From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Handgreen.png Archive Page
This page is an archive page of Talk:Suggestions. Please do not add comments to it. If you wish to discuss the Suggestions page do so at Talk:Suggestions.

Suggestions Discussion

Active Suggestions

These suggestions are currently at vote. Please hold any extended discussion about them here.

Developing Suggestions

This section is for suggestions which have not yet been submitted, and are still being worked on. Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.

Standardised AoE Guidelines

Timestamp: 16:05, 14 August 2006 (BST)
Type: Assistance for "Elegant Implementations"
Scope: AoE Suggestions
Description: AoE attacks tend to get spammed to hell, and rightly so. All but one [Yet Another SMG] AoE suggestion has been ridiculously overpowered, mainly due to the way the way the multiple target damage is assigned.

I propose that the AoE used in the above suggestion be accepted as the official (well, wikifficial) AoE method for Urban Dead. Any further AoE suggestions can simply reference this suggestion, significantly reducing the size of the text, and reducing the areas the suggestion can fall down on. The method in question has been outlined in detail below, with additions to cover situations outside the scope of the original suggestion.

AoE Guidelines

  • Directly from original suggestion
  • A Zombie:
  • X least active Zombies in the stack are attacked.
  • Named Survivor:
  • The targetted Survivor is attacked. The next (X-1)/2 Survivorss in the stack are attacked. The previous (X-1)/2 Survivors in the stack are attacked. If there are insufficient Survivors higher or lower on the stack, the excess attacks are wasted.
  • Not covered in the above suggestion.
  • Named Zombie:
  • The targetted Zombie is attacked. The next (X-1)/2 Zombies in the stack are attacked. The previous (X-1)/2 Zombies in the stack are attacked. If there are insufficient Zombies higher or lower on the stack, the excess attacks are wasted.
  • Unnamed Suvivor:
  • The X least active Survivors in the stack are attacked. This is an unlikely scenario, probably along the lines of Zombies with Rocket Launchers. I am attempting to cover all possible situations.

  • Generator/Radio/Future Powered Devices:
  • (X+1)/2 Installations are attacked, in order of screen listing. Chance to Destroy determined by Suggester, hit chance/4 recommended. The (X-1)/2 most recently active survivors are also attacked.
  • Barricades:
  • The Barricades are attacked (X+1)/2 times. AoE guns have no effect. Chance to Destroy determined by Suggester, hit chance/4 recommended. The (X-1)/2 most recently active survivors are also attacked.
  • All attacks are rolled seperately.
  • X must always be an odd number.
  • AoE attacks never cause headshots.

Discussion Does anyone have any issues with this implementation, or should I submit it as is? Does anything need elaboration? I am aware that a Survivor attacking a Barricade or Generator with an AoE attack will probably end up injuring himself. This is on purpose, covering ricochets (guns) and blowback (explosives), and to introduce an element of risk to counterbalance the increased safehouse-cracking potential.--Gene Splicer 16:05, 14 August 2006 (BST)


  • so this is a suggestion to change future suggestions? Can you say worthless?--Gage 18:21, 14 August 2006 (BST)
  • I am very confused, what is this supposed to do?--Canuhearmenow 18:33, 14 August 2006 (BST)
  • wtf? --Gold Blade 23:58, 14 August 2006 (BST)

I concur with all above comments. I don't see what your trying to do here, maybe this should be under other discussions, or possibly on the do (not)s page. If that suggestion is a good, solid AoE weapon, then I'm content, let's just refer people to that and ask if they can think about why it got keeps. AoE is not something I'm super eager to see in-game, so I don't want encouraging guidelines to spawn excessive similar suggestions.


  • Your use of bullet points is deplorable
  • In the case that a bullet ends with a colon:
  • More indented bullets follow
  • Using either:
  • a leading ':' or
  • a leading '*'
  • Remember, not everything needs to be
  • it's
    • own
      • Bullet

There are already grammar nazis on the wiki so think of me as their formatting analogue.--Burgan 19:34, 15 August 2006 (BST)

The basic idea ISN'T a suggestion. It is GUIDELINES for suggestions (whether or not it should be in THIS area, I don't know). Basically the next time a person makes a suggestion for an AoE weapon, they would have to use these guidelines. Personally, I'm WAY confused by them. Secondly, if a person does a little research (like they are supposed to, heh), they would see what works and what does not. But I think limiting people to this format is too, well limiting. Make it easier for us to understand first.--Pesatyel 01:34, 16 August 2006 (BST)

I mostly got that feeling from the suggestion, but 1) I don't think these are necessarily the best/most coherent rules, and 2), I don't feel the need to standardize the AoE rules. If someone's got a new way of doing it that works, let them try it. If they've got a new way that's crap, let them post it here and maybe we'll salvage something from it. Rules add constraint to creativity, and this is the page for creativity. Besides the fact that this is more a policy idea than something that can be explicitly implemented in-game. Maybe it should go down here or over here? It fits more sensibly with the do (not)s or the guidelines, but it's impact makes me think you should put it in policy discussions to keep the pertinent people posted. For the record, I'd Kill this.--Burgan 02:55, 16 August 2006 (BST)
Oh, I agree. I don't think we should be stiffling creativity either. Especially if you consider that Spam works well enough to deal with suggestions that don't work anyway.--Pesatyel 04:57, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Visibility (V.2)

Timestamp: -Captain Leah- 19:21, 9 August 2006 (BST)
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: Visibility is a 100 XP civilian skill that survivors can use. Upon logging in, or just viewing the map screen, players with this skill will see a button marked, 'View Surroundings.' Upon clicking this, the player will be taken to another map screen that is a 5x5 grid, with the player's present location in the center. While viewing his surroundings, the player cannot use any options other than 'Exit Visibility.' While viewing this map, a survivor can click any of the buildings within his viewing range and move there for the normal AP cost.

Before you say that this is ridiculously overpowered, wait for the other thing. Entering the visibility mode costs on AP, to leave it does as well. Also, while viewing your surroundings, you will NOT see zombies in squares other than those adjacent to you. So here's an example.

Great_Fighter is standing next to Ackland Mall. He sees around him about 200 odd zombies- that is, 200 zombies in the squares adjacent to him. He enters the visibility mode, and is shown ALL of Ackland Mall and the surrounding buildings. He still sees 200 zombies- but ONLY the ones around him. Those two extra squares of Ackland Mall he sees remain blank- he can move there, but he can't see if there's anything in it.

So what's this skill for? Namely, its for looking for that resource building you really want to find, without bumbling off in the completely wrong direction. The AP cost and inability to see faraway zombies and figures prevents players from using it to see where the largest amount of zombies/ survivors are and trying to use it for escaping purposes. Also, though it costs 1 AP to enter the mode and one to leave, it helps when you're trying to cover long distances- the page only has to load 1/2 of the time it would if you were moving square by square.

Visibility is shut off once you enter a building.

if (!suggestions_page)

voting = false;

  1. Keep - I think this will work on this swing around. ---Captain Leah- 19:21, 9 August 2006 (BST)

I'm confused, I don't understand the advantage this has over the normal map.

  W  C  E
  A B  C  D E
  H W  C  E I
  L M  N  O P  

Something like that? Normal play not withstanding, but HOW is the person able to view that far? And I'd think that it would be better if the person had to EXIT this "extended view" in order to move. Or did you mean that, if I want to move from C to E, I can do it automatically (thought it costs 2 AP)? I believe it is easy enough for players to get around that they don't really need to waste time using this. It provides to little a benefit that can't be provided by clicking (from C) NE and seeing what is in E, including zombies and survivors).--Pesatyel 23:11, 9 August 2006 (BST)

Re: You move automatically- 2 AP cost and it routes you correctly. IT does prevent zombies from whacking you, so it's safer, but sometimes, you don't want to USE it for seeing zombies. Say, you want an FAK, and you're not in a mall. You THINK there's a hospital somewhere, but you forgot where. So you switch this on, and you'll probably find the hospital rather quickly. ---Captain Leah- 01:54, 10 August 2006 (BST)
Well, as long as I had it understood right. I can already tell you this will be spammed out under no free movement. Even though it still costs you 2 AP, you are STILL skipping a square. 2,000 zombies in that square? You just bypassed them all and, while you won't know if there is another 2,000 in the square you go to, you could just as easily avoid THOSE as well. Secondly, there was a suggestion for an ingame map of Malton which can be found, as well as one to allow GPS units to act as "route finders", both of which would be a LOT more useful. Besides the fact that the wiki (and a map) can be easily found through the link.--Pesatyel 04:51, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Are you saying it would cost 1 AP to move 2 Spaces? please explain this movement aspect. --Kiltric 05:38, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Re: Incorrect- I am saying it would still take 2 AP to move 2 spaces. The advntage for this in the long run is if you're attempting to again, find a TRP, a Mall, or if you're just trying to move quickly. It works like this. Initally, you're down by 1 AP, since you had to enter the mode. Make that 2 AP, since you have to exit later. Anyways, here's how it works. If you're trying to move fast across a suburb, and a mall seige is between you and that entrance point, you use this, and go DIRECTLY to the entrance point so you don't die. Also, if you're trying to move long distances, loading a page after moving 2 spaces is far quicker than reloading after each move. ---Captain Leah- 14:16, 10 August 2006 (BST)
...go DIRECTLY to the entrance point so you don't die. And there in lies the problem. As Xoid and I pointed out, if you want to go form point A to point B, you take the risk associated. This does more to negate risk than it does to provide a bonus to the person using it. Don't remember where that hospital is? Guess you better look at the map, eh?--Pesatyel 18:51, 10 August 2006 (BST)
Re: The map isn't always online. Some people don't want to look at the map every single minute or so. Also, as I said earlier, it helps for people with odd internets by speeding up the moving process over long distances. My take, anyway. ---Captain Leah- 00:59, 11 August 2006 (BST)
Re: - so this is just to help planning your route and getting back to your safehouse then, correct? --Kiltric 18:14, 12 August 2006 (BST)
Don't forget avoiding combat.--Pesatyel 21:15, 12 August 2006 (BST)
Alright, now that I fully understand this, I'm saying keep. Hands down. --Kiltric 03:13, 13 August 2006 (BST)

