, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hmm. When I said that, you criticized me for having a superficial understanding of the game. The shoe's on the other foot now, eh? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:19, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hi WanYao. How many shotguns is Ash carrying? One. How many firearms will a typical person in a zombie film carry? One, or one rifle/shotgun and one sidearm. In UrbanDead as it stands, how many firearms will a person carry if they want to ''maximize their combat potential''? '''16'''. The game mechanics are already telling them "how to play", it's saying that if you want to devote yourself to dealing damage, you carry a silly and fiction-breaking number of weapons.<br />
:::::::::I'm afraid your comments about what is actually optimal strategy are irrelevant and a red herring. This suggestion makes no change in what players ''should'' do in order to be maximally effective. It simply alters the game mechanics so that the optimal number of weapons to carry is one of each, and not 16. This is what is more in keeping with the genre, more plausible in the game fiction. There's no advocated or encouraged change in "player behavior": a combat-oriented player will choose ammo over other objects, while others will stock sufficient ammo and keep their FAKs and toolkits etc. You've already said that with the status-quo, even ''good'' players will have 4-8 weapons. Again, this is silliness that is a result solely of the game mechanics, not because they believe their fictional roleplaying character would actually be that kind of badass. The game dictates how many weapons they should carry. I'm for reducing that number, without significantly affecting game balance itself.<br />
:::::::::Now if you want to make the case that 1% encumbrance ammo too greatly reduces the tradeoff between being combat-oriented or rebuild/heal oriented, I'm happy to hear it. Karek's provided his support for a similar argument above. And as usual, your personal attacks are completely off-base. I've been giving all reasoned criticism due weight. I get that some people ''don't like'' the idea, based on personal biases, but so far, I've only seen one specific argument for what might be wrong. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:44, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::This wall of text is getting pathetic... Anyhoo, there is another principle that no one has mentioned yet, but it bears emphasis: greater realism =/= better. Anyway, I'm done with this, it's arguing in circles now. Good luck. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:45, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::That's just your luck. I find TONS of clips and pistols with 4+ shots. Last time I loaded up, such stuff was easily 75% of what I found in the gun store. In fact, I would have stopped searching, but it took me a long time to find a shotgun shell to top up the half-loaded shotgun I had. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 16:40, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I fucking hate you. This comment in particular - ''"Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit."''<br />
<br />
Put it up for voting, right fucking now. Watch me dupe it on basis of weapons damage buff, selected weaponry and ammunition encumbrance buff. Just because your 'suggestion' contains many shit suggestions does not mean I cannot find those many mindless trenchie buffs and rightfully kill it, it means you are fucking deluded for thinking I can't and typing such a moronic suggestion.<br />
<br />
Shit, I wish karma was real, then some really bad things would happen to you, I'd find out about them and chortle my arse off. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:45, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Get arsed, yourself, Iscariot. Assuming trolls have arses, that is. Do they? Or does ''all'' your shit come out of your mouth?<br />
:Meanwhile, karek, swiers and DCC have pretty much show this suggestion for the BAD IDEA it is... So let's move on, kay, class? Next lesson please... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:44, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissocial_personality_disorder Please seek help.] --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Alrighty then... See, there is a time and place for being an asshole. I felt the situation was not appropriate, thus my comments to Iscariot. I take them all back now: go nuts, Izzy. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:56, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::What makes you believe it's ever acceptable or appropriate to behave abusively towards people? This sort of behavior certainly isn't conducive to rational discussion and addressing the merits or problems in a suggestion. It simply brings the quality of the wiki down, and reflects poorly on the community. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:02, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Other than Iscariot, no one is trolling you. And, in context -- while I don't really think his comments are particularly helpful -- you've brought it on yourself. In any event, if you want a love-in, where everyone is nice to each other and they let you cry on their should if someone was mean to you, please go [http://www.oprah.com/index here]. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm not trolling at all, trolling implies I'm after a certain response from him. I don't. It would be nice if he'd listened to all the nice people explaining it to him, but he didn't. The comment about duping is pure arrogance on his part, and I don't take kindly to it. The dupe system stops moronic suggestions entering PR because everyone reasonable gets bored of killing it. |I notice he hasn't taken me up on my challenge to see if I could dupe it....<br />
<br />
:::::Also Zhani, feel free to go and whine on any sysop talk page you like. The one you're after is Vandal Banning. Good luck with that, there is no civility policy on this wiki and until we remove to moronic-trenchie-weapons-buff gene from the general population, there never will be. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
...Well isn't that one long suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:...Well isn't that one long discussion. -- [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::... Speaking of things long... ''::looks down::'' Oh, is that a banana in my pocket, or am I just happy to see a zombie in my safehouse? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:07, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Thats a whole lot of SPAM you typed up there... what's wrong with just making weapons assignable? Allow everyone to carry a weapon in each hand and have it cost 1AP per hand to change (shotguns requiring a free hand or having a -60% to hit!) reload or re-arm then cost the same and it becomes a matter of choice which style you prefer. Of course that makes maxed out survivors a lot <br />
less like the combat monsters they currently are but thats probably not a real problem! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 12:38, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Personally, I dislike this, but that's partly because i only carry two pistols and one shotty, thus giving room for more reasonable things. Like fencing foils, Wine, and poetry books. --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 06:41, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Body Bonfires===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:48, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Perma-death option.<br />
|suggest_scope=Characters in citys with perma-death alternatives.<br />
|suggest_description=I've got a zombie character currently running around Monroeville looking for the precious few survivors there are in order to eat them.<br />
<br />
One of Monroeville's biggest problems, I think, is that there was no way for low-level survivors from killing zombies permanently. Zombies could take out survivors, no problem, but unless you had Headshot, you couldn't take down a zombie.<br />
<br />
I know that's in-genre, given that they're the freaking undead and all, but it sucks game-wise.<br />
<br />
Thus, I came up with 'Body Bonfires', after watching the movie ''Night of the Living Dead''.<br />
<br />
Should this get implemented, survivors can now douse corpses in gasoline (from fuel cans) and set them alight with matches (find stats TBC), lighters (find stats TBC) or even a flare gun, if desperate. A burning corpse will degrade into a 'charred skeleton', after which time the character would be effectively 'perma-dead'.<br />
<br />
Note that this is meant to ''replace'' Headshot as the survivor perma-death, not co-incide with it.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Body Bonfires)====<br />
No. Why? Monroeville is quarantined and dead. Adding more items that make things even more difficult to find and implement will not suddenly change the dynamics of the city, nor will it make monroeville more fair. the point, i daresay, of that city is to more realistically show a zombie infestation, and the only way to do that is by making the limited amount of zombies unlimited, with only a small amount of very good zombie killers who can do anything about it, which still amounts to not much. its fine, and the city is pointless, and just leave it. and don't add matches and lighters to do what flare guns already do. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:33, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I think you misread my suggestion. For one, this is NOT for Monroeville. Monroeville is dead (or will be soon), this is for any new cities that will also have perma-death mechanics, should one ever be introduced. For another, you can only burn a zombie once they're on the ground having been 'temp-killed' (HP to 0). --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 09:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I didn't misread crap. Nothing in your post makes reference to any mythical city that is currently not existant. You only mention monroeville, and imply that is what your suggestion is about. And after reading it again, i've decided this is a) a dupe; b) spamtastic, given the non-existant nature of your supposed city; and c) incomplete, given that you don't actually talk about where it is implemented, or if its a skill, or how its done in the user interface. just allow it to die, and then we'll burn the suggestions corpse out of our memories. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 20:44, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Completely pointless because such a hypothetical perma-death city does not exist. You can't get more spamtastic than suggesting a mechanic for something that doesn't even exist. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:56, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Reminds me of both [[Suggestion:20070816 Burning Bodies]] and another suggestion which I can't quite find at the moment. It is entirely possible that this may be substantially a dupe. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:50, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I found [[Suggestions/RejectedFebruary2007#Flare Gun / Fuel Attack|Flare Gun / Fuel Attack]] interesting reading, to say the least. How many [[User:MrAushvitz|MrAushvitz]] suggestions have been implemented, now? Surely the apocalypse is extremely nigh... {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:57, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Sorry, no, perma-death would not go over in this game. It's simply not fun for the players, and gives a person a reason to give up playing. Favors survivors overwhelmingly, and doesn't really improve the game. I hate to be one of those types shooting down ideas, but this doesn't work. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:36, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A) You only mentioned Monroeville, the dead city. B) MV has one purpose now, and one purpose only: ZKing. [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 02:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Make graffiti readable in dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Logic Flaw Fix<br />
|suggest_scope=Graffiti in dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Graffiti disappears when the lights go out in dark buildings. Since it is unreasonable to assume that absolutely no light can get in any parts of dark buildings, why wouldn’t the graffiti just be sprayed in the areas that the little light can get in? Such places would be the front of cinemas (where the snack bar is, as there are usually windows out front), near the windows of the banks, and near the windows of standard buildings.<br />
<br />
I have never seen any buildings like these completely lacking windows in all areas, and windows would have to exist for Free Running to be possible, so even if the skylights haven’t been maintained, there’s no reason people wouldn’t be spraying the signs near the window areas where it’d be visible, even if the rest of the building is dark.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Make graffiti readable in dark buildings)====<br />
<br />
It's dark. You can't see dead bodies. Combat abilities are nerfed for everyone. You can't repair a building in the dark. Barricading and reviving are also disadvangtaged. So there's no logic flaw here, not at all. It's bloody ''dark''!!--[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:The logic is fine as is - after years of the outbreak, the walls will be pocked, peeling and covered in grime and blood, not to mention layers of graffiti in different colours. You'd need fairly good light to make out the latest message.<br />
:I was thinking of suggesting an item, book of matches, the sole purpose of which would be to let the user (only) read graffiti in the dark. But I couldn't be arsed looking for dupes etc. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 10:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::But..but.. what about all those blank rectangles I sprayed onto the walls to keep them clean and in one colour! In all seriousness, no to this suggestion. As Garum says, those walls are a mess, no matter how many blank rectangles you spray. :P - [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:03, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::We don't need a silly, pointless item like matches to spam our searches. Meh. It's dark. Deal with it. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:26, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
WE DEMAND BRAILLE GRAFFITI! Fuck you, cripple haters. I need to be able to read ''I like to poop'' no matter how much light is in the building. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 00:31, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Now ''That'' I would vote keep on.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:21, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And human civilization has truly gone full circle, as survivors have come back to the art of making stone tables with toolboxes. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 14:11, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===picking some one up===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 19:44, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=helping others.<br />
|suggest_scope=humans.<br />
|suggest_description=Almost all of us can say that we have been killed while sleeping, or have been a zombie and killed all the humans becuase most of them were sleeping. So why not allow people to carry some one out of danger? Lets say that you and some of your buddys are fleeing a horde, and one of them is out of AP, so why not pick him/her up? It would cost one AP to pick the player up, and 2 AP to move around, and you would not be able to free run {you are carrying another person). You also cant attack since, it would be to diffuclt.<br />
<br />
You would rengenrate AP as you would normally would, and can be put down for one AP. If the person carrying you is killed, you fall down and be as vunerable as you would be normally. Now comes the PKer question. Being able to pick some one up and carry them of to some were else to kill them would become a PKers best tool. So I sujest there should be a check box in the settings, which you can check yes or no to being picked up. If you try to pick some one up how has checked the box no, this happens.<br />
<br />
''you try to pick the person up, but they push you away: Italic text'' <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Picking some one up)====<br />
Pied Piper skills are a great no no. Specifically because of the griefing possibilities. Even with the block you suggested, I don't think it would be acceptable. A better way of determining who can pick you up would be to check for mutual contacts, and not ignored. Not that I think this would pass even with that, because I'm pretty sure this is a dupe. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:54, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Pied Piper? Whats that?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:15, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A pied piper skill is one that involves one player moving another (like the pied piper of hamelin and rats/children) Within game the closest we have is [[Feeding Drag]] which has on it very specific limiting factors. This is too prone to abuse. New players especially may not know its a feature, and one griefer could pick up a huge number of people and carry them directly outside. Where they would get et. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Just as Ross said, [[Frequently_Suggested#Pied_Piper_Skills|here]] is a link to it on the frequently suggested page. I suggest reading that page, will give you an idea of suggestions to avoid. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 20:31, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nequa please read Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested pages. They are linked to above, at the top of this page. Zangz. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:28, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I see what you mean, but I still think that the check box would stop that. And if you are tricked, well thats just bad luck.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:49, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Only way this would be prevented is if everyone had it set to "Do not allow me to be dragged away", and only switched back when they knew a rescue was on the way. It is simply to abusable in it's current form. And try telling the poor newbies, who weren't aware of the checkbox, that it was just bad luck and that they have to live with it after being dragged away from their VSB safehouse into an area full of EHB cades. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 21:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nothings perfect, and anyway you could kill somebody quickly and no one could stop you.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:17, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:surely the default should be ''dont allow carrying''. Stop a lot of griefing there? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sure, you could have that checkbox turned off as a default. But then, how would people who have this skill know who they could pick up, and who they could not?<br>Moving other players is a bad idea to begin with, play wise, so picking at th details is turd polishing at best. If you want to "rescue" people from danger , give them fist aid, try to fix the barricades, and recruit others to help them survive until they log back in, but don't presume to play the game for them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:30, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait, what? You think this is a skill? A skill you need to get by having enough XP? No, no, no, you dont need to purchase it. Also your other point about knowing if the person has the thing checked or not is a good point. You should probally put it on your describtion if you have it on or not, like the hydra defence.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:47, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Right. Other issues. If I pick up a level 1 survivor, this seems to allow me to carry him inside, and then free run to another building whilst carrying him. Regardless of his skills. Besides Im pretty sure its also a partial dup of firemans carry. Anyone got the link. I just feel its unworkable. sorry. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
[[PR_Skill_New:_Survivor:_Civilian#Fireman.27s_Carry_.28Bring_12HP_Survivor_Indoors.29|Fireman's Carry]], which is in Reviewed. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 22:55, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
LOL, that guy pretty much says the same thing I do. It appears great minds think alike. Now do I seem like a idiot?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:05, 2 September 2008 (BST<br />
:More so, now that you've said that. quit being unwilling to learn. everyones been very nice. now go actually FREAKING READ THE DO AND DO NOTS!<br />
:No one is pointing out the worst part of this. What if i create fifteen drones, and use them to carry a full army of survivors into zombie territory. you don't put it plainly, but you seem to infer that you can only be carried while sleeping (or at least, i'm hoping, because otherwise those zergs could carry armies of full ap'd characters) but either way, its a free trip for my sleeping characters, who spent their AP stocking on ammo. my zergs carry them in, dump them off in a zerg-repaired building, and let them sleep. now i have an army, 2 for one. thats what makes this bad. adding a penalty of 2 for one doesn't fix that.<br />
:and the griefing is absolutly grieftastic. what if i rescue someone with low HP out of a mall into a quiet factory where i show him my gun?... i mean... pk him. errm... or how about if i spend a whole 50 ap 'rescuing' any of the barricaders in a seige with a death culter. the check box doesn't solve this, because the only time that someone would want to be rescued is the same time where its worth abusing the feature. it fails because it will never work. if you can't free run with it, (can you enter/exit buildings?) then its worthless for doing anything but costing the zombie horde half the amount of AP to keep up with you.<br />
:This was long... sorry. but this suggestion is silly silly silly. NOW READ THE FAQ's and DO AND DO NOTS! Please. and don't read them and then try to come up with a better way to do what it tells you not to do... just DON'T suggest those things. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:15, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also, wan yao... i think one of my alts was just combat revived by you. Ha. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:22, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Combat Reviving FTW!!! ;P .... Up Roftwoodish or something, right? I vaguely remember CRing some zambah somewhere for some old reason or another, heheh... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:40, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::As for the suggestion... Yeah... you seem like an idiot at this moment, Nequa. This is a broken and unworkable idea. People are trying to explain that to you. But you're not listening, and you can't even be bothered to read the help pages for Suggestion development -- which are clearly linked to -- and which people have been providing you with links to, above... Smarten the fuck up, please, and quit wasting our time. Seriously. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:44, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I distinctly remember telling you to stop suggesting... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:49, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Feeding Drag in Large Buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:necrodeus/sig}} 02:46, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=improvement<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with feeding drag in large buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Hello team.<br />
<br />
The feeding drag skill allows zombies to drag survivors of less than 12HP outside through an ''open door'' at the cost of 1AP. Therefore, if a zombie enters a large building through an open door, then makes its way through the building unimpeded (ie, through more open doors or just empty space), beats a survivor down to 12HP or below, there should exist the option to feeding drag said survivor through the building.<br />
<br />
It makes sense, as you are inside a building and simply dragging the unfortunate survivor somewhere else in the building, presumably towards the horde that generally congregates in the opened block.<br />
<br />
Now I know that this is the same as suggesting that I could feeding drag a wounded survivor through open streets, but I do think that as it is limited to the insides of large buildings it is hardly useful as a griefing tool, neither would it be game breaking, and it fits in with the idea behind the feeding drag as well - if a zombie feels the need to drag someone outside, why should the fact that it's slightly longer distance than normal dissuade him?<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Feeding Drag in Large Buildings)====<br />
Kind of like a zombie equivalent for the fort body dump? I like it. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 04:02, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Seems out of genre, normally a zombie will feed for itself with absolutely NO consideration for a horde. Though this skill is a good idea, it would be a bit pointless because if you have a survivor at 12 HP and most of the time the only large building you are in would be a mall, it would mean you drag someone near dead to a horde, either way, the survivor was already HIGHLY LIKELY to die unless terribly low on AP this skill is just useless. I say just stick with infectious bite. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:No. Feeding Drag and zambahz helping babahz is ''totally'' part of the genre -- as in, it's ''in the game'' ... So it's part of the genre. Zombies in Urban Dead have intelligence, more like in Return of the Living Dead than in Romero's movies. Regarding the suggestion, I think this is a great idea! But it should cost at least 2 AP to so, perhaps more. You usually don't have to drag as far, or through as complicated a series of buildings as in a fort, so I'm not sure if the same AP costs is in order... but perhaps... Still, in siege situations where this matters, we tend to just tend to kill rather than worry about dragging... However, even then, this ability would be FAR from "useless". --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:08, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ok.. I'm out of it.. I understood this as the equivalent of dragging a body outside the Forts. Which would mean you click the ability and you drag your target outside -- and you go with him, just like you would a normal feeding drag. No "half drags" to another corner of the mall -- it's all or nothing, all the way outside, or not at all. And that would cost 2 AP. And of course you'd still have to spend AP getting back inside and to the action, if that's your desire. There are some tricks to overcome with this... but it's a cool idea, nonetheless. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:37, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Yeah, I like it as well. Some people might call it greifing though [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 04:21, 31 August 2008 (BST).<br />
<br />
I was 50/50 between making it just like a body dump costing 2AP and making it like it is now, but certainly a feeding drag all the way outside for 2AP - like the survivor body dump - is just as keeping in genre and could be considered less of a potential griefing tool.<br />
<br />
What if it just acted the same as feeding drag, so I end up outside. It costs 2AP, and then if I want to get back inside it just costs me the same as normal movement rates - so at least 1AP to just re-enter the building, and 2 AP to get back to where I was originally? It's hardly a griefing tool, you're only ever going to end up outside the building you were in, and at most 1 block away from where you were {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 12:38, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:That's exactly what I just said, man... The only issue could be as follows: you're in mall, all corners are heavily barricaded except one, which is wide open... you're in another (non-open) corner killing some folk, and you want to use this ability. Now, do you drag the victim to the outside of your ''current'' corner, or do you end up moving to the open corner? What if there is more than one open corner? Or, if you drag to the outside of your current corner, then how do you justify bypassing barricades -- because even just a closed door negates feeding drag... See the problems? This is a very spiffy idea IMO, but these things need to be worked out... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:00, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::I was agreeing with you! I was thinking that the feeding drag took them out of the open corner, rather than through the barricades. As for what would happen if more than one door was open, I would say go to the nearest one, except that in a four block square, every sqaure is as near as any of the others...I couldn't see it making too much of a difference which one you drag someone out of, so I would make it random; the zombie just heads towards the light, any light. That way, as long as there is a door open when the button is pressed, the feeding drag will be successful, rather than allowing the user a choice. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 17:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Probably won't matter a lot now since this suggestion would likely get implemented (if ever) after Monroeville closes, but in that city there are non-standard large building shapes, like [[Monroeville Mall]]. You can like drag someone across four blocks. :O Also, how would a zombie know which building block is open from where he/she stands? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:22, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Malls, Mansions, Power Stations ... are large buildings which means they are functionally ''one building''. With fours sets of barricades. And four ''zmargahzbargz, GRAAAAGH!'' The zombies knew how to get inside and move around when there was only one entry point, so why couldn't they know how to get back out? And, I mean, like he could just look around... Also, yeah, no-one cares about MV, it's over... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:48, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Well, ''you'' as the player know there's an entrance to the building, at least recently. In contrast, your zombie can only check within the block he's in -- even adjacent ruined blocks [[Pinata|aren't guaranteed]] that there are no cades there. Unless the zombie is actually looking at every block in the building (something which implies free moves), then without metagaming he/she won't really know there is an exit should dragging be done. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::But like Wan said, you're basically inside one large building. If you try and feeding drag inside a regular building, and the doors been closed, or whatever, you get a message and lose an AP, like for any failed attack. It's the same here. And the whole point of feeding drag is that zombies *do* know where the exit is --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. Its not needed. Once zombies get into a large building, they almost always take it down by keeping one corner ruined, or at least unbarricaded. The babah zombies can just come inside to feed, entering by spotting the ruined corner and then gorging themselves. Besides not being needed, its got a lot of potential complications. What if a large building has multiple open sections? Which one does the zombie drag them to? If zombies really wanted to use feeding drag in every section, they could just spend a few AP each to tear down the barricades, even getting a bonus for attacking from the inside in most cases.<br>I think its safe to say, if a zombie tries to drag a survivor across one or more blocks inside a large building, the survivor struggles and breaks free. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:36, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I'm afraid I disagree; you seem to have a fairly convincing argument against feeding drag itself; namely that if your baby zombah is standing outside any old building, he can see it's open and shamble on in. So why do we need feeding drag at all? I've already answered the point about which exit to be used as well. And yes, I could spend a whole load of AP tearing down the barricades to feeding drag a wounded survivor outside, or I could just spend 2AP and drag the human outside the exit that's already open. <br>And surely the point of feeding drag is that the survivor is wounded enough to not be able to stop it happening? And why should a human be able to drag a zombie across several squares of fort without it reviving? In both cases, if the player is online, they are better able to defend against this, with the difference being that all a survivor needs to do to 'break free' is simply walk back inside the building. <br> If I'm way off here, let me know, but it makes sense to me --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Not of base, but my point is, if zombies on a whole really cared about feeding drag, each of the ~20 or so in a large building could kick in 4 AP and blow away any barricades on that building quarter. That's really only enough AP to kill 2-3 survivors- not enough to slow down a siege once zombies are comping on a SECOND building corner. So it seems to me that zombies themselves do not put much importance on whether they can use feeding drag or not, as evidenced by their own actions in raids. Its not needed to make zombies vs large buidings work, nor would it really make it much better.<br>Truth told, feeding drag was originally used mostly to combat the "yo-yo barricade" syndrome by getting a building emptied (and ransacked) faster; now that zombies can block barricade building, its a bit of an atavism. Its main use is as a "visible" version of feeding groan. For a mall, if you want to let zombies know there is an active strike with some visible cue, just killing the generator is often good enough. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:16, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Fait enough for a horde sweeping through a building, but in my experience, I use eeding Drag for two reasons: Firstly, when I break into a building with one or two others, I know there is a chance that it will escalate into a horde swarming in, but more often that not, it won't. But by dragging a human outside, that's one less defender, and a drain on resources, because that person is outside regardless of whether I get headshot and evicted or not. Secondly, the FU tends to use it as a in game piece of flavour as much as a way of feeding the zedlings. So for a horde, I agree, Feeding Drag is unneccessary, and if you've got the resources to tear down the barricades with ease, then I'm all for that too, but for feral zombies, or smaller groups it's a slightly different ball game --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 00:39, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::When playing a feral (and my death cultist, too, actually) I use and think of Feeding Drag the same way necrodeus describes. It helps small numbers of zombies get the ransack faster. Also, if the cades go up, that drag-meat is suddenly isolated. And drag-meat is fantastic feral bait. And, yup, I do it very much for flavour/RP effect as well. Although, it doesn't work thar well for feeding babahz, b/c usually some big zambah comes along and eats them :( ... This is all in very big contrast to striking with the MOB, where we only drag if we are very intent on getting that damn biulding cleared -- because we can always tag-team to finish someone off if we have to. And if we are feeding a babah, we bring the babah inside with us. This suggestion is more for the ferals than for highly organised hordes... <br />
::::And a few other things: killing a gennie is not enough: GKing is too common... And swiers you know how annoying barricades are -- it really is asking a lot for a smaller number of ferals zombies to invest what it takes to open up EHB cades... But all that being said... Perhaps this isn't necessary, not really. And, it might in the end be a zombie buff that is just a tiny, tiny bit too much... Particularly with cade blocking... But... I still like it... ;) --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:36, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Well, I'm going to put it up, and see what the people / merciless flamers have to say.. {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:45, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I'm not gonna flame it; it can;t do enough harm to deserve that. My personal issue is that I'd like (as much as possible) to avoid moving other characters to different blocks (I even proposed [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20070616_Fort_Revision:_dumping_bodies_over_walls|a fort dumping mechanic that avoided this]]), and that its benefit is so small for the coding effort involved. Mall raids are already a smorgashboard for ferals, so I don't see the point of arguing it helps feed them there. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:37, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Private homes===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:18, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=new building.<br />
|suggest_scope=anybody how enters it.<br />
|suggest_description=Why does it appear that there are no private homes in Malton? I know its a city and your more likely to find a privat home in the subburbs, but I do know there are private homes in the city. We dont really need private homes but it would add realism to the game. There could also be another benafit. Since anybody could have lived in that house, from a NRA gun nut, to some tech loving nerd, you could find anything in thear. But there should be list of items you could not find in the house.<br />
<br />
List of items you could NOT find in a house:<br />
<br />
Necrotech syringe<br />
<br />
DNA scanner<br />
<br />
Flak vest (there could be one there, but it seems hard to belive)<br />
<br />
fire ax<br />
---------------<br />
Also here is the describtion you would see if you went in the building.<br />
<br />
-With power: You enter a well lit home, you start to feel like you were before the out break.<br />
<br />
-With no power: You enter a dark house.<br />
<br />
-when ruined: You enter a house and notice how everything is thrown apart, which grimly reminds you of what has happend here. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Private home)====<br />
If I may ask, how long have you been playing the game? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:36, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
To answer your question, about a week, I have been running around rhodenbank. Let me guess? There are private homes and I have just not found them yet?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:39, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There are [[Mansion|mansions]], and various [[Building_Types#Building|buildings]] around the city can be thought of as offices/condominiums, where you can imaging living places in.<br><br />
There are other reasons why private homes aren't found on the map.<br />
*One is that they're too small, same reason why you don't put a single tree on the map (and for those that are large enough, see mansions).<br />
*Another is that with most survivors just looting around the city and zombie hordes chasing after them, most houses are in such a state of ruin that they are essentially unrecognizable, turning residential districts into [[wasteland]].<br />
*Finally, they are quite insignificant in the grand scale of the survivor-zombie conflict that adding them now three years after the game has launched simply doesn't make the game any more enjoyable or fulfilling than it is before, and frankly it'll only be a waste of time and effort to put them in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:51, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then instead of adding homes how about updating the regular buildings to be more like apartments? Because most buildings have a RP (EX:pubs,police stations,forts) thing you can do with it, but the regular office buildings are boring. Maybe they could add my search idea without the need of a new building type?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:19, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Your search idea is horrible. Normal buildings already do not have items; what you're doing here is the opposite in that you can find ''anything'' in them, and just for that it will be spammed. As for your roleplaying bit, that will take a much lower priority than improving UD gameplay, especially when you consider there is a suitable alternative (once again, mansions, and normal buildings aren't too shabby -- just add some decorations) and multiple other possible roleplaying locations. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:30, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There's no private homes because the private homes are usually at the outskirts of a city, and what we have in Malton...Is the big city. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 19:16, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I usually just think of the street blocks as containing such houses. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:52, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Private homes are not really appropriate to the game. They can be assumed to exist on many blocks... because it's generally accepted that the block description refers to the most prominent or most utilised building on the block... <br />
<br />
But... yeah... Nequa... please play the game for a while before posting suggestion ideas. Hang out and read this page for a while. And start playing some zombies, PKers, death cultists, whatever, as well a survivors. And join a good group or three. Barhah.com is a great board, and though it's zombie-centric, everyone is welcome. Beerhah.com is a good place to go for survivor stuff. Anyhoooo... back to suggestions stuff... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:47, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Dump dead bodies from dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Restoring normal ability<br />
|suggest_scope=Dead bodies and dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Under current game mechanics, you can’t dump dead bodies from dark buildings. How does this make any sense? You can get in and out of the building, even through Free Running, yet somehow you can no longer remove dead bodies? Or do the exits magically close somehow when you try to remove someone?<br />
<br />
Currently, you can see anyone hiding in the shadows of very dark buildings, but you can’t see/dump dead bodies. Even if you just killed the thing, you somehow can’t find its body, even though you’d be tripping all over it!? Once again, it doesn’t make sense. Only once you light up the place does it become possible to dump the dead. Since I see no reason for it to be physically impossible to find or dump dead bodies, they should always be recognizable and dumpable.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Dump dead bodies from dark buildings)====<br />
A possible explanation is that people in dark buildings are found and attacked because they're breathing so loudly and their hearts are thumping. Similarly, standing zombies are wheezing. However, dead bodies emit no noise, and if you're tromping through a building hoping to step through a ribcage, you should be spending AP to do so. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}21:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Or because they are fumbling with heavy furniture in the dark to barricade the building, or shooting guns, or... {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:48, 29 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::Well, how about another take on it. Anyone who dies in the building...if their body is still inside when someone who witnessed the death takes a turn, they notice the body (since it wasn't cleared). The body wouldn't have moved from its original spot that fast.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:06, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Group Bonus===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:22, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance change<br />
|suggest_scope=All denizens of Malton who belong to groups<br />
|suggest_description= <br><br />
<br />
OK, so while I used the template, I’ve brought this to the discussion page in a fairly informal manner because I don’t pretend to be a programmer and I don’t pretend to know what is possible. I like this idea, but I can see my own problems with it from a technical standpoint – and I’m hoping that others here might be able to help with the solutions on that front.<br />
<br />
Here’s the basic idea – in the real world groups are much stronger than individuals. People en masse accomplish much more, whether it be construction projects, armies, or lobbying government. Organization has an additive effect to efficacy - pretty much every time. <br />
<br />
Also – there is a benefit to being part of an organization for humanity. There is community, the transfer of knowledge, the advancement of the overall ends of society.<br />
<br />
With that in mind, I think there should be an in-game bonus for group activity. This will encourage folks to join groups, which in turn will raise the overall level of gameplay across Malton. This bonus would apply to ANY group working in concert – be in human, PK’er, death cultist, or zombie – so there are no powering issues between warring factions – only a power difference between the grouped and the ungrouped. Given there are few restrictions to joining or forming groups, the ungrouped would hardly become a put-upon constituency.<br />
<br />
So how to do it? Originally, I thought a simple tiered bonus for group size measured by the number of folks who have a common group name in their profiles. Say a 5% to-hit/search/cading bonus for folks part of groups from 25-49 members, and maybe 7.5% for 50-74 members, and 10% for over 75 members.<br />
<br />
The problem there would be that it encourages a new form of zerging. Folks would make “Group Scarecrows” that they would park far away from active group activity, but who have the group name in their profile. They’d technically not be in violation of alt abuse, and it would be very hard for group leaders to prevent, and of course the incentive would be to do it.<br />
<br />
So, I am wondering if the UD engine would be able to detect proximity effects and award bonuses that way? In this case, I’d lower the numbers required for the bonuses a lot – say 10-24 for the 5% bonus, 25-39 for the 7.5% bonus, and 40+ for the 10% bonus – and say that if you’ve got that many folks operating in one XX block radius, you get the bonus.<br />
<br />
Is such possible? If so, I think it would reward all the right behaviors in this game, and be pretty darn cool. My parameters are suggestions - they could be lowered, raised, modified. I am really interested first and foremost what folks think of the concept, THEN hammering out rational details that might actually be taken to voting. So, first "Is there a reasonable way this could work?" then "Would we want it if it could?" then "How exactly should it work?"<br />
<br />
What do you think? <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion Group Bonus====<br />
<br />
I'd vote kill, simply because you are not given a hidden bonus in real life from being in a group. Moral boost, maybe. But the rest you accomplish by working closely with your group. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 16:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Impossible. proximity detection would kill the server. Assume a 5 block radius, the game would have to, on every action, harvest information on userlists for 81 blocks (inside and out), run zerg detection routines on that information, and it would have to then count the number in the group. Now, imagine this happening to the server 30,000+ times a day. You would basically increasing server load more than a hundredfold all up (Quite probably by a factor of well over a thousand). As for the rest, without proximity detection, it collapses under the obvious zerg abuse you mentioned. Proximity detection is a myth, despite claiims to the contrary. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 16:41, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think Grim_s is right - without some radical reorg of the account system it's just not possible. I was hoping some genius might have a work-around, but I bet he's right that there isn't one. Whitehouse - thanks for the comment - but I disagree with you. In real life you '''DO''' get the bonus - the door opens for the AARP in Washington that would never open for the unaligned individual. The group can clear a forest while the individual could spend a lifetime chopping a grove. I think it's moot though. --[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:59, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Even if possible, the advantage to being in a group should come from coordinating with other group members to do difficult tasks that an individual couldn't do. You get a big advantage from being in a well-organised group. You don't deserve an advantage from a bunch of people all spelling the group name correctly. This suggestion is a reward for crap metagaming, which we don't need. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 17:24, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:You misunderstood my point. And Garum probably phrased it better than me. You get those advantages from working together, not from simply being in a group (at least not the type of advantages you were thinking of). Being in a group is a moral boost, working together with it creates results far better than that of individuals. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 17:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Oh I see, you're saying that giving an incentive for group behavior beyond already existing benefits doesn't have merit. OK, thanks. Fair enough.--[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 17:45, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::If you want to encourage group work, then find ways for groups to work better together instead of just giving people buffs for having the same group tag. Zombie hordes have scent death, recently someone suggested a way for zombies to sniff out their buddies. Such suggestions, which strengthen the ties of a group, will give good results, the good results are the incentive. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 18:50, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Technical details aside, this simply isn't appropriate. This is an RPG, and in RPGs the benefits of groups are simply those of multiple players co-operating. When members of a group communicate and co-operate, they are more effective. If they don't, then they aren't- just like real life. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 20:07, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
i haveno clue about all the technical aspects, but this just isnt a good suggestion. kinda sucks to be on of those people who likes to stay unaffiliated, cause they get screwed on the deal.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:19, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
If this was implemented, it would be possible for a user, for example, to put the name of a large group into their profile, and get all the benefits, without being a member of the group. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 21:45, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is illogical. The only bonus people should recive from being in a group is having someone to cover their back. No magic bonuses. No special abilities. Just that. --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 02:48, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Take a look at Nexus War for group mechanics. The main problem is that ANYONE can be in ANY group at ANY time.-[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:04, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Restaurants===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 15:12, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New building<br />
|suggest_scope=People who take notice of buildings<br />
|suggest_description=If Malton has pubs, it really should have at least a few fancy restaurants, which could potentially replace a few of the pubs in the richer areas of town. The Maltonians can't all have only ever eaten/drunk beer, peanuts and crisps outside of their homes.<br />
<br />
:'''Mechanics'''<br />
<br />
''Restaurant''<br />
* Dark building<br />
* Can be barricaded, ransacked, ruined and have equipment installed normally.<br />
* Internal description<br />
** Unpowered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The once-busy dining area lies in darkness.''<br />
** Powered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant.''<br />
** Ransacked ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The chairs and tables are overturned, and cutlery and napkins litter the floor.''<br />
* Search rates (normal, if dark condition were not applied)<br />
** Knife (3%) (kitchen knives)<br />
** Wine (6%) (the finest in town)<br />
** Mobile Phone (1%) (some careless people...)<br />
** Menu (6%) (Flavour item, when used displays "The menu reads: <random fancy dishes>", and flavour text "''You think about them hungrily''" (currency not specified).)<br />
* Clothing<br />
** a chef's hat (white) (obviously)<br />
** an apron (white/black) (waiters)<br />
** standard generic formalwear (maitre d'hôtel, sommelier, general higher-ranking service staff)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Restaurants)====<br />
Can we have one at the corner of the map? We shall call it, "The Restaurant at the End of Malton"... :3 --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:44, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't see why not --[[User:Diablor|Diablor]] 01:53, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Whines* Pubs (Arms) aren't fancy enough for you?<br> Mah Pubs not fancy enough for you, foo? Only if there is a Pub at the end of the world.. Already.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 02:51, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it, but I think the menu should be just like a newspaper with different flavour text. For that matter, would newspapers be suitable to be found here? [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 03:07, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A ''dark'' restaurant? Dunno about where you're from but around here people put big ass windows on restaurants coz ppl like to see outside...also a stupid idea. Pointless and you would have to think up some ridiculous way to explain why everyone in malton thought it was a pub but it turned out to be a restaurant.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:54, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:It was always a restaurant and nobody ever thought it was a pub. And 2+2 has always equalled 5. And we have always been at war with Eurasia. And darkness really depends on the restaurant, but good point. --{{User:Anotherpongo/sig}} 11:45, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Not pointless. Knives are the best weapons for newbies, yet malls are the only places with > 1% chance of finding them. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:02, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
As much as I hate suggestions that don't seem to solve any problems, we do need a TRB for knives, and this seems like a great way to do it.{{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 16:33, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Absolutely! TRP for knives, and logical and fun flavor. --[[User:UCFSD|UCFSD]] 17:17, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
a suggestion so simple that it makes sence lol i say yea bring on the restaurants!--[[User:Fanglord2|Fanglord2]] 02:37, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I '''Always''' vote for building suggestions-always love a change [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 09:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Vote all you like, I'm pretty sure a building change suggestion has never been implemented. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 10:04, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Kevan has talked about doing it before<sub>(it's in his talk page archives for those curious few)</sub>, it's not entirely out of the question.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:51, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Building changes not implemented? Dark? Ruin? Fixing the fort walls? Its not without precedent.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:46, 31 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::::He meant changing one building (type) into another building (type). The first significant building change was to make large buildings into "1" building, but they were ALL still the same building to begin with.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:05, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I'll concede that the forts were revamped from just the armoury building to the 9-block compounds that they are now, but as far as I'm aware that wasn't based on a player suggestion. Large buildings and walls changed how some buildings worked, not what type of building they were per se. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this suggestion.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:16, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Asum(awesome)!!! Lol! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Face Rot===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Zombie Skill, subskill of brain rot.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Brain Rot.<br />
|suggest_description=The rot has spread, now it shrivels and distorts the facial features. The person underneath is hard to recognise.<br />
<br />
In game terms, its a buff for zombie anonymity. Unless the zombie is in your contacts you cannot recognise him if.<br />
<br />
*He stands up<br />
*Destroys barricades/equipment<br />
*Kills or injures.<br />
<br />
His profile can still be gained through a successful scan, or if you recognise them via your contacts. (You could be familiar with his limp, a watch or other item, his groaning etc.)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Face Rot)====<br />
Go on. Savage it, like my horribly ruined features. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I like it, what better way to implement Zombie Anonymity than through a skill? Plus. it promotes the Brain Rot! :D --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 18:54, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
How would this work when they're alive? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 19:38, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Then their profile just states they look like [http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=Gary+Busey&btnG=Search+Images Gary Busey] --{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:52, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bloody Brilliant!!! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 22:27, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Good, apart from one thing. How do you explain not being able to recognise a corpse you just saw die when it stands up. This case would only be when you are in the same location for the period of time in which a character dies and rises (in the case of first being a survivor which is recognisable to all anyway). Explanation could be that the face rot while cleared up by the revivification effect while alive, takes hold again almost instantaneous. But that still wouldn't change the fact that you saw that body die and rise, thereby knowing exactly who it was. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 23:36, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A good idea, except that Whitehouse's point might need addressing. How do looks change so quickly? {{User:Ariedartin/Nickname}} 06:22, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't like this idea. It's balanced and innovative but it disregards the true zombie mentality. Yes, I love zombie anonymity. But I am always in the belief that true zombie characters should be willing to do the *above* three actions '''and''' have their anonymity threatened to whoever wants to use it, in order to succeed their goal. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 12:04, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Interesting points. I'm off to make a ridiculous suggestion, and I'll think about this. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 14:24, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
In relation to Whitehouses point. How about an extra piece of text like. "Blah killed Example, their face decomposes before your eyes. "--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:37, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I saw no one pointed it out and I have a feeling you'll actually check before suggesting this. This isn't actually a buff to zombies, this is removing the one way in which zombie groups generally recruit. I like the idea of starting to get zombie anonymity back, it never should have left but, this hurts them, especially because survivors still get all the workarounds they want/use while zombies now have absolutely no way of knowing who to go to for help/advice/etc.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 09:07, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Suggestions up for voting==<br />
===Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080831 Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark]] as suggestion is up for voting. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:17, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Nurse===<br />
Moved to voting, under the new name of [[Suggestion:20080826_Doctor's_Clinic|Doctor's Clinic]]<br />
----<br />
===Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080827 Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:03, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Dead Reckoning===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion_talk:20080826_Dead_Reckoning]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 09:46, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Jen&diff=1270570User talk:Jen2008-09-10T01:02:10Z<p>Janine: Hel's Daughters</p>
<hr />
<div>Alright...if'n you've got a new topic and all, use the "+" sign, and add it to the bottom. Seems the best way to organize this. :)<br />
<br />
== Welcome to our Wiki ==<br />
{{Welcomenewbie}}<br />
<br />
--{{:User:Airborne88/sig}} 01:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Hi Jen!==<br />
Welcome to the wiki! I hope all is going ok. Fell free to drop me line anytime--{{:User:Airborne88/sig}} 07:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
:You are welcome! The wiki is sort of a crazy place huh? I like it though. You know where to find me! Good luck and have fun.--{{:User:Airborne88/sig}} 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Yes, yes I am ==<br />
<br />
I'm not sure how to use it either...<br />
:Ha! I now know how to indent responses to posts, Reign! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 23:09, 23 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== [[dark]] ==<br />
<br />
needs to be fueled im afraid. Completely agree with your Monroeville comments by the way. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 17:25, 29 May 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== oh noes ==<br />
<br />
I'm glad you appreciated my contribution. People can get a bit ''invested'' in their own point of view, so it's fun to throw rocks at them from time to time. (Although I generally like to avoid online drama. Its a wiki for a browser game, after all.) <br />
<br />
This might amuse you:<br />
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm<br />
<br />
cheers, [[User:Garum|Garum]] 15:51, 30 May 2008 (BST)<br />
== Spy ==<br />
thanks anways. i respect your views. (--[[User:Weekendwarrior|Weekendwarrior]])<br />
:Good thing Jen doesn't condone yours, or she would be a truly classless person. Good to see you taking a moral stand there, Jen. It's truly a rare thing to find exceptional players like you. - [[User:Brona|Brona]] 01:29, 16 June 2008 (BST)<br />
::As Brona. I really appreciate what you said on <strike>weekendzerger</strike>, I mean, weekendwarrior's talk page, despite his attempts to cover it up. You're just the type of survivor we LUEsers love to go into battle against. Best of luck to you in your endeavors, and thank you for being an honest player, Jen. --[[User:Another alias|Zombie in Pajamas]] 20:50, 16 June 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Ditto the above.--[[User:Insomniac By Choice|Insomniac By Choice]] 02:01, 17 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== re: <insert subject here> ==<br />
<br />
Indeed, one must be careful of what one says. A world where people are held accountable for their words, on the INTERNET? Oh, how the mighty anonymous jerks have fallen! Though I suppose my group impersonation makes me one of those jerks as well. ;[ I don't intend to justify my wrongdoing, merely offer my reasoning: LUEsers don't get revived as easily as pro-survivors do. I figure if my character is going to play "dirty" and shoot his fellow man in the back, he may as well fly another's flag to get a revive under false pretenses. If I am to be judged a criminal, I have no need for delusions of grandeur. And as for wasted AP, there is no such thing when in a siege. If you're going down, go down trying or at least smiling. It's not wasted at all if you build something that lasts (and I don't mean barricades) or you learn something new. I'll look forward to crossing paths with you again in the future--and rest assured I'll be flying my own group's flag in my profile. ;] --[[User:Another alias|Zombie in Pajamas]] 06:17, 17 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:That bank is either great luck or bad luck, I'm not really sure which. I'd already been nearly killed once by a very determined bounty hunter this morning, but I was healed up by my fellow PKers. Just when I think I'm safe, you say some nice things '''and''' kill me. I don't think I've ever laughed so hard at an online game, so thanks for that. As for reporting the bounty, by all means. It's not like I'm going to suddenly drop below KOS, so I have no objections. That would also put your name will forever be listed on my Rogue's Gallery page where you shall live in infamy. Or something.<br />
<br />
:And it's always good to be on a revive-on-sight list. That will make one ROS for every 50 KOS lists I'm on, I'd wager. ;] And my fellow LUEsers got to me fairly quickly, as they were most sympathetic to my plight (and in tears from laughing so hard). --[[User:Another alias|Zombie in Pajamas]] 03:28, 18 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::What list does that put you on? My AIM list, hopefully. Add me if you'd prefer to continue our nice chat without the whole filling of our respective talk pages. The name's "a generic alias" minus the quotes. Otherwise, you've certainly found a place on my "Do Not Kill" list, albeit somewhat ''grudgingly''--after all, if I killed you, you'd actually play as a zombie. ;] --[[User:Another alias|Zombie in Pajamas]] 21:17, 18 June 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::It seems I can't get away from you anywhere I go, even in Monroeville. ;P<br />
<br />
::: A zombie ( Jen Mikonati ) killed hugh manatee. (2 hours and 43 minutes ago)<br />
::: A zombie ( Jen Mikonati ) said "BARHAH! G!ahn ahz, harmanz! Bah zambahz!" (2 hours and 38 minutes ago)<br />
::: A zombie ( Jen Mikonati ) dragged Sachika out into the street. (2 hours and 38 minutes ago)<br />
<br />
:::It's a shame you were gone by the time [http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1147994 I] logged back in. I would have gestured to you and said something dramatic (for a zambah at least!) and everything. Maybe next time. --[[User:Another alias|Zombie in Pajamas]] 00:29, 2 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Read the link for the Qartly Study Group ==<br />
<br />
I read the link for the Qartly Study Group that you thoughtfully commented on to me.<br />
I snorted and giggled for a few minutes at the absurdity of a literate and well studied populace, both living and otherwise in a war-torn Apocalyptic setting.<br />
<br />
That was a very welcome relief from the formalized background of the DEM I work with everyday.<br />
<br />
If I ever see a Zombie stacking books for cataloging I'll not interfere until I get attacked that is.<br />
What a libretto for community serving.<br />
I can see a lot of ironic comparison to the DEM for their (our) attempt to find some order in an otherwise doomed life.<br />
[[User:Charles Degaulle|Charles Degaulle]] 17:43, 8 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== MCRmy ==<br />
<br />
Hey, yea it's not a joke, but tbh I'm not realy plying Urban Dead anymore, so feel free to take the group for yourself, I may be coming back at some point, so keep me at the joint top of tehj group with yourself if you want. [[User:Ryan Shuck|Ryan SHuck]] 23:49, 13 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Why, thanks! ==<br />
<br />
The CGR helped inspire it, of course. :) <br />
<br />
It was made for the page of my other "group" the [[Cult of the Red Star]], so it's really more representative of The bluefish, my fun alt. FT's my 'serious' character, it's only on that page because TB's not represented on the wiki.<br />
<br />
Have a cookie!<br />
<br />
{{Evil_Cookie|1=Father Thompson|2=Jen|reason=the generous compliment}}<br />
--[[User:Father Thompson|<span style="color: Black">FT</span>]] <sup>[[MCI|<span style="color: Black">MCI</span>]]</sup> 03:31, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Yet another thanks ==<br />
<br />
Thanks for helping with the MU project. I've been working alone for a while... {{User:Secruss/Sig}}20:40, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
: You needed some better posters, mate! How could I resist? ;) --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 21:16, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Hel's Daughters ==<br />
<br />
You seem like the kind of user who would be a great addition to the [[Hel's Daughters|Hel's Daughters]]. A close knit female-only zombie(with a pker auxiliary) group. I've noticed that your user page talked about joining a zombie group and couldn't help trying to raise group awareness.<br />
<br />
Just wanted to officially invite you to both to the group and to ruin Dulston for good.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 02:02, 10 September 2008 (BST)</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Trenchipendence_Day&diff=1270556Talk:Trenchipendence Day2008-09-10T00:46:17Z<p>Janine: /* Bad attempt at Mocking Satire */</p>
<hr />
<div>are we fukken AWESIM or wat?--[[User:labine50|Liberator LaBine]] 02:00, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Bad attempt at Mocking Satire ==<br />
