Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

This section is for presenting and reviewing suggestions which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Further Discussion

• Discussion concerning this page takes place here.
• Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general, including policies about it, takes place here.

Please Read Before Posting

• Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. You can read about many ideas that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe: a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles.
• Users should be aware that page is discussion oriented. Other users are free to express their own point of view and are not required to be neutral.
• It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.
• After new game updates, users are requested to allow time for the game and community to adjust to these changes before suggesting alterations.

How To Make a Suggestion

Adding a New Suggestion

• Copy the code in the box below.
• Click here to begin editing. This is the same as clicking the [edit] link to the right of the Suggestions header.

• Paste the copied text above the other suggestions, right under the heading.
• Substitute the text in RED CAPITALS with the details of your suggestion.

{{subst:DevelopingSuggestion
|time=~~~~
|name=SUGGESTION NAME
|type=TYPE HERE
|scope=SCOPE HERE
|description=DESCRIPTION HERE
}}

• Name - Give the suggestion a short but descriptive name.
• Type is the nature of the suggestion, such as a new class, skill change, balance change, etc. Basically: What is it? and Is it new, or a change?
• Scope is who or what the suggestion affects. Typically survivors or zombies (or both), but occasionally Malton, the game interface or something else.
• Description should be a full explanation of your suggestion. Include information like flavor text, search odds, hit percentages, etc, as appropriate. Unless you are as yet unsure of the exact details behind the suggestion, try not to leave out anything important. Check you spelling and grammar.

Cycling Suggestions

• Suggestions with no new discussion in the past two days should be given a warning notice. This can be done by adding {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section, where date is the day the suggestion will be removed.
• Suggestions with no new discussion in the past week may be removed.
• If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the warning template please remove the {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section to show that there is still ongoing discussion.

This page is prone to breaking when the page gets too long, so sometimes suggestions still under discussion will be moved to the Overflow page, so the discussion can continue.

Suggestions in Overflow: No suggestions currently in overflow.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list

---

Suggestions

Wash Yourself V1.2

Timestamp: Sorakairi 04:34, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Flavour / Negate / Items

Scope: Humans.

Description: This is a rethought version of the earlier Washing. You can collect Soap, Shampoo, Deodorant and Cleaning packs from Malls, which can be used to wash yourself. If you have washed recently, you negate the effects of Scent Fear and Scent Blood for 20 Actions, and if you wash while being Scent Trailed you can weaken it. Not Washed - Scent Trail isn't affected at all. Washed with one item - Scent Trail range is reduced by one. Washed with two items - Scent Trail range is reduced by two. Washed with all three items - Scent Trail range is reduced by three. Washed with a Cleaning Pack - Scent Trail range is reduced by four.

Discussion (Wash Yourself V1.2)

First of all, you forgot the numbers for your items. Where are they found? What is the encumberance? What is the find rate? I only say that because they are necesary for a complete suggestion. However, beyond that, I don't think "items" is a good idea. The easier thing to do would just be have a "washing success" percentage at different locations. For example, a school could have a 20% while a junkyard 5% or something. Also, go with the "levels" from the first suggestion.--Pesatyel 06:40, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I agree. While people can waste their AP on whatever they'd like, adding MORE items to search rates would only screw up the possibility of actually finding something of use/value that MOST people will actually use. I mean, sure. The germ freaks would enjoy this addition, but its practical use is a bit on the low side. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 06:51, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I agree as well, it should be a flat percentage for each type of building. POSSIBLY you could add an item in game that increased that percentage by a small amount, but trying to find 4 items to make it effective. --Bjorn 17:59, 24 June 2009 (BST)

This idea smells bad. It's, to put it bluntly, a silly idea. But moreover it's an unnecessary zombie nerf and I can't support it on that basis. --WanYao 15:55, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Luckily for me I have school Holidays coming up so I'm going to completely remake this. With some friends, so i have ideas from both sides. Okay? Sorakairi 23:35, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I'm enjoying the evolution of this. I agree this version is just a zombie nerf and not really necessary. If being clean benefits survivors, then being dirty should benefit zombies. I still like the Scent bonus for tracking people that reek, maybe modify Scent Death so the zombie can detect a really putrid survivor it has on its contact list (maybe under a certain HP as well?) within its current 3x3 grid - nothing specific, "you recognize the scent of Stinky McNeverWashed nearby." Could lead to amusing bits of peer pressure - "Dude, go take a bath! You wanna get us killed?" --Jaeger ayers 04:35, 25 June 2009 (BST)

---

Limit radio spam

Timestamp: -- boxy talk • teh rulz 01:53 24 June 2009 (BST)

Type: improvement

Scope: survivors and radio spam

Description: In order to make radio spam more difficult to do, I suggest that each character is limited to a set number of APs that can be spent on radio messages in a day. 5 to 10 ap should be plenty for anyone sending useful messages.

Discussion (Limit radio spam)

I like you boxy, but this isn't really fair. What about radio stations/shows? Kinda limits them in their ability to entertain. Tuning to a station that doesn't spam is best I think. Limiting those that use it for a noble cause isn't really worth the ability to stop radio spamming. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 05:31, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Well they should play the game properly, and put up some barricades every now and then, like the rest of us :P Seriously though, how many broadcasts would such a player need per day? I don't listen to the radio unless someone else turns it on (because of the spammage) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:43 24 June 2009 (BST)

I don't either. Spreading some great propaganda truth is all I ever use it for. But sometimes it's nice to tune into one of the decent stations and enjoy a reading or song or some such. Adds to the role-playing IMHO. I think maybe 20-25 AP on radio broadcasts may be a bit more fair. And hey, if that's how they want to waste their AP, I say let 'em. It'd make the spammers a bit more limited still, too. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 06:49, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I don't see how a per-character limit would do much good. It'd have to be per-IP to do anything, but even then I don't see much benefit. You have to remember that radio messages are short and it can take ~4 messages to say one thing, then consider if you need to say it on more than one channel. Seriously, the best cure for spam is to tune off 28.01, or (if you're living with people who like to listen to that crap) select "Only listen to broadcasts from your handheld radios" in settings. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:02, 24 June 2009 (BST)

10 should be plenty. Some groups might complain that 'ooh lookie we have a specialist guy who sends out radio messages' but usually they're just spamming shit. Evils used to do pretty good radio shows and we'd lose stuff like that, but to have spam limited so much it'd be worth it.--xoxo 09:12, 24 June 2009 (BST)

No... No... NOO! Really, there are few ideas that I would supprout less than that- there are numerous good radio shows, and making rarely takes less than 20AP. And Great Radio Messages is another good reason for shooting this suggestion down. And it would directly harm this and I do not want it being harmed, for it's my own, personal station!:P--Gargulec 12:39, 24 June 2009 (BST)

No. If someone wants to waste hits on spamming the radio... well... And, as everyone else, this'd take away a totally legit RP aspect of the game. Instead, I'd like to see stronger anti-zerg measures -- that'd stop the REAL spammers. Yes... I can dream... --WanYao 16:07, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Fair enough. I'll just continue to ignoring the radio as predominantly a griefer tool -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 17:08 24 June 2009 (BST)

No, players should be able to spend their AP however they want. If you don't want to listen to it, drop your radio(s) and stay in a place without a transmitter. --Bjorn 17:59, 24 June 2009 (BST)

NO. as above. if I want to spend 50ap singing "the humpty dance" over the radio i should be able. and agree with WanYao, we need way more anti-zerg measures.!! they are ruining the damn game.----Sexualharrison 13:15, 25 June 2009 (BST)

---

Wash Yourself

Timestamp: Sorakairi 23:21, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Flavour / New Items.