I don't like this idea. You want to get from point A to point B, you take the risk associated with it. Besides, the map suggestion far outweighs this in terms of usefulness. –Xoid STFU! 15:00, 10 August 2006 (BST)

I'm with Xoid on this one. Take the risk. Look at a map. --Swmono talk - W! - P! - SGP 03:30, 11 August 2006 (BST)

I'd get behind this if moving while in that mode immediately brought you out of that mode. Essentially, you pay 1ap to take a good look around, but if you moved somewhere else, you need to spend another 1ap to have a good look around where you are /now/. Additionally, this would make more thematic sense if it came as a free-running subskill. --Gene Splicer 03:18, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Mall store names

Timestamp: 01:12, 9 August 2006 (BST)
Type: Building change.
Scope: Flavor...(Mm, Flavor).
Description: This is to add names to the mall stores in a mall. This wouldn't confuse noobs or newbs because the wording would easily imply the functionality. Each store in each mall would have a unique name. For example, a Hardware store in Caiger would be called "McHandy's hardware" and the Gun Store? "Hunting Shack gun store." (Names taken from the stores in Dead Rising.) And Sports Store? "Kokonutz Sports Hut" This would add some variety in the otherwise dull mall store.


  1. Keep - Author Vote, would be nice.--Canuhearmenow 01:11, 9 August 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - doesn't really change anything. Not worth Kevan's time--Gage 01:46, 9 August 2006 (BST)
    • Re - Couldn't Seperate people code it?--Canuhearmenow 01:48, 9 August 2006 (BST)
  3. I don't know what to vote. I think it's cool...but at the same time I'll end up ignoring it. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 01:53, 9 August 2006 (BST)
  4. Keep - I think it's a good idea. Flavor is always nice. --Paradox244 W! TJ! 22:06, 9 August 2006 (BST)

Would this be for each mall store? Would all malls have McHandy's Hardware? I don't see how it hurts the game. Something Kevan can do when he feels like.--Pesatyel 23:18, 9 August 2006 (BST)

Hindering Clutter

Timestamp: 22:29, 7 August 2006 (BST)
Type: Zombie Skill
Scope: Zombies attempting to lay seige to extremely well-fortified areas such as malls.
Description: Hindering Clutter is a new Zombie skill, with Ransack as a prerequisite
  • Flavor: Some zombies have been able to figure out that many humans frequently enter and exit buildings through the windows, and spitefully shove furniture and other wreckage in the way.
  • Prerequisite: Ransack
  • Cost: 100 XP to buy, 5 AP to use.
  • Function: A zombie with the Hindering Clutter skill is able to block the windows of an already-ransacked building by clicking a "Block the windows" button (which costs 5 AP). When the windows are blocked, humans and zombies alike are prevented from entering or exiting the building through the windows (anything other than clicking the "Enter Building" or "Leave Building" buttons). A human trying to enter such a building via Freerunning would be given a message such as "The windows are blocked; you can't enter <building name> this way. Try entering through the front door.", and no AP would be used. When a human repairs a building (to clear its "ransacked" status), this effect is removed as well. The description of the interior of the building should reflect its status if the windows are blocked.
  • Purpose: This would change the character of zombie seiges of strongholds, making malls a little riskier to treat as "home base". Instead of simply "attack the barricades, again, and again, and again" versus "go outside and make a guerilla attack on the zombies again", it would become more like a classical seige, where the zombies would fight to take and keep the entry points, while humans fight to keep at least one clear. If the zombies manage to successfully block all current "entry points" to a stronghold, humans would still be able to enter or exit -- they may have to weaken the barricades, though. I think this would add interesting elements to the game.
  • Discussion point: I really like this idea (making seiges more about holding entry/exit points than eternally attacking and repairing barricades), but I'm afraid it's way too powerful as written. A more balanced idea would be to make it cost X AP (instead of blocking it totally as suggested above, and compared to the 1 AP it normally costs) to go through a window, but I'm afraid that would have implementation issues, such as informing someone that it will cost extra AP, in case they're trying to enter the building through a window or in case they didn't pay attention to the description while quickly Freerunning by. It could be made into a warning on the first click, kinda like when you attempt to barricade past VS+2, but that seems like a horrible way to do it. And I've got no other ideas for how to make this work. Any ideas? (Small wording edits: 22:46, 7 August 2006 (BST))

Comments? Please don't vote yet, I'm looking for suggestions to improve balance (especially as mentioned in the "Discussion Point" section above).

  • So, basically, this just cancels out Free Running? Seems over-powered. Ransack can ONLY be repaired once all zombies are removed. If survivors can't escape either, they would be slaughtered. The only thing I can think of, at the moment, is to make it "repairable" seperately from Ransack (people are going to want to escape a bad situation a HELL of a lot more than trying to find stuff, especially if zombies are present).--Pesatyel 23:13, 7 August 2006 (BST)
    • Re: Hmm, I see what you mean. As written, it does kinda just cancel out Freerunning, though that wasn't how I was thinking of it. I was trying to think of some way for zombies to control buildings more substantially -- Ransack lets them gimp searching and prevent construction, I was trying to think of some way to stop some human from walking into a Ransacked building filled with 100+ zombies and just stepping out the window into the EH barricaded mall with no problems. It seems to me that zombies should be able to control a building as a movement path as well. So here's maybe a different implementation that is a bit more involved but perhaps more elegant: instead of a 5AP chunk to block the windows, it could be more like a zombie barricade (which probably dupes another suggestion somewhere... doh). It takes 1AP to barricade the windows (still only possible in a ransacked building), and it can be barricaded up 4 times by zombies with this skill (making "lightly" the max). Normally it takes 1AP to go in/out a window; for each barricade applied to the windows, it takes 1 extra AP. At max barricade, it is impossible to pass through. The window barricades can be attacked just like door barricades, with crowbars still doubly effective. That way, even if it is barricaded to max, it wouldn't be very hard for a survivor to take it down one notch and then Freerun out. How about something like that? --Zacronos 00:20, 8 August 2006 (BST)
I can see where you are coming from, but the basic idea just won't work. If a survivor can walk through 50 or 100 zombies (regardless of WHERE), it really doesn't matter if the character has Free Running or not (the character could, just as easily just go out to the street). Same is said for zombies. A zombie could pass through an area of 50 or 100 survivors (granted, sure, that doesn't happen very often, but it CAN happen) without inhibition. I guarantee most people will say that zombies aren't intelligent enough to do something like that (barricading) anyway. It just seems too out of genre. Take a look at the Previous Days suggestions about survivors moving through large hordes for more feedback.--Pesatyel 10:57, 8 August 2006 (BST)
Why not have it affect buildings that would only have "one level" (buildings that would usually have one level in real life)? --Swmono talk - W! - P! - SGP 03:37, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Frenzied Looting

Timestamp: 19:56, 7 August 2006 (BST)
Type: New skill.
Scope: people with AP to burn looking for things.
Description: This is a new 100XP Civilian skill, called frenzied search. Upon buying it you will be able to search frenziedly. If you have this skill and find things 4 times in 4 searches, you get the message "Your feeling elated, and maybe lucky too, do you want to begin a frenzied search?" upon clicking "Yes" you get a +15% search increase for a total of 5 searches, drawback? All of those 5 searches cost's 2 AP each. This search bonus goes away upon moving to another building. So someone who searches a Library can't move to an NT building..


