Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

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

Further Discussion

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

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Please Read Before Posting

• Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe, or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.
• Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.
• It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.
• With the advent of new game updates, users are requested to allow some time for the game and community to adjust to these changes before suggesting alterations.

How To Make a Suggestion

Format for Suggestions under development

Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header "Suggestions", paste the copied text above the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in red with the details of your suggestion.

===Suggestion===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=~~~~
|suggest_type=Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.
|suggest_scope=Who or what it applies to.
|suggest_description=Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Suggestion Name)====
----

Cycling Suggestions

Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit.

This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the Overflow-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.

The following suggestions are currently on the Overflow page: No suggestions are currently in overflow.

If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the {{SNRV|X}} at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.

---

Suggestions

Narrow the Quarantine

Timestamp:	Murray Jay Suskind 18:33, 17 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Everybody
Description:	I know this is going to rain hell-fire upon me as I'll be suggesting that somebody's favorite suburb disappears, but Malton is far too big right now. We have 10,000 square blocks for 28,000 players (and about 15,000 of them are active daily). At a given moment there are about 12-15k standing survivors. This means that there is an average of 150 standing survivors (being generous) in a suburb. Obviously the distribution is unequal. However, this means that there's a large number of suburbs that are functionally abandoned. Additionally, the average suburb has absolutely no hope of standing up to a zombie horde like the Ridleybank Resistance Front, Mall Tour, or Militant Order of Barhah. Even if the average suburb crammed every single survivor into one building, that would only even out the numbers, which still isn't a winning proposition with coordinated zombies and barricade obstruction. Even in relatively well-populated areas of Malton, there still aren't enough survivors to defend against well-coordinated zombies. For instance, almost every single mall in the game will have a population distribution of roughly 75, 25, 30, 15. Even if survivors ran a proper distributed defense, this generic mall doesn't stand a prayer against a well-coordinated zombie horde. Then there's the impact upon the game being too spread out upon the feral zombie. There are roughly 9,000 standing zombies. About 1,000 of them are active metagamers (ie. members of an organized horde that's on the stats page). Let's say another 3,000 aren't active everyday or are level 1's about to idle out. That leaves about 5,000 true feral zombie players (and that's being generous). That's only 50 feral zombies per suburb. It may sound like a lot, but if they're not coordinating then there's not going to be the same kind of specific targeting you get with the organized hordes, with only one (maybe two) ferals active in an area at a given time, they aren't going to break into an EHB building and if they do, it's going to be small enough that they can't obstruct the barricades to any effect. Essentially the feral zombie is completely alone and powerless unless they happen to be in the same suburb that a large horde is targeting, and even then they're going to have a hard time following them because of how quickly the organized hordes are gobbling up suburbs. All of this is a long way of saying that the quarantine zone in Malton needs to close in somewhat. I personally feel that the game would greatly benefit if Malton were reduced from a 10x10 suburb map into a 6x6 suburb map. Simply make the corner suburbs Darvall Heights, Santlerville, Gulsonside, and South Blythville. I know, I know... but I'm tearing up Creedy!?! I'm cutting Caiger in Half!?! I'm getting rid of Giddings and Perryn!?! I'm daring to completely do away with (insert your group's suburb here)!?! Yes. That is exactly what I'm proposing. If we get rid of 9 malls, all of a sudden we'll see the density of the population surge in the rest. If we get rid of 64 suburbs, the density of players in the rest of Malton suddenly increases three-fold. Survivors would suddenly be able to meatsheild again. Ferals would suddenly be in groaning distance of other ferals and create more organic break-ins. Large zombie hordes would have to chew their way through some suburbs building by building again. Survivors would be close enough to one another to, you know, help each other in case of zombie attack. This game needs a kick-start. I know it's asking a lot to abandon the sentimental attachments to certain places, but things are more fun if you have more people you're playing with. If we share a smaller area, then suddenly we've got a lot more neighbors to play with. Anyway, discuss.

---

Anger, Rage, Berserk

Timestamp:	Sorakairi 13:40, 17 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	new MoL skills
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	This is 3 new skills, like a sub-sub skill. You buy Anger as a skill, which gets you able to buy Rage, then Berserk. Now, explaining. Anger works when you reach 15HP, where you get an attack boost of 1 but accuracy deboost of 5%. Rage activates when you reach 7-10 HP, and does the same thing, except you get an accuracy decrease of 5% so you have a decrease of 10%. Berserk activates at 3HP, where you become unable to choose who to attack, but have a 3rd attack boost of 1. You also have to be taken down to negative 5HP to be killed.

Discussion (Anger, Rage, Beserk)

If you don't like it, tell me why and I'll try to fix it. I'm also going to do other Emotions, like Happy, if this one is liked. Sorakairi 13:40, 17 April 2009 (BST)

I just don't understand this idea at all. For one thing, I'm not ever active when my HP is getting whacked down. And if I were active, how does it make sense to lose control of my target? I just don't get it at all. --Winton 16:10, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Er... -5 HP? That makes all kinds of not-sense. *fixes Discussion title* Also, as Winton, how often are you active when you're attacked - and of that, how often are you able to attack back in the 0-15 HP range? You die pretty darn fast in real-time! --18:10, 17 April 2009 (BST)

---

Gain More AP skills

Timestamp:	Tigerfam1 03:27, 17 April 2009 (BST)[User:Tigerfam1][Tigerfam1]
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Everyone except the science class.
Description:	Everyone regains their Ap every hour, but only one point is given.There should be an AP skill that would make the regain process quicker like 2 to 5 more AP evry hour. Another skill should be added with the ability to regain your AP fully over the course of 1 to 2 weeks, but you still get AP hourly, however you get one point every 5 hours. I'm constantly running out of AP and so are others. In theory this should balance out.

Discussion (Gain More AP skills)

The problem with putting a curve on AP recovery is that in inherently favors people who have been in the game longer, and puts newbs - who come almost toothless anyway - at an even worse disadvantage. -CaptainVideo 04:10, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Always running out of AP? This is a game designed to be played a little bit each day - not "Oh man! It's been six hours since I last logged in!!!" That's what Q2019 is for, if you're interested. The reason we don't alter how AP regen works is because it's a huge balance quandary and it works fine the way it is. That, and people are very used to it. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:58, 17 April 2009 (BST)

the game is supposed to be slow. it's not an FPS. 50 ap is balanced to keep people from doing too much in a turn. please read the dos and don'ts. also, WTF would you screw scientists in this suggestion??? --WanYao 12:12, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Two things:We regain AP at two an hour, not one. and also, denying Scientists the skill insinuates that you are creating class-specific skills, which is a big no-no. Oh, and there's the 'mess with AP' thing. All in all, this suggestion just couldn't be done. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 12:44, 17 April 2009 (BST)

---

Body Drag

Timestamp:	Baz Baziah 20:21, 16 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill but with possible balance change
Scope:	Humans.
Description:	Humans can currently dump bodies from within buildings to avoid the usual stand and attack routine, but there is nothing to stop the "Body" once dumped from standing up as a zombie and immediately break back into the building. Allowing a human player a new skill of "Body dragging" which would for a cost of additional AP's -say 1 or 2 per block or based on there current Encumbrance total, allow them to drag a dead body away from the block it is currently located in to another, each additional block would cost the same number of AP's as the first. You would do this in the "Real world" so why not in Malton ?

Discussion (Body Dragging)

And the zombie could still stand right back up and move somewhere else. I don't like the idea of having someone move me 20 blocks away for the hell of it (or with a zerging alt), either. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:28, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Then add the zerging mod to the AP cost to do such things. As for being moved, your dead you have no say in what happens to you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baz Baziah (talk • contribs) 20:38, 16 April 2009 (BST).

This may well fall under the "pied piper" rule, most people disagree with the idea of moving bodies, any further than tossing them from the window. I have also seen many suggestions like this before, most of which have been shot down. --Lord Evans 23:47, 16 April 2009 (BST)

This has been suggested a LOT and I don't feel like looking up the dupes at the moment. Body Dumping and Fireman's Carry have strict rules around them. That's what makes them work (well when he implements Fireman's Carry). Realism only goes so far. In reality zombies DON'T get up when you "kill" them. In the real world you would burn the bodies (or bury them). We can't do that here. Maybe if zombies were NPCs. But they aren't. this would be too easily abused.--Pesatyel 03:14, 17 April 2009 (BST)

This would be cool if we had PERMA-DEATH. Then you'd have to move the dead bodies and burn them and stuff or there would be penalties for DISEASE from all the rotting bodies. We could also have rules for PERMA-RUIN then and the game would be 10 times cooler. We need a HARDCORE city for players with BALLS. Then we could get some of these cool ideas in.--Zombie Lord 05:09, 17 April 2009 (BST)

mini pied piper. and dupe-o-rama. also... "there is nothing to stop the "Body" once dumped from standing up as a zombie and immediately break back into the building".... well, yeah, EXACTLY, dude. they're fucking ZOMBIES, didn't you notice? --WanYao 12:15, 17 April 2009 (BST)

---

Zombies are Scary to Move Through

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 17:23, 16 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement.
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Any time a Survivor tries to enter a square with 10 or more Zombies in it requires some fancy dodge moves to make it through. For every 10 Zombies in the square it costs +1 AP to move there. So, 10 zombies, +1 AP, 20 zombies, +2 AP and so on. Also, there is a 10% chance that a Survivor is forced back their original square by the Zombies and still loses all the AP for the try. This is 10% for 10 or more zombies so even if there are 100 zombies, it's still 10%. Squares with 9 or less Zombies don't cause any effect on movement. Zombies are not afraid of Survivors so they don't suffer any penalty for moving through them.

Discussion (Zombies are Scary to Move Through)

This definitely needs a cap on the amount of extra ap survivors have to spend if it were to go through at all. --Johnny Bass 17:26, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Maye not if it's outside only, since you would always have the choice and know the odds.--Zombie Lord 17:49, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I don't like the possibility of moving into a building occupied by 50 zombies - "Oops, that just cost you 6 AP with no warning!" And since we can't have X-ray vision, I don't know how you're going to roundabout this except by making this outdoors-only or something. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:41, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, moving in and out of buildings wouldn't count. Neither would FreeRunning since you could run across the bridges pretty easy without zombies getting in your way. So outside only.--Zombie Lord 17:48, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Well, it could apply only to actions involved in moving out of a packed location irregardless of if it is indoors or outdoors. That way, they player might be a little more careful in where they run to. Or perhaps it could be for entering a building that has a large number of zombies outside of it. Just some thoughts. --Johnny Bass 18:06, 16 April 2009 (BST)

So, when would it count?--Pesatyel 03:07, 17 April 2009 (BST)

It would appear simpler to have it if you moved OUT of a square with lots of zombies. I also think fewer , larger steps, say 0-10, 11-20 20-40 41+--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:30, 16 April 2009 (BST)

That sounds cool. Ok, so it's when you move out of a square that it counts. That way you could have it work inside and outside and with FreeRunning. How about Johnny's cap idea with +5 AP as the cap, plus we throw in it's a 5% chance to be "held up" per 10 zombies with a cap of 25%.--Zombie Lord 05:02, 17 April 2009 (BST)

there needs to be a cap. also, why wouldn't it apply to inside, too? i think it should. this suggestion isn't quite "there", but i like the idea. develop it more thoroughly. --WanYao 12:18, 17 April 2009 (BST)

---

The Happy Clown

Timestamp:	Sorakairi 14:04, 16 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Just Fun
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	Somehow, by some form of Happy Clownery, a clown has managed to get into Malton. He now wanders the streets, handing out balloons to those who speak to him. He is impervious to attacks, as Humans attacking him get the message, "His happiness radiates off, and makes you wonder why you attacked him, stopping you." Zombies get the message "As you attack, the Clown does a trick. You stop, amazed, and forget to attack." When you speak to him, he gives you a balloon. This balloon is useless, except that you can pop it in someone's face doing no damage at 100% accuracy, like a newspaper. You can only have 1 balloon at a time. Also, The Happy Clown is mute, as in he can laugh etc. but not speak. The Happy Clown will leave, as he moves from one end of Malton to the other, entering through one border and exiting through the opposite border.