Scope: Humans

Description: This is simple. You can now collect Soap, Shampoo and Conditioner to wash yourself when you're in a Necrotech or a Hospital. Washing yourself doesn't really do anything, just adds a message to your profile saying one of the following. Filthy - If You have Never washed, or at least not for 3 weeks Unwashed - You get this if you haven't washed for 2 weeks Unclean - If you haven't washed for 1 week Clean - You've washed sometime between now and 4 days ago. Washed - You've washed sometime in the last 4 days. Pristine - You have just washed within the last day. It's as simple as that. Happy Discussion

Discussion (Wash Yourself)

I might like it if it didn't involve collecting items. Like you just need a powered building and it costs 1 AP for the action.--SirArgo ^Talk 23:24, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Just a waste of AP on stuff that people can put in their character profiles themselves, if they're at all interested in doing so. Pointless RP realism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:56 24 June 2009 (BST)

Maybe zombies could get a "bonus square" on the Scent skills for those that really stink.--Pesatyel 02:25, 24 June 2009 (BST)

What if "filthy" and "unwashed" give you some kind of penalty to infection? Someone who is dirty for a long time is more likely to get and/or stay sick.--Pesatyel 06:42, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I like the concept in theory (especially the Scent bonus suggestion) but I imagine implementing it would be a headache for not much benefit. --Jaeger ayers 04:17, 25 June 2009 (BST)

---

Mounted Weapons

Timestamp: Barzini 7.35 HK/Singapore time Date:23rd June

Type: Defense for Buildings

Scope: All Buildings

Description: I want players to be able to get more weapons that can only be placed on buildings.Such as mounted machine guns which can be used by players to shoot at Zeds outside.Of course Zeds can destroy those too.

Discussion (Mounted Weapons)

Bad idea. I'll let others explain why. --Papa Moloch 13:31, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Hahahahaaaa. No -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:32 23 June 2009 (BST)

Would be cool, but its going to get voted down. --Bjorn 18:07, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Wouldn't be cool here's why for starters. Give me a sec to pull up more things.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:13, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Perfectly fits in here as well.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:14, 23 June 2009 (BST)

No, I mean it is a cool idea. You are correct however and it would tip the game balance to far for the survivors. --Bjorn 17:59, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Hahahaha...hehehe...--Thadeous Oakley 23:44, 23 June 2009 (BST)

The moment I read "mounted machine guns" sorry hahe...--Thadeous Oakley 23:45, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Oh my... D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:47, 24 June 2009 (BST)

... oh my oh my my my my... --WanYao 16:09, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Besides the problem inherent in new weapons, it implies the addition of the ability to see targets outside the building (pretty useless without it, I'd say.) --Jaeger ayers 04:12, 25 June 2009 (BST)

---

boom, headshot

Timestamp: DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:18, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Type: flavourchange

Scope: headshotted players

Description: I wish to put forward a suggestion where the headpiece sections of clothing in Urban Dead can only get torn/tattered/cracked (for sunnies), if you get Headshotted. Why? Cause sunnies, nurse's caps and the like deserve to have more longevity on players. Guess I'm a little bored, too.

Discussion (boom, headshot)

I would vote Keep on this.--

| T | BALLS! | 11:52 23 June 2009

Dunno about you, but 9 times out of 10 it is a headshot anyway, for my zombs -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:37 23 June 2009 (BST)

Well since headshot is automatic, yeah.--Pesatyel 02:23, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm, yes, it would just mean a lot less trips back to Thompson for Survivors that manage to get Revived before taking one as a Zombie. Which I would be all for. Either that, or put a damn Hat Shop on both sides of Malton.--

| T | BALLS! | 03:05 24 June 2009

Doesn't make sense. Headshot is powerful enough to knock a zombie down, daze it and make rising harder, but not to knock the hat off its head? If you're worried about losing your trophy hat, don't get killed. Removing the risk takes the challenge away and makes it less of a status symbol. --Jaeger ayers 04:08, 25 June 2009 (BST)

---

Talk Is Cheap(er)

Timestamp: Jaeger ayers 08:43, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Game Mechanic

Scope: Everyone

Description: Create a pool of max 5 AP for each character, only used for speaking, that recharges at a rate of 1 AP every 5 hours. Radio transmissions are ineligible, as they require punching in codes, twiddling knobs and tweaking settings or whatever it is the Radio Operation skill enables the broadcaster to do. Pros: encourages communication, fraternization and teamwork on both sides. One is not forced to choose between speaking and life-or-death actions. Cons: encourages all speaking, including mindless chatter; potentially tricky coding; extra server load? (though the IP hit cap would still curb this.)

Discussion (Talk Is Cheap(er))

I've sat in rooms where certain groups have 5 members churning their 50ap out into walls of text, every day, for 5 months. It is maddening and I would not give one, let alone 5 of these chumps an extra 5 just for talking. Having that minority accounted for, I also think 1AP isn't too much, for the sake of getting out a quick message. One speech box allows for 180 characters or something, plenty to get a quick message across, in my opinion. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:17, 23 June 2009 (BST)

I personally enjoy the RP aspect of UD greatly. I end up spending 2-5 AP a day on friendly conversation, good-natured taunting of zeds and reporting observations of horde movement, barricade levels, etc. I find much of the radio chatter to be inane and maddening, but that's what my profile settings and ignore list are for.--Jaeger ayers 10:44, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Only if speech is limited to only those 5AP per day :D -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:52 23 June 2009 (BST)

Would zombxorz get the same 5AP pool for speaking? --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 03:24, 25 June 2009 (BST)

Sure. You could argue that talking is more of an actual exertion for them, but the point is to combat the perception that "talking is a waste of AP", encourage things like role-playing and non-combat interaction, and generally make the game less trenchy and (I think) more fun. (But then I enjoy other in-game actions more than killing people. I guess I'm weird. :P) --Jaeger ayers 03:59, 25 June 2009 (BST)

---

Nice Boots, Chief

Timestamp: Jaeger ayers 08:18, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Game Mechanic (Flavor)

Scope: Everyone

Description: When in a location with one or more dead bodies, players will see a Loot button (with a dropdown targeting menu if the player recognizes any of the bodies.) Clicking the Loot button will spend 1 AP and open a modified Edit Profile page, where, in addition to the clothes available according to building type occupied, the player will find the targeted corpse's headgear or footwear as an option in the dropdown menu (or only headgear if the player is a zombie - presumably a zed is sufficiently coordinated to take someone's hat or glasses, but not remove or put on footwear.) The logic to headgear/footwear only is ease of access: Survivors presumably carry gear in pockets, backpacks, slings, web belts, stapling stuff to themselves, whatever. (Think of your "search and find nothing" results as investment of time in figuring out how to add the crap to your kit once you do find something.) Removing other clothes would involve lifting, rolling and/or pulling a dead body that might start moving again at any moment - are you gonna risk a zombie bite for that t-shirt? (Not to mention that undressing other players could be creepy in an uncool, text-rapist kind of way.) The looted target would see a message that "So-And-So looted your body", but would have to examine his profile to determine what was taken. The mechanic would not alter any game balance, but would function as "counting coup", humor value (like the newspaper slap) or trophies (PKers and bounty hunters claiming souvenirs from their targets, for instance.) Plus I like the image of a zombie mauling a survivor and stealing his hat. :)

Discussion (Nice Boots, Chief)

Don't want to sound like a role-play nazi, but if we give players the option to steal clothes from bodies, people will start to question why they can't take items. Similarly, the concept of grabbing items from dead bodies has been suggested in the past. And some items are found from places in malton that players have travelled the entire city just to get, I don't think they'll appreciate being PK'ed and ravaged simply because they had a fur coat from Curton Mansion. I do think it would be a great way to grief groups like The Kilt Store. As a kilty myself, I would find it funny. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:23, 23 June 2009 (BST)

The concept description limits it to headgear and shoes (and possibly facial accessories like glasses,) with the justification that snatching a hat or yanking shoes off is not as involved an action as rummaging through someone's pockets/backpack or removing a coat/shirt/pants, especially when the corpse will rise as a zombie at any moment.