<br />
Not as bad as the manifesto but, especially poor, counter-trolling only proves that the trolls are succeeding.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 03:06, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:At the same time, it's fun to smack Alphy and Secruss around a bit, even if they are trolling.--{{User:Labine50/sig}} 03:12, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I thought you controlled Secruss and William Told was Alphy. This Wiki/forum drama-attempt is going from indomitably funny to tearfully boring and will eventually reach Dukakis-level heartbreaking sadness. Unless they somehow get a ton of survivors to actually damage the DEM. Which will make it funny again.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 03:18, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Actually, I thought it was really funny. From "do the DEM remind you of you ''parents?''" to KATANAS IN THA AIR! Certainly the best parody of the Uprising anyone's made yet. You should join us. Overbarricade a fire station today or something. Viva la Dia de Trenchipendence! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 00:47, 9 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::It'd take quite a few pictures to get me to join the uprising or the parody. I find both groups lack the subtle sense of humor that I enjoy. Plus the fact that all this seems a little pro-survivor to me.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 01:46, 10 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Bad attempt at Self-Righteousness ==<br />
<br />
Focking N00bs yo. Gonna fock them up with my BFG in Creedy all those focking zombee spies and shit man. Whos with me? We stand and fight. Like the Spartans in that badd ass movie with the arrows and shit. I will totally do that Sparta chick married to the leader guy she is HOT. TO THE DEATH we will fock them in the skullbonerz. [[User:Paddy Dignam|DeN00Binator]] 00:47, 10 September 2008 (BST)</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Janine&diff=1269627User:Janine2008-09-08T20:14:22Z<p>Janine: /* Templates */</p>
<hr />
<div>And now for a little about myself without the cut and paste templates. I'm from Baltimore, currently enrolled in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Institute_College_of_Art MICA] and I work as a Creative Assistant for a publishing company. My character [http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1237352 Janine Eelms] is part of the pker auxiliary of the Hel's Daughters. If you want to leave a comment, feel free to do so.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Projects ==<br />
Currently I'm writing for the [[Families of Malton|Families of Malton]] pages.<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
<center><br />
{{CS}}<br />
{{Female}}<br />
{{Boobies}} <br />
{{Second Ammendment}}<br />
{{Atheist}} <br />
{{Crucifix}}<br />
{{Firefox}}<br />
{{PKing}} <br />
{{Too Much Free Time}} <br />
{{Axe}} <br />
{{American}}<br />
{{Monk}}<br />
{{Socialism}}<br />
{{carlin}}<br />
{{HATP}}<br />
{{Junk}}<br />
{{ThereCanOnlyBeOne}} <br />
</center></div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Janine&diff=1269621User:Janine2008-09-08T20:02:57Z<p>Janine: </p>
<hr />
<div>And now for a little about myself without the cut and paste templates. I'm from Baltimore, currently enrolled in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Institute_College_of_Art MICA] and I work as a Creative Assistant for a publishing company. My character [http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1237352 Janine Eelms] is part of the pker auxiliary of the Hel's Daughters. If you want to leave a comment, feel free to do so.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Projects ==<br />
Currently I'm writing for the [[Families of Malton|Families of Malton]] pages.<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
<center>{{CS}}<br />
{{Socialism}}<br />
{{Atheist}} <br />
{{Crucifix}}<br />
{{Firefox}}<br />
{{carlin}}<br />
{{Monk}}<br />
{{PKing}} <br />
{{Female}} <br />
{{Too Much Free Time}} <br />
{{Junk}}<br />
{{Axe}} <br />
{{Boobies}}<br />
{{American}}<br />
{{HATP}}<br />
{{Second Ammendment}}</center></div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Dulston&diff=1269532Dulston2008-09-08T18:14:33Z<p>Janine: /* September 8<sup>th</sup> */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Suburb | <br />
<br />
snX= 10| <br />
snY= 1|<br />
suburb_number = 10|<br />
<br />
Suburb_MiniMap = |<br />
mast_coordinates = [[Parrott Towers]] [94,04]|<br />
<br />
NW_suburb= Border |<br />
N_suburb= Border |<br />
NE_suburb= Border |<br />
<br />
W_suburb = Rhodenbank |<br />
E_suburb = Border |<br />
<br />
SW_suburb= Rolt Heights |<br />
S_suburb = Pescodside |<br />
SE_suburb = Border |<br />
<br />
suburb_groups = <br />
{{Dulstongroups}}<br />
<br><br />
'''Historical Groups:'''<br />
<small><br />
*[[Image:Death-Squad.gif|25px]] [[Dulston Defense Death Squad]]<br />
</small><br />
|<br />
Police = 5|<br />
Fire = 2|<br />
Hospitals = 3|<br />
NTs = 4|<br />
Malls = [[Treweeke Mall]]|<br />
boards = 5|<br />
Other = <br />
|<br />
}}<br />
<br />
'''Dulston''' is a [[suburb]] of [[Malton]], located in the northeast corner of the city. <br />
<br />
Before the outbreak, Dulston was a relatively peaceful suburb with a booming textile industry and several NecroTech buildings where new employees were trained. The suburb's main attraction happened to be [[Treweeke Mall]], which frequently lured shoppers from the surrounding suburbs. During the outbreak, Dulston was deserted and most of its inhabitants were to be evacuated by a military convoy. However, military sources outside of Malton report that the convoy never arrived. It was assumed to be lost, with the evacuees joining the ravenous undead or scattered throughout the city.<br />
<br />
Dulston possesses a high concentration of [[TRP | resource buildings]], including four NecroTech facilities, three hospitals and five police departments. This has contributed to its lasting strategic importance. Other locations of interest include [[St. Barbara's Church]] (98,2), [[Troubridge Cinema]] (99,0), the [[The Pepperell Museum|Pepperell Museum]] (91,4), [[Parrott Towers]] (94,4), and the ghost-haunted [[Caffin Library]] (95,9). <br />
<br />
==Dulston - ''More than just a tourist location!''==<br />
<br />
Though once home to the venerable, but now disbanded [[Drunken Dead]], since the outbreak Dulston has typically been one of Malton's safest and most consistently zombie-free suburbs. For this reason, its typically quiet suburban streets have attracted the attention of two Mall Tours ([[Mall Tour '06]]/[[Mall Tour '07|'07]]), both incarnations of the Big Bash ([[The Big Bash|Big Bash]] and [[The Second Big Bash]]) as well as invasion by the [[RRF]]. Dulston has also been a favourite target of [[death cultists]] and [[PKer | serial killers]] -- in particular the notorious [[DORIS]], who refer to the suburb as [[New Baghdad]]. In response to these threats, several local groups banded together to form the [[Dulston Alliance]], a highly proactive coalition who have promised to defend Dulston to the last man, and whose sphere of influence has come to include the entire NE corner. <br />
<br />
Interestingly, the suburb is usually safer away from the NE border rather than near it, as a large block of empty streets runs up the centre, effectively dividing the west half (where can be found [[Treweeke Mall]], [[the Whitlock Building]], and [[the Bridgman Building]]) from the east (which features two of Dulston's three hospitals, the [[The Trood Building | Trood ]] and [[The Beale Building | Beale]] NT buildings, and the suburb's only cemetery). Due to this distinctive topography, and seeing as the majority of survivors tend to congregate in and around Treweeke Mall in the southwest, responses times to zombie activity in the NE corner can be delayed.<br />
<br />
==Resource Buildings==<br />
<br />
{{trps|<br />
FSs=<br />
*[[Stembridge Crescent Fire Station]] (99,9)<br />
*[[Weston Crescent Fire Station]] (95,2)<br />
|NTs=<br />
*[[The Beale Building]] (97,0)<br />
*[[The Trood Building]] (99,1)<br />
*[[The Bridgman Building]] (91,2)<br />
*[[The Whitlock Building]] (92,5)<br />
|Hs=<br />
*[[Anne General Hospital (Dulston)|Anne General Hospital]] (96,2)<br />
*[[Blaise General Hospital]] (98,8)<br />
*[[St. Anacletus's Hospital]] (93,3)<br />
|PDs=<br />
*[[Clewett Alley Police Department|Clewett Alley PD]] (95,0)<br />
*[[Midelton Crescent Police Department|Midelton Crescent PD]] (97,4)<br />
*[[Oake Walk Police Department|Oake Walk PD]] (93,0)<br />
*[[Pegrum Place Police Department|Pegrum Place PD]] (93,9)<br />
*[[Spicer Row Police Department|Spicer Row PD]] (96,0)<br />
|Malls=<br />
*[[Treweeke Mall]]<br />
|RPs=<br />
*[[Cemetery 99,2|a cemetery]] (99,2)<br />
*[[Duport Avenue]] (92,4) - sponsored by [[Dulston_Infection_Treatment_and_Prevention_Squad|D.I.T.P.S]]<br />
*[[Hamerton Road]] (98,1)<br />
|Boards=<br />
*[[Dulston Streets#Cullen Way|Cullen Way]] (94,1)<br />
*[[Dulston Streets#Hagger Way|Hagger Way]] (97,8)<br />
*[[Dulston Streets#Muncey Street|Muncey Street]] (92,2)<br />
*[[Dulston Streets#Newnam Avenue|Newnam Avenue]] (98,5)<br />
*[[Dulston Streets#Tovey Place|Tovey Place]] (95,8)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br><br />
==Revive Points==<br />
Revive points have been set up at [[Dulston Streets#Duport Avenue|Duport Avenue]] (92,4), and [[Dulston Streets#Hamerton Road|Hamerton Road]] (98,1). Hamerton Road fluctuates as a revive point, due to zombies with Brain Rot taking over now and then plus the sporatic operational status of the [[The Beale Building|Beale Building]] and the [[The Trood Building|Trood Building]]. As such, Duport Avenue remains the most reliable place to be revived. Also undead survivors seeking revival should be aware that some survivors groups have taken it upon themselves to ''reduce'' the number of standing zombies at any given revive spot whenever there are 15 or more. This has become common practice in light of past sneak attacks orchestrated by zombie groups who choose to hide in plain sight at these locations pretending to seek revival while in actuality they are gathering their forces for assaults on survivor strongholds within Dulston.<br />
<br />
It should also be mentioned that, while not a sanctioned revive point for Dulston's larger groups, [[Cemetery 99,2|the cemetery]] (99,2) located just south of the Trood Building is considered by some survivors to be a revive point due to the [[Sacred Ground Policy]]. Of course due to the jaded history of cemeteries within Malton, and the violent nature of the northeast corner of Dulston, getting a revive at the cemetary requires both good timing and a little luck.<br><br><br />
<br />
==Mobile Phone Mast==<br />
Dulston's Phone Mast is situated at [[Parrott Towers]] (94,4). The group [[FOXHOUND]] has claimed responsibility for the mast's daily maintenance and defense. The [[The Electric Light Torchestra|Electric Light Torchestra]] has also included the building in both routes covered by their [[Light Map of Dulston|enlightenment-tours]]<br />
<br />
==Recent News==<br />
''Place the most recent news at top''<br />
<br />
''Remember to keep news entries [[NPOV]] for this page.''<br />
:*<i>''This is '''not''' a place to discuss tactics, call for help, or to give orders, use the [[Talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talk page]].</i><br />
:*<i>This is '''not''' the place talk up your own group, or badmouth an enemy, use the [[Talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talk page here]] or your own group page.</i><br />
:*<i>This is '''not''' the place for reporting localised news about non resource buildings (go to the [[#Suburb Map|individual location]] page) or your own death.</i><br />
:*<i>This '''is''' the place for neutrally worded reports on the '''actual''' situation in the suburb.'''</i><br />
<br />
''News more than one month old can be found in the [[Dulston/News Archive|news archive]].''<br />
<br />
''For a more survivor oriented news source, check out the [[Dulston Alliance/Newspaper|Dulston Dispatch]].''<br />
<br />
''Don't be a nobody - Sign your posts!''<br />
----<br />
===September 2008===<br />
====September 8<sup>th</sup>====<br />
The food courts in [[Treeweke Mall]] are overflowing with screaming survivors. NW, SW and NE corners are ruined and only 4 survivors remain in the SE corner. Send more nam namz.--[[User:RichardUptonPickman|RichardUptonPickman]] 16:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The mall was taken today by the exact horde of zombies that had breached it. The survivors, without an effective strategy, fought but the bulk eventually retreated.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 19:14, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====September 7<sup>th</sup>====<br />
That which has been anticipated for weeks now -- alike by hungry zombies, and by survivors hoping to turn the tide of destruction seeping form Dulston's northeast corner -- has at last happened. [[Treweeke Mall]] has been attacked and breached, in force. At the moment, there are well over 30 standing zombie inside the Ruined NW corner of the mall, with more pouring in all the time. Meanwhile, 16 zombies, along with the detritus of 92 dead bodies, can be seen outside the same corner. Solitary, individualistic attacks against the zombies are taking place; however, unless a concerted effort is made to oust the shambling, groaning menace from Treweeke, the situation appears grim. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:14, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:NW and SW corners ruined and encamped by 50 zombies. NE has 32 zombies and 4 humans. SE has 18 humans. [[User:Iggles|Iggles]] 11:07, 8 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====September 6<sup>th</sup>====<br />
The zombies regrouped and marched (or rather, shambled) directly to [[Treweeke Mall]], ignoring other surrounding buildings. They managed to breached the Northwest corner of the mall. All generators were disabled or destroyed, and radio were retuned by human sabotuers to cut off communication. Currently there are about thirty undead inside versus hundreds of survivors. The battle for Dulston will be decided here. -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 18:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====September 4<sup>th</sup>====<br />
The [[Whitlock Building]] is under attack by the rising zombie horde coming in from the north of Dulston. It's only a matter of time before they come knocking on [[Treweeke Mall]]s doorstep. Get ready!--[[User:Kez0|Kez0]] 11:08, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:The war for Dulston has lasted for one month now. Fierce urban fighting continues with no foreseeable ending in sight. [[St. Anacletus's Hospital]] fell to the zombie horde once again. [[Parrott Towers]] switched hands at least twice today. The building is currently repaired and barricaded. -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 13:22, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====September 3<sup>rd</sup>====<br />
The [[Whitlock Building| Fortress of Science]] is back up and running, with a generator, and several survivors inside. [[User:Yonnua Koponen|Yonnua Koponen]] 12:15, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:With zombie force spread thin all around the suburbs, it's time for urban reclamation, building by building. [[Parrott Towers]] and [[the Gouger Arms]] changed hands many times during the day. But for now they're repaired and barricaded. -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 16:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Many buildings in ruins, hundreds of zeds roaming about. Treweeke Mall in danger. Need lots of survivor support, ASAP. -- [[User:gregmasta|gregmasta]] 20:50, 3 September, 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
====September 2<sup>nd</sup>====<br />
Local survivors have been attempting to "rally the troops" to recapture important buildings recently decimated by aggressive zombie activity -- as well as help ensure the safety of [[Treweeke Mall]]. So far their efforts have met with limited success. Although [[St Anacletus's Hospital]] is [http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/09-02-08_0600hrs_PRIVATE/OUT_93-3__4d3-e8f-b41.html back in survivor hands], Anne General is still ruined.[http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/09-02-08_0600hrs_PRIVATE/OUT_96-2__c1c-82c-9ad.html] NecroTech services have also been severely disrupted by [http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/09-02-08_0600hrs_PRIVATE/OUT_92-1__bbc-b8b-1fa.html zombie activity] -- <br />
[http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/09-02-08_0600hrs_PRIVATE/IN_92-5__d4d-833-920.html including 18 standing zombies inside the ruined Whitlock building]. Meanwhile, little has changed in the northeast: it's still almost entirely in ruins. Treweeke Mall, however is still secure: powered, caded EHB in all corners and only a handful of bodies outside [http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/09-02-08_0600hrs_PRIVATE/OUT_92-7__63f-9aa-d5e.html][http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/09-02-08_0600hrs_PRIVATE/OUT_92-8__bd5-3df-212.html]<br />
[http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/09-02-08_0600hrs_PRIVATE/OUT_93-8__b93-6ab-6d5.html]<br />
[http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/09-02-08_0600hrs_PRIVATE/OUT_93-7__512-767-424.html] Of course, survivors going outside the safe mall to shoot zombies in the street (see footnotes 3 and 4) does not do much to help ease the effects of the devastation throughout much of Dulston... but perhaps saving lives is not a soldier's duty? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:33, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:One cannot judge survivors as a whole by some unproductive behavior of a few. There are many people who are actually fighting, or trying to organize a fight against zombie horde. Some buildings close to Treweeke Mall were retaken, repaired, and barricaded (albeit not powered) by groups of brave survivors. For example, [[the Gouger Arms]], [[Parrott Towers]], and [[the Speak Motel]]. The war is far from over. -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 15:18, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Revives have curbed to a halt at Duport Ave, due to the falling of Whitlock. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:36, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===August 2008===<br />
====August 31<sup>st</sup>====<br />
The entire NE corner of Dulston (and more) lays in ruin, while the green menace exports the revolutionary doctrine of the New Flesh from the peripheries towards the very heart of the suburb... The Trood and Beal NTs and surrounding blocks are still firmly held by local zombies [http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/08-31-08_0700hrs_PRIVATE/OUT_98-2__863-a27-db7.html] [http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/08-31-08_0700hrs_PRIVATE/OUT_96-1__6c9-6fc-0bf.html]; Anne General etc. is also ruined and held by zombie "insurgents".[http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/08-31-08_0700hrs_PRIVATE/OUT_96-2__e60-0e6-7ee.html] [http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/08-31-08_0700hrs_PRIVATE/OUT_97-3__c73-c7d-f05.html] [http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/08-31-08_0700hrs_PRIVATE/OUT_96-3__fbc-b61-1eb.html] Here we also see the Bridgeman NT and St Anacletus' Hospital in ruin[http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/08-31-08_0700hrs_PRIVATE/OUT_92-2__d3b-ed5-ff8.html]. Danger level adjusted accordingly. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:19, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:As a survivor, I regret to report that [[Parrott Towers]], [[FOXHOUND]] HQ, was breached and ruined as well. Survivors resistance are few and done individually, and thus failed to make any differences. Looks like most people decide to stay and fight the battle of judgement in [[Treweeke Mall]]. -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 17:07, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====August 30<sup>th</sup>====<br />
Northeastern Dulston is still a safe haven for zombies, with the survivor threat unable to infest any buildings in the entire northeast quarter of the suburb. Most buildings in central Dulston are being cleared and reclaimed daily in tit for tat skirmishing, and it's gradually becoming less dangerous for zombies as the area of safe zombie control slowly starts to expand. Most of southern and western Dulston remains in the warm dry hands of survivors, although there are a few minor signs of progress in the suburb's southeast. [[User:Turkmenbashi|Turkmenbashi]] 17:41, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====August 28<sup>th</sup>====<br />
The radius of the zombie-controlled area keeps getting bigger and bigger. Today [[The Speak Motel (Dulston)|the Speak Motel]], [[the Turvill Building]], and [[Downe Towers]] were conquered by the dead. Survivors are still divided and continue to fight among themselves, despite pleas from some voices of reason. -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 17:31, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:''(Non-NPOV entries moved to [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Dulston#Moved_News_Items.2C_August_2008 Talk page])''<br />
<br />
====August 26<sup>th</sup>====<br />
Today [[Anne General Hospital (Dulston)|Anne General Hospital]] to a horde of 24 zombies with the surrounding buildings probably going to fall quickly after. Any reinforcements in the north east of Dulston would be greatly appreciated in restoring the area to its previous stability.--[[User:Sparticulous|Sparticulous]] 00:26, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:The recently recaptured [[St. Barbara's Church]], [[The Much Arms]], and [[Factory 97,3|nearby factory]] were ruined too. Now zombies are scattered around the place. [[St. Anacletus's Hospital]] is being attacked. Worse yet, there's still an infighting between survivors. Without a united human resistant, Dulston's future looks grim. -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 15:29, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====August 25<sup>th</sup>====<br />
The death toll in Northeast Dulston continues to grow today with up to 20 zombies within [[Anne General Hospital (Dulston)|Anne General Hospital]] adding to the casualties. [[Spicer Row Police Department]] has also been ruined. As an unwelcome bonus, [[Pkers|Local Murderers]] have upped there game to coincide with the zombie hordes arrival.--[[User:Kaisuke|Kaisuke]] 10:27, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
====August 23<sup>rd</sup>====<br />
Zombies continue to run amok in the Northeast part of Dulston with little response from survivors gather in the South. [[St. Barbara's Church]] and [[Nott Auto Repair]] was completely ruined. [[The Much Arms]] and [[Anne General Hospital (Dulston)|Anne General Hospital]] breached, but still hold up. The zombie horde also employs [[Death Cultist|human agents]] - using them to spread propaganda through [[graffiti]], and retuning radio transmitters around the area to 28.01 MHz, the SPAM channel, instead of 26.36 MHz of the Dulston Alliance, to cut of mass communication preventing the call for help. -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 14:50, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====August 22<sup>nd</sup>====<br />
The Trood NT facility (along with several other buildings in the NE corner) fell to a mob of zombies yesterday, and the Beale NT is currently wide open. There have been several survivor casualties, along with a few more residents who were forcibly evicted from the premises for failing to pay their rent. Payment will be collected, however, in live brains! But not before bolstering Dulston's already large mass of homeless street dwellers... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:03, 22 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====August 21<sup>st</sup>====<br />
Still problems in North East Dulston. The new news is the pker force that just burst into the scene.<br />
[[User:Met Fan|Met Fan]] 04:23, 22 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====August 18<sup>th</sup>====<br />
Survivors had only a few days to celebrate before the zombies returned in full force. The [[Troubridge Cinema]]was ruined once again. Next, [[The Trood Building]] was torn open by a group of about ten zombies -- about half a dozen of which still remain inside. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] ''(with additional information from [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]])'' 02:16, 19 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====August 15<sup>th</sup>====<br />
After recent requests solicited no response, the following group links have been removed from the suburb.<br />
<br />
*[[Image:Bbc.jpg|30px]] [[BBC|BBC]]<br />
*[[Image:Zombie Logo2.png|25px]] [[Dulston Citizen Uprising]]<br />
*[[Image:McZeds.png|25px]] [[McZeds|McZeds™]]<br />
<br />
If any of these groups are still active, please add them again.<br />
--[[User:Adavastor|Adavastor]] 19:21, 15 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====August 13<sup>th</sup>====<br />
Survivors sleeping on the streets in the area around Treweeke Mall. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 02:47, 14 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Survivors are sleeping in the streets all over Dullston. And getting eaten up by the young, upwardly mobile zambahz every singe day. It's normal. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 03:35, 14 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::The main reason why many survivors end up resting outside is because of overbarricading of entry points and public buildings such as hospitals. Unfortunately this is far too common in Dulston. The only thing we can do is to educate people. -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 15:12, 14 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::The cause of this homelessness problem has been attributed by some survivor spokespeople as the result of an almost pathologically obsessive over-barricading of resource buildings and other entry points. This phenomenon, known as "Fiddler's Green Syndrome", has been observed by sociologists studying human interactions inside Malton's unique, and uniquely isolated, urban milieu. It -- quite paradoxically -- occurs most commonly in suburbs with the highest survivor-to-zombie ratios. The most successful treatment found to date involves massive pre-frontal lobotomisation. Such procedures are best conducted by professionals in possession of medical Barhahlauriates obtained from certified educational institutions. (Miskatonic University is a noted leader in this field.) --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:22, 15 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====August 5<sup>th</sup>====<br />
With the brave effort of Dulstonian survivors, [[the Trood Building]] and [[St. Barbara's Church]] was retaken. Only [[Troubridge Cinema]] remains in the hand of the dead. Zombie horde are waiting in the dark and ruined building. And it will require another considerable effort to take them out. -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 14:24, 5 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:As of now, Troubridge is back in survivor hands, thanks to the dedicated efforts of the same survivors who retook Trood. --[[User:Kikashie|Kikashie]] <sup>[[Dulston Alliance/Newspaper|Read the Dispatch!]]</sup> 22:30, 12 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Things to do while in Dulston==<br />
<br />
*'''Shop 'Til You Drop!''' - Looking for that special something that might help keep you alive? Then why not drop by [[Treweeke Mall]]; where prices are so low we're practically giving everything away! So shop around or just hang out for a few days. Is there a limit to how long you can roam our halls and shops? Nope. Stay around long enough and become official "mall rats"! We really couldn't care less. Or more! But be sure to always remember, whatever you need you'll be sure to find it here, at the mall.<br />
<br />
*'''Stay Current With Current Events!''' - Visit the [[The_Naisbitt_Building|Naisbitt Building]], official printing house of the [[Dulston Alliance/Newspaper|Dulston Dispatch]], Dulston's first and only newspaper! Inside you'll find amazing things such as, but not limited to: Stacks upon stacks of blank paper, drums full of ink, and an industrial size printing machine! Great fun for most of the family. Issues are printed out weekly and sell at the reasonable price of <b>free</b>!<br />
<br />
*'''A Funny/Religious/Cult Experience!''' - Pilgrimage to [[Troubridge Cinema]] in order to gain wisdom from the ''Night of the Living Dead'' (now playing) and then travel to [[St. Barbara's Church]] to seek enlightenment from the Survivor Saints. Recently refurbished by [[DvB]] and [[Ragnarok]] members, with the addition of RvB movies. Have some oreos and imitation 7-UP!<br />
<br />
*'''Games, Alcohol, & Good Times!''' - Survivors are invited by the survivor group, [[Dead vs Blue]], to stop by [[Downe Towers]] so they can join in on some Halo/Halo 2/Halo 3, drink some beers, and debate about which pistol you prefer to use against the proverbial "Flood" (i.e. zombies).<br />
<br />
*'''Learn How to Drive!''' - Forgot how to drive? Think driving would be an amazing way for getting around zombie-infested Malton? Course you do! So come on down to [[The Turvill Building|Crazy Ed's Driving School]] and learn how to drive... ''possibly''.<br />
<br />
*'''NOT Haunted, So Read a Book!''' - Come visit the very cheerful [[Caffin Library]] and be sure to stay the night. Rumors of survivors being found horribly mutilated are exaggerated, because seriously, what kind of survivor doesn't get horribly mutilated at least once while in Malton? You'll be fine. Relax.<br />
<br />
*'''Enjoy Grea- err, "Edible" Food!''' - [[McZeds]]' Dulston branch is located at the old [[Nott Auto Repair]] building, which is conveniently found at [98,3].<br />
<br />
*'''Eat the Homeless!''' - Dulston is famous Malton-wide for its street people! Whether they sleep outside by choice or by circumstance, there are almost always a few (dozen!) hobos squatting on Dulston's sidewalks, silently beseeching passersby for a spare heal or two. Sure, they're a bit smelly... but a brain's a brain... ''gnam gnam...''<br />
<br />
==Barricade Policy==<br />
The [[D.D.D.S]] originally compiled the [[Dulston Optimal Defense Diagram]] back in 2005. This diagram is designed to serve as a specific barricade layout for the entire suburb during regular day-to-day operations. Of course in times of siege or intense suburb-wide zombie attacks, survivors are advised to retreat to [[Treweeke Mall]] and follow the [[Dulston Alliance/Operations#The_.22If_All_Hell_Breaks_Loose.21.22_Emergency_Plan|Dulston Alliance Emergency Plan]].<br />
<br />
==Suburb Map==<br />
{{EXP_Suburbblock|suburb=Dulston|<br />
NW_Suburb=NW|<br />
N_Suburb=N|<br />
NE_Suburb=NE|<br />
W_Suburb=[[Rhodenbank#Suburb_Map|W]]|<br />
E_Suburb=E|<br />
SW_Suburb=[[Rolt_Heights#Suburb_Map|SW]]|<br />
S_Suburb=[[Pescodside#Suburb_Map|S]]|<br />
SE_Suburb=SE|<br />
<br />
location1=[[Club Mold]]|location1_color=Club|<br />
location2=[[Wasteland 91,0|wasteland]]|location2_color=Wasteland|<br />
location3=[[Factory 92,0|a factory]]|location3_color=Factory|<br />
location4=[[Oake Walk Police Department|Oake Walk Police Dept]]|location4_color=Police Dept|<br />
location5=[[the Naisbitt Building]]|location5_color=Building|<br />
location6=[[Clewett Alley Police Department|Clewett Alley Police Dept]]|location6_color=Police Dept|<br />
location7=[[Spicer Row Police Department|Spicer Row Police Dept]]|location7_color=Police Dept|<br />
location8=[[the Beale Building]]|location8_color=NecroTech|<br />
location9=[[Dulston Streets#Leeson Alley|Leeson Alley]]|location9_color=Street|<br />
location10=[[Troubridge Cinema]]|location10_color=Cinema|<br />
location11=[[Howell Library]]|location11_color=Library|<br />
location12=[[Andow Towers]]|location12_color=Tower|<br />
location13=[[Dulston Streets#Lovel Way|Lovel Way]]|location13_color=Street|<br />
location14=[[The Perryn Building (Dulston)|the Perryn Building]]|location14_color=Building|<br />
location15=[[Dulston Streets#Cullen Way|Cullen Way]]<br>[[Image:Billb.gif|20px]]|location15_color=Street|<br />
location16=[[Warehouse 95,1|a warehouse]]|location16_color=Warehouse|<br />
location17=[[Dulston Streets#Bellot Street|Bellot Street]]|location17_color=Street|<br />
location18=[[Dulston Streets#Mogridge Drive|Mogridge Drive]]|location18_color=Street|<br />
location19=[[Hamerton Road]]<br>RP|location19_color=Street|<br />
location20=[[the Trood Building]]|location20_color=NecroTech|<br />
location21=[[Dulston Streets#Purt Avenue|Purt Avenue ]]|location21_color=Street|<br />
location22=[[the Bridgman Building]]|location22_color=NecroTech|<br />
location23=[[Dulston Streets#Muncey Street|Muncey Street]]<br>[[Image:Billb.gif|20px]]|location23_color=Street|<br />
location24=[[Dulston Streets#Beach Walk|Beach Walk]]|location24_color=Street|<br />
location25=[[the Turvill Building]]|location25_color=Building|<br />
location26=[[Weston Crescent Fire Station]]|location26_color=Fire Station|<br />
location27=[[Anne General Hospital (Dulston)|Anne General Hospital]]|location27_color=Hospital|<br />
location28=[[the Much Arms]]|location28_color=Arms|<br />
location29=[[St. Barbara's Church|St Barbara's Church]]|location29_color=Church|<br />
location30=[[Cemetery 99,2|a cemetery]]<br>RP|location30_color=Cemetery|<br />
location31=[[Townsend Bank]]|location31_color=Bank|<br />
location32=[[Waddington Towers]]|location32_color=Tower|<br />
location33=[[Warehouse 92,3|a warehouse]]|location33_color=Warehouse|<br />
location34=[[St. Anacletus's Hospital|St Anacletus's Hospital]]|location34_color=Hospital|<br />
location35=[[Wasteland 94,3|wasteland]]|location35_color=Wasteland|<br />
location36=[[Downe Towers]]|location36_color=Tower|<br />
location37=[[Carpark 96,3|a carpark]]|location37_color=Carpark|<br />
location38=[[Factory 97,3|a factory]]|location38_color=Factory|<br />
location39=[[Nott Auto Repair]]|location39_color=Auto Repair|<br />
location40=[[Wasteland 99,3|wasteland]]|location40_color=Wasteland|<br />
location41=[[Wasteland 90,4|wasteland]]|location41_color=Wasteland|<br />
location42=[[the Pepperell Museum]]|location42_color=Museum|<br />
location43=[[Duport Avenue|Duport Avenue]]<br>RP|location43_color=Street|<br />
location44=[[Dulston Streets#Silley Plaza|Silley Plaza]]|location44_color=Street|<br />
location45=[[Parrott Towers]]|location45_color=Tower|<br />
location46=[[The Speak Motel (Dulston)|the Speak Motel]]|location46_color=Hotel|<br />
location47=[[the Holdway Museum]]|location47_color=Museum|<br />
location48=[[Midelton Crescent Police Department|Midelton Crescent Police Dept]]|location48_color=Police Dept|<br />
location49=[[Dulston Streets#Clerck Walk|Clerck Walk]]|location49_color=Street|<br />
location50=[[Dulston Streets#Byers Walk|Byers Walk]]|location50_color=Street|<br />
location51=[[Club Cocker]]|location51_color=Club|<br />
location52=[[Gibb Plaza Railway Station]]|location52_color=Railway Station|<br />
location53=[[the Whitlock Building]]|location53_color=NecroTech|<br />
location54=[[MacKlin Park]]|location54_color=Park|<br />
location55=[[the Gouger Arms]]|location55_color=Arms|<br />
location56=[[Dulston Streets#Noblett Drive|Noblett Drive]]|location56_color=Street|<br />
location57=[[Dulston Streets#Woodborn Avenue|Woodborn Avenue]]|location57_color=Street|<br />
location58=[[Wasteland 97,5|wasteland]]|location58_color=Wasteland|<br />
location59=[[Dulston Streets#Newnam Avenue|Newnam Avenue]]<br>[[Image:Billb.gif|20px]]|location59_color=Street|<br />
location60=[[Wasteland 99,5|wasteland]]|location60_color=Wasteland|<br />
location61=[[the Nurley Museum]]|location61_color=Museum|<br />
location62=[[Factory 91,6|a factory]]|location62_color=Factory|<br />
location63=[[Dulston Streets#Bruorton Drive|Bruorton Drive]]|location63_color=Street|<br />
location64=[[Heddington Walk Railway Station]]|location64_color=Railway Station|<br />
location65=[[Dulston Streets#Thornhill Alley|Thornhill Alley]]|location65_color=Street|<br />
location66=[[Dulston Streets#Bullor Avenue|Bullor Avenue]]|location66_color=Street|<br />
location67=[[Dulston Streets#Marsh Avenue|Marsh Avenue]]|location67_color=Street|<br />
location68=[[Oatley Bank]]|location68_color=Bank|<br />
location69=[[Dulston Streets#Rayfield Lane|Rayfield Lane]]|location69_color=Street|<br />
location70=[[the Gatehouse Building]]|location70_color=Building|<br />
location71=[[Fleming Library]]|location71_color=Library|<br />
location72=[[Carpark 91,7|a carpark]]|location72_color=Carpark|<br />
location73=[[Treweeke Mall]]|location73_color=Mall|<br />
location74=[[Treweeke Mall]]|location74_color=Mall|<br />
location75=[[Dulston Streets#Thresh Row|Thresh Row]]|location75_color=Street|<br />
location76=[[Dulston Streets#Spencer Row|Spencer Row]]|location76_color=Street|<br />
location77=[[Carpark 96,7|a carpark]]|location77_color=Carpark|<br />
location78=[[Junkyard 97,7|a junkyard]]|location78_color=Junkyard|<br />
location79=[[Dulston Streets#Hinge Drive|Hinge Drive]]|location79_color=Street|<br />
location80=[[the Pilton Building]]|location80_color=Building|<br />
location81=[[Club Dowell]]|location81_color=Club|<br />
location82=[[Dulston Streets#Ray Alley|Ray Alley]]|location82_color=Street|<br />
location83=[[Treweeke Mall]]|location83_color=Mall|<br />
location84=[[Treweeke Mall]]|location84_color=Mall|<br />
location85=[[Dulston Streets#Pirrie Place|Pirrie Place]]|location85_color=Street|<br />
location86=[[Dulston Streets#Tovey Place|Tovey Place]]<br>[[Image:Billb.gif|20px]]|location86_color=Street|<br />
location87=[[the Slade Arms]]|location87_color=Arms|<br />
location88=[[Dulston Streets#Hagger Way|Hagger Way]]<br>[[Image:Billb.gif|20px]]|location88_color=Street|<br />
location89=[[Blaise General Hospital]]|location89_color=Hospital|<br />
location90=[[McNally Park]]|location90_color=Park|<br />
location91=[[Club Garrett]]|location91_color=Club|<br />
location92=[[Dulston Streets#Hoskyns Alley|Hoskyns Alley]]|location92_color=Street|<br />
location93=[[the Masters Museum]]|location93_color=Museum|<br />
location94=[[Pegrum Place Police Department|Pegrum Place Police Dept]]|location94_color=Police Dept|<br />
location95=[[Muirhead Avenue Railway Station]]|location95_color=Railway Station|<br />
location96=[[Caffin Library]]|location96_color=Library|<br />
location97=[[the Dycer Hotel]]|location97_color=Hotel|<br />
location98=[[Dulston Streets#Maud Walk|Maud Walk]]|location98_color=Street|<br />
location99=[[Roadnight Towers]]|location99_color=Tower|<br />
location100=[[Stembridge Crescent Fire Station]]|location100_color=Fire Station}}<br />
<br /></div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Developing_Suggestions&diff=1268900Developing Suggestions2008-09-07T22:39:33Z<p>Janine: /* Discussion (Switch FAKs search rates between Hospitals and Malls) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Suggestion Navigation}}<br />
==Developing Suggestions==<br />
''This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which '''have not yet been submitted''' and are still being worked on.''<br />
<br />
===Further Discussion===<br />
Discussion concerning this page takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Discussion_About_Talk:Suggestions|here]].<br />
Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general (including policies about it) takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Suggestion_Discussion|here]].<br />
<br />
Nothing on this page will be archived.<br />
<br />
== Please Read Before Posting ==<br />
<br />
*''Be sure to check [[Frequently Suggested#The List|The Frequently Suggested List]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots | Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]] before you post your idea.'' There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a '''dupe''', or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. '''These include [[Suggestions/RejectedNovember2005#SMG.2FMachine_Pistol|Machine Guns]] and [[Suggestions/24th-Apr-2007#Rooftops.2C_Sniper_Rifle.2C_and_Sniper_Ammo|Sniper Rifles]]'''. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.<br />
*Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.<br />
*It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.<br />
<br />
== How To Make a Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
====Format for Suggestions under development====<br />
<br />
Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header <br />
"'''[[Talk:Suggestions#Suggestions|Suggestions]]'''", paste the copied text '''above''' the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in <span style="color: red">red</span> with the details of your suggestion.<br />
<br />
<nowiki><br />
===</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion</font><nowiki>===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=~~~~<br />
|suggest_type=</nowiki><font color="red">Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_scope=</nowiki><font color="red">Who or what it applies to.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_description=</nowiki><font color="red">Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.</font><nowiki><br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion Name</font><nowiki>)====<br />
----</nowiki><br />
<br />
====Cycling Suggestions====<br />
Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit. <br />
<br />
This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the [[Talk:Suggestions/Overflow1|Overflow]]-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.<br />
<br />
If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the <nowiki>{{SNRV|X}}</nowiki> at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:1.5em"><font color="red">'''Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.'''</font></span><br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Suggestions==<br />
===Improve the Banks===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 23:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Add to Bank.<br />
|suggest_scope=All people how enter a bank.<br />
|suggest_description=I belive banks need a improvement becuase of how usless they are. The only good thing I can think about them is becuase they are so useless no zombie would go near it, and it would make a good hiding place. But the problem is what good could a bank be in a place like Malton. The only iteam I could think about finding there would be a pistol and clip becuase of securtity guards. So if not iteams why not something else?<br />
<br />
What is a bank if not a big place to safly guard your valuables? Why not allow the bank to be more heavly barricaded or use the vault? This is still a rough idea, which is why I am talking here. Now, allow me to address two problems I can see with my idea. One is why you would even want to have a extra lelvel of barricades or a vault, the bank does not have anything. And the other being that you should not mess with the barricades, to those people look here [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/PR_Buildings:_Multiple_Types]]. and then go to "Max Cades Varies by Building Type" sujestion.<br />
<br />
As I said, this is still a rough idea and I would like inmput, and not just "this wont work so shut up".<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bank improvment)====<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Switch FAK search rates between Hospitals and Malls===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=search rate adjustment for First Aid Kits. <br />
|suggest_scope=survivors<br />
|suggest_description=''I can't find this in PR or Undecided, I looked. But if someone can find the dupe, please do.''<br />
<br />
'''The suggestion:''' Reverse the search rates for First Aid Kits in Hospital and Malls, i.e. make it easier to find FAKs in Hospitals and harder in Malls. <br />
<br />
'''The rationale:''' Pretty self-explanatory, I think. Hospitals should be the easiest place to find/jury rig first aid kits. Not malls. This would also be a nerf to mall-centric play, which I don't think is a bad thing at all. But it's a highly logical nerf, and far from unbalanced or game-breaking. <br />
<br />
'''Extra details:''' As it is, you have about a 50% chance of finding a FAK in a drugstore. In a hospital, I'd guestimate it's about 20% (I might tally my stats and see... others' experiences would be useful, too). Perhaps an ''exact'' reversal isn't in order: say 25-30% in Malls, 40-45% in Hospitals, something like that. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Switch FAKs search rates between Hospitals and Malls)====<br />
<br />
No to exact reversal, yes to your suggested percentages. That is because there are one hell of a lot of hospitals compared to mall squares. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 14:32, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We could apply the same logic to police departments and forts, in that they should have higher search rates for firearms and ammo there than malls. Not that I'm totally against your suggestion, but the way the game is designed it strikes me that Kevan intentionally made malls as the ultimate stronghold and as such they have the highest search rates for most items in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:33, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Police Stations don't keep ammo lying around. It is actually a bad idea to have excessive weapons and ammo stored where you are holding prisoners. Wal-Mart has more weapons in the sporting section than my local police station. Police Depts. have armories and firing ranges to keep weapons. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 22:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I agree with Wan Yuo, since it is a hospital of course you would be more likely to find a FAK there, and anyway Malls have alot of other stuff you can gain there.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 16:10, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Uhm, it's "Yao", not "Yuo"... It's a lame old joke alias, but it's still my alias, and it means something... Anyhooo... <br />
<br />
Cop shops are not armouries -- but gun stores in US malls practically are. So I don't really see a need to change that. You might disagree, but, c'est la vie. (And, yes, Malton is in the UK, but the city is a mix of the UK and US, it's not really one or the other in practice... so please don't go ''there''... please.) Perhaps search rates in Fort Armouries need to be boosted, but this suggestion is not addressing that... And, yes, malls are supposed to be strongholds -- however, I think the 50% search rate for FAKs is absurd. Especially when it's so hard to find FAKs in Hospitals, by comparison. And, even if you nerfed search rates in Malls -- even hypothetically across the board -- they are still going to be "fortresses" by virtue of being "one-stop-shopping" places -- you can get everything you need at a mall other than syringes. That ''alone'' makes them very powerful... I, however, appreciate Whitehouse's comments about the fact that are more Hospitals than Malls, and the modified search rates ought to reflect that. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then surgery becomes OMGMEGA-SUPER-GODLY. Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls. If it weren't for that I would support this, I don't think that this would change where people get FAKs from though which would mean it would just be a slight nerf to Malls and a big buff to Hospitals.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
First of, sorry for mispelling your name Yao, and also you dont need a 50% chance for the hospital but maybe like 40%, or something that makes the hospitals be just as good as finding FAKs in the mall.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:29, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Surgery]].--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:47, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I am well aware of what Surgery does. This is how likley you can find a FAK in a hospital and a mall drug store, from the wiki:Mall Drugstores (20%/34%), Hospitals (14%),. If they even made it 25 percent I would love it. [[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I would agree with a small percentage increase in hospitals. But check for a dupe. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:19, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd support this as well. Malls need to be reworked a bit. The percentages are too high to warrant going any where else in the game for supply purposes. But I'd also support people who use the word "Glock" to describe their pistols have them blow up upon first use.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 23:38, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Bloodletting===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}02:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=PKer buff.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors. PKers, mostly.<br />
|suggest_description=Update revivification syringes to allow for self-targeting. If used on yourself while infected, it becomes a "virus syringe," essentially transforming the item within your inventory. "Virus syringes" cannot be found or made except by infected individuals using revivification syringes on themselves. Like a normal syringe, they have a 2% encumbrance.<br />
<br />
If used on a survivor, there's an X percent chance that this new "virus syringe" will deal 1 HP damage to the survivor and infect the survivor, and a 100-X percent chance that the virus syringe will do nothing. X is the current HP of the PKer. "Virus syringes" do nothing against zombies.<br />
<br />
As it is highly corrosive to glass, the virus will eat through the syringe in a matter of hours. Therefore, "virus syringes" are removed from an inventory after 6 hours of existing.<br />
<br />
...Because bioterrorism is an inherent part of the genre, and because it might entertain some PKers (and thus keep them from actual killing). Yes, the central idea is that the syringe is emptied outside your body, then you draw out your own blood, which contains the infection.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bloodletting)====<br />
<br />
I really wish I could be "constructive"... but this is just too retarded to comment on. Would you like some spam with that cheese, sir? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:11, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:No, sir, nor did I want that frosty. "Retarded" is happily synonymous with "belated," so I'll assume you mean this suggestion is just a little behind its time. Speaking of which, some old-fashioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Logs Lincoln logs] might help with your construction problem. Spend a few hours with those and let your dad back on his computer, okay? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}04:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Survivor infecting other survivors is a dupe, I'm fairly sure. It would be more greify than tactically useful for a PKer / death cultist, which is why (iirc) it wasn't worth keeping. Also, if you want to infect somebody, I fancy that axe you've been splitting infected zombie skulls (or the knife you just pulled from the guts of an infected survivor) would do the job rather as well as a syringe. So if infections COULD be spread that way, pretty much every sharp weapon in Malton would spread them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:23, 6 September 2008 (BST) ''edit- also, if the infection were so corrosive, every blood stained weapon or piece f clothing in the city would crumble to dust. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)''<br />
:It is a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
PKing may be part of the game, but it does NOT need any emphasis. The game is, primarily, about survivors and zombies fighting each other with some PKing thrown in, NOT about PKing with some zombies thrown in.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I must agree with Pesatyel, this game is mainly about the Living VS Undead... with the abnormal ones mixing it up to make it more interesting (just like in reality). Emphasizing PKing just doesn't fit in well with me (although I really should ''"get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit"'' to quote Wanyao). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Ehh, when I PK, I prefer "Bang. BANG BANG." And the kill is done. The idea would be something I would never use, and as Swiers stated, it's more useful for greifers then PKers like me.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::K-B, I was referring to your comments, somewhere, which alluded to "pro-zombies" and "pro-survivors" as these inimical factions at each others' throats. That's an illusion, and a destructive one at that: most players play both sides, even if some do tend to focus more on one than the other... And most people judge suggestions on the basis of merit, not simply whether they help their "side". For example, this suggestion would be a giant-sized buff for my death cultists -- but that doesn't mean I support it... because it's just a griefing tool, and little more. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
NEEDLE SHARING IS NEVER SAFE! THIS SUGGESTION SPREADS HEPATITIS Z! Not to mention it's stupid as fuck and so out of genre gameplay here. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I has plastic syringes. Gawd. Oh, I forgot the part were I wake up when you starting moving and poking me, and I kick your ass.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 00:02, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What about the part where zombies you are poking with a syringe do NOT wake up and kick... er, EAT your ass? {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Latent Infection===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies, their victims.<br />
|suggest_description=''After countless days of fending off the zombies, Malton's best and brightest have discovered an entirely new strain of the virus that the zombies have been using to infect their victims.''<br />
<br />
''Called the Sleeper strain, it typically has an incubation period of 6 hours before it becomes active, rapidly spreading through the victim's circulatory system, degrading living tissue at an alarming speed. The incubation period can be extended if the victim remains motionless, however.''<br />
<br />
''This new strain has proven to be almost completely immune to all forms of medicine when it is in its incubation period, however the virus seems to be easier to eradicate once it has 'awakened'. It can still resist medicine half of the time, however with surgery the virus can be always removed.''<br />
<br />
''Unfortunately, due to it's long incubation period, carriers of the virus often are not aware of when they have become infected until the virus begins to attack them. However, if the victim then gets bitten by a zombie with the more common strain of the virus, the Sleeper strain acts like an antibody, preventing the more common strain from taking hold.''<br />
<br />
New skill: Latent Infection<br />
<br />
Subskill of: Infection<br />
<br />
Abilities:<br />
* Takes 6 hours to kick in.<br />
* Causes 2 damage per AP.<br />
* Does not stack with standard Infection.<br />
* 5% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd during incubation period.<br />
* 50% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd when 'awakened'.<br />
* 100% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd by 'Surgery' in powered hospital.<br />
* Kicks in upon first movement after 6 hour incubation period.<br />
* Victim not told of infection until it 'awakens'.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Latent Infection)====<br />
in all this time have you ever even read the frequently suggested and D&DN pages? this is a dupey infection buff, the likes of which we've seen a bazillion times, and it has nothing special or redeeming about it except for a vry pointless 6 hour delay. such a delay is a) out of genre game-mechanically because time is abstract in UD b) griefs newbies c) griefs everyone who logs in only once a day d) it's overpowered -- zombies kill best by killing, and where they are weak, deal with that, instead. <br />
<br />
i'm also sure someone will be less lazy and find about 30 dupes for this. please... GIVE IT UP ALREADY, blake. go design your own game, print up the rules, get together with some friends over dice and doritos. and give ''us'' a break. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:38, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's... Urghh, it just over complicates a part of the game which doesn't need it, and is a huge buff to zombies. I'm a zombie player, but I don't like things like this. Just do what WanYao said and read the [[Frequently Suggested]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]]. Seriously, just commit them to memory.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd vote keep. And ignore the Hive Mind Kool-Aid Drinkers, Blake. The D&DN page is for wimps.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 13:38, 7 September 2008 (BST) <br />
----<br />
<br />
===Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:50, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance Change<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Ankle Grab<br />
|suggest_description='''The cost to stand up after a [[Zombie Hunter skills|Headshot]] is 15AP, whether or not the target has the [[Zombie Skills|Ankle Grab]] skill.'''<br />
<br />
This suggestion is somewhat slanted toward a Monroeville survivor's perspective.<br />
<br />
In Malton, the survivor's best chance for survival is to find a location which zombies are not currently massing to attack. The only time attacking is a viable option is when zombies are already inside a strategic building, and the survivor wants to repair the structure. Even [[Trenchcoater|Trenchcoaters]] know that when the zeds open the doors, it's time to run.<br />
<br />
In Monroeville, there is never a time when attacking is the best choice. If zombies are near, the survivor runs or the survivor dies. Attacking, even with a massive numeric advantage, is ultimately suicide.<br />
<br />
Currently, a Headshot costs a zombie 6AP, or 15AP if it doesn't have the Ankle Grab skill. To kill a 50HP unarmored zombie costs a minimum of 8AP: Three to find three shotguns loaded with five shells total, and five to bring down the zombie. A more typical number would be 24 -- 6 to find a pistol and two clips, and 18 to fire the pistol at the zombie 16 times, reloading twice, with a 65% hit rate. This means that by purchasing four skills, with seven additional skills required to reach level ten, a survivor can spend 24 AP to take 6AP from a zombie who has purchased two skills.<br />
<br />
If the AP cost to stand up from a Headshot were 15 ''regardless'' of the Ankle Grab skill, the ratio would go from 4:1 to almost 3:2, still strongly favoring the zombie, but making offense a viable tactic in Malton. In Monroeville, the few who remain might actually come out and play once in a while, instead of running like hell when one zombie gets within a block.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab)====<br />
Sure. I just fear its too late. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:59, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
You understand nothing of this game. The AP balance on barricades is 4-1 in favour of survivors at best. Add to that the fact that it takes 35-40 AP for a zombie to kill a survivor, only for the victim to get a revive for 10 AP and the cost of the syringe search. Then factor in that any survivor who isn't killed straight away can be saved with a simple FAK. I could go on and on about this, but in reality I said all that was needed in the first sentence. And seriously people, stop whining about fucking Monroeville. It's a temporary city which is going to be shut down, which makes it entirely irrelevant when discussing the mechanics of Urban Dead as a game. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 20:04, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:"and the cost of the syringe search". I love how you abstract away about 10-15 APs and call it "balanced". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And that only turns out to 20-25 AP, even if you factor in the syringe search. we could keep on discussing the maths of this, but Grim did it for us a few months back: read his rant on the [[User:Grim_s/Rants/Revival_Imbalance|revive imbalance]]. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 05:14, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Total Zombie AP spent (Including recovering from kills by Humans, thank you for padding your numbers): 483. Total Human AP spent: 322. Ratio: 3/2, compared to 4/1 for survivors headshotting zombies. Zombies win, again, by whining louder than the humans. I thought you were supposed to moan. In any event, thank you for showing us the math that proves that zombies have a massive combat AP advantage. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 17:30, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
No dude. Just no. Monroeville is freaking dead anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Says the ''Zombie'' Lord... I actually had a nice killing spree a couple of weeks back, 5 survivors in 6 days...<br />
:It would be nice if we waited till there was one survivor, gave him a [[Red_Rum/Tommy_Gun|Tommy_Gun]], ammo and every zombie his location to see how long he would last... --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: :D I'm not sure if he means it as a Monroeville only thing or not, which would be fine with me if it was just contained to that city and not Malton. Seems like Kevan just wanted to kill it off anyway with those last changes to Monroeville. But yeah, the Tommy Gun goes the the last Monroeville Survivor! Would be a cool prize anyway :) --[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::The Tommy Gun is a seasonal weapon, found around 31st October/1st November. They'll have to survive til then and search really hard...--[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 00:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Kamakazie Bunny, get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit, it's tired as all hell. In any event, as much as he is usually an idiot, zombie lord is correct this time. And Moloch hit it on the head even more squarely. Don't fucking nerf Ankle Grab. Period. Even in Moronville. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:46, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:36, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:How about "Remove Headshot" then? Has that been suggested? It's currently a waste of 100 XP. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
You might have better luck if you suggest that headshot DOESN'T affect those without Ankle Grab.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:37, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''Balance Change'' HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA ''IMA GONNA RAEP YUO OF UR AP AND CALL IT BALANCED!'' Fuck off, Dago. You can't possibly justify taking away over 1/5th of the AP of just one class. Zombies can't do it to survivors in any amount and you want to increase it? Fucking play as a zombie for a year before you suggest anything that affects zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:59, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Suggestion:20080901_Feeding_Drag_in_Large_Buildings|Yanking a live survivor from a mall]] for 2/5 the AP cost of dumping a dead body from a fort is balanced, then? I don't see you railing against that. Oh, but feel free to turn my username into a racial slur if you can't think of any ''good'' reason to reject the suggestion. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::We've already posted enough reasons why it's a crap idea. Feel free to post it though, because even if it gets passed, Kevan won't touch it. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 05:25, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Actually it is when you consider that it's not a bargain and it's an additional 4 AP per kill that will be payed regularly. All Feeding Drag ever does is transfer AP cost from the individual to the horde, you know, that central play mechanic that zombies are forced to deal with. This would just make it so that all zombies always lose nearly half the AP they get a day, that's not balanced. You're also proposing buffing what is the only skill in the game that is considered to exist for the sole purpose of pissing players off and not balance.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Im not going to argue the game balance here. What i am going to say is that you dont make a game more balanced by making it less fun. Taking away 15 zombie ap a day makes the game much less fun for zombies, which will drive them away. Given how many of them are hanging onto the game out of habit rather than out of any sense of enjoyment, i dont think making playing a zombie feel like pulling teeth is the solution to any balance problem, real or imagined. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:37, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Bargain Hunting Change===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:07, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Improvement.<br />
|suggest_scope=Resource Buildings.<br />
|suggest_description=First, some buildings would get a flat bonus to search: Malls, Junkyards, and Libraries.<br />
<br />
'''Malls''' +10% Chance for a successful search.<br />
<br />
'''Junkyard''' +10% Chance for a successful search.<br />
<br />
'''Library''' Automatic success.<br />
<br />
Second, other buildings would get a new button. A player with Bargain Hunting would see both "Search the Building" AND the New Button. A regular search is the same as always. Clicking the New Button would work like this:<br />
<br />
'''Hospital''' New Button: "Search for FAK". +25% to find a FAK.<br />
<br />
'''Police Station''' New Button: "Search for Guns and Ammo". +25% to find a Pistol, Shotgun, Shotgun Shell, or Pistol Clip.<br />
<br />
'''Factory''' New Button: "Search for Portable Generator". +25% to find a Portable Generator.<br />
<br />
'''Auto Repair''' New Button: "Search for Toolbox". +25% to find a Toolbox.<br />
<br />
'''Fire Station''' New Button: "Search for Flare Gun". +25% to find a Flare Gun.<br />
<br />
'''Arms''' New Button: "Search for Beer". +25% to find a Beer.<br />
<br />
'''School''' New Button: "Search for Spray Can". +25% to find a Spray Can.<br />
<br />
'''Warehouse''' New Button: "Search for Fuel Can". +25% to find a Fuel Can.<br />
<br />
This idea is to make the other resource building more important, and make the Mall less the God of all Buildings.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bargain Hunting Change)====<br />
Auto repair toolbox, warehouse fuel can? Random.<br />
<br />
I dont like it for the following reason. Its actually 2 buffs. 1. You only search for what you want. 2 you are much more likely to find it. I also dont see a realistic justification (other than junkyards and libraries which i feel is fine).--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:11, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I figured your were more likely to find a Toolbox in an Auto Repair, but find Fuel stockpiled in Warehouses. Basically I'm aiming for the other buildings being important instead of the Mall being the best place to find pretty much anything, which sort of makes Hospitals and PD's kinda lame. Plus with the best places to find stuff spread out instead of being all in one spot, it would make Malls less of a Fortress you almost never need to leave, except to find Fuel. Survivors would need to keep their other buildings going to keep the "best search rate" spots open and usable. The two most important FAKS and Guns/Ammo already have a "you get exactly what you want" thing going in the Mall anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:16, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
"Bargain Hunting" implies knowledge specific to shopping: it's a consumer skill. Finding things in libraries, police stations, hospitals, and junkyards seems unrelated. I agree with Ross, this seems a bit overpowering. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It also worries me that you appear to have forgotten that survivors occasionally need needles. Wheres the search necrotech button? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:22, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Dude, Survivors get enough needles already. :P --[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:25, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Whilst I do agree with the idea of removing the focus from malls I do not agree with your choices I would imagine:<br />
:Toolbox for factories (working on/with machinery),<br />
:Fuel cans for auto repairs (cars need fuel),<br />
:Generators for factories (because they don't fit anywhere else and the others seem more plausible in their locations) although power stations and hardware stores would make sense but that takes you back to malls...<br />
::Also what about necrotechs and radios? whilst it is true you don't have to include everything, including beer and ignoring more important resources and buildings just doesn't agree with me. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Hey its all open to change. Thats kinda why I put this up here. Those NecroTechs though are already nasty enough. But moving the items around is cool. How about Fuel in Auto Repairs and Portable Generators in Warehouses. Like to keep it spread out as much as possible. Just leave the Toolboxes out since they are a one shot item anyway? And factories have both fuel and PG's so, maybe being a cenral fuel/PG resource is good enough for them.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:30, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