Discussion(The Happy Clown)

Hooray for clowns! Sorakairi 14:04, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Humorous Suggestions is <-- that way. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:08, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I know that, this wasn't meant to be humourous. It was meant to be fun. Which is the same thing, I guess. But anyway, I just thought that people might like a change from constant killing. I mean, clowns are awesome. Everyone likes clowns, right? Sorakairi 14:24, 16 April 2009 (BST)

How about clown biker ninja nuns riding in horse drawn zeplins instead???  Swiers 15:05, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I'm torn. I like this idea - it feels like an Elvis sighting - but it's out of step with a game populated entirely by human-driven characters. -CaptainVideo 23:57, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, most people I know hate clowns. You'd have a lot of people just trying to kill his ass (whether they could or not0.--Pesatyel 02:47, 17 April 2009 (BST)

/me hates clowns --WanYao 12:19, 17 April 2009 (BST)

well, then i guess its no good. Ohs wells. I will type my Zombie MoL skill now. Sorakairi 13:26, 17 April 2009 (BST)

---

Oops!

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 13:11, 14 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	'Improvement'
Scope:	Greedy survivors
Description:	Whenever a survivor who has a total encumberance rating of over 100% dies, they have a X% chance to lose their biggest item (read: item with the most encumberance), where X is the number by which you have exceeded the 100% encumberance marker.

Discussion (Oops!)

This will create an uproar. Might I suggest an extra AP to stand up? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:31, 14 April 2009 (BST)

I don't think the fifth generator really makes that much of a difference to the four I can stand up with and carry without any trouble. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:07, 14 April 2009 (BST)

I'm not sure which way your leaning with your comment. If your saying its ok to lose the "fifth generator" maybe, but what about your ONLY generator? Or are you saying that encumberance is irrelevant to your ability to stand.--Pesatyel 03:17, 15 April 2009 (BST)

No, it's neither of those. Am I really that unclear or is it just you? What I'm saying here is that why would the fifth be a problem, when four wouldn't? Though strictly speaking, even five generators wouldn't be a problem, you'd have to have some other stuff in addition to those five for it to be a problem. The inventory system is really unrealistic, this wouldn't fix that. This would just annoy people. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:55, 15 April 2009 (BST)

No, I think you clarified things. I agree, this wouldn't really help the inventory system.--Pesatyel 04:19, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I agree with gnome.--xoxo 06:49, 15 April 2009 (BST)

I like this, it seems altogether reasonable that a zombie is not going to struggle about hauling the extra weight that making it such a small chance even seems nice! It would cause uproar though. --Honestmistake 08:14, 15 April 2009 (BST)

At best, I'd say the character would would get to CHOSE which item(s) to lose to get under 100%.--Pesatyel 04:19, 16 April 2009 (BST)

While it does make sense, anything that serves to create a hindrance for survivors that wasn't previously present won't make it past voting. Think about trying to explain that rationale in the update. "Survivors across the map suddenly got weaker and...." I can't really think of a good way of explaining it via the update screen. --Johnny Bass 16:50, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I generally think the punishment for breaching the 100% encumbrance limit is merely that you can't get any more items, but despite my basic and boring opinion of the encumbrance system, I would probably vouch for either Blake or AHLG's ideas towards this. However, it might just be more basic and logical if you propose that people simply can't breach 100%. Although I am certain thats a dupe. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 13:39, 17 April 2009 (BST)

---

Over Emcumbered Slows You down

Timestamp:	Alex1guy 10:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	What I am suggesting is inspired from Fallout 3. When you are over encumbered (101% and up) it should cost 2 AP to perform an action as all the stuff on your back makes it difficult to move, shoot, hit etc.This would encourage survivors to take more care about what they carry and would stop people who are 99% encumbered, to suddenly be able carry an extra generator at virtually no cost.

Over Emcumbered Slows You down

Dupish -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:11 14 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, it ISN'T a dupe. Working Load applied only to movement. This applies to ALL actions. That having been said, neither is a good idea, of course. The former got into Peer Rejected. NO way in HELL this will pass.--Pesatyel 02:50, 14 April 2009 (BST)

How is this an "improvement"? Suggestions are to strive to make the game more fun. I actually think we should introduce a NEW category of suggestions. Said category would be ideas in which players could VOLUNTARILY make the game harder on themselves without affecting or forcing others to do the same. This idea would qualify. I could have a toggle on my profile that would "activate" this idea for my character.--Pesatyel 02:50, 14 April 2009 (BST)

Makes total sense, adds somewhat to realism, and isn't worth bothering with. The ability to exceed encumbrance isn't a big deal, especially considering how unrealistic the ability to carry all the crap within the encumbrance limit is. But unlike Pesatyel, I don't think things have to be helpful to be improvements, and like seeing suggestions like this.--Necrofeelinya 08:30, 14 April 2009 (BST)

That DOESN'T say how this is an improvement. Realism should help a suggestion make sense, not be the sole reason for it. Also, WHERE did I say it had to be helpful? I said "suggestions should stive to make the game more FUN". DON'T put words in people's mouths. And, as a matter of fact if you actually read my post, I said suggestions like this COULD be a part of the game.--Pesatyel 03:22, 15 April 2009 (BST)

It isn't much of an improvement, or I wouldn't have said "isn't worth bothering with", though the notion that realism isn't sufficient reason for a suggestion is an opinion I don't necessarily share with you, particularly if added realism makes the game more fun for others. Maybe that difference in our perceptions of what might be "fun" is what gives me the impression that you prefer your suggestions to be beneficial. And sorry I overlooked your rant about how this "COULD be a part of the game" as long as players are given the option to "VOLUNTARILY make the game harder on themselves without affecting or forcing others to do the same" as part of "a NEW category of suggestions". I took it for sarcasm. Apparently you were serious. Nice use of caps, btw. --Necrofeelinya 04:52, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Overreacted a little perhaps. Thing is that this IS just a game, one that most people only play for, what, 5 minutes a day? Why make it harder on others, unnecessarily? I'm all for the game being more realistic, but realism only goes so far before it infringes on the the fun/enjoyability of others. And thats where the limited play time comes in. I said realism shouldn't be only reason for a suggestion, not that it shouldn't be included (or that it wasn't necessary). You say "realism will make the game more fun for others" In what way, given this suggestion? Shouldn't it make it fun for YOU too? How does this particular suggestion make it fun for others? And, as you said you took my idea as "sarcasm" am I to take it you dislike the idea?--Pesatyel 06:57, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Like I said, I don't share the view that realism alone isn't enough reason for a suggestion. I think it can be reason enough, if it doesn't complicate game play. I just don't want to discourage suggestions which, like this, are mainly based upon added realism. But no, I don't support this since the amount of crap players can carry well within encumbrance w/o movement penalties is unrealistic to begin with, so this doesn't really add realism. The AP penalty doesn't make sense because of that, and would just be an annoyance that people would have to deal with, since it'd just lead to people wasting time trying to max out their inventories without penalty. But I like that he tried, and I think maybe there might at some point be a place for something like this, if it were radically different, fit the game better, and people actually wanted it, which nobody does.--Necrofeelinya 09:32, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, I meant my idea about a new group of suggestions where a player can voluntarily make the game "harder" for themselves without forcing other players to take the same limitations/quirks.--Pesatyel 04:25, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Like Diablo's Hardcore mode or a Hardcore city! I'd actually be interested in such a thing. Harder for both sides, that is. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:31, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Might not be a bad idea. The best time I've had in Urban Dead has been in the early stages of Borehamwood or Monroeville, and I've wanted to see that kind of hardcore map made a more permanent, workable feature anyway, but there might be a way to introduce a hardcore element to Malton. Check my suggestion for the "Harman" class in Humorous Suggestions to get one notion of how it might work, for humans anyway. : ) --Necrofeelinya 07:40, 16 April 2009 (BST)

what i get in a search is random. i could be over-encumbered against my will. --WanYao 19:43, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Then throw some stuff out. Don't be greedy now. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 13:40, 17 April 2009 (BST)

---

Seperate groups for seperate states

Timestamp:	A Zombie Talk 23:08, 13 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Minor profile change
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	Currently, if someone is Dual-Natured, they either have to be a loner/feral or leave their group everytime they die or get revived. This is kinda annoying, and seems odd, from a realistic perspective. Just because I'm in a survivor group when I'm alive doesn't mean I can't join a horde when I'm dead. Therefore, I think that there should be two group boxes, one for Survivor and one for Zombie, just like for descriptions. Only the active group would be counted, so If I'm in the RRF and I get revived, I would no longer add to the user count for that group, until I managed to die. If you don't want to do this, you could just have the same group in both slots. Any questions?

Discussion (Seperate groups for seperate states)

Not a bad idea really, but so minor I wonder if Kevan would bother to code it.--Necrofeelinya 23:22, 13 April 2009 (BST)

As above, I think it's a good idea though --Alex1guy 10:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmh.. dunno. Can't you just change the group in your box? Such as: You join RRF and DEM. You get killed, write RRF. You get revived, write DEM. :/ --Janus ^talk 23:52, 13 April 2009 (BST)

I think I remember seeing something like this before...like. Oh, I don't know. This? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 00:33, 14 April 2009 (BST)

Ah. Do I delete this or just let it fade then?--A Zombie ^Talk 00:44, 14 April 2009 (BST)

Just let it fade into the world of nothingness. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 01:11, 14 April 2009 (BST)

Amidoinitrite? --Janus ^talk 01:32, 14 April 2009 (BST)

Huh. I thought it would be darker... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 01:52, 14 April 2009 (BST)

This seems like a fix for very lazy people. Just go to your settings and change it! Besides, this should really only be an issue for DUAL-NATURE characters, which is a small part of the UD population. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:55, 16 April 2009 (BST)

So small means insignificant? --Haliman - Talk 01:24, 17 April 2009 (BST)

actually dual nature play is growing all the time. look at the stats page. dual nature is how UD was intended to be played. it's anything but "insignifcant". there are also a few dual natured groups out there; the Dual Nature "group" itself isn't really a group but more a label for what amount to ferals playing in a certain style.

in any event there is no need for this, as others have said, it's just for lazy people, meh. --WanYao 12:23, 17 April 2009 (BST)

---

Civilian/Improvised Weapon Bonus

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 19:43, 12 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Civillians
Description:	"The civilians in Malton draw upon their pre-outbreak experience to better wield their improvised weapons." It is logical to assume that a civilian who plays golf three days a week is going to be able to swing a golf club more effectively than a soldier who is constantly training for armed combat or a scientist who studies in a lab all day. Civilian Class Players (Consumer/Cop/Fire-fighter) gain a 5% attack bonus to the following improvised weapons: Baseball Bat Beer/Wine Bottle Cricket Bat Fencing Foil Golf Club Hockey Stick Pool Cue Ski Pole Tennis Racket These weapons have no secondary purpose and are often discarded as soon as a player finds an axe of knife even if there is no bonus until they purchase proficiency. By giving them a minor bonus it increases their usefulness to civilians until they purchase axe/knife proficiency. In fact it makes some weapons more effective than the axe until they train in its use. To a fully developed player there is no noticeable effect on game play, but to low level civilians these weapons now have a use. Fire-fighters will still start of with the best melee capabilities and knifes will remain the most accurate weapon at all levels. This just provides the other weapon a purpose until they 'specialise' in the axe or knife. Arguments for every class being identical should note that scientists are 'unique' when it comes to books.