  1. Keep - Author Vote, a nice search bonus in my opinion.--Canuhearmenow 19:56, 7 August 2006 (BST)
  2. Kill - This would only be useful in situations where the original search odds were less than 15%, which means nowhere. For instance, if the original odds were 20%, you could spend your 10 AP by either: searching at 20% 10 times, or searching at 35% 5 times. .20 * 10 = 2, .35 * 5 = 1.75 In other words, you;d be better off searching 10 times. The imbalance gets worse the higher the original odds were. Looking at the Search_odds page, it appears most places have odds in the 20%-35% range, so this would never be useful. Zacronos 22:40, 7 August 2006 (BST)
  3. Kill - would only pay off in the long run if the original search odds were <15%--Gage 01:45, 9 August 2006 (BST)
  4. Kill - as above. perhaps just fiddle with the numbers a bit. --Kiltric 18:16, 12 August 2006 (BST)
  5. Kill - I like the idea. As above, change %'s. And >15 means less than 15%. --Gold Blade 23:55, 14 August 2006 (BST)
    No. Think of it like the greedy crocodile, and put some angry eyes above the inequality sign, and maybe a snout, and some bumpy skin. Maybe even some consummate Vs. The greedy crocodile always opens towards the bigger option. X > 15 means X is greater than 15. This only pays off if the original search odds are less than the bonus given, i.e. original search odds < bonus.
    Try making the search rate 1.5 times what it was before? Still, I don't think this skill is very useful, and I don't like the frenzied runs of searches. I have a skill that lets me go crazy by searching more successfully on a random chance? --Burgan 21:17, 15 August 2006 (BST)

Chainsaw & Chainsaw skill

Timestamp: 18:37, 28 July 2006 (BST)
Type: Item & Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: Let me start by saying I have read all the previous chainsaw suggestions, (and that's a lot! I saw the peer approved one too) but I wanted to see what you think of this version, which is different. There are some subtle differences, there are some big differences, and there are also things that may be in one suggestion but not another that are combined.
  • Chainsaw Item
    • Found in junkyards and mall hardware stores.
    • Uses one can of fuel to run for 30 minutes real time. This is already coded for generator fuel times. I know this will add more info to the player file of everyone with a chainsaw, but that didn't seem to stop Radios from being put in, since they added lots of info for everyone.
    • Hits for 8 damage.
    • Chance of hitting is 15% (dont worry, read it all and i will explain high damage and low hit rate)
    • Fuel cans would get a drop-down if you have a chainsaw and there is a generater in the room. You can then chose which item to fuel.
    • Chainsaws would start when fueled, just like generaters start when fueled.
    • Player sees "running" next to chainsaw button if its fueld, "sputtering" if its low on fuel, and no message if it is empty.
    • An empty chainsaw cannot attack.
      • Takes a massive (but needed for fairness) 4 item slots.

At this point you are doing 8 damage, with a 15% chance, no ammo is needed, but you need to fuel every 30 minutes. It is currently better than basic axe, but it does not have infinite ammo. It is not as good as guns, but it doesn't use a bullet up with each attack.

  • Chainsaw Skill ("Chainsaw Massacare"?)
    • The first new Zombie Hunter skill since Headshot! This is because chainsaws can be mastered, but only a Zombie Hunter would be skilled enough to have learned to effectively use this tool on other people without doing harm to himself or completely missing, or getting the chainsaw stuck!
    • Increases chance to hit by 20%

At this point you are doing 8 damage, with a 35% chance to hit. It does not have the best hit rate, but it does have the third best damage (after flare and shotguns) and you only need to fuel it like a generator. I think the fact that it is not infinite use, and ALSO: Not using up ammo-per-attack makes it fit in well with the current weapons.

Again I know there are other similar suggestions, but I think this is different enough to warrent a new vote based on the things that are changed.


  • please feel free to correct spelling or gramatical erroers. I apologize to ask this. If you think this is super powerful or not powerful enough, please make your thoughts known and I will alter it dependant on what people think!! I was supposing to add a Barricade bonus to this item but it seemed too much. What are your thoughts? -- John Teabags 18:37, 28 July 2006 (BST)
    • hello anyone? John Teabags 23:08, 28 July 2006 (BST)
      • I don't like the time for the gas can. It should be a per use thing. All perishables are. -- 343 U! 01:03, 29 July 2006 (BST)
        • I kinda pictured an idling chainsaw, using gasoline up as it runs. You know what I mean? granted using the chainsaw wil use more gas, but... well i guess I was kind of going for suspsnesion of disbelief. lol - John Teabags 02:50, 29 July 2006 (BST)~
        • Oooo what about having it last 30 minutes OR a certain number of uses, whichever comes first-- John Teabags 03:56, 29 July 2006 (BST)
  • I would love to see this but im afraid zombie players will spam it into oblivion.Youronlyfriend 05:19, 29 July 2006 (BST)

I think the Peer Reviewed one is better. The only significant difference is the time limit thing and, given the nature of the game, THAT really isn't a good idea. As far as generators are concerned, anyone can refuel one and thus keep it continuously running. With your chainsaw, you would HAVE to refuel it EVERY time you log on (if you intend to use it). Plus, I can't imagine it would be that safe to have an idyling chainsaw on your person all the time.--Pesatyel 06:22, 29 July 2006 (BST)

    • I dont see whats wrong even after reading that. so you have to refuel it, so people carry idling chainsaws. nothing really is that unbelievable in either respect -John Teabags 00:52, 30 July 2006 (BST)
Chainsaws have off switchs AND safety switches that automatically turn it off in an emergency. Besides who would be dumb enough to waste ammo by NOT attacking?--Pesatyel 05:19, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I like the idea, but it could use some definite improvement. For example, how about instead of 30 minutes (you can easily spend all 50 AP in less than 5 min), how about it stops after thirty actions? It seems a waste to let it run while youre asleep and you cant do anything for another 30 min, so you cant use it. Having a time limited weapon does not seem like a good idea. Other than that, it's very good considering how most chainsaws are. Also, I made a lot of spelling, grammar, and punctuation fixes. Now it looks professional! --Gold Blade 21:25, 31 July 2006 (BST)

It's good overall, except, as I see you've heard, for the time limit. I think it would be far better to just base the fuel consumption off of AP, and only AP spent attacking, not messing around with an idle time. Other than that, it looks great. --Kiltric 05:21, 10 August 2006 (BST)

I agree with the run off ap things. Load it up, it gains (X) charges and one is expended every time you take an action. The only issue is(as Pesatyel mentioned), people would just fuel up when they were about to start slashing at things, and leave it off the rest of the time. This would make it function just like any other ammo weapon. One way to avoid this is to give your chainsaw a turn on/off cost. If you had the option to turn off your chainsaw, but it cost a few AP (and a little extra fuel) to turn it back on, it would encourage you to keep it running in situations where the ap required to pull the cord would be more valuable than the fuel ammo wasted.--Gene Splicer 17:36, 11 August 2006 (BST)

  • What sort of turn off cost did you have in mind? I think it should only cost to attack though, not bother with an idling cost. perhaps a turn on cost? Here's a thought though, what about having a probability of it starting, I know i've spent anywhere from 5 seconds to 10 minutes trying to get one started, so there could be the risk involved in it's use. --Kiltric 18:21, 12 August 2006 (BST)
What about a random amount (say 3-10)? Each time you turn it on, the computer randomly deducts some AP to represent that time it takes?--Pesatyel 21:18, 12 August 2006 (BST)
I don't like that, I prefer a percentage rate, a random AP amount will make AP budgeting that much harder. --Kiltric 03:15, 13 August 2006 (BST)
Well, if the damage were much higher, I could see the random AP to use. But yeah, it would make things overly difficult. You DO realize where this discussion is going to end up, right? THIS chainsaw suggestion is going to end up being a dupe of the one in Peer Review.--Pesatyel 09:41, 13 August 2006 (BST)
pretty much, but that really is the only way it works. sometimes I wish that Kevan would explain why he doesn't implement some of these suggestions. --Kiltric 11:29, 13 August 2006 (BST)
I was thinking a flat 1ap. A percentage chance to start would be interesting and realistic, but the chance to hit would have to be increased to make it worthwhile. For ease of convenience you could put the chance to turn on just be equal to your chance to hit with it. Also: 4 ammo slots not needed for fairness. It's pretty balanced as is. Just sick with the usual 2 --Gene Splicer 14:21, 14 August 2006 (BST)

No Matter What It Takes!

Timestamp: 23:11, 2 August 2006 (BST)
Type: Cheating Countermeasure
Scope: Bots
Description: Whenever someone accesses the server one every hour for twelve or more hours, they get a flag, which slows down server access. This slow will be an effective ten second speed reduction to whatever they do. Although this is easiely fooled, no one checks the server that often, unless they are either a bot, or someone who alerts others to the lack of baracades. This will not be stated as a change, except on the wiki, as unoffical news, to ensure bot makers have a harder time fooling it.

SpamWrong. I have three characters. I check in at least once an hour. Are you accusing me of being a bot? --Gold Blade 00:26, 3 August 2006 (BST)

This is hurrtarded in so many ways I can't even list them all or I would break the wiki. –Bob Hammero ModTAC 00:27, 3 August 2006 (BST)

commentWhen you say hurrarded, do you mean so retarded?