::::Personally id prefer it if it was the ''other'' way round. The one item choices (Knifes,toolboxes, dna extractors,radio transmitters,) were those items that could be found more easily. '''Then''' buildings other than malls would be the best place to find ''specific'' items.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:34, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Yeah, but you only need to find them once. Makes the other resources not so important again. Making it the recycle items makes them always useful to have up and running. Hmm, maybe just a flat +25% to find anything in the bottom 8 buildings would be better, then you'd have to wade through the "crap" like newspapers and the like and it would be less powerful. The Mall would still be a good bonus then with its 'FAK only" Drugstore and "Guns & Ammo only" Gun Store, which is kinda ugly combined with the current +25%, but might be more balances with 10%, but having the other buildings being the "best search spots".--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I think 25% might be a bit too much, 15% seems more reasonable, searching for something specific should give you more than searching for something in general but not too much more. I actually like the specific buildings for specific resources because it means your more likely to find what your looking for but the amount of buildings of each type in each suburb makes a big difference when the zombies start to move in and you don't want to move out! This way it emphasizes that point. Although I do see Rosslessness's point, items each person only needs one of would be more common than ones which people would be using up. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:57, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Yeah, the % could always be messed with. I think this would make other suburbs more attractive too though, like the ones that are far away from Malls, but maybe they have some insane number of PD's or Hospitals so they would become like "Centers of Healing, or "Ammo Dump Central". I guess we could throw Forts into the +10% category same as Malls. Would maybe shake up the population distribution a bit.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 19:07, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::I think you're right though. Cause with this there would be a lot a new place opened up that you could search good. Some burbs have like 6 Hospitals/PD's or more and that would be a lot of places. Maybe 10% for Malls, but 15% or 20% for the Hospitals/PD's and the others to balance out the fact that some places have crazy numbers of these buildings all lumped together. I dont know who the city planners where but sometime having 3 or 4 PD like all next to each other or a block away from each other is just nuts. :D--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 19:32, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::From a logical point of view yeah, Ross is right. But from a game balance view, I think "only need one" items should be not easier to find. Then Survivors could not just thrown down a toolbox to free up weight, confident that they could just snag another real easy with Bargain Hunting when they need one. It's a harder to weight choice as it is now. But making it the recycle items that are easier to find makes keeping those buildings up and running a much more important part of keeping your burb running smooth. I dunno, I'm arguing from a "Mall Suburb viewpoint" though too. This might make non-Mall suburbs even more powerful, but maybe in a balanced way, so that Malls suburbs and non Mall suburbs are not so lop-sided in their "resource gathering power".--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 19:23, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
I don't even need to read the commentary. 'Sides, mostly seems to be Zombie Lord's usual obnoxious arguing with everyone... <br />
<br />
'''The skinny:''' survivors don't need a search rate buff, their %ages are pretty fucking good already, especially in malls. I do concede that the randomness of searching, and all the junk you get in searches, contributes to the "Boring boring boring, Sidney!" syndrome ... However, giving survivors a search buff AND allowing them look for exactly what they want?? The "Zombie Lord" (whom I am still convinced is just some DA or TZH trenchcoater in disguise) proposing an utterly broken game mechanic is no surprise -- but an overpowered, spam-o-licious survivor buff, now ''that's'' a little shocking. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Sex is boring, Sidney''--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 00:05, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:My bad. For a change, Zombie Lord is being kind of, like, normal... However, this is still not a good idea. I am all for nerfing mall-centric play, but this is not the way to go about it. I still stand my my reasoning above. And, as it stands, Malls are not the best place to find generators and a few other items. And syringes and fuel can't be found in malls at all... But what is absurd is the 50% or so find rate for FAKs! Hospitals should be the best place for FAKs, and Malls only so-so. THAT needs to be changed... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:21, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
The Warehouse, Factory, Hospital, Fire Station, Toolbox, and Police Station buffs are all ''way'' too high. That and combined it's far too many benefits from one single 100xp skill.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 12:55, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I figured with the Mall search bonus lowered and that Survivors would need to defend more than the Fortress Malls to keep their best search spots open would counter the high bonus for searches in the new buildings. Going to come up with a version 2 with changes for all these comments though soon.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 13:27, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I really think switching FAK search rates -- so that Hospitals are the best place to find them -- would be sufficient to nerf mall-centric play in a fair, balanced and very logical way. the rest imo isn't needed. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:10, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The bonus is currently so high that some 1 in 10 items would get boosted to 1 in 3, some 1 in 5 items would get boosted to 1 in 2, and some 1 in 3 items would get boosted to 1 in ~1.2. I understand the intent but 25% really is a ''very'' significant amount, so significant you'd be removing almost all failure chance for things like FAKs.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:48, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Riot Shield===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Item<br />
|suggest_scope=All Players<br />
|suggest_description= <BR><br />
:''[[Building Types|Locations]]: Armouries (2%), Police Stations (2%), Junkyards (1%?)''<br />
:''[[Encumberment|Encumbrance]]: 16%''<br />
<br />
- Grants a 10% (5% in dark buildings) chance to deflect any attack <S>that deals less than 5 damage</S> (it does not reduce the chance to hit, only those which would normally hit). Having a Riot Shield in your inventory automatically means that you are using it; no action is required to activate it. Zombies may use and benefit from Riot Shields. Using multiple Riot Shields has no additional effect; having two or more in your inventory will not give any further protection.<br />
<br />
- They may also be used as an improvised weapon with the following stats:<br />
<br />
:''Damage: 1 point''<br />
:''Base Accuracy: 10%''<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Riot Shield)====<br />
<br />
Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield (although rotters will have a harder time getting them but that applies to any cross-class skill/item from the humans). Also the zombie populace should be aware that a Riot shield is the equivalent of 8 clips/shells/Faks/Syringes that can be used against their cause. Survivors now have an active defence against the hordes (in my opinion barricades do not count as they do not directly protect the player or go with them on their journeys). <BR><br />
Things I'm unsure of:<BR><br />
:Encumbrance<br />
:Chance to deflect<br />
:Findable in museums (Medieval / war exhibitions)<br />
:Zombies with a reduced protection chance (as they are more sluggish)<br />
:Flavour text for deflected attacks!<br />
--[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''You fire at target zombie for 10 damage, but it deflects off their riot shield. They are unharmed''<br />
--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:05, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: Whilst I do agree with the flavour text the shot gun does not deal '''less than 5 damage'''. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:13, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Balls. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hi Kamikazie, this is an interesting idea. Given that zombies can't use melee weapons, it seems odd they might continue to use (and effectively position) a riot shield. Additionally, it seems it would get in the way of typical zombie attacks: grabbing, holding, biting. I don't want to seem like I'm favoring survivors, but this, like all other objects, seems it should be survivor-specific. Would players be able to use a shotgun while holding one? Shields of any kind make sense, especially in close-range combat. I'd see the value in making it "equippable" rather than simply automatically active if in inventory. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 18:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ummm... zombies can use melee weapons, although it would get in the way of their normal attacks I don't want to hinder them or make this one sided although realism would want it so. Zombies are people to! Interfering with other functions is something else I disagree with. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hordes are the exception, not the rule. Lets see, a maxed zombie would traditionally score a total of 29 hits in 50 swings. Now, if 10% of those hits are negated, it goes down to 26. Given that the majority of zombies are not horde zombies, and that zombies have a seriously hard time getting past little things you call barricades (Which already are your defenses, not to mention your mobility, which is another, chronically underused one), this puts a serious dent in zombie ability across the board for the sake of defending yourself from the exception to the rule based on a flase assumption of defenselessness. Go away and think things through before you return to plague this page with your stupidity again. The description as written has this as a pure zombie nerf, they cant even use it, ebcause regardless of flaks, a pistol hits for five damage at first, with one subsequently negated, thus pistols will still go through. Given humans use firearms almost exclusively, becauuse axes and improvised weapons suck, they will most often suffer no penalty against a zombie with such a device. Zombies have no 5+ damage attacks. This is one sided zombie rape. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:although I hardly ever agree with grims choice of words, the fact that flare guns and shotguns arent nerfed but all zed attacks are is a fair point. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:29, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sorry if you misunderstood when I used the word horde, I used it to describe the zombies populace as a whole, not in a specific location. The pistol glitch is something which I must admit I did not anticipate and overlooked, thanks for pointing that out. The rest just seems negative for the sake of zombie-jeebus. Whilst this does primarily affect zombie attacks it also affects all survivor melee attacks, you say that survivors depend on guns because everything else sucks, I don't think you need reminding that the Jacket only benefits zombies and PK/DC victims (which their very actions benefit zombies). Zombies have no fear of death and any defence boosts through items come at no cost, survivors have to balance their inventory for survival/defense and the retaking of ruins. If you feel that 26 instead of 29 hits is too many feel free to suggest a change to the values. This is a discussion for whittling out 'stupid' ideas not for insulting them (which I consider pointless). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:47, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
''Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield ...'' Can, but won't. The vast majority of the damage zombies take s from guns, and this also provides no protection vs combat revives. HtH combat damage trails a distant third behind those in terms of impact on zombies. '''So really, this IS a pure zombie nerf.''' {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 19:08, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:Any proposes for a fix? Reducing deflection to 5% (that sounds so geekish). Lowering the limit to Less than 4 (which would account for the gun-bug and allow zombies still to get in their max claws) or would that be seen to be nerfing infection/bite/newbies/survivor melee? I know you might think this is the wrong school of thought but I feel there needs to be some active defence from zombies (running away is not defending) and barricades can't be taken with you, but due to the limited amount of high-powered zombie attacks any thing is essentially a nerf. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 19:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this suggestion if it was to affect ALL attacks regardless of damage... however I am concerned about it stacking with flak jackets to nerf firearms but if you lot are ok with it then I have no objections.... opinions please? --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I think it's a neat idea, just not sure if its passable. Maybe if the Shield had a chance to be broken, or taken away by zombies? For every "deflection" there is a 10% chance the shield breaks as well? Maybe a zombie that gets a Tangling Grasp has a 10% chance to wrench the shield away and toss it aside for each attack it makes while it maintains the Grasp?--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:25, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This fails flavour as it implies active usage to gain its benefit, you must move the shield to cover the attack. A flak jacket is passive, it protects your torso regardless. In short, this would (or rather should) be useless while you are asleep...which for most UD characters is 23 hours and 50 minutes of each day.<br />
<br />
Also it's a nasty zombie nerf. '''All''' zombie attacks are less than 5 damage, meaning all survivors would get a 10% chance to avoid every single zombie attack in the game. This suggestion will discourage zombie play and turn Malton into Monroeville after the first quarantine, tag with PKers. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:42, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''"After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this..."'' We are not okay with this idea. It's awful. It's nothing but a horrible zombie nerf, and no changes are going to save it. Riot shields do not protect against firearms. Period. Any attempt to make them do so is just stupidity. But if riot shields work against melee attacks only, then you are nerfing an already underdog ability -- for both zambahz and survivors. Just drop it, it sucks and it can't be fixed. Also, Izzy, you've failed in your Dupe-meister duties, this is in there somewhere, I know it ;) And, Zhani, once again you demonstrated why you should stay away from making suggestions: please wait until you actually know the game, thanks. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:01, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:As far as I understood from the comments people were making, the two major complaints were that it did not affect guns and that it affected zombie attacks. Including the ability to affect guns as well (which you ''conveniently'' failed to include in your quote) was the change that some people may approve of, as for affecting zombie attacks that kinda goes with the idea of a riot shield. "''Riot shields do not protect against firearms''" it may upset you to know that some do, although if you were arguing for true realism I think the zombies need to go... In defence of Izzy failing to dupe I could only find 2 similar suggestions, both from 2005 and both with completely different mechanics if it is that big an issue to dupe it go put in the effort and do it yourself. As for Zhani, he's learning don't try shoot him down because he's trying to be involved. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Next person to shorten my name gets Jihad declared against them.<br />
<br />
::Wan; what he said about dupes <nowiki>:p</nowiki><br />
<br />
::Bunny; would you care to comment on the point I made about active usage? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Falling asleep from exhaustion is a good reason why your character runs out of AP, it only takes 30min before you can 'wake up'. Whilst I do agree that a player would have to actively use it to defend themselves, the idea that I can hit someone who is asleep repeatedly with a fire axe and with such poor accuracy doesn't make sense (especially considering they don't wake up), I actually assume all players are awake and attempting to defend themselves if attacked which is why hit accuracy is not too high. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait wut? How do zombies benefit from something that will only effect them and low level survivors? Last I heard pistols and shotguns did >= 5 damage, Claws and bites did <= 4.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies would gain more defence from melee weapons, however it has now been changed to include pistols and shotguns. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::It just doesn't seem right. It destroys all zombie attack, survivor players could get them easier then zombie players... Even if Shotguns no longer worked, that would create an atmosphere where it would be CRing only.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 17:56, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::How would this new version work in dark buildings? And Also, I still don't like it for the same reason why I think halving in dark buildings was a horrendous idea, 10% from 50% is a lot more significant than 10% from 65%, especially with the RNG the way it is But if you're going to go on with it might as well answer all questions that might come up.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::As the Riot shield only affects the attacks that hit the player, the environment which the attack is performed in should have make no difference but since the user is making an effort, the same penalty as attacks receive should logically apply. (Chance of success halved in dark buildings added to suggestion) Thanks for that, the more holes you guys help me fill the better. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it. Rather logical especially when considering that several suburbs were just bad neighborhoods (Even BEFORE the zombies!). I think that his would be a bit more efficient if you kept it as a melee reducing item, the hand to hand flak jacket in other words, say knock off 1-2 Damage per non-firearm attacks. Take it to that level and THEN I'll probably vote a keep on this. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 19:33, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, I'm sure new players will appreciate 0-1 damage at 25% to hit.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Well the zombies are getting Uber Buffs. Survivors have always been a bit better than the zombies at base level. I think that just the 1 Reduced Damage is sufficient at say...30% but if we want to get technical with this option lets say Hand to Hand Combat skill gives the 15% bonus to this so base is 15% chance to block 1 damage and then with HtH skill 30% chance to block 1 damage and we drop that improvised attack method because it's going to be the same as a punch. Now for the zombies think of Virgour Mortis as a +10% Chance to block 1 Damage. So again, 15% base and with Vigour Mortis a nice little 25% because Zeds aren't quick enough to keep up with the survivors. It is a bit sketchy but I am going to support this method over sitting around fiddling with percentages. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 20:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I would like for this to apply exclusive to melee weapons, but that would mean ALL zombie attacks and not the attacks used by high-level survivors which was a problem. I'm also unsure if the game distinguishes between damage types, if it does great, if not, going on damage inflicted presents a problem when pistols are reduced by flak jackets. The idea to reduce damage instead of deflecting it completely is possible, however it would just end up as 'a flak for melee attacks' different mechanics for each one helps to keep them unique but if people prefer that option let me know. The skills bit does have merits but I was hoping it would be independent of the skill tree although if people want it to upgrade as you buy skills your way is certainly an excellent way to do it, especially the uniqueness between the live/dead. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:18, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Consider the flak jacket. -1 point for firearms, hand to hand attacks still go through. As for the zombies...well survivors run out of ammunition every now and again, even in the sieges. To combine this item with hand to hand combat training is the most logical approach based off of common sense and lightens the work load if Kevan likes this. Like you stated, zombies and survivors can both hold them, lets apply our minds and think about how well a zombie would be able to block a hit. When you think of next to never apply this big piece of reinforced fiberglass and then you get your answer here. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 03:53, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Zombies holding riot shields? I'd love to have some of that crack you're on. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 04:08, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dude the odd thing is that it is not crack! It's Jello powder! [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:23, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies hold and use all sorts of items... Anyway, this idea is just awful and can't be saved, please give it up. All it does in any form is act as a zombie/PK nerf. Period. Drop it. There is NO NEED for this, and it doesn't improve the game, make it more interesting, or offer a solution to a problem. It's just... dumb. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===No More Walking Armories: Less weapons, more ammo.===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 21:39, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Change to firearm usage<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, firearms.<br />
|suggest_description=Add Equipped Weapon feature, adjust weapon balance numbers to encourage reloading over trenchcoatism. See below for details.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
As things stand, players in Malton become [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|walking armories]], with as many loaded pistols and shotguns strapped to their bodies as they can carry. Essentially, everyone is a [[:Image:Trenchcoater03.gif|trenchcoater]] by default. This is due to how firearms currently work and their game statistics. Players are rewarded for carrying multiple loaded firearms, and there's little penalty for doing so. Guns have very little encumbrance ''relative to their ammunition'', and there's no cost at all to moving on to your next loaded weapon. I think this is [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Arguing_for_Your_Suggestion|unbelievable]] and out of genre. <br />
<br />
My proposal is to add a new game feature and tweak weapon encumbrance, find rates, and damage in order to encourage the carrying and use of only primary weapons, with plenty of ammo for those weapons.<br />
<br />
'''1. Equipped Weapon''' The game supports selecting items that are "worn"; however, this is only used for clothing and flavor at the moment. With this addition, survivor players select any weapon in their inventory to be ''equipped''. <br />
* Above "'''Inventory (click to use):'''" there is "'''Weapon (select):'''". There will be a new drop-down list in this section: '''<code>Equip [Weapon List] as weapon</code>'''. This lets the player choose any existing weapon in their inventory, or an improvised weapon like a fuel can or crowbar. <br />
* Equipping a weapon costs '''2 AP'''. This represents getting it out of your backpack/belt and having it ready for combat. ''The AP cost of switching weapons provides an incentive to reload over switching between a stocked series of weapons.'' <br />
* You can only attack with your equipped weapon. The "attack player" option no longer offers multiple weapons as a choice, but instead lists your ''equipped weapon'': '''<code>Attack [Joe Zombie] with pistol</code>'''. If no weapon is equipped, all attacks are punches.<br />
* Once a weapon is equipped, the "Weapon:" section no longer displays "(select)", and the selected weapon is displayed there, instead of in the inventory section. Below that, the weapon-selection control remains available to select another weapon.<br />
* Clicking ammo to reload defaults to reloading the equipped weapon if it is unloaded. Clicking the equipped weapon removes it. Clicking a weapon that does not have a dual usage (most of them) will equip them as well (this is necessary so you can still click fuel cans to use them on generators, fire flare guns, etc.) <br />
* Upon dying, the equipped weapon is removed and remains in the player's inventory. Zombies do not have equipped weapons. Revivified survivors must reequip their weapon.<br />
* The currently equipped weapon can be seen in the profile description, along with clothing.<br />
<br />
'''2. Weapon Encumbrance Values''' Firearm encumbrance values are increased. Guns can get heavy to carry, and shotguns are unwieldy. Pistols: 10%. Shotgun: 18%. '''Ammunition encumbrance is minimized'''. Bullets and shells take up relatively little space, and can be kept in backpacks, fannypacks, pockets, etc. Clips & Shells: 1%. <br />
<br />
'''3. Reloading''' Reloading a clip or shell remains at 1 AP.<br />
<br />
'''4. Weapon Balance:''' This change slightly increases the in-combat AP costs for survivors. With 8 loaded pistols in inventory, a player can currently do 240 damage in 48 turns at 65% rate, or 156 damage, or 3.25 damage/AP. With 1 equipped pistol and plenty of ammo, in 48 turns the player can empty 7 clips, doing 210 damage @65%, or 136.5 damage, or 2.84 damage/AP; a 12% decrease. <br />
<br />
With current shotguns, 8 shotguns in inventory do 160 damage in 16 turns @ 65%, or 104 damage: 6.5damage/AP. With the change, two shots requires either switching (2AP) or reloading (2AP). Alternately, we can simply think of the unloaded shotgun as 2AP/shot. With the change, the shotgun would do 80 damage in 16 turns @ 65% or 52 damage, a 50% decrease. The change makes the shotgun even more front-loaded damage however. <br />
<br />
'''''It is very difficult to make absolute recommendations on numbers for game balance.''''' Only in-game results can show whether items are unbalanced or not, and to what degree. However, as an initial rebalancing to make the change not appear so drastic, I suggest these figures:<br />
<br />
'''Pistol: 6 damage/shot. (5 flak).''' In 48 turns (finishing empty), a pistol would do (6*7*6*0.65) or 163.8 damage on average: 3.4damage/AP, a 5% increase. This is a very modest change, and sticks to whole-number damage. In 6 turns, the existing pistol does 30 max damage, 19.5 average, the new does 36 or 23.4 average, but on subsequent turns the reload time brings the average damage back down. With 6 shots/7AP, the true average becomes 3.34dam/AP. Total pistol increase: 2.9%<br><br />
Alternately: to kill 50HP enemy:<br />
:Current: 3.25dam/AP. (Assuming enough pistols in inventory) 16AP to kill<br />
:New: 3.34 dam/AP ((6*6*.65)/7). 15AP to kill.<br />
<br />
'''Shotgun: 12 damage/shot (10 flak).''' 2 turns=24 damage @65%=15.6damage. Compare to current: 2 turns = 20*65%=13dam. This is a small front-end increase. However, comparing 16 turns (8 loaded current shotguns, vs 1 shotgun with reloading): (10*16*0.65)/16=6.5dam/AP. New shotgun: 2 shots, then 2 shots per 4 turns for 12 turns, then 1 shot in the last two turns. 2*12+12((2*12)/4)+0+12=108. @65%=70.2 or 4.39dam/AP. The shotgun decreases over time. If we compare current and new shotguns starting unloaded, it's 10dam/2AP vs 12dam/2AP. The advantage of starting a fight with a loaded shotgun goes up, but the advantage of carrying a stack of them goes down. It becomes worthwhile to consider switching to a sidearm after using the shotgun. ''This appears consistent with game believability.''<br><br />
An alternate way of looking at shotgun damage: to kill a 50HP enemy: <br />
:Current: 6.5damage/AP (assuming enough shotguns in inventory). 8AP to kill.<br />
:New: 2*7.8damage=15.6 for 2AP, then 7.8damage/2AP (reload, fire). 7AP to kill.<br />
<br />
Shotgun opener + pistol: 15.6 average damage/2AP. 2AP to switch. 23.4 average damage/6AP. 1AP reload. 11.7 avg. dam. /3AP. = 50.7 damage in 14AP. Slightly more efficient than pistol alone, less than shotgun alone. (I have been working with current balance values; but the existing shotgun is much higher damage than the existing pistol. It requires more AP to find ammo, and reload.)<br />
<br />
'''5. Weapon search rates''' Firearm search rate decreases slightly (most people will only want or need one of each type). Ammunition search rate increases slightly. <br><br />
'''Pistols:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Streets (1%?), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
'''Shotguns:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Pubs (1%)<br><br />
'''Clips:''' Mall Gun Stores (13%/16%), Armories (13%), Police Departments (12%), Junkyards (2%?), Gatehouses (?%)<br><br />
'''Shotgun shells:''' Mall Gun Stores (12%/16%), Armories (11%), Police Departments (11%), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
* If a weapon is found, and the player has selected to discard that type of weapon, but they have NOT selected to discard the ammo, ''they retain the ammo that was in that firearm (if any)''.<br />
<br />
'''Potential objections:'''<br />
<br />
Game balance: the change to damage output/AP is relatively small. If game stats reveal survivors grow more powerful, or one weapon is more preferred than the other, damage values can be adjusted as necessary. The point of this change is not to drastically adjust game balance in any way, but to instead encourage a change in player behavior to something more consistent with genre. Any statistical flaws that benefit a weapon type or player group can be adjusted as necessary.<br />
<br />
Inventory changes: this deprecates the value of carrying multiple weapons. Despite the increase in encumbrance of a single weapon, this should actually free up some space for people. The changes do not severely affect the contents of anyone's inventory. <br />
<br />
Realism/Game fiction/Genre: Carrying an absurd amount of weapons is simply silly. The only reason people do is because the game mechanics encourage it. This change provides an incentive for players to behave much more akin to typical characters in zombie films: carrying a couple favored weapons, and enough ammo to keep them supplied.<br />
<br />
Too long/complicated: This idea consists of minor changes to game variables (encumbrance, damage, search), and adds a straightforward feature which should work consistently with the existing interface and game data structures. It requires tracking one more piece of data per character: which weapon is equipped, and removes one piece of data normally transmitted on each attack: the weapon used. This should not be a prohibitive amount of development work. Balance changes are necessary to coincide with changes to AP costs for using weapons to minimize the secondary impact on gameplay.<br />
<br />
Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit.<br />
<br />
'''Areas for input:'''<br />
<br />
How are the numbers? Are they reasonable to maintain balance while accomplishing the goal of this suggestion?<br />
<br />
====Discussion (No More Walking Armories)====<br />
#Pistols are usually no bigger than two clips. Having 10% pistols and 1% clips is completely unjustified.<br />
#Shotguns are nowhere near the size or unwieldiness of generators (18% vs 20%).<br />
Not just that, but raising the encumbrance of weapons doesn't really contribute to reducing the number of weapons and increasing the amount of ammunition carried. Changing the search percentages wouldn't affect much either. Just plain introducing the equipped-weapon gameplay would do it. It's simple; reloading costs 1 or 2 AP, changing a weapon would cost 2. Ammunition is lighter than weapons. For pistols this means you're paying 1 AP less per 6 bullets, and carrying double the amount of damage if you use clips over loaded pistols. For shotguns it means you're paying just as much, but still carrying one half more ammo by carrying shells instead of shotguns. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 23:28, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I don't believe the game's encumbrance values are based on real-world sizes or weights, but rather are a general reflection of carrying ability for the sake of game balance. They're arbitrary. No one can carry 5 portable generators at once, and being limited to carrying only 50 shotgun shells, when they're typically sold in small boxes of 24 to 48, reveals this. A Ruger Security Six revolver as listed on the [[firearms]] page weighs about 1 kilo; carrying 25 of them at 4% enc per, would mean 55 pounds of firearms. The point isn't to be completely accurate with size or weight, but present a tradeoff in carrying many vs. few. With 1 pistol (12%) and 8 clips (1%), for a total of 20% the user still comes ahead of carrying 8 current pistols (32%). While a shotgun does not weigh as much as a portable generator, carrying 16 of them (at 6%) is just as unreasonable. <br>The search values I adjust because finding new firearms becomes less important. This isn't critical to the suggestion however, especially if the part where I recommend that users be able to discard guns they find but keep the ammo in them. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 23:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The exact nature of encumbrance is pretty much irrelevant, as, like I said, changing the encumbrance values doesn't really contribute towards the goal of this suggestion. It just adds one more thing for people to find objectionable. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 09:59, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::If currently people are carrying 16 weapons, and suddenly they can be just as effective with 3, they now have much more space for first aid kits, ammo, syringes, generators, etc. It's also about balance. While there is extra space, increasing weapon encumbrance means it isn't so survivor-favored in that aspect. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 10:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::That reasoning would make more sense if you weren't halving the weight of ammunition. You still have to keep the values somewhat sensible when compared to others. 10% pistols and 18% shotguns are just too inconsistent. Something like 6/8% pistols and 12% shotguns would be better. Or you could bump up the encumbrance of '''everything else''' (which ''would'' make more sense, but would simply get spammed). --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:24, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Is it necessary for game-balance that survivors be limited to carrying a certain quantity of ammunition? To my mind, the limiting factor is search rates, more than carrying capacity. I halved the encumbrance of ammo to balance increasing the values for firearms, along with the fact that the new system encourages keeping plenty of loose ammo, rather than just that which fits in numerous weapons. As for game-realism, shotguns are large and unwieldy, it's implausible to carry more than two. Encumbrance can represent both weight and bulk. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this idea, both because it makes sense and it's better as flavour, but I don't think it will last two seconds in a vote..not that that's any reason not to suggest it, but all the trenchies will go "OMG ONLY 1 WEAPON + MORE RELOADS NOW I CAN ONLY KILL FOUR ZOMBIES A DAY KILL KILL KILL" <br>But I like it.. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 01:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thanks! :) Actually, I really am trying to keep the balance the about the same so that for purposes of killing speed, it's roughly neutral. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:07, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
All these fucking words to just hide the fact you want to bump up the shotgun's damage. Go to hell. Go back and play Resident Evil some more if you get hard-ons from selecting and equipping weapons. You miss the point that this is a damn text game that only gives you 50 AP a day. You can't unload weapons when you find them and you are just as likely to find a pistol with 3 bullets in it as a full clip, but thanks to this GENIUS suggestion even if you aren't a trenchy you will still get your AP raped by swapping weapons. I like to think that survivors are smart enough not to carry their weapons in a back pack but to have them hidden on their body for easy access. I fucking hate gun suggestions. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 02:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Hi DCC. As I pointed out, in front-loaded damage the shotgun sees an increase, but over time it has reduced damage/AP compared to currently. If you compare the current system with someone carrying 10 loaded shotguns and enough ammo to reload & fire again for their 50AP, the new system represents an 11% decrease in average damage done. As I clearly stated, this isn't about altering game balance or enhancing/damaging the effectiveness of any weapon. As for searching, I provided a suggestion that ammo found in other weapons could be unloaded if the user already has a weapon. Also, I don't think being abusive is very consistent with rational discussion of people's ideas. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:39, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::The game is not played in long term, at least for survivors it shouldn't be. They're more than mobile enough that they can pop in, do tons of damage, run out, and come back a few days later fully stocked and do the same thing. It's low risk and exactly why boosting short term gains for survivors anymore would be ridiculously overpowered.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::This doesn't create a boost for survivors. Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png the graph] I created. The intent is to create a change in behavior, without significantly affecting balance; which is why I'm happy to discuss the numbers used. The pistol remains almost exactly the same; the shotgun does very slightly more damage in the first two turns, quickly falls behind the damage put out by multiple preloaded existing shotguns. This is shifting the pre-combat AP investment to carry around all those loaded weapons, into combat itself, making it viable to have one weapon of each kind and reload during combat. This is more consistent with the game world and genre: frantically loading your weapon as the undead shamble towards you, than carrying 16 loaded weapons effortlessly. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::I wasn't critiquing your suggestion. Now I am. To keep it simple I'm just gonna say this, you can't half ammo encumbrance it would have to much of an effect on the time survivors have that they can spend ''without'' restocking. That amount of time is a significant limiter on their ability to use/abuse their AP efficiency. You're basically doubling their Ammo carrying capacity and attempting to claim it's balanced by slightly reducing their attack efficiency(which is still being left close to 8 damage per AP). Yes, it makes individuals very very slightly less effective, it will also make groups of survivors insanely more effective and it will let those individuals spend ''more'' time without a break. That ''is'' a significant boost. Now I don't actually have too much of a problem with it assuming Kevan ''finally'' allows some specific zombie boost in response, and by that I mean finally letting them do a significant amount of damage per AP and letting them get through barricades with something closer to twice as much AP as they take to build instead of 4-5x. I don't think that will happen though.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:17, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Thanks Karek, this is an interesting point. Assuming a player wants to maximize their combat potential, and disregarding all other concerns (assume they're backed up by other players who will heal/rebuild etc.), a player might carry 16 shotguns (@6%) & 2 shells (@2%). That's an average of ((32+2)*10*0.65)=221 damage in 36AP, then they're empty. 6.14damage/AP. That's not including the significant AP investment to find and load all those guns. Under the proposed system, player has 1 shotgun @18%, and 82 shells @1%. They get 2AP of attacks, then thereafter it's 1attack/2AP (load & shoot). Over 166AP, they do an average of ((2+82)*12*0.65)=655.2 damage, or 3.94 damage/AP. They would have invested more AP in advance to gather all those shells.<br><br />
:::::I understand what you're saying. The existing system allows a quick burst of high damage, then the survivor has to go replenish. The new system would allow large restocking in a "safe" are, then being able to do damage for an additional 4.6x AP; however, both the average damage is reduced, as well as being spread out over more AP. <br><br />
:::::Say we go with 1 shotgun @18%, but 41 shells @2%. ((2+41)*12*0.65)=335.4 in 84AP, or 3.99damage/AP. Roughly the same damage output, just half the cycle time between attacking & replenishing; as well as less AP invested up front. So the question is: is the length of the attack/scavenge cycle significant to game balance? Do zombies depend on survivors running out, even if they're doing 2/3rd the average damage per AP? --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::::That's not necessarily true either, with three, or even four, survivors striking together they can completely ignore the reduced efficiency. They would actually clear things faster and more efficiently then than they could now doing the same thing. Like I mentioned above, the average damage in the long term with shotguns is irrelevant because most of that cost occurs well outside of danger while most of the reward occurs when you want/need it to, all that would happen is who's holding the shotguns would change, that's actually what I like about an equipment based system. Lose everything else, keep that, the rest is irrelevant, likely impossible to balance, and seems generally based on the assumption that all Survivors are idiots; they aren't, they just don't have any real reason to work together. There's a good core idea here but the implementation needs work.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think i like the start of this. Right now i can't focus to tell if all the numbers are good with me over a long base of time. but, first impression is i like this... i just don't know exactly how this would affect things until i'm actually using it. Also, i disagree with DCC... chill out, man. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This sounds great but really this is more of an AP kill. Consider that the majority of us survivors depend on being a walking arsenal, making us pay 2AP to get a loaded pistol out can highly unbalance the basics for siege survival. I say you drop it down to 1AP or just drop it entirely and make this a weapon pump. This has potential and I love the stats given, but you just gotta fine tone it. Try getting together a study group, devise a neat little generator amongst yourselves, provide a report in place of the hypothesis that we do have now and then try getting this into voting. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:There AP cost is there to provide the incentive to reload the weapon you're using, rather than switch out to one loaded weapon after another. For the pistol, it makes it more advantageous, for the shotgun, it makes it equal with carrying other shotguns, but the drop in encumbrance acts as a bonus. The increase in damage for both pistol and shotgun help balance against the increased AP costs so damage/AP is roughly the same. With pistols, you currently do 6 attacks in 6 turns, then switch. With the new system, you'll do 6 attacks in 6 turns, 1 turn to reload, then go again. So you need 1 pistol, and just clips. 6 damage/attack instead of 5 makes them close in damage output. Likewise with the shotgun, with the current system you fire 1 shot per AP for as long as you have shotguns. With my proposal, you still get two shots for two AP with your pre-loaded gun, then you get 1 shot every 2 AP: reload 1 shell, fire, etc. In the first few turns you'll have done more damage than the existing system, but after a few turns, it does a little less on average. Oh, and remember: '''with the existing system, you still need to spend the AP to load your weapons. You just do it before combat, not during.''' Like I said, this brings it more in genre: desperately reloading as the zombies advance on you, instead of carrying a dozen loaded shotguns on your back. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 05:32, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''Re: weapon balance: Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png this graph].''' This compares current with proposed weapon damage. I'm somewhat inclined to increase the shotgun to 13 or 14, but the relative advantage between the old and new shotgun depends on how many loaded shotguns the player would have under the old system. I assumed 8 for this graph. If it's less, the difference is much narrower; it's unlikely a player would have many more. Note that the player has a damage advantage with the old shotgun ''until they run out''; but they had to spend the same AP in advance to load those 8 shotguns. The new shotgun merely incorporates that loading AP into combat. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 06:16, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''GRRRRRRRRRRH!!!''' KISS me, please. i.e., Keep. It. Simple. Stupid. This may be a fantastic idea, but I can't be arsed atm to read that wall of text. Please learn how to be more concise. Seriously. Thank you. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:22, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What I did read... led me here... This is unnecessary. Because carrying lots of loaded firearms is actually a very poor use of AP and encumbrance. The most Ap-encumbrance efficient weapon in the game is the pistol, by far. And the best way to use pistols is to have 2-3 of them and tonnes of ammo. Shotguns are spiffy weapons, but their ap-encumbrance efficiency is atrocious: if wind up with a few, use 'em... but once its empty? Drop it, don't reload it, that's a giant waste of AP... So, if people wanna waste their AP and encumbrance on carrying and reloading lots of firearms -- the zombies say go right ahead and be horribly inefficient! <br />
:That being said... What ticks me is that I never find pistol ammo in Malls. It's always shotguns. Graaaaagh! Which means... I don't think we need a big game mechanic overhaul, so much as search rates should be tweaked... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::More thoughts... If people wanna carry lots of guns, more power to them. Because that helps the zombies... Because zombies can't be killed. And survivors should be focusing on barricading and reviving and healing first -- and when they are not... then the zombies win! By default. <br />
::Also, "walking armouries" are ''totally'' in genre. You always have the Armah Manz with billions of b!g bang-bangz... Always. And usually, these are the idiots who end up getting killed... And the consumer type who focuses on helping others and getting the job done most effectively lives and helps more people... As in the genre, as in UD... Now, I kind of would like to see trenchcoating get a bit of a nerf... however, i am always very cautious about "legislating playing styles"... And that is what this suggestion does. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:37, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: I'm sorry you found the idea too long. However, I wanted to be specific in the reason for each change, and the expected effect. In order to make the change relatively balance-neutral while encouraging a behavioral change, adjusting numbers in several places is necessary. You said that carrying shotguns and reloading would be inefficient: that's part of what the change is attempting to address. People carry multiple weapons because they can front-load their AP to increase damage in a short time. This idea diminishes that effect while allowing them to output roughly the same damage/AP invested. <br />
::: I disagree that "walking armories" are in-genre. The "Army Mans" carry an assault rifle, a couple grenades, and maybe a sidearm. The only reason players will carry 16 loaded weapons around is because ''the current game mechanics encourage this behavior''; it's not something you'd typically see in a film. They can stock up on weapons and ammo in advance, then unleash that stored AP in the form of damage. What is more consistent with the genre and a plausible game-world, is carrying a couple reliable weapons, and reloading them as needed. This change isn't legislating playing styles: combat-oriented players will still be able to arm up and go to war. They'll just do it with a couple weapons and plenty of ammo, rather than 200 pounds of firearms on their back. Their combat effectiveness versus the zombies will be largely unchanged. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:55, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Instead of trying to play with the big boys in the flame department, I suggest picking up some reading comprehension skills. I addressed your "refutations" in my original post. First of all, the game does not actually encourage carrying 16 loaded weapons; in so far as you are able to do so, you're most assuredly ''not'' contributing to the pro-survivor cause. That you fail to understand ''why'' isn't my problem: do your homework. Secondly, dudes armed to the teeth shooting the shit out every zombie they see (and usually dying grisly deaths themselves because of their stupidity) are very common in both the movies and, yeah, even the video games. Pay attention next time, okay? And go re-read karek and DCC's comments and try to understand the words of your intellectual superiors. THEN get back to us. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:12, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm afraid that you really haven't supported your objections, despite claiming you have. Whether choosing combat-oriented activities in-game helps or hinders the survivor cause is ''irrelevant'': you mentioned that we shouldn't be dictating player style. This suggestion as I've stated is largely balance-neutral. What is does, is discourages exactly what I describe: the "walking armory" effect, and encourages carrying only needed weapons with sufficient ammunition. This doesn't prevent or penalize anyone from walking in with guns blaring, it just means they don't look like [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|this guy]] while doing it. More like [http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1003/988120768_87c5ce1538.jpg this]. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::''Balance neutral'' ? What's this shit? How can something be "neutral" -balance or otherwise- when it tries to change the way people play? '''Don't tell people how to play their characters.''' It's just that simple. Who cares if someone fills all of their inventory with weapons or with GPS units? So what if some trenchies want to carry 100 shotguns? I can tell you haven't been playing this game long. More likely you don't even play a zombie. Which makes your bitching about weapons even weirder. Your suggestion doesn't solve a problem. Your suggestion does not make gameplay more interesting. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::: Could you be specific about how you feel it's unbalanced? And the suggestion is not telling people how to play. The intention of [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Gameplay_and_Flavor|that guideline]] for suggestions I believe is that we shouldn't discourage RP or encourage non-RP. People can play their characters how they choose, and fill their inventory with what they want. However, the current game mechanics ''actively encourages players to be walking arsenals'' if they want to maximize their combat effectiveness. The problem the suggestion solves is that carrying a huge stack of weapons is anti-RP, contrary to the genre and game-fiction. As I've said, it's [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|silly]]. Carrying a shotgun, revolver, and melee weapon seems much more plausible, and something you'd see in a zombie movie, don't you think? This lets someone who does that, be viable in combat. Additionally, I have attempted to balance this so it's neutral towards zombies, not shifting the advantage. Again, I invite you to show me how it is not. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 00:35, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::: You say you don't want to legislate how people play the game one moment, then the next you say that's ''exactly'' what you want to do! Make up your mind. Now... Zombies don't care if they get shot. If you actually ''played'' a zombie full-time, you'd understand this. Shot me all you bloody well want, I'll dirt nap and stand up again with, at worst, 44 AP and be ready to go. Therefore, shooting zombies is ''completely'' pointless except when you need to clear a building. To that end, you carry some guns. But ''smart'' survivors don't carry lots of guns: they carry maybe 2-4 pistol and 2-4 shotguns, tops. Why? Well... because the most powerful pro-survivor thing in the whole game is the revive-needle. Next come barricading and FAKing. Smart survivors know this, thus they carry several needles (sometimes a hell of a lot), a toolbox and a big whack o' FAKs. ''These'' are the survivors who benefit the "pro-survivor" cause. By contrast, anyone who just carries a whole bunch of guns is ''not'' really benefiting the survivor cause all that much, they are just parasiting off others' barricades, revives and FAKs. Nor are they ''really'' hurting zombies, because zombies don't care if they die. Capiche? You say I haven't backed up my arguments, but I ''have''. I actually made an argument -- it's just that you either don't understand, or you're wilfully ignoring the argument. Meanwhile, you've just provided statistics and a flawed idea, which you haven't put in any kind of rational or argumentative or bona-fide in-game context... Meanwhile, I don't care if someone wants to carry 16 shotguns -- as a survivor ''or'' a zombie. As a survivor, I think that guy is a parasitic waste of space and I will make fun of him and belittle him for being a trenchcoating wanker -- but he's not really ''hurting'' me. And, as your picture of Ash demonstrates, all said and done, he is actually RPing ''in-genre''. And as a zombie I outright ''laugh'' at his stupidity and I smash his barricades and eat bra!nz with a hearty GRAAAAGH!!... However, I do not wish to legislate how he plays the game in such a heavy-handed way... Which is ''exactly'' what your suggestion intends to do -- by your own fucking admission! This is not a good idea, and by clinging to it and not accepting ''constructive'' and ''reasonable'' criticism, you're proving yourself to be fucking git, a disruptive and non-contributive member of the community. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:12, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hmm. When I said that, you criticized me for having a superficial understanding of the game. The shoe's on the other foot now, eh? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:19, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hi WanYao. How many shotguns is Ash carrying? One. How many firearms will a typical person in a zombie film carry? One, or one rifle/shotgun and one sidearm. In UrbanDead as it stands, how many firearms will a person carry if they want to ''maximize their combat potential''? '''16'''. The game mechanics are already telling them "how to play", it's saying that if you want to devote yourself to dealing damage, you carry a silly and fiction-breaking number of weapons.<br />
:::::::::I'm afraid your comments about what is actually optimal strategy are irrelevant and a red herring. This suggestion makes no change in what players ''should'' do in order to be maximally effective. It simply alters the game mechanics so that the optimal number of weapons to carry is one of each, and not 16. This is what is more in keeping with the genre, more plausible in the game fiction. There's no advocated or encouraged change in "player behavior": a combat-oriented player will choose ammo over other objects, while others will stock sufficient ammo and keep their FAKs and toolkits etc. You've already said that with the status-quo, even ''good'' players will have 4-8 weapons. Again, this is silliness that is a result solely of the game mechanics, not because they believe their fictional roleplaying character would actually be that kind of badass. The game dictates how many weapons they should carry. I'm for reducing that number, without significantly affecting game balance itself.<br />
:::::::::Now if you want to make the case that 1% encumbrance ammo too greatly reduces the tradeoff between being combat-oriented or rebuild/heal oriented, I'm happy to hear it. Karek's provided his support for a similar argument above. And as usual, your personal attacks are completely off-base. I've been giving all reasoned criticism due weight. I get that some people ''don't like'' the idea, based on personal biases, but so far, I've only seen one specific argument for what might be wrong. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:44, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::This wall of text is getting pathetic... Anyhoo, there is another principle that no one has mentioned yet, but it bears emphasis: greater realism =/= better. Anyway, I'm done with this, it's arguing in circles now. Good luck. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:45, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::That's just your luck. I find TONS of clips and pistols with 4+ shots. Last time I loaded up, such stuff was easily 75% of what I found in the gun store. In fact, I would have stopped searching, but it took me a long time to find a shotgun shell to top up the half-loaded shotgun I had. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 16:40, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I fucking hate you. This comment in particular - ''"Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit."''<br />
<br />
Put it up for voting, right fucking now. Watch me dupe it on basis of weapons damage buff, selected weaponry and ammunition encumbrance buff. Just because your 'suggestion' contains many shit suggestions does not mean I cannot find those many mindless trenchie buffs and rightfully kill it, it means you are fucking deluded for thinking I can't and typing such a moronic suggestion.<br />
<br />
Shit, I wish karma was real, then some really bad things would happen to you, I'd find out about them and chortle my arse off. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:45, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Get arsed, yourself, Iscariot. Assuming trolls have arses, that is. Do they? Or does ''all'' your shit come out of your mouth?<br />
:Meanwhile, karek, swiers and DCC have pretty much show this suggestion for the BAD IDEA it is... So let's move on, kay, class? Next lesson please... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:44, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissocial_personality_disorder Please seek help.] --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Alrighty then... See, there is a time and place for being an asshole. I felt the situation was not appropriate, thus my comments to Iscariot. I take them all back now: go nuts, Izzy. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:56, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::What makes you believe it's ever acceptable or appropriate to behave abusively towards people? This sort of behavior certainly isn't conducive to rational discussion and addressing the merits or problems in a suggestion. It simply brings the quality of the wiki down, and reflects poorly on the community. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:02, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Other than Iscariot, no one is trolling you. And, in context -- while I don't really think his comments are particularly helpful -- you've brought it on yourself. In any event, if you want a love-in, where everyone is nice to each other and they let you cry on their should if someone was mean to you, please go [http://www.oprah.com/index here]. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm not trolling at all, trolling implies I'm after a certain response from him. I don't. It would be nice if he'd listened to all the nice people explaining it to him, but he didn't. The comment about duping is pure arrogance on his part, and I don't take kindly to it. The dupe system stops moronic suggestions entering PR because everyone reasonable gets bored of killing it. |I notice he hasn't taken me up on my challenge to see if I could dupe it....<br />
<br />
:::::Also Zhani, feel free to go and whine on any sysop talk page you like. The one you're after is Vandal Banning. Good luck with that, there is no civility policy on this wiki and until we remove to moronic-trenchie-weapons-buff gene from the general population, there never will be. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
...Well isn't that one long suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:...Well isn't that one long discussion. -- [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::... Speaking of things long... ''::looks down::'' Oh, is that a banana in my pocket, or am I just happy to see a zombie in my safehouse? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:07, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Thats a whole lot of SPAM you typed up there... what's wrong with just making weapons assignable? Allow everyone to carry a weapon in each hand and have it cost 1AP per hand to change (shotguns requiring a free hand or having a -60% to hit!) reload or re-arm then cost the same and it becomes a matter of choice which style you prefer. Of course that makes maxed out survivors a lot <br />
less like the combat monsters they currently are but thats probably not a real problem! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 12:38, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Body Bonfires===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:48, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Perma-death option.<br />
|suggest_scope=Characters in citys with perma-death alternatives.<br />
|suggest_description=I've got a zombie character currently running around Monroeville looking for the precious few survivors there are in order to eat them.<br />
<br />
One of Monroeville's biggest problems, I think, is that there was no way for low-level survivors from killing zombies permanently. Zombies could take out survivors, no problem, but unless you had Headshot, you couldn't take down a zombie.<br />
<br />
I know that's in-genre, given that they're the freaking undead and all, but it sucks game-wise.<br />
<br />
Thus, I came up with 'Body Bonfires', after watching the movie ''Night of the Living Dead''.<br />
<br />
Should this get implemented, survivors can now douse corpses in gasoline (from fuel cans) and set them alight with matches (find stats TBC), lighters (find stats TBC) or even a flare gun, if desperate. A burning corpse will degrade into a 'charred skeleton', after which time the character would be effectively 'perma-dead'.<br />
<br />
Note that this is meant to ''replace'' Headshot as the survivor perma-death, not co-incide with it.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Body Bonfires)====<br />
No. Why? Monroeville is quarantined and dead. Adding more items that make things even more difficult to find and implement will not suddenly change the dynamics of the city, nor will it make monroeville more fair. the point, i daresay, of that city is to more realistically show a zombie infestation, and the only way to do that is by making the limited amount of zombies unlimited, with only a small amount of very good zombie killers who can do anything about it, which still amounts to not much. its fine, and the city is pointless, and just leave it. and don't add matches and lighters to do what flare guns already do. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:33, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I think you misread my suggestion. For one, this is NOT for Monroeville. Monroeville is dead (or will be soon), this is for any new cities that will also have perma-death mechanics, should one ever be introduced. For another, you can only burn a zombie once they're on the ground having been 'temp-killed' (HP to 0). --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 09:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I didn't misread crap. Nothing in your post makes reference to any mythical city that is currently not existant. You only mention monroeville, and imply that is what your suggestion is about. And after reading it again, i've decided this is a) a dupe; b) spamtastic, given the non-existant nature of your supposed city; and c) incomplete, given that you don't actually talk about where it is implemented, or if its a skill, or how its done in the user interface. just allow it to die, and then we'll burn the suggestions corpse out of our memories. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 20:44, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Completely pointless because such a hypothetical perma-death city does not exist. You can't get more spamtastic than suggesting a mechanic for something that doesn't even exist. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:56, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Reminds me of both [[Suggestion:20070816 Burning Bodies]] and another suggestion which I can't quite find at the moment. It is entirely possible that this may be substantially a dupe. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:50, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I found [[Suggestions/RejectedFebruary2007#Flare Gun / Fuel Attack|Flare Gun / Fuel Attack]] interesting reading, to say the least. How many [[User:MrAushvitz|MrAushvitz]] suggestions have been implemented, now? Surely the apocalypse is extremely nigh... {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:57, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Sorry, no, perma-death would not go over in this game. It's simply not fun for the players, and gives a person a reason to give up playing. Favors survivors overwhelmingly, and doesn't really improve the game. I hate to be one of those types shooting down ideas, but this doesn't work. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:36, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A) You only mentioned Monroeville, the dead city. B) MV has one purpose now, and one purpose only: ZKing. [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 02:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Make graffiti readable in dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Logic Flaw Fix<br />
|suggest_scope=Graffiti in dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Graffiti disappears when the lights go out in dark buildings. Since it is unreasonable to assume that absolutely no light can get in any parts of dark buildings, why wouldn’t the graffiti just be sprayed in the areas that the little light can get in? Such places would be the front of cinemas (where the snack bar is, as there are usually windows out front), near the windows of the banks, and near the windows of standard buildings.<br />
<br />
I have never seen any buildings like these completely lacking windows in all areas, and windows would have to exist for Free Running to be possible, so even if the skylights haven’t been maintained, there’s no reason people wouldn’t be spraying the signs near the window areas where it’d be visible, even if the rest of the building is dark.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Make graffiti readable in dark buildings)====<br />
<br />
It's dark. You can't see dead bodies. Combat abilities are nerfed for everyone. You can't repair a building in the dark. Barricading and reviving are also disadvangtaged. So there's no logic flaw here, not at all. It's bloody ''dark''!!--[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:The logic is fine as is - after years of the outbreak, the walls will be pocked, peeling and covered in grime and blood, not to mention layers of graffiti in different colours. You'd need fairly good light to make out the latest message.<br />
:I was thinking of suggesting an item, book of matches, the sole purpose of which would be to let the user (only) read graffiti in the dark. But I couldn't be arsed looking for dupes etc. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 10:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::But..but.. what about all those blank rectangles I sprayed onto the walls to keep them clean and in one colour! In all seriousness, no to this suggestion. As Garum says, those walls are a mess, no matter how many blank rectangles you spray. :P - [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:03, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::We don't need a silly, pointless item like matches to spam our searches. Meh. It's dark. Deal with it. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:26, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
WE DEMAND BRAILLE GRAFFITI! Fuck you, cripple haters. I need to be able to read ''I like to poop'' no matter how much light is in the building. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 00:31, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===picking some one up===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 19:44, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=helping others.<br />
|suggest_scope=humans.<br />
|suggest_description=Almost all of us can say that we have been killed while sleeping, or have been a zombie and killed all the humans becuase most of them were sleeping. So why not allow people to carry some one out of danger? Lets say that you and some of your buddys are fleeing a horde, and one of them is out of AP, so why not pick him/her up? It would cost one AP to pick the player up, and 2 AP to move around, and you would not be able to free run {you are carrying another person). You also cant attack since, it would be to diffuclt.<br />
<br />
You would rengenrate AP as you would normally would, and can be put down for one AP. If the person carrying you is killed, you fall down and be as vunerable as you would be normally. Now comes the PKer question. Being able to pick some one up and carry them of to some were else to kill them would become a PKers best tool. So I sujest there should be a check box in the settings, which you can check yes or no to being picked up. If you try to pick some one up how has checked the box no, this happens.<br />
<br />
''you try to pick the person up, but they push you away: Italic text'' <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Picking some one up)====<br />