Discussion (Civilian/Improvised Weapon Bonus)

I do not care if scientists are slightly different. I did not vote for that, and think it should be changed. Existing flaws are not a justification for adding more. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:50, 12 April 2009 (BST)

I'm not using it for a justification, I'm just making a note of it for others. Aside from (and I'm guessing here) you wanting everybody to be identical is there any other constructive feedback? What I've tried to do is give potentially useless items a purpose with appropriate justification and balance. --Kamikazie-Bunny 23:27, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Constructive feedback: don't make it civilian-only. These are regular people we're talking about. They're pretty much just as likely to have experience with sports as military and science people. Other than that, no, at the moment I don't think there's much to change or add to this. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 00:14, 13 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, there is; this would make cricket bats and hockey sticks better than axes all the way until you get Axe Proficiency. Think what you're suggesting; a stick of wood would be better than a stick of wood with a sharp metal thingy at the end. I really don't think that's right. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 01:07, 13 April 2009 (BST)

Actually it WOULD be better than the axe, which is why you need the Axe Proficiency skill. It takes less skill to hit something with a club than with the sharp edge of an axe. An axe without the Axe Proficiency is, effectively, just a club because you don't really know how to "use it properly". Besides, that's the purpose behind the suggestion, to make the "other" weapons more useful if but for awhile.--Pesatyel 01:48, 13 April 2009 (BST)

Even if you don't hit with the sharp side, it's still a lump of metal at the end of the stick. I can accept the damage being equal until you learn to hit with the sharp side properly, but not that it's better than an axe. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 02:41, 13 April 2009 (BST)

The axe/knife is still a better weapon once you learn how to use it. Imagine this, you play tennis, you know how to swing the racket at your target and hit it (most of the time), suddenly someone gives you an axe to do the same task with... trying to do the same thing is going to be a lot more awkward, your not used to the size, weight and general feel of it. It's not until you've had a lot of practice/training that your going to be as/more proficient with it as a you were with a tennis racket (substitute terminology for a different item if it helps). --Kamikazie-Bunny 03:00, 13 April 2009 (BST)

It's quite different using something as a weapon than using it to hit a ball. As far as I know, tennis does not involve swinging the racket at another person. You're going to be awkward doing that anyway, regarless of whether you're doing it with a tennis racket or an axe. As for the other stuff, I hate to repeat myself, so I won't. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:04, 13 April 2009 (BST)

What about the length of pipe? Its a big hunk of metal. The reason the axe is dangerous is BECAUSE it has a blade. I'm not sure why Kevan decided to have the hockey stick have a higher damage, but since your hitting the target from, effectively, any part of the weapon it would stand to reason it would be easier to do then with a specific part.--Pesatyel 05:48, 13 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, no, it's not a big hunk of metal. It only weighs 4%, while the axe weighs 6%. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:15, 13 April 2009 (BST)

I think we're getting side tracked here, this suggestion does not have a direct effect on the damage a weapon deals, it effects the accuracy, if your used to using something you are more likely to be able to hit someone with it than a weapon you are not familiar with. I didn't include the pipe because it has a secondary purpose (barricading) and I may remove the bottle depending on what you lot think. --Kamikazie-Bunny 15:59, 13 April 2009 (BST)

"It is logical to assume that a civilian who plays golf three days a week is going to be able to swing a golf club more effectively than a soldier who is constantly training for armed combat or a scientist who studies in a lab all day." - Fallacious premise, GIGO. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:28, 13 April 2009 (BST)

I'm not sure what you find so fallacious about this premise? I wouldn't say it's a misconjecture that a police officer or teacher has easier access (both geographically and chronologically) to the facilities where they could practice their golf techniques than military personnel who are likely to be deployed on a base/training operation. --Kamikazie-Bunny 15:59, 13 April 2009 (BST)

Practising with something that can be utilised as a weapon does not equal weapons practise. I will concede that a fat CEO will have a better golf swing than a soldier, but a golf swing isn't really a combat technique, not unless you're going to saunter over to a zombie and then set up your swing and take out its ankle....

Let us look at the pool cue, that you included in the suggestion, how in any way is the cueing action a valid combat technique? I'll concede that the pool team downstairs have a better cueing action than me (well some of them at least), but in a combat situation I'm not going to set down my bridge (because there'd be nothing to rest on) and strike the zombie with a smooth cueing action, I'm falling back on my Iai.

How do bottles get on this list? 99.9% of 'civilians' only ever move the bottle from the bar to their mouth. How is action combat effective? Why do you presuppose they do this action more than soldiers? Clearly you've never gone drinking with Paras....

Practise does not equal combat effectiveness regardless of whatever you're practising or calling your practise. Alive training is the key to effectiveness, not the appearance of combat. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:37, 13 April 2009 (BST)

By your logic, Military-class players should get +5% to firearms accuracy (or civilians get 5% less, but there should be a difference) and Scientist-class players should be able to revive with only 8 or 9 AP instead of 10. Nay I say! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:03, 13 April 2009 (BST)

---

Overgrown Parks

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 19:06, 12 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Parks
Description:	Humanity may be dying but the parks are still alive. I suggest that as time goes on the park becomes more and more overgrown with weeds and wild bushes. Every day a park would become slightly more overgrown, just like a ruined building decaying. This would be visible two ways: The location description, which would go from "neatly manicured lawns" all the way to total overgrown wilderness. The color of the square as seen on the map. When maintained it'd be very light green, becoming a progressively darker green as the weeds grow. After many weeks it'd be a green so dark it'd verge on black. There would be a tangible effect to this other than aesthetics. When a park is sufficiently overgrown, after about a week or so when it is rather dark green, you would not be able to see anyone standing in there from an adjacent square. Players in the park would also been unable to see anyone standing in adjacent squares. This would allow survivors and zombies to use overgrown parks as a hiding place. If a survivor has a fire axe they can clear up the park, which would cost 1AP for every day its been since it was last tended to. Unlike ruins the presence of zombies in a park would not prevent this, mainly because it is easier and faster to attack plants than rebuild a building. Some survivors might want to maintain parks so zombies can't lurk there. Or they may let them grow so stranded survivors can hide there. Parks would have tactical uses for both sides.

Discussion (Overgrown Parks)

1. It's an Okay suggestion, but you should have more detail on the levels of "overgrown-ness", like Ruin does. Also, the cost should be changed a bit, it should cost more than 1 AP, and should have a cap. (It would eventually lead to massive negative AP as is). Other than that, it's fine.--A Zombie ^{User Talk:Pharo2i2} 20:04, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Part of me wants to say yes but the potential clearing cost is too high, if there was a set cost (e.g. 5ap) it would win me over, as it stands having a constantly rising cost would be a major inconvenience. The benefits for survivors would be negated by zombies hiding in them, if anything it is an AP drain to survivors, they either have to enter to check for zombies or cut it down to prevent zombies hiding in there. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:05, 12 April 2009 (BST)

If "it is easier and faster to attack plants than rebuild a building", then why is the AP cost essentially the same? Also, I think it shouldn't be a gradual darkening. To be clear which state it is in, it should be light green for when you can see in/out, and dark when you can't. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:57, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Well how overgrown would it get? So as to make the square impassible? I'd imagine that, eventually, the overgrowth would stop simply because there isn't enough of what the plants need to keep growing.--Pesatyel 02:03, 13 April 2009 (BST)

I like this, but agree it should be a flat rate to trim plants. Also, could you pick out some swatches so we know how different the greens will be? There's a table at the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green -CaptainVideo 03:45, 13 April 2009 (BST)

Found a better selection here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_colors -CaptainVideo 03:48, 13 April 2009 (BST)

The one thing I don't like about it is the axe. I mean, who uses an axe for removing weeds, really? A knife or wirecutters would make more sense. --LaosOman 14:40, 13 April 2009 (BST)

A weed is just an undesired plant... a tree is a plant... but then again I doubt a tree would grow back in a week. :-) --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:04, 13 April 2009 (BST)

How about this:

Parks will have three stages. Light green, normal green, and dark green. Every three days a park will darken one stage, stopping at dark green.

Only dark green will block views in or out. Survivors with a knife (instead of an axe) can reduce it one degree lighter for a cost of 1AP for each level of park overgrowth. So to bring it from dark green to light green would cost 2AP.

You would not be able to bring a park to light green if there are any standing zombies. Instead you'd only be able to bring it from dark green to normal green. The AP cost would also increase by one for every zombie standing. You can still cut the plants, but spend AP dodging the zombies. So if there are five standing zombies in a park that's at dark green, spending 6AP would bring it to normal green. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:56, 13 April 2009 (BST)

It seems much better to me. The knife change makes sense, but I'm assuming an Axe would still be usable, right? Also, why exactly wouldn't you be able to bring it to light green if there are zombies? I understand it might make it harder, but it should still be possible.--A Zombie ^Talk 21:21, 13 April 2009 (BST)

I'll endorse this, as long as you let people use axes and knives, and as long as you can clear parks even when there are zombies inside. -CaptainVideo 04:08, 14 April 2009 (BST)

How about using an axe to bring it down from dark green to normal green, and a knife to bring it down from normal green to light green? Use an axe for the wild overgrowth a knife can't cut through, and use a knife to remove those plants an axe is just not precise enough for. --LaosOman 19:35, 15 April 2009 (BST)

I'd accept that, but I think it would be better if you were allowed to use both for either, just for the sake of simplicity. -CaptainVideo 00:29, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I'd accept "both for either", but I think it'd be better if it depended on the level of overgrowth, for the sake of both realism and making the knife a bit more useful. Dog can decide which he likes best. --LaosOman 16:38, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I love this idea. More detail for various levels of overgrowth and I think you've got a winner. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:33, 15 April 2009 (BST)

I can help with that.