Spam - Make it once every minute and we're getting somewhere.----The General U! P! F! Mod09:39, 3 August 2006 (BST) 09:38, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Kill - make it anyone who accesses the server in any way more than once a day, and you have my Keep.</sarcasm>--Gene Splicer 13:39, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Kill - Besides the fact that I check in with one of my three characters this often, your suggestion is poorly worded. Does the ten second delay mean that they have to wait 10 seconds between actions, or each action is simply delayed from the time the server receives it? In the latter case, button spamming, which I assume bots do, would not be affected very much at all, it just means 'cades go up ten seconds later. --Burgan 16:11, 3 August 2006 (BST)

I think that this would catch more people than bots, considering that bots would most likely use up all their action oints in a tenth of a second and would remain inactive until the next day. It was a good try though --Neraka Knight 16:58, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Spam - as with Gold Blade, sorry, I hate shooting down bot-killing ideas, but all of the seem to hurt players more than the bots. --Kiltric 04:12, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Spam - No No No. Are you sure no one checks the server that often? Apparently Golden Blade does, so this would hurt players to. Me no likey go buy some pumpkins. --Swmono talk - W! - P! - SGP 03:45, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Hand Grenades

Timestamp: 23:11, 2 August 2006 (BST)
Type: Item
Scope: Everyone
Description: Hand grenades are a new item. When thrown for 2 AP (one to pull the pin and onwe to throw), it would have a 50% chance to explode at all. Then the top 5 charachters would have a 50% chance to be hit if it explodes at all (or, a 25% chance) If they are hit, it does 5 damage. Grenades can be found in Armories (10%), Forts (8%), and Railway Stations (0.001%?) There is no improving skill. Zombies are too stupid to use grenades.

I don't think that a hand grenade would work well in this game, and I think that damaging multiple people is a not a very good idea. --Neraka Knight 16:52, 4 August 2006 (BST)

AoE (area of effect) items are historically spammed to hell with little remorse. I just don't see the need for this and it doesn't really do much previous grenades didn't.
Also, armouries and forts are the same thing, and even though I know it's just for fun, having it in the railway station will get it good and killed good and fast.
Zombies should not be able to use these. You can say it balances it, but it just throws realism and my enjoyment of the game to the wind.
--Burgan 18:16, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Area of effect weapons have no place in Urban Dead. -- Mookiemookie 01:39, 5 August 2006 (BST)

I like the idea but take it away from zombies. AoE weapons are purely for defense and adds new tactics to the game. Youronlyfriend 01:42, 5 August 2006 (BST)

This area of effect suggestion actually works. I didn't bother counting how effective it is to actually search for them, but right now it does less total damage on average than a shotgun shell. Not overpowered, which is usualy why they are spammed (early AoE items were usualy limitless in the number of targets hit). --McArrowni 01:27, 6 August 2006 (BST)

take it away from zombies, reduce it to top 3 characters, maybe rework the damage system, and definitely tell how much it weighs in ones inventory. --Kiltric 04:07, 10 August 2006 (BST)

There is a peer reviewed machine gun suggestion which has the best AoE system for this game I have seen so far --Gene Splicer 17:40, 11 August 2006 (BST)
Could you please post a link? --Kiltric 03:16, 13 August 2006 (BST) Also note the "No headshot" factor. AoE attacks should have this as standard, it only makes sense, and balances out the multiple deaths nicely --Gene Splicer 14:24, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Napalm Air-Raids

Timestamp: 01:41, 5 August 2006 (BST)
Type: Improvement.
Scope: Survivors and Zombies
Description: Similar to the previous suggestion, the military has decided to try and use extreme force to cleanse Malton.

If the name gives you enought want to spam me, please hear me out first.

Once every now and again (a few hours)in a Zombie plentiful area, a Napalm Air-Raid would occur, with devestating results.

There would be a warning to both survivors and zombies of the incoming plane 9 blocks sqaure, or 4 blocks away from every direction. of the target by 15 minutes or so, allowing people to scramble like hell to try to get away from where ever the hell they think might be targeted. This warning would only occur once, providing a bit more incentive to check your "Since your last turn:" messages.
The players on the target square would have an 80% chance to die immediately and a 20% chance to be set on fire. After standing up from being killed by the air-raid only, the player would have a 50/50 chance of being on fire. The effect of being on fire would last 5-10 turns and do 1 damage for each turn, much like infection, only timed, in a manner of speaking, by AP consumption.
Anyone walking on the sqaure struck by napalm would have a 20% chance of getting caught on fire after the bombing and a 30% chance for every action on the square of being caught on fire, be it a survivor or zombie. The building's barricades would be brought down six steps and if that brought it to a negative level, everyone inside would die and be under pretty much the same circumstances as the outdoors players.
The fire from the napalm would last about an hour or two real time. Players would get a warning for being on an adjacent square to the afflicted area about the area 1N, for example, being napalmed, and if there were players on fire, they would hear screams/moans of agony.

Author Keep. Okay, so this is my first suggestion (in the making), try not to be too harsh, and if the template needs any brushing up, please tell me. --Mnbvcx 01:49, 5 August 2006 (BST) Good Golly Miss Molly - This suggestion sucks. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 02:09, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Why thank you jerknuts, for the detailed thought. Have a nice day. --Mnbvcx 02:12, 5 August 2006 (BST)
It's all good. At least I'm not the one with a shitty suggestion. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 02:24, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Kill - I just.. wow. I really don't think the game needs this. Nervie 02:20, 5 August 2006 (BST)

My first thought was the same as Nervie' You have to consider a few things when making a suggestion. Most importantly, is the suggestion going to make/keep the game FUN? How does INSTA-KILL (80% chance not withstanding) make the game fun? Secondly, FLAVOR. From a "realism" standpoint, wouldn't the military have done this a year ago when the plague first started? Are they monitoring to know when to do this? It doesn't make a lot of sense that suddenly "fire from the sky" randomly rains down. Thirdly, MECHANICS. The whole "warning" thing is confusing. Not to mention that most people would already have been killed by this "attack" before they could do anything to defend against it. If this is specifically meant to target zombies, as with the suggestion above, it would be easy for zombies to use this against survivors more efficiently then for it to be used against zombies. Congregate, tear down the barricades, wait for the napalm (especially easy if there is "warning"). Basically stated, this suggestion doesn't improve the game and doesn't sound like it would be fun at all.--Pesatyel 03:25, 5 August 2006 (BST)

I believe proper form is to reference Thich Quang Duc and make a joke about having a spam-barbecue. Honestly though, I don't think air-raid suggestions have a place in the game. The massive amounts of damage to many players, with no benefit to other players is a bummer. It doesn't make it a whole lot more fun. The fire business makes it too complicated, and it's just a lot of mess and hassle for little to no fun. I'm also not a fan of really tight time-based events like that, anything should give players at least a day to respond. --Burgan 06:14, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Nope - it would be proper to reference Kim Phuc. --Darth Sensitive 21:07, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Nu-na nu-na nu-na nu-na Spam-man! Seriously this is just the same as above except theres less warning and it does more damage. Come to think of it, how the hell does this kind of stuff help survivors? Next it'll be getting agent orange to dissapate the barricades. Youronlyfriend 11:15, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Spamtaro - Many of my brethren died bringing you this vote. --A Bothan Spy Mod WTF U! 11:17, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Spam - This suggestion is retarded. Would you people please drop the "ZOMG JETSS AND FYAR BOMBZ!" shit? It isn't going to work without totally fucking over half the player base. --Mookiemookie 14:15, 5 August 2006 (BST)

OMG BUDDIST MONKS ON FIRE LOLOLOLOL - We don't need outside forces to nuke the shit out of players. They are players, who play the game for fun. Having to log on every 15 minutes or possibly getting your character dead for no good reason is not fun. Heck, having to log on every 20 hours for the same stupid reason woudn't be fun either. --McArrowni 20:29, 5 August 2006 (BST)

SPAM to all hell - zombie nerfing, nerfs players that aren't logged in, and it really hurts any humans caught in the blast a lot more than zombies. zombies lose a day of AP standing back up getting burned and digesting their way back to full HP, but humans die, stand back up, get burned to half health, then have to wander away to where there aren't hundreds of burning carcases and get a revive, a process taking days. This just allows zombies to all congregate around a mall, then boom, a napalm strike takes out everyone around the mall, including the local revive points, and then the zombies have the mall while everyone else is going 25 blocks away to get revived. so that said. will inevitably nerf Caiger --Kiltric 03:59, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Keep - I like it :) Tzietel 23:53, 13 August 2006 (BST)

Spam Overpowered, retarded, and nerfs the point of a zombie horde. F--. --Gold Blade 23:49, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Crackshots V.1.5

Timestamp: 21:47 6 August 2006
Type: Skill
Scope: Survivors
Description: A crackshot is a critical shot from either a shotgun or handgun. The effects of a crackshot are double damage. To get a crackshot one most first fully master either a shotgun or handgun and pay 100xp for a new skill on the corresponding weapon tree.(If you want shotgun crackshot you must fully master shotgun and buy shotgun crackshot and vice versa)After purchasing it you must open up the attack options, there will be a new option called shotgun/handgun crackshot. When you attack you have a 35% chance of a hit and a 15% chance of a crackshot. So one of three things will happen. You miss. You get a regular shot. You get a crackshot.

The advantage of a crackshot is if you're low on ammo but are willing to risk you still have a chance to score a kill. The bad thing is you might also waste some ammo if you miss.

.65 * 5 = 3.25 > .20 * 5 + .15 * 10 = 2.5, and .65 * 10 = 6.5 > .20 * 10 + .15 * 20 = 5. I'm not exactly sure what this says but I think it is something about the balanced hit % when fireing a crackshot. Thanks for the equation.