And killing someone over a hat (Stagger Lee, anyone?) or a pair of sneakers (a depressingly common crime IRL) makes marginally more sense than the way most PKers kill at random. --Jaeger ayers 10:05, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Wrong. Most PKers don't kill at random at all. Just because it wasn't followed by a speech doesn't mean they didn't kill to help a break-in, some retribution, or just because they had a shit name. And the idea of just taking a hat or shoes doesn't matter when it comes to the core problem: taking someones clothes is unfair. There is a specific hat store in Malton. Same case as the coat example I mentioned above. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:11, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Ok, I agree to disagree. Ironically, what planted the idea in my head was getting randomly PKed by a character wearing a sweet trilby from the hat store you mentioned.

I personally think that if an article of clothing is so important to a character, it should be part of the profile description, as many people do when specific articles of clothing do not have an in-game analogue. Clothing gets shredded and blood-soaked by combat. I'm sure people have hiked some distance just for a clean kilt, so I don't see how it's "unfair" to further mess with a character's clothes. I'll shut up so the community can decide now.--Jaeger ayers 10:44, 23 June 2009 (BST)

I've been a 'random' PKer, a roleplaying PKer, a competitive PKer, a survival PKer and a group PKer, and I'm here to tell you now, PKing is never random. There is always a reason. As the this description box idea, perhaps you still don't understand. There is no challenge of just saying 'this user wears a cowboy hat and a poncho'. The is a challenge in getting a fur coat from the mansion in the northern most suburbs of Malton, and then maintaining yourself so it so it doesn't get torn to shreds. It can (and does, for me) have near to no reason to do with what the item of clothing is, just how prestigious it is to have acquired it. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:10, 23 June 2009 (BST)

---

High Metabolism

Timestamp: Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 13:23, 22 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Skill

Scope: Everyone with the skill

Description: Zombie Hunter skill. With High Metabolism, players can 'regenerate' health at half the rate that they would gain AP (1 HP every hour). However, there are 3 conditions: 1. They must have a full AP reserve (50AP) 2. They must have logged into their character within the last day (i.e. no going inactive for a week to heal up) 3. They must not be infected This will not only strengthen Infection (by preventing players from healing via the skill during attacks), but also give survivors the feasable option to heal some wounds, at the cost of staying still for prolonged periods. Zombies also benefit from this skill, but they do not need to worry about being infected or not.

Discussion (High Metabolism)

1. You're making it a survivor only skill (zombie hunter skill), forcing hardcore zombies to get a revive to achieve this, and 2. you're encouraging players not to play. Where's the fun in sitting still to heal, especially when it means you've got to be over your daily AP limit already, effectively missing turns in order to heal yourself? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:11 22 June 2009 (BST)

This man speaks the truth. Make the game more fun, not less fun. --Anotherpongo 20:40, 22 June 2009 (BST)

This in combo with the 5/10/15 HP insta-heals already in the game is too much. It's got to be one or the other, IMO, either natural healing OR the Magical Wizard Healing Spell we already have. I'd like to see only natural myself, but not both.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:41, 22 June 2009 (BST)

This is seriously underpowered for replacing the current healing system. --Anotherpongo 20:40, 22 June 2009 (BST)

Well of course it would have to be tweaked. What I'm saying is one style over the other, but certainly not both.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:03, 22 June 2009 (BST)

Why only natural healing?--Pesatyel 06:23, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Because the Magical Wizard Healing Spell we have now just doesn't fit into the genre, IMO.--

| T | BALLS! | 11:53 23 June 2009

So, basically, your arguing semantics?--Pesatyel 02:15, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Uh, no...there would be quite a difference between slowly healing HP over time vs. the Instant and massively high healing we have now...As in, you could not just stand in one place taking massive damage and massively healing yourself/being healed over and over. That's "magical", if you will. Whereas slow healing would be more Natural. That's one reason I get a good chuckle over people who hate Crucifix suggestions on the grounds that they are "magical", because the current healing system is about as magical as it gets. Laying on of Hands/Faith Healer style "magical".--

| T | BALLS! | 03:22 24 June 2009

No. It is semantics. AP =/= time. For 1 AP, I get out the first aid kit, open it, administer the various drugs (painkiller, antibiotics, etc.), clean/disinfect wounds, perform minor surgery (dig out sharpnel or something, for example), sew up wounds, apply bandages, splints and tourniquets, etc. I'm sure there is more but that's just off the top of my head. THOSE are things that occur when you "use a FAK on someone". And, yes, I'm well aware that you would make it cost an AP to do each of those (as well has have failure chances and shit), but this isn't Snake Eater. This is a simple text based game where it is a "given" that you do all that stuff listed above when you use a FAK without having to go into the waste of time and the semantics of DOING it. Just like survivors have to eat and shit and sleep. Its and assumed task. What it boils down to is that your argument is that using a FAK should realistically be "more difficult and/or time consuming".--Pesatyel 06:34, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Did you even read the suggestion? Blake is talking about regenerating HP the same way AP is regenerated, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the mechanics of using a FAK. This is what I am referring to as "natural healing". I'm saying either we have regeneration(natural healing) or FAK's(magical healing), but not both. It has absolutely nothing to do with semantics regarding the way FAK's work.--

| T | BALLS! | 07:19 24 June 2009

Yes. I did. Your assertion was that this was better than "magic healing" when, apparently, you didn't seem to UNDERSTAND how a first aid kit worked, so I attempted to explain it to you. By your logic, every character is Wolverine if we were to only go by this suggestion. And, arguably, we CAN have both because the realistic use of first aid treatments, medicines and surgeries is to SPEED UP the natural healing process of the body. For example, if you have a cold you can get over it "naturally" but if you take cold medicine, you get over the cold FASTER. Or another example, do you know how long it would take to "heal naturally" from a stab wound or a having chunks of flesh torn/ripped from your body (among other things)? Realistically, your not "good as new" after 2 days of rest (when your HP is "naturally healed" back to 50/60). It takes weeks, if you survive, since your NOT using any medical supplies.--Pesatyel 15:41, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Now you're not even making any sense. The current system is much more like "Wolverine" than actually regenerating HP would be. There is nothing magical about regeneration...that's what the body does. It regenerates. Medical attention merely optimizes the body's own powers of regeneration. Medical attention does NOT in and of itself heal anything. "Wolverine" just has an insanely FAST regeneration power, much like the way FAKS already work in this game. If you want to go that route then all the "doctors" in this game are really Jesus, especially if you throw Revives in! (Which is why the "anti-crucifix on magical grounds" crowd is so amusing to me) Regardless of all that, none of this ever, had anything, to do with all the procedures using a FAK represents in one AP. It's not about the number of procedures that you listed, it's the actual quickness of the healing itself. (Again, much more like "Wolverine" than anything I have suggested to replace it) I would prefer regeneration of HP only because it would be more challenging. A much better representation of FAKs would be if there were Bleeding rules that stopped regeneration and a FAK would be required to bandage yourself up enough to allow that regeneration to continue. Again, none of this has anything to do with the way FAKs work currently, as they would either be removed or given an entirely new function.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:13 24 June 2009