Pied Piper skills are a great no no. Specifically because of the griefing possibilities. Even with the block you suggested, I don't think it would be acceptable. A better way of determining who can pick you up would be to check for mutual contacts, and not ignored. Not that I think this would pass even with that, because I'm pretty sure this is a dupe. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:54, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Pied Piper? Whats that?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:15, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A pied piper skill is one that involves one player moving another (like the pied piper of hamelin and rats/children) Within game the closest we have is [[Feeding Drag]] which has on it very specific limiting factors. This is too prone to abuse. New players especially may not know its a feature, and one griefer could pick up a huge number of people and carry them directly outside. Where they would get et. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Just as Ross said, [[Frequently_Suggested#Pied_Piper_Skills|here]] is a link to it on the frequently suggested page. I suggest reading that page, will give you an idea of suggestions to avoid. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 20:31, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nequa please read Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested pages. They are linked to above, at the top of this page. Zangz. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:28, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I see what you mean, but I still think that the check box would stop that. And if you are tricked, well thats just bad luck.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:49, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Only way this would be prevented is if everyone had it set to "Do not allow me to be dragged away", and only switched back when they knew a rescue was on the way. It is simply to abusable in it's current form. And try telling the poor newbies, who weren't aware of the checkbox, that it was just bad luck and that they have to live with it after being dragged away from their VSB safehouse into an area full of EHB cades. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 21:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nothings perfect, and anyway you could kill somebody quickly and no one could stop you.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:17, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:surely the default should be ''dont allow carrying''. Stop a lot of griefing there? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sure, you could have that checkbox turned off as a default. But then, how would people who have this skill know who they could pick up, and who they could not?<br>Moving other players is a bad idea to begin with, play wise, so picking at th details is turd polishing at best. If you want to "rescue" people from danger , give them fist aid, try to fix the barricades, and recruit others to help them survive until they log back in, but don't presume to play the game for them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:30, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait, what? You think this is a skill? A skill you need to get by having enough XP? No, no, no, you dont need to purchase it. Also your other point about knowing if the person has the thing checked or not is a good point. You should probally put it on your describtion if you have it on or not, like the hydra defence.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:47, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Right. Other issues. If I pick up a level 1 survivor, this seems to allow me to carry him inside, and then free run to another building whilst carrying him. Regardless of his skills. Besides Im pretty sure its also a partial dup of firemans carry. Anyone got the link. I just feel its unworkable. sorry. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
[[PR_Skill_New:_Survivor:_Civilian#Fireman.27s_Carry_.28Bring_12HP_Survivor_Indoors.29|Fireman's Carry]], which is in Reviewed. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 22:55, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
LOL, that guy pretty much says the same thing I do. It appears great minds think alike. Now do I seem like a idiot?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:05, 2 September 2008 (BST<br />
:More so, now that you've said that. quit being unwilling to learn. everyones been very nice. now go actually FREAKING READ THE DO AND DO NOTS!<br />
:No one is pointing out the worst part of this. What if i create fifteen drones, and use them to carry a full army of survivors into zombie territory. you don't put it plainly, but you seem to infer that you can only be carried while sleeping (or at least, i'm hoping, because otherwise those zergs could carry armies of full ap'd characters) but either way, its a free trip for my sleeping characters, who spent their AP stocking on ammo. my zergs carry them in, dump them off in a zerg-repaired building, and let them sleep. now i have an army, 2 for one. thats what makes this bad. adding a penalty of 2 for one doesn't fix that.<br />
:and the griefing is absolutly grieftastic. what if i rescue someone with low HP out of a mall into a quiet factory where i show him my gun?... i mean... pk him. errm... or how about if i spend a whole 50 ap 'rescuing' any of the barricaders in a seige with a death culter. the check box doesn't solve this, because the only time that someone would want to be rescued is the same time where its worth abusing the feature. it fails because it will never work. if you can't free run with it, (can you enter/exit buildings?) then its worthless for doing anything but costing the zombie horde half the amount of AP to keep up with you.<br />
:This was long... sorry. but this suggestion is silly silly silly. NOW READ THE FAQ's and DO AND DO NOTS! Please. and don't read them and then try to come up with a better way to do what it tells you not to do... just DON'T suggest those things. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:15, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also, wan yao... i think one of my alts was just combat revived by you. Ha. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:22, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Combat Reviving FTW!!! ;P .... Up Roftwoodish or something, right? I vaguely remember CRing some zambah somewhere for some old reason or another, heheh... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:40, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::As for the suggestion... Yeah... you seem like an idiot at this moment, Nequa. This is a broken and unworkable idea. People are trying to explain that to you. But you're not listening, and you can't even be bothered to read the help pages for Suggestion development -- which are clearly linked to -- and which people have been providing you with links to, above... Smarten the fuck up, please, and quit wasting our time. Seriously. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:44, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I distinctly remember telling you to stop suggesting... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:49, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Feeding Drag in Large Buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:necrodeus/sig}} 02:46, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=improvement<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with feeding drag in large buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Hello team.<br />
<br />
The feeding drag skill allows zombies to drag survivors of less than 12HP outside through an ''open door'' at the cost of 1AP. Therefore, if a zombie enters a large building through an open door, then makes its way through the building unimpeded (ie, through more open doors or just empty space), beats a survivor down to 12HP or below, there should exist the option to feeding drag said survivor through the building.<br />
<br />
It makes sense, as you are inside a building and simply dragging the unfortunate survivor somewhere else in the building, presumably towards the horde that generally congregates in the opened block.<br />
<br />
Now I know that this is the same as suggesting that I could feeding drag a wounded survivor through open streets, but I do think that as it is limited to the insides of large buildings it is hardly useful as a griefing tool, neither would it be game breaking, and it fits in with the idea behind the feeding drag as well - if a zombie feels the need to drag someone outside, why should the fact that it's slightly longer distance than normal dissuade him?<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Feeding Drag in Large Buildings)====<br />
Kind of like a zombie equivalent for the fort body dump? I like it. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 04:02, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Seems out of genre, normally a zombie will feed for itself with absolutely NO consideration for a horde. Though this skill is a good idea, it would be a bit pointless because if you have a survivor at 12 HP and most of the time the only large building you are in would be a mall, it would mean you drag someone near dead to a horde, either way, the survivor was already HIGHLY LIKELY to die unless terribly low on AP this skill is just useless. I say just stick with infectious bite. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:No. Feeding Drag and zambahz helping babahz is ''totally'' part of the genre -- as in, it's ''in the game'' ... So it's part of the genre. Zombies in Urban Dead have intelligence, more like in Return of the Living Dead than in Romero's movies. Regarding the suggestion, I think this is a great idea! But it should cost at least 2 AP to so, perhaps more. You usually don't have to drag as far, or through as complicated a series of buildings as in a fort, so I'm not sure if the same AP costs is in order... but perhaps... Still, in siege situations where this matters, we tend to just tend to kill rather than worry about dragging... However, even then, this ability would be FAR from "useless". --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:08, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ok.. I'm out of it.. I understood this as the equivalent of dragging a body outside the Forts. Which would mean you click the ability and you drag your target outside -- and you go with him, just like you would a normal feeding drag. No "half drags" to another corner of the mall -- it's all or nothing, all the way outside, or not at all. And that would cost 2 AP. And of course you'd still have to spend AP getting back inside and to the action, if that's your desire. There are some tricks to overcome with this... but it's a cool idea, nonetheless. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:37, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Yeah, I like it as well. Some people might call it greifing though [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 04:21, 31 August 2008 (BST).<br />
<br />
I was 50/50 between making it just like a body dump costing 2AP and making it like it is now, but certainly a feeding drag all the way outside for 2AP - like the survivor body dump - is just as keeping in genre and could be considered less of a potential griefing tool.<br />
<br />
What if it just acted the same as feeding drag, so I end up outside. It costs 2AP, and then if I want to get back inside it just costs me the same as normal movement rates - so at least 1AP to just re-enter the building, and 2 AP to get back to where I was originally? It's hardly a griefing tool, you're only ever going to end up outside the building you were in, and at most 1 block away from where you were {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 12:38, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:That's exactly what I just said, man... The only issue could be as follows: you're in mall, all corners are heavily barricaded except one, which is wide open... you're in another (non-open) corner killing some folk, and you want to use this ability. Now, do you drag the victim to the outside of your ''current'' corner, or do you end up moving to the open corner? What if there is more than one open corner? Or, if you drag to the outside of your current corner, then how do you justify bypassing barricades -- because even just a closed door negates feeding drag... See the problems? This is a very spiffy idea IMO, but these things need to be worked out... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:00, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::I was agreeing with you! I was thinking that the feeding drag took them out of the open corner, rather than through the barricades. As for what would happen if more than one door was open, I would say go to the nearest one, except that in a four block square, every sqaure is as near as any of the others...I couldn't see it making too much of a difference which one you drag someone out of, so I would make it random; the zombie just heads towards the light, any light. That way, as long as there is a door open when the button is pressed, the feeding drag will be successful, rather than allowing the user a choice. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 17:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Probably won't matter a lot now since this suggestion would likely get implemented (if ever) after Monroeville closes, but in that city there are non-standard large building shapes, like [[Monroeville Mall]]. You can like drag someone across four blocks. :O Also, how would a zombie know which building block is open from where he/she stands? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:22, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Malls, Mansions, Power Stations ... are large buildings which means they are functionally ''one building''. With fours sets of barricades. And four ''zmargahzbargz, GRAAAAGH!'' The zombies knew how to get inside and move around when there was only one entry point, so why couldn't they know how to get back out? And, I mean, like he could just look around... Also, yeah, no-one cares about MV, it's over... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:48, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Well, ''you'' as the player know there's an entrance to the building, at least recently. In contrast, your zombie can only check within the block he's in -- even adjacent ruined blocks [[Pinata|aren't guaranteed]] that there are no cades there. Unless the zombie is actually looking at every block in the building (something which implies free moves), then without metagaming he/she won't really know there is an exit should dragging be done. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::But like Wan said, you're basically inside one large building. If you try and feeding drag inside a regular building, and the doors been closed, or whatever, you get a message and lose an AP, like for any failed attack. It's the same here. And the whole point of feeding drag is that zombies *do* know where the exit is --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. Its not needed. Once zombies get into a large building, they almost always take it down by keeping one corner ruined, or at least unbarricaded. The babah zombies can just come inside to feed, entering by spotting the ruined corner and then gorging themselves. Besides not being needed, its got a lot of potential complications. What if a large building has multiple open sections? Which one does the zombie drag them to? If zombies really wanted to use feeding drag in every section, they could just spend a few AP each to tear down the barricades, even getting a bonus for attacking from the inside in most cases.<br>I think its safe to say, if a zombie tries to drag a survivor across one or more blocks inside a large building, the survivor struggles and breaks free. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:36, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I'm afraid I disagree; you seem to have a fairly convincing argument against feeding drag itself; namely that if your baby zombah is standing outside any old building, he can see it's open and shamble on in. So why do we need feeding drag at all? I've already answered the point about which exit to be used as well. And yes, I could spend a whole load of AP tearing down the barricades to feeding drag a wounded survivor outside, or I could just spend 2AP and drag the human outside the exit that's already open. <br>And surely the point of feeding drag is that the survivor is wounded enough to not be able to stop it happening? And why should a human be able to drag a zombie across several squares of fort without it reviving? In both cases, if the player is online, they are better able to defend against this, with the difference being that all a survivor needs to do to 'break free' is simply walk back inside the building. <br> If I'm way off here, let me know, but it makes sense to me --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Not of base, but my point is, if zombies on a whole really cared about feeding drag, each of the ~20 or so in a large building could kick in 4 AP and blow away any barricades on that building quarter. That's really only enough AP to kill 2-3 survivors- not enough to slow down a siege once zombies are comping on a SECOND building corner. So it seems to me that zombies themselves do not put much importance on whether they can use feeding drag or not, as evidenced by their own actions in raids. Its not needed to make zombies vs large buidings work, nor would it really make it much better.<br>Truth told, feeding drag was originally used mostly to combat the "yo-yo barricade" syndrome by getting a building emptied (and ransacked) faster; now that zombies can block barricade building, its a bit of an atavism. Its main use is as a "visible" version of feeding groan. For a mall, if you want to let zombies know there is an active strike with some visible cue, just killing the generator is often good enough. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:16, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Fait enough for a horde sweeping through a building, but in my experience, I use eeding Drag for two reasons: Firstly, when I break into a building with one or two others, I know there is a chance that it will escalate into a horde swarming in, but more often that not, it won't. But by dragging a human outside, that's one less defender, and a drain on resources, because that person is outside regardless of whether I get headshot and evicted or not. Secondly, the FU tends to use it as a in game piece of flavour as much as a way of feeding the zedlings. So for a horde, I agree, Feeding Drag is unneccessary, and if you've got the resources to tear down the barricades with ease, then I'm all for that too, but for feral zombies, or smaller groups it's a slightly different ball game --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 00:39, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::When playing a feral (and my death cultist, too, actually) I use and think of Feeding Drag the same way necrodeus describes. It helps small numbers of zombies get the ransack faster. Also, if the cades go up, that drag-meat is suddenly isolated. And drag-meat is fantastic feral bait. And, yup, I do it very much for flavour/RP effect as well. Although, it doesn't work thar well for feeding babahz, b/c usually some big zambah comes along and eats them :( ... This is all in very big contrast to striking with the MOB, where we only drag if we are very intent on getting that damn biulding cleared -- because we can always tag-team to finish someone off if we have to. And if we are feeding a babah, we bring the babah inside with us. This suggestion is more for the ferals than for highly organised hordes... <br />
::::And a few other things: killing a gennie is not enough: GKing is too common... And swiers you know how annoying barricades are -- it really is asking a lot for a smaller number of ferals zombies to invest what it takes to open up EHB cades... But all that being said... Perhaps this isn't necessary, not really. And, it might in the end be a zombie buff that is just a tiny, tiny bit too much... Particularly with cade blocking... But... I still like it... ;) --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:36, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Well, I'm going to put it up, and see what the people / merciless flamers have to say.. {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:45, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I'm not gonna flame it; it can;t do enough harm to deserve that. My personal issue is that I'd like (as much as possible) to avoid moving other characters to different blocks (I even proposed [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20070616_Fort_Revision:_dumping_bodies_over_walls|a fort dumping mechanic that avoided this]]), and that its benefit is so small for the coding effort involved. Mall raids are already a smorgashboard for ferals, so I don't see the point of arguing it helps feed them there. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:37, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Private homes===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:18, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=new building.<br />
|suggest_scope=anybody how enters it.<br />
|suggest_description=Why does it appear that there are no private homes in Malton? I know its a city and your more likely to find a privat home in the subburbs, but I do know there are private homes in the city. We dont really need private homes but it would add realism to the game. There could also be another benafit. Since anybody could have lived in that house, from a NRA gun nut, to some tech loving nerd, you could find anything in thear. But there should be list of items you could not find in the house.<br />
<br />
List of items you could NOT find in a house:<br />
<br />
Necrotech syringe<br />
<br />
DNA scanner<br />
<br />
Flak vest (there could be one there, but it seems hard to belive)<br />
<br />
fire ax<br />
---------------<br />
Also here is the describtion you would see if you went in the building.<br />
<br />
-With power: You enter a well lit home, you start to feel like you were before the out break.<br />
<br />
-With no power: You enter a dark house.<br />
<br />
-when ruined: You enter a house and notice how everything is thrown apart, which grimly reminds you of what has happend here. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Private home)====<br />
If I may ask, how long have you been playing the game? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:36, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
To answer your question, about a week, I have been running around rhodenbank. Let me guess? There are private homes and I have just not found them yet?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:39, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There are [[Mansion|mansions]], and various [[Building_Types#Building|buildings]] around the city can be thought of as offices/condominiums, where you can imaging living places in.<br><br />
There are other reasons why private homes aren't found on the map.<br />
*One is that they're too small, same reason why you don't put a single tree on the map (and for those that are large enough, see mansions).<br />
*Another is that with most survivors just looting around the city and zombie hordes chasing after them, most houses are in such a state of ruin that they are essentially unrecognizable, turning residential districts into [[wasteland]].<br />
*Finally, they are quite insignificant in the grand scale of the survivor-zombie conflict that adding them now three years after the game has launched simply doesn't make the game any more enjoyable or fulfilling than it is before, and frankly it'll only be a waste of time and effort to put them in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:51, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then instead of adding homes how about updating the regular buildings to be more like apartments? Because most buildings have a RP (EX:pubs,police stations,forts) thing you can do with it, but the regular office buildings are boring. Maybe they could add my search idea without the need of a new building type?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:19, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Your search idea is horrible. Normal buildings already do not have items; what you're doing here is the opposite in that you can find ''anything'' in them, and just for that it will be spammed. As for your roleplaying bit, that will take a much lower priority than improving UD gameplay, especially when you consider there is a suitable alternative (once again, mansions, and normal buildings aren't too shabby -- just add some decorations) and multiple other possible roleplaying locations. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:30, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There's no private homes because the private homes are usually at the outskirts of a city, and what we have in Malton...Is the big city. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 19:16, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I usually just think of the street blocks as containing such houses. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:52, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Private homes are not really appropriate to the game. They can be assumed to exist on many blocks... because it's generally accepted that the block description refers to the most prominent or most utilised building on the block... <br />
<br />
But... yeah... Nequa... please play the game for a while before posting suggestion ideas. Hang out and read this page for a while. And start playing some zombies, PKers, death cultists, whatever, as well a survivors. And join a good group or three. Barhah.com is a great board, and though it's zombie-centric, everyone is welcome. Beerhah.com is a good place to go for survivor stuff. Anyhoooo... back to suggestions stuff... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:47, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Dump dead bodies from dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Restoring normal ability<br />
|suggest_scope=Dead bodies and dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Under current game mechanics, you can’t dump dead bodies from dark buildings. How does this make any sense? You can get in and out of the building, even through Free Running, yet somehow you can no longer remove dead bodies? Or do the exits magically close somehow when you try to remove someone?<br />
<br />
Currently, you can see anyone hiding in the shadows of very dark buildings, but you can’t see/dump dead bodies. Even if you just killed the thing, you somehow can’t find its body, even though you’d be tripping all over it!? Once again, it doesn’t make sense. Only once you light up the place does it become possible to dump the dead. Since I see no reason for it to be physically impossible to find or dump dead bodies, they should always be recognizable and dumpable.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Dump dead bodies from dark buildings)====<br />
A possible explanation is that people in dark buildings are found and attacked because they're breathing so loudly and their hearts are thumping. Similarly, standing zombies are wheezing. However, dead bodies emit no noise, and if you're tromping through a building hoping to step through a ribcage, you should be spending AP to do so. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}21:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Or because they are fumbling with heavy furniture in the dark to barricade the building, or shooting guns, or... {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:48, 29 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::Well, how about another take on it. Anyone who dies in the building...if their body is still inside when someone who witnessed the death takes a turn, they notice the body (since it wasn't cleared). The body wouldn't have moved from its original spot that fast.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:06, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Group Bonus===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:22, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance change<br />
|suggest_scope=All denizens of Malton who belong to groups<br />
|suggest_description= <br><br />
<br />
OK, so while I used the template, I’ve brought this to the discussion page in a fairly informal manner because I don’t pretend to be a programmer and I don’t pretend to know what is possible. I like this idea, but I can see my own problems with it from a technical standpoint – and I’m hoping that others here might be able to help with the solutions on that front.<br />
<br />
Here’s the basic idea – in the real world groups are much stronger than individuals. People en masse accomplish much more, whether it be construction projects, armies, or lobbying government. Organization has an additive effect to efficacy - pretty much every time. <br />
<br />
Also – there is a benefit to being part of an organization for humanity. There is community, the transfer of knowledge, the advancement of the overall ends of society.<br />
<br />
With that in mind, I think there should be an in-game bonus for group activity. This will encourage folks to join groups, which in turn will raise the overall level of gameplay across Malton. This bonus would apply to ANY group working in concert – be in human, PK’er, death cultist, or zombie – so there are no powering issues between warring factions – only a power difference between the grouped and the ungrouped. Given there are few restrictions to joining or forming groups, the ungrouped would hardly become a put-upon constituency.<br />
<br />
So how to do it? Originally, I thought a simple tiered bonus for group size measured by the number of folks who have a common group name in their profiles. Say a 5% to-hit/search/cading bonus for folks part of groups from 25-49 members, and maybe 7.5% for 50-74 members, and 10% for over 75 members.<br />
<br />
The problem there would be that it encourages a new form of zerging. Folks would make “Group Scarecrows” that they would park far away from active group activity, but who have the group name in their profile. They’d technically not be in violation of alt abuse, and it would be very hard for group leaders to prevent, and of course the incentive would be to do it.<br />
<br />
So, I am wondering if the UD engine would be able to detect proximity effects and award bonuses that way? In this case, I’d lower the numbers required for the bonuses a lot – say 10-24 for the 5% bonus, 25-39 for the 7.5% bonus, and 40+ for the 10% bonus – and say that if you’ve got that many folks operating in one XX block radius, you get the bonus.<br />
<br />
Is such possible? If so, I think it would reward all the right behaviors in this game, and be pretty darn cool. My parameters are suggestions - they could be lowered, raised, modified. I am really interested first and foremost what folks think of the concept, THEN hammering out rational details that might actually be taken to voting. So, first "Is there a reasonable way this could work?" then "Would we want it if it could?" then "How exactly should it work?"<br />
<br />
What do you think? <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion Group Bonus====<br />
<br />
I'd vote kill, simply because you are not given a hidden bonus in real life from being in a group. Moral boost, maybe. But the rest you accomplish by working closely with your group. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 16:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Impossible. proximity detection would kill the server. Assume a 5 block radius, the game would have to, on every action, harvest information on userlists for 81 blocks (inside and out), run zerg detection routines on that information, and it would have to then count the number in the group. Now, imagine this happening to the server 30,000+ times a day. You would basically increasing server load more than a hundredfold all up (Quite probably by a factor of well over a thousand). As for the rest, without proximity detection, it collapses under the obvious zerg abuse you mentioned. Proximity detection is a myth, despite claiims to the contrary. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 16:41, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think Grim_s is right - without some radical reorg of the account system it's just not possible. I was hoping some genius might have a work-around, but I bet he's right that there isn't one. Whitehouse - thanks for the comment - but I disagree with you. In real life you '''DO''' get the bonus - the door opens for the AARP in Washington that would never open for the unaligned individual. The group can clear a forest while the individual could spend a lifetime chopping a grove. I think it's moot though. --[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:59, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Even if possible, the advantage to being in a group should come from coordinating with other group members to do difficult tasks that an individual couldn't do. You get a big advantage from being in a well-organised group. You don't deserve an advantage from a bunch of people all spelling the group name correctly. This suggestion is a reward for crap metagaming, which we don't need. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 17:24, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:You misunderstood my point. And Garum probably phrased it better than me. You get those advantages from working together, not from simply being in a group (at least not the type of advantages you were thinking of). Being in a group is a moral boost, working together with it creates results far better than that of individuals. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 17:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Oh I see, you're saying that giving an incentive for group behavior beyond already existing benefits doesn't have merit. OK, thanks. Fair enough.--[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 17:45, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::If you want to encourage group work, then find ways for groups to work better together instead of just giving people buffs for having the same group tag. Zombie hordes have scent death, recently someone suggested a way for zombies to sniff out their buddies. Such suggestions, which strengthen the ties of a group, will give good results, the good results are the incentive. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 18:50, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Technical details aside, this simply isn't appropriate. This is an RPG, and in RPGs the benefits of groups are simply those of multiple players co-operating. When members of a group communicate and co-operate, they are more effective. If they don't, then they aren't- just like real life. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 20:07, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
i haveno clue about all the technical aspects, but this just isnt a good suggestion. kinda sucks to be on of those people who likes to stay unaffiliated, cause they get screwed on the deal.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:19, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
If this was implemented, it would be possible for a user, for example, to put the name of a large group into their profile, and get all the benefits, without being a member of the group. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 21:45, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is illogical. The only bonus people should recive from being in a group is having someone to cover their back. No magic bonuses. No special abilities. Just that. --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 02:48, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Take a look at Nexus War for group mechanics. The main problem is that ANYONE can be in ANY group at ANY time.-[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:04, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Restaurants===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 15:12, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New building<br />
|suggest_scope=People who take notice of buildings<br />
|suggest_description=If Malton has pubs, it really should have at least a few fancy restaurants, which could potentially replace a few of the pubs in the richer areas of town. The Maltonians can't all have only ever eaten/drunk beer, peanuts and crisps outside of their homes.<br />
<br />
:'''Mechanics'''<br />
<br />
''Restaurant''<br />
* Dark building<br />
* Can be barricaded, ransacked, ruined and have equipment installed normally.<br />
* Internal description<br />
** Unpowered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The once-busy dining area lies in darkness.''<br />
** Powered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant.''<br />
** Ransacked ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The chairs and tables are overturned, and cutlery and napkins litter the floor.''<br />
* Search rates (normal, if dark condition were not applied)<br />
** Knife (3%) (kitchen knives)<br />
** Wine (6%) (the finest in town)<br />
** Mobile Phone (1%) (some careless people...)<br />
** Menu (6%) (Flavour item, when used displays "The menu reads: <random fancy dishes>", and flavour text "''You think about them hungrily''" (currency not specified).)<br />
* Clothing<br />
** a chef's hat (white) (obviously)<br />
** an apron (white/black) (waiters)<br />
** standard generic formalwear (maitre d'hôtel, sommelier, general higher-ranking service staff)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Restaurants)====<br />
Can we have one at the corner of the map? We shall call it, "The Restaurant at the End of Malton"... :3 --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:44, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't see why not --[[User:Diablor|Diablor]] 01:53, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Whines* Pubs (Arms) aren't fancy enough for you?<br> Mah Pubs not fancy enough for you, foo? Only if there is a Pub at the end of the world.. Already.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 02:51, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it, but I think the menu should be just like a newspaper with different flavour text. For that matter, would newspapers be suitable to be found here? [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 03:07, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A ''dark'' restaurant? Dunno about where you're from but around here people put big ass windows on restaurants coz ppl like to see outside...also a stupid idea. Pointless and you would have to think up some ridiculous way to explain why everyone in malton thought it was a pub but it turned out to be a restaurant.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:54, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:It was always a restaurant and nobody ever thought it was a pub. And 2+2 has always equalled 5. And we have always been at war with Eurasia. And darkness really depends on the restaurant, but good point. --{{User:Anotherpongo/sig}} 11:45, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Not pointless. Knives are the best weapons for newbies, yet malls are the only places with > 1% chance of finding them. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:02, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
As much as I hate suggestions that don't seem to solve any problems, we do need a TRB for knives, and this seems like a great way to do it.{{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 16:33, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Absolutely! TRP for knives, and logical and fun flavor. --[[User:UCFSD|UCFSD]] 17:17, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
a suggestion so simple that it makes sence lol i say yea bring on the restaurants!--[[User:Fanglord2|Fanglord2]] 02:37, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I '''Always''' vote for building suggestions-always love a change [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 09:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Vote all you like, I'm pretty sure a building change suggestion has never been implemented. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 10:04, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Kevan has talked about doing it before<sub>(it's in his talk page archives for those curious few)</sub>, it's not entirely out of the question.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:51, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Building changes not implemented? Dark? Ruin? Fixing the fort walls? Its not without precedent.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:46, 31 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::::He meant changing one building (type) into another building (type). The first significant building change was to make large buildings into "1" building, but they were ALL still the same building to begin with.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:05, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I'll concede that the forts were revamped from just the armoury building to the 9-block compounds that they are now, but as far as I'm aware that wasn't based on a player suggestion. Large buildings and walls changed how some buildings worked, not what type of building they were per se. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this suggestion.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:16, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Asum(awesome)!!! Lol! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Face Rot===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Zombie Skill, subskill of brain rot.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Brain Rot.<br />
|suggest_description=The rot has spread, now it shrivels and distorts the facial features. The person underneath is hard to recognise.<br />
<br />
In game terms, its a buff for zombie anonymity. Unless the zombie is in your contacts you cannot recognise him if.<br />
<br />
*He stands up<br />
*Destroys barricades/equipment<br />
*Kills or injures.<br />
<br />
His profile can still be gained through a successful scan, or if you recognise them via your contacts. (You could be familiar with his limp, a watch or other item, his groaning etc.)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Face Rot)====<br />
Go on. Savage it, like my horribly ruined features. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I like it, what better way to implement Zombie Anonymity than through a skill? Plus. it promotes the Brain Rot! :D --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 18:54, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
How would this work when they're alive? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 19:38, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Then their profile just states they look like [http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=Gary+Busey&btnG=Search+Images Gary Busey] --{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:52, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bloody Brilliant!!! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 22:27, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Good, apart from one thing. How do you explain not being able to recognise a corpse you just saw die when it stands up. This case would only be when you are in the same location for the period of time in which a character dies and rises (in the case of first being a survivor which is recognisable to all anyway). Explanation could be that the face rot while cleared up by the revivification effect while alive, takes hold again almost instantaneous. But that still wouldn't change the fact that you saw that body die and rise, thereby knowing exactly who it was. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 23:36, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A good idea, except that Whitehouse's point might need addressing. How do looks change so quickly? {{User:Ariedartin/Nickname}} 06:22, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't like this idea. It's balanced and innovative but it disregards the true zombie mentality. Yes, I love zombie anonymity. But I am always in the belief that true zombie characters should be willing to do the *above* three actions '''and''' have their anonymity threatened to whoever wants to use it, in order to succeed their goal. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 12:04, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Interesting points. I'm off to make a ridiculous suggestion, and I'll think about this. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 14:24, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
In relation to Whitehouses point. How about an extra piece of text like. "Blah killed Example, their face decomposes before your eyes. "--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:37, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I saw no one pointed it out and I have a feeling you'll actually check before suggesting this. This isn't actually a buff to zombies, this is removing the one way in which zombie groups generally recruit. I like the idea of starting to get zombie anonymity back, it never should have left but, this hurts them, especially because survivors still get all the workarounds they want/use while zombies now have absolutely no way of knowing who to go to for help/advice/etc.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 09:07, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Suggestions up for voting==<br />
===Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080831 Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark]] as suggestion is up for voting. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:17, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Nurse===<br />
Moved to voting, under the new name of [[Suggestion:20080826_Doctor's_Clinic|Doctor's Clinic]]<br />
----<br />
===Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080827 Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:03, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Dead Reckoning===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion_talk:20080826_Dead_Reckoning]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 09:46, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Developing_Suggestions&diff=1268898Developing Suggestions2008-09-07T22:38:33Z<p>Janine: /* Discussion (Switch FAKs search rates between Hospitals and Malls) */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Suggestion Navigation}}<br />
==Developing Suggestions==<br />
''This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which '''have not yet been submitted''' and are still being worked on.''<br />
<br />
===Further Discussion===<br />
Discussion concerning this page takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Discussion_About_Talk:Suggestions|here]].<br />
Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general (including policies about it) takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Suggestion_Discussion|here]].<br />
<br />
Nothing on this page will be archived.<br />
<br />
== Please Read Before Posting ==<br />
<br />
*''Be sure to check [[Frequently Suggested#The List|The Frequently Suggested List]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots | Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]] before you post your idea.'' There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a '''dupe''', or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. '''These include [[Suggestions/RejectedNovember2005#SMG.2FMachine_Pistol|Machine Guns]] and [[Suggestions/24th-Apr-2007#Rooftops.2C_Sniper_Rifle.2C_and_Sniper_Ammo|Sniper Rifles]]'''. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.<br />
*Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.<br />
*It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.<br />
<br />
== How To Make a Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
====Format for Suggestions under development====<br />
<br />
Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header <br />
"'''[[Talk:Suggestions#Suggestions|Suggestions]]'''", paste the copied text '''above''' the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in <span style="color: red">red</span> with the details of your suggestion.<br />
<br />
<nowiki><br />
===</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion</font><nowiki>===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=~~~~<br />
|suggest_type=</nowiki><font color="red">Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_scope=</nowiki><font color="red">Who or what it applies to.</font><nowiki><br />
|suggest_description=</nowiki><font color="red">Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.</font><nowiki><br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion Name</font><nowiki>)====<br />
----</nowiki><br />
<br />
====Cycling Suggestions====<br />
Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit. <br />
<br />
This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the [[Talk:Suggestions/Overflow1|Overflow]]-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.<br />
<br />
If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the <nowiki>{{SNRV|X}}</nowiki> at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:1.5em"><font color="red">'''Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.'''</font></span><br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Suggestions==<br />
===Improve the Banks===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 23:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Add to Bank.<br />
|suggest_scope=All people how enter a bank.<br />
|suggest_description=I belive banks need a improvement becuase of how usless they are. The only good thing I can think about them is becuase they are so useless no zombie would go near it, and it would make a good hiding place. But the problem is what good could a bank be in a place like Malton. The only iteam I could think about finding there would be a pistol and clip becuase of securtity guards. So if not iteams why not something else?<br />
<br />
What is a bank if not a big place to safly guard your valuables? Why not allow the bank to be more heavly barricaded or use the vault? This is still a rough idea, which is why I am talking here. Now, allow me to address two problems I can see with my idea. One is why you would even want to have a extra lelvel of barricades or a vault, the bank does not have anything. And the other being that you should not mess with the barricades, to those people look here [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/PR_Buildings:_Multiple_Types]]. and then go to "Max Cades Varies by Building Type" sujestion.<br />
<br />
As I said, this is still a rough idea and I would like inmput, and not just "this wont work so shut up".<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bank improvment)====<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Switch FAK search rates between Hospitals and Malls===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=search rate adjustment for First Aid Kits. <br />
|suggest_scope=survivors<br />
|suggest_description=''I can't find this in PR or Undecided, I looked. But if someone can find the dupe, please do.''<br />
<br />
'''The suggestion:''' Reverse the search rates for First Aid Kits in Hospital and Malls, i.e. make it easier to find FAKs in Hospitals and harder in Malls. <br />
<br />
'''The rationale:''' Pretty self-explanatory, I think. Hospitals should be the easiest place to find/jury rig first aid kits. Not malls. This would also be a nerf to mall-centric play, which I don't think is a bad thing at all. But it's a highly logical nerf, and far from unbalanced or game-breaking. <br />
<br />
'''Extra details:''' As it is, you have about a 50% chance of finding a FAK in a drugstore. In a hospital, I'd guestimate it's about 20% (I might tally my stats and see... others' experiences would be useful, too). Perhaps an ''exact'' reversal isn't in order: say 25-30% in Malls, 40-45% in Hospitals, something like that. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Switch FAKs search rates between Hospitals and Malls)====<br />
<br />
No to exact reversal, yes to your suggested percentages. That is because there are one hell of a lot of hospitals compared to mall squares. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 14:32, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
We could apply the same logic to police departments and forts, in that they should have higher search rates for firearms and ammo there than malls. Not that I'm totally against your suggestion, but the way the game is designed it strikes me that Kevan intentionally made malls as the ultimate stronghold and as such they have the highest search rates for most items in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 15:33, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Police Stations don't keep ammo lying around. It is actually a bad idea to have excessive weapons and ammo stored where you are holding prisoners. Wal-Mart has more weapons in the sporting section than my local police station. Police Depts. have armories and firing ranges to keep weapons. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 22:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I agree with Wan Yuo, since it is a hospital of course you would be more likely to find a FAK there, and anyway Malls have alot of other stuff you can gain there.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 16:10, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Uhm, it's "Yao", not "Yuo"... It's a lame old joke alias, but it's still my alias, and it means something... Anyhooo... <br />
<br />
Cop shops are not armouries -- but gun stores in US malls practically are. So I don't really see a need to change that. You might disagree, but, c'est la vie. (And, yes, Malton is in the UK, but the city is a mix of the UK and US, it's not really one or the other in practice... so please don't go ''there''... please.) Perhaps search rates in Fort Armouries need to be boosted, but this suggestion is not addressing that... And, yes, malls are supposed to be strongholds -- however, I think the 50% search rate for FAKs is absurd. Especially when it's so hard to find FAKs in Hospitals, by comparison. And, even if you nerfed search rates in Malls -- even hypothetically across the board -- they are still going to be "fortresses" by virtue of being "one-stop-shopping" places -- you can get everything you need at a mall other than syringes. That ''alone'' makes them very powerful... I, however, appreciate Whitehouse's comments about the fact that are more Hospitals than Malls, and the modified search rates ought to reflect that. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then surgery becomes OMGMEGA-SUPER-GODLY. Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls. If it weren't for that I would support this, I don't think that this would change where people get FAKs from though which would mean it would just be a slight nerf to Malls and a big buff to Hospitals.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
First of, sorry for mispelling your name Yao, and also you dont need a 50% chance for the hospital but maybe like 40%, or something that makes the hospitals be just as good as finding FAKs in the mall.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:29, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Surgery]].--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:47, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I am well aware of what Surgery does. This is how likley you can find a FAK in a hospital and a mall drug store, from the wiki:Mall Drugstores (20%/34%), Hospitals (14%),. If they even made it 25 percent I would love it. [[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I would agree with a small percentage increase in hospitals. But check for a dupe. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:19, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
I'd support this as well. Malls need to be reworked a bit. The percentages are too high to warrant going any where else in the game for supply purposes. But I'd also support people who use the word "Glock" to describe their pistols have them blow up upon first use.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 23:38, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===Bloodletting===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}02:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=PKer buff.<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors. PKers, mostly.<br />
|suggest_description=Update revivification syringes to allow for self-targeting. If used on yourself while infected, it becomes a "virus syringe," essentially transforming the item within your inventory. "Virus syringes" cannot be found or made except by infected individuals using revivification syringes on themselves. Like a normal syringe, they have a 2% encumbrance.<br />
<br />
If used on a survivor, there's an X percent chance that this new "virus syringe" will deal 1 HP damage to the survivor and infect the survivor, and a 100-X percent chance that the virus syringe will do nothing. X is the current HP of the PKer. "Virus syringes" do nothing against zombies.<br />
<br />
As it is highly corrosive to glass, the virus will eat through the syringe in a matter of hours. Therefore, "virus syringes" are removed from an inventory after 6 hours of existing.<br />
<br />
...Because bioterrorism is an inherent part of the genre, and because it might entertain some PKers (and thus keep them from actual killing). Yes, the central idea is that the syringe is emptied outside your body, then you draw out your own blood, which contains the infection.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bloodletting)====<br />
<br />
I really wish I could be "constructive"... but this is just too retarded to comment on. Would you like some spam with that cheese, sir? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:11, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:No, sir, nor did I want that frosty. "Retarded" is happily synonymous with "belated," so I'll assume you mean this suggestion is just a little behind its time. Speaking of which, some old-fashioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Logs Lincoln logs] might help with your construction problem. Spend a few hours with those and let your dad back on his computer, okay? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}04:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Survivor infecting other survivors is a dupe, I'm fairly sure. It would be more greify than tactically useful for a PKer / death cultist, which is why (iirc) it wasn't worth keeping. Also, if you want to infect somebody, I fancy that axe you've been splitting infected zombie skulls (or the knife you just pulled from the guts of an infected survivor) would do the job rather as well as a syringe. So if infections COULD be spread that way, pretty much every sharp weapon in Malton would spread them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:23, 6 September 2008 (BST) ''edit- also, if the infection were so corrosive, every blood stained weapon or piece f clothing in the city would crumble to dust. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)''<br />
:It is a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
PKing may be part of the game, but it does NOT need any emphasis. The game is, primarily, about survivors and zombies fighting each other with some PKing thrown in, NOT about PKing with some zombies thrown in.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I must agree with Pesatyel, this game is mainly about the Living VS Undead... with the abnormal ones mixing it up to make it more interesting (just like in reality). Emphasizing PKing just doesn't fit in well with me (although I really should ''"get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit"'' to quote Wanyao). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Ehh, when I PK, I prefer "Bang. BANG BANG." And the kill is done. The idea would be something I would never use, and as Swiers stated, it's more useful for greifers then PKers like me.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::K-B, I was referring to your comments, somewhere, which alluded to "pro-zombies" and "pro-survivors" as these inimical factions at each others' throats. That's an illusion, and a destructive one at that: most players play both sides, even if some do tend to focus more on one than the other... And most people judge suggestions on the basis of merit, not simply whether they help their "side". For example, this suggestion would be a giant-sized buff for my death cultists -- but that doesn't mean I support it... because it's just a griefing tool, and little more. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
NEEDLE SHARING IS NEVER SAFE! THIS SUGGESTION SPREADS HEPATITIS Z! Not to mention it's stupid as fuck and so out of genre gameplay here. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I has plastic syringes. Gawd. Oh, I forgot the part were I wake up when you starting moving and poking me, and I kick your ass.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 00:02, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What about the part where zombies you are poking with a syringe do NOT wake up and kick... er, EAT your ass? {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Latent Infection===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Skill.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies, their victims.<br />
|suggest_description=''After countless days of fending off the zombies, Malton's best and brightest have discovered an entirely new strain of the virus that the zombies have been using to infect their victims.''<br />
<br />
''Called the Sleeper strain, it typically has an incubation period of 6 hours before it becomes active, rapidly spreading through the victim's circulatory system, degrading living tissue at an alarming speed. The incubation period can be extended if the victim remains motionless, however.''<br />
<br />
''This new strain has proven to be almost completely immune to all forms of medicine when it is in its incubation period, however the virus seems to be easier to eradicate once it has 'awakened'. It can still resist medicine half of the time, however with surgery the virus can be always removed.''<br />
<br />
''Unfortunately, due to it's long incubation period, carriers of the virus often are not aware of when they have become infected until the virus begins to attack them. However, if the victim then gets bitten by a zombie with the more common strain of the virus, the Sleeper strain acts like an antibody, preventing the more common strain from taking hold.''<br />
<br />
New skill: Latent Infection<br />
<br />
Subskill of: Infection<br />
<br />
Abilities:<br />
* Takes 6 hours to kick in.<br />
* Causes 2 damage per AP.<br />
* Does not stack with standard Infection.<br />
* 5% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd during incubation period.<br />
* 50% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd when 'awakened'.<br />
* 100% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd by 'Surgery' in powered hospital.<br />
* Kicks in upon first movement after 6 hour incubation period.<br />
* Victim not told of infection until it 'awakens'.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Latent Infection)====<br />
in all this time have you ever even read the frequently suggested and D&DN pages? this is a dupey infection buff, the likes of which we've seen a bazillion times, and it has nothing special or redeeming about it except for a vry pointless 6 hour delay. such a delay is a) out of genre game-mechanically because time is abstract in UD b) griefs newbies c) griefs everyone who logs in only once a day d) it's overpowered -- zombies kill best by killing, and where they are weak, deal with that, instead. <br />
<br />
i'm also sure someone will be less lazy and find about 30 dupes for this. please... GIVE IT UP ALREADY, blake. go design your own game, print up the rules, get together with some friends over dice and doritos. and give ''us'' a break. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:38, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It's... Urghh, it just over complicates a part of the game which doesn't need it, and is a huge buff to zombies. I'm a zombie player, but I don't like things like this. Just do what WanYao said and read the [[Frequently Suggested]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]]. Seriously, just commit them to memory.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 18:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I'd vote keep. And ignore the Hive Mind Kool-Aid Drinkers, Blake. The D&DN page is for wimps.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 13:38, 7 September 2008 (BST) <br />
----<br />
<br />
===Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 19:50, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance Change<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Ankle Grab<br />
|suggest_description='''The cost to stand up after a [[Zombie Hunter skills|Headshot]] is 15AP, whether or not the target has the [[Zombie Skills|Ankle Grab]] skill.'''<br />
<br />
This suggestion is somewhat slanted toward a Monroeville survivor's perspective.<br />
<br />
In Malton, the survivor's best chance for survival is to find a location which zombies are not currently massing to attack. The only time attacking is a viable option is when zombies are already inside a strategic building, and the survivor wants to repair the structure. Even [[Trenchcoater|Trenchcoaters]] know that when the zeds open the doors, it's time to run.<br />
<br />
In Monroeville, there is never a time when attacking is the best choice. If zombies are near, the survivor runs or the survivor dies. Attacking, even with a massive numeric advantage, is ultimately suicide.<br />
<br />
Currently, a Headshot costs a zombie 6AP, or 15AP if it doesn't have the Ankle Grab skill. To kill a 50HP unarmored zombie costs a minimum of 8AP: Three to find three shotguns loaded with five shells total, and five to bring down the zombie. A more typical number would be 24 -- 6 to find a pistol and two clips, and 18 to fire the pistol at the zombie 16 times, reloading twice, with a 65% hit rate. This means that by purchasing four skills, with seven additional skills required to reach level ten, a survivor can spend 24 AP to take 6AP from a zombie who has purchased two skills.<br />
<br />
If the AP cost to stand up from a Headshot were 15 ''regardless'' of the Ankle Grab skill, the ratio would go from 4:1 to almost 3:2, still strongly favoring the zombie, but making offense a viable tactic in Malton. In Monroeville, the few who remain might actually come out and play once in a while, instead of running like hell when one zombie gets within a block.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab)====<br />
Sure. I just fear its too late. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:59, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
You understand nothing of this game. The AP balance on barricades is 4-1 in favour of survivors at best. Add to that the fact that it takes 35-40 AP for a zombie to kill a survivor, only for the victim to get a revive for 10 AP and the cost of the syringe search. Then factor in that any survivor who isn't killed straight away can be saved with a simple FAK. I could go on and on about this, but in reality I said all that was needed in the first sentence. And seriously people, stop whining about fucking Monroeville. It's a temporary city which is going to be shut down, which makes it entirely irrelevant when discussing the mechanics of Urban Dead as a game. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 20:04, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:"and the cost of the syringe search". I love how you abstract away about 10-15 APs and call it "balanced". [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::And that only turns out to 20-25 AP, even if you factor in the syringe search. we could keep on discussing the maths of this, but Grim did it for us a few months back: read his rant on the [[User:Grim_s/Rants/Revival_Imbalance|revive imbalance]]. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 05:14, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Total Zombie AP spent (Including recovering from kills by Humans, thank you for padding your numbers): 483. Total Human AP spent: 322. Ratio: 3/2, compared to 4/1 for survivors headshotting zombies. Zombies win, again, by whining louder than the humans. I thought you were supposed to moan. In any event, thank you for showing us the math that proves that zombies have a massive combat AP advantage. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 17:30, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
No dude. Just no. Monroeville is freaking dead anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 20:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Says the ''Zombie'' Lord... I actually had a nice killing spree a couple of weeks back, 5 survivors in 6 days...<br />
:It would be nice if we waited till there was one survivor, gave him a [[Red_Rum/Tommy_Gun|Tommy_Gun]], ammo and every zombie his location to see how long he would last... --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:: :D I'm not sure if he means it as a Monroeville only thing or not, which would be fine with me if it was just contained to that city and not Malton. Seems like Kevan just wanted to kill it off anyway with those last changes to Monroeville. But yeah, the Tommy Gun goes the the last Monroeville Survivor! Would be a cool prize anyway :) --[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::The Tommy Gun is a seasonal weapon, found around 31st October/1st November. They'll have to survive til then and search really hard...--[[User:Bob_Fortune|Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 00:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Kamakazie Bunny, get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit, it's tired as all hell. In any event, as much as he is usually an idiot, zombie lord is correct this time. And Moloch hit it on the head even more squarely. Don't fucking nerf Ankle Grab. Period. Even in Moronville. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:46, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:36, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:How about "Remove Headshot" then? Has that been suggested? It's currently a waste of 100 XP. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
You might have better luck if you suggest that headshot DOESN'T affect those without Ankle Grab.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:37, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also a dupe. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''Balance Change'' HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA ''IMA GONNA RAEP YUO OF UR AP AND CALL IT BALANCED!'' Fuck off, Dago. You can't possibly justify taking away over 1/5th of the AP of just one class. Zombies can't do it to survivors in any amount and you want to increase it? Fucking play as a zombie for a year before you suggest anything that affects zombies. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:59, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:[[Suggestion:20080901_Feeding_Drag_in_Large_Buildings|Yanking a live survivor from a mall]] for 2/5 the AP cost of dumping a dead body from a fort is balanced, then? I don't see you railing against that. Oh, but feel free to turn my username into a racial slur if you can't think of any ''good'' reason to reject the suggestion. [[User:Deyo|Deyo]] 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::We've already posted enough reasons why it's a crap idea. Feel free to post it though, because even if it gets passed, Kevan won't touch it. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 05:25, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Actually it is when you consider that it's not a bargain and it's an additional 4 AP per kill that will be payed regularly. All Feeding Drag ever does is transfer AP cost from the individual to the horde, you know, that central play mechanic that zombies are forced to deal with. This would just make it so that all zombies always lose nearly half the AP they get a day, that's not balanced. You're also proposing buffing what is the only skill in the game that is considered to exist for the sole purpose of pissing players off and not balance.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Im not going to argue the game balance here. What i am going to say is that you dont make a game more balanced by making it less fun. Taking away 15 zombie ap a day makes the game much less fun for zombies, which will drive them away. Given how many of them are hanging onto the game out of habit rather than out of any sense of enjoyment, i dont think making playing a zombie feel like pulling teeth is the solution to any balance problem, real or imagined. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:37, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Bargain Hunting Change===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:07, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Improvement.<br />