Edit-Changed the hit% and simplified the shooting. Decreased chances of a crackshot.

Clarification-35/100 shots will hit. 15 of those shots will be crackshots. Hope that helps.

I don't think people are going to like this one. I'd say drop the chance of a "crack shot" to, perhaps 10% (maybe 15% max) and/or increase the AP cost to 3 or 4. Your current requirements don't really have the right...penalty.--Pesatyel 05:50, 7 August 2006 (BST)

  • I don't think anyone is really going to like this one. The 3 ap to attack complicates the current attack system. - Jedaz 12:26, 7 August 2006 (BST)
How so? For something THIS powerful, there HAS to be a significant penalty, otherwise people would use it at every opportunity. Besides, the author didn't seem to like the 3 AP thing either.--Pesatyel 19:09, 7 August 2006 (BST)

Are the 35% and 15% chances exclusive or inclusive, i.e. does that mean you'll hit 50% of the time total, or 35% of the time you hit, and you crackshot on just about half of those hits? --Burgan 18:41, 8 August 2006 (BST)

Right, not overpowered, since .65 * 5 = 3.25 > .20 * 5 + .15 * 10 = 2.5, and .65 * 10 = 6.5 > .20 * 10 + .15 * 20 = 5. I would honestly consider this, but I would probably want to scrap the crackshot for the pistol all together since it basically becomes a crappy shotgun at that point. Fun, non game-breaking, and interesting. It wouldn't get a whole lot of use, but I like it. A thought before suggesting would be include the above math, or even present the MBR if you want to do the extra work, as a pre-emptive spam defense.--Burgan 16:11, 9 August 2006 (BST)


Timestamp: 02:32, 10 August 2006 (BST)
Type: Added function to warehouses
Scope: Survivors, Warehouses
Description: In short, I'm trying to find a way to be able to deposit stuff in warehouses, without it being able to be exploited by zergers.

Okay, unlike every other suggestions I've made which went directly to the votes, due to a large ammount of droping/giving item suggestion, and uncountable spam votes because of possible zerger abuse, this is going here first.

First of all, to limit the ammount of people using the warehouses, there'd be a skill, say "Warehouse management", which would read as follows: Warehouse management: Being used to searching buildings for useful items and organising them on yourself in order to easely find and acess them, you have learned to use those skills in a warehouse environment, allowing you to use the storage boxes. Okay, so the way this would work is quite simple. All warehouses would now contain 4 storage boxes, which would contain an inventory space of 10 (or maybe 5?) and would only be able to store one kind of item, for practicality. Only people with the above skill could store and retrieve items. In order to prevent low-level zergs to abuse this, the skill could require Bargain Hunting. Also, the boxes could only contain the following items: Fuel cans, portable generators, radio transmiters, first-aid kits, and necrotech syringes. This would also discourage the typical zergers who would zerg for ammo. As far as the zombies are concerned, they may attack a box as they could attack a generator or radio transmiter, and ransacking the building would empty all boxes. Destroying a box empties it and puts it at the bottom of the stack, to be re-used the building needs to be "repaired". Survivors may also attack them, as they follow the same rules as generators (twice the chances with crowbars also apply).

Why? To allow higher-leveled chars to make reserves before a zombie incursing and allow medium-leveled characters to use the items in order to give a short burst of ressources to the defending suburb. Also, and mainly (in my opinion), to make it possible for dedicated characters to create a steady supply of strategic ressources (generators, among others) to needy locals.

Well, Tell me what you think of it. If you do not like it, please tell me why, and what you would change...

Kill - I was skeptical of the storage system, but I suppose I could just not use it. Also, it would finally take some of the focus off the malls and NT buildings for a change, and add a new tactic to the game. But I'm still afraid of Zerg abuse, so what about having a system where you can access only the things that you store, then zergers couldn't abuse it, and you wouldn't get robbed because you wanted to carry a little extra ammo for the day. --Kiltric 03:49, 10 August 2006 (BST)

  • Re Well, if you can only touch your own box, you'd either have acess to a box per warehouse, which if you do a total of malton would greatly increase server stress, or there would still be but 4 boxed per warehouse, making the first four lucky and others won't be able to use it. The reason that inspired me to post this is to better organise the defense of a suburb, and especially placing generators and fueling them, as it's hard to run around, fueling about 50 buildings, barricading them, and especially powering them, it's more practical having a couple of friends ropping supplies every now and then so you can focus on maintenance, especially is malls are a good distance away. Having a stock of syringes is always good in case of a sudden organised zombie assault. I guess it's still possible for zergers to exploit this, but it would only be for two things: FAKs and syringes. Though FAKs are easy to use and give decent XP, cheaters such as zergers usually don't follow that path (and besides, the quickest way for XP with them is healing others, which will make them contribute to others even though they are cheating). As for syringes, you need skills to make them. Syringes might be a problem though...

Perhaps the anti-zerging system would make it so that boxes you search that another account used with your IP would simply appear as empty? That should be fine... Sounds like it would be an important addition to the suggestion entry...

  • Re: - it is a very good idea at heart, and I'd vote a very strong keep in a heartbeat if I could assume that everyone would play fairly. Alas, if 4 or 5 zombie spies went through a suburb and took then dropped the contents of such boxes, then the suburb would lose all of their supplies. Perhaps a passcode system, or setting a box so that only people of the same group that put the supplies there could retreive them? --Kiltric 05:31, 10 August 2006 (BST)
Well ya can't do much against griefers... And setting a password or something of the like would limit the ressources to a limited few. Besides, empty boxes are better than no boxes (in my opinion), and if people really have a problem with thieves, they can simply leave the boxes empty.
Now that I think of it, storing or taking items would be displayed to everyone in the room, same way as generator smashing is, so that griefers can be Identified.

Did you look at the discussion for Safes? I liked what we had worked out for that better.--Pesatyel 18:58, 10 August 2006 (BST)

I had not, however it is different. For one, Safes is for personal use only, and would create a huge strain on the server as far as I can see because every character could have as many safes as there are banks. If that's not it, then it simply gives characters a bigger inventory when they are in a bank. This is designed so people can make items easely available to other people, without zergers being able to exploit it.
Oh, NOW I see. I didn't realize this was a "trade" suggestion. Problem is, those items are every bit as "zergable" as anything else (except maybe the syringe with the 10 AP cost). Generators and fuel bring improved search rates and adding in the radio brings spam. Not everyone "zergs for ammo." Though I like Gene Splicer's additions, people aren't too keen on trade suggestions.--Pesatyel 06:33, 12 August 2006 (BST)

I like this for a number of reasons, especially that you have only allowed "support" items. This adds a great deal to the "Stocking up to survive" flavour (as opposed to benefitting the "OMG PWN TEH ZMOBIES" type play). It also prevents ammobot type tradeZerging. The only change I would make is to make this a Zombie Hunter skill instead of a Bargain Hunting skill. Bargain Hunting is something any self respecting Zerg abuser of this would buy anyway, whereas it take slightly more effort to get a Zerg to level 11. Couple of ways to avoid abuse: Each day you may only put in and a certain amount of items total. If you try to put in too many, you get messages like "You look around nervously, unwilling to give up further supplies". If these numbers are sufficiently small, it prevents one, erm, "dedicated philanthropist" *rolleyes* from bulking up supplies too much. Thematically, you should be able to remove as many as you like: People are awful selfish bastards. But, again, to prevent abuse, you should only be able to remove a certain amount per day. An additional suggested Zerg countermeasure: Taking something out of a box that was recently accessed by a different character from your IP results in you accidentally dropping it back in the box(butterfingers). Putting something in results in you dropping it on the floor(more butterfingers). These would count towards your daily retrieval and deposit limit as normal--Gene Splicer 17:59, 11 August 2006 (BST)

I made a similar suggestion. Safes. Tell me what you think. --Gold Blade 23:47, 14 August 2006 (BST)

I mentioned that above. Thing is, YOUR suggestion is about "storage" while THIS suggestion is about "trade" which are not really inclusive.--Pesatyel 01:27, 16 August 2006 (BST)


Timestamp: 12:20, 11 August
Type: New skill
Scope: Survivors, trading items with reduced zerging.
Description: I'm afraid this is another trading idea, butI think it's a little different to the others. In his frequently asked questions, here [[1]], Kev says that his largest concern about trading items is zerglings bringing items to a main character. My suggestion will allow survivors to share items with reduced risk of zerging.

It revolves around a new skill, 'Enlightenment' (If you can think of a better name, let me know.). Enlightenment is a zombie hunter skill, and so only available at 10th level or above. At a cost of 1 AP, a survivor with this skill can give another character a single item from their inventory. If the reciever doesn't have enough room the AP is wasted, nothing happens to the item, and the gifter is informed of this. You can't give away any item that is currently useless within the game (like newspapers, wire cutters, crosses. Whatever.). The gifter gets nothing in return. The reciever gets a message telling them what just happened, so if they want they can drop the item for the normal 0 AP's.

Because of the level limit before you get this skill, creating a bunch of first level shoppers and scouts wont do zergs any good. They can pick up items, but not give them away. Even if the main character is high enough level to have this skill, they can't take items from the zerglings.