"You're in ____ Park, which has become totally choked with undergrowth. Vines and brambles prevent you from seeing more than a few feet in any direction."

"You're in ____ Park, which has reverted to the wild in the absence of human care. Tall weeds cover the pathways and vines have climbed up the benches. The plant life prevents you fro seeing the surrounding streets and buildings.

"You're in ____ Park, which is starting to return to its natural state. The grass is getting high and the shrubs are beginning to creep over the pathways.

"You're in ____ Park, which is starting to return to its natural state. The information kiosk has been gutted by fire, and several of the benches are broken.

"You're in ____ Park, which has been recently trimmed. The pathways are clear, and the shrubs have been pruned.

-CaptainVideo 01:06, 17 April 2009 (BST)

I still don't see any indication as to whether or not this affects movement. And if it does or it doesn't, that IS something that needs to be addressed.--Pesatyel 02:43, 17 April 2009 (BST)

The poster hasn't suggested any extra AP cost for movement. -CaptainVideo 04:23, 17 April 2009 (BST)

---

Further Axe Experience

Timestamp:	Roorgh 12:10, 10 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Another axe skill that survivors can get that comes after Axe Proficiency in the skill tree. It simply gives +10% with fire axe.

Discussion (Further Axe Experience)

I'm not wed to the particular name I've chosen, just what it represents. All this does is bring the axe up to par with the zombie claw in terms of chances to hit for both people (excluding the effect of Tangling Grasp) and barricades. I find it odd that survivors are at a disadvantge for all current melee weapons. As it stands a survivor needs on average of 50AP to kill a person with 60HP. I couldn't see anything with fire or axe in the title for previous suggestions for something like this which I found odd. If it's a dupe I apologise. --Roorgh 12:10, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Axes are useful because they don't require the survivor to waste AP on searches, they may be below par when compared with zombie claws, however the attack rates balance out when the higher firearm skills are bought, and a survivor can invest search AP by searching for lots of ammo and being able to kill multiple zombies (or survivors) in a sitting when fully stocked. Not all weapons should do equal damage -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:57 10 April 2009 (BST)

Yeh survivors can stockpile shotguns and pistols and have a 65% chance to hit and do 10 or 6 damage. Making axes more powerful would unbalance the game. 40% to hit is the trade-off for not having to find ammo, like the rules said. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 16:26, 10 April 2009 (BST)

It takes the axe from an average of 1.2 to 1.5, why does this unbalance the game so drastically when it doesn't even bring it up to a maxed out zombie? --Roorgh 15:33, 11 April 2009 (BST)

Barricades. Zombies have to break through barricades before being able to use their claws on you. Survivors can just walk outside and start chopping. If you don't have to waste time searching for ammo, then the trade of is that you do less damage with an axe -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:24 12 April 2009 (BST)

They still will be doing less damage, even if this suggestion was implemented. With the suggestion they could expect to kill a Flesh Rot zombie in 40AP, while now it's 50AP. For 48% encumbrance they can hold 8 pistols and 8 spare clips and they could expect to kill 2 zombies with Flesh Rot the first day and stand a good chance at two the next day too (but not by the averages due to reloading). It shifts in favour of the pistol even more if the zombie doesn't have a flak jacket or Flesh Rot. As for survivors running outside and killing zombies; people seem idiotic enough to do it already, would tweaking the axe make any difference? --Roorgh 11:38, 12 April 2009 (BST)

It's not only trenchies that go outside to kill zombies. Anyone looking to gain XP, especially newbies, do too. And an axe is the best way for newbies to level up via attack. Simply start as a firefighter, and buy one skill (H2HC), and you're set. Making a level 2 survivor anywhere near equal to the attack capacity of a maxed out zombie (Vigour Mortis + Death Grip + Rend Flesh + Tangling Grasp) is ridiculous -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:12 12 April 2009 (BST)

They wouldn't be equivalent to a maxed out zombie, they'd only be equivalent to zombie with Vigour Mortis, Death Grip and Rend Flesh. Tangling Grasp takes the average 1.5 HP claw damage that a zombie can do with the other skills and increases it to ~1.7. Also, as I said this would be an additional skill under Axe Proficiency, a new survivor would need to get this skill + Hand-to-Hand Combat before being equal, this both would need to be a level 3 character in the game. --Roorgh 14:11, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Zombies should be more proficient in mêlée combat than survivors. This goes for barricade-breaking too. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:14, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Why? I understand why zombies have to be able to break barricades at a reasonable rate, but why must zombies be better at melee combat? (which they would still be because of Tangling Grasp) --Roorgh 15:33, 11 April 2009 (BST)

Melee - yes, barricading breaking - no. There's no reason that zombies have to be better at it than survivors (better at the task maybe). --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:45, 11 April 2009 (BST)

It would also further relegate the other weapons to "non-use".--Pesatyel 21:05, 11 April 2009 (BST)

Do you mean other melee weapons, and if so have you looked at them? They are already completely pointless. The only one that even remotely has a chance is the knife, and even that requires an average of 60AP against a zombie with Flesh Rot or Body Building. --Roorgh 11:29, 12 April 2009 (BST)

That's exactly the point about the other melee weapons. They ARE, unfortunately, crap. But they ARE in the game, so I'd rather see them either removed or improved and I DON'T think making the axe more powerful is going to help. And, if you read I said "further relegate".--Pesatyel 12:02, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Well feel free to suggest alterations to the other melee weapons then :-) and I did see what you read. The fact is though that all the alternative melee weapons are already useless, so this suggestion doesn't actually relegate any of them to any status they hadn't already achieved by themselves. You could remove the axe from the game completely and it wouldn't change the fact that the majority of the other melee weapons are a complete waste of space - they all still would be even without the axe existing (people would simply shift to the not-as-good-as-an-axe knife). --Roorgh 14:26, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Knives are good newbie weapons, and the better accuracy is sometimes more desirable than high damage. It is not useless. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:33, 12 April 2009 (BST)

I did acknowledge that knifes weren't completely terrible later in that message though. Saying that it's only the case for a level 1 consumer, medic, scout or any of those from the scientist tree as the others have better starting skills. As soon as a survivor gets the Hand-to-Hand Combat skill the fire axe becomes the better weapon based on average damage. Of course the difference is small, so maybe some people will still favour the chance to hit of the knife over the additional damage over the axe. --Roorgh 15:04, 12 April 2009 (BST)

But there won't be any difference left between the accuracy of knife and fire axe with this. Both would be at 50%, making the knife useless to pretty much anyone except level 1 guys. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:13, 12 April 2009 (BST)

You're right, but isn't the knife relegated anyway once a survivor has the choice between Knife or Axe Proficiency? The Axe has the better average damage. --Roorgh 15:24, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Average damage isn't everything. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:29, 12 April 2009 (BST)

To illustrate; your target is at 2 HP. Which would you rather use, a knife or an axe? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 02:48, 13 April 2009 (BST)

Depends on if you need the XP or not. You MIGHT do well to use a shotgun. But, of course, we are talking melee. If both weapons are equal (at 50%) then I'd use the axe if I needed XP. If not, then it doesn't really matter at all which weapon is used.--Pesatyel 05:59, 13 April 2009 (BST)

No, they're not equal. And yes, it does matter. If you use the axe, you have a 40% chance of hitting, meaning you shouldn't expect to hit them until your third try. Using the knife (at 50%) you can expect to hit on the second try. Both weapons kill the target, one is more accurate, the choice should be obvious. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:54, 13 April 2009 (BST)

That's a convenient argument. Increase the HP by 1 and you now have a completely different outcome. The axe and knife are tied for best weapon with each having an ideal purpose, my solution... carry both, it won't break your back! If you increase axe accuracy you pretty much destroy the point in having a knife once you gained the XP. --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:17, 13 April 2009 (BST)

You actually didn't read my post. We are talking about a suggestion that bumps the axe EQUAL to the knife in high percentage. If that is the case, the only qualifier is whether or not you need the XP. If you do, the axe is better for the extra point. If not, then it doesn't matter which you use because BOTH are at 50% to hit. If we AREN'T talking about this suggestion with your posts to which I was responding then your posts are moot and irrelevant.--Pesatyel 02:56, 14 April 2009 (BST) Unless, of course, *I* am misreading something, in which case this whole part of the discussion is a somewhat irrelevant tangent to the discussion of the suggestion.--Pesatyel 02:58, 14 April 2009 (BST)

I don't think you misread anything, you just didn't read the context. My point here is that, at the moment, knives are perfectly fine as last-blow weapons (weight only 2% but with higher accuracy). This suggestion would give axes the same accuracy, making knives entirely useless in that regard. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 07:37, 14 April 2009 (BST)

Not a chance. The axe already has enough value in that it is an everlasting weapon which requires no AP to be spent upon it after it is found. That's good enough. --Papa Moloch 21:26, 11 April 2009 (BST)

Surely you could use the same argument for any other of the melee weapons? yet they're all totally crap. It isn't a huge change I'm suggesting, just a minor one to give both sides a similar melee weapon. As zombies we still get to stand up and be zombies again so we still have that advantage. --Roorgh 11:29, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Can't you see that your fundamentally destroying the point of the Axe? If your concerned about the other melee weapons being so bad, then why not suggest buffing them? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 14:49, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Actually I can't, and if you can show me why I'll happily accept that, as long as you aren't going to say it unbalances the game with no further explanation. When I suggested this I saw it as a minor alteration to the game dynamics. The most powerful melee weapon that the survivors have is below that of the claws on a zombie. Survivors can't take down barricades as easily, nor can they kill a zombie as effectively. Firearms have the limitation of requiring ammo but I don't see the connection to melee weapons as to why that means they must all be less powerful than the melee weapons of a zombie. --Roorgh 15:17, 12 April 2009 (BST)

It's already been explained with these responses, the axe's role is as an ever-reliable melee weapon that survivors can rely on if they have no ammunition. It isn't supposed to be on par with the zombie's attacks, because the claws are their main weapon, as guns are survivors. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 15:48, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Can't what? Suggest ways to buff the other weapons? Why not? It isn't about "buffing them" its more about making them more useful and/or fun in some way. The knife is the newbie weapon, the pipe is the newbie barricader, the crowbar is intended for debarricading (which the axe is already better at and this idea would FURTHER scew the crowbar), the pool cue can break (which may or not make it "better" or "fun" but is, at least, something unique). So what's wrong with giving the other weapons something special?--Pesatyel 01:55, 13 April 2009 (BST)

tl;dnr. here's the skinny: axes are very powerful already. they're just not as fast if you play the typical survivor's loner game. you wanna know the trick to using them effectively? play like a zombie: en masse and with multi-player coordination. --WanYao 12:30, 17 April 2009 (BST)

---

Mornington Crescent

Timestamp:	--User:Fighting Irises 01:13, 10 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	etc.
Scope:	Who or what it applies to.
Description:	Okay this is kinda just of idea. If it is impossible to do just remove it. I think that the street in Morington that is Tanner Crescent, should be renamed to Mornignton Crescent. It is just a thought it could be impossible. I also I think it would be funny, thats all.--User:Fighting Irises 01:13, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Discussion (Mornington Crescent)