|suggest_scope=Resource Buildings.<br />
|suggest_description=First, some buildings would get a flat bonus to search: Malls, Junkyards, and Libraries.<br />
<br />
'''Malls''' +10% Chance for a successful search.<br />
<br />
'''Junkyard''' +10% Chance for a successful search.<br />
<br />
'''Library''' Automatic success.<br />
<br />
Second, other buildings would get a new button. A player with Bargain Hunting would see both "Search the Building" AND the New Button. A regular search is the same as always. Clicking the New Button would work like this:<br />
<br />
'''Hospital''' New Button: "Search for FAK". +25% to find a FAK.<br />
<br />
'''Police Station''' New Button: "Search for Guns and Ammo". +25% to find a Pistol, Shotgun, Shotgun Shell, or Pistol Clip.<br />
<br />
'''Factory''' New Button: "Search for Portable Generator". +25% to find a Portable Generator.<br />
<br />
'''Auto Repair''' New Button: "Search for Toolbox". +25% to find a Toolbox.<br />
<br />
'''Fire Station''' New Button: "Search for Flare Gun". +25% to find a Flare Gun.<br />
<br />
'''Arms''' New Button: "Search for Beer". +25% to find a Beer.<br />
<br />
'''School''' New Button: "Search for Spray Can". +25% to find a Spray Can.<br />
<br />
'''Warehouse''' New Button: "Search for Fuel Can". +25% to find a Fuel Can.<br />
<br />
This idea is to make the other resource building more important, and make the Mall less the God of all Buildings.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Bargain Hunting Change)====<br />
Auto repair toolbox, warehouse fuel can? Random.<br />
<br />
I dont like it for the following reason. Its actually 2 buffs. 1. You only search for what you want. 2 you are much more likely to find it. I also dont see a realistic justification (other than junkyards and libraries which i feel is fine).--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:11, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I figured your were more likely to find a Toolbox in an Auto Repair, but find Fuel stockpiled in Warehouses. Basically I'm aiming for the other buildings being important instead of the Mall being the best place to find pretty much anything, which sort of makes Hospitals and PD's kinda lame. Plus with the best places to find stuff spread out instead of being all in one spot, it would make Malls less of a Fortress you almost never need to leave, except to find Fuel. Survivors would need to keep their other buildings going to keep the "best search rate" spots open and usable. The two most important FAKS and Guns/Ammo already have a "you get exactly what you want" thing going in the Mall anyway.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:16, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
"Bargain Hunting" implies knowledge specific to shopping: it's a consumer skill. Finding things in libraries, police stations, hospitals, and junkyards seems unrelated. I agree with Ross, this seems a bit overpowering. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:It also worries me that you appear to have forgotten that survivors occasionally need needles. Wheres the search necrotech button? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:22, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Dude, Survivors get enough needles already. :P --[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:25, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Whilst I do agree with the idea of removing the focus from malls I do not agree with your choices I would imagine:<br />
:Toolbox for factories (working on/with machinery),<br />
:Fuel cans for auto repairs (cars need fuel),<br />
:Generators for factories (because they don't fit anywhere else and the others seem more plausible in their locations) although power stations and hardware stores would make sense but that takes you back to malls...<br />
::Also what about necrotechs and radios? whilst it is true you don't have to include everything, including beer and ignoring more important resources and buildings just doesn't agree with me. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Hey its all open to change. Thats kinda why I put this up here. Those NecroTechs though are already nasty enough. But moving the items around is cool. How about Fuel in Auto Repairs and Portable Generators in Warehouses. Like to keep it spread out as much as possible. Just leave the Toolboxes out since they are a one shot item anyway? And factories have both fuel and PG's so, maybe being a cenral fuel/PG resource is good enough for them.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:30, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
::::Personally id prefer it if it was the ''other'' way round. The one item choices (Knifes,toolboxes, dna extractors,radio transmitters,) were those items that could be found more easily. '''Then''' buildings other than malls would be the best place to find ''specific'' items.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:34, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Yeah, but you only need to find them once. Makes the other resources not so important again. Making it the recycle items makes them always useful to have up and running. Hmm, maybe just a flat +25% to find anything in the bottom 8 buildings would be better, then you'd have to wade through the "crap" like newspapers and the like and it would be less powerful. The Mall would still be a good bonus then with its 'FAK only" Drugstore and "Guns & Ammo only" Gun Store, which is kinda ugly combined with the current +25%, but might be more balances with 10%, but having the other buildings being the "best search spots".--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 18:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I think 25% might be a bit too much, 15% seems more reasonable, searching for something specific should give you more than searching for something in general but not too much more. I actually like the specific buildings for specific resources because it means your more likely to find what your looking for but the amount of buildings of each type in each suburb makes a big difference when the zombies start to move in and you don't want to move out! This way it emphasizes that point. Although I do see Rosslessness's point, items each person only needs one of would be more common than ones which people would be using up. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:57, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::Yeah, the % could always be messed with. I think this would make other suburbs more attractive too though, like the ones that are far away from Malls, but maybe they have some insane number of PD's or Hospitals so they would become like "Centers of Healing, or "Ammo Dump Central". I guess we could throw Forts into the +10% category same as Malls. Would maybe shake up the population distribution a bit.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 19:07, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::I think you're right though. Cause with this there would be a lot a new place opened up that you could search good. Some burbs have like 6 Hospitals/PD's or more and that would be a lot of places. Maybe 10% for Malls, but 15% or 20% for the Hospitals/PD's and the others to balance out the fact that some places have crazy numbers of these buildings all lumped together. I dont know who the city planners where but sometime having 3 or 4 PD like all next to each other or a block away from each other is just nuts. :D--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 19:32, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:::::::From a logical point of view yeah, Ross is right. But from a game balance view, I think "only need one" items should be not easier to find. Then Survivors could not just thrown down a toolbox to free up weight, confident that they could just snag another real easy with Bargain Hunting when they need one. It's a harder to weight choice as it is now. But making it the recycle items that are easier to find makes keeping those buildings up and running a much more important part of keeping your burb running smooth. I dunno, I'm arguing from a "Mall Suburb viewpoint" though too. This might make non-Mall suburbs even more powerful, but maybe in a balanced way, so that Malls suburbs and non Mall suburbs are not so lop-sided in their "resource gathering power".--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 19:23, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
I don't even need to read the commentary. 'Sides, mostly seems to be Zombie Lord's usual obnoxious arguing with everyone... <br />
<br />
'''The skinny:''' survivors don't need a search rate buff, their %ages are pretty fucking good already, especially in malls. I do concede that the randomness of searching, and all the junk you get in searches, contributes to the "Boring boring boring, Sidney!" syndrome ... However, giving survivors a search buff AND allowing them look for exactly what they want?? The "Zombie Lord" (whom I am still convinced is just some DA or TZH trenchcoater in disguise) proposing an utterly broken game mechanic is no surprise -- but an overpowered, spam-o-licious survivor buff, now ''that's'' a little shocking. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::''Sex is boring, Sidney''--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 00:05, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:My bad. For a change, Zombie Lord is being kind of, like, normal... However, this is still not a good idea. I am all for nerfing mall-centric play, but this is not the way to go about it. I still stand my my reasoning above. And, as it stands, Malls are not the best place to find generators and a few other items. And syringes and fuel can't be found in malls at all... But what is absurd is the 50% or so find rate for FAKs! Hospitals should be the best place for FAKs, and Malls only so-so. THAT needs to be changed... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:21, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
The Warehouse, Factory, Hospital, Fire Station, Toolbox, and Police Station buffs are all ''way'' too high. That and combined it's far too many benefits from one single 100xp skill.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 12:55, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I figured with the Mall search bonus lowered and that Survivors would need to defend more than the Fortress Malls to keep their best search spots open would counter the high bonus for searches in the new buildings. Going to come up with a version 2 with changes for all these comments though soon.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 13:27, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I really think switching FAK search rates -- so that Hospitals are the best place to find them -- would be sufficient to nerf mall-centric play in a fair, balanced and very logical way. the rest imo isn't needed. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:10, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The bonus is currently so high that some 1 in 10 items would get boosted to 1 in 3, some 1 in 5 items would get boosted to 1 in 2, and some 1 in 3 items would get boosted to 1 in ~1.2. I understand the intent but 25% really is a ''very'' significant amount, so significant you'd be removing almost all failure chance for things like FAKs.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:48, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Riot Shield===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Item<br />
|suggest_scope=All Players<br />
|suggest_description= <BR><br />
:''[[Building Types|Locations]]: Armouries (2%), Police Stations (2%), Junkyards (1%?)''<br />
:''[[Encumberment|Encumbrance]]: 16%''<br />
<br />
- Grants a 10% (5% in dark buildings) chance to deflect any attack <S>that deals less than 5 damage</S> (it does not reduce the chance to hit, only those which would normally hit). Having a Riot Shield in your inventory automatically means that you are using it; no action is required to activate it. Zombies may use and benefit from Riot Shields. Using multiple Riot Shields has no additional effect; having two or more in your inventory will not give any further protection.<br />
<br />
- They may also be used as an improvised weapon with the following stats:<br />
<br />
:''Damage: 1 point''<br />
:''Base Accuracy: 10%''<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Riot Shield)====<br />
<br />
Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield (although rotters will have a harder time getting them but that applies to any cross-class skill/item from the humans). Also the zombie populace should be aware that a Riot shield is the equivalent of 8 clips/shells/Faks/Syringes that can be used against their cause. Survivors now have an active defence against the hordes (in my opinion barricades do not count as they do not directly protect the player or go with them on their journeys). <BR><br />
Things I'm unsure of:<BR><br />
:Encumbrance<br />
:Chance to deflect<br />
:Findable in museums (Medieval / war exhibitions)<br />
:Zombies with a reduced protection chance (as they are more sluggish)<br />
:Flavour text for deflected attacks!<br />
--[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''You fire at target zombie for 10 damage, but it deflects off their riot shield. They are unharmed''<br />
--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:05, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: Whilst I do agree with the flavour text the shot gun does not deal '''less than 5 damage'''. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:13, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Balls. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hi Kamikazie, this is an interesting idea. Given that zombies can't use melee weapons, it seems odd they might continue to use (and effectively position) a riot shield. Additionally, it seems it would get in the way of typical zombie attacks: grabbing, holding, biting. I don't want to seem like I'm favoring survivors, but this, like all other objects, seems it should be survivor-specific. Would players be able to use a shotgun while holding one? Shields of any kind make sense, especially in close-range combat. I'd see the value in making it "equippable" rather than simply automatically active if in inventory. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 18:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ummm... zombies can use melee weapons, although it would get in the way of their normal attacks I don't want to hinder them or make this one sided although realism would want it so. Zombies are people to! Interfering with other functions is something else I disagree with. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Hordes are the exception, not the rule. Lets see, a maxed zombie would traditionally score a total of 29 hits in 50 swings. Now, if 10% of those hits are negated, it goes down to 26. Given that the majority of zombies are not horde zombies, and that zombies have a seriously hard time getting past little things you call barricades (Which already are your defenses, not to mention your mobility, which is another, chronically underused one), this puts a serious dent in zombie ability across the board for the sake of defending yourself from the exception to the rule based on a flase assumption of defenselessness. Go away and think things through before you return to plague this page with your stupidity again. The description as written has this as a pure zombie nerf, they cant even use it, ebcause regardless of flaks, a pistol hits for five damage at first, with one subsequently negated, thus pistols will still go through. Given humans use firearms almost exclusively, becauuse axes and improvised weapons suck, they will most often suffer no penalty against a zombie with such a device. Zombies have no 5+ damage attacks. This is one sided zombie rape. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 18:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:although I hardly ever agree with grims choice of words, the fact that flare guns and shotguns arent nerfed but all zed attacks are is a fair point. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:29, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sorry if you misunderstood when I used the word horde, I used it to describe the zombies populace as a whole, not in a specific location. The pistol glitch is something which I must admit I did not anticipate and overlooked, thanks for pointing that out. The rest just seems negative for the sake of zombie-jeebus. Whilst this does primarily affect zombie attacks it also affects all survivor melee attacks, you say that survivors depend on guns because everything else sucks, I don't think you need reminding that the Jacket only benefits zombies and PK/DC victims (which their very actions benefit zombies). Zombies have no fear of death and any defence boosts through items come at no cost, survivors have to balance their inventory for survival/defense and the retaking of ruins. If you feel that 26 instead of 29 hits is too many feel free to suggest a change to the values. This is a discussion for whittling out 'stupid' ideas not for insulting them (which I consider pointless). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:47, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
<br />
''Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield ...'' Can, but won't. The vast majority of the damage zombies take s from guns, and this also provides no protection vs combat revives. HtH combat damage trails a distant third behind those in terms of impact on zombies. '''So really, this IS a pure zombie nerf.''' {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 19:08, 5 September 2008 (BST) <br />
:Any proposes for a fix? Reducing deflection to 5% (that sounds so geekish). Lowering the limit to Less than 4 (which would account for the gun-bug and allow zombies still to get in their max claws) or would that be seen to be nerfing infection/bite/newbies/survivor melee? I know you might think this is the wrong school of thought but I feel there needs to be some active defence from zombies (running away is not defending) and barricades can't be taken with you, but due to the limited amount of high-powered zombie attacks any thing is essentially a nerf. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 19:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this suggestion if it was to affect ALL attacks regardless of damage... however I am concerned about it stacking with flak jackets to nerf firearms but if you lot are ok with it then I have no objections.... opinions please? --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
I think it's a neat idea, just not sure if its passable. Maybe if the Shield had a chance to be broken, or taken away by zombies? For every "deflection" there is a 10% chance the shield breaks as well? Maybe a zombie that gets a Tangling Grasp has a 10% chance to wrench the shield away and toss it aside for each attack it makes while it maintains the Grasp?--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 21:25, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This fails flavour as it implies active usage to gain its benefit, you must move the shield to cover the attack. A flak jacket is passive, it protects your torso regardless. In short, this would (or rather should) be useless while you are asleep...which for most UD characters is 23 hours and 50 minutes of each day.<br />
<br />
Also it's a nasty zombie nerf. '''All''' zombie attacks are less than 5 damage, meaning all survivors would get a 10% chance to avoid every single zombie attack in the game. This suggestion will discourage zombie play and turn Malton into Monroeville after the first quarantine, tag with PKers. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:42, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
''"After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this..."'' We are not okay with this idea. It's awful. It's nothing but a horrible zombie nerf, and no changes are going to save it. Riot shields do not protect against firearms. Period. Any attempt to make them do so is just stupidity. But if riot shields work against melee attacks only, then you are nerfing an already underdog ability -- for both zambahz and survivors. Just drop it, it sucks and it can't be fixed. Also, Izzy, you've failed in your Dupe-meister duties, this is in there somewhere, I know it ;) And, Zhani, once again you demonstrated why you should stay away from making suggestions: please wait until you actually know the game, thanks. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:01, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:As far as I understood from the comments people were making, the two major complaints were that it did not affect guns and that it affected zombie attacks. Including the ability to affect guns as well (which you ''conveniently'' failed to include in your quote) was the change that some people may approve of, as for affecting zombie attacks that kinda goes with the idea of a riot shield. "''Riot shields do not protect against firearms''" it may upset you to know that some do, although if you were arguing for true realism I think the zombies need to go... In defence of Izzy failing to dupe I could only find 2 similar suggestions, both from 2005 and both with completely different mechanics if it is that big an issue to dupe it go put in the effort and do it yourself. As for Zhani, he's learning don't try shoot him down because he's trying to be involved. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Next person to shorten my name gets Jihad declared against them.<br />
<br />
::Wan; what he said about dupes <nowiki>:p</nowiki><br />
<br />
::Bunny; would you care to comment on the point I made about active usage? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Falling asleep from exhaustion is a good reason why your character runs out of AP, it only takes 30min before you can 'wake up'. Whilst I do agree that a player would have to actively use it to defend themselves, the idea that I can hit someone who is asleep repeatedly with a fire axe and with such poor accuracy doesn't make sense (especially considering they don't wake up), I actually assume all players are awake and attempting to defend themselves if attacked which is why hit accuracy is not too high. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait wut? How do zombies benefit from something that will only effect them and low level survivors? Last I heard pistols and shotguns did >= 5 damage, Claws and bites did <= 4.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies would gain more defence from melee weapons, however it has now been changed to include pistols and shotguns. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::It just doesn't seem right. It destroys all zombie attack, survivor players could get them easier then zombie players... Even if Shotguns no longer worked, that would create an atmosphere where it would be CRing only.--{{User:drawde/Sig}} 17:56, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::How would this new version work in dark buildings? And Also, I still don't like it for the same reason why I think halving in dark buildings was a horrendous idea, 10% from 50% is a lot more significant than 10% from 65%, especially with the RNG the way it is But if you're going to go on with it might as well answer all questions that might come up.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::As the Riot shield only affects the attacks that hit the player, the environment which the attack is performed in should have make no difference but since the user is making an effort, the same penalty as attacks receive should logically apply. (Chance of success halved in dark buildings added to suggestion) Thanks for that, the more holes you guys help me fill the better. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it. Rather logical especially when considering that several suburbs were just bad neighborhoods (Even BEFORE the zombies!). I think that his would be a bit more efficient if you kept it as a melee reducing item, the hand to hand flak jacket in other words, say knock off 1-2 Damage per non-firearm attacks. Take it to that level and THEN I'll probably vote a keep on this. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 19:33, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yes, I'm sure new players will appreciate 0-1 damage at 25% to hit.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Well the zombies are getting Uber Buffs. Survivors have always been a bit better than the zombies at base level. I think that just the 1 Reduced Damage is sufficient at say...30% but if we want to get technical with this option lets say Hand to Hand Combat skill gives the 15% bonus to this so base is 15% chance to block 1 damage and then with HtH skill 30% chance to block 1 damage and we drop that improvised attack method because it's going to be the same as a punch. Now for the zombies think of Virgour Mortis as a +10% Chance to block 1 Damage. So again, 15% base and with Vigour Mortis a nice little 25% because Zeds aren't quick enough to keep up with the survivors. It is a bit sketchy but I am going to support this method over sitting around fiddling with percentages. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 20:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I would like for this to apply exclusive to melee weapons, but that would mean ALL zombie attacks and not the attacks used by high-level survivors which was a problem. I'm also unsure if the game distinguishes between damage types, if it does great, if not, going on damage inflicted presents a problem when pistols are reduced by flak jackets. The idea to reduce damage instead of deflecting it completely is possible, however it would just end up as 'a flak for melee attacks' different mechanics for each one helps to keep them unique but if people prefer that option let me know. The skills bit does have merits but I was hoping it would be independent of the skill tree although if people want it to upgrade as you buy skills your way is certainly an excellent way to do it, especially the uniqueness between the live/dead. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 22:18, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Consider the flak jacket. -1 point for firearms, hand to hand attacks still go through. As for the zombies...well survivors run out of ammunition every now and again, even in the sieges. To combine this item with hand to hand combat training is the most logical approach based off of common sense and lightens the work load if Kevan likes this. Like you stated, zombies and survivors can both hold them, lets apply our minds and think about how well a zombie would be able to block a hit. When you think of next to never apply this big piece of reinforced fiberglass and then you get your answer here. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 03:53, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Zombies holding riot shields? I'd love to have some of that crack you're on. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 04:08, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Dude the odd thing is that it is not crack! It's Jello powder! [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:23, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Zombies hold and use all sorts of items... Anyway, this idea is just awful and can't be saved, please give it up. All it does in any form is act as a zombie/PK nerf. Period. Drop it. There is NO NEED for this, and it doesn't improve the game, make it more interesting, or offer a solution to a problem. It's just... dumb. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===No More Walking Armories: Less weapons, more ammo.===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 21:39, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Change to firearm usage<br />
|suggest_scope=Survivors, firearms.<br />
|suggest_description=Add Equipped Weapon feature, adjust weapon balance numbers to encourage reloading over trenchcoatism. See below for details.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
As things stand, players in Malton become [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|walking armories]], with as many loaded pistols and shotguns strapped to their bodies as they can carry. Essentially, everyone is a [[:Image:Trenchcoater03.gif|trenchcoater]] by default. This is due to how firearms currently work and their game statistics. Players are rewarded for carrying multiple loaded firearms, and there's little penalty for doing so. Guns have very little encumbrance ''relative to their ammunition'', and there's no cost at all to moving on to your next loaded weapon. I think this is [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Arguing_for_Your_Suggestion|unbelievable]] and out of genre. <br />
<br />
My proposal is to add a new game feature and tweak weapon encumbrance, find rates, and damage in order to encourage the carrying and use of only primary weapons, with plenty of ammo for those weapons.<br />
<br />
'''1. Equipped Weapon''' The game supports selecting items that are "worn"; however, this is only used for clothing and flavor at the moment. With this addition, survivor players select any weapon in their inventory to be ''equipped''. <br />
* Above "'''Inventory (click to use):'''" there is "'''Weapon (select):'''". There will be a new drop-down list in this section: '''<code>Equip [Weapon List] as weapon</code>'''. This lets the player choose any existing weapon in their inventory, or an improvised weapon like a fuel can or crowbar. <br />
* Equipping a weapon costs '''2 AP'''. This represents getting it out of your backpack/belt and having it ready for combat. ''The AP cost of switching weapons provides an incentive to reload over switching between a stocked series of weapons.'' <br />
* You can only attack with your equipped weapon. The "attack player" option no longer offers multiple weapons as a choice, but instead lists your ''equipped weapon'': '''<code>Attack [Joe Zombie] with pistol</code>'''. If no weapon is equipped, all attacks are punches.<br />
* Once a weapon is equipped, the "Weapon:" section no longer displays "(select)", and the selected weapon is displayed there, instead of in the inventory section. Below that, the weapon-selection control remains available to select another weapon.<br />
* Clicking ammo to reload defaults to reloading the equipped weapon if it is unloaded. Clicking the equipped weapon removes it. Clicking a weapon that does not have a dual usage (most of them) will equip them as well (this is necessary so you can still click fuel cans to use them on generators, fire flare guns, etc.) <br />
* Upon dying, the equipped weapon is removed and remains in the player's inventory. Zombies do not have equipped weapons. Revivified survivors must reequip their weapon.<br />
* The currently equipped weapon can be seen in the profile description, along with clothing.<br />
<br />
'''2. Weapon Encumbrance Values''' Firearm encumbrance values are increased. Guns can get heavy to carry, and shotguns are unwieldy. Pistols: 10%. Shotgun: 18%. '''Ammunition encumbrance is minimized'''. Bullets and shells take up relatively little space, and can be kept in backpacks, fannypacks, pockets, etc. Clips & Shells: 1%. <br />
<br />
'''3. Reloading''' Reloading a clip or shell remains at 1 AP.<br />
<br />
'''4. Weapon Balance:''' This change slightly increases the in-combat AP costs for survivors. With 8 loaded pistols in inventory, a player can currently do 240 damage in 48 turns at 65% rate, or 156 damage, or 3.25 damage/AP. With 1 equipped pistol and plenty of ammo, in 48 turns the player can empty 7 clips, doing 210 damage @65%, or 136.5 damage, or 2.84 damage/AP; a 12% decrease. <br />
<br />
With current shotguns, 8 shotguns in inventory do 160 damage in 16 turns @ 65%, or 104 damage: 6.5damage/AP. With the change, two shots requires either switching (2AP) or reloading (2AP). Alternately, we can simply think of the unloaded shotgun as 2AP/shot. With the change, the shotgun would do 80 damage in 16 turns @ 65% or 52 damage, a 50% decrease. The change makes the shotgun even more front-loaded damage however. <br />
<br />
'''''It is very difficult to make absolute recommendations on numbers for game balance.''''' Only in-game results can show whether items are unbalanced or not, and to what degree. However, as an initial rebalancing to make the change not appear so drastic, I suggest these figures:<br />
<br />
'''Pistol: 6 damage/shot. (5 flak).''' In 48 turns (finishing empty), a pistol would do (6*7*6*0.65) or 163.8 damage on average: 3.4damage/AP, a 5% increase. This is a very modest change, and sticks to whole-number damage. In 6 turns, the existing pistol does 30 max damage, 19.5 average, the new does 36 or 23.4 average, but on subsequent turns the reload time brings the average damage back down. With 6 shots/7AP, the true average becomes 3.34dam/AP. Total pistol increase: 2.9%<br><br />
Alternately: to kill 50HP enemy:<br />
:Current: 3.25dam/AP. (Assuming enough pistols in inventory) 16AP to kill<br />
:New: 3.34 dam/AP ((6*6*.65)/7). 15AP to kill.<br />
<br />
'''Shotgun: 12 damage/shot (10 flak).''' 2 turns=24 damage @65%=15.6damage. Compare to current: 2 turns = 20*65%=13dam. This is a small front-end increase. However, comparing 16 turns (8 loaded current shotguns, vs 1 shotgun with reloading): (10*16*0.65)/16=6.5dam/AP. New shotgun: 2 shots, then 2 shots per 4 turns for 12 turns, then 1 shot in the last two turns. 2*12+12((2*12)/4)+0+12=108. @65%=70.2 or 4.39dam/AP. The shotgun decreases over time. If we compare current and new shotguns starting unloaded, it's 10dam/2AP vs 12dam/2AP. The advantage of starting a fight with a loaded shotgun goes up, but the advantage of carrying a stack of them goes down. It becomes worthwhile to consider switching to a sidearm after using the shotgun. ''This appears consistent with game believability.''<br><br />
An alternate way of looking at shotgun damage: to kill a 50HP enemy: <br />
:Current: 6.5damage/AP (assuming enough shotguns in inventory). 8AP to kill.<br />
:New: 2*7.8damage=15.6 for 2AP, then 7.8damage/2AP (reload, fire). 7AP to kill.<br />
<br />
Shotgun opener + pistol: 15.6 average damage/2AP. 2AP to switch. 23.4 average damage/6AP. 1AP reload. 11.7 avg. dam. /3AP. = 50.7 damage in 14AP. Slightly more efficient than pistol alone, less than shotgun alone. (I have been working with current balance values; but the existing shotgun is much higher damage than the existing pistol. It requires more AP to find ammo, and reload.)<br />
<br />
'''5. Weapon search rates''' Firearm search rate decreases slightly (most people will only want or need one of each type). Ammunition search rate increases slightly. <br><br />
'''Pistols:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Streets (1%?), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
'''Shotguns:''' Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Pubs (1%)<br><br />
'''Clips:''' Mall Gun Stores (13%/16%), Armories (13%), Police Departments (12%), Junkyards (2%?), Gatehouses (?%)<br><br />
'''Shotgun shells:''' Mall Gun Stores (12%/16%), Armories (11%), Police Departments (11%), Junkyards (1%?)<br><br />
* If a weapon is found, and the player has selected to discard that type of weapon, but they have NOT selected to discard the ammo, ''they retain the ammo that was in that firearm (if any)''.<br />
<br />
'''Potential objections:'''<br />
<br />
Game balance: the change to damage output/AP is relatively small. If game stats reveal survivors grow more powerful, or one weapon is more preferred than the other, damage values can be adjusted as necessary. The point of this change is not to drastically adjust game balance in any way, but to instead encourage a change in player behavior to something more consistent with genre. Any statistical flaws that benefit a weapon type or player group can be adjusted as necessary.<br />
<br />
Inventory changes: this deprecates the value of carrying multiple weapons. Despite the increase in encumbrance of a single weapon, this should actually free up some space for people. The changes do not severely affect the contents of anyone's inventory. <br />
<br />
Realism/Game fiction/Genre: Carrying an absurd amount of weapons is simply silly. The only reason people do is because the game mechanics encourage it. This change provides an incentive for players to behave much more akin to typical characters in zombie films: carrying a couple favored weapons, and enough ammo to keep them supplied.<br />
<br />
Too long/complicated: This idea consists of minor changes to game variables (encumbrance, damage, search), and adds a straightforward feature which should work consistently with the existing interface and game data structures. It requires tracking one more piece of data per character: which weapon is equipped, and removes one piece of data normally transmitted on each attack: the weapon used. This should not be a prohibitive amount of development work. Balance changes are necessary to coincide with changes to AP costs for using weapons to minimize the secondary impact on gameplay.<br />
<br />
Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit.<br />
<br />
'''Areas for input:'''<br />
<br />
How are the numbers? Are they reasonable to maintain balance while accomplishing the goal of this suggestion?<br />
<br />
====Discussion (No More Walking Armories)====<br />
#Pistols are usually no bigger than two clips. Having 10% pistols and 1% clips is completely unjustified.<br />
#Shotguns are nowhere near the size or unwieldiness of generators (18% vs 20%).<br />
Not just that, but raising the encumbrance of weapons doesn't really contribute to reducing the number of weapons and increasing the amount of ammunition carried. Changing the search percentages wouldn't affect much either. Just plain introducing the equipped-weapon gameplay would do it. It's simple; reloading costs 1 or 2 AP, changing a weapon would cost 2. Ammunition is lighter than weapons. For pistols this means you're paying 1 AP less per 6 bullets, and carrying double the amount of damage if you use clips over loaded pistols. For shotguns it means you're paying just as much, but still carrying one half more ammo by carrying shells instead of shotguns. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 23:28, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I don't believe the game's encumbrance values are based on real-world sizes or weights, but rather are a general reflection of carrying ability for the sake of game balance. They're arbitrary. No one can carry 5 portable generators at once, and being limited to carrying only 50 shotgun shells, when they're typically sold in small boxes of 24 to 48, reveals this. A Ruger Security Six revolver as listed on the [[firearms]] page weighs about 1 kilo; carrying 25 of them at 4% enc per, would mean 55 pounds of firearms. The point isn't to be completely accurate with size or weight, but present a tradeoff in carrying many vs. few. With 1 pistol (12%) and 8 clips (1%), for a total of 20% the user still comes ahead of carrying 8 current pistols (32%). While a shotgun does not weigh as much as a portable generator, carrying 16 of them (at 6%) is just as unreasonable. <br>The search values I adjust because finding new firearms becomes less important. This isn't critical to the suggestion however, especially if the part where I recommend that users be able to discard guns they find but keep the ammo in them. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 23:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The exact nature of encumbrance is pretty much irrelevant, as, like I said, changing the encumbrance values doesn't really contribute towards the goal of this suggestion. It just adds one more thing for people to find objectionable. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 09:59, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::If currently people are carrying 16 weapons, and suddenly they can be just as effective with 3, they now have much more space for first aid kits, ammo, syringes, generators, etc. It's also about balance. While there is extra space, increasing weapon encumbrance means it isn't so survivor-favored in that aspect. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 10:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::That reasoning would make more sense if you weren't halving the weight of ammunition. You still have to keep the values somewhat sensible when compared to others. 10% pistols and 18% shotguns are just too inconsistent. Something like 6/8% pistols and 12% shotguns would be better. Or you could bump up the encumbrance of '''everything else''' (which ''would'' make more sense, but would simply get spammed). --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:24, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Is it necessary for game-balance that survivors be limited to carrying a certain quantity of ammunition? To my mind, the limiting factor is search rates, more than carrying capacity. I halved the encumbrance of ammo to balance increasing the values for firearms, along with the fact that the new system encourages keeping plenty of loose ammo, rather than just that which fits in numerous weapons. As for game-realism, shotguns are large and unwieldy, it's implausible to carry more than two. Encumbrance can represent both weight and bulk. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this idea, both because it makes sense and it's better as flavour, but I don't think it will last two seconds in a vote..not that that's any reason not to suggest it, but all the trenchies will go "OMG ONLY 1 WEAPON + MORE RELOADS NOW I CAN ONLY KILL FOUR ZOMBIES A DAY KILL KILL KILL" <br>But I like it.. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 01:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Thanks! :) Actually, I really am trying to keep the balance the about the same so that for purposes of killing speed, it's roughly neutral. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:07, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
All these fucking words to just hide the fact you want to bump up the shotgun's damage. Go to hell. Go back and play Resident Evil some more if you get hard-ons from selecting and equipping weapons. You miss the point that this is a damn text game that only gives you 50 AP a day. You can't unload weapons when you find them and you are just as likely to find a pistol with 3 bullets in it as a full clip, but thanks to this GENIUS suggestion even if you aren't a trenchy you will still get your AP raped by swapping weapons. I like to think that survivors are smart enough not to carry their weapons in a back pack but to have them hidden on their body for easy access. I fucking hate gun suggestions. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 02:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Hi DCC. As I pointed out, in front-loaded damage the shotgun sees an increase, but over time it has reduced damage/AP compared to currently. If you compare the current system with someone carrying 10 loaded shotguns and enough ammo to reload & fire again for their 50AP, the new system represents an 11% decrease in average damage done. As I clearly stated, this isn't about altering game balance or enhancing/damaging the effectiveness of any weapon. As for searching, I provided a suggestion that ammo found in other weapons could be unloaded if the user already has a weapon. Also, I don't think being abusive is very consistent with rational discussion of people's ideas. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 02:39, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::The game is not played in long term, at least for survivors it shouldn't be. They're more than mobile enough that they can pop in, do tons of damage, run out, and come back a few days later fully stocked and do the same thing. It's low risk and exactly why boosting short term gains for survivors anymore would be ridiculously overpowered.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::This doesn't create a boost for survivors. Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png the graph] I created. The intent is to create a change in behavior, without significantly affecting balance; which is why I'm happy to discuss the numbers used. The pistol remains almost exactly the same; the shotgun does very slightly more damage in the first two turns, quickly falls behind the damage put out by multiple preloaded existing shotguns. This is shifting the pre-combat AP investment to carry around all those loaded weapons, into combat itself, making it viable to have one weapon of each kind and reload during combat. This is more consistent with the game world and genre: frantically loading your weapon as the undead shamble towards you, than carrying 16 loaded weapons effortlessly. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::I wasn't critiquing your suggestion. Now I am. To keep it simple I'm just gonna say this, you can't half ammo encumbrance it would have to much of an effect on the time survivors have that they can spend ''without'' restocking. That amount of time is a significant limiter on their ability to use/abuse their AP efficiency. You're basically doubling their Ammo carrying capacity and attempting to claim it's balanced by slightly reducing their attack efficiency(which is still being left close to 8 damage per AP). Yes, it makes individuals very very slightly less effective, it will also make groups of survivors insanely more effective and it will let those individuals spend ''more'' time without a break. That ''is'' a significant boost. Now I don't actually have too much of a problem with it assuming Kevan ''finally'' allows some specific zombie boost in response, and by that I mean finally letting them do a significant amount of damage per AP and letting them get through barricades with something closer to twice as much AP as they take to build instead of 4-5x. I don't think that will happen though.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:17, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Thanks Karek, this is an interesting point. Assuming a player wants to maximize their combat potential, and disregarding all other concerns (assume they're backed up by other players who will heal/rebuild etc.), a player might carry 16 shotguns (@6%) & 2 shells (@2%). That's an average of ((32+2)*10*0.65)=221 damage in 36AP, then they're empty. 6.14damage/AP. That's not including the significant AP investment to find and load all those guns. Under the proposed system, player has 1 shotgun @18%, and 82 shells @1%. They get 2AP of attacks, then thereafter it's 1attack/2AP (load & shoot). Over 166AP, they do an average of ((2+82)*12*0.65)=655.2 damage, or 3.94 damage/AP. They would have invested more AP in advance to gather all those shells.<br><br />
:::::I understand what you're saying. The existing system allows a quick burst of high damage, then the survivor has to go replenish. The new system would allow large restocking in a "safe" are, then being able to do damage for an additional 4.6x AP; however, both the average damage is reduced, as well as being spread out over more AP. <br><br />
:::::Say we go with 1 shotgun @18%, but 41 shells @2%. ((2+41)*12*0.65)=335.4 in 84AP, or 3.99damage/AP. Roughly the same damage output, just half the cycle time between attacking & replenishing; as well as less AP invested up front. So the question is: is the length of the attack/scavenge cycle significant to game balance? Do zombies depend on survivors running out, even if they're doing 2/3rd the average damage per AP? --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::::That's not necessarily true either, with three, or even four, survivors striking together they can completely ignore the reduced efficiency. They would actually clear things faster and more efficiently then than they could now doing the same thing. Like I mentioned above, the average damage in the long term with shotguns is irrelevant because most of that cost occurs well outside of danger while most of the reward occurs when you want/need it to, all that would happen is who's holding the shotguns would change, that's actually what I like about an equipment based system. Lose everything else, keep that, the rest is irrelevant, likely impossible to balance, and seems generally based on the assumption that all Survivors are idiots; they aren't, they just don't have any real reason to work together. There's a good core idea here but the implementation needs work.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I think i like the start of this. Right now i can't focus to tell if all the numbers are good with me over a long base of time. but, first impression is i like this... i just don't know exactly how this would affect things until i'm actually using it. Also, i disagree with DCC... chill out, man. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This sounds great but really this is more of an AP kill. Consider that the majority of us survivors depend on being a walking arsenal, making us pay 2AP to get a loaded pistol out can highly unbalance the basics for siege survival. I say you drop it down to 1AP or just drop it entirely and make this a weapon pump. This has potential and I love the stats given, but you just gotta fine tone it. Try getting together a study group, devise a neat little generator amongst yourselves, provide a report in place of the hypothesis that we do have now and then try getting this into voting. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:There AP cost is there to provide the incentive to reload the weapon you're using, rather than switch out to one loaded weapon after another. For the pistol, it makes it more advantageous, for the shotgun, it makes it equal with carrying other shotguns, but the drop in encumbrance acts as a bonus. The increase in damage for both pistol and shotgun help balance against the increased AP costs so damage/AP is roughly the same. With pistols, you currently do 6 attacks in 6 turns, then switch. With the new system, you'll do 6 attacks in 6 turns, 1 turn to reload, then go again. So you need 1 pistol, and just clips. 6 damage/attack instead of 5 makes them close in damage output. Likewise with the shotgun, with the current system you fire 1 shot per AP for as long as you have shotguns. With my proposal, you still get two shots for two AP with your pre-loaded gun, then you get 1 shot every 2 AP: reload 1 shell, fire, etc. In the first few turns you'll have done more damage than the existing system, but after a few turns, it does a little less on average. Oh, and remember: '''with the existing system, you still need to spend the AP to load your weapons. You just do it before combat, not during.''' Like I said, this brings it more in genre: desperately reloading as the zombies advance on you, instead of carrying a dozen loaded shotguns on your back. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 05:32, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''Re: weapon balance: Please see [http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6172/zhanigundamagegraphyu4.png this graph].''' This compares current with proposed weapon damage. I'm somewhat inclined to increase the shotgun to 13 or 14, but the relative advantage between the old and new shotgun depends on how many loaded shotguns the player would have under the old system. I assumed 8 for this graph. If it's less, the difference is much narrower; it's unlikely a player would have many more. Note that the player has a damage advantage with the old shotgun ''until they run out''; but they had to spend the same AP in advance to load those 8 shotguns. The new shotgun merely incorporates that loading AP into combat. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 06:16, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
'''GRRRRRRRRRRH!!!''' KISS me, please. i.e., Keep. It. Simple. Stupid. This may be a fantastic idea, but I can't be arsed atm to read that wall of text. Please learn how to be more concise. Seriously. Thank you. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:22, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:What I did read... led me here... This is unnecessary. Because carrying lots of loaded firearms is actually a very poor use of AP and encumbrance. The most Ap-encumbrance efficient weapon in the game is the pistol, by far. And the best way to use pistols is to have 2-3 of them and tonnes of ammo. Shotguns are spiffy weapons, but their ap-encumbrance efficiency is atrocious: if wind up with a few, use 'em... but once its empty? Drop it, don't reload it, that's a giant waste of AP... So, if people wanna waste their AP and encumbrance on carrying and reloading lots of firearms -- the zombies say go right ahead and be horribly inefficient! <br />
:That being said... What ticks me is that I never find pistol ammo in Malls. It's always shotguns. Graaaaagh! Which means... I don't think we need a big game mechanic overhaul, so much as search rates should be tweaked... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::More thoughts... If people wanna carry lots of guns, more power to them. Because that helps the zombies... Because zombies can't be killed. And survivors should be focusing on barricading and reviving and healing first -- and when they are not... then the zombies win! By default. <br />
::Also, "walking armouries" are ''totally'' in genre. You always have the Armah Manz with billions of b!g bang-bangz... Always. And usually, these are the idiots who end up getting killed... And the consumer type who focuses on helping others and getting the job done most effectively lives and helps more people... As in the genre, as in UD... Now, I kind of would like to see trenchcoating get a bit of a nerf... however, i am always very cautious about "legislating playing styles"... And that is what this suggestion does. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:37, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::: I'm sorry you found the idea too long. However, I wanted to be specific in the reason for each change, and the expected effect. In order to make the change relatively balance-neutral while encouraging a behavioral change, adjusting numbers in several places is necessary. You said that carrying shotguns and reloading would be inefficient: that's part of what the change is attempting to address. People carry multiple weapons because they can front-load their AP to increase damage in a short time. This idea diminishes that effect while allowing them to output roughly the same damage/AP invested. <br />
::: I disagree that "walking armories" are in-genre. The "Army Mans" carry an assault rifle, a couple grenades, and maybe a sidearm. The only reason players will carry 16 loaded weapons around is because ''the current game mechanics encourage this behavior''; it's not something you'd typically see in a film. They can stock up on weapons and ammo in advance, then unleash that stored AP in the form of damage. What is more consistent with the genre and a plausible game-world, is carrying a couple reliable weapons, and reloading them as needed. This change isn't legislating playing styles: combat-oriented players will still be able to arm up and go to war. They'll just do it with a couple weapons and plenty of ammo, rather than 200 pounds of firearms on their back. Their combat effectiveness versus the zombies will be largely unchanged. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:55, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Instead of trying to play with the big boys in the flame department, I suggest picking up some reading comprehension skills. I addressed your "refutations" in my original post. First of all, the game does not actually encourage carrying 16 loaded weapons; in so far as you are able to do so, you're most assuredly ''not'' contributing to the pro-survivor cause. That you fail to understand ''why'' isn't my problem: do your homework. Secondly, dudes armed to the teeth shooting the shit out every zombie they see (and usually dying grisly deaths themselves because of their stupidity) are very common in both the movies and, yeah, even the video games. Pay attention next time, okay? And go re-read karek and DCC's comments and try to understand the words of your intellectual superiors. THEN get back to us. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:12, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm afraid that you really haven't supported your objections, despite claiming you have. Whether choosing combat-oriented activities in-game helps or hinders the survivor cause is ''irrelevant'': you mentioned that we shouldn't be dictating player style. This suggestion as I've stated is largely balance-neutral. What is does, is discourages exactly what I describe: the "walking armory" effect, and encourages carrying only needed weapons with sufficient ammunition. This doesn't prevent or penalize anyone from walking in with guns blaring, it just means they don't look like [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|this guy]] while doing it. More like [http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1003/988120768_87c5ce1538.jpg this]. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::''Balance neutral'' ? What's this shit? How can something be "neutral" -balance or otherwise- when it tries to change the way people play? '''Don't tell people how to play their characters.''' It's just that simple. Who cares if someone fills all of their inventory with weapons or with GPS units? So what if some trenchies want to carry 100 shotguns? I can tell you haven't been playing this game long. More likely you don't even play a zombie. Which makes your bitching about weapons even weirder. Your suggestion doesn't solve a problem. Your suggestion does not make gameplay more interesting. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 23:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::: Could you be specific about how you feel it's unbalanced? And the suggestion is not telling people how to play. The intention of [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#Gameplay_and_Flavor|that guideline]] for suggestions I believe is that we shouldn't discourage RP or encourage non-RP. People can play their characters how they choose, and fill their inventory with what they want. However, the current game mechanics ''actively encourages players to be walking arsenals'' if they want to maximize their combat effectiveness. The problem the suggestion solves is that carrying a huge stack of weapons is anti-RP, contrary to the genre and game-fiction. As I've said, it's [[:Image:Armycoater.jpg|silly]]. Carrying a shotgun, revolver, and melee weapon seems much more plausible, and something you'd see in a zombie movie, don't you think? This lets someone who does that, be viable in combat. Additionally, I have attempted to balance this so it's neutral towards zombies, not shifting the advantage. Again, I invite you to show me how it is not. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 00:35, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::: You say you don't want to legislate how people play the game one moment, then the next you say that's ''exactly'' what you want to do! Make up your mind. Now... Zombies don't care if they get shot. If you actually ''played'' a zombie full-time, you'd understand this. Shot me all you bloody well want, I'll dirt nap and stand up again with, at worst, 44 AP and be ready to go. Therefore, shooting zombies is ''completely'' pointless except when you need to clear a building. To that end, you carry some guns. But ''smart'' survivors don't carry lots of guns: they carry maybe 2-4 pistol and 2-4 shotguns, tops. Why? Well... because the most powerful pro-survivor thing in the whole game is the revive-needle. Next come barricading and FAKing. Smart survivors know this, thus they carry several needles (sometimes a hell of a lot), a toolbox and a big whack o' FAKs. ''These'' are the survivors who benefit the "pro-survivor" cause. By contrast, anyone who just carries a whole bunch of guns is ''not'' really benefiting the survivor cause all that much, they are just parasiting off others' barricades, revives and FAKs. Nor are they ''really'' hurting zombies, because zombies don't care if they die. Capiche? You say I haven't backed up my arguments, but I ''have''. I actually made an argument -- it's just that you either don't understand, or you're wilfully ignoring the argument. Meanwhile, you've just provided statistics and a flawed idea, which you haven't put in any kind of rational or argumentative or bona-fide in-game context... Meanwhile, I don't care if someone wants to carry 16 shotguns -- as a survivor ''or'' a zombie. As a survivor, I think that guy is a parasitic waste of space and I will make fun of him and belittle him for being a trenchcoating wanker -- but he's not really ''hurting'' me. And, as your picture of Ash demonstrates, all said and done, he is actually RPing ''in-genre''. And as a zombie I outright ''laugh'' at his stupidity and I smash his barricades and eat bra!nz with a hearty GRAAAAGH!!... However, I do not wish to legislate how he plays the game in such a heavy-handed way... Which is ''exactly'' what your suggestion intends to do -- by your own fucking admission! This is not a good idea, and by clinging to it and not accepting ''constructive'' and ''reasonable'' criticism, you're proving yourself to be fucking git, a disruptive and non-contributive member of the community. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:12, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hmm. When I said that, you criticized me for having a superficial understanding of the game. The shoe's on the other foot now, eh? --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}17:19, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::::::Hi WanYao. How many shotguns is Ash carrying? One. How many firearms will a typical person in a zombie film carry? One, or one rifle/shotgun and one sidearm. In UrbanDead as it stands, how many firearms will a person carry if they want to ''maximize their combat potential''? '''16'''. The game mechanics are already telling them "how to play", it's saying that if you want to devote yourself to dealing damage, you carry a silly and fiction-breaking number of weapons.<br />
:::::::::I'm afraid your comments about what is actually optimal strategy are irrelevant and a red herring. This suggestion makes no change in what players ''should'' do in order to be maximally effective. It simply alters the game mechanics so that the optimal number of weapons to carry is one of each, and not 16. This is what is more in keeping with the genre, more plausible in the game fiction. There's no advocated or encouraged change in "player behavior": a combat-oriented player will choose ammo over other objects, while others will stock sufficient ammo and keep their FAKs and toolkits etc. You've already said that with the status-quo, even ''good'' players will have 4-8 weapons. Again, this is silliness that is a result solely of the game mechanics, not because they believe their fictional roleplaying character would actually be that kind of badass. The game dictates how many weapons they should carry. I'm for reducing that number, without significantly affecting game balance itself.<br />
:::::::::Now if you want to make the case that 1% encumbrance ammo too greatly reduces the tradeoff between being combat-oriented or rebuild/heal oriented, I'm happy to hear it. Karek's provided his support for a similar argument above. And as usual, your personal attacks are completely off-base. I've been giving all reasoned criticism due weight. I get that some people ''don't like'' the idea, based on personal biases, but so far, I've only seen one specific argument for what might be wrong. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 17:44, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::::::This wall of text is getting pathetic... Anyhoo, there is another principle that no one has mentioned yet, but it bears emphasis: greater realism =/= better. Anyway, I'm done with this, it's arguing in circles now. Good luck. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:45, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::That's just your luck. I find TONS of clips and pistols with 4+ shots. Last time I loaded up, such stuff was easily 75% of what I found in the gun store. In fact, I would have stopped searching, but it took me a long time to find a shotgun shell to top up the half-loaded shotgun I had. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 16:40, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I fucking hate you. This comment in particular - ''"Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit."''<br />
<br />
Put it up for voting, right fucking now. Watch me dupe it on basis of weapons damage buff, selected weaponry and ammunition encumbrance buff. Just because your 'suggestion' contains many shit suggestions does not mean I cannot find those many mindless trenchie buffs and rightfully kill it, it means you are fucking deluded for thinking I can't and typing such a moronic suggestion.<br />
<br />
Shit, I wish karma was real, then some really bad things would happen to you, I'd find out about them and chortle my arse off. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:45, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Get arsed, yourself, Iscariot. Assuming trolls have arses, that is. Do they? Or does ''all'' your shit come out of your mouth?<br />
:Meanwhile, karek, swiers and DCC have pretty much show this suggestion for the BAD IDEA it is... So let's move on, kay, class? Next lesson please... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:44, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissocial_personality_disorder Please seek help.] --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Alrighty then... See, there is a time and place for being an asshole. I felt the situation was not appropriate, thus my comments to Iscariot. I take them all back now: go nuts, Izzy. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:56, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::What makes you believe it's ever acceptable or appropriate to behave abusively towards people? This sort of behavior certainly isn't conducive to rational discussion and addressing the merits or problems in a suggestion. It simply brings the quality of the wiki down, and reflects poorly on the community. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:02, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::Other than Iscariot, no one is trolling you. And, in context -- while I don't really think his comments are particularly helpful -- you've brought it on yourself. In any event, if you want a love-in, where everyone is nice to each other and they let you cry on their should if someone was mean to you, please go [http://www.oprah.com/index here]. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm not trolling at all, trolling implies I'm after a certain response from him. I don't. It would be nice if he'd listened to all the nice people explaining it to him, but he didn't. The comment about duping is pure arrogance on his part, and I don't take kindly to it. The dupe system stops moronic suggestions entering PR because everyone reasonable gets bored of killing it. |I notice he hasn't taken me up on my challenge to see if I could dupe it....<br />
<br />
:::::Also Zhani, feel free to go and whine on any sysop talk page you like. The one you're after is Vandal Banning. Good luck with that, there is no civility policy on this wiki and until we remove to moronic-trenchie-weapons-buff gene from the general population, there never will be. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
...Well isn't that one long suggestion. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 12:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:...Well isn't that one long discussion. -- [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::... Speaking of things long... ''::looks down::'' Oh, is that a banana in my pocket, or am I just happy to see a zombie in my safehouse? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:07, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Thats a whole lot of SPAM you typed up there... what's wrong with just making weapons assignable? Allow everyone to carry a weapon in each hand and have it cost 1AP per hand to change (shotguns requiring a free hand or having a -60% to hit!) reload or re-arm then cost the same and it becomes a matter of choice which style you prefer. Of course that makes maxed out survivors a lot <br />
less like the combat monsters they currently are but thats probably not a real problem! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 12:38, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Body Bonfires===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 01:48, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Perma-death option.<br />
|suggest_scope=Characters in citys with perma-death alternatives.<br />
|suggest_description=I've got a zombie character currently running around Monroeville looking for the precious few survivors there are in order to eat them.<br />
<br />
One of Monroeville's biggest problems, I think, is that there was no way for low-level survivors from killing zombies permanently. Zombies could take out survivors, no problem, but unless you had Headshot, you couldn't take down a zombie.<br />
<br />
I know that's in-genre, given that they're the freaking undead and all, but it sucks game-wise.<br />
<br />
Thus, I came up with 'Body Bonfires', after watching the movie ''Night of the Living Dead''.<br />
<br />
Should this get implemented, survivors can now douse corpses in gasoline (from fuel cans) and set them alight with matches (find stats TBC), lighters (find stats TBC) or even a flare gun, if desperate. A burning corpse will degrade into a 'charred skeleton', after which time the character would be effectively 'perma-dead'.<br />
<br />
Note that this is meant to ''replace'' Headshot as the survivor perma-death, not co-incide with it.<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Body Bonfires)====<br />
No. Why? Monroeville is quarantined and dead. Adding more items that make things even more difficult to find and implement will not suddenly change the dynamics of the city, nor will it make monroeville more fair. the point, i daresay, of that city is to more realistically show a zombie infestation, and the only way to do that is by making the limited amount of zombies unlimited, with only a small amount of very good zombie killers who can do anything about it, which still amounts to not much. its fine, and the city is pointless, and just leave it. and don't add matches and lighters to do what flare guns already do. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 02:33, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I think you misread my suggestion. For one, this is NOT for Monroeville. Monroeville is dead (or will be soon), this is for any new cities that will also have perma-death mechanics, should one ever be introduced. For another, you can only burn a zombie once they're on the ground having been 'temp-killed' (HP to 0). --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 09:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::I didn't misread crap. Nothing in your post makes reference to any mythical city that is currently not existant. You only mention monroeville, and imply that is what your suggestion is about. And after reading it again, i've decided this is a) a dupe; b) spamtastic, given the non-existant nature of your supposed city; and c) incomplete, given that you don't actually talk about where it is implemented, or if its a skill, or how its done in the user interface. just allow it to die, and then we'll burn the suggestions corpse out of our memories. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 20:44, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Completely pointless because such a hypothetical perma-death city does not exist. You can't get more spamtastic than suggesting a mechanic for something that doesn't even exist. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:56, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Reminds me of both [[Suggestion:20070816 Burning Bodies]] and another suggestion which I can't quite find at the moment. It is entirely possible that this may be substantially a dupe. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:50, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I found [[Suggestions/RejectedFebruary2007#Flare Gun / Fuel Attack|Flare Gun / Fuel Attack]] interesting reading, to say the least. How many [[User:MrAushvitz|MrAushvitz]] suggestions have been implemented, now? Surely the apocalypse is extremely nigh... {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 12:57, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Sorry, no, perma-death would not go over in this game. It's simply not fun for the players, and gives a person a reason to give up playing. Favors survivors overwhelmingly, and doesn't really improve the game. I hate to be one of those types shooting down ideas, but this doesn't work. --[[User:Zhani|Zhani]] 20:36, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A) You only mentioned Monroeville, the dead city. B) MV has one purpose now, and one purpose only: ZKing. [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 02:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Make graffiti readable in dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Logic Flaw Fix<br />