If you want an 'in-game' reason why someone has to be so experience before they will give stuff away, it can be assumed that other people are far too concerned about their own survival to part with anything they've found.

Tell me what you think. The Mad Axeman 12:46, 11 August 2006 (BST)

They could always have multiple chars, do typical zerging behaviour until they reach lvl 10, and then supply one of their characters with constant ammo. Once he's maxed out, they would switch for the next one. A quick, easy, and eventfull way to gain lots of xp for med-lvl chars.

Re - I believe most zerglings are throw away characters. Going from first to tenth level takes times, several weaks at least. That said, if some one is prepared to put a huge amount of effort into developing zerglings I suppose they could do it. The Mad Axeman 23:42, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Suggestions for trading with zerg work-arounds keep popping up, but my standard response is, I don't see why this is necessary. Search for items, and use them with your AP. I scarcely find myself in a spot where I have useful items that I need to drop, and this basically just amounts to an old hand donating their search AP to new people. This doesn't mean I'd kill or spam this suggestion, I'd probably just abstain. Can you give a good reason for why this would help the game or how it would be useful? --Burgan 21:55, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Re - Because certain players might find it fun? I think the joy of playing a character who gain most of their experience from healing or reviving comes from helping other people. Once they reach high enough level it gives them one more way to assist, passing on a spare gps unit or ammo/guns they've picked up while looking for a flak jacket. It would also helps groups communicate because more established members could give mobile phones to new recruits. There have been a few occations in game where I wished I could have given a low level private a few clips so they could get enough experience to go up a level, increasing their survival odds. Same goes for giving first aid kits to doctors/medics. I personelly find keeping my fellow survivors alive very satisfying. If someone doesn't want to use this option, they don't have to, but I think it should be there for those who do. The Mad Axeman 23:42, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Well if you want to stop zerging then why don't you just allow only 5 gifts a day to be traded or just do something with wrapping them in newspaper, other than changing it, it's probably a bad idea and a better name is probably generosity. If you want an idea heres one, a new drop down menu beside a newspaper that allows you to wrap items for 1 ap if you have skill and gifts must be wrapped before you give them and survivors must spend 1 ap to open them. I hope to see a working version if possible. Blackie Chan

Well, in Nexus War, trading/giving is useful in the fact one person can give another an item to be repaired, for example. Add in there are a LOT of items in NW. But in Urban Dead, there just aren't enough items, really to make it useful. Shotgun, pistol, ammo, FAK, Axe, generator, syringe, fuel. That's basically it, especially since the suggestion stipulates "no currently useless items." Your only real "anti-zerge" measure is that one has to be at least level 11 to use this skill. Right now, I have a maxed out character. I start a NEW character and this maxed out one supplies the new guy with everything he needs (having better search chances and such by comparison). My first thought, actually, was that 1 AP was waaaaaaayyy to "cheap" for trading too.--Pesatyel 06:46, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Re - Actually you missed out DNA exractors, gps units, crowbars, flak jackets, flare guns, spray cans, mobile phones, and wine/beer. All of these things are of at least some use. You could use a high level character to supply a new one, but how powerful is a first level whatever with a huge amount of equipment he doesn't know how to use? Zergers are looking for a way to maximise their power. Doing that would minimise the advantage of having multiple characters because the high level spends all his time searching while the low level does the business. If you want an extra anti-zerging measure how about making it impossible to trade between characters using the same IP address? I think that might be useful. As for the AP cost, I'd like to hear other peoples opinions on that. How much do you think might be good? The Mad Axeman 13:07, 12 August 2006 (BST)
Yeah, I suppose I did forget about that other stuff (I DID say basically it), but it is only of negligable use (GPS units? what the hell use do they REALLY have?). And that was the whole point of what I said about high levels. Right now, a LOT of high level character players are BORED (hell, I'm pretty bored with my current character and looking for something for him to do before/or starting a new character). If something like this were implemented, those characters would have something to actually devote themselves to. And that 1st level character never having to search (the maxed out has all the mall skills and can find, basically, ANYTHING) makes a pretty big difference. And it depends on how the character is played, to an extent (maxed character finds FAK at 40% in a mall, outfits low level with easy XP source). And making it impossible to trade with the same IP address is unfair to people who legitimately share a line. As for the AP cost, I'd make it 3 to 5.--Pesatyel 19:00, 12 August 2006 (BST)
Re - Yeah, I guess you did say basically... A lot of those item are only useful in co-operative play, like sending an ally a message saying "The suburb is over run by zombies, fall back to the safe house at 26,73." I can understand why you might want to use multiple charater that way, but it is getting very close to breaking Kev's 'Separate lives' rule, and could be looked at as zerging, even if you don't intend it that way. Does anyone else have opinions on that? Is it playing the game or cheating? Once I know the general consensus, I'll know whether not to include a ban on same IP trading when/if I suggest this properly. As for AP costs. What about 5 AP's for a permanent item like a weapon or flak jacket and 3 Ap's for one that gets uses up? The Mad Axeman 19:34, 12 August 2006 (BST)

I'm pro same IP ban. It may be somewhat unfair to people legitimately sharing a computer, but they can still use the skill, it wouldn't be that big of a deal that there's one person they can't share with. I think it would be really great to be able to give things away. Also, I was wondering, why do you think the AP expendeture has to be higher? Why 3 to 5 AP? Tzietel 00:19, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Because giving a person something means they don't have to waste AP searching for it which is a significant part of the game.--Pesatyel 03:36, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Training Books

Timestamp: 8:06 PM, August 11th, 2006
Type: Skill/Action Boosts
Scope: Survivors
Description: I thought we could find a better way to use books in the game, so I tried to think of some way of improving their affects, when I thought of the system used in Dead Rising, the new Zombie survival game from Capcom. I suggest that certain books give a boost to various attacks/action for as long as you hold them. Players are limited to holding only 2 books at a time.

Book List

  • Medicine for Idiots : Player heals an extra 1HP when using a FAK.

15% chance of finding in Hospitals, Libraries, and Mall Bookstores.

    • Advanced Medical Procedures : Player heals an extra 3HP when using a FAK.

5% chance of finding in Hospitals.

  • NecroTech Handbook : Reduces the amount of AP needed for making syringes by 2.

5% chance of finding in a NecroTech building.

  • Urban Artist : Player gains an extra +1XP from all tagging.

10% chance of finding in a School, Club, or Junkyard.

  • A Finer Taste : Player gains an extra +1HP from drinking beer or wine.

15% chance of finding in a Bar or Club.

Books do not work if player has been atttacked in the last 3 moves.

To use, player spends 1AP to click on and open the book, and would then perform the action. Book closes after any action not affected by the book is performed (i.e attacking, moving to a new area). After five uses, you would get the message "This book has no more useful information." without wasting an AP.

Give me your feelings about this, and maybe some more book ideas that could be made, should this ever actually happen. - XxXThe TruthXxX 22:06, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Zombie books make no sense. Survivor books are over-powered. -Certified=InsaneUG 01:46, 12 August 2006 (BST)

  • Re : Yeah, they might be a little overpowered.. But how do the zombie books not make any sense? - XxXThe TruthXxX 22:01, 12 August 2006 (BST)

The zombie books don't make sense because, a. you didn't tell us where you could find them, b. a zombie should possess memories of life before even being able to read them and who would write a book for zombies other than zpsies?

My first thought was "Hey D&D!" Gotta agree with Certified=Insane that books for zombies make no sense. The only way THAT would work is to allow zombies (with MoL, of course) to read appropriate survivor books). And, as stated, the survivor books are very overpowered. Maybe only make them, at most +2% or +3% to hit (and heal only 1-3 HP more), for example. In addition, based on your description, these are 'permanent improvements unless the character accidently dropped one of the books. Limiting the use of the book (maybe the person has to click on the book to "activate" the ability with only so many clicks avaiable) would go along way with people.--Pesatyel 07:04, 12 August 2006 (BST)

New Zombie Book: "To serve Man" AHAHAHA etc. Anyway, ditch the zombie books and all the to-hit increasers, and make books only have an effect while there are no zombies about. Because I know I'm not going to kick back and read about hitting zombies when there are zombies /right here to hit/. I would consult a medical textbook while patching up someone with a gut wound, though, assuming I was pretty sure I was not going to be devoured while doing so. As opposed to only allowing two books in total, allow people to have as many books as they like, but only allow one at a time to be active(clicking on a book costs 1ap, closes your old book and opens the clicked one). Also make them have limited charges... you use up the book after a few uses (the knowledge it gave you now translated into the exp you got for whatever you were doing).

