Developing Suggestions

NOTICE

The Suggestions system has been closed indefinitely and Developing Suggestions is no longer functions as a part of the suggestions process. However, you are welcome to use this page for general discussion on suggestions.

Shortcut:
DS

Developing Suggestions

This section is for general discussion of suggestions for the game Urban Dead.

It also includes the capacity to pitch suggestions for conversation and feedback.

Further Discussion

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

Resources

• The Frequently Suggested List
• Suggestions Dos and Do Nots

How To Make a Discussion

Adding a New Discussion

To add a general discussion topic, please add a Tier 3 Header (===Example===) below, with your idea or proposal.

Adding a New Suggestion

• To add a new suggestion proposal, 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.
• The process is illustrated in this image.

{{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.
• Scope is who or what the suggestion affects. Typically survivors or zombies (or both), but occasionally Malton, the game interface or something else.
• Description should be a full explanation of your suggestion. Include information like flavor text, search odds, hit percentages, etc, as appropriate. Unless you are as yet unsure of the exact details behind the suggestion, try not to leave out anything important. Check your spelling and grammar.

Cycling Suggestions

• Suggestions with no new discussion in the past month may be cycled without notice.

Please add new discussions and suggestions to the top of the list

---

Suggestions

Barricable Streets

Timestamp: Minothor 19:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Type: Barricade Change

Scope: Survivors

Description: The ability to barricade the sides of a block (North, East, West, South) to create walled off sections of the city would allow for survivor colonies, unrestricted by free running. (For Kevan and coders) One way I can imagine this being possible would be an array of 4 tiny-ints [N,E,W,S] in the database entries, corresponding to existing barricade levels. So for example [0,0,0,9] would result in "The streets to the South have been very strongly barricaded" This is merely a suggestion and there's probably a more efficient way of implementing it. Advantages: The ability to effectively wall off multiple blocks to create a barricaded region as opposed to a single building. Baricades could also be used to help control zombie movements. Balancing: Barricaded regions would have the same risks as barricades on malls, forts, manors etc. Any breach in the walls would allow zombies to spill into the area and overrun the inside. Especially since each side would be treated as an individual barricade, blocks on the corner of a region would have two faces that require rebuilding. In addition to this, larger regions would have a larger perimeter that needed patrolling and maintenance making defense more difficult.

Discussion (Barricable Streets)

Against. Because we can all agree that zombies need an even harder life and trenchies need more things to fuck up. --RadicalWhig 20:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Against. AP is maxed out at 50. Even with all possible skills excluding brain rot, I typically blow through about 75% just repairing and barricading a building to EHB. Besides, It's been about seven years since the quarantine. Any "survivor colonies" have already been long-since established. -- TheBardofOld 20:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: In Response to both discussion points, the main aim of this would be to provide dynamic hot zones.
Zombies would be attracted to barricaded regions with the promise of tasty collections of living inside and survivors would be attracted by the promise of safety in numbers and space to move freely. Also, agreed, as an individual player, building/destroying barricades is a hassle but as numbers grew, maintainance would be easier and the promise of safety/food (as applicable) would be more tantalising.
The Mall Tours show what can be achieved by zombies in significant numbers.
This would allow the security of regions to become a balancing act of Human and Zombie numbers. It encourages the populations to clump together and work collectively.
It's not an impossible stretch of the imagination to picture various human groups alone forming proxy police and criminal elements within these regions. Urban Dead is effectively a hotbed of emergent gameplay after all.
What this suggestion would do is effectively add another tool for players to work together and against each other. --Minothor 21:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You're thinking too small. This wouldn't be used to create protected zones. This would be used (whether intentionally or not) to create roadblocks that would either have to be navigated around or broken through at the cost of dozens of AP. As a result, most zombies will simply walk around them while they are able to, but eventually the walls would just appear all over the place and start connecting together (after all, it costs far less AP to build them than to take them down), making it miserable for anyone to walk around outside, be they newbie survivor, career zombie, or just a survivor trying to reach an RP. Meanwhile, veteran survivors could easily free run over the barricades, allowing them to travel extremely rapidly in comparison to the hordes. The concept is an interesting one, but I don't see any way it could feasibly be made to work in the game. —Aichon— 21:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:You have a good point, they would effectively be a zoning tool but their strength would still lie in creating a protective region. One which as you say, would either have to be built up over time, possibly trapping some zombies within their walls, changing little, or, built in incremental rings out from buildings.
On the revive points though, They'd presumably be set up on the outskirts of these regions, crewed by more experienced players free-running over the barricades. I've also realised an error in my working out, a TinyINT value in a database is 0 to 9, single digits only, this would limit barricades to VS+1 --Minothor 21:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You're still thinking in terms of zones, patrols, stationary survivors, and people behaving rationally, rather than as a mob. I'm suggesting that a survivor doesn't need to do that at all, nor do they behave that way. If I spend 5AP building a wall, I can put up 7-8 every day that will each cost around 20AP to tear down for zombies. As such, almost all of the zombies will choose to go around the walls, meaning that I'm free to keep putting them up and connecting them together. As a result, it's inevitable that the entire city will be covered in walls in no time at all as a result of trenchcoaters, making it impossible to navigate the city. Zombies will have to spend two day's worth of AP just to break through a wall so that they can move a single block, while survivors will be able to repair that wall with less than a day's AP. Besides that, sieges will never happen since zombies won't have any mobility at all. —Aichon— 22:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that makes the game more fun. Mostly, it will just make moving about more frustrating for everyone, as even survivors need to get outside occassionally (revival, island buildings, travelling). Those roadblocks are also most likely to spring up in green zones where survivors know nothing better to do with their excess AP, making them even more frustrating areas as they already are.
Furthermore, I could see them getting abused as griefing tools, as someone gets PKed, and the griefer sets up roadblocks on the outside squares between the dumped body and the nearest RP. -- Spiderzed█ 21:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