|suggest_scope=Graffiti in dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Graffiti disappears when the lights go out in dark buildings. Since it is unreasonable to assume that absolutely no light can get in any parts of dark buildings, why wouldn’t the graffiti just be sprayed in the areas that the little light can get in? Such places would be the front of cinemas (where the snack bar is, as there are usually windows out front), near the windows of the banks, and near the windows of standard buildings.<br />
<br />
I have never seen any buildings like these completely lacking windows in all areas, and windows would have to exist for Free Running to be possible, so even if the skylights haven’t been maintained, there’s no reason people wouldn’t be spraying the signs near the window areas where it’d be visible, even if the rest of the building is dark.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Make graffiti readable in dark buildings)====<br />
<br />
It's dark. You can't see dead bodies. Combat abilities are nerfed for everyone. You can't repair a building in the dark. Barricading and reviving are also disadvangtaged. So there's no logic flaw here, not at all. It's bloody ''dark''!!--[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 09:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:The logic is fine as is - after years of the outbreak, the walls will be pocked, peeling and covered in grime and blood, not to mention layers of graffiti in different colours. You'd need fairly good light to make out the latest message.<br />
:I was thinking of suggesting an item, book of matches, the sole purpose of which would be to let the user (only) read graffiti in the dark. But I couldn't be arsed looking for dupes etc. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 10:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::But..but.. what about all those blank rectangles I sprayed onto the walls to keep them clean and in one colour! In all seriousness, no to this suggestion. As Garum says, those walls are a mess, no matter how many blank rectangles you spray. :P - [[User:Whitehouse]] 12:03, 3 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::We don't need a silly, pointless item like matches to spam our searches. Meh. It's dark. Deal with it. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 12:26, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
WE DEMAND BRAILLE GRAFFITI! Fuck you, cripple haters. I need to be able to read ''I like to poop'' no matter how much light is in the building. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px|The Malton Globetrotters]] '''[[User:DCC|#99]]''' <sup>DCC <sup><i>SNACK STRONG</i></sup></sup> 00:31, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===picking some one up===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 19:44, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=helping others.<br />
|suggest_scope=humans.<br />
|suggest_description=Almost all of us can say that we have been killed while sleeping, or have been a zombie and killed all the humans becuase most of them were sleeping. So why not allow people to carry some one out of danger? Lets say that you and some of your buddys are fleeing a horde, and one of them is out of AP, so why not pick him/her up? It would cost one AP to pick the player up, and 2 AP to move around, and you would not be able to free run {you are carrying another person). You also cant attack since, it would be to diffuclt.<br />
<br />
You would rengenrate AP as you would normally would, and can be put down for one AP. If the person carrying you is killed, you fall down and be as vunerable as you would be normally. Now comes the PKer question. Being able to pick some one up and carry them of to some were else to kill them would become a PKers best tool. So I sujest there should be a check box in the settings, which you can check yes or no to being picked up. If you try to pick some one up how has checked the box no, this happens.<br />
<br />
''you try to pick the person up, but they push you away: Italic text'' <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Picking some one up)====<br />
Pied Piper skills are a great no no. Specifically because of the griefing possibilities. Even with the block you suggested, I don't think it would be acceptable. A better way of determining who can pick you up would be to check for mutual contacts, and not ignored. Not that I think this would pass even with that, because I'm pretty sure this is a dupe. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:54, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Pied Piper? Whats that?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:15, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:A pied piper skill is one that involves one player moving another (like the pied piper of hamelin and rats/children) Within game the closest we have is [[Feeding Drag]] which has on it very specific limiting factors. This is too prone to abuse. New players especially may not know its a feature, and one griefer could pick up a huge number of people and carry them directly outside. Where they would get et. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Just as Ross said, [[Frequently_Suggested#Pied_Piper_Skills|here]] is a link to it on the frequently suggested page. I suggest reading that page, will give you an idea of suggestions to avoid. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 20:31, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nequa please read Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested pages. They are linked to above, at the top of this page. Zangz. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:28, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I see what you mean, but I still think that the check box would stop that. And if you are tricked, well thats just bad luck.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 20:49, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Only way this would be prevented is if everyone had it set to "Do not allow me to be dragged away", and only switched back when they knew a rescue was on the way. It is simply to abusable in it's current form. And try telling the poor newbies, who weren't aware of the checkbox, that it was just bad luck and that they have to live with it after being dragged away from their VSB safehouse into an area full of EHB cades. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 21:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Nothings perfect, and anyway you could kill somebody quickly and no one could stop you.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:17, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:surely the default should be ''dont allow carrying''. Stop a lot of griefing there? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Sure, you could have that checkbox turned off as a default. But then, how would people who have this skill know who they could pick up, and who they could not?<br>Moving other players is a bad idea to begin with, play wise, so picking at th details is turd polishing at best. If you want to "rescue" people from danger , give them fist aid, try to fix the barricades, and recruit others to help them survive until they log back in, but don't presume to play the game for them. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:30, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Wait, what? You think this is a skill? A skill you need to get by having enough XP? No, no, no, you dont need to purchase it. Also your other point about knowing if the person has the thing checked or not is a good point. You should probally put it on your describtion if you have it on or not, like the hydra defence.[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 21:47, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Right. Other issues. If I pick up a level 1 survivor, this seems to allow me to carry him inside, and then free run to another building whilst carrying him. Regardless of his skills. Besides Im pretty sure its also a partial dup of firemans carry. Anyone got the link. I just feel its unworkable. sorry. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
[[PR_Skill_New:_Survivor:_Civilian#Fireman.27s_Carry_.28Bring_12HP_Survivor_Indoors.29|Fireman's Carry]], which is in Reviewed. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 22:55, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
LOL, that guy pretty much says the same thing I do. It appears great minds think alike. Now do I seem like a idiot?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 02:05, 2 September 2008 (BST<br />
:More so, now that you've said that. quit being unwilling to learn. everyones been very nice. now go actually FREAKING READ THE DO AND DO NOTS!<br />
:No one is pointing out the worst part of this. What if i create fifteen drones, and use them to carry a full army of survivors into zombie territory. you don't put it plainly, but you seem to infer that you can only be carried while sleeping (or at least, i'm hoping, because otherwise those zergs could carry armies of full ap'd characters) but either way, its a free trip for my sleeping characters, who spent their AP stocking on ammo. my zergs carry them in, dump them off in a zerg-repaired building, and let them sleep. now i have an army, 2 for one. thats what makes this bad. adding a penalty of 2 for one doesn't fix that.<br />
:and the griefing is absolutly grieftastic. what if i rescue someone with low HP out of a mall into a quiet factory where i show him my gun?... i mean... pk him. errm... or how about if i spend a whole 50 ap 'rescuing' any of the barricaders in a seige with a death culter. the check box doesn't solve this, because the only time that someone would want to be rescued is the same time where its worth abusing the feature. it fails because it will never work. if you can't free run with it, (can you enter/exit buildings?) then its worthless for doing anything but costing the zombie horde half the amount of AP to keep up with you.<br />
:This was long... sorry. but this suggestion is silly silly silly. NOW READ THE FAQ's and DO AND DO NOTS! Please. and don't read them and then try to come up with a better way to do what it tells you not to do... just DON'T suggest those things. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:15, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Also, wan yao... i think one of my alts was just combat revived by you. Ha. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 03:22, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Combat Reviving FTW!!! ;P .... Up Roftwoodish or something, right? I vaguely remember CRing some zambah somewhere for some old reason or another, heheh... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:40, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::As for the suggestion... Yeah... you seem like an idiot at this moment, Nequa. This is a broken and unworkable idea. People are trying to explain that to you. But you're not listening, and you can't even be bothered to read the help pages for Suggestion development -- which are clearly linked to -- and which people have been providing you with links to, above... Smarten the fuck up, please, and quit wasting our time. Seriously. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 18:44, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I distinctly remember telling you to stop suggesting... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:49, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Feeding Drag in Large Buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:necrodeus/sig}} 02:46, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=improvement<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with feeding drag in large buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Hello team.<br />
<br />
The feeding drag skill allows zombies to drag survivors of less than 12HP outside through an ''open door'' at the cost of 1AP. Therefore, if a zombie enters a large building through an open door, then makes its way through the building unimpeded (ie, through more open doors or just empty space), beats a survivor down to 12HP or below, there should exist the option to feeding drag said survivor through the building.<br />
<br />
It makes sense, as you are inside a building and simply dragging the unfortunate survivor somewhere else in the building, presumably towards the horde that generally congregates in the opened block.<br />
<br />
Now I know that this is the same as suggesting that I could feeding drag a wounded survivor through open streets, but I do think that as it is limited to the insides of large buildings it is hardly useful as a griefing tool, neither would it be game breaking, and it fits in with the idea behind the feeding drag as well - if a zombie feels the need to drag someone outside, why should the fact that it's slightly longer distance than normal dissuade him?<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Feeding Drag in Large Buildings)====<br />
Kind of like a zombie equivalent for the fort body dump? I like it. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 04:02, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Seems out of genre, normally a zombie will feed for itself with absolutely NO consideration for a horde. Though this skill is a good idea, it would be a bit pointless because if you have a survivor at 12 HP and most of the time the only large building you are in would be a mall, it would mean you drag someone near dead to a horde, either way, the survivor was already HIGHLY LIKELY to die unless terribly low on AP this skill is just useless. I say just stick with infectious bite. [[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 04:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:No. Feeding Drag and zambahz helping babahz is ''totally'' part of the genre -- as in, it's ''in the game'' ... So it's part of the genre. Zombies in Urban Dead have intelligence, more like in Return of the Living Dead than in Romero's movies. Regarding the suggestion, I think this is a great idea! But it should cost at least 2 AP to so, perhaps more. You usually don't have to drag as far, or through as complicated a series of buildings as in a fort, so I'm not sure if the same AP costs is in order... but perhaps... Still, in siege situations where this matters, we tend to just tend to kill rather than worry about dragging... However, even then, this ability would be FAR from "useless". --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:08, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ok.. I'm out of it.. I understood this as the equivalent of dragging a body outside the Forts. Which would mean you click the ability and you drag your target outside -- and you go with him, just like you would a normal feeding drag. No "half drags" to another corner of the mall -- it's all or nothing, all the way outside, or not at all. And that would cost 2 AP. And of course you'd still have to spend AP getting back inside and to the action, if that's your desire. There are some tricks to overcome with this... but it's a cool idea, nonetheless. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:37, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Yeah, I like it as well. Some people might call it greifing though [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 04:21, 31 August 2008 (BST).<br />
<br />
I was 50/50 between making it just like a body dump costing 2AP and making it like it is now, but certainly a feeding drag all the way outside for 2AP - like the survivor body dump - is just as keeping in genre and could be considered less of a potential griefing tool.<br />
<br />
What if it just acted the same as feeding drag, so I end up outside. It costs 2AP, and then if I want to get back inside it just costs me the same as normal movement rates - so at least 1AP to just re-enter the building, and 2 AP to get back to where I was originally? It's hardly a griefing tool, you're only ever going to end up outside the building you were in, and at most 1 block away from where you were {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 12:38, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:That's exactly what I just said, man... The only issue could be as follows: you're in mall, all corners are heavily barricaded except one, which is wide open... you're in another (non-open) corner killing some folk, and you want to use this ability. Now, do you drag the victim to the outside of your ''current'' corner, or do you end up moving to the open corner? What if there is more than one open corner? Or, if you drag to the outside of your current corner, then how do you justify bypassing barricades -- because even just a closed door negates feeding drag... See the problems? This is a very spiffy idea IMO, but these things need to be worked out... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:00, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::I was agreeing with you! I was thinking that the feeding drag took them out of the open corner, rather than through the barricades. As for what would happen if more than one door was open, I would say go to the nearest one, except that in a four block square, every sqaure is as near as any of the others...I couldn't see it making too much of a difference which one you drag someone out of, so I would make it random; the zombie just heads towards the light, any light. That way, as long as there is a door open when the button is pressed, the feeding drag will be successful, rather than allowing the user a choice. --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 17:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Probably won't matter a lot now since this suggestion would likely get implemented (if ever) after Monroeville closes, but in that city there are non-standard large building shapes, like [[Monroeville Mall]]. You can like drag someone across four blocks. :O Also, how would a zombie know which building block is open from where he/she stands? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:22, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Malls, Mansions, Power Stations ... are large buildings which means they are functionally ''one building''. With fours sets of barricades. And four ''zmargahzbargz, GRAAAAGH!'' The zombies knew how to get inside and move around when there was only one entry point, so why couldn't they know how to get back out? And, I mean, like he could just look around... Also, yeah, no-one cares about MV, it's over... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:48, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Well, ''you'' as the player know there's an entrance to the building, at least recently. In contrast, your zombie can only check within the block he's in -- even adjacent ruined blocks [[Pinata|aren't guaranteed]] that there are no cades there. Unless the zombie is actually looking at every block in the building (something which implies free moves), then without metagaming he/she won't really know there is an exit should dragging be done. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::But like Wan said, you're basically inside one large building. If you try and feeding drag inside a regular building, and the doors been closed, or whatever, you get a message and lose an AP, like for any failed attack. It's the same here. And the whole point of feeding drag is that zombies *do* know where the exit is --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
No. Its not needed. Once zombies get into a large building, they almost always take it down by keeping one corner ruined, or at least unbarricaded. The babah zombies can just come inside to feed, entering by spotting the ruined corner and then gorging themselves. Besides not being needed, its got a lot of potential complications. What if a large building has multiple open sections? Which one does the zombie drag them to? If zombies really wanted to use feeding drag in every section, they could just spend a few AP each to tear down the barricades, even getting a bonus for attacking from the inside in most cases.<br>I think its safe to say, if a zombie tries to drag a survivor across one or more blocks inside a large building, the survivor struggles and breaks free. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 18:36, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I'm afraid I disagree; you seem to have a fairly convincing argument against feeding drag itself; namely that if your baby zombah is standing outside any old building, he can see it's open and shamble on in. So why do we need feeding drag at all? I've already answered the point about which exit to be used as well. And yes, I could spend a whole load of AP tearing down the barricades to feeding drag a wounded survivor outside, or I could just spend 2AP and drag the human outside the exit that's already open. <br>And surely the point of feeding drag is that the survivor is wounded enough to not be able to stop it happening? And why should a human be able to drag a zombie across several squares of fort without it reviving? In both cases, if the player is online, they are better able to defend against this, with the difference being that all a survivor needs to do to 'break free' is simply walk back inside the building. <br> If I'm way off here, let me know, but it makes sense to me --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Not of base, but my point is, if zombies on a whole really cared about feeding drag, each of the ~20 or so in a large building could kick in 4 AP and blow away any barricades on that building quarter. That's really only enough AP to kill 2-3 survivors- not enough to slow down a siege once zombies are comping on a SECOND building corner. So it seems to me that zombies themselves do not put much importance on whether they can use feeding drag or not, as evidenced by their own actions in raids. Its not needed to make zombies vs large buidings work, nor would it really make it much better.<br>Truth told, feeding drag was originally used mostly to combat the "yo-yo barricade" syndrome by getting a building emptied (and ransacked) faster; now that zombies can block barricade building, its a bit of an atavism. Its main use is as a "visible" version of feeding groan. For a mall, if you want to let zombies know there is an active strike with some visible cue, just killing the generator is often good enough. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:16, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Fait enough for a horde sweeping through a building, but in my experience, I use eeding Drag for two reasons: Firstly, when I break into a building with one or two others, I know there is a chance that it will escalate into a horde swarming in, but more often that not, it won't. But by dragging a human outside, that's one less defender, and a drain on resources, because that person is outside regardless of whether I get headshot and evicted or not. Secondly, the FU tends to use it as a in game piece of flavour as much as a way of feeding the zedlings. So for a horde, I agree, Feeding Drag is unneccessary, and if you've got the resources to tear down the barricades with ease, then I'm all for that too, but for feral zombies, or smaller groups it's a slightly different ball game --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 00:39, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::When playing a feral (and my death cultist, too, actually) I use and think of Feeding Drag the same way necrodeus describes. It helps small numbers of zombies get the ransack faster. Also, if the cades go up, that drag-meat is suddenly isolated. And drag-meat is fantastic feral bait. And, yup, I do it very much for flavour/RP effect as well. Although, it doesn't work thar well for feeding babahz, b/c usually some big zambah comes along and eats them :( ... This is all in very big contrast to striking with the MOB, where we only drag if we are very intent on getting that damn biulding cleared -- because we can always tag-team to finish someone off if we have to. And if we are feeding a babah, we bring the babah inside with us. This suggestion is more for the ferals than for highly organised hordes... <br />
::::And a few other things: killing a gennie is not enough: GKing is too common... And swiers you know how annoying barricades are -- it really is asking a lot for a smaller number of ferals zombies to invest what it takes to open up EHB cades... But all that being said... Perhaps this isn't necessary, not really. And, it might in the end be a zombie buff that is just a tiny, tiny bit too much... Particularly with cade blocking... But... I still like it... ;) --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:36, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::::Well, I'm going to put it up, and see what the people / merciless flamers have to say.. {{User:necrodeus/sig}} 20:45, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::::I'm not gonna flame it; it can;t do enough harm to deserve that. My personal issue is that I'd like (as much as possible) to avoid moving other characters to different blocks (I even proposed [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20070616_Fort_Revision:_dumping_bodies_over_walls|a fort dumping mechanic that avoided this]]), and that its benefit is so small for the coding effort involved. Mall raids are already a smorgashboard for ferals, so I don't see the point of arguing it helps feed them there. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:37, 1 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Private homes===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:18, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=new building.<br />
|suggest_scope=anybody how enters it.<br />
|suggest_description=Why does it appear that there are no private homes in Malton? I know its a city and your more likely to find a privat home in the subburbs, but I do know there are private homes in the city. We dont really need private homes but it would add realism to the game. There could also be another benafit. Since anybody could have lived in that house, from a NRA gun nut, to some tech loving nerd, you could find anything in thear. But there should be list of items you could not find in the house.<br />
<br />
List of items you could NOT find in a house:<br />
<br />
Necrotech syringe<br />
<br />
DNA scanner<br />
<br />
Flak vest (there could be one there, but it seems hard to belive)<br />
<br />
fire ax<br />
---------------<br />
Also here is the describtion you would see if you went in the building.<br />
<br />
-With power: You enter a well lit home, you start to feel like you were before the out break.<br />
<br />
-With no power: You enter a dark house.<br />
<br />
-when ruined: You enter a house and notice how everything is thrown apart, which grimly reminds you of what has happend here. <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Private home)====<br />
If I may ask, how long have you been playing the game? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:36, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
To answer your question, about a week, I have been running around rhodenbank. Let me guess? There are private homes and I have just not found them yet?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 17:39, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There are [[Mansion|mansions]], and various [[Building_Types#Building|buildings]] around the city can be thought of as offices/condominiums, where you can imaging living places in.<br><br />
There are other reasons why private homes aren't found on the map.<br />
*One is that they're too small, same reason why you don't put a single tree on the map (and for those that are large enough, see mansions).<br />
*Another is that with most survivors just looting around the city and zombie hordes chasing after them, most houses are in such a state of ruin that they are essentially unrecognizable, turning residential districts into [[wasteland]].<br />
*Finally, they are quite insignificant in the grand scale of the survivor-zombie conflict that adding them now three years after the game has launched simply doesn't make the game any more enjoyable or fulfilling than it is before, and frankly it'll only be a waste of time and effort to put them in the game. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 17:51, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Then instead of adding homes how about updating the regular buildings to be more like apartments? Because most buildings have a RP (EX:pubs,police stations,forts) thing you can do with it, but the regular office buildings are boring. Maybe they could add my search idea without the need of a new building type?[[User:Nequa|Nequa]] 18:19, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Your search idea is horrible. Normal buildings already do not have items; what you're doing here is the opposite in that you can find ''anything'' in them, and just for that it will be spammed. As for your roleplaying bit, that will take a much lower priority than improving UD gameplay, especially when you consider there is a suitable alternative (once again, mansions, and normal buildings aren't too shabby -- just add some decorations) and multiple other possible roleplaying locations. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 18:30, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
There's no private homes because the private homes are usually at the outskirts of a city, and what we have in Malton...Is the big city. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 19:16, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I usually just think of the street blocks as containing such houses. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 19:52, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Private homes are not really appropriate to the game. They can be assumed to exist on many blocks... because it's generally accepted that the block description refers to the most prominent or most utilised building on the block... <br />
<br />
But... yeah... Nequa... please play the game for a while before posting suggestion ideas. Hang out and read this page for a while. And start playing some zombies, PKers, death cultists, whatever, as well a survivors. And join a good group or three. Barhah.com is a great board, and though it's zombie-centric, everyone is welcome. Beerhah.com is a good place to go for survivor stuff. Anyhoooo... back to suggestions stuff... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:47, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Dump dead bodies from dark buildings===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Restoring normal ability<br />
|suggest_scope=Dead bodies and dark buildings<br />
|suggest_description=Under current game mechanics, you can’t dump dead bodies from dark buildings. How does this make any sense? You can get in and out of the building, even through Free Running, yet somehow you can no longer remove dead bodies? Or do the exits magically close somehow when you try to remove someone?<br />
<br />
Currently, you can see anyone hiding in the shadows of very dark buildings, but you can’t see/dump dead bodies. Even if you just killed the thing, you somehow can’t find its body, even though you’d be tripping all over it!? Once again, it doesn’t make sense. Only once you light up the place does it become possible to dump the dead. Since I see no reason for it to be physically impossible to find or dump dead bodies, they should always be recognizable and dumpable.<br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Dump dead bodies from dark buildings)====<br />
A possible explanation is that people in dark buildings are found and attacked because they're breathing so loudly and their hearts are thumping. Similarly, standing zombies are wheezing. However, dead bodies emit no noise, and if you're tromping through a building hoping to step through a ribcage, you should be spending AP to do so. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}21:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Or because they are fumbling with heavy furniture in the dark to barricade the building, or shooting guns, or... {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:48, 29 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::Well, how about another take on it. Anyone who dies in the building...if their body is still inside when someone who witnessed the death takes a turn, they notice the body (since it wasn't cleared). The body wouldn't have moved from its original spot that fast.--[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 20:06, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Group Bonus===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:22, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Balance change<br />
|suggest_scope=All denizens of Malton who belong to groups<br />
|suggest_description= <br><br />
<br />
OK, so while I used the template, I’ve brought this to the discussion page in a fairly informal manner because I don’t pretend to be a programmer and I don’t pretend to know what is possible. I like this idea, but I can see my own problems with it from a technical standpoint – and I’m hoping that others here might be able to help with the solutions on that front.<br />
<br />
Here’s the basic idea – in the real world groups are much stronger than individuals. People en masse accomplish much more, whether it be construction projects, armies, or lobbying government. Organization has an additive effect to efficacy - pretty much every time. <br />
<br />
Also – there is a benefit to being part of an organization for humanity. There is community, the transfer of knowledge, the advancement of the overall ends of society.<br />
<br />
With that in mind, I think there should be an in-game bonus for group activity. This will encourage folks to join groups, which in turn will raise the overall level of gameplay across Malton. This bonus would apply to ANY group working in concert – be in human, PK’er, death cultist, or zombie – so there are no powering issues between warring factions – only a power difference between the grouped and the ungrouped. Given there are few restrictions to joining or forming groups, the ungrouped would hardly become a put-upon constituency.<br />
<br />
So how to do it? Originally, I thought a simple tiered bonus for group size measured by the number of folks who have a common group name in their profiles. Say a 5% to-hit/search/cading bonus for folks part of groups from 25-49 members, and maybe 7.5% for 50-74 members, and 10% for over 75 members.<br />
<br />
The problem there would be that it encourages a new form of zerging. Folks would make “Group Scarecrows” that they would park far away from active group activity, but who have the group name in their profile. They’d technically not be in violation of alt abuse, and it would be very hard for group leaders to prevent, and of course the incentive would be to do it.<br />
<br />
So, I am wondering if the UD engine would be able to detect proximity effects and award bonuses that way? In this case, I’d lower the numbers required for the bonuses a lot – say 10-24 for the 5% bonus, 25-39 for the 7.5% bonus, and 40+ for the 10% bonus – and say that if you’ve got that many folks operating in one XX block radius, you get the bonus.<br />
<br />
Is such possible? If so, I think it would reward all the right behaviors in this game, and be pretty darn cool. My parameters are suggestions - they could be lowered, raised, modified. I am really interested first and foremost what folks think of the concept, THEN hammering out rational details that might actually be taken to voting. So, first "Is there a reasonable way this could work?" then "Would we want it if it could?" then "How exactly should it work?"<br />
<br />
What do you think? <br />
<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion Group Bonus====<br />
<br />
I'd vote kill, simply because you are not given a hidden bonus in real life from being in a group. Moral boost, maybe. But the rest you accomplish by working closely with your group. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 16:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Impossible. proximity detection would kill the server. Assume a 5 block radius, the game would have to, on every action, harvest information on userlists for 81 blocks (inside and out), run zerg detection routines on that information, and it would have to then count the number in the group. Now, imagine this happening to the server 30,000+ times a day. You would basically increasing server load more than a hundredfold all up (Quite probably by a factor of well over a thousand). As for the rest, without proximity detection, it collapses under the obvious zerg abuse you mentioned. Proximity detection is a myth, despite claiims to the contrary. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 16:41, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think Grim_s is right - without some radical reorg of the account system it's just not possible. I was hoping some genius might have a work-around, but I bet he's right that there isn't one. Whitehouse - thanks for the comment - but I disagree with you. In real life you '''DO''' get the bonus - the door opens for the AARP in Washington that would never open for the unaligned individual. The group can clear a forest while the individual could spend a lifetime chopping a grove. I think it's moot though. --[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 16:59, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Even if possible, the advantage to being in a group should come from coordinating with other group members to do difficult tasks that an individual couldn't do. You get a big advantage from being in a well-organised group. You don't deserve an advantage from a bunch of people all spelling the group name correctly. This suggestion is a reward for crap metagaming, which we don't need. [[User:Garum|Garum]] 17:24, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:You misunderstood my point. And Garum probably phrased it better than me. You get those advantages from working together, not from simply being in a group (at least not the type of advantages you were thinking of). Being in a group is a moral boost, working together with it creates results far better than that of individuals. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 17:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Oh I see, you're saying that giving an incentive for group behavior beyond already existing benefits doesn't have merit. OK, thanks. Fair enough.--[[User:Squid Boy|Squid Boy]] 17:45, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::If you want to encourage group work, then find ways for groups to work better together instead of just giving people buffs for having the same group tag. Zombie hordes have scent death, recently someone suggested a way for zombies to sniff out their buddies. Such suggestions, which strengthen the ties of a group, will give good results, the good results are the incentive. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 18:50, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Technical details aside, this simply isn't appropriate. This is an RPG, and in RPGs the benefits of groups are simply those of multiple players co-operating. When members of a group communicate and co-operate, they are more effective. If they don't, then they aren't- just like real life. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 20:07, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
i haveno clue about all the technical aspects, but this just isnt a good suggestion. kinda sucks to be on of those people who likes to stay unaffiliated, cause they get screwed on the deal.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:19, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
If this was implemented, it would be possible for a user, for example, to put the name of a large group into their profile, and get all the benefits, without being a member of the group. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 21:45, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
This is illogical. The only bonus people should recive from being in a group is having someone to cover their back. No magic bonuses. No special abilities. Just that. --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 02:48, 30 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Take a look at Nexus War for group mechanics. The main problem is that ANYONE can be in ANY group at ANY time.-[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:04, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
===Restaurants===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time=[[User:Anotherpongo|Anotherpongo]] 15:12, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=New building<br />
|suggest_scope=People who take notice of buildings<br />
|suggest_description=If Malton has pubs, it really should have at least a few fancy restaurants, which could potentially replace a few of the pubs in the richer areas of town. The Maltonians can't all have only ever eaten/drunk beer, peanuts and crisps outside of their homes.<br />
<br />
:'''Mechanics'''<br />
<br />
''Restaurant''<br />
* Dark building<br />
* Can be barricaded, ransacked, ruined and have equipment installed normally.<br />
* Internal description<br />
** Unpowered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The once-busy dining area lies in darkness.''<br />
** Powered ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant.''<br />
** Ransacked ''You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The chairs and tables are overturned, and cutlery and napkins litter the floor.''<br />
* Search rates (normal, if dark condition were not applied)<br />
** Knife (3%) (kitchen knives)<br />
** Wine (6%) (the finest in town)<br />
** Mobile Phone (1%) (some careless people...)<br />
** Menu (6%) (Flavour item, when used displays "The menu reads: <random fancy dishes>", and flavour text "''You think about them hungrily''" (currency not specified).)<br />
* Clothing<br />
** a chef's hat (white) (obviously)<br />
** an apron (white/black) (waiters)<br />
** standard generic formalwear (maitre d'hôtel, sommelier, general higher-ranking service staff)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Restaurants)====<br />
Can we have one at the corner of the map? We shall call it, "The Restaurant at the End of Malton"... :3 --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 16:44, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't see why not --[[User:Diablor|Diablor]] 01:53, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<nowiki>*</nowiki>Whines* Pubs (Arms) aren't fancy enough for you?<br> Mah Pubs not fancy enough for you, foo? Only if there is a Pub at the end of the world.. Already.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 02:51, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like it, but I think the menu should be just like a newspaper with different flavour text. For that matter, would newspapers be suitable to be found here? [[User:I Am Sabbo|I Am Sabbo]] 03:07, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A ''dark'' restaurant? Dunno about where you're from but around here people put big ass windows on restaurants coz ppl like to see outside...also a stupid idea. Pointless and you would have to think up some ridiculous way to explain why everyone in malton thought it was a pub but it turned out to be a restaurant.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:54, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:It was always a restaurant and nobody ever thought it was a pub. And 2+2 has always equalled 5. And we have always been at war with Eurasia. And darkness really depends on the restaurant, but good point. --{{User:Anotherpongo/sig}} 11:45, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Not pointless. Knives are the best weapons for newbies, yet malls are the only places with > 1% chance of finding them. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:02, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
As much as I hate suggestions that don't seem to solve any problems, we do need a TRB for knives, and this seems like a great way to do it.{{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 16:33, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Absolutely! TRP for knives, and logical and fun flavor. --[[User:UCFSD|UCFSD]] 17:17, 27 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
a suggestion so simple that it makes sence lol i say yea bring on the restaurants!--[[User:Fanglord2|Fanglord2]] 02:37, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I '''Always''' vote for building suggestions-always love a change [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 09:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Vote all you like, I'm pretty sure a building change suggestion has never been implemented. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 10:04, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::Kevan has talked about doing it before<sub>(it's in his talk page archives for those curious few)</sub>, it's not entirely out of the question.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 08:51, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Building changes not implemented? Dark? Ruin? Fixing the fort walls? Its not without precedent.--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:46, 31 August 2008 (BST) <br />
::::He meant changing one building (type) into another building (type). The first significant building change was to make large buildings into "1" building, but they were ALL still the same building to begin with.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:05, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I'll concede that the forts were revamped from just the armoury building to the 9-block compounds that they are now, but as far as I'm aware that wasn't based on a player suggestion. Large buildings and walls changed how some buildings worked, not what type of building they were per se. {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I like this suggestion.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 17:16, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Asum(awesome)!!! Lol! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]]<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Face Rot===<br />
{{suggestionNew<br />
|suggest_time={{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
|suggest_type=Zombie Skill, subskill of brain rot.<br />
|suggest_scope=Zombies with Brain Rot.<br />
|suggest_description=The rot has spread, now it shrivels and distorts the facial features. The person underneath is hard to recognise.<br />
<br />
In game terms, its a buff for zombie anonymity. Unless the zombie is in your contacts you cannot recognise him if.<br />
<br />
*He stands up<br />
*Destroys barricades/equipment<br />
*Kills or injures.<br />
<br />
His profile can still be gained through a successful scan, or if you recognise them via your contacts. (You could be familiar with his limp, a watch or other item, his groaning etc.)<br />
|discussion=|}}<br />
====Discussion (Face Rot)====<br />
Go on. Savage it, like my horribly ruined features. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:I like it, what better way to implement Zombie Anonymity than through a skill? Plus. it promotes the Brain Rot! :D --{{User:WOOT/sig}} 18:54, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
How would this work when they're alive? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 19:38, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Then their profile just states they look like [http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=Gary+Busey&btnG=Search+Images Gary Busey] --{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:52, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Bloody Brilliant!!! --[[User:BoboTalkClown|BoboTalkClown]] 22:27, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
Good, apart from one thing. How do you explain not being able to recognise a corpse you just saw die when it stands up. This case would only be when you are in the same location for the period of time in which a character dies and rises (in the case of first being a survivor which is recognisable to all anyway). Explanation could be that the face rot while cleared up by the revivification effect while alive, takes hold again almost instantaneous. But that still wouldn't change the fact that you saw that body die and rise, thereby knowing exactly who it was. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 23:36, 23 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
A good idea, except that Whitehouse's point might need addressing. How do looks change so quickly? {{User:Ariedartin/Nickname}} 06:22, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I don't like this idea. It's balanced and innovative but it disregards the true zombie mentality. Yes, I love zombie anonymity. But I am always in the belief that true zombie characters should be willing to do the *above* three actions '''and''' have their anonymity threatened to whoever wants to use it, in order to succeed their goal. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 12:04, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Interesting points. I'm off to make a ridiculous suggestion, and I'll think about this. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 14:24, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
In relation to Whitehouses point. How about an extra piece of text like. "Blah killed Example, their face decomposes before your eyes. "--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 12:37, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
I saw no one pointed it out and I have a feeling you'll actually check before suggesting this. This isn't actually a buff to zombies, this is removing the one way in which zombie groups generally recruit. I like the idea of starting to get zombie anonymity back, it never should have left but, this hurts them, especially because survivors still get all the workarounds they want/use while zombies now have absolutely no way of knowing who to go to for help/advice/etc.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 09:07, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
==Suggestions up for voting==<br />
===Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080831 Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark]] as suggestion is up for voting. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 15:17, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Nurse===<br />
Moved to voting, under the new name of [[Suggestion:20080826_Doctor's_Clinic|Doctor's Clinic]]<br />
----<br />
===Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080827 Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:03, 28 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----<br />
===Dead Reckoning===<br />
Moved to [[Suggestion_talk:20080826_Dead_Reckoning]] as suggestion is up for voting. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 09:46, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
----</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Janine&diff=1268725User:Janine2008-09-07T20:00:31Z<p>Janine: /* Projects */</p>
<hr />
<div>And now for a little about myself without the cut and paste templates. I'm from Baltimore, currently enrolled in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Institute_College_of_Art MICA] and I work as a Creative Assistant for a publishing company. My character [http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1237352 Janine Eelms] is part of the pker auxiliary of the Hel's Daughters. If you want to leave a comment, feel free to do so.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Projects ==<br />
Currently I'm writing for the [[Families of Malton|Families of Malton]] pages.<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
{{CS}}<br />
{{Socialism}}<br />
{{Atheist}} <br />
{{Crucifix}}<br />
{{Firefox}}<br />
{{carlin}}<br />
{{Monk}}<br />
{{PKing}} <br />
{{Female}} <br />
{{Too Much Free Time}} <br />
{{Junk}}<br />
{{Axe}} <br />
{{Boobies}}<br />
{{American}}<br />
{{HATP}}</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Janine&diff=1268723User:Janine2008-09-07T19:58:47Z<p>Janine: /* Templates */</p>
<hr />
<div>And now for a little about myself without the cut and paste templates. I'm from Baltimore, currently enrolled in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Institute_College_of_Art MICA] and I work as a Creative Assistant for a publishing company. My character [http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1237352 Janine Eelms] is part of the pker auxiliary of the Hel's Daughters. If you want to leave a comment, feel free to do so.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Projects ==<br />
1. Writing for the [[Families of Malton|Families of Malton]] pages.<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
{{CS}}<br />
{{Socialism}}<br />
{{Atheist}} <br />
{{Crucifix}}<br />
{{Firefox}}<br />
{{carlin}}<br />
{{Monk}}<br />
{{PKing}} <br />
{{Female}} <br />
{{Too Much Free Time}} <br />
{{Junk}}<br />
{{Axe}} <br />
{{Boobies}}<br />
{{American}}<br />
{{HATP}}</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dulston&diff=1268585Talk:Dulston2008-09-07T14:46:47Z<p>Janine: /* September 6<sup>th</sup> */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Dulston wiki, "New Baghdad" and NPOV== <br />
<br />
In regards to the edit spats going on with this page... Basically, there are two choices: <br />
#Remove ''all'' references to player groups in the Suburb NPOV blurb... This means no Dulston Alliance mention, no New Baghdad, no post-outbreak "flavour" text. Nothing... <br />
#Allow groups with long-standing and established histories in the suburb -- who have effectively become integral parts of the "local culture" -- get a brief mention in the NPOV section. [[Dakerstown]] is one example of this in practice. <br />
In regards to No. 2... The Dulston Alliance may not like DORIS, but their history and influence on Dulston is undeniable. By some accounts, they've been around longer than the DA... In any event, DORIS is a large, well-established group who have had a game-wide impact and who are ''most certainly'' a part of the "local culture" of Dulston. And, DORIS and their allies commonly refer to Dulston as "New Baghdad"... <br />
<br />
So, anyway... Choose... Either ''all'' references to player groups go, and NPOV gets strictly and rigidly enforced... Or the New Baghdad reference stays, as well as the DA blurb. Hopefully you choose balance ''and'' fun, as opposed to the first, really pretty dull option. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:44, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing as the mention of New Baghdad in the opening blurb is just causing drama and edit wars... I removed ALL references to ALL player groups etc. from the NPOV blurb, and relegated these things to the "Post-outbreak information" section, called on this page, "Dulston - more than just a tourist location!" This actually adheres more strictly to wiki conventions; I just thought it'd be fun and flavourful to include the entertaining New Baghdad reference... Because it's funny... And I ''did'' say that only ''some'' people call it that, and if someone clicks on the linky, it's ''obvious'' that it's a DORIS thing... And the DA was mentioned by name, wheras DORIS wasn't, so if anyone got more "publicity" out the old edit, it was certainly the DA. But... apparently... egos and petty intergroup conflicts are more important to some than making the wiki a little more fun... So, its ''strict NPOV guidelines'' then, I guess. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:51, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Moved News Items, September 2008==<br />
====September 6<sup>th</sup>====<br />
The zombies regrouped and marched (or rather, shambled) directly to [[Treweeke Mall]], ignoring other surrounding buildings. They managed to breached the Northwest corner of the mall. All generators were disabled or destroyed, and radio were retuned - clearly the works of zombie spies. Currently there are about thirty undead inside versus hundreds of survivors. The battle for Dulston will be decided here. -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 18:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Please keep reports NPOV. Moved to talk. If you cant spot whats wrong with this one, you need psychological help, and fast. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 02:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Come on guys, I understand you have the best of intentions but there is such a thing as going too far with following the rules. NPOV is one thing but removing a comment just because it has a slight survivor or zombie slant to it is just ludacris. Everyone will twist things just a bit to their own ways, it's human freaking nature!--[[User:Rjkk|Rjkk]] 03:04, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::That was pretty blatant, however. Stop whining and learn to post things in a sensible NPOV manner. That way you save time for everyone all round and learn a useful life skill in the process. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 03:21, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::More spammy, not really NPOV stuff deleted. I can't be bothered to even move this this crap here anymore. It was replaced with an actually NPOV, informative, ''and'' entertaining (well, I hope) article. Smarten up people. NPOV is '''not''' hard. You just have to '''want''' to be fair and unbiased... BTW... FOX News is most assuredly '''NOT''' a good model for this, eh? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:18, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Yeah, whining. That's what I'm doing, sure. Whatever you say almighty one.--[[User:Rjkk|Rjkk]] 04:51, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
Hey Wan Yao. The Northwest Corner of the mall is ruined. The Northeast is filled with mallrats attempting to retreat.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 15:46, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====September 5<sup>th</sup>====<br />
<br />
[[Treweeke Mall]] has been breached in the North Corner. Whitlock was taken and fell again, and a large group of zeds are in the surrounding area. The survivors could defend, but we might need alot of ammo... There is probably going to be a large attack soon, and survivors in the surrounding areas will be needed to beat off the cold, dead hands. They ARE at our doorstep. -- [[User:Dmitribeta|Dmitribeta]] 21:05, 5 September 2008 (EST)<br />
:How was that not NPOV?--[[User:Rjkk|Rjkk]] 16:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::"The survivors could defend, '''but we might need alot of ammo'''... There is probably going to be a large attack soon, and survivors in the surrounding areas will be needed to beat off the cold, dead hands. '''They ARE at our doorstep'''" (emphases added) <br />
::That is TOTALLY in the survivor point-of-view -- and survivor point-of-view ''only'' -- and makes not even the slightest ''pretence'' to being neutral. And I didn't even talk about the tactical/coordination part.... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:30, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I just don't see the big stinkin' deal. Until recently it was commonplace to post things like that in the Dulston news because it gets pretty boring here without major power struggles. I mean yeah, if you were on here badmouthing people, trying to pick a fight or something like that I could understand. And I understand the point of being neutral ''but'' in my opinion it's been taken too seriously lately. It's just a game. As long as no one's being hurt why bother? Just the way I see it.. --[[User:Rjkk|Rjkk]] 20:55, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The type of stuff that gets left on the news section in most suburbs is generally from the survivor point of view. Why enforce it in only a few instances?--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 21:25, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Just because it doesn't get noticed and dealt with in some places doesn't make it ''right''. And of course this page is going to get attention: it's getting traffic, because there is a battle going on! In any event, the wiki is a ''community'' effort, and a community ''responsibility''. Why not help out, removing/moving non-NPOV posts when you see them? Instead of whining about the fact that some of us are trying to do the right thing here, where we are noticing it? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:23, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::::You ''really'' need to get laid, Wan.--[[User:Zombie Lord|Zombie Lord]] 13:10, 7 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====September 2<sup>nd</sup>====<br />
<br />
:One cannot judge survivors as a whole by some unproductive behavior of a few. There are many people who are actually fighting, or trying to organize a fight against zombie horde. Some buildings close to Treweeke Mall were retaken, repaired, and barricaded (albeit not powered) by groups of brave survivors. For example, [[the Gouger Arms]], [[Parrott Towers]], and [[the Speak Motel]]. The war is far from over. -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 15:18, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::RE: ''*le sigh*'' I wasn't trying to implicate any such thing, Kittithaj... What I was intending to do with that comment was pointing out the actions of ''one person''... Pointing out that that they were a bit, uhm, silly and unproductive. And... trying to add a little bit of "flavour" to the News report, not the same old dull, boring dry stuff -- but still NPOV, at least hopefully. If anything, for the record, it was meant as kind of a pro-survivor "nudge" in so far as I was commenting on what is productive vs. unproductive survivor behavior in a siege situation... <br />
::That being said, I actually just re-read your post and I'm going to back, I made a mistake removing it... But, this discussion ''is'' best conducted here. Cheers. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:21, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Moved News Items, August 2008==<br />
====August 31<sup>st</sup>====<br />
Dulston is in dire need of support with both a large number of Player Killers & Zed groups working together to bring it down. The few freelance survivors & the small group of currently active Alliance members are losing territory on a daily basis. Help is requested from any survivor groups able & willing. --[[User:Officer_Murphy|Officer Murphy]] 09:54, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Somehow I doubt the Browncoats give a rat's ass about Sanitarium or the Infected Swarm or FU. And to any dedicated zombie, harmanz -- PKer, "pro-survivor", whatever -- all taste alike: ''r!g zh!ggan!!!''. No one is coordinating to use transmortal tactics that I am are of... Perhaps you need one of [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Clothes/Suggestions#Tin_foil_hat.2F_Paper_hat these?] --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:14, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:: Bridgman fell to Infected Swarm after we shot the place up and cleared it. Im sure that they just decided to have a stroll over at the right time... --[[User:Blanemcc|Blanemcc]] 18:00, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====August 28<sup>rd</sup>====<br />
Anne General Hospital and two police departments were ruined.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 01:33, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:''(I moved this not be a jerk, but because it's not exactly informative. I mean, ''which'' PDs??? Please specify. Thanks. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:12, 29 August 2008 (BST))''<br />
A Maniac Killer is a Pk'er.<br />
<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v314/macrossflyboy/?action=view&current=mk_killer.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v314/macrossflyboy/mk_killer.jpg" border="0" alt="Maniac killer"></a><br />
Should be taken down for hunting his fellow human.Do not revive either.Let him rot. - Left by Macross36.<br />
:Take it to Brainstock. http://z14.invisionfree.com/Brainstock/index.php?.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 01:29, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====August 23<sup>rd</sup>====<br />
Actually that's not us. Pkers and other such people maybe but defintately not the Swarm or any of our allies at the moment. --[[User:Rjkk|Rjkk]] 00:40, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:For better or for worse, I seem to have been promoted by an anonymous broadcaster (although it was probably the same [http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=894736 Blanemcc] who PKed me today). Oh well. [[User:Mikeage|Mikeage]] 09:50, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::This is not the place for reporting localised news about non resource buildings (go to the individual location page) or your own death.[[User:Yonnua Koponen|Yonnua Koponen]] 14:29, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::In the context of random PKers spamming the radios with meaningless and false broadcasts and altering frequencies of radio transmitters, I think it's certainly relevant. [[User:Mikeage|Mikeage]] 15:13, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::::This isn't really news. This is just people reacting to OLD pker tactics being used and bickering. Move it to the talk page if you want to discuss and argue about context there. As well the '''only''' news post seems rather NPOV.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 18:53, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====August 16<sup>th</sup>====<br />
Survivors had only a few days to celebrate before the zombies returned in full force. [[Troubridge Cinema]] was ruined once again. [[The Trood Building]] was breached by a group of about ten zombies and a fierce fight ensued. Currently, the building is still holding up with a few zombies inside and the generator destroyed. Stop staying in [[Treweeke Mall|the mall]], gather your firearms and first aid kits, and move yourself to the Northeast, Dulstonian! -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 17:32, 17 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Moved News items, March 22-31, 2008== <br />
====March 31<sup>th</sup>====<br />
<br />
The zeds have taken the mall. I intend to revive some allies and make a stand at the Bridgman Building. It currently stands at QSB+2, until I can get it EHB we'll use surrounding buildings to hide out in. --[[User:Mixairian|Mr. Edgecrusher]] 15:18 EST (GMT -5), March 31st 2008<br />
<br />
====March 25<sup>th</sup>====<br />
::Turkmenbashi is causing a ruckus in Whitlock. Dropped three wounded men just now. Orders are to kill on site and do not revive. BTW, do not kill members of Red Rum they have joined the fight against zombies. [[User:Jaydepps|Jaydepps]]<br />
::: Uh, Jay...Exactly who do you think was behind the attack on Treweeke and Whitlock last night? (Hint - it was Red Rum). [[User:Shotgun Ed|Shotgun Ed]] 09:41, 25 March 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
====March 23<sup>rd</sup>====<br />
<br />
3 Zergs at Leeson Alley. You can tell just by looking at the names.[[User:Fernley|Fernley]]<br />
<br />
Update: The Duport Ave RP que has increased to 10. The RP is actively taken care of though. Several zombies are brain rot and have players descriptions reading DO NOT REVIVE. If they don't want to be revived, then they must be passing through to attack something. I think changing The Pepperell Museum from EHB to an entry point would be better for that location. [[User:tried|tried]] 16:19, 23 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
====March 22<sup>nd</sup>====<br />
<br />
:As many survivors gear up for the imminent attacks by the second big bash and the dead, groups have been attempting to plan their strategies against the invasions. There is a large amount of controversy about the barricades, as if they are not lowered, survivors will be left at the mercy of the bash, whereas if they are, zombies will easily break in to valuable buildings such as the Whitlock building. Whitlock Assist and Rescue Member Yonnua Koponen gave a morale speech in all four corners of Treeweke mall, saying: "Everybody here! Stand together, PKer or survivor, for the good of all humanity! The Dead and BB2 are on their way, so we need to hold them off while other suburbs regrow their populations! Its down to us! Only we can save Malton! Fight now together as a united front. Fight for Malton, for Victory, for HUMANITY!". (reposted) [[User:Yonnua Koponen|Yonnua Koponen]] 21:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==General Discussion==<br />
When posting be sure to place your post to the very top, above all previous posts so players will recognize which post is the most recent. "''Thank you for your co-operation. This is a test. This has been a test of the Dulston Emergency Warning System. This is only a Test. If this had been a real emerger''- bzzzt!" (static).<br><br><br />
:Please sign your {{{1|edits}}} on the wiki. You can do this by pressing the [[Image:Sign.png]] button in the editing toolbar. Signing your {{{1|edits}}} in the standard format makes it much easier to identify when and who has made changes, and creates less work for other wiki users--{{:User:Airborne88/sig}} 09:50, 30 March 2008 (BST)<br />
===home coming===<br />
just thought you'd like to know the I.S. is heading home goodnight dulston~michael dark one<br />
<br />
===Life Cultist Discussion (moved from news)===<br />
<br />
Dulston is still ruined but an intriguing zombie civil war has sprung up with many former defenders of Dulston content to stay zombiefied and kill the hostile occupation force still present after the Bash has moved on. If co-ordinated well with still-living defenders the tactic could yield some buildings becoming usable once more. [[User:Iggles|Iggles]] 21:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On another note: ZKing does nothing. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[ The Ridleybank Resistance Front|RRF]] [[DORIS]] [[Caiger Resistance Front|CRF]] [[Militant Order of Barhah|MOB]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 21:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