Possible balanced books:

  • Medical textbook: (increases healing done with a fak by 20%, so a max of 3hp in a powered hospital)
  • NT Handbook: (reduces cost to make a syringe by 2)
  • D.I.Y Handbook: (Reduces chance to fail at barricading by a small amount, don't know the exact numbers) --Gene Splicer 16:52, 12 August 2006 (BST)

Gene Splicer, very nice idea's for alternative books, also I agree with you. I planned on making a suggestion about a book that reduces Syringe Manufacture by 2, Damn...--Canuhearmenow 16:55, 12 August 2006 (BST)

  • Re: Yeah, I forgot to add where you would actually get them. Oh well, it doesn't really matter since they really don't make sense. Don't know what I was thinking make the boosts so high. I think the other half of the problem, other than the overpowering, was that I wasn't really giving an "RP way" of using them. I extended the "no using if zombies present" to just not working if they have been attacked before using 3AP, because a sleeping zombie is not a threat, but players can also be attacked by humans. Also reduced percentages of finding. With this "revised" list, it really only works with survivors, so this would be very unpopular for the zombie population. Either way, what do you think now? - XxXThe TruthXxX 22:08, 12 August 2006 (BST)
    • Re: - has anyone considered the possibility that the Harmans need a boost? they're steadily recovering from the Big Bash, but I think that the bash prooved that the zombies are stronger. --Kiltric 03:34, 13 August 2006 (BST)
    • Re: How would you define "Attacked in the last three moves"? That's the kind of qualifier that starts ringing voters' alarm bells. People like simple explanations, and "No Zombies present" has gone down well in other suggestions. I agree with you in principle on the "Humans attack people too", but you may have to sacrifice realism a little for the sake of suggestion passing. I'd also give it more than two charges, that few renders it pretty useless. Have it run off the same expenditure rate as standard books. Assuming the number of uses increases from two, state that they only close if you perform an action /not affected by the book/. So you open your book once, use up your supply of faks, then do something else. Otherwise you are just spending 1ap to increase your fakking from 5 to 6. Not worth it. 1ap + 5faks = 6 ap for 30 hp, so same hp per ap, but using one less fak total. THAT would be worth it. --Gene Splicer 02:07, 14 August 2006 (BST)
Re - I take it then that the books are only of use to people who don't have the first aid skill? On a different note, I could invision an instruction manuel for DNA extractors that increases there chances to work. The Mad Axeman 12:27, 14 August 2006 (BST)
Re - I meant "Attacked in the last three moves" by you needing to spend 3 AP before you could use the book, making it harder (if not impossible) to use in the middle of a battle. Increased book uses from 2 to 5. No longer close if affected action is performed. I was also thinking that they could require there be power if you are in a building to be able to use, but would always work outside. It's kinda hard to read in the dark, after all. XxXThe TruthXxX 23:34, 14 August 2006 (BST)

I actually see this as unnecessary. They add more junk items to some TRPs, and they aren't even very useful. The concept of someone trained in field surgery or reviving zombies gaining a little edge by carrying a book seems a little silly to me, but maybe if they gave benefit to the unskilled only and were found solely in libraries this could work. --Burgan 18:45, 15 August 2006 (BST)

Street Fighting

Timestamp: 14 August 2006 14:38
Type: Skill
Scope: All
Description: This skill is in the body building tree, it increases the damage from fists by 2 and increases the % by 15 and when crossing over it increases the claw damage by 1. After fighting the zombies so many times you have grown to know where their weak points are and become stronger, smarter and faster. When you died you retained some fighting instinct in you which made your claws stronger. Now you can finally beat some to death without having to shoot them 9 times first.

My problems with this idea are that zombie claws don't need a buff, and this simply makes the fists exactly the same as a fire-axe that you don't have to search for. It'll be useful for roleplayers, but it buffs the primary zombie attack and gives survivors nothing at all. --Burgan 22:56, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Explodey stuff!

Timestamp: 00:13, 15 August 2006 (BST
Type: Item
Scope: All
Description: When you search a junkyard, you have a 0.0001% chance to find an ExplodeyStuff© brand Dynamite, which takes up 10 inventory spaces. When used for 30 AP, the 6 ft by 6 ft by 12 ft dynamite stick explodes, insta killing you and everyone in your and all the ajacent squares. This would change the name of the 9 squares to Crater, and if you go in the Crater for 2 AP, you take 10 damage, regardless of Flak Jacket. Furthermore, you cannot leave unless there are 3 other people on both sides (in the crater and outside of it) to help you out. However, you cannot kill other people while in it, only bring them down to 1 health. Anyone with a Wirecutter can fix 1 block of Crater back to normal for 1 AP. Both zeds and survivors can carry a dynamite stick.

Author ??? - i dont know what to think, but ive gotta see what others say. --Gold Blade 00:28, 15 August 2006 (BST)

I don't like crushing suggestions here, but area of effect things are not for UD. Rare does not mean balanced. Changing the map permanently like that is going to get this killed, and the altered physics inside are pretty weird and out of the spirit of the game.

A resounding no to explosions, altering the map, or insta-kills, as none of the above fit well inside the game. This doesn't make the game much more fun for anyone besides the suicide bombing brigade.--Burgan 00:40, 15 August 2006 (BST)

  • Author Re Well, I don't know why, but that was so funny it felt like I cracked my ribs. Who said permanent? Now wirecutters have a new use: repairing craters! --Gold Blade 00:48, 15 August 2006 (BST)
  • My comment was placed before you posted and withdrew your suggestion, and since you didn't have any provision for repair at that point, I assumed that there was none intended. What is so funny about this anyways, the history shows that you thought this was serious? --Burgan 15:28, 15 August 2006 (BST)

Aren't you supposed to put "humorous" suggestion on the Humorous Page?--Pesatyel 01:25, 16 August 2006 (BST)

  • Re I didn't think it was funny enough. --Gold Blade 01:19, 15 August 2006 (BST)
    • Non-Author Re Neither do I. Youronlyfriend 07:36, 15 August 2006 (BST)
    • Wow, sarcasm!--Pesatyel 01:25, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Further Discussion

This is for any further discussion concerning the suggestions page that doesn't fall into the previous categories.

Worst Suggestions

I have complied a list of the worst suggestions I have ever seen here. People may discuss it and suggest additions here. Any thoughts?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 11:47, 3 August 2006 (BST)

I don't see the psychic zombies suggestion on there. That definitely merits inclusion. --Jimbo Bob ASSU! 11:53, 3 August 2006 (BST)
Could you link me to them?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 12:04, 3 August 2006 (BST)
Those are the funniest things I've read all day. Well done. --Preasure 12:23, 3 August 2006 (BST)
Thanks, I want back and dug up all the old classics.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 12:25, 3 August 2006 (BST)
I was personally a fan of throwing bodies back over the cades into Caiger so everyone could stand... --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 05:36, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Not as funny, but just as bad game reset! --Gold Blade 23:17, 9 August 2006 (BST)

Xoid STFU! 20:57, 10 August 2006 (BST)

  • Oh Tranaham, you brought such laughter into my life that day --Mookiemookie 00:41, 16 August 2006 (BST)

Add Author to Suggestion Template

Sometimes Authors don't vote on their suggestion right away, and it would be helpful to just include a ~~~ in the suggestion template. It would also be helpful for quickly checking whether someone is allowed to "re:" or not. YbborT 03:10, 5 August 2006 (BST)

The only issue is that it would break all of the suggestions which would be using the old format of the template. It would be alright if we made a new template but we wouldn't be able to give it an as easy to understand name. - Jedaz 13:33, 6 August 2006 (BST)
Not necessarily. New MediaWiki comes in, just set the default to be Unknown. –Xoid STFU! 13:50, 6 August 2006 (BST)
Ah ok then, well that would be good then. Well we just have to play the waiting game until then I guess. - Jedaz 14:27, 6 August 2006 (BST)
Apart from that temporary problem, I see nothing wrong with Ybbor's idea. Do we even need to go through a policy vote on this? –Xoid STFU! 14:30, 6 August 2006 (BST)
my original idea was going to be to give new names. Make the "suggestion" template "suggest", "psuggestion" into "peersuggestion", or similar, but if it can be done with new software that's great too. I didn't put this as a policy discussion, because I figured you could consider the template to be part of the wiki: anyone can edit it. You're not changing the way people vote. YbborT 19:00, 6 August 2006 (BST) EDIT:also in the short term, we could change the the suggestion template you cut and paste from so that the timestamp is 4 ~'s instead of 5, making it a full signature and showing the author. YbborT 19:08, 6 August 2006 (BST)

As far as the basic idea, I love it. It annoys me a little to not know who wrote a suggestion. In terms of implementing it in the wiki without breaking all the ones using the old template... I don't really know. --Kiltric 03:41, 10 August 2006 (BST)

I don't see WHY it matters if we know who the author is or not. If they want to vote, that is there own business (and I've actually seen authors vote kill on their own ideas which baffles me). We are supposed to be voting on the suggestION' not the suggestOR. Is who is allowed to RE: votes really THAT much of a problem?--Pesatyel 05:04, 10 August 2006 (BST)

Because some people like to take credit for their good ideas. –Xoid STFU! 18:06, 10 August 2006 (BST)
Well Ybbor's argument is that authors don't vote right away. If the idea is good, odds are the author will vote. If a bad suggestion, they might not want to be associated with a shitty suggestion.--Pesatyel 18:55, 10 August 2006 (BST)

I'd be against this. The rules say "Vote on the suggestion, not the suggester", but if you've disliked every suggestion a person has posted so far(or actively dislike them as a person), and you spot their name before making up your mind, that suggestion is not going to get a fair shot. Similarly, if you like the cut of someone's gib, you're going to read their ideas with slightly rose-tinted spectacles. That's just how people work. If someone wants people to read their suggestion based entirely on its actual merits, then keeping their name out of the main body should be an option if they wish. If someone really, really wants to know who wrote an idea, check out the page history, or wait for them to reply to a comment. However, once an idea is reviewed, rejected, or undecided, if the author has named themselves somewhere in the suggestion (Specifically, through author Res or late Author Keeps) it should be included when moved. --Gene Splicer 18:21, 11 August 2006 (BST)

It wouldn't be a requirement. They could leave the field blank if they so preferred. –Xoid STFU! 18:48, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Policy Discussion

This area is for formal discussion of policy changes for the suggestions page, as per the Voting Guidelines.