So now your reiterating what I was saying as a counter? First of all, you obviously don't understand the Wolverine reference, but I digress. You were saying that the game would be better without FAK and with only this idea of natural healing. Do you have ANY idea how long it would take a person to heal to full health without medical aid? Especially when they've had significant injuries? Your not "back to health" after resting for 2 days after you've been stabbed or shot or had chuncks of flesh torn out of you. In fact, without medical attention your probably DEAD. But since you can't seem to understand THAT either, let us move on. The best result would be a combination of this idea and the FAK system. Your bleeding idea isn't that bad, but bear in mind K.I.S.S. Realism is a requirement for all suggestions but shouldn't be the only thing. Given a choice between the current system and this suggestion, the current system is more logical and fits better into the game.--Pesatyel 04:09, 25 June 2009 (BST)

No, you blockhead, your Wolverine reference actually supports my argument. Seriously, if you refuse to see even that...then you're just being willfully dense. I said I would support natural healing in general, not necessarily exactly the way Blake describes it. I'll assume you didn't actually read or comprehend as usual and quote my original comment: "Well of course it would have to be tweaked. What I'm saying is one style over the other, but certainly not both." I would much rather see 1 HP per half and without the "full AP" conditions he has put on it. The current system is certainly NOT more logical. Jesus Christ in the passenger seat with his balls hangin' out the window, but your whole debating style is just to twist everything someone says completely out of its context or meaning until it fits whatever you want it to mean. And for God's sake learn the difference between Your and You're. Holy Fuck, but you would try the patience of a saint!--

| T | BALLS! | 04:57 25 June 2009

Realism is not a requirement for suggestions, but believability is, for the most part. Realism doesn't hurt a suggestion's chances, though. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:07, 25 June 2009 (BST)

I would say that #1, it can't be survivor only. Second, why even bother with the differing rate between HP and AP? Once your AP is maxed, then you start recovering health at the same rate. Seems simpler, although if Kevan doesn't think it would be too much computer work I do think that the natural health recovery should be 1 hp/hour as you suggested. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:39, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Recovering 50hp in a day is ridiculous. Blake's numbers are much better. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:25, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Not a fan of the fact that this could allow zed zergers meat-cow alts that would regenerate their own health for free tasty XP. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:41, 25 June 2009 (BST)

---

Slippery Guise

Timestamp: --Kakashi on crack 13:08, 22 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Balance change

Scope: All

Description: basically, it will ocasionally "rain" in-game, when it does a zombie's hands will be slippery and will have 5% less chance of hitting with their claws when outdoors, at the same time a survivor won't be able to see zombies as well and will recieve a small penalty of 5% also. Rain would have no effect if you were inside and little if any effect on damaging baracades. Though this could be seen as negative to both sides, it would add a bit of realism. Perhaps after a series of rains in a ruined building, moss will begin to grow which a survivor could pick and use basically to staunch bleeding which would result in a cured infection and maybe healing 1hp.

Discussion (Slippery Guise)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: June 30 at 08:32(BST)

OMG the realism of it all 8-O. (Too much already.) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:14 22 June 2009 (BST)

This suggestion is unrealistic (or unbelievable in the context of a zombie game, as zombies are far from "realistic"). How do my hands being slippery make me less able to use them aggressively? And moss is probably more likely to give you an infection than to cure one. And "Rain would have no effect if you were inside and little if any effect on damaging baracades"; be more decisive for goodness' sake, does it damage barricades or does it not (if it does then it's especially silly)? Please, organise your ideas neatly, so we, the editors, can throw them out in an orderly fashion. :3 --Anotherpongo 20:28, 22 June 2009 (BST)

I don't like the moss idea, it's pretty useless and, well, bad. But I love the idea of nerfing outside combat- it would help Zeds that hate being headshotted in their sleep, but keep inside combat (breakins and PKing) stable. I think you would want to make cade-accuracy the same, so zeds can break in easily. You should try and specify just how much it is going to rain, twice a month, 10 times a month, for a week or only in daily doses. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:32, 23 June 2009 (BST)

---

Zombies Drop Heavy Shit V1.2

Discussion (Zombies Drop Heavy Shit V1.2)

I kept the 100% on 20% Encumbrance items for this version. It could be lowered on a later version, but I wanted to see how people felt about it after these other new changes, especially the automatic hold on 2% Items. These could easily be secured and not near as likely to fall off after death. But I just don't see how any zombie holds onto a generator or transmitter and still be able to use its Claws/Teeth. The same could be said for a Toolbox and Fuel Cans, but I suppose they might get a good "rigor mortis grip" on it or something.--

| T | BALLS! | 23:11, 20 June 2009 (BST)

Still playing a survivor, still think death is nothing to be feared, still like your suggestion =)--Bjorn 01:23, 21 June 2009 (BST)

From last discussion: This won't instill fear of death in people, it'll instill (more of) a dislike for death. It's not "oh no, the zombies are going to get me," it's "goddamnit, now I have to do more searching." Fear is not the same as disliking something. I could say ZL is afraid of ball-less survivors, but that's not the truth - he just dislikes them. Intensely. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:27, 21 June 2009 (BST)

Yep to all you said.--SirArgo ^Talk 17:00, 21 June 2009 (BST)

You're still guaranteeing that all generators are dropped, and that your toolbox will probably also go, every time a survivor dies. Sure, a chance to loose on or two of these big items, but not a 100% chance. Decorative items however... sure, they need to go, kill them with in a fire ;) Toolboxes especially are a pain to go searching for, and are esential -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:23 22 June 2009 (BST)

Essential for reconstruction, but not so much for pure survival. I'm of the opinion that it would force Survivors to "retreat back to civilization" more often, allowing for a more natural ebb and flow of zombie infested areas. This would probably mostly effect the type of Survivor that gets overly attached to a particular "patch of ground" or Suburb so rather than moving around and trying to survive they just never leave their "home". What sort of numbers for Genny/Trans/toolboxes would you find more acceptable, though?--

| T | BALLS! | 19:58, 22 June 2009 (BST)

I'd like to see an upper limit on how much could be lost per death. If you did the maths, and worked out how much is lost per death on a fully stocked survivor, it would be quite a hit, IMO. A clear disincentive to stocking up -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:46 23 June 2009 (BST)

But a clear incentive to staying alive. PKers could actually be punished for their killing sprees, and PKer groups could likewise put a hurt on Bounty Hunters. Well, not so much with these new lower numbers on losing 6% and less Items. It just seems to me that a lot of strategy could be gained with some sort of actual loss for dying. Anyway, I'll work on those items lost per death numbers.--

| T | BALLS! | 03:15 24 June 2009

I like this suggestion. Yeah, maybe 65% on the gennies and radios and a lower number (I'm thinking 35-50%) on the toolboxes, but this suggestion is good enough as is. --Anotherpongo 20:31, 22 June 2009 (BST)