::He's right. Zombies just stand up, no headshot or anything. [[User:Standard Zombie|Standard Zombie]] 01:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::He's wrong. If a zombie kills another zombie it can then be dumped out of a building. If he doesn't then the zombie is still on 60hp (and will probably have a flak jacket).<br />
No, the zombies just stand right back up and get back inside. [[User:Standard Zombie|Standard Zombie]] 23:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
:ZKers kill hostile zombies in a building, then exit. Survivors move in and dump the dead bodies. After dumping the bodies, they proceed to repair and barricade the building. After that, they either defend it or gather supplies (such as syringes to revive their ZKing friends) and move on. I don't see whats so wrong with this tactic. In the long run, sure it's pointless. But when you have dozens of dead survivors, whats the use of them standing around non-serviced revive points when they can help their living comrades? --[[User:Kikashie|Kikashie]] <sup>[[ELT]]</sup> 02:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
{{Life Cultist}}<br />
It's terrible role playing is what it is. --{{User:Secruss/Sig}}20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
:And what about Death Cultists? I mean, who in their right mind would <i>want</i> to help zombies? <br />
--[[User:Kikashie|Kikashie]] <sup>[[ELT]]</sup> 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Isn't it obvious? The ones, like me, who enjoy the part where people get eaten in the zombie movies. Mainly it's usually because of their own stupidity. --[[User:JSaysNo|JSaysNo]] 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::Indeed. The crazy ones. {{User:Secruss/Sig}}21:30, 9 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===Using the suburb to advertise groups===<br />
*This is largely in response to the January 10th posting by the Whitlock Whatever Group. Is the suburb place really where folks should be advertising their groups? I'd understand if they had actually *done* something in the suburb, but posting to say "We've started a new group, come join!" just seems like spam to me. {{User:Sheana/Sig}} 05:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
*:Depends on how they advertise. I don't mind it when it's something like:<br />
*:<b>December 2<sup>nd</sup></b> - "Several Dulston Citizens witnessed [some new group] recapturing [building] yesterday. Their leader, [joe schmo], was available for comment: ["Blah Blah, new group, blah blah."].<br />
*:But yeah, when they just say "WE'RE NEW." it's kinda annoying. This really brings up the "NPOV" idea. Who's to say that advertising <b>anything</b> can be NPOV. Especially when groups, or just people, say "We ransacked this building" (as the infected swarm used to). I say as long as whatever you're posting in news is mildly entertaining, and isn't too biased (ie: Zambahs/Harmans sux!1), it should be allowed to stay. --[[User:Kikashie|Kikashie]] <sup>[[ELT]]</sup> 06:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
*::Blargh, the ruining/reclaiming of buildings doesn't bother me so much, because that actually *is* useful news, especially in a relatively quiet suburb - it's useful for both survivors and zombies to know that there's a zombie horde inside such-and-such PD, so zombies can go be with others and survivors can stay away. However, this W.A.R. group seems to be basically spamming the page... and, perhaps most amusing, they didn't even list theirs as one of the pro-survivor groups on the sidebar. I'll comment and let them know - it looks like their leader is relatively new to the wiki. {{User:Sheana/Sig}} 16:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Dulston Safety Level===<br />
*According to [[Suburbs]], suburbs with "active zombies and break-ins, but no 50+ hostile hordes" should be categorized as Moderately dangerous. There's been at least one building ransacked in the past twenty-four hours, and from what I know there are at least three active zombie hordes in the area ([[Dulston Destruction Tour]], [[Infected Swarm]] and [[Cybele's Shamblers]]). Should Dulston be recategorized? [[User:Gogolnik|Gogolnik]] 20:42, 22 July 2007 (BST)<br />
*:I second that, this suburb doesn't warrant a safe rating. There's break-ins all the time, especially in the northeastern part.--{{User:Lachryma/sig}} 20:48, 22 July 2007 (BST)<br />
*::Is there proof of break-ins recently? DITPS indicated that zombie numbers in the NE corner of Dulston had dropped significantly. Also note that the DDT is ''not'' a zombie group, but rather a zombie campaign, like Mall Tour, with the purpose of focusing zombie groups on an objective (i.e. attack Dulston). Now Infected Swarm number about <15 zombies although I am unsure as to how many zombies are in Cybele's Shamblers. The "Green" (Safe) rating was set by me because the Whitlock Building showed only 8 zombies, with the greatest concentration being 3 zombies. Even so, I would like to see what a scan from Trood or Beale reveals before arguing this as I do not know the situation from a proof-positive perspective. If there are no significant zombies there anymore then I would argue for "Safe"... at least until Infected Swarm gear up again. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] July 22 2007, 3:54 PM (EST)<br />
*:::[http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/07-22-07_2100hrs_PUBLIC/IN_95-2_Dulston_Ransack_b71-243-5b3.html Proof of recent break-in/ransack] Want some more?--{{User:Lachryma/sig}} 21:06, 22 July 2007 (BST)<br />
*::::I actually just heard about the attack on the fire station today... with what, 4 survivors inside? That's what I read anyway. Still that does count as a break-in. I think what I would really like to see are the zombie numbers in Dulston. In the past there was significant zombie activity in northeast Dulston, which truly merited a "Moderate" danger alert. As I haven't seen any such numbers yet, but the fire station (no matter how undermanned) was overrun you do have the right to change Dulston's alert level to Moderate for now, at least until such time as proof dictates zombie activity in Dulston has once again been quelled. I would also like to confirm whether this activity is a case of zombie "border-straddling" wherein zombies move between two suburbs, but are not (cannot) threatening both suburbs at the same time (due to limited numbers). But that is purely speculation at this time. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] July 22 2007, 6:47 PM (EST)<br />
*:::::Ooo, big bad guardian of the Dulston wiki gave me permission to update the danger level! ;) Anyway, that fire station has been suffering a series of strike thingies, leading to attrition or something. A few days ago there were 15 people there, then 7, then 4, then none...Also, do NT scans pick up dead bodies? Cuz I don't see many standing zombies at a time, due to insane amounts of <s>trenchcoating</s> street attacks, but the zombies are there on the ground, recharging AP and the such.--{{User:Lachryma/sig}} 05:08, 23 July 2007 (BST)<br />
*::::::Actually if what they say is true and the groups are in the area it doesn't matter if they are breaking into much of anything at all. It's an organized zombie presence and there are break ins as Lach showed with her shot of her breaking into somewhere. That would be most definitely and completely yellow<small>(at the very least)</small>. --{{User:Karek/sig}} 05:14, 23 July 2007 (BST)<br />
*:::::::I AM THE GREAT AND MIGHTY WIZARD OF DULSTON! ;) I feel that zombie groups, in and of themselves, are not indicative of a suburb's threat. Take the Shamblin' Crooners for example. Originally the Dulston Alliance planned to wipe them out... but then they realized how entertaining the zombies were, even if they were breaking into buildings and killing people. So they decided not to stage a campaign against them. I think threat is measured in response, so if you feel threatened you tend to run (i.e. a "hopeless" fight against zombies would have survivors flee to adjacent buildings). I've also seen smaller groups, like The Plague, prove themselves to be more troublesome than zombie groups twice their size. But now that's more a comparison of siege skills and dedication. One of my keen interests in the UD Wiki is keeping it factual and up-to-date. At least in this small corner of Malton. To answer Lachryma's question, no, NT scans only register standing zombies. Theoretically there is very possibly more zombies lying in the dirt recharging AP than standing... but then again there might not be. How do you prove that threat? I don't think you can base threat levels on that. Rather the suburb danger level should simply be updated at the time the zombies all stand up and really become a threat. I wouldn't want to speculate all corpses as threats. For that matter some standing zombies are not a threat to survivors as some are simply undead survivors (seeking revival) and others, based on a few reports I've read, are ZKers. Although I would say that together they account for 10-20% (tops) of the total standing zombies at any given time. I think a suburb's threat level should be indicative of the zombies threatening it from within its borders and an NT scan really helps back-up claims of zombie activity or inactivity. The rest would be from public reports, such as the one you showed me. If you would really like to see some excellent work in tracking zombie activity I would point you to lead Zombiologist [[User:Balcony Jedi|Balcony Jedi]] and his work at [[The Whitlock Building]]. All very excellent reporting and I wish more people took the time he does. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] July 23 2007, 9:02 AM (EST)<br />
*::::::::I suppose one could go around taking pics of outside, to show the number of bodies, but other then that...anyway, you have a point.--{{User:Lachryma/sig}} 17:23, 23 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
*Why is it that the three suburbs surrounding Dulston are rated safe? Couldnt they spare some man power and clean up Dulston as well? I'm headed up that way in hopes of helping secure Dulston and maybe give humanity a small NE corner to call home. Come on...havnt any of you played the game "Risk"? As we fortify our homes and set up a "green zone" (pun inteneded) then we can spead like a cancer all take it all the way from the NE to the SW......sometime.--[[User:Bruce1nR|Bruce1nR]] 18:47, 23 June 2007 (BST)<br />
:Well your help is appreciated, but I'll let you in on a little secret. The zombies are an experiment and, in a way, we actually let them come in. You see for the longest time [[Dulston]] has been called DULLston because it lacked zombies. Most of the major survivor groups therefore either left to fight zombies elsewhere, or lost members until they were wiped out. Take [[Dead vs Blue]]. They started off red-hot since their members were from the Rooster Teeth forums and some of the group's leadership even worked on the '''Red vs Blue''' videos. As such, in its golden era, the group had 77 members. A year later it has 10 or less. What killed their group? Boredom. So our plan here was to let some zombies in so survivors would have something to do AND see if it reduced PKers. That's the other problem boredom breeds as before this Dulston had 2-4 times as many PKers than it did zombies. And there you have it in a nutshell. So come on by, have some fun; Dulston finally has some real entertainment. ;) --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] June 23 2007, 10:03 PM (EST)<br />
::Lol, well, I've been KIA in ROTwood so it'll take me a considerable amount of time to get over there >.< A human tore down the barricade to the building I was in so....well, we'll see what happens when I get there :)--[[User:Bruce1nR|Bruce1nR]] 03:49, 24 June 2007 (BST)<br />
:::Ah, [[Roftwood]], a nice place to visit and die in, but not a nice place to stay. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] June 23 2007, 11:25 PM (EST)<br />
::::I wasnt planning on staying, I shambled out over to Pimbank and have now been headshot...awsome. Also, where could I find a page layout as cool as yours? --[[User:Bruce1nR|Bruce1nR]] 10:00, 24 June 2007 (BST)<br />
:::::Well there are no userpage templates, if that's what you are inquiring about, but you're free to use mine. Just change it to suit your own needs. You can also get other ideas from the various Wiki Mods, as they've usually taken the time and trouble to edit their userpages as I have. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] June 24 2007, 11:30 AM (EST)<br />
::::::Ahh, thanks a bunch. I should be getting there within the next two days or so...--[[User:Bruce1nR|Bruce1nR]] 00:12, 25 June 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
*Think we should update the suburb wiki page? I've know there are at least two groups no longer active listed. It could probably use a good update in general. I just wanted to bring it forth. Anyone oppose changes? --[[User:Officer Murphy|Officer Murphy]] 6:54, 6 November 2006 (CST)<br />
** Everything looks up-to-date now. Furthermore since late December I've made revision to some of the links, text, and group listing. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] 3:07 PM, 4 January 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
*How ironic. I left Dulston less than a week before the RRF decided to attack, because Dulston at the time was boring. --[[User:Elliothatman|Elliothatman]] 10:36, 1 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
*CRT (Contamination Response Team) is under new management. The group, which remains OFF the Wiki group list for security reasons, suffered a massive PKer attack courtesy of '''Cletus Van Damme''' PRESUMABLY due to the unsanctioned actions of a FORMER member, who enforced the barricade policy ''WAY'' to hard. Cletus has been cleared of all charges, but several people he PKed at the warehouse CRT calls home were not members of CRT and might still seek revenge. The CRT itself has taken action to replace the commander of the Dulston division and hopes to help the other survivors and survivor groups repel the zombie invaders. --[[PestilenceScorge]] April 29, 2006<br />
<br />
*Sorry for the edit/unedit on the main page. I was unaware of the defense plans, being new. Everything's back the way it should be. --[[User:TwoADay|TwoADay]] 14:08, 28 February 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
*Well as current news shows Dulston is all "sunshine and lollipops" right now, or as much as one can get of that in Malton. Zombie sightings are few and far between compared to some of the surrounding suburbs. Of course with the siege of [[Caiger Mall]] going on right now that's to be expected. Zombies are being drawn there from every suburb and since we already had a low zombie population it goes without saying that the numbers show this way. The real test will be to see what happens after the siege ends, though I don't foresee a large increase in the zombie population here, but there will be one no doubt as the hordes look for targets that have "ripened" due to the lack of major zombie attacks. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] 2:32 PM, 24 Feb 2006 (EST)<br />
<br />
*I hate it when the [[Drunken Dead]] got into Oake Walk PD. I stumbled outside and died of an infection soon after. Curses! --[[User:Otona|Otona]] 09:38, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
<br />
*This is just a rumor overheard in a safehouse I was in, but it was claimed DORIS (the Something Awful group) would be targeting Dulston with its next project. --[[User:Amazing Rando|Amazing Rando]] 08:04, 24 Sep 2005 (BST)<br />
**Well, it was a rumor. The only groups to worry about are the ones listed in the article. I myself am fighting off these hordes of zombies. I wish the best of luck to all Dulston Survivors. Except for the PKers. They can die. --[[User:ThunderJoe|ThunderJoe]] 02:56, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
<br />
<br><br><br />
<br />
==Tactical Discussion==<br />
Post any thoughts on tactics survivors should consider using when facing current or overall threats. Post any threat notices here upon identifying any major PKer or Zombie group activity. <br />
<br />
Also feel free to link to the Wiki page associated with whatever location these events occurred at, since many key locations within Dulston have their own pages. Further information can then be gleaned by examining the records (i.e. '''Current Events''') logged for that location by various players.<br><br><br />
<br />
*The Barricade for the standard zombie invasion plan has been removed due to its redundancy with the [[Dulston Alliance]]'s new plan.--[[User:Cheeser|Cheeser]] 19:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC) <br />
**[[The Big Bash]] is drawing rather close. It's about time we started on strategies and rallying who we can to help defend the suburb. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 20:37, 25 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
*It's my hope that survivors will take note of what I'm setting up for them at the various NT Buildings, namely the section entitled '''NecroNet Reports''' on each building's respective Wiki page. So far I maintain updates at one building, [[The Waish Building]] in nearby [[Pescodside]], and as you can tell these reports help point out potential problem areas. Even so what I would like to see is:<br><br><br />
<br />
#Each NT Building with at least one survivor providing daily updates, preferably earlier in the day.<br />
#Several players each providing one report during a day to give more in-depth long-range recon. As the images use the naming convention '''BuildingNameYYYYMMDD.jpg''' they can be replaced by each new report for the same day.<br />
#Visual recon on trouble spots, as I have seen people in the past discount 2-3 zombie mobs, only later to hear there were an additional +5 untagged Brain Rot zombies there as well. Survivors need to seriously remember that untagged zombies will NOT show up on these scans so any trouble spots should have visual confirmation by a runner/scout. Then a report could be added to the '''Current Events''' for the suburb and building's pages. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] 12:50 PM, 10 Mar 2006 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Revive Points and Barricades ==<br />
'''October 5, 2007'''<br />
Sorry if this question is in the wrong spot, but we have a bit of a dilemma and want some advice.<br />
On the subject of Brain Rot, the BRRC in South Blytheville is apparently no longer operative. Can we use Beale for this, for a ONE-TIME fix, involving a high-level member of our group? If so, what need we do to do this aside from knock down the barricades? We have a member of our group who's been a Zed for quite some time and has about 450 XP to use for survivor skills, and wants a revive from the Rot. He's in Dulston and can be in/outside Beale tomorrow around lunchtime. What can we do to get this guy back in the land of the living? Please advise. --[[User:Flustered Fred|Freddy]] 20:53, 5 October 2007 (BST)<br />
<br><br />
Okay, the current situation for revies (16.02.2007). Things were starting to improve and the cades levels have been more consistant. However since a recent Zombie incursion we seem to have some confusion in regards to all the revive points as well as a lot of overcrowding up at Hammerton. People have been going around putting confusing signs up all over the place, including at Duport Avenue. I got killed and seeing Hammerton was overcrowded I popped down to Duport and found a sign saying new revive point 4 East, went there to find "new revive point 4 south". I ignored that and went back to Duport, seeing some humans outside the Whitlock NT I went there to see it's saying revives there. It's not like there was overcrowding down there. Meanwhile over at Hamerton (I went back after getting revived to help rev the others) I noticed someone had put more random signs on Hamerton pointing to yet another location and saying Hamerton was closed. My suspicion is that some griefing is involved here, probably Zombie spies. Anyway - Revives ARE happening at Hamerton but there are a lot to get through. Spreading out to the nearby cemetary is not worth it if you can't get revived at Hamerton. However popping accross to just outside the Whitlock NT building is VERY FAST at the moment for revives. While people are putting signs at Duport I don't know if it's worth staying there. Btw, great job everyone that has been helping to get area organised again. --[[User:Fenrisfil|Fenrisfil]]<br />
<br />
Lets just make this clear:<br><br />
'''[[Dulston Streets#Duport Avenue|Duport Avenue]] is the only reliable revive point in [[Dulston]].'''<br><br />
[[Dulston Streets#Hamerton Road|Hamerton Road]] and the [[Cemetery 99,2|Cemetery]] have never been very reliable revive points, unfortunately. Technically, Dulston does not support the [[Sacred Ground Policy]] anyway. [[The Trood Building|The Trood building]] and [[The Beale Building|the Beale building]] have always been dificult to hold, so revives from there are always sporatic. Plus the NorthEast corner of Dulston is known for zombie groups to hang out and launch group attacks from there. If you want a revive, '''go to Duport Avenue'''. You will be revived quick, I promise.--[[User:Cheeser|Cheeser]] 18:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Even though [[Dulston Streets#Duport Avenue|Duport Avenue]] is the best revive point shouldn't we still support the [[Sacred Ground Policy]]? We could always try and tag the [[Cemetery 99,2|Cemetery]] informing newbies to go to Duport Avenue or check the wiki but still not attack any zeds there and revive any if someone has a spare needle?--[[User:Archangel Michael|Archangel Michael]]<br />
::Personally, I will revive a zed if I can there. Most players new to the area or the game will expect (at least hope) that a revive is possible. But I have noticed that it never has been close to a good place to get a revive. I have seen all sorts of killing on that square. Since it is the only cemetary, it makes sense to me to make it known by use of the Reject Sacred Ground Policy that if someone looks at the wiki for help, they will not get their hopes up. Changing the suburb to a [[Sacred Ground Policy]] suppporter will take a lot of effort from the other players around that area. If the majority of people in the burb want the SGP in place, we certainly can. If so, one of the groups should take responsibility of maintaining spraypains, and inform offenders that they need to stop killing in the cemetary.{{User:Cheeser/sig}}18:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
:::Hm, although Duport is the '''best''' place for a revive, many groups still support the SGP. I think that the template should be taken off. [[User:Anachronos666|Anachronos]] 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
:::: There are a few dedicated people that are trying to improve the quality of both Hamerton Road and the nearby Cemetary as revive points as well as keeping Trood active. The main problem with this has always been organisation and I don't think it would take a lot to sort out. I am taking on the task myself because you have to find your own challenges in a game which can essentially never be lost or won and death itself is only a minor inconvienience. But there are a few things that aren't particularly logical. Firstly I recommend that St Barbara's Church, which is one square from Trood, the cemetary and Hammerton needs to be kept as a VSB entry point. That would also allow for Nott Auto Repair to move up to EHB giving easy access to fuel for Trood. I've also been thinking about Troubridge Cinema, which is currently claimed by Ragnarok as a base of ops, but has always bene plagued with zeds and Pkers (being a coner, they seem to take pride at "corner kills" and is of no value resource wise could be left as an empty entry point (kept at VSB but with a warning against sleeping). [[user:Fenrisfil|Fenrisfil]]<br />
:::::It is very good to hear that someone has hope for the northeast corner. There are some things you should be aware of from your suggestions though. According the the [[DODD|accepted barricade plan]] for Dulston, St. Barbara's Church is already set as a VS barricaded building. If it is higher than that, please feel free to bring it down. Nott Auto should under no circumstance be more than VS. It is the ONLY Auto building in our suburb. If it is maintained at a higher level, only free runners could access it, which is not fair for lower level survivors. Troubridge Cinema should also not deviate from the [[DODD]]. What purpose would that serve anyways? St. Barbara's and Trood are to be no higher than VS, allowing all survivors entry to Necrotech's facilities. I'm sorry, but nothing you suggest makes any sense to me.--[[User:Private000|Private000]] 04:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
::::::The problem is that there isn't much control over the NE corner. We can say what we like about what it should be, but it's pretty tough up there and people will overbarricade. Unless someone gets a team together to publicise and break 'cades, it's not likely to have much of an effect. Trood is very rarely in operable condition, the same with Beale, and what we really need is men to keep it secure. We're seeing 10+ groups on a bad day, just getting one of the DA member grups up here to help hold the area would be a big help. Want a challenge? Head up to the corner and give us a hand. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 09:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Is Dulston remotely following [[DODD|accepted barricade plan]]? Certianly I've rarely seen things maintained as listed in the part of Dulston I'm in. The trouble with unniform plans is that they are unworkable unless a large group is in the area dedicated to keeping things compliant. But I have a few comments related to the questions Private raised. Firstly why do newbs need access to an Auto Repair shop? Newbs need to survive and get XP and getting generator fuel isn't the highest priority. Plus when you consider how often places are overcaded even in the best maintained and organised of regions (I have an alt in Shearbank for instance, the players are really on the ball but still my alt seems to spend every day breaking down overcaded buildings, good job he's got no need of XP anymore). Being the only auto repair shop in the region I would say it's more important to protect the resource then to give newbs access to it. Personally when I was a newb I was much more interested in places where I could get actually useful items for gaining XP. Secondly Trood is a big target for zeds being in the NE corner, if kept at VSB it's totally unsafe and not of a lot of benifit to Newbs, plus the generator will be out more often then on. With more then one Necrotech in the area it makes sense to keep Trood at EHB and have the other at VSB. As long as newb scientists in the area can access one they are fine. Finally as for Troubridge, yes sure if the building was at all safe it'd be fine to keep at EHB, but given that zeds are always breaking in and PKers are always killing there (which considering there is rarely more then 3 survivors in there at a time anyway is a pretty high ratio of PKing) it is frankly a waste of resources to keep it at EHB. I'm not saying we should expend AP taking the cades down to VSB, merely that we shouldn't waste them keeping it up at EHB when there are more vital buildings in the area. ALSO and this is very important the amount of times I've had to break down cades in the area before I can leave a building to revive people is quite silly, if we are struggling to hold the VSB buildings on the DODD at that level in the NE corner then the cinema provides an alternate entry/exit point. There was a period when the cinema was being held by zeds and it became the only reliable place to get out and make revives. I was almost sad to see the zeds go. Lol. --[[User:Fenrisfil|Fenrisfil]]<br />
::::::::The [[Electric Light Torchestra]] currently tries to adjust the barricades while being on [[Light Map of Dulston|enlightenment-tours]]. We don't check every single building, however. Only the ones the are direcly on one of our tours or have no lights on are checked. But we try our best to keep the barricades according to the plan. Talking about the plan, I refer to the OLD one however. I cannot see the point in changing Downe Towers to EHB without further adjustment. I recommended some changes on the [[Dulston Optimal Defense Diagram|DODD]] Talk Page.--[[User:PsychoLychee|PsychoLychee]]<sup>[[The Electric Light Torchestra|ELT]]</sup> 05:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::The [[Talk:Dulston_Optimal_Defense_Diagram|DODD talk page]] is set up for anyone who has a suggestion or opinion for a change to be voiced. Please go there.--[[User:Private000|Private000]] 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Dulston's Cemetery==<br />
<br />
There's a bunch of zeds at a cemetary waiting for a revive at the northeast corner of the suburb. -- '''Anonymous'''<br />
<br />
:The northeast is pretty unreliable. You might want to tell them to move to [[Dulston Streets#Duport Avenue|Duport Avenue]]. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 21:48, 12 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Why not.--[[User:Cody6|cody6]] 00:46, 13 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::They're not going anywhere. If none of them clear out in 5 days I think we should declare there heads open game. Also remove the current message at that cemetary, as there's no reason they should wait for nothing. -- '''Anonymous'''<br />
<br />
::::The [[Sacred Ground Policy]] may or may not be in effect here. I wouldn't go shooting them. Spray tags to Duport Avenue would be the best way. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 13:38, 17 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::::If they're still there in 4 days though it's obvious they're not leaving and are just letting the Sacred Ground Policy protect them. Besides... I've told them a few times and gave them the warning also. -- '''Anonymous'''<br />
<br />
::::::Since a notification that Duport Avenue is better at the cemetary was posted last night, the number of zombies at Duport has risen to 13. I would have checked the cemetary if revives didn't take up as much AP. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 19:58, 18 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::::::A few days ago before I had trouble connecting to UD I told them to clear out at least 5 times. Since then they've doubled from I think 5 to 13 zombies... they weren't moving. If any zeds remain there after 3 days I'll kill them for being stupid. --[[User:Cody6|cody6]] 21:31, 18 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Being unaware of revive point status and not into meta-gaming does not constitute 'stupid'. Use a DNA extractor, find the career zombies and rotters, add their profiles, and then shoot ''them''. Don't go after legit waiting survivors just because they're not doing as you say. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 17:04, 19 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::...They're not really gonna get that many revives that far northeast... They just sit there for a while and do nothing. I survived sleeping 2 nights at the graveyard without a attack. That isn't normal... They've been told by more then 1 person to move out to a better revive area. Waiting at a cemetary isn't smart since only the Sacred Grounds POlicy will get people to revive ya... -- '''Anonymous'''<br />
<br />
::::::::::I know this is late, but it's more a general answer (right now the cemetery seems to have been turned to a brainrot camping ground). Let them be! If they sit there and do nothing, its fine. Zombies, that don't move don't kill. If they enjoy hanging out on the graveyard, it's their problem, not ours. Killing them might give you some XP, but they are a much fewer threat when you just leave them stand around there. I'd say: respect the [[SGP]] and don't revive at random.--[[User:PsychoLychee|PsychoLychee]]<sup>[[The Electric Light Torchestra|ELT]]</sup> 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there anywhere left in Dulston that I can get a revive? --[[User:Xaph|Xaph]] 07:53, 7 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:I'd head to Duport Avenue. It's slightly backed up, but you'll get a needle eventually. --[[User:Offier Murphy|Officer Murphy]] 09:53, 7 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== The Big Bash Attack (September 4th) ==<br />
<br />
[[The Big Bash]] are now officially rolling into Dulston using the cheap/cowardly tactics of sending in spies, GKers, & PKers first to try to loosen survivor strongholds and frustrate them. Be prepared, head to [[Treweeke Mall]], and follow the plans laid forth by the [[Dulston Alliance]]. -- '''Anonymous'''<br />
<br />
:The Big Bash '''ARE NOT''' using spies, GKers, and PKers. They are ferals and zombies who were combat revived by someone, and they are seeking revenge until they feed themselves to the hoard. For goodness sake people, you brought it on yourselves by combat reviving us! Be more careful! -- '''Anonymous'''<br />
<br />
::The Big Bash '''ARE USING''' spies & PKers at the very least. I've read it on their forum as proof! -- '''Anonymous'''<br />
<br />
:::Can you reference that proof? Are you sure it wasn't just one character? --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 16:23, 5 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::All you have to do is go to their forums and browse. You'll see the occasional "population report" of certain buildings along with some people claiming to load up on guns and then kill 2-3 people. A few claim to be getting combat revived... well I say if you want to be a zombie get brain rot so it doesn't happen or don't stay at a revive point. Not that I really care or can do much about it. I simply use "cheap/cowardly" just to get under their skin. --[[User:Officer Murphy|Officer Murphy]] 12:30, 5 September 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Known Groups ==<br />
<br />
I've seen -- and made -- other suburbs with a little heading above group listings. Something along the lines of "''Pro Survivor Groups''", "''Zombie Groups''", and "''Hostile Groups''", any chance we could implement something of the like in Dulston as well, instead of the vague listing we have now? -- [[User:SgtBop|<font color="black"><b>SgtBop</b></font>]]<sup>[[User talk:SgtBop|<font color="black"><small>Talk</small></font>]]|[[Maris Viridis|<font color="black"><small>Maris Viridis</small></font>]]</sup> 19:23, 11 July 2007 (BST)<br />
:You know, funny story (no not really), I did have similar headings. Yup. Then when Mall Tour '07 rolled through one of the Wiki Mod big-wigs removed them saying "Does not conform to other suburb layouts". Or something like that... it's probably still in the suburb history tab. Anywho, that's the only reason there are no headings. I suppose if other suburbs are now using headings we could too without as much concern about being "shot down" again. ;) --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] July 12 2007, 7:58 AM (EST)<br />
::? I thought you had left... anyway, I've seen them around, and they really ''do'' help. Maris Viridis isn't a zombie group, but, hey, where else would I put it? Anyway, I can do that in a little bit, I'm updating something else at the moment...--[[User:SgtBop|<font color="black"><b>SgtBop</b></font>]]<sup>[[User talk:SgtBop|<font color="black"><small>Talk</small></font>]]|[[Maris Viridis|<font color="black"><small>Maris Viridis</small></font>]]</sup> 17:31, 12 July 2007 (BST)<br />
:::I have left. I mean, from UD, as I don't interact on any forums anymore. The UD Wiki is something I'm still "wrapping-up". Mostly I still have 3 small projects to complete: Biertag '07 (95% complete/100% awesome), a summary of the '''Rolt Heights War''' for Historical Events, and a combined wikipage for NecroNet reports. But after that, I'm gone even from the Wiki. On a side note, the original layout I used was more "black and white", I had categorized groups into 2 categories: pro-survivor/anti-survivor. That's how PKers and zombies ended up side-by-side ;). --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] July 12 2007, 1:04 PM (EST)<br />
::::Sad feelings aside (I don't like losing people I like), that makes sense I guess. Well, I'm going to try it, just with a preview of it, the group pictures look really bad everywhere, at least underneath the "mother" groups such as the Dulston Alliance. The groups, however, would probably not like if their picture is taken off of the suburb page... I'm a neat freak, yes. Any suggestions? -- [[User:SgtBop|<font color="black"><b>SgtBop</b></font>]]<sup>[[User talk:SgtBop|<font color="black"><small>Talk</small></font>]]|[[Maris Viridis|<font color="black"><small>Maris Viridis</small></font>]]</sup> 18:09, 12 July 2007 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm not 100% sure, but I recall spearheading the thumbnail group icons used on the suburb listing, so that "disorder" is partially my fault. In my opinion what makes them look bad are: long group names which wrap below the image (i.e. "Friends of the Featherstone Library" in [[Pescodside]]), suburbs where groups have or don't have images (i.e. mixed list) as I prefer all or nothing, and lastly bad thumbnail images. The ones I like are those that are clear-cut. Here is a sample of the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Dulston&oldid=565478|old category headers] I used, to give you an idea. And yes, back then I considered the [[Dulston Alliance]] its own category. Of course in light of the [[DEM]] I felt that was too egotistical, so I opted to shuffle them back into the larger list. Truthfully that's how it should be, but then you need to still point to the Alliance wikipage somehow. It's possible that for parent groups you could remove the image/icon, but you would need to change the link in some manner as to indicate its status. Also, keep in mind I'm using "small" tags so bold tags will not work. The only suggestion I have is try a few different approaches and see which works best, but remain consistent. Also, don't create headers for groups that are not there (i.e. [[Santlerville]] has a header for zombies, except there are none... it looks like a waste of space). The solution should be to simply add the header when such a group appears. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] July 12 2007, 5:35 PM (EST)<br />
Oooh... pretty -- [[User:SgtBop|<font color="black"><b>SgtBop</b></font>]]<sup>[[User talk:SgtBop|<font color="black"><small>Talk</small></font>]]|[[Maris Viridis|<font color="black"><small>Maris Viridis</small></font>]]</sup> 16:36, 13 July 2007 (BST)<br />
:Thanks. I did the same thing for about a dozen or so other suburbs, so this isn't just in [[Dulston]]. The test will be to see how many suburbs keep this category system. The odd one out is [[Santlerville]] which also uses a "local vs. neighbour" group listing. I'm not sure how relevant that is if you ask me. But who am I to tell them what works best? --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] July 13 2007, 12:20 PM (EST)<br />
::I'll tell you who, ''Caleb Usher'', scientist extraordinaire! Just kidding, sorta. Well, anyway, it looks nice, and who knows about other suburbs, amirite? (Speaking of other suburbs, I'm currently revamping [[Hollomstown]] if anyone wants to assist). -- [[User:SgtBop|<font color="black"><b>SgtBop</b></font>]]<sup>[[User talk:SgtBop|<font color="black"><small>Talk</small></font>]]|[[Maris Viridis|<font color="black"><small>Maris Viridis</small></font>]]</sup> 17:23, 13 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Moved News==<br />
River Has Killed:<br />
Muro,<br />
Andrew Wigman,<br />
And Findeccano<br />
In The Name Of The Infected Swarm!<br />
--[[User:River Giles|River Giles]] 22:25, 24 September 2007 (BST)<br />
:Please keep news NPOV, and about Dulston. Bragging about kills is not news. --[[User:Kikashie|Kikashie]] <sup>[[ELT]]</sup> 23:47, 24 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
I have moved this from the main page to this talk page for two reasons. One, it isn't major news relating to the condition of the suburb. Two, it wasn't not cited of referenced, and could easily have been made up. --{{User:The Surgeon General/sig}} 01:36, 25 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== BARRICADES ==<br />
<br />
STOP stranding survivors! I was killed 4 times because I could not get into a building and was stranded for several days at a time looking for a way in. I can't even get into a police dept to reload my guns. How are we supposed to kill zombies when we can't reload our guns? I don't think there is an infinite ammo cheat I can type -.-<br />
--[[User:DracoGuard|DracoGuard]] 16:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)<br />
:I think over-barricading is an issue that will never truly go away. In light of this I would suggest always keeping a crowbar handy and trying to stay near SAH or AGH, as both hospitals are run by DITPS and should be kept VS barricaded when there are no zombies outside. Just a suggestion. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] October 28 2007, 5:44 PM (EST)<br />
<br />
:Several buildings in the NW are kept at VSB+2, and managed by survivors. If you're looking for an entry point, thats the place. Otherwise, it seems like you need [[Free Running]], which lets you jump from building to building. Make that your next priority, it's the most useful survivor skill. --[[User:Kikashie|Kikashie]] <sup>[[ELT]]</sup> 22:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== December 7th Response ==<br />
:'''Update''': [[Spicer Row Police Department|Spicer Row PD]] has been reclaimed by the [[Infected Swarm]]. The Swarm wants to say to the people of Dulston "Go home and Die the [[the Beale Building|Barhah Building]] is ours." --Vachon Blaze 13:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::'''Update''': In response to [http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=796159 Vachon Blaze], noted NecroTech scientist [[User:Mobius187|Caleb Usher]] had this to say, "I hardly know where to begin explaining how wrong Vachon Blaze's statement was, but I'll do my best. First of all, zombies cannot own buildings like living people, they just mill about and 'Mrh' at one another while performing nothing constructive in any of the structures they assume to claim. Next, I'm sure Vachon meant to refer to his fellow zombies as 'Swarmers', unless I'm mistaken, which I have been known to be in the past. As for the people of Dulston going home, well, technically they are already home so going anywhere is obviously out of the question or a very short trip. Lastly, asking them to die wouldn't accomplish anything as at the very most it only brings up the whole zombification and revival routine, if in fact your advice was taken. Hardly a worthwhile endeavor to recommend. I propose instead that all zombies gather in the streets. The fresh air will probably do them some good. Well, no not really, what with them being clinically dead and all. It just seemed like the right thing to say..."</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Category_talk:Families_of_Malton&diff=1268170Category talk:Families of Malton2008-09-06T23:40:59Z<p>Janine: /* The Eelms Family */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Project Notes: ==<br />
<br />
This is one of my "other" pet projects that I have been working on conceptually... I'll be adding a significant number of names over the next few days. There is a Formula I am working on to determine if a particular "Name" qualifies to be on this list... Mansions and Malls automaticaly qualified, further names are going to be determined by number of locations in Malton with a particular name attached. Others '''''MAY''''' be added if there is significant reason to include them in this list. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 13:04, 27 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Another thing... Is that not the most awesome quote from T.S. Elliot, its like it was written for UrbanDead...<br />
<br />
I have L, M, and N, left. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 00:14, 6 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I added everyone to the Projects list roster... I'm almost done with the initial list so feel free to pick a family and start adding content. be sure to make connections to locations where appropriate. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 14:29, 30 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Names Not Yet Included but Should Be: ==<br />
<br />
This section is for later use once the primary work is done by myself and other volunteers. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 13:04, 27 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Example Family Bio: ==<br />
<br />
=== Brief Intro ===<br />
Who this family was, how did they impact Malton, when did they come to Malton and did they help found Malton etc..<br />
<br />
<br />
=== The Famous members of this family. ===<br />
Members of this family who have been mentioned in the History of Malton or in Historical citations of locations should be listed here. If there are any Zombies claiming to be members of this family they would list their names and or profile links here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Members of this Family Currently in Malton ===<br />
Survivors who are allegedly members of this family would list their names and/or profile links here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Foot Prints on Malton ===<br />
The Landmarks of Malton that either was made possible, named for, or represents a member of this family and the links to those locations go here.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Additional Relevant Information ===<br />
Any additional information, rumors, innuendo, or facts about the family not otherwise covered goes here.<br />
<br />
==Blackmore==<br />
Ah sorry about that. [[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 22:18, 28 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:Oh hell, no problems at all... and I quote ''Please note that all contributions to The Urban Dead Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here.'' I'm just hoping that with the completed locations list we can tie in locations to the families so (perhaps) more people will use teh Wiki as an RP resource. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 23:40, 28 May 2006 (BST)<br />
::Well I'm done for today. I got to finish up Blackburn, Banbury, and Ashcroft by tomorrow. It takes me a while to do this because I'm researching real history to tie the junk in. [[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 23:44, 28 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:::Outstanding! [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 23:56, 28 May 2006 (BST)<br />
::::I won't be able to finish them today. I'm hella busy. However I got rought drafts on Blackburn, Banbury, Ashcroft, Maddaford, Cabell, Lorenzo, Johnstone, and McCulloch. So they won't take long. [[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 15:32, 29 May 2006 (BST)<br />
::::: Hey we dont have to do them all, nor do we have to do them all right away even if we do do them all... Don't feel rushed. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 01:40, 30 May 2006 (BST)<br />
::::::Almost finished with Blackburn. Banbury is part of it so it won't be hard to finish that one. [[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 01:59, 1 June 2006 (BST)<br />
I spent two hours writing a story for Blackburn and my computer didn't save it. I'm done for now. Maybe when I got time on my hands I'll continue. Right now I'm too annoyed that my computer went retarded. [[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 01:06, 6 June 2006 (BST)<br />
:Thanks for all the help "Sonny" its greatly appreciated. I figure this is an extreamly long term project anyway... [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 13:15, 6 June 2006 (BST)<br />
::Finished Blackburn. Had to write most of it from memory. I'll get started on the Five Families. [[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 18:16, 11 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Existing Familes aka Groups? ==<br />
<br />
There are a number of groups out there that operate as Families. The [[Vengabean Family]] is one of them. Will you guys include those in your list or is this list only for this preset series of names? --[[User:Novelty|Nov]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]], [[Moderation|Mod]], [[User_talk:Novelty|Talk]]</sup> 09:46, 15 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:AS Far as I am concerned, the Vengabean family is welcome to be added as well as any other family name that has historical (read RP) value in malton. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 14:06, 15 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:: They had this huge RP on the official forums before it got closed down. Then they moved that RP to the desensitised forums. They deserve to be on the list as much as any of these made up families. There have been other smaller RP families as well, RP-ed through various forums and mailing lists. I would think that makes them more historical (both in RP and in the real sense) than any of the families on this page. I don't understand the discrimination though. Just because they are made up and RP by somebody else doesn't make them less real or less historical or less RP. --[[User:Novelty|Nov]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]], [[Moderation|Mod]], [[User_talk:Novelty|Talk]]</sup> 13:25, 16 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::They're allowed to add it if they want. The problem is that it should be done by one of them so that they have the whole thing right. I could do it but it would be butchered. [[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 23:11, 16 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::You don't have to do anything other than linking this list to the current existing groups that are families. --[[User:Novelty|Nov]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]], [[Moderation|Mod]], [[User_talk:Novelty|Talk]]</sup> 16:27, 18 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ashbee family ==<br />
<br />
Just added some stuff for the Ashbee family. Hope it's OK.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Uncle Whippity|Uncle Whippity]] 16:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)<br />
: Absolutly... Effectivly this is designed to be an open-source role-playing supplement. So any additional work by anyone is good. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 20:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Beauchamp Family ==<br />
<br />
This is what happens when you're waiting for a revive and all your alts are out of AP. Beauchamp is an old English/Norman name, but digging about in Wikipedia found a tenuous Quaker connection that I preferred over landed gentry. Again, I've tried to keep this as 'mid Atlantic' as I can. If there's any errors, or it's cr@p, feel free to hack and slash. --[[User:Uncle Whippity|Uncle Whippity]] 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Some memories from working for a British town council ==<br />
Just some background notes here that might help the process for others. I served as a town councillor (councilman in the US?) for 8 years, and got partially involved in the naming process for a few new roads, and know some of the local history of my old town, so thought I'd pass on some of the things I picked up.<br />
<br />
Some roads/areas pick up their names from what was there before. The 'pool estate' got its name from having been the site of an old open-air swimming pool. 'Learner Drive' was built on land that had held a big driving instruction centre. 'Central Avenue', 'West Avenue' and 'Downs Avenue' took their names from the fields of the farmland they were built on. (This may be just a Brit thing, but naming farm fields is very common here.) 'Whitefriars Avenue' was named after local glassworks, which was in turn named after the monastery that was on the site. 'Waggs Well' became 'Waxwell', and the road it was on became 'Waxwell Lane'.<br />
<br />
Some roads are named after local people who may or may not have been wealthy, but who did something significant - or not. 'George Gange Way' was named after a former councillor. 'Butler Road' was named after a headmaster at the local prestigious public (US private) school. 'Abbot Drive' was named after the leader of the council at the time the road was built. (That road was built by the local authority, and having known Cllr Abbot, it's possible he suggested the name....) 'Rayners Lane' takes its name from the farming family who owned most of the land the new roads were built on.<br />
<br />
Recently (or not so recently) dead people are good inspiration - 'Betjeman Way', named for a poet laureate who died as the road was being built, and 'Nelson Road', named for the Admiral. In both cases the namee (for want of a better word) had never lived in the area but may have had some connection.<br />
<br />
Local businesses can name some roads, too: 'Bishops Walk' is/was nothing to do with the clergy, but is everything to do with the name of the shop it used to lead to. This can also affect whole areas (suburbs in UD). As an example, 'Hooking Green' became 'North Harrow' pretty much because it sounded better and that was the way the property developers of the time liked it: the fact that it wasn't north of Harrow, and was actually further west than 'West Harrow' didn't matter.<br />
<br />
Lastly - the emergency services and the post office have an input in the naming process. Too many similarly-named streets near each other is bad news. <br />
<br />
In summary: a street name needn't necessarily imply a family name; a family name needn't mean they were local. This isn't to undermine the 'Families of Malton' project in any way, simply to sow some more seeds in the imagination.<br />
--[[User:Uncle Whippity|Uncle Whippity]] 22:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Morliere Family ==<br />
I just added them and created the link to the page. As a resident of Dartside, I'd like to take a shot at creating some history for Downing, Bowerman, Pollet & Morliere. Something to the affect of how these 4 very wealthy families (all made their money through railroad) basically created Dartside.--[[User:John Blast|John Blast]] 20:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Perryn / Perram ==<br />
<br />
Just added [[the Perryn Family]], and I'd like to request that [[the Perram Family]] page be made into a redirect for the Perryn family. I'd do it myself, but I don't have the appropriate Wiki skills. Thanks in advance. --[[User:Specialist290|Specialist290]] 03:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's done. You just put <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[Name of page you want to go to]]</nowiki> for a redirect.--{{User:Lachryma/sig}} 03:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks Lach :) --[[User:Specialist290|Specialist290]] 03:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Brooke Hills Related Families ==<br />
I would like to take it upon myself to help create some history for families with influence in Brooke Hills, which I recently decided to add more description to. I would specifically like to work on the Grandon, Hellear, Dampier, Parsley, Chamberlain, Schalch, Welsford, Hame, and Fifoot families to start off. I will most likely start some of these tomorrow and will hopefully have them all completed, not counting any edits or ideas by others, in a month or two. [[User:SuperMario24|SuperMario24]] 22:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Players Added to Families ==<br />
Are we allowing the inclusion player characters to articles of the "famous" families of malton? Example: [[The Alner Family]])? --[[User:Akule|Akule]] <sup>School's in session. </sup> 18:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
::As far as I'm concerned...why not? [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[DHPD]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 06:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== The Eelms Family ==<br />
<br />
I've added a brief entry for [[The Eelms Family|the Eelms Family]]. I've done my best to conform to the guidelines, but I would appreciate it if someone could go over the article and edit it to read better.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 20:42, 6 September 2008 (BST)</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Malton_Uprising&diff=1268120Talk:Malton Uprising2008-09-06T21:08:03Z<p>Janine: /* In the hopes of a more accurate map. */</p>
<hr />
<div>([[Malton Uprising/Archive|Archive of Old Discussions]])<br />
== Please Stop Talking ==<br />
<br />
Don't most of you guys have to get back to trolling each other on Brainstock? I wished I had as much time and what appears to be either patience, or insulting disregard, for the repetitive arguments that do more to strengthen the points made by the badly worded Manifesto that is apparently being held-hostage. For the love of Sappho, please stop posting. When Secruss and Alphy start sounding reasonable and sober, it should tell you that it's just time to stop arguing and start violence.<br />
<br />
Which is why I am suggesting that Secruss, Alphy, and Kikashie all fight Father Tom(?), Labine, and Kristi of the Dead to a Caged Death Match.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:09, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Fuck you. I'm important too, you know. Put me in the ring with Garviel. I'll kick his miniature painting ass. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 01:56, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::You important? To who?--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 13:06, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::I don't wanna be [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVDDRZQtiyQ nobody's hero]... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:25, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==In the hopes of a more accurate map.==<br />
I like using the tool provided on Rogue's Gallery to see where the DEM is absent. If you try to locate PKers with in n-number of blocks of location x and y, then you can see how many days it has been since a spotter went through the area. [http://www.ud-malton.info/Rogues_Gallery?State=Search&X=10&Y=10&Distance=10&Type=Location Example] - [[User:Sir Fred of Etruria|Sir Fred of Etruria]]<br />
<br />
:That can work, but what if there's simply been no reported PKers in the area? --{{User:DT/Signature}} 22:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::Or DEMs who aren't running IMP? -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 22:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:::Couldn't you just use some allies/supporters who are low on ammunition/FAKS go through the area and check the hot spots and declared head quarters? And if you wanted to find out if they were zombie or active you could steal their profiles off of the Brainstock recruitment area to check. --[[User:Janine|Janine]] 22:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Janine&diff=1268103User:Janine2008-09-06T20:26:01Z<p>Janine: </p>
<hr />
<div>And now for a little about myself without the cut and paste templates. I'm from Baltimore, currently enrolled in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Institute_College_of_Art MICA] and I work as a Creative Assistant for a publishing company. My character [http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1237352 Janine Eelms] is part of the pker auxiliary of the Hel's Daughters. If you want to leave a comment, feel free to do so.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Projects ==<br />
1. Writing for the [[Families of Malton|Families of Malton]] pages.<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
{{CS}}<br />
{{Socialism}}<br />
{{Atheist}} <br />
{{Crucifix}}<br />
{{Firefox}}<br />
{{carlin}}<br />
{{Monk}}<br />
{{PKing}} <br />
{{Female}} <br />
{{Too Much Free Time}} <br />
{{Junk}}<br />
{{Axe}} <br />
{{BoobiesSmall}}<br />
{{American}}</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Dulston&diff=1268102Talk:Dulston2008-09-06T20:25:39Z<p>Janine: /* September 5<sup>th</sup> */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Dulston wiki, "New Baghdad" and NPOV== <br />
<br />
In regards to the edit spats going on with this page... Basically, there are two choices: <br />
#Remove ''all'' references to player groups in the Suburb NPOV blurb... This means no Dulston Alliance mention, no New Baghdad, no post-outbreak "flavour" text. Nothing... <br />
#Allow groups with long-standing and established histories in the suburb -- who have effectively become integral parts of the "local culture" -- get a brief mention in the NPOV section. [[Dakerstown]] is one example of this in practice. <br />
In regards to No. 2... The Dulston Alliance may not like DORIS, but their history and influence on Dulston is undeniable. By some accounts, they've been around longer than the DA... In any event, DORIS is a large, well-established group who have had a game-wide impact and who are ''most certainly'' a part of the "local culture" of Dulston. And, DORIS and their allies commonly refer to Dulston as "New Baghdad"... <br />
<br />
So, anyway... Choose... Either ''all'' references to player groups go, and NPOV gets strictly and rigidly enforced... Or the New Baghdad reference stays, as well as the DA blurb. Hopefully you choose balance ''and'' fun, as opposed to the first, really pretty dull option. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:44, 25 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
:Seeing as the mention of New Baghdad in the opening blurb is just causing drama and edit wars... I removed ALL references to ALL player groups etc. from the NPOV blurb, and relegated these things to the "Post-outbreak information" section, called on this page, "Dulston - more than just a tourist location!" This actually adheres more strictly to wiki conventions; I just thought it'd be fun and flavourful to include the entertaining New Baghdad reference... Because it's funny... And I ''did'' say that only ''some'' people call it that, and if someone clicks on the linky, it's ''obvious'' that it's a DORIS thing... And the DA was mentioned by name, wheras DORIS wasn't, so if anyone got more "publicity" out the old edit, it was certainly the DA. But... apparently... egos and petty intergroup conflicts are more important to some than making the wiki a little more fun... So, its ''strict NPOV guidelines'' then, I guess. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:51, 26 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Moved News Items, September 2008==<br />
====September 5<sup>th</sup>====<br />
<br />
[[Treweeke Mall]] has been breached in the North Corner. Whitlock was taken and fell again, and a large group of zeds are in the surrounding area. The survivors could defend, but we might need alot of ammo... There is probably going to be a large attack soon, and survivors in the surrounding areas will be needed to beat off the cold, dead hands. They ARE at our doorstep. -- [[User:Dmitribeta|Dmitribeta]] 21:05, 5 September 2008 (EST)<br />
:How was that not NPOV?--[[User:Rjkk|Rjkk]] 16:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::"The survivors could defend, '''but we might need alot of ammo'''... There is probably going to be a large attack soon, and survivors in the surrounding areas will be needed to beat off the cold, dead hands. '''They ARE at our doorstep'''" (emphases added) <br />
::That is TOTALLY in the survivor point-of-view -- and survivor point-of-view ''only'' -- and makes not even the slightest ''pretence'' to being neutral. And I didn't even talk about the tactical/coordination part.... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 16:30, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:I just don't see the big stinkin' deal. Until recently it was commonplace to post things like that in the Dulston news because it gets pretty boring here without major power struggles. I mean yeah, if you were on here badmouthing people, trying to pick a fight or something like that I could understand. And I understand the point of being neutral ''but'' in my opinion it's been taken too seriously lately. It's just a game. As long as no one's being hurt why bother? Just the way I see it.. --[[User:Rjkk|Rjkk]] 20:55, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::The type of stuff that gets left on the news section in most suburbs is generally from the survivor point of view. Why enforce it in only a few instances?--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 21:25, 6 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====September 2<sup>nd</sup>====<br />
<br />
:One cannot judge survivors as a whole by some unproductive behavior of a few. There are many people who are actually fighting, or trying to organize a fight against zombie horde. Some buildings close to Treweeke Mall were retaken, repaired, and barricaded (albeit not powered) by groups of brave survivors. For example, [[the Gouger Arms]], [[Parrott Towers]], and [[the Speak Motel]]. The war is far from over. -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 15:18, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
::RE: ''*le sigh*'' I wasn't trying to implicate any such thing, Kittithaj... What I was intending to do with that comment was pointing out the actions of ''one person''... Pointing out that that they were a bit, uhm, silly and unproductive. And... trying to add a little bit of "flavour" to the News report, not the same old dull, boring dry stuff -- but still NPOV, at least hopefully. If anything, for the record, it was meant as kind of a pro-survivor "nudge" in so far as I was commenting on what is productive vs. unproductive survivor behavior in a siege situation... <br />
::That being said, I actually just re-read your post and I'm going to back, I made a mistake removing it... But, this discussion ''is'' best conducted here. Cheers. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 17:21, 2 September 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Moved News Items, August 2008==<br />
====August 31<sup>st</sup>====<br />
Dulston is in dire need of support with both a large number of Player Killers & Zed groups working together to bring it down. The few freelance survivors & the small group of currently active Alliance members are losing territory on a daily basis. Help is requested from any survivor groups able & willing. --[[User:Officer_Murphy|Officer Murphy]] 09:54, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Somehow I doubt the Browncoats give a rat's ass about Sanitarium or the Infected Swarm or FU. And to any dedicated zombie, harmanz -- PKer, "pro-survivor", whatever -- all taste alike: ''r!g zh!ggan!!!''. No one is coordinating to use transmortal tactics that I am are of... Perhaps you need one of [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Clothes/Suggestions#Tin_foil_hat.2F_Paper_hat these?] --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:14, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:: Bridgman fell to Infected Swarm after we shot the place up and cleared it. Im sure that they just decided to have a stroll over at the right time... --[[User:Blanemcc|Blanemcc]] 18:00, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====August 28<sup>rd</sup>====<br />
Anne General Hospital and two police departments were ruined.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 01:33, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:''(I moved this not be a jerk, but because it's not exactly informative. I mean, ''which'' PDs??? Please specify. Thanks. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 02:12, 29 August 2008 (BST))''<br />
A Maniac Killer is a Pk'er.<br />
<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v314/macrossflyboy/?action=view&current=mk_killer.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v314/macrossflyboy/mk_killer.jpg" border="0" alt="Maniac killer"></a><br />
Should be taken down for hunting his fellow human.Do not revive either.Let him rot. - Left by Macross36.<br />
:Take it to Brainstock. http://z14.invisionfree.com/Brainstock/index.php?.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 01:29, 29 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====August 23<sup>rd</sup>====<br />
Actually that's not us. Pkers and other such people maybe but defintately not the Swarm or any of our allies at the moment. --[[User:Rjkk|Rjkk]] 00:40, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:For better or for worse, I seem to have been promoted by an anonymous broadcaster (although it was probably the same [http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=894736 Blanemcc] who PKed me today). Oh well. [[User:Mikeage|Mikeage]] 09:50, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::This is not the place for reporting localised news about non resource buildings (go to the individual location page) or your own death.[[User:Yonnua Koponen|Yonnua Koponen]] 14:29, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:::In the context of random PKers spamming the radios with meaningless and false broadcasts and altering frequencies of radio transmitters, I think it's certainly relevant. [[User:Mikeage|Mikeage]] 15:13, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
::::This isn't really news. This is just people reacting to OLD pker tactics being used and bickering. Move it to the talk page if you want to discuss and argue about context there. As well the '''only''' news post seems rather NPOV.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 18:53, 24 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
====August 16<sup>th</sup>====<br />
Survivors had only a few days to celebrate before the zombies returned in full force. [[Troubridge Cinema]] was ruined once again. [[The Trood Building]] was breached by a group of about ten zombies and a fierce fight ensued. Currently, the building is still holding up with a few zombies inside and the generator destroyed. Stop staying in [[Treweeke Mall|the mall]], gather your firearms and first aid kits, and move yourself to the Northeast, Dulstonian! -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 17:32, 17 August 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Moved News items, March 22-31, 2008== <br />
====March 31<sup>th</sup>====<br />
<br />
The zeds have taken the mall. I intend to revive some allies and make a stand at the Bridgman Building. It currently stands at QSB+2, until I can get it EHB we'll use surrounding buildings to hide out in. --[[User:Mixairian|Mr. Edgecrusher]] 15:18 EST (GMT -5), March 31st 2008<br />
<br />
====March 25<sup>th</sup>====<br />
::Turkmenbashi is causing a ruckus in Whitlock. Dropped three wounded men just now. Orders are to kill on site and do not revive. BTW, do not kill members of Red Rum they have joined the fight against zombies. [[User:Jaydepps|Jaydepps]]<br />
::: Uh, Jay...Exactly who do you think was behind the attack on Treweeke and Whitlock last night? (Hint - it was Red Rum). [[User:Shotgun Ed|Shotgun Ed]] 09:41, 25 March 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
====March 23<sup>rd</sup>====<br />
<br />
3 Zergs at Leeson Alley. You can tell just by looking at the names.[[User:Fernley|Fernley]]<br />
<br />
Update: The Duport Ave RP que has increased to 10. The RP is actively taken care of though. Several zombies are brain rot and have players descriptions reading DO NOT REVIVE. If they don't want to be revived, then they must be passing through to attack something. I think changing The Pepperell Museum from EHB to an entry point would be better for that location. [[User:tried|tried]] 16:19, 23 March 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
====March 22<sup>nd</sup>====<br />
<br />