Could you clarify that? -CaptainVideo 02:23, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Er, yeah... you want to rename it because "it's impossible?" How's it impossible? Also, there's a place for humourous suggestions, haha. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:43, 10 April 2009 (BST)

This isn't humorous. At least I don't think so. He just wants a street renamed. Why? I have no idea. But it isn't a suggestion that hurts the game or anything. Its just...pointless.--Pesatyel 03:26, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Just to Clarify. I was wondering if it would be okay to rename that street as a suggestion. IF it is impossible then I just remove my post and we go on and forget about this. If it wouldn't terribly destroy the game, I was wondering if I could try suggesting it. The joke is that in the UK there was a radio programme that you won by being the first person to say Mornington Crescent. I know it is quite possibly a stupid idea I just enjoy the irony of it. The message could read. "You are on Mornington Crescent. Good Job you won." something like that. If this isn't a good idea. I will just remove this.--Fighting Irises 06:39, 10 April 2009 (BST)

I would whole heartedly support this if it was a station and you could only reach it via random journeys from another station as that would be far more in keeping with the radio show =D --Honestmistake 13:20, 10 April 2009 (BST)

You know I didn't really thing about the rail station. Although if this was made and implemented. It would have to be a crazy suicide action. Maybe 150Ap it try to get to Mornington Crescent. This would of course have to be something high like that in order to not over balance survivors with rapid transport around the city.--Fighting Irises 15:03, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Well a far more reasonable situation might be to announce the competition and have the 1st player to tag (or groan) in every station in the game (starting and finishing with Mornington) win the prize.... Of course I will call upon the '2009 U.D. rules addenda to the international (Commonwealth edition) rule set of 1984' to ensure that anyone coming close to completion must divert via Caiger and not leave until its ransacked! =D --Honestmistake 19:46, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Understandable why you chose 1984' rule set., but wouldn't 1972 be more appropriate? All players must start at Mornington and end in Mornington, while have to die in each rail station along the way? Maybe that would be to difficult though seeing is how player groups could spread out and kill their people and revive them as the arrive.=D, XD. (we should probably get back on focus) --Fighting Irises 23:12, 10 April 2009 (BST)

I'm pretty sure zombies weren't in the 1984 set. Not to mention, you can't perform a half-carruthers under the conditions that the 1972 needlessly forces on you. I'd say go for the 1999 Apocalypse edition; zombies are expected in those rules. --Sir Topaz ^{DR ♣ GR} 10:52, 13 April 2009 (BST)

---

SEAL THE ROOM!!!

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 16:31, 9 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.
Scope:	Who or what it applies to.
Description:	Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.

Survivors inside forts have began repairing the destroyed equipment in an attempt to protect themselves. The blast doors of the armoury can now be closed by survivors!

Closing the blast doors

In order to close the doors the armoury MUST:

• Be powered by an active generator.

and

• Un-Barricaded.

When these conditions are fulfilled a survivor who is inside the armoury may choose to seal the room at the cost of 15AP. All occupants will receive the message "Player X closed the blast doors."

Opening the blast doors

The armoury will automatically become unsealed if:

• The armoury loses power (the locks will automatically release), occupants receive the message "The blast doors automatically released."

or

• A survivor inside the armoury unseals the room at the cost of 15AP, occupants receive the message "Player X opened the blast doors."

Effects

• When the blast doors are sealed no player may enter or exit the armoury, this includes zombies and body dumping cannot be performed.
• The only way to contact players outside/inside the armoury will be via radio.
• Any players may bang on the armoury door for 1AP, players on the 'other side' receive the message You hear something banging on the blast doors.

If the armoury is un-barricaded the area description includes the text "The blast doors are open/closed."

Discussion (SEAL THE ROOM!!!)

Hopefully this will lead to situations where groups are sealed in during sieges and end up arguing with/killing each other about if they should go out or stay in! I know this is very rough around the edges so please help me improve in additon to saying yay/nay. --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:31, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Don't do this with forts. Do it with banks. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 17:55, 9 April 2009 (BST)

For the love of god, don't do this with any building. No building should be completely impossible to enter as zombies without the aid of cultists. This is a trenchie's wet dream. --Johnny Bass 18:03, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I kind of thought that too at first glance, but I've got to give him credit... it's got a default that unlocks the doors and leaves the place fully open if the genny loses power. I don't know if that's enough to make it passable, since it just means that people will crowd in there with fuel cans and flee as soon as they run out, but it does mean they have to come out eventually, if only for a moment. And not being able to use free running to get in or out is a plus, though I'd take away their ability to use radios on the premise that the walls would be too thick. If they're going to be this isolated, they shouldn't be able to communicate at all. But that wouldn't stop metagamers from keeping a zombie scout outside to let them know when the coast is clear to open up and grab more fuel cans, so I still think it has major flaws. In fact, you're probably right, it's a disaster waiting to happen. Unless you give zombies the option of somehow 'cading them in with outside junk, so that they all eventually expire after a certain number of hours when they run out of air. But zombies don't think that way. So maybe they all get poisoned from the carbon monoxide fumes of the genny, which they have no way of venting, and which they can't sense the effect of until it's too late and have no way of predicting how long it'll take for them to all die. That'd be kind of cool. Or we put a button on the outside of the building which zombies can use that turns the whole thing in to a giant duck press when pushed, but only works when there's a genny inside powering it. I dunno, there might be options.--Necrofeelinya 18:48, 9 April 2009 (BST)

So this would allow trenchies to seal themselves off from the rest of the game with nothing to do but congratulate themselves on how KEWL they are and butt-fuck each other in text? So exactly what is the downside except that you are making this an armoury only action instead of a bank...--Honestmistake 19:29, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Let's say some well organized survivors decide they don't fancy playing the game for a while. A group of ten takes over the armoury with plans for the long haul. Let's say on average each player has 8 fuel cans (80% encumberance) with the other 20%+ for whatever misc items they might want. (Some guy has a genny, another a radio, whatever). Between these 10 players, that's 80 fuel cans. Each can lasts 120 hours (5 days), so let's say the genny gets refueled reasonably efficiently, on average every 108 hours (4 and a half days). That's 8,640 hours of protection, or 360 days, basically they could hole up for a YEAR. Whew. Kinda defeats the point of playing the game there. --  RoosterDragon  19:50, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Yup, a very organised group of survivors could take an entire building out of the game for ages which means the armoury really shouldn't be considered. A bank on the other hand... well i doubt the zombies would care! One thing though that does occur... sealed rooms don't have ventilation so those inside should all die after a set time!!!--Honestmistake 23:10, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Oh, I LIKE that. But how would the zombies get out? They'd have to wait for the power to run out and the locks to pop. -CaptainVideo 23:24, 9 April 2009 (BST)

or they simply destroy the generator... --Roorgh 00:38, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Its a pretty original idea, if I dare say so. However there needs to be a way for zombies to get in on their own. Which would kinda defeat the purpose of blast doors since we already have barricades. Meh...--Thadeous Oakley 20:14, 9 April 2009 (BST)

I can't even begin to imagine how frustrating it would be as a zombie to know that my only hope for entering a building would be to wait months or years for the occupants to get bored or run out of fuel. Good lord if people manage to stock x-mas trees year round they could certainly load up on fuel. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 00:26, 10 April 2009 (BST)

I have to wonder if it's really so bad. The room trenchies could only attack when they come outside, just as they could only be attacked when they're outside. It sort of balances itself out. And since there aren't all that many banks, only a finite number of jerks could do this anyway. -CaptainVideo 00:32, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, it would be a week, presuming nobody refuels.--Pesatyel 03:35, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Actually if combined with my (sarcastic) air shortage idea this might work. Obviously Banks not armouries and make it apply only to a "vault" within that building. It should require separate power and if the outside gets ruined the air con cuts out and the air starts to run out thus forcing the idiots within to either open the door and run for it or die a slow horrible death! Just think of the joy zeds could have suffocating moron trenchies who happened to log off 10 mins before the attack and die before they next log in =D --Honestmistake 00:45, 10 April 2009 (BST)

That's the ONLY way this suggestion would remotely work. I'm not even sure WHY he suggested it....--Pesatyel 03:35, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Actually to make it even more funny it should be barricadable from the outside thus allowing the rest of us to trap people inside :D --Honestmistake 13:23, 10 April 2009 (BST)

An iron pipe through the opening wheel of the vault should do it >:) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:40 10 April 2009 (BST)

Seriously, no, no impenetrable barriers to pure zombie play, even in banks -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:40 10 April 2009 (BST)

If a player or players wanted to completely insulate himself from zombies and/or gameplay, wouldn't it be easier to just not log-in? --Winton 07:01, 11 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, but then you're liable to wake up dead. -CaptainVideo 07:52, 11 April 2009 (BST)

The reason why this wouldn't work is because there will be that one guy who seals himself in, idles out, and locks off the armoury to everyone else forever. --Haliman - Talk 01:28, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Maybe it would be a self-eliminating problem, like the need for wire cutters. -CaptainVideo 04:21, 17 April 2009 (BST)

---

Joint

Timestamp:	Necrofeelinya 08:46, 9 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Locations: Warehouses; Auto Repair Shops; Pubs; Barracks; Outside of Malls; Cinemas; Hotels; Junkyards; Police Departments; Stadiums; Clubs; Schools. Encumbrance: 2% When used, the player gets the message "You light up a fat, juicy spliff, and the aroma wafts through the room." Other players in the room get the message "(player) busts out a joint and gets his mellow on." The player that lit up is then at -20% attack, attackers get a +20% attack modifier against him, and every movement costs +1 AP, except for moves which don't take him out of the room, like drinking beers or talking, which still only cost 1 AP. The effect lasts for 6 hours. Doing this to yourself is fully voluntary, and would be something that characters basically do just for shits and giggles. Players entering a room where a joint has been lit up in the last hour will get a message as part of the room description that says "You detect a faint smell of marijuana", "The smell of weed hangs heavily in the air here", or "This place absolutely reeks of pot.", depending on how many joints have been lit up there in the last hour. If 1 has been smoked, the first message is seen, and appears to new entrants for one hour. If 2 have been smoked, the second message appears to new entrants for one hour, then the first message appears for another hour. 3 or more and the third message appears for one hour, then the second, then the third, for a maximum total of 3 hours after its use that it can be detected. Should the player smoke more than 1, the effects on attack are cumulative, until the player reaches 0% to hit with any weapon and a +100% to be hit by any attacker, but the AP cost increases significantly for movement, with an additional +2 for the second, +3 for the third, etc., cumulative. So if you smoke two joints you end up with a +3 AP cost to move, if you smoke 3 joints you're at +6, etc. The effects of duration overlap, so that if a player smokes a joint, then smokes another joint 3 hours later, they're only doubly impaired for three hours, and the 3 hours on either side of those they're singly impaired. This suggestion is semi-humorous, because I realize Kevan almost certainly wouldn't implement it since it involves introducing illegal drugs as a game feature, but in all honesty, I'd love to see it actually added. I'm all for it. Jah, mon.