How do these numbers look:

Encumbrance	% Chance to Drop
20%	50%
16%	40%
10%	25%
6%	15%
4%	10%
2%	5%

I used this formula for this table: Each 1% of an Item's Encumbrance = 2.5% chance for dropping it. So, 20% Encumbrance Item is: 20 x 2.5% = 50%, a 2% Encumbrance Item is 2 x 2.5% = 5%, and so on.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:05, 22 June 2009 (BST)

a shit idea from a shit user tbqh --Cyberbob 14:11, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Logical, but this will mainly affect toolboxes, generators and fuel, i.e. stuff that PKers don't use. Plus, isn't repairing ruins already hard enough? --Jaeger ayers 04:51, 25 June 2009 (BST)

Well, those numbers have been moved around a lot, but one of the original intentions was to make Survivors think more about killing other Survivors if they though some "police" group might being the hammer down and make their life hell by making them drop numerous items. Death itself isn't really much of a consequence, IMO. As for the Ruins part, it probably depends on what side you're on at the time, Zombies or Survivors. :) From a dedicated zombie perspective, I think it's sort of lame that 6 AP worth of work can be undone with 1 AP unless a few days have gone by. Usually no one is probably going to be around to "hold" a ruin before 6 days goes by, so the Survivor is generally getting off cheaper than the Zombie who Ruined it. OTOH, months worth of Ruin repair AP build up can be undone in 1 second by a suicide repair, and yeah the repairer is going to die, but again, death isn't much of a consequence IMO, and you can always just play one of your alts while the Suicide guy recharges.--

| T | BALLS! | 05:17 25 June 2009

---

Improved Aim

Timestamp: Serran 07:39, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Type: New skill

Scope: All classes - human and zombie

Description: High Level Character Skill - Improved Aim Improved Aim would increase hit percentage and add to damage done for weapon types the skill is purchased for. Human or zombies can benefit equally. Suggestion scope This is available to characters level 15 or 20+ only, and has skill tree requirements specific to weapon chosen as well as class and also varied XP costs to reflect the specialization of class skills. Suggestion description Higher Level Skills – Specialization: Improved Aim This would be the addition of increased percentages for damages. This would encourage specialization of skill sets somewhat more instead of broad Jack-of-all-traders. Possessing the Improved Aim for (weapon type) would give a 10% increase to hit with that weapon (Axe, Knife, Pistol, Shotgun, Bite, or Hand Attack) to hit and a +1 increase to damage done. This would be a level 15 or level 20 requirements and also require Headshot for survivors & Flesh Rot for zombies. I got pretty detailed below, and I’m totally up for suggestions. I don’t think that this has been considered before – but I apologize if something similar has been. Increased Damage – “Improved Aim” • Prerequisites: Have to be level 15+ or 20+ • Location in Skill tree: Must have headshot skill & Advanced Pistol or Advanced Shotgun Training or Axe Proficiency. Headshot + any one other skill = Improved Aim for that form of combat. • Crossover skill: This skill could cross over for zombies but be applied to having Flesh Rot + Neck Lurch + Infectious Bite or Death Grip + Rend Flesh. Flesh Rot would be used as it is deeper in the skill tree and my reason for tying the skill to a skill like Headshot or Flesh Rot + others is to prolong someone from getting the skill of Improved Aim until later in the game which is also why there is a level requirement also. This is to reflect the characters improvement in combat if they have specialized. The skill should be bought separately for each form of combat to reap all benefits as well. Buying Improved Aim for Shotgun’s will not give the bonus to attacks made with Pistols, Axes, Knives etc. it will only benefit Shotgun attacks. • Cost in XP: 150 XP cost per/improved attack type. To get Improved Aim for Axes, Shotguns, and Pistols here are the costs: Civilian – Cop/Firefighter: 600 XP military skill set + 100 XP headshot + 150 XP Improved Aim Axe + 150 XP Improved Aim Shotguns + 150 XP Improved Aim Pistols = 1150 XP total cost Civilian – Consumer: 700 XP military skill set + 100 XP headshot + 150 XP Improved Aim Axe + 150 XP Improved Aim Shotguns + 150 XP Improved Aim Pistols = 1250 XP total cost Scientist – Necro Tech Lab Assistant/Doctor: 1050 XP military skill set + 100 XP headshot + 150 XP Improved Aim Axe + 150 XP Improved Aim Shotguns + 150 XP Improved Aim Pistols = 1600 XP total cost Military - Private: 450 XP military skill set + 100 XP headshot + 150 XP Improved Aim Axe + 150 XP Improved Aim Shotguns + 150 XP Improved Aim Pistols = 1000 XP total cost Military – Medic/Scout: 525 XP military skill set + 100 XP headshot + 150 XP Improved Aim Axe + 150 XP Improved Aim Shotguns + 150 XP Improved Aim Pistols = 1075 XP total cost For zombies to get Improved Aim Bite & Improved Aim Hand Attacks here are the costs: Zombie – Corpse: 700 XP required zombie skills + 150 Improved Aim Bite + 150 Improved Aim Hand Attack = 1000 XP total cost Zombie – Any other Class: 800 XP required zombie skills + 150 Improved Aim Bite + 150 Improved Aim Hand Attack = 1100 XP total cost The zombie costs are on the lower end but their attacks are slightly under powered compared to shotguns and pistols so I feel it would even out. Each class has varied costs too which reflects the specialties of their class. A similar skill like Improved Aid or Improved Revive (using less AP for those filling up a special skill tree and reaching level 15) could also be implemented to advantage those who do not use combat. I believe also that there should be a 5 level increment required between specialization. If someone chooses to buy Improved Aim Shotgun at level 15 then they must be at least level 20 before you purchase your 2nd Improved Aim skill. They would accrue if not gained (as I don’t see how else it could be done) and so by level 35 a character could simply purchase them all if he hadn’t already – which is at the high end of character levels as it stands which would reflect the character’s level of experience. The base level could be changed to level 20 making the Improved Aim skill set complete only at level 40 or higher. This outline could be used for Knife or Blunt weapons also (If a blunt specialty is ever introduced. I believe a similar skill that bolsters each class & subclass would maintain balance in the game. The Flesh Rot requirement may throw the balance off as only those who especially want to play zombies would go for it – but that seems to make sense as only dedicated zombies would have improved biting ability etc. • How it's activated: This ability would be active anytime a character used an attack that they had Improved Aim in and it would give +10% to hit, +1 to damage. • Cost in AP: There would be no difference in AP cost to make an attack. Perhaps a trade-off could be that each attack that has Improved Aim takes 2 AP to perform to reflect the character focusing their aim. If a 200% increase per attack of AP is implemented however I feel that the percentage to hit should be increased to 15% or the damage increase to be +2.