+1. Clear description, what is wrong with this suggestion: can easly turn into griefing tool. Other than that I think UD needs less barricading, not more. Low level survivors and zombies have hard time enough as it is. --Labla 22:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Super For Barricade strafing for all. I hate only being able to tear down cades on empty buildings, I wanna do it in the street, too. --_K 23:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, it's extremely difficult to get support for any proposal that either 1) increases the amount of barricading in the game; 2) decreases mobility; or 3) helps the survivor cause. Yours does all three. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate that this sounds like a major pain in the ass for everyone who is not a trenchie. 1) If you have ever, ever played as a zombie, you know damn well how hard barricades are to take down as it is, just for the *possibility* of killing survivors and ruining a building. Now imagine you have to take them down every fucking day just to walk somewhere. HEEEEELL no! No one is going to fucking bother with fighting over these barricades and going all "hot zone" and shit, because I absolutely guarantee you it won't be worth it to have to bother with the arduous task of bringing down two, three, or four times more barricades merely to get to your target just because some survivor had nothing good to do. I would rather quit the game than have to deal with these as a zombie.
2) In addition, your "balancing" is not only illogical, it's also completely, I might even say perfectly, ass-backwards.

"Barricaded regions would have the same risks as barricades on malls, forts, manors etc."- No it doesn't. Streets don't need to be held for survivor resources or shelter. Zombies are the ones who need empty streets, to walk through. Survivors can just free run over these, so survivors aren't being restricted at all. Survivors don't fucking sleep in the streets, they don't have resources in the streets, and FR means they aren't restricted. They basically get an extra fucking line of defense.

"Any breach in the walls would allow zombies to spill into the area and overrun the inside." Okay, so the horde overruns the inside of a STREET. Big fucking deal. They just moved A SINGLE STEP at the cost of a lot of AP. WOW WHAT A HUGE GAIN FOR ZOMBIEDOM. Again, nothing of fucking value gained for the zombie, while the survivors sit back in their TRPs.

"Especially since each side would be treated as an individual barricade, blocks on the corner of a region would have two faces that require rebuilding. In addition to this, larger regions would have a larger perimeter that needed patrolling and maintenance making defense more difficult." So? Again, there is nothing to be gained for the zombies. A line of barricades in just one direction will still keep out zombies perfectly well, and it doesn't take much AP to get cades up to VSB. And in green burbs, you can bet your ass all four directions are going to be caded up to max 24/7. What kind of logic is this? Seriously.