More Spam Nonsense


Skip to Meat if lazy.

Over the past few weeks there have been a number of discussions on abuse of the spam vote. I think the main cause of this perceived abuse is that there are so many reasons to vote spam on an idea.

  • If a suggestion is completely unreadable, it is Spam.
  • If a suggestion is just stupid, it is Spam.
  • If a suggestion just does not fit with Urban Dead, it is Spam.
  • If a suggestion is a very well thought out implementation of a simply unworkable idea, it is Spam.
  • If a suggestion is an extremely poorly thought out implementation of a potentially good idea, it is Spam

And the list goes on.

Basically, "Spam - Spammity Spammity Spam Spam --DownWithSpam" IS a valid vote... in certain glaringly obvious situations.

However, some equally Spammable suggestions need a little more explanation: "Spam - Viable AP altering suggestions are few and far between. This is not one of them --DownWithSpam"

The official voting guidelines can be paraphrased as:

  • Keep - This is a good idea.
  • Kill - This is a bad idea because -
  • Spam - This is a festering pile of vomit.

However, people often wish to say "This is a good idea, but -". Some people use "Keep" to voice these opinions, whereas the more bitter members tend to use "Kill", and therefore "Spam" for the more unworkable ideas. Unsurprisingly, given the general quality of suggestions on this (or any other) wiki, the "more bitter members" make up 95% of the population, and I am beginning to agree with them.

As a result, the unnofficial voting guidelines look more like this:

  • Keep - This is a good idea.
  • Kill - This is a good idea, but -
  • Spam - This is a bad idea because -
  • Spam - This is a festering pile of vomit.

So I suggest we split Spam into its two component parts, and officially rename Kill to something more suited to its current use.


I propose the following changes be made to the vote system.


  • Dupe: As current.
  • Keep - "This is a good idea". The suggestion should be implemented as is, or very close to as is. Revision suggestions in "Keep" votes are allowed. Identical to current "Keep".
  • Revise - "This is a good idea, but - ". The suggestion is a good concept, but lacks "elegant implementation" or requires major tweaking. Essentially equal to the current unnofficial use of "Kill", with the same relationship with peer reviewed/rejected/undecided.
  • Kill - "This is a bad idea because - ". The suggestion is unsalvageable. Identical to current Spam, except that an explanation must be provided. Mods may change Kills without an attached explanation to Spams. "What X said" counts as an explanation, assuming X gave an explanation. Otherwise, an explanation is defined as anything that references the suggestion content. ("Spammy spammy spam spam" is not an explanation. "Messing with AP is bad" is an explanation. "FOR THE LAST TIME NO GRENADES!!!!111!!!" is also an explanation)
  • Spam - "This is a festering pile of vomit." The suggestion is a waste of monitor space. No reason need be given for voting Spam. Spam is for ideas so incredibly stupid that it is obvious to anyone reading them. The downside of using Spam is that it only counts towards the 2/3 Spam rule, not Mod-Killing or Peer Rejected/Undecided. Essentially, Spam means "No explanation needed". If you feel an explanation is needed, use Kill. If you use Spam and Spamination fails, obviously an explanation WAS needed, and you should have voted Kill. You can of course change your vote to Kill later, under the same restrictions as posting a kill vote above.


  • Duped: As current.
  • Killed/Spaminated: At least 7 votes, 2/3 Spams/Kills/Dupes. May be Mod-Killed with at least 3 *Kills, no non-author Keeps.
  • Peer Reviewed: 2/3 Keeps, at least 7 votes (not including Spams/Dupes)
  • Peer Rejected: 2/3 Kills/Revises
  • Peer Undecided: All others

Discuss --Gene Splicer 01:37, 14 August 2006 (BST) Someday, I will learn to spell, type, AND proofread. Someday --Gene Splicer 01:52, 14 August 2006 (BST)

While replying to Xoid's comment, I realised there are a couple of things I need to readdress(though not the things he brought up ;) :P ). I will be revising this later, after some thought --Gene Splicer 15:04, 15 August 2006 (BST)

I like the idea. Certainly, I think something needs to be done about the voting system, and revising the definitions like this could be enough. The Mad Axeman 12:40, 14 August 2006 (BST)

It works well The voting system is pretty screwed nright now. --Gold Blade 00:33, 15 August 2006 (BST)

Interesting approach. I like some parts of it, but a mod should not be able to speedy kill a suggestion; they speedy spam because they can know when something is utter garbage, but if it's just kills, it should be left open to debate. We shouldn't be able to spam anything but utter garbage and under-developed trash, but everything else deserves the prescribed two weeks consideration. Also, you forgot about peer-undecided.

If you want any help with proofreading for the voting proposal, I'm generally ready to help out with that sort of stuff. --Burgan 00:49, 15 August 2006 (BST)

Peer undecided is listed, it covers "all others". The point of the above is that Kill would be renamed Revise, and Spam renamed Kill, with an additional Spam for things so completely and utterly pointless (the true meaning of Spam) that it requires no explanation. Therefor, Speedy Kills would only take place in situations where under the current rules they would have been Speedy-Spammed anyway. They would in fact be less likely to occur, as Speedy-Spams can occur as it stands right now with absolutely no thought given. Right now, Myself and two friends (or two puppets) vould vote Spam on every current suggestion without reading any of them, and all it would take is a somewhat Spam-happy mod (*coughgrimscough*) to remove each one.--Gene Splicer 15:04, 15 August 2006 (BST)

You do know that this is only going to lead to an abuse of the Kill vote now? Instead of voting Spam when something is truly unworthy, why not use the Kill vote, insult the suggestor and give a moderator the opportunity to remove it early? What do we end up with? A suggestion system that is pretty much the same as what it currently is. The "harsh"er vote needs to be harsher than the "nice" votes. –Xoid STFU! 11:46, 15 August 2006 (BST)

See above --Gene Splicer 15:04, 15 August 2006 (BST)

Spamminated Links

I'm proposing that suggestions that have been spaminated have a link to it as well as the link to the "spam" page. Ie:

"Flying a Kite has been SPAMMINATED with 20 spams, 3 keeps, and 10 kills. The suggestion can be found HERE. - Moderator 12:00 PM"

Sometimes mods do link to the suggestion, but it's really up in the air and a personal choice, though I'm proposing, I suppose, for it to always be there. It's just conveinent to have a link to the suggestion, bad or not, so that I can get an idea of what people are wanting, and possibly if their bad idea could lead to a better one in the future.

Also, some mods are giving short descriptions (I can't remember who exactly) that read something like, "Users believed that FLYING A KITE was a waste of bandwidth, and really didn't improve gameplay." I think this also helps users (me) understand what the general concensus is for botching the suggestion (and in short, I like this :-D).

Sorry if this isn't really "policy", but I suppose it's the closest thing I could pin it on. - Bango Skank 18:13, 3 August 2006 (BST)

Considering there's only a couple people who actually move suggestions, and it's not terribly difficult if you really want to read a suggestion to go to the top of the page, link to Peer Rejected and scroll down to the Suggestion, I don't think this is really necessary. – Nubis NWO 21:39, 4 August 2006 (BST)
Thanks for the comment. I agree, it's not "hard": it just makes it easier. Who has the authority to remove spamminated suggestion; mods only or anyone?
Does anyone else have views on this? - Bango Skank 22:18, 4 August 2006 (BST)
Anyone can remove it. I'm kind of with Nubis on this. Sure, it would be handy to have a link right to the spaminated suggestion, but is it really that hard to go to S/PRJ and scroll down? –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 22:35, 4 August 2006 (BST)
Well, ah. I was under the impression that only mods could. Thanks for the input. - Bango Skank 00:42, 5 August 2006 (BST)

Well, it seems that the concensus on this is in. ;) Would it be acceptable, then, if I added this information on spamminated suggestions I see? Again, I'm trying to tiptoe around this so as not to step on moderators' business but still come within the idea to "be bold" with issues of good faith, because I see it as a way to help users, and, since I would be doing it (or, if anyone else agrees with me, they're more than welcome to chip in) and it's not added work for mods. - Bango Skank 02:47, 8 August 2006 (BST)

I doubt anyone would mind. Just make it clear that it's your comment and not whoever wrote the original spamination comment (as just editing theirs would constitute vandalism). –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 03:44, 8 August 2006 (BST)

Policy Votes

This area is for formal policy votes concerning the suggestions page. All policies, along with their associated votes and discussions, are governed by the Voting Guidelines established for this section.

Personal tools