Discussion (Joint)

BIG PROBLEM... How are we going to light them, we don't have matches... You also forgot about food, for when we get the munchies. --Kamikazie-Bunny 14:13, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Penalties should only be relieved by becoming a zombie and feeding on corpses or digesting someone ;) --Honestmistake 14:18, 9 April 2009 (BST)

But we still can't light the stuff, I suppose we could eat it... but then we wouldn't get the smell in the buildings. --Kamikazie-Bunny 14:26, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Shoot a flare past your face. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 17:57, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Excellent suggestion! Think we can get anyone to try it in real life?--Necrofeelinya 18:24, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Please don't spam this page up with stupid shit. If you don't mean it to be entirely serious, don't put it here.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:20, 9 April 2009 (BST)

So, should I take that as a confirmation of my suspicion that Kevan would not consider adding illegal drugs to the game? Because otherwise, it's a perfect pairing with my very serious suggestion on intoxication, and I'd gladly put it to a vote. And I'd bet a lot of people would go for it.--Necrofeelinya 18:22, 9 April 2009 (BST)

No, he won't. Peer Reviewed or not, it not only doesn't fit into the genre it's also just a big waste of time to code in. The intoxication one is valid, although it's been suggested before. This one is just a waste of time so druggies can have fun in the game because they're too broke to buy their weed in real life.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:55, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Behold everyone! We have now come to the end of this page's usefulness. Now that SA has revealed his ability to psychically tap into Kevan's mind we can do away with this whole system of peer review. Simply go to SA's talk page and submit your suggestions directly, SA will then channel Kevan as he has done here and categorically tell you whether your suggestion will be accepted or not.

He makes shit up on the admin pages, why should I expect any different here.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:03, 10 April 2009 (BST)

I make up this shit on the admin pages? Please do tell where I explicitly state Kevan's will like that anywhere on those pages. I use logic and understanding in my views. Kevan has never shown any pro-pot ideals as far as I know, and were he to it'd hurt his public image quite a bit. Not to mention how many users he'd lose if he were to implement something like this into the game. Though please, do go on about how we make shit up all the time. Especially seeing as how the shit I make up has saved your ass quite a few times, or I've tried to when I feel you haven't done anything wrong. No, really. Go on. Tell me how I make shit up. Tell me how I have two sets of rules, one for one group of people, one for another. Tell me how I'm such a bad sysop and I'm going against the communities wishes. Tell me how I fuck up constantly and I'm not punished because of my sysops buddies. Go ahead and tell me all the mistakes that all of us sysops supposedly make.

Whats that? You're not going to? You're just going to ignore my post again aren't you? Just like last time where I asked you nicely to help me learn where I have shown to have two different sets of rules. Sure, you could have possibly missed it, but with you being you, I doubt it.

You have nothing to show that I'm as "Bad as the rest of the sysops", admit it. You have no consistent and substantial proof showing how "We're oppressive", how we're "Going against the wishes of the community who gave us our power", how we're "Constantly breaking the rules for the sake of our sysops buddies".

Iscariot, I've tried to be as fair as I possibly could when it comes to you, despite the bullshit you say to me and about the way I do my job, but someday my patience is going to run out. So I'd cool it with the baseless accusations and bullshit you say, because someday there won't be people here who will treat you fairly. When that time comes, you're probably going to be banned for an honest mistake because for the longest time you've treated the rest of admin team like shit. Sometimes it's deserved, but not as often as you make it out to be.

Good luck with your time here Iscariot. You're probably going to need it.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:18, 11 April 2009 (BST)

I feel a more appropriate response would have been "Thank you for your contribution." At least his first bit was humourous. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:39, 11 April 2009 (BST)

Thank you for your input only works when you don't want to hear from them anymore. I'm more than willing to speak with Iscariot about this, I'd love nothing more than for him to finally show proof that we're fucking up as bad as he says. But you deal with him long enough (Hell, I haven't even been an 'op that long) and he tires you out.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:46, 11 April 2009 (BST)

So, does that mean you like the idea?--Necrofeelinya 05:44, 10 April 2009 (BST)

No he doesn't (oh look, I'm psychic too!), try putting this suggestion up for voting and watch how fast Iscariot gets you onto A/VB. He knows that SA is almost certainly right, he just doesn't like the fact that a user is still allowed to have an opinion once promoted to sysop -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:04 10 April 2009 (BST)

Well isn't that just typical of our admin team? A passive aggressive threat of "put this up for voting and I'll escalate you for vandalism", fucking typical. Coupled with the fact they now think they can speak for me as to my thoughts on something with absolutely no basis, must be why they rule on 'intent' so often and get it wrong. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:52, 10 April 2009 (BST)

You're so wrong it's hilarious. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:34, 10 April 2009 (BST)

*Opens the Wiki, all at once* My God! It's full of dicks! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:28, 11 April 2009 (BST)

I must say, I'm beginning to understand "doesn't fit into the genre" to be simply a catch-all phrase meaning "I don't like it", unless by genre your meaning is "family-friendly MMORPGs" that just happen to include unlimited alcohol abuse without repercussions, Penis spammers, and easy workarounds to allow use of profanity in-game. Drug-addled survivors seem very in-genre to me, and the suggestion doesn't glorify drug abuse, it punishes it, though it adds enough flavor to lure people into that mistake. But I get your point... if Kevan wouldn't consider implementing it, it's a waste of time. Regarding the Intoxication suggestion, you mentioned it's a dupe... would you say its effects are similar enough to previous suggestions that it would be pointless putting it up for a vote, or is it sufficiently different to make it worth a shot? Got any links so I might compare?--Necrofeelinya 20:32, 9 April 2009 (BST)

It's used like that by a lot of users here, but I try not to use it like that. I can't remember many Zombie movies/books/games where the survivors were lighting up a joint. I've seen abusing medications in a last ditch effort to stop bleeding, but no mary-j. That's why I say it's not in-genre. On intoxication, just search for alchohol. It's not exactly the same, but then again, once one person votes dupe and a link is given, people tend to sheep that vote. It may not even be similar enough to dupe it, but it's a totally possible outcome. I'd personally just vote kill, maybe spam.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:18, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Well, there was a bit of partying going on in the remake of Dawn of the Dead, though not specifically pot, and I thought Caitlin Kiernan might have written a short story or two where survivors were holed up in an apartment after a party where some debauchery had been going on, though I don't think that focused on actual use either, and though I've never read it, I understand the character in the book I Am Legend is a complete wastoid, though that technically involves vampires, not zombies. But I've always felt that when locked in tiny rooms with no forms of recreation, terrified out of your wits, unable to safely venture outside and without any hope for the future, drugs would be a popular option whenever available. And in a zombie infested city, pot could be one of many weeds that makes inroads into civilization as infrastructure crumbles, especially if interested survivors are Johnny Appleseeding the place, which wouldn't be such a bad idea since they could also use it as a renewable fabric resource, minor source of protein, and if they really tried hard, oil, as well as the fact that it's both a proven painkiller (more effective in some ways than the more prevalent hydrocodone/acetominophen blends and their related opiates) and antidepressant, both of which they'd have quite a call for and which it would supply to them absolutely free of charge with minimal if any care. But it would give them the munchies, and Fritos are scarce in Malton.--Necrofeelinya 05:10, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Geez, how could I forget Return of the Living Dead???? Of course they smoke pot in that! And that's one of the greatest and most famous zombie flicks of all time!!!--Necrofeelinya 09:20, 10 April 2009 (BST)

YUP LETS TOTALLY GO WITH IT AND WHILE WE ARE AT IT LETS ADD COKE! AND HEROINE! AND METH! Meth You gain 1103485% chance to kill your opponent outright and you can fly! I LOVE IT! --Alex1guy 10:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Um... are you sure you're not already on it?--Necrofeelinya 05:10, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Somebody had to test it. -CaptainVideo 07:34, 10 April 2009 (BST)

This should be with the humorous suggestions. Why is it here? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:29, 15 April 2009 (BST)

---

Intoxication

Timestamp:	Necrofeelinya 01:40, 9 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Item effect
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	When a player drinks a beer, that player is then at -5% to attack, and attackers get a +5% attack modifier against him for 1 hour. Drinking multiple beers has a cumulative effect on the attack modifiers. Drinking multiple beers also extends the duration of the effect... duration in hours = # of beers drunk minus hours passed since drinking. That is to say, if you drink a beer, the effect lasts for an hour, but if you drink another, the hour it takes for that one to disappear doesn't start to count down until the first one loses its effect. As each beer's effect dissipates, hour after hour, the modifiers to attack will successively decrease. If a player drinks 3 beers, they get a +1 AP modifier for all movements other than those that don't cause him to change position. Movements that would be immune to this would be actions such as talking or drinking more beer. Attacking would be the only action he takes while immobile that would be subject to this modifier. Every beer after the third increases the AP modifier by +1. All this could be the same for wine, unless you envision characters chugging an entire bottle of wine when they use that item, in which case it would merit different, bigger modifiers. After the player has had 6 beers, their speech begins to slur. Each successive beer makes their speech more slurred, and by the tenth they're incomprehensible. A notification on the players profile will show them as "refreshingly satisfied", "mildly inebriated", "lightly buzzed", "getting tipsy", "drunk", "seriously drunk", "about to hurl", "staggeringly wasted", "in need of a transfusion", "in need of an organ transplant", or "legally dead", depending on their degree of intoxication. For every beer after the 10th, the player gets a +5% cumulative chance to actually die. This is meant to represent inebriation in the game. Players will continue to drink, at least when they feel secure in their safehouse, but it will have an in-game effect for a change. This suggestion is so blatantly obvious it's got to be a dupe, but I didn't see it on the frequently suggested list, so here it is. If you're gonna sit in a club and party, then sit in a club and party. Just don't expect to be fully functional if someone comes a knockin'.