3) This is going to also screw all hell out of noob survivors and zombies alike, who spend a *lot* of time on the streets. Why not also make them do the hokey pokey for 25 AP every single fucking day? Would have the same effect.
4) Finally, I'd like to point out that this is insanely easy to abuse via zerging, which alone should kill this suggestion stone-dead on the spot. Thank you very much.--RadicalWhig 03:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Corneal damage/Dark seeking

Timestamp: PAYNETRAIN 05:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Type: new skill

Scope: zombies

Description: This is a skill which is only available to zombies.....now we all know that zombies spend half of their lives in the dark except when breaking down barricades and entering a building,so this skill-"Dark seeking" allows the zombie to see better and have better accuracy in the dark and have a lesser accuracy in the light(just the opposite of survivors who have better accuracy in the light)this allows the zombies to easily kill survivors who AP out on the street which increases the risk of APing out or standing outside. Balancing it:when buying this skill the zed will have an increase in accuracy outside but have a decreased accuracy in lighted up areas,in other words less seeing in buildings with running gennies. Probable outcomes:zombies will exhibit characteristics just as seen in movies such as going for the genny first and then the survivors,dragging out survivors onto the street.etc

Discussion (Corneal damage/Dark seeking)

So, basically, you intend to 1) make killing street treats and 2) dark building inhabitants easier, and 3) shift zombies' priorities towards taking out gennies.

Thematically, this is plausible and feels right. No issues there.

Gameplay- 1) "Just standing outside", as it is, is usually a suicide move in any burb with an actual zombie population, however, so this suggestion won't change much. 2) But I do enjoy the idea of zombies having a further accuracy advantage in cinemas, thus making sleeping there more of a tactical choice (a trade off between security from PKers and security from zombies). 3) I am not so keen on the idea of *having* to take out the genny first. Most permagreen burbs are loaded with needlessly placed generators everywhere, so this would again contribute to the "rich get richer" your last developing suggestion had. However, this is not much of an issue because, after all, this would be an optional skill that players can choose not to take if they don't want the light debuff. I think this is a pretty solid idea overall. --RadicalWhig 06:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The main problem with this idea is underlying complexity - it touches multiple things and can easly upset balance (if there is any), when not examined carefully. Bellow are some questions, that need anwser or more detail in my opinion:

• What is the scope of skill? A) Every unlit place that is missing generator, including terrain outside buildings. B) Only unlit dark building like Cinemas, Banks and Clubs.
• What is the value of modifier for this skill? I don't get part "just the opposite of survivors who have better accuracy in the light". In dark buildings both survivors and zombie get -50% penality hit to accuracy (e.g 40% becomes 20%). Does this means that zombie with skill should get +50% in unlit places (maxed out claws: 50% becomes 75%) and -50% when genny is on? I would like to know specific number.
• What about hit rates against barricades, generators? Those will also change by default and it will have big impact. Hitting working generator will be much harder thanks to penality to hit rates in lit building. On other hand with improved hit rates outside, taking barricades will be easier.
• What about tangling grasp? With increased hit rates you get bigger chance of getting and maintaining grasp. I would guess that with big enaugh change, you could take grasp for taken, which would work just as even bigger boost.

That should do for the moment, there are other issues, for time being lets just disscuss this. --Labla 19:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

---

On the people standing outside-what was implied was that many of the zombies come across survivors who forget to check their AP and as a result AP out on the street before making it to a safehouse.Most lower level lone zombies rely on these survivor's for their XP(i know i did)but the main problem was the lower accuracy on the streets which lead to a wastage of AP.So by Buying the skill "dark seeking"you can increase accuracy and reduce AP wastage.

Genny killing-its just an option to kill the genny(survivors fight in the dark even though there is a reduce in accuracy,same principal here)the zombie can also resort to dragging survivors out onto the streets if necessary. PAYNETRAIN 09:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Decaying barricades

Timestamp: Labla 13:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Type: Barricade change