:As many survivors gear up for the imminent attacks by the second big bash and the dead, groups have been attempting to plan their strategies against the invasions. There is a large amount of controversy about the barricades, as if they are not lowered, survivors will be left at the mercy of the bash, whereas if they are, zombies will easily break in to valuable buildings such as the Whitlock building. Whitlock Assist and Rescue Member Yonnua Koponen gave a morale speech in all four corners of Treeweke mall, saying: "Everybody here! Stand together, PKer or survivor, for the good of all humanity! The Dead and BB2 are on their way, so we need to hold them off while other suburbs regrow their populations! Its down to us! Only we can save Malton! Fight now together as a united front. Fight for Malton, for Victory, for HUMANITY!". (reposted) [[User:Yonnua Koponen|Yonnua Koponen]] 21:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==General Discussion==<br />
When posting be sure to place your post to the very top, above all previous posts so players will recognize which post is the most recent. "''Thank you for your co-operation. This is a test. This has been a test of the Dulston Emergency Warning System. This is only a Test. If this had been a real emerger''- bzzzt!" (static).<br><br><br />
:Please sign your {{{1|edits}}} on the wiki. You can do this by pressing the [[Image:Sign.png]] button in the editing toolbar. Signing your {{{1|edits}}} in the standard format makes it much easier to identify when and who has made changes, and creates less work for other wiki users--{{:User:Airborne88/sig}} 09:50, 30 March 2008 (BST)<br />
===home coming===<br />
just thought you'd like to know the I.S. is heading home goodnight dulston~michael dark one<br />
<br />
===Life Cultist Discussion (moved from news)===<br />
<br />
Dulston is still ruined but an intriguing zombie civil war has sprung up with many former defenders of Dulston content to stay zombiefied and kill the hostile occupation force still present after the Bash has moved on. If co-ordinated well with still-living defenders the tactic could yield some buildings becoming usable once more. [[User:Iggles|Iggles]] 21:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:On another note: ZKing does nothing. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[ The Ridleybank Resistance Front|RRF]] [[DORIS]] [[Caiger Resistance Front|CRF]] [[Militant Order of Barhah|MOB]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 21:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
::He's right. Zombies just stand up, no headshot or anything. [[User:Standard Zombie|Standard Zombie]] 01:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::He's wrong. If a zombie kills another zombie it can then be dumped out of a building. If he doesn't then the zombie is still on 60hp (and will probably have a flak jacket).<br />
No, the zombies just stand right back up and get back inside. [[User:Standard Zombie|Standard Zombie]] 23:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
:ZKers kill hostile zombies in a building, then exit. Survivors move in and dump the dead bodies. After dumping the bodies, they proceed to repair and barricade the building. After that, they either defend it or gather supplies (such as syringes to revive their ZKing friends) and move on. I don't see whats so wrong with this tactic. In the long run, sure it's pointless. But when you have dozens of dead survivors, whats the use of them standing around non-serviced revive points when they can help their living comrades? --[[User:Kikashie|Kikashie]] <sup>[[ELT]]</sup> 02:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
{{Life Cultist}}<br />
It's terrible role playing is what it is. --{{User:Secruss/Sig}}20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
:And what about Death Cultists? I mean, who in their right mind would <i>want</i> to help zombies? <br />
--[[User:Kikashie|Kikashie]] <sup>[[ELT]]</sup> 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
::Isn't it obvious? The ones, like me, who enjoy the part where people get eaten in the zombie movies. Mainly it's usually because of their own stupidity. --[[User:JSaysNo|JSaysNo]] 22:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)<br />
:::Indeed. The crazy ones. {{User:Secruss/Sig}}21:30, 9 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
===Using the suburb to advertise groups===<br />
*This is largely in response to the January 10th posting by the Whitlock Whatever Group. Is the suburb place really where folks should be advertising their groups? I'd understand if they had actually *done* something in the suburb, but posting to say "We've started a new group, come join!" just seems like spam to me. {{User:Sheana/Sig}} 05:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
*:Depends on how they advertise. I don't mind it when it's something like:<br />
*:<b>December 2<sup>nd</sup></b> - "Several Dulston Citizens witnessed [some new group] recapturing [building] yesterday. Their leader, [joe schmo], was available for comment: ["Blah Blah, new group, blah blah."].<br />
*:But yeah, when they just say "WE'RE NEW." it's kinda annoying. This really brings up the "NPOV" idea. Who's to say that advertising <b>anything</b> can be NPOV. Especially when groups, or just people, say "We ransacked this building" (as the infected swarm used to). I say as long as whatever you're posting in news is mildly entertaining, and isn't too biased (ie: Zambahs/Harmans sux!1), it should be allowed to stay. --[[User:Kikashie|Kikashie]] <sup>[[ELT]]</sup> 06:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
*::Blargh, the ruining/reclaiming of buildings doesn't bother me so much, because that actually *is* useful news, especially in a relatively quiet suburb - it's useful for both survivors and zombies to know that there's a zombie horde inside such-and-such PD, so zombies can go be with others and survivors can stay away. However, this W.A.R. group seems to be basically spamming the page... and, perhaps most amusing, they didn't even list theirs as one of the pro-survivor groups on the sidebar. I'll comment and let them know - it looks like their leader is relatively new to the wiki. {{User:Sheana/Sig}} 16:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
===Dulston Safety Level===<br />
*According to [[Suburbs]], suburbs with "active zombies and break-ins, but no 50+ hostile hordes" should be categorized as Moderately dangerous. There's been at least one building ransacked in the past twenty-four hours, and from what I know there are at least three active zombie hordes in the area ([[Dulston Destruction Tour]], [[Infected Swarm]] and [[Cybele's Shamblers]]). Should Dulston be recategorized? [[User:Gogolnik|Gogolnik]] 20:42, 22 July 2007 (BST)<br />
*:I second that, this suburb doesn't warrant a safe rating. There's break-ins all the time, especially in the northeastern part.--{{User:Lachryma/sig}} 20:48, 22 July 2007 (BST)<br />
*::Is there proof of break-ins recently? DITPS indicated that zombie numbers in the NE corner of Dulston had dropped significantly. Also note that the DDT is ''not'' a zombie group, but rather a zombie campaign, like Mall Tour, with the purpose of focusing zombie groups on an objective (i.e. attack Dulston). Now Infected Swarm number about <15 zombies although I am unsure as to how many zombies are in Cybele's Shamblers. The "Green" (Safe) rating was set by me because the Whitlock Building showed only 8 zombies, with the greatest concentration being 3 zombies. Even so, I would like to see what a scan from Trood or Beale reveals before arguing this as I do not know the situation from a proof-positive perspective. If there are no significant zombies there anymore then I would argue for "Safe"... at least until Infected Swarm gear up again. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] July 22 2007, 3:54 PM (EST)<br />
*:::[http://iwrecords.urbandead.info/07-22-07_2100hrs_PUBLIC/IN_95-2_Dulston_Ransack_b71-243-5b3.html Proof of recent break-in/ransack] Want some more?--{{User:Lachryma/sig}} 21:06, 22 July 2007 (BST)<br />
*::::I actually just heard about the attack on the fire station today... with what, 4 survivors inside? That's what I read anyway. Still that does count as a break-in. I think what I would really like to see are the zombie numbers in Dulston. In the past there was significant zombie activity in northeast Dulston, which truly merited a "Moderate" danger alert. As I haven't seen any such numbers yet, but the fire station (no matter how undermanned) was overrun you do have the right to change Dulston's alert level to Moderate for now, at least until such time as proof dictates zombie activity in Dulston has once again been quelled. I would also like to confirm whether this activity is a case of zombie "border-straddling" wherein zombies move between two suburbs, but are not (cannot) threatening both suburbs at the same time (due to limited numbers). But that is purely speculation at this time. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] July 22 2007, 6:47 PM (EST)<br />
*:::::Ooo, big bad guardian of the Dulston wiki gave me permission to update the danger level! ;) Anyway, that fire station has been suffering a series of strike thingies, leading to attrition or something. A few days ago there were 15 people there, then 7, then 4, then none...Also, do NT scans pick up dead bodies? Cuz I don't see many standing zombies at a time, due to insane amounts of <s>trenchcoating</s> street attacks, but the zombies are there on the ground, recharging AP and the such.--{{User:Lachryma/sig}} 05:08, 23 July 2007 (BST)<br />
*::::::Actually if what they say is true and the groups are in the area it doesn't matter if they are breaking into much of anything at all. It's an organized zombie presence and there are break ins as Lach showed with her shot of her breaking into somewhere. That would be most definitely and completely yellow<small>(at the very least)</small>. --{{User:Karek/sig}} 05:14, 23 July 2007 (BST)<br />
*:::::::I AM THE GREAT AND MIGHTY WIZARD OF DULSTON! ;) I feel that zombie groups, in and of themselves, are not indicative of a suburb's threat. Take the Shamblin' Crooners for example. Originally the Dulston Alliance planned to wipe them out... but then they realized how entertaining the zombies were, even if they were breaking into buildings and killing people. So they decided not to stage a campaign against them. I think threat is measured in response, so if you feel threatened you tend to run (i.e. a "hopeless" fight against zombies would have survivors flee to adjacent buildings). I've also seen smaller groups, like The Plague, prove themselves to be more troublesome than zombie groups twice their size. But now that's more a comparison of siege skills and dedication. One of my keen interests in the UD Wiki is keeping it factual and up-to-date. At least in this small corner of Malton. To answer Lachryma's question, no, NT scans only register standing zombies. Theoretically there is very possibly more zombies lying in the dirt recharging AP than standing... but then again there might not be. How do you prove that threat? I don't think you can base threat levels on that. Rather the suburb danger level should simply be updated at the time the zombies all stand up and really become a threat. I wouldn't want to speculate all corpses as threats. For that matter some standing zombies are not a threat to survivors as some are simply undead survivors (seeking revival) and others, based on a few reports I've read, are ZKers. Although I would say that together they account for 10-20% (tops) of the total standing zombies at any given time. I think a suburb's threat level should be indicative of the zombies threatening it from within its borders and an NT scan really helps back-up claims of zombie activity or inactivity. The rest would be from public reports, such as the one you showed me. If you would really like to see some excellent work in tracking zombie activity I would point you to lead Zombiologist [[User:Balcony Jedi|Balcony Jedi]] and his work at [[The Whitlock Building]]. All very excellent reporting and I wish more people took the time he does. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] July 23 2007, 9:02 AM (EST)<br />
*::::::::I suppose one could go around taking pics of outside, to show the number of bodies, but other then that...anyway, you have a point.--{{User:Lachryma/sig}} 17:23, 23 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
*Why is it that the three suburbs surrounding Dulston are rated safe? Couldnt they spare some man power and clean up Dulston as well? I'm headed up that way in hopes of helping secure Dulston and maybe give humanity a small NE corner to call home. Come on...havnt any of you played the game "Risk"? As we fortify our homes and set up a "green zone" (pun inteneded) then we can spead like a cancer all take it all the way from the NE to the SW......sometime.--[[User:Bruce1nR|Bruce1nR]] 18:47, 23 June 2007 (BST)<br />
:Well your help is appreciated, but I'll let you in on a little secret. The zombies are an experiment and, in a way, we actually let them come in. You see for the longest time [[Dulston]] has been called DULLston because it lacked zombies. Most of the major survivor groups therefore either left to fight zombies elsewhere, or lost members until they were wiped out. Take [[Dead vs Blue]]. They started off red-hot since their members were from the Rooster Teeth forums and some of the group's leadership even worked on the '''Red vs Blue''' videos. As such, in its golden era, the group had 77 members. A year later it has 10 or less. What killed their group? Boredom. So our plan here was to let some zombies in so survivors would have something to do AND see if it reduced PKers. That's the other problem boredom breeds as before this Dulston had 2-4 times as many PKers than it did zombies. And there you have it in a nutshell. So come on by, have some fun; Dulston finally has some real entertainment. ;) --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] June 23 2007, 10:03 PM (EST)<br />
::Lol, well, I've been KIA in ROTwood so it'll take me a considerable amount of time to get over there >.< A human tore down the barricade to the building I was in so....well, we'll see what happens when I get there :)--[[User:Bruce1nR|Bruce1nR]] 03:49, 24 June 2007 (BST)<br />
:::Ah, [[Roftwood]], a nice place to visit and die in, but not a nice place to stay. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] June 23 2007, 11:25 PM (EST)<br />
::::I wasnt planning on staying, I shambled out over to Pimbank and have now been headshot...awsome. Also, where could I find a page layout as cool as yours? --[[User:Bruce1nR|Bruce1nR]] 10:00, 24 June 2007 (BST)<br />
:::::Well there are no userpage templates, if that's what you are inquiring about, but you're free to use mine. Just change it to suit your own needs. You can also get other ideas from the various Wiki Mods, as they've usually taken the time and trouble to edit their userpages as I have. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] June 24 2007, 11:30 AM (EST)<br />
::::::Ahh, thanks a bunch. I should be getting there within the next two days or so...--[[User:Bruce1nR|Bruce1nR]] 00:12, 25 June 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
*Think we should update the suburb wiki page? I've know there are at least two groups no longer active listed. It could probably use a good update in general. I just wanted to bring it forth. Anyone oppose changes? --[[User:Officer Murphy|Officer Murphy]] 6:54, 6 November 2006 (CST)<br />
** Everything looks up-to-date now. Furthermore since late December I've made revision to some of the links, text, and group listing. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] 3:07 PM, 4 January 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
*How ironic. I left Dulston less than a week before the RRF decided to attack, because Dulston at the time was boring. --[[User:Elliothatman|Elliothatman]] 10:36, 1 July 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
*CRT (Contamination Response Team) is under new management. The group, which remains OFF the Wiki group list for security reasons, suffered a massive PKer attack courtesy of '''Cletus Van Damme''' PRESUMABLY due to the unsanctioned actions of a FORMER member, who enforced the barricade policy ''WAY'' to hard. Cletus has been cleared of all charges, but several people he PKed at the warehouse CRT calls home were not members of CRT and might still seek revenge. The CRT itself has taken action to replace the commander of the Dulston division and hopes to help the other survivors and survivor groups repel the zombie invaders. --[[PestilenceScorge]] April 29, 2006<br />
<br />
*Sorry for the edit/unedit on the main page. I was unaware of the defense plans, being new. Everything's back the way it should be. --[[User:TwoADay|TwoADay]] 14:08, 28 February 2006 (GMT)<br />
<br />
*Well as current news shows Dulston is all "sunshine and lollipops" right now, or as much as one can get of that in Malton. Zombie sightings are few and far between compared to some of the surrounding suburbs. Of course with the siege of [[Caiger Mall]] going on right now that's to be expected. Zombies are being drawn there from every suburb and since we already had a low zombie population it goes without saying that the numbers show this way. The real test will be to see what happens after the siege ends, though I don't foresee a large increase in the zombie population here, but there will be one no doubt as the hordes look for targets that have "ripened" due to the lack of major zombie attacks. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] 2:32 PM, 24 Feb 2006 (EST)<br />
<br />
*I hate it when the [[Drunken Dead]] got into Oake Walk PD. I stumbled outside and died of an infection soon after. Curses! --[[User:Otona|Otona]] 09:38, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
<br />
*This is just a rumor overheard in a safehouse I was in, but it was claimed DORIS (the Something Awful group) would be targeting Dulston with its next project. --[[User:Amazing Rando|Amazing Rando]] 08:04, 24 Sep 2005 (BST)<br />
**Well, it was a rumor. The only groups to worry about are the ones listed in the article. I myself am fighting off these hordes of zombies. I wish the best of luck to all Dulston Survivors. Except for the PKers. They can die. --[[User:ThunderJoe|ThunderJoe]] 02:56, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)<br />
<br />
<br><br><br />
<br />
==Tactical Discussion==<br />
Post any thoughts on tactics survivors should consider using when facing current or overall threats. Post any threat notices here upon identifying any major PKer or Zombie group activity. <br />
<br />
Also feel free to link to the Wiki page associated with whatever location these events occurred at, since many key locations within Dulston have their own pages. Further information can then be gleaned by examining the records (i.e. '''Current Events''') logged for that location by various players.<br><br><br />
<br />
*The Barricade for the standard zombie invasion plan has been removed due to its redundancy with the [[Dulston Alliance]]'s new plan.--[[User:Cheeser|Cheeser]] 19:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC) <br />
**[[The Big Bash]] is drawing rather close. It's about time we started on strategies and rallying who we can to help defend the suburb. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 20:37, 25 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
*It's my hope that survivors will take note of what I'm setting up for them at the various NT Buildings, namely the section entitled '''NecroNet Reports''' on each building's respective Wiki page. So far I maintain updates at one building, [[The Waish Building]] in nearby [[Pescodside]], and as you can tell these reports help point out potential problem areas. Even so what I would like to see is:<br><br><br />
<br />
#Each NT Building with at least one survivor providing daily updates, preferably earlier in the day.<br />
#Several players each providing one report during a day to give more in-depth long-range recon. As the images use the naming convention '''BuildingNameYYYYMMDD.jpg''' they can be replaced by each new report for the same day.<br />
#Visual recon on trouble spots, as I have seen people in the past discount 2-3 zombie mobs, only later to hear there were an additional +5 untagged Brain Rot zombies there as well. Survivors need to seriously remember that untagged zombies will NOT show up on these scans so any trouble spots should have visual confirmation by a runner/scout. Then a report could be added to the '''Current Events''' for the suburb and building's pages. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] 12:50 PM, 10 Mar 2006 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Revive Points and Barricades ==<br />
'''October 5, 2007'''<br />
Sorry if this question is in the wrong spot, but we have a bit of a dilemma and want some advice.<br />
On the subject of Brain Rot, the BRRC in South Blytheville is apparently no longer operative. Can we use Beale for this, for a ONE-TIME fix, involving a high-level member of our group? If so, what need we do to do this aside from knock down the barricades? We have a member of our group who's been a Zed for quite some time and has about 450 XP to use for survivor skills, and wants a revive from the Rot. He's in Dulston and can be in/outside Beale tomorrow around lunchtime. What can we do to get this guy back in the land of the living? Please advise. --[[User:Flustered Fred|Freddy]] 20:53, 5 October 2007 (BST)<br />
<br><br />
Okay, the current situation for revies (16.02.2007). Things were starting to improve and the cades levels have been more consistant. However since a recent Zombie incursion we seem to have some confusion in regards to all the revive points as well as a lot of overcrowding up at Hammerton. People have been going around putting confusing signs up all over the place, including at Duport Avenue. I got killed and seeing Hammerton was overcrowded I popped down to Duport and found a sign saying new revive point 4 East, went there to find "new revive point 4 south". I ignored that and went back to Duport, seeing some humans outside the Whitlock NT I went there to see it's saying revives there. It's not like there was overcrowding down there. Meanwhile over at Hamerton (I went back after getting revived to help rev the others) I noticed someone had put more random signs on Hamerton pointing to yet another location and saying Hamerton was closed. My suspicion is that some griefing is involved here, probably Zombie spies. Anyway - Revives ARE happening at Hamerton but there are a lot to get through. Spreading out to the nearby cemetary is not worth it if you can't get revived at Hamerton. However popping accross to just outside the Whitlock NT building is VERY FAST at the moment for revives. While people are putting signs at Duport I don't know if it's worth staying there. Btw, great job everyone that has been helping to get area organised again. --[[User:Fenrisfil|Fenrisfil]]<br />
<br />
Lets just make this clear:<br><br />
'''[[Dulston Streets#Duport Avenue|Duport Avenue]] is the only reliable revive point in [[Dulston]].'''<br><br />
[[Dulston Streets#Hamerton Road|Hamerton Road]] and the [[Cemetery 99,2|Cemetery]] have never been very reliable revive points, unfortunately. Technically, Dulston does not support the [[Sacred Ground Policy]] anyway. [[The Trood Building|The Trood building]] and [[The Beale Building|the Beale building]] have always been dificult to hold, so revives from there are always sporatic. Plus the NorthEast corner of Dulston is known for zombie groups to hang out and launch group attacks from there. If you want a revive, '''go to Duport Avenue'''. You will be revived quick, I promise.--[[User:Cheeser|Cheeser]] 18:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Even though [[Dulston Streets#Duport Avenue|Duport Avenue]] is the best revive point shouldn't we still support the [[Sacred Ground Policy]]? We could always try and tag the [[Cemetery 99,2|Cemetery]] informing newbies to go to Duport Avenue or check the wiki but still not attack any zeds there and revive any if someone has a spare needle?--[[User:Archangel Michael|Archangel Michael]]<br />
::Personally, I will revive a zed if I can there. Most players new to the area or the game will expect (at least hope) that a revive is possible. But I have noticed that it never has been close to a good place to get a revive. I have seen all sorts of killing on that square. Since it is the only cemetary, it makes sense to me to make it known by use of the Reject Sacred Ground Policy that if someone looks at the wiki for help, they will not get their hopes up. Changing the suburb to a [[Sacred Ground Policy]] suppporter will take a lot of effort from the other players around that area. If the majority of people in the burb want the SGP in place, we certainly can. If so, one of the groups should take responsibility of maintaining spraypains, and inform offenders that they need to stop killing in the cemetary.{{User:Cheeser/sig}}18:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
:::Hm, although Duport is the '''best''' place for a revive, many groups still support the SGP. I think that the template should be taken off. [[User:Anachronos666|Anachronos]] 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)<br />
:::: There are a few dedicated people that are trying to improve the quality of both Hamerton Road and the nearby Cemetary as revive points as well as keeping Trood active. The main problem with this has always been organisation and I don't think it would take a lot to sort out. I am taking on the task myself because you have to find your own challenges in a game which can essentially never be lost or won and death itself is only a minor inconvienience. But there are a few things that aren't particularly logical. Firstly I recommend that St Barbara's Church, which is one square from Trood, the cemetary and Hammerton needs to be kept as a VSB entry point. That would also allow for Nott Auto Repair to move up to EHB giving easy access to fuel for Trood. I've also been thinking about Troubridge Cinema, which is currently claimed by Ragnarok as a base of ops, but has always bene plagued with zeds and Pkers (being a coner, they seem to take pride at "corner kills" and is of no value resource wise could be left as an empty entry point (kept at VSB but with a warning against sleeping). [[user:Fenrisfil|Fenrisfil]]<br />
:::::It is very good to hear that someone has hope for the northeast corner. There are some things you should be aware of from your suggestions though. According the the [[DODD|accepted barricade plan]] for Dulston, St. Barbara's Church is already set as a VS barricaded building. If it is higher than that, please feel free to bring it down. Nott Auto should under no circumstance be more than VS. It is the ONLY Auto building in our suburb. If it is maintained at a higher level, only free runners could access it, which is not fair for lower level survivors. Troubridge Cinema should also not deviate from the [[DODD]]. What purpose would that serve anyways? St. Barbara's and Trood are to be no higher than VS, allowing all survivors entry to Necrotech's facilities. I'm sorry, but nothing you suggest makes any sense to me.--[[User:Private000|Private000]] 04:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
::::::The problem is that there isn't much control over the NE corner. We can say what we like about what it should be, but it's pretty tough up there and people will overbarricade. Unless someone gets a team together to publicise and break 'cades, it's not likely to have much of an effect. Trood is very rarely in operable condition, the same with Beale, and what we really need is men to keep it secure. We're seeing 10+ groups on a bad day, just getting one of the DA member grups up here to help hold the area would be a big help. Want a challenge? Head up to the corner and give us a hand. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 09:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
:::::::Is Dulston remotely following [[DODD|accepted barricade plan]]? Certianly I've rarely seen things maintained as listed in the part of Dulston I'm in. The trouble with unniform plans is that they are unworkable unless a large group is in the area dedicated to keeping things compliant. But I have a few comments related to the questions Private raised. Firstly why do newbs need access to an Auto Repair shop? Newbs need to survive and get XP and getting generator fuel isn't the highest priority. Plus when you consider how often places are overcaded even in the best maintained and organised of regions (I have an alt in Shearbank for instance, the players are really on the ball but still my alt seems to spend every day breaking down overcaded buildings, good job he's got no need of XP anymore). Being the only auto repair shop in the region I would say it's more important to protect the resource then to give newbs access to it. Personally when I was a newb I was much more interested in places where I could get actually useful items for gaining XP. Secondly Trood is a big target for zeds being in the NE corner, if kept at VSB it's totally unsafe and not of a lot of benifit to Newbs, plus the generator will be out more often then on. With more then one Necrotech in the area it makes sense to keep Trood at EHB and have the other at VSB. As long as newb scientists in the area can access one they are fine. Finally as for Troubridge, yes sure if the building was at all safe it'd be fine to keep at EHB, but given that zeds are always breaking in and PKers are always killing there (which considering there is rarely more then 3 survivors in there at a time anyway is a pretty high ratio of PKing) it is frankly a waste of resources to keep it at EHB. I'm not saying we should expend AP taking the cades down to VSB, merely that we shouldn't waste them keeping it up at EHB when there are more vital buildings in the area. ALSO and this is very important the amount of times I've had to break down cades in the area before I can leave a building to revive people is quite silly, if we are struggling to hold the VSB buildings on the DODD at that level in the NE corner then the cinema provides an alternate entry/exit point. There was a period when the cinema was being held by zeds and it became the only reliable place to get out and make revives. I was almost sad to see the zeds go. Lol. --[[User:Fenrisfil|Fenrisfil]]<br />
::::::::The [[Electric Light Torchestra]] currently tries to adjust the barricades while being on [[Light Map of Dulston|enlightenment-tours]]. We don't check every single building, however. Only the ones the are direcly on one of our tours or have no lights on are checked. But we try our best to keep the barricades according to the plan. Talking about the plan, I refer to the OLD one however. I cannot see the point in changing Downe Towers to EHB without further adjustment. I recommended some changes on the [[Dulston Optimal Defense Diagram|DODD]] Talk Page.--[[User:PsychoLychee|PsychoLychee]]<sup>[[The Electric Light Torchestra|ELT]]</sup> 05:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
:::::::::The [[Talk:Dulston_Optimal_Defense_Diagram|DODD talk page]] is set up for anyone who has a suggestion or opinion for a change to be voiced. Please go there.--[[User:Private000|Private000]] 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Dulston's Cemetery==<br />
<br />
There's a bunch of zeds at a cemetary waiting for a revive at the northeast corner of the suburb. -- '''Anonymous'''<br />
<br />
:The northeast is pretty unreliable. You might want to tell them to move to [[Dulston Streets#Duport Avenue|Duport Avenue]]. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 21:48, 12 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
::Why not.--[[User:Cody6|cody6]] 00:46, 13 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::They're not going anywhere. If none of them clear out in 5 days I think we should declare there heads open game. Also remove the current message at that cemetary, as there's no reason they should wait for nothing. -- '''Anonymous'''<br />
<br />
::::The [[Sacred Ground Policy]] may or may not be in effect here. I wouldn't go shooting them. Spray tags to Duport Avenue would be the best way. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 13:38, 17 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::::If they're still there in 4 days though it's obvious they're not leaving and are just letting the Sacred Ground Policy protect them. Besides... I've told them a few times and gave them the warning also. -- '''Anonymous'''<br />
<br />
::::::Since a notification that Duport Avenue is better at the cemetary was posted last night, the number of zombies at Duport has risen to 13. I would have checked the cemetary if revives didn't take up as much AP. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 19:58, 18 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::::::A few days ago before I had trouble connecting to UD I told them to clear out at least 5 times. Since then they've doubled from I think 5 to 13 zombies... they weren't moving. If any zeds remain there after 3 days I'll kill them for being stupid. --[[User:Cody6|cody6]] 21:31, 18 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Being unaware of revive point status and not into meta-gaming does not constitute 'stupid'. Use a DNA extractor, find the career zombies and rotters, add their profiles, and then shoot ''them''. Don't go after legit waiting survivors just because they're not doing as you say. --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 17:04, 19 August 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::...They're not really gonna get that many revives that far northeast... They just sit there for a while and do nothing. I survived sleeping 2 nights at the graveyard without a attack. That isn't normal... They've been told by more then 1 person to move out to a better revive area. Waiting at a cemetary isn't smart since only the Sacred Grounds POlicy will get people to revive ya... -- '''Anonymous'''<br />
<br />
::::::::::I know this is late, but it's more a general answer (right now the cemetery seems to have been turned to a brainrot camping ground). Let them be! If they sit there and do nothing, its fine. Zombies, that don't move don't kill. If they enjoy hanging out on the graveyard, it's their problem, not ours. Killing them might give you some XP, but they are a much fewer threat when you just leave them stand around there. I'd say: respect the [[SGP]] and don't revive at random.--[[User:PsychoLychee|PsychoLychee]]<sup>[[The Electric Light Torchestra|ELT]]</sup> 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Is there anywhere left in Dulston that I can get a revive? --[[User:Xaph|Xaph]] 07:53, 7 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:I'd head to Duport Avenue. It's slightly backed up, but you'll get a needle eventually. --[[User:Offier Murphy|Officer Murphy]] 09:53, 7 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== The Big Bash Attack (September 4th) ==<br />
<br />
[[The Big Bash]] are now officially rolling into Dulston using the cheap/cowardly tactics of sending in spies, GKers, & PKers first to try to loosen survivor strongholds and frustrate them. Be prepared, head to [[Treweeke Mall]], and follow the plans laid forth by the [[Dulston Alliance]]. -- '''Anonymous'''<br />
<br />
:The Big Bash '''ARE NOT''' using spies, GKers, and PKers. They are ferals and zombies who were combat revived by someone, and they are seeking revenge until they feed themselves to the hoard. For goodness sake people, you brought it on yourselves by combat reviving us! Be more careful! -- '''Anonymous'''<br />
<br />
::The Big Bash '''ARE USING''' spies & PKers at the very least. I've read it on their forum as proof! -- '''Anonymous'''<br />
<br />
:::Can you reference that proof? Are you sure it wasn't just one character? --[[User:Preasure|Preasure]] 16:23, 5 September 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::All you have to do is go to their forums and browse. You'll see the occasional "population report" of certain buildings along with some people claiming to load up on guns and then kill 2-3 people. A few claim to be getting combat revived... well I say if you want to be a zombie get brain rot so it doesn't happen or don't stay at a revive point. Not that I really care or can do much about it. I simply use "cheap/cowardly" just to get under their skin. --[[User:Officer Murphy|Officer Murphy]] 12:30, 5 September 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Known Groups ==<br />
<br />
I've seen -- and made -- other suburbs with a little heading above group listings. Something along the lines of "''Pro Survivor Groups''", "''Zombie Groups''", and "''Hostile Groups''", any chance we could implement something of the like in Dulston as well, instead of the vague listing we have now? -- [[User:SgtBop|<font color="black"><b>SgtBop</b></font>]]<sup>[[User talk:SgtBop|<font color="black"><small>Talk</small></font>]]|[[Maris Viridis|<font color="black"><small>Maris Viridis</small></font>]]</sup> 19:23, 11 July 2007 (BST)<br />
:You know, funny story (no not really), I did have similar headings. Yup. Then when Mall Tour '07 rolled through one of the Wiki Mod big-wigs removed them saying "Does not conform to other suburb layouts". Or something like that... it's probably still in the suburb history tab. Anywho, that's the only reason there are no headings. I suppose if other suburbs are now using headings we could too without as much concern about being "shot down" again. ;) --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] July 12 2007, 7:58 AM (EST)<br />
::? I thought you had left... anyway, I've seen them around, and they really ''do'' help. Maris Viridis isn't a zombie group, but, hey, where else would I put it? Anyway, I can do that in a little bit, I'm updating something else at the moment...--[[User:SgtBop|<font color="black"><b>SgtBop</b></font>]]<sup>[[User talk:SgtBop|<font color="black"><small>Talk</small></font>]]|[[Maris Viridis|<font color="black"><small>Maris Viridis</small></font>]]</sup> 17:31, 12 July 2007 (BST)<br />
:::I have left. I mean, from UD, as I don't interact on any forums anymore. The UD Wiki is something I'm still "wrapping-up". Mostly I still have 3 small projects to complete: Biertag '07 (95% complete/100% awesome), a summary of the '''Rolt Heights War''' for Historical Events, and a combined wikipage for NecroNet reports. But after that, I'm gone even from the Wiki. On a side note, the original layout I used was more "black and white", I had categorized groups into 2 categories: pro-survivor/anti-survivor. That's how PKers and zombies ended up side-by-side ;). --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] July 12 2007, 1:04 PM (EST)<br />
::::Sad feelings aside (I don't like losing people I like), that makes sense I guess. Well, I'm going to try it, just with a preview of it, the group pictures look really bad everywhere, at least underneath the "mother" groups such as the Dulston Alliance. The groups, however, would probably not like if their picture is taken off of the suburb page... I'm a neat freak, yes. Any suggestions? -- [[User:SgtBop|<font color="black"><b>SgtBop</b></font>]]<sup>[[User talk:SgtBop|<font color="black"><small>Talk</small></font>]]|[[Maris Viridis|<font color="black"><small>Maris Viridis</small></font>]]</sup> 18:09, 12 July 2007 (BST)<br />
:::::I'm not 100% sure, but I recall spearheading the thumbnail group icons used on the suburb listing, so that "disorder" is partially my fault. In my opinion what makes them look bad are: long group names which wrap below the image (i.e. "Friends of the Featherstone Library" in [[Pescodside]]), suburbs where groups have or don't have images (i.e. mixed list) as I prefer all or nothing, and lastly bad thumbnail images. The ones I like are those that are clear-cut. Here is a sample of the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Dulston&oldid=565478|old category headers] I used, to give you an idea. And yes, back then I considered the [[Dulston Alliance]] its own category. Of course in light of the [[DEM]] I felt that was too egotistical, so I opted to shuffle them back into the larger list. Truthfully that's how it should be, but then you need to still point to the Alliance wikipage somehow. It's possible that for parent groups you could remove the image/icon, but you would need to change the link in some manner as to indicate its status. Also, keep in mind I'm using "small" tags so bold tags will not work. The only suggestion I have is try a few different approaches and see which works best, but remain consistent. Also, don't create headers for groups that are not there (i.e. [[Santlerville]] has a header for zombies, except there are none... it looks like a waste of space). The solution should be to simply add the header when such a group appears. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] July 12 2007, 5:35 PM (EST)<br />
Oooh... pretty -- [[User:SgtBop|<font color="black"><b>SgtBop</b></font>]]<sup>[[User talk:SgtBop|<font color="black"><small>Talk</small></font>]]|[[Maris Viridis|<font color="black"><small>Maris Viridis</small></font>]]</sup> 16:36, 13 July 2007 (BST)<br />
:Thanks. I did the same thing for about a dozen or so other suburbs, so this isn't just in [[Dulston]]. The test will be to see how many suburbs keep this category system. The odd one out is [[Santlerville]] which also uses a "local vs. neighbour" group listing. I'm not sure how relevant that is if you ask me. But who am I to tell them what works best? --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] July 13 2007, 12:20 PM (EST)<br />
::I'll tell you who, ''Caleb Usher'', scientist extraordinaire! Just kidding, sorta. Well, anyway, it looks nice, and who knows about other suburbs, amirite? (Speaking of other suburbs, I'm currently revamping [[Hollomstown]] if anyone wants to assist). -- [[User:SgtBop|<font color="black"><b>SgtBop</b></font>]]<sup>[[User talk:SgtBop|<font color="black"><small>Talk</small></font>]]|[[Maris Viridis|<font color="black"><small>Maris Viridis</small></font>]]</sup> 17:23, 13 July 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
==Moved News==<br />
River Has Killed:<br />
Muro,<br />
Andrew Wigman,<br />
And Findeccano<br />
In The Name Of The Infected Swarm!<br />
--[[User:River Giles|River Giles]] 22:25, 24 September 2007 (BST)<br />
:Please keep news NPOV, and about Dulston. Bragging about kills is not news. --[[User:Kikashie|Kikashie]] <sup>[[ELT]]</sup> 23:47, 24 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
I have moved this from the main page to this talk page for two reasons. One, it isn't major news relating to the condition of the suburb. Two, it wasn't not cited of referenced, and could easily have been made up. --{{User:The Surgeon General/sig}} 01:36, 25 September 2007 (BST)<br />
<br />
== BARRICADES ==<br />
<br />
STOP stranding survivors! I was killed 4 times because I could not get into a building and was stranded for several days at a time looking for a way in. I can't even get into a police dept to reload my guns. How are we supposed to kill zombies when we can't reload our guns? I don't think there is an infinite ammo cheat I can type -.-<br />
--[[User:DracoGuard|DracoGuard]] 16:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)<br />
:I think over-barricading is an issue that will never truly go away. In light of this I would suggest always keeping a crowbar handy and trying to stay near SAH or AGH, as both hospitals are run by DITPS and should be kept VS barricaded when there are no zombies outside. Just a suggestion. --[[User:Mobius187|Mobius187]] October 28 2007, 5:44 PM (EST)<br />
<br />
:Several buildings in the NW are kept at VSB+2, and managed by survivors. If you're looking for an entry point, thats the place. Otherwise, it seems like you need [[Free Running]], which lets you jump from building to building. Make that your next priority, it's the most useful survivor skill. --[[User:Kikashie|Kikashie]] <sup>[[ELT]]</sup> 22:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== December 7th Response ==<br />
:'''Update''': [[Spicer Row Police Department|Spicer Row PD]] has been reclaimed by the [[Infected Swarm]]. The Swarm wants to say to the people of Dulston "Go home and Die the [[the Beale Building|Barhah Building]] is ours." --Vachon Blaze 13:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::'''Update''': In response to [http://www.urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=796159 Vachon Blaze], noted NecroTech scientist [[User:Mobius187|Caleb Usher]] had this to say, "I hardly know where to begin explaining how wrong Vachon Blaze's statement was, but I'll do my best. First of all, zombies cannot own buildings like living people, they just mill about and 'Mrh' at one another while performing nothing constructive in any of the structures they assume to claim. Next, I'm sure Vachon meant to refer to his fellow zombies as 'Swarmers', unless I'm mistaken, which I have been known to be in the past. As for the people of Dulston going home, well, technically they are already home so going anywhere is obviously out of the question or a very short trip. Lastly, asking them to die wouldn't accomplish anything as at the very most it only brings up the whole zombification and revival routine, if in fact your advice was taken. Hardly a worthwhile endeavor to recommend. I propose instead that all zombies gather in the streets. The fresh air will probably do them some good. Well, no not really, what with them being clinically dead and all. It just seemed like the right thing to say..."</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Janine&diff=1268089User:Janine2008-09-06T20:12:24Z<p>Janine: /* Projects */</p>
<hr />
<div>And now for a little about myself without the cut and paste templates. I'm from Baltimore, currently enrolled in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Institute_College_of_Art MICA] and working as a Creative Assistant for a publishing company. My character [http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1237352 Janine Eelms] is part of the pker auxiliary of the Hel's Daughters. If you want to leave a comment, feel free to do so.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Projects ==<br />
1. Writing for the [[Families of Malton|Families of Malton]] pages.<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
{{CS}}<br />
{{Socialism}}<br />
{{Atheist}} <br />
{{Crucifix}}<br />
{{Firefox}}<br />
{{carlin}}<br />
{{Monk}}<br />
{{PKing}} <br />
{{Female}} <br />
{{Too Much Free Time}} <br />
{{Junk}}<br />
{{Axe}} <br />
{{BoobiesSmall}}<br />
{{American}}</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Janine&diff=1268083User:Janine2008-09-06T20:09:08Z<p>Janine: </p>
<hr />
<div>And now for a little about myself without the cut and paste templates. I'm from Baltimore, currently enrolled in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Institute_College_of_Art MICA] and working as a Creative Assistant for a publishing company. My character [http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1237352 Janine Eelms] is part of the pker auxiliary of the Hel's Daughters. If you want to leave a comment, feel free to do so.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Projects ==<br />
1. Writing for the [[Families of Malton|Families of Malton]] pages.<br />
2. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
{{CS}}<br />
{{Socialism}}<br />
{{Atheist}} <br />
{{Crucifix}}<br />
{{Firefox}}<br />
{{carlin}}<br />
{{Monk}}<br />
{{PKing}} <br />
{{Female}} <br />
{{Too Much Free Time}} <br />
{{Junk}}<br />
{{Axe}} <br />
{{BoobiesSmall}}<br />
{{American}}</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Janine&diff=1268082User:Janine2008-09-06T20:08:48Z<p>Janine: </p>
<hr />
<div>And now for a little about myself without the cut and paste templates. I'm from Baltimore, currently enrolled in [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Institute_College_of_Art MICA]] and working as a Creative Assistant for a publishing company. My character [[http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1237352 Janine Eelms]] is part of the pker auxiliary of the Hel's Daughters. If you want to leave a comment, feel free to do so.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Projects ==<br />
1. Writing for the [[Families of Malton|Families of Malton]] pages.<br />
2. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
{{CS}}<br />
{{Socialism}}<br />
{{Atheist}} <br />
{{Crucifix}}<br />
{{Firefox}}<br />
{{carlin}}<br />
{{Monk}}<br />
{{PKing}} <br />
{{Female}} <br />
{{Too Much Free Time}} <br />
{{Junk}}<br />
{{Axe}} <br />
{{BoobiesSmall}}<br />
{{American}}</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Category_talk:Families_of_Malton&diff=1268043Category talk:Families of Malton2008-09-06T19:42:50Z<p>Janine: The Eelms Family</p>
<hr />
<div>== Project Notes: ==<br />
<br />
This is one of my "other" pet projects that I have been working on conceptually... I'll be adding a significant number of names over the next few days. There is a Formula I am working on to determine if a particular "Name" qualifies to be on this list... Mansions and Malls automaticaly qualified, further names are going to be determined by number of locations in Malton with a particular name attached. Others '''''MAY''''' be added if there is significant reason to include them in this list. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 13:04, 27 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
Another thing... Is that not the most awesome quote from T.S. Elliot, its like it was written for UrbanDead...<br />
<br />
I have L, M, and N, left. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 00:14, 6 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I added everyone to the Projects list roster... I'm almost done with the initial list so feel free to pick a family and start adding content. be sure to make connections to locations where appropriate. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 14:29, 30 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Names Not Yet Included but Should Be: ==<br />
<br />
This section is for later use once the primary work is done by myself and other volunteers. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 13:04, 27 May 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Example Family Bio: ==<br />
<br />
=== Brief Intro ===<br />
Who this family was, how did they impact Malton, when did they come to Malton and did they help found Malton etc..<br />
<br />
<br />
=== The Famous members of this family. ===<br />
Members of this family who have been mentioned in the History of Malton or in Historical citations of locations should be listed here. If there are any Zombies claiming to be members of this family they would list their names and or profile links here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Members of this Family Currently in Malton ===<br />
Survivors who are allegedly members of this family would list their names and/or profile links here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Foot Prints on Malton ===<br />
The Landmarks of Malton that either was made possible, named for, or represents a member of this family and the links to those locations go here.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== Additional Relevant Information ===<br />
Any additional information, rumors, innuendo, or facts about the family not otherwise covered goes here.<br />
<br />
==Blackmore==<br />
Ah sorry about that. [[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 22:18, 28 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:Oh hell, no problems at all... and I quote ''Please note that all contributions to The Urban Dead Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here.'' I'm just hoping that with the completed locations list we can tie in locations to the families so (perhaps) more people will use teh Wiki as an RP resource. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 23:40, 28 May 2006 (BST)<br />
::Well I'm done for today. I got to finish up Blackburn, Banbury, and Ashcroft by tomorrow. It takes me a while to do this because I'm researching real history to tie the junk in. [[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 23:44, 28 May 2006 (BST)<br />
:::Outstanding! [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 23:56, 28 May 2006 (BST)<br />
::::I won't be able to finish them today. I'm hella busy. However I got rought drafts on Blackburn, Banbury, Ashcroft, Maddaford, Cabell, Lorenzo, Johnstone, and McCulloch. So they won't take long. [[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 15:32, 29 May 2006 (BST)<br />
::::: Hey we dont have to do them all, nor do we have to do them all right away even if we do do them all... Don't feel rushed. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 01:40, 30 May 2006 (BST)<br />
::::::Almost finished with Blackburn. Banbury is part of it so it won't be hard to finish that one. [[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 01:59, 1 June 2006 (BST)<br />
I spent two hours writing a story for Blackburn and my computer didn't save it. I'm done for now. Maybe when I got time on my hands I'll continue. Right now I'm too annoyed that my computer went retarded. [[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 01:06, 6 June 2006 (BST)<br />
:Thanks for all the help "Sonny" its greatly appreciated. I figure this is an extreamly long term project anyway... [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 13:15, 6 June 2006 (BST)<br />
::Finished Blackburn. Had to write most of it from memory. I'll get started on the Five Families. [[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 18:16, 11 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Existing Familes aka Groups? ==<br />
<br />
There are a number of groups out there that operate as Families. The [[Vengabean Family]] is one of them. Will you guys include those in your list or is this list only for this preset series of names? --[[User:Novelty|Nov]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]], [[Moderation|Mod]], [[User_talk:Novelty|Talk]]</sup> 09:46, 15 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:AS Far as I am concerned, the Vengabean family is welcome to be added as well as any other family name that has historical (read RP) value in malton. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 14:06, 15 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:: They had this huge RP on the official forums before it got closed down. Then they moved that RP to the desensitised forums. They deserve to be on the list as much as any of these made up families. There have been other smaller RP families as well, RP-ed through various forums and mailing lists. I would think that makes them more historical (both in RP and in the real sense) than any of the families on this page. I don't understand the discrimination though. Just because they are made up and RP by somebody else doesn't make them less real or less historical or less RP. --[[User:Novelty|Nov]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]], [[Moderation|Mod]], [[User_talk:Novelty|Talk]]</sup> 13:25, 16 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
:::They're allowed to add it if they want. The problem is that it should be done by one of them so that they have the whole thing right. I could do it but it would be butchered. [[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[User:Undeadinator/WTFCENTAURS|WTF]]</sup> 23:11, 16 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
::::You don't have to do anything other than linking this list to the current existing groups that are families. --[[User:Novelty|Nov]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]], [[Moderation|Mod]], [[User_talk:Novelty|Talk]]</sup> 16:27, 18 June 2006 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Ashbee family ==<br />
<br />
Just added some stuff for the Ashbee family. Hope it's OK.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Uncle Whippity|Uncle Whippity]] 16:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)<br />
: Absolutly... Effectivly this is designed to be an open-source role-playing supplement. So any additional work by anyone is good. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 20:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Beauchamp Family ==<br />
<br />
This is what happens when you're waiting for a revive and all your alts are out of AP. Beauchamp is an old English/Norman name, but digging about in Wikipedia found a tenuous Quaker connection that I preferred over landed gentry. Again, I've tried to keep this as 'mid Atlantic' as I can. If there's any errors, or it's cr@p, feel free to hack and slash. --[[User:Uncle Whippity|Uncle Whippity]] 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Some memories from working for a British town council ==<br />
Just some background notes here that might help the process for others. I served as a town councillor (councilman in the US?) for 8 years, and got partially involved in the naming process for a few new roads, and know some of the local history of my old town, so thought I'd pass on some of the things I picked up.<br />
<br />
Some roads/areas pick up their names from what was there before. The 'pool estate' got its name from having been the site of an old open-air swimming pool. 'Learner Drive' was built on land that had held a big driving instruction centre. 'Central Avenue', 'West Avenue' and 'Downs Avenue' took their names from the fields of the farmland they were built on. (This may be just a Brit thing, but naming farm fields is very common here.) 'Whitefriars Avenue' was named after local glassworks, which was in turn named after the monastery that was on the site. 'Waggs Well' became 'Waxwell', and the road it was on became 'Waxwell Lane'.<br />
<br />
Some roads are named after local people who may or may not have been wealthy, but who did something significant - or not. 'George Gange Way' was named after a former councillor. 'Butler Road' was named after a headmaster at the local prestigious public (US private) school. 'Abbot Drive' was named after the leader of the council at the time the road was built. (That road was built by the local authority, and having known Cllr Abbot, it's possible he suggested the name....) 'Rayners Lane' takes its name from the farming family who owned most of the land the new roads were built on.<br />
<br />
Recently (or not so recently) dead people are good inspiration - 'Betjeman Way', named for a poet laureate who died as the road was being built, and 'Nelson Road', named for the Admiral. In both cases the namee (for want of a better word) had never lived in the area but may have had some connection.<br />
<br />
Local businesses can name some roads, too: 'Bishops Walk' is/was nothing to do with the clergy, but is everything to do with the name of the shop it used to lead to. This can also affect whole areas (suburbs in UD). As an example, 'Hooking Green' became 'North Harrow' pretty much because it sounded better and that was the way the property developers of the time liked it: the fact that it wasn't north of Harrow, and was actually further west than 'West Harrow' didn't matter.<br />
<br />
Lastly - the emergency services and the post office have an input in the naming process. Too many similarly-named streets near each other is bad news. <br />
<br />
In summary: a street name needn't necessarily imply a family name; a family name needn't mean they were local. This isn't to undermine the 'Families of Malton' project in any way, simply to sow some more seeds in the imagination.<br />
--[[User:Uncle Whippity|Uncle Whippity]] 22:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Morliere Family ==<br />
I just added them and created the link to the page. As a resident of Dartside, I'd like to take a shot at creating some history for Downing, Bowerman, Pollet & Morliere. Something to the affect of how these 4 very wealthy families (all made their money through railroad) basically created Dartside.--[[User:John Blast|John Blast]] 20:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Perryn / Perram ==<br />
<br />
Just added [[the Perryn Family]], and I'd like to request that [[the Perram Family]] page be made into a redirect for the Perryn family. I'd do it myself, but I don't have the appropriate Wiki skills. Thanks in advance. --[[User:Specialist290|Specialist290]] 03:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
It's done. You just put <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[Name of page you want to go to]]</nowiki> for a redirect.--{{User:Lachryma/sig}} 03:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks Lach :) --[[User:Specialist290|Specialist290]] 03:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Brooke Hills Related Families ==<br />
I would like to take it upon myself to help create some history for families with influence in Brooke Hills, which I recently decided to add more description to. I would specifically like to work on the Grandon, Hellear, Dampier, Parsley, Chamberlain, Schalch, Welsford, Hame, and Fifoot families to start off. I will most likely start some of these tomorrow and will hopefully have them all completed, not counting any edits or ideas by others, in a month or two. [[User:SuperMario24|SuperMario24]] 22:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Players Added to Families ==<br />
Are we allowing the inclusion player characters to articles of the "famous" families of malton? Example: [[The Alner Family]])? --[[User:Akule|Akule]] <sup>School's in session. </sup> 18:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
::As far as I'm concerned...why not? [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[DHPD]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 06:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== The Eelms Family ==<br />
<br />
I've added a brief entry for[[The Eelms Family|Eelms Family]]. I've done my best to conform to the guidelines, but I would appreciate it if someone could go over the article and edit it to read better.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 20:42, 6 September 2008 (BST)</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=The_Eelms_Family&diff=1268039The Eelms Family2008-09-06T19:40:02Z<p>Janine: /* Footprints in Malton */</p>
<hr />
<div>The Eelms family were wealthy social activists and great legal minds. Many streets and even a building were named after family members. However after only a few generations, and many deaths, the family fell on hard times and split apart all over Malton. Often dedicated to helping the lower class and fund raising for many causes.<br />
<br />
== Historic Famous Members ==<br />
<br />
The [[The Eelms Building|family home]], originally built by the industrious engineer and architect Cyrus Eelms(1880 - 1935), was later converted into an office building when the family hit hard times. Cyrus built several great wonders, though they all remain well outside of Malton's borders. Brain Cancer, and the resulting treatments, would rob him of the memories and eventually his life.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most notable member was Gerald Eelms(1910 - 1945). He was an philanthropist of sorts who sought social change in the less advantaged parts of the city. Although he only lived for thirty five years, his impact on the various ghettos of the thirties and forties was undeniable. Two streets, [[Eelms Way|the way]] and [[Eelms Avenue|the avenue]], were named after him in honor of his achievements. He would later succumb to food poisoning after a fund raising dinner.<br />
<br />
The last great activist of the Eelms family was Philip Eelms(1947 - 1991), who fought for the rights of minorities during the great upheaval of the seventies. An attorney by profession he founded a law practice which usually worked for worker's rights, feminists, and union laws. Almost ironically Philip was gunned down in [[Eelms Alley|the alley]] which was later named after him.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Known Current Family Members ==<br />
<br />
This is only an incomplete list. Due to the family breaking up few members remained in contact with each other.<br />
<br />
[http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1237352 Janine Eelms] wanted murderer and member of the female-only [[Hel's Daughters|Hel's Daughters]].<br />
<br />
<br />
== Footprints in Malton ==<br />
The Eelms have four sights in modern day Malton. [[The Eelms Building|The family home]], [[Eelms Alley|the alley]], [[Eelms Way|the way]] and [[Eelms Avenue|the avenue]] were named after or built by family members.</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=The_Eelms_Family&diff=1268037The Eelms Family2008-09-06T19:38:24Z<p>Janine: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Eelms family were wealthy social activists and great legal minds. Many streets and even a building were named after family members. However after only a few generations, and many deaths, the family fell on hard times and split apart all over Malton. Often dedicated to helping the lower class and fund raising for many causes.<br />
<br />
== Historic Famous Members ==<br />
<br />
The [[The Eelms Building|family home]], originally built by the industrious engineer and architect Cyrus Eelms(1880 - 1935), was later converted into an office building when the family hit hard times. Cyrus built several great wonders, though they all remain well outside of Malton's borders. Brain Cancer, and the resulting treatments, would rob him of the memories and eventually his life.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most notable member was Gerald Eelms(1910 - 1945). He was an philanthropist of sorts who sought social change in the less advantaged parts of the city. Although he only lived for thirty five years, his impact on the various ghettos of the thirties and forties was undeniable. Two streets, [[Eelms Way|the way]] and [[Eelms Avenue|the avenue]], were named after him in honor of his achievements. He would later succumb to food poisoning after a fund raising dinner.<br />
<br />
The last great activist of the Eelms family was Philip Eelms(1947 - 1991), who fought for the rights of minorities during the great upheaval of the seventies. An attorney by profession he founded a law practice which usually worked for worker's rights, feminists, and union laws. Almost ironically Philip was gunned down in [[Eelms Alley|the alley]] which was later named after him.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Known Current Family Members ==<br />
<br />
This is only an incomplete list. Due to the family breaking up few members remained in contact with each other.<br />
<br />
[http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1237352 Janine Eelms] wanted murderer and member of the female-only [[Hel's Daughters|Hel's Daughters]].<br />
<br />
<br />
== Footprints in Malton ==<br />
The Eelms have four sights in modern day Malton. [[The Eelms Building|The family home]], [[Eelms Alley|the alley]], [[Eelms Way|the way]] and [[Eelms Avenue|the avenue]].</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=The_Eelms_Family&diff=1268034The Eelms Family2008-09-06T19:32:03Z<p>Janine: New page: The Eelms family were wealthy social activists and great legal minds. Many streets and even a building were named after family members. However after only a few generations, and many death...</p>
<hr />
<div>The Eelms family were wealthy social activists and great legal minds. Many streets and even a building were named after family members. However after only a few generations, and many deaths, the family fell on hard times and split apart all over Malton. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Historic Famous Members ==<br />
<br />
The [[The Eelms Building|family home]], originally built by the industrious engineer and architect Cyrus Eelms(1880 - 1935), was later converted into an office building when the family hit hard times. Cyrus built several great wonders, though they all remain well outside of Malton's borders. Brain Cancer, and the resulting treatments, would rob him of the memories and eventually his life.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most notable member was Gerald Eelms(1910 - 1945). He was an philanthropist of sorts who sought social change in the less advantaged parts of the city. Although he only lived for thirty five years, his impact on the various ghettos of the thirties and forties was undeniable. Two streets, [[Eelms Way|the way]] and [[Eelms Avenue|the avenue]], were named after him in honor of his achievements. He would later succumb to food poisoning after a fund raising dinner.<br />
<br />
The last great activist of the Eelms family was Philip Eelms(1947 - 1991), who fought for the rights of minorities during the great upheaval of the seventies. An attorney by profession he founded a law practice which usually worked for worker's rights, feminists, and union laws. Almost ironically Philip was gunned down in [[Eelms Alley|the alley]] which was later named after him.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Known Current Family Members ==<br />
<br />
This is only an incomplete list. Due to the family breaking up few members remained in contact with each other.<br />
<br />
[http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=1237352 Janine Eelms] wanted murderer and member of the female-only [[Hel's Daughters|Hel's Daughters]].</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Janine&diff=1267814User talk:Janine2008-09-06T14:14:24Z<p>Janine: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
Well this is the discussion page. You guys should know what to do here. --[[User:Janine|Janine]] 18:31, 30 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Regarding Your Post On The MU Talk Page ==<br />
<br />
Thanks. I hate needing to check that thing every few hours to fight off the next argument. {{User:Secruss/Sig}}03:22, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
:Honestly I just got tired of laughing and needed a break. But you're welcome.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 17:04, 31 August 2008 (BST)<br />
Can you pull that thing where you tell everyone just to shut up, again? And would Hel's Daughters be interested in the Malton Uprising? The more pressure put on the DEM, the quicker this will all be over and I can get on with my [[Crusade '08|other project]]. {{User:Secruss/Sig}}20:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)<br />
:Ask on the forums.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 21:56, 5 September 2008 (BST)</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Janine&diff=1267801User:Janine2008-09-06T13:10:51Z<p>Janine: </p>
<hr />
<div>And now for a little about myself without the cut and paste templates. I'm from Baltimore, currently enrolled in MICA(Maryland Institute of College Art) and working as a Creative Assistant for a publishing company. My character Janine Eelms(id=1237352) is part of the pker auxiliary of the Hel's Daughters. If you want to leave a comment, feel free to do so.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
{{CS}}<br />
{{Socialism}}<br />
{{Crucifix}}<br />
{{Firefox}}<br />
{{carlin}}</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Janine&diff=1267775User:Janine2008-09-06T12:24:42Z<p>Janine: /* Miscellaneous Headline */</p>
<hr />
<div>And now for a little about myself without the cut and paste templates. I'm from Baltimore, currently enrolled in MICA(Maryland Institute of College Art) and working as a Creative Assistant for a publishing company. My character Janine Eelms(id=1237352) is part of the pker auxiliary of the Hel's Daughters. If you want to leave a comment, feel free to do so.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
{{CS}}<br />
{{Socialism}}<br />
{{Crucifix}}<br />
{{Firefox}}</div>Janinehttps://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Janine&diff=1267774User:Janine2008-09-06T12:24:27Z<p>Janine: </p>
<hr />
<div>And now for a little about myself without the cut and paste templates. I'm from Baltimore, currently enrolled in MICA(Maryland Institute of College Art) and working as a Creative Assistant for a publishing company. My character Janine Eelms(id=1237352) is part of the pker auxiliary of the Hel's Daughters. If you want to leave a comment, feel free to do so.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Miscellaneous Headline ==<br />
Enjoy it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
{{CS}}<br />
{{Socialism}}<br />
{{Crucifix}}<br />
{{Firefox}}</div>Janine