Discussion (Improved Aim)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: June 30 at 07:54(BST)

That's pretty fresh. I like the idea of specializing in one thing. How about removing the headshot/fleshrot requirement though? Not all zombies want to have rot but all survivors want headshot. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 07:48, 19 June 2009 (BST)

I like the idea, but I think your numbers are too high. What about a 5% increase to hit percentages and no damage increase; makes you slightly better but not game breaking.(I think)--Bjorn 13:10, 19 June 2009 (BST)

I agree with Bjorn, but only if you only get to specialise in one thing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:13, 19 June 2009 (BST)

That's a good idea. But there's way too many people who hate the idea of players NOT being a homogenized mass of bland, boring sameness to ever get it through. Probably.--

| T | BALLS! | 14:38, 19 June 2009 (BST)

XP cost is no way to balance out a suggestion when you consider how many players are maxed out with thousands of extra XP. You need to find a different way to offer a balance here. --Johnny Bass 16:47, 19 June 2009 (BST)

--Kakashi on crack 22:33, 22 June 2009 (BST) This reminds me of the dnd class weapon master, Perhaps the one using this technique should only be able to focus in ONE weapon to keep it balanced so that each survivor is a little bit different?

I like that this is the first idea I've seen for a +% to hit and +damage that helps both survivors and zombies. I do agree with the others here that a player should be forced to specialize (pistol/shotgun/melee/bite/claw) and can only buy one. I'm also a fan of the idea of it costing that one extra AP, but maybe that should only be through a new button on the display (suggesting that some attacks you're focusing more on a good hit than others). --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:54, 23 June 2009 (BST)

---

Hunting Rifle

Timestamp: --Robert Egleton 20:17, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Item

Scope: Survivors

Description: Has most of you know in Dawn of the Dead the characters was able to get a Hunting Rifle. Adding a Hunting Rifle to the game would be a "ranged" weapon. You could shoot from a block away or from any window. Shooting from a block away or any window would give you 50% of hitting, shooting from the same block you would get a 75% of hitting. You would only be able to find the Hunting Rifle and ammo in Gun Stores in Malls.

Discussion (Hunting Rifle)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: June 26 at 00:59(BST)

Generally, ranged weapons (that actually have range) are frowned upon.--Zombie Lord 20:29, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Yes... not only have you not described how ammo works or how much damage it does, you've also made the percentage way too high - and is that with skills or without? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:34, 17 June 2009 (BST)

With skills. I am sorta new at this soooo. I suck, --Robert Egleton 20:36, 17 June 2009 (BST)

It's alright, we see it pretty frequently. If you look at Frequently Suggested and Suggestions Dos and Do Nots, those pages can help guide you and answer questions sans embarrassment here. Even if ZL wipes his ass with them. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:42, 17 June 2009 (BST)

This has been suggested a gazillion times before in all sorts of different styles, and thrown out every time, because it adds very little to the game. It's a new way to do old things. Also 75% is way too high for an attack chance, and you haven't clearly explained how this would be affected by skills. Even with those problems solved it will still be nuked to oblivion though. Sorry. --Anotherpongo 20:40, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Even with my mistakes it could be provided useful. Even the long ranged part for pistols. --Robert Egleton 20:43, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Urban Dead does not need another gun. To quote ol' Grimmy, you would either have to dilute search rates for current weapons, weakening newbies who would find it harder to specialise, or add them to the current search rates, overpowering established level 41ers. As I've said, it is not useful. Spend that 1AP moving to the next block to shoot something for goodness sake, which is what most people would do, defeating the point of the weapon entirely. This is uninteresting, pointless, has not passed before and most likely never will. --Anotherpongo 20:51, 17 June 2009 (BST)

That's not quite true. It depends entirely on WHERE you find it. If, say, you found them in mansions or someplace, it wouldn't affect search rates at other locations.--Pesatyel 00:59, 19 June 2009

Shooting zombies from a vantage point where they have almost no chance of fighting back (ie. from inside a building, or from adjacent blocks), just isn't sporting, old chap ;) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:38 18 June 2009 (BST)

---

Tangling Grasp in Dark Buildings

Timestamp: Zombie Lord 20:30, 16 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Skill Change/Improvment

Scope: Zombies with Tangling Grasp/Players Grasped by Zombies with Tangling Grasp

Description: If a Zombie successfully Grasps another Player inside of a Dark Building, BOTH of their attack percentages are no longer halved, as long as the Grasp is maintained. That is, both the Zombie AND the Player they have Grasped may attack at full percentages. This applies ONLY to the Grasper and the Grasped. If the Grasped Player attacks a different target than the Zombie Grasping them, they suffer the usual halved attack percentage penalty.

Discussion (Tangling Grasp in Dark Buildings)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: June 25 at 20:39(BST)

First thought (and given its midnight and i have been drinking I do reserve the right to take it back!) this should only apply to none firearm attacks.... Just remember though that this would be very unbalanced as it basically just circumvents the penalties for zombies only. --Honestmistake 23:44, 16 June 2009 (BST)

I thought about the non-firearm thing, but it wouldn't be that hard to shove a Pistol to the body of a Zombie that is Grasping you. Shotguns, OTOH, probably should be out.--Zombie Lord 23:47, 16 June 2009 (BST)

Arguably, most of the weapons wouldn't be as effective when being grasped. Most of them require swinging ina significant arc to cause damage. But maybe I'm overcomplicating. I mean if you take the "butt end" of a bat or crowbar and bash with it (stabbing rather than swinging) the effect would be essentially the same, given UD's simplicity. Even the shotgun could be maneuvered enough to cause damage (shoot it in the leg, for example). So, simply put, I don't see this as that bad an idea really.-Pesatyel 03:38, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm, yes, I suppose if we wanted to really get down to it we'd have to designate both Firearms and Melee weapons that would get the bonus (based on length) and those that wouldn't. Rather that excluding all of one type or another. Off hand I'd say Pistols, Knives, Crowbar, Flare Guns, and Beer/Wine should get the full attack percentages. Maybe, since it's dark and you can't aim properly, Headshot does not work in the Dark...that's probably asking for too much though.--Zombie Lord 20:17, 17 June 2009 (BST)

I find the whole idea of a close-quarters flare gun rather weird. Maybe this could be scope for another suggestion. --Anotherpongo 20:43, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Why? The Flare Gun is particularity silly in this game anyway. 15 Damage? Gimme a break. This thing should be more like getting hit with a bean bag gun, not cause 50% more damage than a shotgun. The whole concept of how a Flare Gun works in this game is stupid to begin with.--Zombie Lord 21:02, 17 June 2009 (BST)

The whole concept of zombies is "stupid" to begin with as well. At least flare guns aren't found with other guns and flak jackets absorb some of the firey heat. I'm just glad there are fire-based weapons at all... and the 30 damage you can get if you soak 'em in fuel beforehand is well worth it. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:04, 17 June 2009 (BST)

The fire part at least makes some sense. Even though 9 times out of 10 the flare would just bounce off of you without lighting anything.--Zombie Lord 21:10, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Dead dry zombies burn real nice - the trick is hitting them well. Flare can embed themselves in soft, squishy insides as well. Wait, how do I know this stuff? proh god --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:11, 17 June 2009 (BST)

IMO, the key to any good fantasy is to take one unreasonable element (zombies, in this case), and surround it with as much reason as possible. So I could maybe go for Zombies taking more damage from Flares considering their "dry, squishy" state. But wait, how is something both dry AND squishy? A flare embedded in a squishy zombie would probably just be extinguished. A dry Zombie, maybe it would burn of their clothes...probably not much else.--Zombie Lord 21:23, 17 June 2009 (BST)

"how is something both dry AND squishy?" Jelly.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:30, 18 June 2009 (BST)