Discussion (Intoxication)

I'm not as think as you drunk I am! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:56, 9 April 2009 (BST)

NO! Drinking beer is one of the few things us non-meta-gamers bond over, many a time I've been in a suburb where I've known no one and made friends by making toasts, drinking contests and just general shenanigans based around a good beer... I'm all for players getting drunk but this complete destroys any purpose to drinking what so ever, it's just too damn harsh. --Kamikazie-Bunny 02:21, 9 April 2009 (BST)

The penalties for light drinking are minor. The penalties for binge drinking are severe. Just like life. And since you're presumably not drinking outside with the hordes, and are hiding in a 'caded building, all you've got to fear is PKers, who can whack you whenever they want anyway. It realistically makes it harder for you to travel when heavily drunk, and decreases your endurance if you imbibe too much. And since it's not smart to drink during a zombie apocalypse if the horde is nearby, it provides zombies with a reasonable advantage over drunks should they manage to bust your 'cades. People will continue to drink just to play with the slurred speech feature, and on dares.--Necrofeelinya 04:00, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Drinking alcohol actually increases your endurance (well, mine at least), when you drink your pain tolerance increases and so does physical strength (fear is reduced (countering the flinch effect and doubt) and so is physical strength). So how about including a +5 HP per hour and a +1 to punch and bottle damage, actually make that all melee weapons as anything goes in a pub brawl. THEN might say yes. --Kamikazie-Bunny 14:24, 9 April 2009 (BST)

You have a unique interpretation of the effects of drinking alcohol. I suspect it's rooted more in your perceptions of its effect upon you than its actual effects. Otherwise I want some of what you're drinking. My perception, cultivated over many years, is that the effect upon pain tolerance is negligible, physical strength is unaffected, but you forget to pace yourself and expend your energy quickly, exhausting yourself rapidly, which is complicated by the fact that alcohol naturally and severely limits endurance. And drunks are generally lousy fighters, having compromised their balance, dexterity, reaction time, alertness, and all other faculties required to make them effective. All they gain is a lack of inhibition, so they can sometimes lunge in and swarm someone, but that doesn't usually mean that much unless the opponent isn't prepared to fight at all. As for adding health, making it equivalent to a FAK per hour is ridiculous. Alcohol actually diminishes your health and ability to heal. As for the melee damage modifier you suggest, that might be workable.--Necrofeelinya 19:44, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Being drunk should have benefits. Just like irl.--xoxo 03:49, 9 April 2009 (BST)

• Buy "Alcoholism" for 100XP. "You stagger up to a zombie and throw your arms around it." -CaptainVideo 06:40, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Yes on alcoholism ^^^. Yes on intoxication granting you the freedom to say what you really think, reducing motor coordination and deadening the pain of living. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 06:53, 9 April 2009 (BST)

That would be rather profound, wouldn't it? The zombies seek to liven death, the living seek to deaden life. It's not all that far-fetched, really. -CaptainVideo 06:56, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Add a notification on each players profile page of how drunk they are and I'm in! Drinking contests here we come! - User:Whitehouse 00:38, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Good idea. Drinking game added. All sorts of wagers possible with this, and you pay if you lose. Like it?--Necrofeelinya 05:32, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Ditch all the percentage to hit and AP modifiers and go this route: survivor randomly drops one item from inventory with each consumption of an alcoholic beverage. Random drop is not accompanied by an in-game notification. It's just that when the player next reaches for his shotgun, he suddenly realizes he must have left it in the bar. Oops. --Winton 05:25, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Okay people let's compromise and get this implemented. Wintons idea of losing a random item and Whitehouse's idea of drunkeness notification. Engage! --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 01:48, 11 April 2009 (BST)

Nobody'd go for Winton's idea of losing an item with each beer. They'd lose their whole inventory, especially if they're as online socially alcohol dependent as Kamikazie Bunny appears to be. It's actually harsher than my idea, because at least the AP and attack mods they recover from with my system fairly quickly, and are almost certainly sober by the next day when they log on. With Winton's idea they've got to spend days worth of AP to get back all their junk. Whitehouse's idea has been added. I still don't see a lot of support happening, though.--Necrofeelinya 08:54, 11 April 2009 (BST)

"online socially alcohol dependent" - that conjures up quite an image and I'm not sure if I should be offended or not. In my experience of playing UD, the majority of social people who don't meta-game have been the residents of bars and clubs. This is not limited to just chatting and messing around in the bars but also using them as a base of operations for extended amount of time... We have bar fights and 'drink' to celebrate doing something successfully/fallen comrades, by giving alcohol such a large penalty you give us non-mg-role-players less incentive to hang around in these places and effectively reduce the non-mg scene (which is already lacking)... It's true we could just say we're drinking but that would take away some of the fun. --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:36, 11 April 2009 (BST)

No need to be offended, just a few things I'd like to point out. You are the one who reacted viscerally to the notion of a drinking penalty by saying "NO! Drinking beer is one of the few things us non-meta-gamers bond over". That sounds like basing social behavior on alcohol to me, though it doesn't mean a similar off-line dependency, just a self-professed online social awkwardness that relies on props to break the ice. And most zombies don't metagame either. And they can't drink, so they just deal with it by actually playing the game instead of chatting. So if you want to be non-mg, perhaps you'd like to consider being a feral? With beer currently having no in-game effect apart from the utterly meaningless gain of 1 HP, you're pretty much "just saying you're drinking" as it stands. And you mention using Clubs and Bars as bases of operation for extended periods... that's why this wouldn't hurt that much. You're just sitting there for days on end, talking and drinking, neither moving nor attacking. All the negative modifiers would drop off as you sober up each night when you log off. It's only if you're surprised that this hurts, or with the drinking game added, if you drink so much that you die. If you want to organize an assault or something, just don't get wasted first. With this, the penalties don't kill the point of drinking, if anything with Whitehouse's idea added they'd encourage it. It's a built-in drinking game, just with penalties for the loser. In a sense, that's how the whole thing works... get wasted in a bar with your friends, and if the horde comes a knockin', you're an easy meal should they manage to bust your 'cades. The effect would disappear quickly enough, and only the careless, who get drunk with the horde too close, most insane drinkers (well over 10 beers in an hour so they start risking death by alcohol poisoning), those who fall prey to PKers, or those who choose to deliberately get wasted before venturing outdoors would likely feel the consequences. Not everything has to have a helpful effect to add flavor to the game. But no need to worry about it, I don't think this one's getting any support anyway. I thought about dropping most of it and just trying to get the drinking game part passed, but if implementing illegal drugs would "damage Kevan's reputation and cause people to leave the game" as claimed elsewhere, I imagine that implementing an actual drinking game would have the same effect. I doubt he'd consider it, because he'd probably (and likely correctly) see it as drawing flak as an endorsement of alcohol abuse. Even though the current situation is the REAL endorsement of alcohol abuse. So I've pretty much given up on this suggestion, though I think it would have been really cool. There's no point in further beating a dead horse.--Necrofeelinya 03:23, 12 April 2009 (BST)

---

Super-cade upgrade that gives zombies more XP!!!

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 16:51, 8 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Anti-whine
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	"And lo down from upon high did he upon the denziens of the once great city, the shamblers and the runners, the light and the dark. 'Behold' said he, 'for one hast delivered upon me a sugg of mine divine approval, " upon these words he raised the great board up high, the board from which all creation was wrote, and upon which he re-wrote the world..." from The book of Kevan, 8:5 Construction 'Cades can now be built twice as fast by survivors. 'Cades now have twice as many levels per strength. If a survivor has a toolbox & construction they will raise barricades by 2 levels as opposed to 1. Destruction Barricades can now be attacked at 100% accuracy (as opposed to 50%) with the normal variety of weapons. The crowbar now attacks at 200% accuracy against 'cades (as opposed to 100% ) boosting it's accuracy to 50% against 'cades. Results Zombies will now feel more effective at attacking 'cades as they will receive more 'success' messages boosting their egos. Zombies will get twice as much experience when attacking 'cades reducing the amount of "Zombies don't get enough XP" complaints. Survivors with out a toolbox will spend more AP constructing barricades. Survivors with a toolbox will spend the normal amount of AP constructing barricades but at the cost of space. Everything else should balance out.

Discussion (Super-cade upgrade that gives zombies more XP!!!)

People are gonna give you flak about newbies. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:43, 8 April 2009 (BST)

Zombie newbies? If so, how so... They'll be able to get more experience because they'll be twice as accurate against 'cades as they are now.--Kamikazie-Bunny 17:47, 8 April 2009 (BST)

It punishes people for not having toolboxes. Because of that, you're telling people that they have to have toolboxes in their inventory. Overall, it just isn't a good idea. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:37, 9 April 2009 (BST)

It does make sense that a person with the correct tools is better at barricading. That said, it would also lead to more survivor cooperation between people without toolboxes. Argueably this is a survivor 'cade nerf and buff together (more levels/'harder to build). --Kamikazie-Bunny 15:56, 11 April 2009 (BST)

Let me see if I have this straight? You want to increase all accuracy against 'cades so folk hit twice as often thus gaining twice as many XP but in return you want survivors to be able to build 2 levels for 1 AP and double the current number of barricade levels meaning that the zombie will have to chew through upto 40+ levels to get in. That doesn't sound too attractive to me! --Honestmistake 18:11, 8 April 2009 (BST)

Thats the magic of it, zombies have twice as many barricade levels to destroy, but they are twice as accurate as they are now. The doubled levels and accuracy cancel out, this means zombies get more AP for the same amount of effort. --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:22, 8 April 2009 (BST)

Currently though I could get lucky and get inside with a few AP, having twice as many cade levels would mean the run of luck would have to last a lot longer. I have not done the math but something about this this doesn't feel right--Honestmistake 19:37, 8 April 2009 (BST)

See my response to Swiers. Basically Zombies - More XP/Same average attacks/Higher Absolute Minimum attacks. Survivors Normal 'cading&more Enc./Worse Cading&less Enc. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:04, 8 April 2009 (BST)

There's tons of wrongness about this suggestion. 100% accuracy as opposed to 50%? I think the base for zombies is 25%, not 50%; doubling it would make it 50%. Cades can be built twice as fast? As in, what, it takes half an AP? Or do you mean just with the toolbox they can be built faster? This suggestion really comes out to "let's double everything, so people feel better and zombies get more XP." It's unnecessary, is what. Why not ... you know, use Occam's Razor and just suggest 2 XP for each time a zombie tears down cades? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:30, 8 April 2009 (BST)

Thats the effect I'm trying to get, but, upping the XP has no merit and it would still leave people complaining "My zombie can't hit 'cades", this way they get the equivalent of 2xp and simultaneously feel more effective attacking the barricades. As with the atk% players attack cades with half accuracy (thats 50% of their normal attack) by 100% I mean their full (normal) attack rate--Kamikazie-Bunny 19:28, 8 April 2009 (BST)

OK, so instead of attacking 80 times to take down 20 levels, zombies will attack 80 times to bring down 40 levels. That sounds OK. However, it does have its problems:

1. Its unclear if ALL survivors build 2 levels per build attempt, or if only those who have toolboxes do. If folks with toolboxes can build 4 levels per AP, then its a HELL NO, because lets face it, that's a straight up cade building buff. Only folks with toolboxes will build cades, effectively doubling build rates. And even if nobody uses toolboxes- well, build rates remain effectively what they were before. The only way this could fly is if a toolbox is required to build 2 levels (comparable to current build rates) and otherwise you built just 1. But that boils down to an encumbrance nerf, which probably would also not fly.
2. Even if you sort that out, this would allow a survivor can take an "open" building up to having 2 levels with just 1 action. While the AVERAGE required to destroy those 2 levels would be the same as needed to destroy 1 level currently, the MINIMUM would go up from 1 AP to 2 AP. What I'm getting at is it fucks with "real time" efforts to keep buildings open (which admittedly, cade blocking does rather well).
3. Similar to above, you have to consider variance. Its currently possible to tear down just about any barricade with 20 lucky hits in a row. That would become impossible under this system. At low cade levels, when a zombie is hoping for a lucky break, this is a really major factor. Hordes, who can pool enouhg AP to play the odds and accept average (or worse) performance, would likely not be affected. However, ferals often wander around looking for QSB's, and then hoping to get in a string of lucky hits that leaves them enough AP to move inside and score a kill, or at least some more XP. That would be basically impossible under this system. Granted, huge runs of BAD luck would also be less common, but again, that really only matters to groups that have enough AP pooled to play the averages.