Scope: Everyone

Description: Add slow decay of barricades to unattended buildings, making over-barricades ghost towns at least useful to new players. Rationale Urban Dead player base is shrinking with each day, which has great impact on the game. Suburbs without large buildings (Malls) or/and organized active groups become desolated. This in turn leads to creation of over-barricaded ghost towns in many cases. In normal condition zombies would work like savanna wildfire, ruining suburb from time to time (and later survivors would reclaim red part of the city). This doesn't necessary happens, in some part of the Malton it is hard to find a single zombie or numbers are so low, that ferals have very low impact. This is natural as predators follow their pray, which leads to clustered player activity in UD. What is the bad part? Barricades in desolated areas stay the same or goes up thanks to Fiddler's Green Syndrome. It is hard to find any use for those places, beside huge free running lanes. New players will avoid this area - finding a safe house can be close to impossible. Experienced survivors will also have hard time finding entry point. Same goes for zombies, EHB and small food supplies just drives them off. At least in case of completely ruined suburbs, there are mobile groups and also unaffiliated survivors who enjoy reclaiming this type of terrain. So what we can do with over-barricades ghost towns? Solution Add slow decay to unattended buildings. Barricades should go down after some time. Keep in mind that main beneficents should be new players. Buildings with lower barricades make good safe-house for new survivors. They are also easier to open up for zombies. Possible problems Finding right balance, it is a double edged sword. Example: negative impact of too fast decaying barricades will not be limited only to survivors - think pinata tactics. Mechanics This is part I would like discuss, before submission. Barricades are central part in UD mechanics and even slight change can have great impact. I wouldn't be surprised if I missed something crucial, leaving a loophole. Bellow you will find the very first draft. After 3 weeks without touching barricades, decay should kick in. If building is empty at the time, barricade should go down a one level per day. Decay stops when someone rebarricades building (successful attempt) or barricade level reaches VSB+0. This means that building at EHB+2 would drop to VSB+0 in about a month. Why VSB+0? I picked up this level, because it is used at rot revive clinics as good compromise. Provides some security, on other hand it can be taken by zombies pretty easy.

Discussion (Decaying barricades)

Great idea. It'll have no impact at all on suburbs that are being hotly contested, but for suburbs that have been largely abandoned, it should help to make things easier for both sides, since new survivors will spawn there more often (they only spawn in VSB buildings) and newbie zombies will see VSB cades and know that they can actually have a hope of taking them down and getting inside. Plus, it'll avoid Fiddler's Green, as you said, meaning that entry points should be easier to find in those suburbs. —Aichon— 16:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It may have been suggested before, I will eventually check. Also, welcome to Developing suggestions, feel free to ask any questions, and using the comments box on your edit to ask for help is always a genius move. Well played sir. --Rosslessness 17:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It was suggested before, probably more than once e.g.: Suggestion:20091010_Barricades_Degrade_With_Time. Not sure if different rationale and better, more specific description is enaugh to not get duped. --Labla 18:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the mechanic, but I would prefer something that actually reduced the playing area rather than (as this seems to) increasing it. There's a reason a number of suburbs are effectively abandoned, and it's because the player base has shrunk. Having new players spawn in useful but practically empty suburbs probably isn't the best thing. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 18:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Same mechanic, just one ransack on top of that and new players won't spawn there. --Labla 18:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

out of box thinking I know, but how about any building with a repair cost above x, has all their barricades destroyed? The decay description could be modified to reflect this.--Rosslessness 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

So, you'd essentially wear down pinata barricades over time? Yeah, I could go for that as well. —Aichon— 19:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue of overcading of repaired buildings in green(ish) suburbs is a bigger one that that of piñatas. Although I assume the suggestion as presented here would affect both equally. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the piñata is a viable tactic, and I don't wish to damage it, however, in my experience they're almost impossible to maintain. A single life cultist can easily break them down, so a high decay value wouldn't mess with them imo. As for green areas, it's more tricky. Maybe a "Maintain barricades" button for 0ap? A decay rate and description for cades? I just want to keep it simple. --Rosslessness 20:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't put in a "Maintain Barricades" button that doesn't seem to do anything. I'd just put in some flavor text along the lines of, "The building has been very heavily barricaded. The barricades are dusty after weeks of being untended and are starting to come apart." Something like that would tell people both what was causing the issue (leaving them alone for weeks) and how they can fix it (tend to them). —Aichon— 22:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello!

• Suggestion comments. The mechanism for barricade decay probably won't make sense. Sometimes it's okay to have things not make sense in Urban Dead, as long as it makes sense for it to not make sense. For example, the existence of zombies, revification syringes, magic self-surgery.
• Other comments. The real problem with barricades is that they're boring. It's not gamemechanic-imbalanced (though arguably gamefun-imbalanced). Barricades prevent the two sides from interacting most of the time. Barricades don't interact with anything and they're not interactive. They don't come back to shoot you after you break them down, nor do they rise up to bite you from under your feet. They don't say anything, and they don't move. They block zombies from eating survivors and survivors from being eaten by zombies. The main excitement of the game is the two sides interacting.

Barricades are boring. I don't have a solution.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

The following are suggestions that were developed here but have since gone to voting. The discussions that were taking place here have been moved to the pages linked below.

There are currently no suggestions up for voting.