What kind of jelly are you eating? Powdered and sprinkled on toast? Me, now I like moist jelly. It's spreadable and edible. Fuckin jelly...oy.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:31, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Taking this Jelly discussion to talk.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:15, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Napalm can be dry and squishy. Coagulated fuel, yay! Dried-out dead fat (human included) burns well too, and that's squishy/gooey. Not in a good way, mind you. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:27, 17 June 2009 (BST)

I could buy that if Flare Guns caused a base damage of 3 or 4 and then had a % chance to cause additional fire damage. Yes, human fat burns well, but the odds of lighting it with a Flare...astronomical.--Zombie Lord 21:37, 17 June 2009 (BST)

What's wrong with the flare gun (as far as this suggestion goes). Take a look at the pic of a flare gun and you'll see why it should receive the bonus.--Pesatyel 03:12, 18 June 2009 (BST)

Well it also depends on WHY the survivor is attacking. Say a zombie gets a grasp on me. Does me getting a successful hit on the zombie break the grasp? If that's the case, then it wouldn't really matter which weapon you use since the idea is to use the weapon as a lever to push the zombie off. If it doesn't, then yeah probably only certain weapons would be effective.--Pesatyel 03:12, 18 June 2009 (BST)

This suggestion will penalise zombies that run out of AP with tangling grasp active, which could leave them open to full % attacks for hours (perhaps even 24 hours if they only play once a day). Also, given that survivors can't target specific zombies (unless they're on their contact list), there is no way for them to get this bonus unless it's a single zombie break in -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:33 18 June 2009 (BST)

1.Only against the single Survivor they have a Grasp on. 2.If you have been attacked and Grasped, you should be able to see that in your messages and put that zombie in your contacts if you wish to attack them.--

| T | BALLS! | 06:33, 18 June 2009 (BST)

90% of the time, survivors aren't online during a breakin. the other 10% of the time there is one online, who fights then runs. The other survivors will just have to deal with every zombie mauling the survivors with full accuracy, while they aren't online to defend it. Game breaking. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:22, 18 June 2009 (BST)

not exactly game breaking as the game managed just fine before the darkness penalties were introduced, that said it is very one sided as a smart zombie need never log out while still tangling a victim . A better option may be to ensure that a zombies full grasp bonus be added in the dark rather than half... this of course may already be the case as its damn near impossible to tell from the hit frequency. --Honestmistake 12:41, 18 June 2009 (BST)

Game breaking?...we're talking about DARK BUILDINGS here. Come on.--

| T | BALLS! | 20:39, 18 June 2009 (BST)

---

Over-Encumbrance Stops Movement

Timestamp: Zombie Lord 19:57, 16 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Encumbrance Change

Scope: Players Movement

Description: Any time a player goes over 100% Encumbrance and then tries to move, they do not move at all but receive this message: "You are Over-Encumbered, and cannot move. You must drop enough Inventory to reach 100% Encumbrance or less in order to move again."

Discussion (Over-Encumbrance Stops Movement)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: June 29 at 05:15(BST)

Too much of a Nerf as is... perhaps if its only stopped Free running. Seems like that might be a dupe though. --Honestmistake 23:46, 16 June 2009 (BST)

Suggestion:20080131_Working_Load. While not a dupe, it shows the community is not in favor of implementing movement reduction when over-encumbered. If 2 AP move costs get shot down, I'd imagine "no moving at all" would be as well. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:00, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm, the Working Load suggestion made zombies immune, and a lot of people didn't like that. (don't blame them). Maybe a zombies too idea would go over better.--Zombie Lord 06:49, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Huge stupid nerf. --Anotherpongo 20:46, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Reasonable nerf.--Zombie Lord 20:51, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Urban Dead is unreasonable. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:56, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Survivors are just crybabies. :)--Zombie Lord 21:02, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Zombies are just dead crybabies. :) Wait, they still move too. Living dead crybabies. Also, there's no denying UD is unreasonable. Survivors can jab zombies napes at will, zombies can get their head blown off and stand up readily, and every building apparently has an infinite supply of ... supplies and barricade materials. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:05, 17 June 2009 (BST)

For now...--Zombie Lord 21:11, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Oh god, don't start that argument. Please. --Angusburger 21:54, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Who ever said I was a survivor? :) --Anotherpongo 09:31, 20 June 2009 (BST)

Details! :)--

| T | BALLS! | 05:15, 22 June 2009 (BST)

---

Radio Chatter

Timestamp: Bjorn 12:45, 12 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Both New and Change

Scope: Both Survivors and Humans

Description: This is my first suggestion, so if something if wrong please tell me. Also, when I say people, I mean players whether they be Survivors or Zombies. What I am proposing is that when there are 5 or less people in a building or on a block, that any radio chatter that one person would hear, they would all here. This is realistic in a sense that with a low amount of people, you should be able to hear other people's radio chatter, but when there is even a slight increase in the amount of people, all the background noise blocks out other people's radios. There also would be a distinction from interior and exterior noise. If you and another person are standing outside a mall (usually filled with people) that count does not count against the maximum number of people for this to take effect. Also, the count would be a total of both Survivors and Zombies in a block; so it is a total of 5 or less players, not just survivors or just zombies.

Discussion (Radio Chatter)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: June 25 at 20:39(BST)

I like this. It makes sense, given that there are few people in the area. --Bwii 1:07 13 June 2009 (BST)

Worst case scenario, this creates spam and leads to PKing. there are two ways to receive a radio transmission. Having a receiver in your inventory and being in a room with a transceiver. Either way I can control the receipt of transmissions. If some other guy has the radio however, I'd have to kill him to shut his radio up. The question you have to ask yourself is HOW this makes the game better and/or more fun? Realism is (or should be) a requirement for all suggestions but it shouldn't be ONLY reason. YOu can't hear gunshots (which would be much more useful) for example, so why should you be able to hear someone else's radio?--Pesatyel 04:10, 13 June 2009 (BST)

I don't agree with Pez's assessment, overall. But I don't personally see how this adds anything to the game, it's sort of ... fluffy. --WanYao 15:53, 13 June 2009 (BST)

Well I WAS speaking "worst case" but my main problem with it is that is not particularly useful.--Pesatyel 20:28, 13 June 2009 (BST)

Well, shutting off radio input could be extended to all radios. If a Transmitter can be shut out in Settings, surely that could be extended to other peoples radios as well. Still, I'm not too hot on this idea. Leaning towards this being "fluffy" as well.--Zombie Lord 20:35, 13 June 2009 (BST)

It is indeed fluffy, but its supposed to represent a small group of people, hiding from the horde, trying to figure out where the next safe place to go would be by listening to a bunch of radio channels. I think it would not be a spam issue because anyone that is going to be a griefer is probably not going to collect that many radios and then go to a place with 4 people or less (because he makes the 5th) and stand there hoping someone broadcasts. Also, if you don't like it, just log out and then log in and its all gone. --Bjorn 00:54, 14 June 2009 (BST)

Log out then log back in? Hows that suppose to change the station?--Pesatyel 03:40, 14 June 2009 (BST)

It won't. It'll just get rid of the 'Since you were last online' event messages. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:53, 14 June 2009 (BST)

I know, that was a little bit of sarcasm. It boils down to having to listen to some OTHER jerk's radio. If you log out and log back in, sure it will clear the spam from before you logged about, but what about the spam after you log back in.--Pesatyel 08:42, 14 June 2009 (BST)

How many times have you been playing when you get more than one message over your radio?--Bjorn 23:21, 14 June 2009 (BST)

Let me clarify; how many times have you been actively playing (moving, shooting, searching, etc) and gotten a message? Maybe once for your entire 50 AP. Most message are received when you log in.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjorn9486 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 15 June 2009.

Before this gets deleted due to inactivity, do people think I should post this in the suggestion page or not?--Bjorn 13:07, 19 June 2009 (BST)

---

Sterilisation

Timestamp: Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 02:19, 11 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Item + Skill

Scope: Survivors, Zombies

Description: Adds a new item to Hospitals/Infirmaries, called "Sterilisation Kit" (15% encumberance, in Hospitals for 5% base rate and Infirmaries at a 3% base rate). This item, when combined with the new Scientist Skill "Sterilisation Training", can be used to create sterilised rooms in non-ruined buildings, so that they can offer the +5 HP boost of Surgery (so long as the building has power). However, everytime the bonus is utilised there is a 25% chance that the sterile room will be contaminated, and will need another sterilisation kit to once again acquire the bonus. Zombies can ransack the sterile room no matter how many survivors are inside, and will gain 6 XP for such an action.

Discussion (Sterilisation)

Someone will complain that this is two suggestions is one, but I don't mind that part so much. I think the Hospital's +5 HP bonus has more to do with specialized tools (that require power to operate) than Sterilization, so idk.--Zombie Lord 02:56, 11 June 2009 (BST)

It "technically" is, however sometimes its necessary.--Pesatyel 04:16, 11 June 2009 (BST)

It is my interpretation that the rule only applies for suggestions that can be seperated (i.e. the parts can operate independant of each other, albeit at a reduced effect). However, as the kit is entirely useless without the skill (and vice-versa), the two-suggestions concern is mute. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 06:56, 11 June 2009 (BST)

Well, like I said, I don't personally have a problem with that part.--Zombie Lord 08:01, 11 June 2009 (BST)

So, you want to turn malls and NTs in the hospitals? The game needs to have MORE uses for the non-mall/nt buildings.--Pesatyel 04:16, 11 June 2009 (BST)

As pesa, above. Bad idea. --WanYao 08:02, 11 June 2009 (BST)

I would have liked the idea, but Pesa provides an interesting point.--Thadeous Oakley 21:24, 11 June 2009 (BST)

Just make it unusable in malls. There's too much area to sterilize or something.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:36, 11 June 2009 (BST)

I could say that the sterilisation kit requires a smaller room than what malls can offer. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 22:07, 11 June 2009 (BST)

There we go, biggest against problem solved.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:10, 11 June 2009 (BST)

True. You might do better just suggesting particular buildings that might be appropriate for this (rather than just "any but malls"). A school, for example, might be appropriate (nurse's office or maybe a science lab). Also, it counters malls, but what about NTs? That's not a good idea either.--Pesatyel 02:33, 12 June 2009 (BST)

Though being a scientific facility, it's resources and equipment would be on-par or better with a hospital. Just not capable of dealing with more than a few people at a time.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:42, 12 June 2009 (BST)

You mean the NT facilities? Of course, but that's the whole point. What two buildings are THE most focused upon in the game? Malls (for all the goodies) and NTs (for syringes). By comparison, the other buildings have relatively minor uses (even if you factor in that you can find FAKs in hospitals easier than in malls since, in malls, you can find essentially everything you need except generators, gas and syringes). The two factors that make hospitals useful are FAKs and Surgery. If you transfer the Surgery ability to the NT, you weaken (unnecessarily) the hospital.--Pesatyel 07:46, 12 June 2009 (BST)

I still think the +5 HP for Surgery is due to specialized equipment in Hospitals that need power in order to function. If anything a non-sterilized room would give a -HP penalty, with the Sterilization canceling the penalty. Idk, FAKS are "magical D&D wizard spell" enough already.--Zombie Lord 23:20, 12 June 2009 (BST)

I think the idea is that your taking the nessary equipment with you to set up at another location (ie. not just "sterilization" equipment). If you want to throw in a "realism" argument, I can't imagine there being that many places that you would find clean enough to perform surgery in in the first place (including hospitals) after years of quarantine. But, of course, that argument is moot. That is part of the reason I suggested a place like a school since a nurse's station would HAVE some of the "hospital like" things already. Oh, and I like the D&D analogy, but are you saying there is something wrong with the way FAKs work?--Pesatyel 04:23, 13 June 2009 (BST)

They are a little too magical for me as they are. I would prefer healing 1 HP per half hour inherently. With Bleeding rules that stop that inherent healing, with FAK's stopping the Bleeding (allowing the healing rate to resume). I'll suggest it one of these days, triggering howls of anger and consternation, I'm sure.--Zombie Lord 06:43, 13 June 2009 (BST)

Inane discussion removed.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:54, 14 June 2009 (BST)

Why not make it so when any player does any action (search, barricade, even free run through) then there is a chance that the Sterilization goes away. That way in heavy populated areas it would be useless.--Bjorn 12:50, 12 June 2009 (BST)

That would be undercut by the ability of any player to go into any building at any time, effetively speaking.--Pesatyel 04:14, 13 June 2009 (BST)

I think you chaps are overselling it. For a start, this kit comes from hospitals which means hospitals are now more useful. Anyway, imagine there's a hospital next to a mall, and you want to set up a station in the mall. That's an average of 20AP in searching (at 5% base rate), and two more to move and deploy it. For 22AP+ you've added an average of 20HP in bonuses. (at a 25% failure rate, that's the average if my maths is right) To match that you need only 2 FAK's. I am unsure what the new rate is, but it needs only be above ~9% to come out ahead given 22AP to search. --  RoosterDragon  14:36, 12 June 2009 (BST)

For starters, did you even read the discussion? Secondly, the numbers can be changed, that's the point of this discussion page. Surgery has always been more for situations when your really hurting. That's why it heals more, but doesn't give you additoinal experience.--Pesatyel 08:49, 14 June 2009 (BST)

Actually, I was thinking that NTs would provide an 'ideal' setting for sterilisation with a lower chance of contamination, as they are the most naturally sterile building other than the Hospitals and Infirmaries. On the other hand, NT buildings are already one of the extremely high priority target for zombies, with the others being the all-you-can-eat-flesh-buffet that is your local shopping mall and the stupid-meat-in-a-concrete-can known as the forts. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 06:27, 14 June 2009 (BST)

I was actually think the forts might nobe be a bad idea, since there are only two. Are they REALLY that contested? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm asking. If I were to pick "appropriate" locations, I'd say the zoo, schools, hotels, buildings and towers. The zoo and schools would most likely have medical facilities of some minimal kind. Hotels, I could see having minimally adequate conditions if you don't look to closely and the last two are so vaguely defined that they could be anything essentially.--Pesatyel 08:49, 14 June 2009 (BST)

They're no moreso contested than the malls. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 05:19, 15 June 2009 (BST)

OK, I'm considering whether or not to put this up for vote. Are there any further issues to be figured out? --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 09:58, 21 June 2009 (BST)

Well, you might want to edit your suggestion to reflect the discussion.--Pesatyel 06:14, 23 June 2009 (BST)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Scent Trail Alteration

This suggestion is now up for voting. Its discussion has been moved to its talk page.--

| T | BALLS! | 10:39 25 June 2009

Crumbling Barricades Notification

This suggestion is now up for voting as Outside Barricades Notifications. Its discussion has been moved to its talk page. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:15, 21 June 2009 (BST)

---