Anyhow, that's my take...  Swiers 18:45, 8 April 2009 (BST)

1 - By appropriate equipment I did mean the toolbox, I didn't mention any other way to up construction rates, and thought it was made cleared when I said "If a survivor has a toolbox & construction they will raise barricades by 2 levels as opposed to 1." I'll clarify that in a second.

2/3 - Whilst the Minimum amount of AP does increase (in a 100% of attacks succeed scenario), Ferals will be getting more XP to offset this for newbies, this would help reduce the reliance of getting to a survivor for the XP. for the other side it also means survivors have a choice, they either stockpile other resources or 'cade to the currently normal effect. A survivor who 'cades without a tool box is going to be less likely to be safe from zombies than one who has. This will probably allow some more isolated buildings easier access.

Both sides have Pros&Cons, Zombies - More XP/Same average attacks/Higher Absolute Minimum attacks. Survivors Normal 'cading&more Enc./Worse Cading&less Enc.

If you can help me solve any of these possible problems or have an alternate way I'm all ears.--Kamikazie-Bunny 19:53, 8 April 2009 (BST)

I don't like the fact that it increases the minimum number of successful hits required. - User:Whitehouse 19:18, 8 April 2009 (BST)

Wouldn't it be simpler to just double the XP a zombie gets and not change anything else?--Pesatyel 02:16, 9 April 2009 (BST)

That's not the issue that motivated this suggestion, and the suggestion itself is a misinterpretation of the problem. Zombie players complain about 'cades, but that doesn't mean they want tons of XP for taking them down. Their complaint is that they can't get to survivors to earn XP properly, for KILLING THEM. That's what zombies want to do. It's their sole function in the game. But survivor defense has been so beefed that zombies feel ineffective, particularly at low levels, where there's pretty much no point in being a zombie, which is why young zombie players frequently drop out and just set up a new survivor character instead, or seek an instant revive. The issue isn't "how do we make busting 'cades more rewarding", but "how do we allow for young zombies to make an occasional kill so they're not totally frustrated, leading to dropout". We could speed the rate of XP gain, or for that matter just start them out as maxxed out zombies, since if you speed XP gain you end up at that point quickly enough as it is, but then a zombie has no progression to look forward to. That suits me, at least for a while, but others want the reward of being able to spend their XP so their character seems to grow. This suggestion just offers token XP while further beefing survivor defense, since increasing the # of 'cades would necessitate using more AP to break through them and would probably end up frustrating even maxxed zombies. It's not a solution, it's a fiasco. The solution, no way around it, involves somehow facilitating young zombies getting kills more frequently while not boosting the effectiveness of maxxed zombies. That means it likely shouldn't be based in an acquired skill (not that this suggestion is), since that still would leave newborn zombies out in the cold until they get the XP needed to buy that skill. It preferably shouldn't overly hasten XP gain for all zombies, since that would just make it pointless to have a skill tree at all... you'd max out in no time. It's a difficult question that's led to some out of place things in Urban Dead, such as players creating dummy characters just to leave them outside for young zombies to level by eating. It's rooted in the strength of 'cades and the weakness of new zombies, and the proper method of approaching it has thus far eluded everyone, but this suggestion definitely isn't it.--Necrofeelinya 19:21, 9 April 2009 (BST)

How about allowing new(ish) zombies to use a limited form of free run as a crossover skill to bypass light cades from the street? Lets just imagine them as being a bit more spry than the older zeds and thus able to wriggle past cades. Not ideal and hard to think of a sensible boundary to lose the ability that isn't totally arbitrary but it would let new zeds eat a few folk early on.--Honestmistake 00:54, 10 April 2009 (BST)

So, after another of your long winded posts, WHAT do YOU suggest?--Pesatyel 03:43, 10 April 2009 (BST)

^^^^^ "Reading is hard! : ( " ^^^^^

Actually, my suggestion was modifying darkness to provide an advantage to loner and newbie players, but it kind of got shot down. : ) --Necrofeelinya 12:49, 10 April 2009 (BST)

No, this is a GAME and a simple one at that. The more crap you put into your "suggestion" the less people will want to even read it let alone vote positively for it. You have to get to the point not try to get around it with hyperbole and blather. No offense. And I actually LIKED the other idea but YOU let it drop because you were to busy arguing for this one.--Pesatyel 03:56, 11 April 2009 (BST)

"Their complaint is that they can't get to survivors to earn XP properly, for KILLING THEM." If a single low/new zombie can get to a survivor and kill them through barricades then there is no point to building barricades. You mentioned zombabies droping out because they feel ineffective against 'cades, by giving them rewards when they are struggling at lower levels you give them more incentive to keep playing, saying "go hide in the dark" is not as encouraging as a constant source of XP they can see increasing as they play (primarily because they don't see the benefits when they are playing) even if it is more beneficial. By rewarding them with more XP not only do you boost egos but you also allow zombies to buy skills that allow them to find and kill survivors sooner. Although you may think it does this doesn't actually reward them to the point that they might as well start out maxed out, it just provides more of a psychological boost with bonus XP than currently which is what Zombabies need. --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:21, 11 April 2009 (BST)

"And lo did he peruse Talk:Suggestions and he did come across yet another shit suggestion made by someone with delusions of adequacy. The wiki wept, for such stupidity was still legal."

from The Book of Iscariot, 22:19

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:06, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Now if only we could get all responses in this style... :-) --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:23, 11 April 2009 (BST)

---

Health Problems

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 19:03, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Penalty...
Scope:	The sick and dying.
Description:	The inhabitants of Malton are now becoming weaker as the extent of their injures increase.- When wounded players suffer movement penalties, when dying they suffer even more. Original Version: When Wounded (HP < 25) Survivors Unable to Free-run - Attempting to do so places your character outside as if they had walked. Message - "Your injuries prevent you from free-running." Zombies Movement cost increases by 1AP When Dying (HP < 13) Survivors Bleed-out - Survivor loses 1AP per turn (excluding speaking) until they are no longer wounded (Death/FAKd). Message - "You are bleeding heavily and need immediate medical attention." All attacks reduced by 10% (of current value). Zombies All attacks reduced by 20% (of current value). NOTE: Originally Bleed-out was meant to be one HP not AP. Sorry for the mistake. Revised Version: When Wounded (HP < 25) All attacks reduced by 10% (of current value). When Dying (HP < 13) Survivors Unable to Free-run - Attempting to do so places your character outside as if they had walked. Message - "Your injuries prevent you from free-running." Zombies Movement cost increases by 1AP

Discussion (Health Problems)

Original Version I'm trying to balance the effects for survivors and zombies, but zombies don't seem to care if they are injured. --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:03, 6 April 2009 (BST)

You are going to face the argument that zombies don't feel pain and thus don't care about their injuries. I can't imagine this passing as long as you have negative modifiers for zombies based on their health. It might be possible without the extra AP for movement, but even then it'll be an annoyance more than anything. The only thing I support here is the "no freerunning while injured". - User:Whitehouse 19:35, 6 April 2009 (BST)

The zombie movement penalty could be seen as the traditional leg damage with it trailing behind but supporting the zombies weight. Just because a zombie does not feel pain does not mean damage won't have an effect, true it would have a lesser effect than it would on a human who would have to deal with the pain in addition but a broken femur would affect their movement no matter how you look at it. --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:41, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I don't like the bleed-out thing. What if you're infected too? "Oop, you have 8 HP, no FAKs (possibly), and have four moves to get to safety! Oh, and no free running. Good luck!" --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I wasn't sure about having it stack with infection or not so I left that out so people would say what they prefer. --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:41, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Just seems too punishing. --A Big F'ing Dog 20:57, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Too harsh. I'd say just drop the bleeding and attack-penalties, and move the free run and movement costs to "When Dying". --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 23:10, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I did consider doing that but wanted a 2 stage system based on Dying being REALLY bad and wounded being an awkward inconvenience, it looks like it will change to that if people support it though.--Kamikazie-Bunny 00:54, 7 April 2009 (BST)

The thing is that death is only an awkward inconvenience, so being dying shouldn't really be worse. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 07:49, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Death (as in being dead) is not as bad as dying, when dying the character is actually suffering as they approach death. Once they die they are no longer suffering. Although wound has a wide range (from a paper cut to a gun shot) I tend to class it as something that inconveniences the player in the game. Dying on the other hand normally means that the person will die, unless they get medical attention in some cases. --Kamikazie-Bunny 15:52, 7 April 2009 (BST)

I whole heartedly support the nerf to free running... the rest is pretty much spam!--Honestmistake 01:01, 7 April 2009 (BST)

This seems more like the type of thing that you should be allowed to toggle to make the game harder at your choice.--Pesatyel 04:22, 7 April 2009 (BST)

I think you're definitely on to something there. A hard mode that doesn't include rot? I think that that would be pretty damn nifty provided it was strictly optional. If not in malton, perhaps in a different city for flavor? --Johnny Bass 05:28, 7 April 2009 (BST)

I agree with some other people in that it just seems too harsh. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:44, 7 April 2009 (BST)

No. No. No. NO. I'm sleeping in my lovely safe house. A zombie knocks down the door. Instead of having to kill everyone, he now only has to lower them to 25hp. We are all defenceless, and have to kill the zombie. If we don't, we have the option to run. Instead of being able to just run next door, we are now forced to go outside, and find another building to get inside. Should we have been infected, we are now very unlikely to find a building. Congratulations, you've discovered the 25 damage kill. And, better still, if more zombies get in, and lower us to 12hp, we now lose our action points too. If I used them in the morning, and checked on in the evening, only to find I was in the middle of a zombie seige, which is not rare, I have 10 AP to escape. Now, I have 5. And, that means 5 to leave, find another building to enter, and get in. This building is likely to be weak enough to be attacked by more zombies. Unfortunately, unless it's a hospital, the survivors will still be weak and infected. So they'll be easily killed. As I said. NO. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:57, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Yes, the second half is shit (and i wrote it wrong), I've changed it now. But, if I understand your problem for the wounded part (which is less than 25, not 25 or less), your complaining that if a zombie breaks in and seriously wounds you that you should be able to just run and jump to the next building! Thats just messed up, even people who professionally practice Free-running and Parkour wouldn't do such things because of the risks. If anything having wounded survivors unable to free run would encourage people to have more buildings at VSB (also of benefit to newbies) and make live fights more interesting with a wounded survivor being chased down the streets by a zombie until he finds somewhere safe (or runs out of AP and gets caught). The defenseless part makes no sense, a zombie breaks in and you can kill, dump, 'cade or run. If anything this would make mall sieges more interesting, with survivors running down the streets screaming once the zombies have broke in as opposed to jumping back and forth from next door in relative safety. --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:14, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Or maybe you're just nerfing survivors. There is nothing you can do to make this a good idea. The entire premise is horrific. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:42, 9 April 2009 (BST)

I don't see how the premise of performing worse the more injured you are is horrific, it's actually quite logical and realistic. --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:48, 11 April 2009 (BST)

Realism comes second to game balance. It isn't balanced. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:43, 11 April 2009 (BST)

I think this is a great idea. Makes the zombie ability to gain health actually worth something and increases the value of FAKs.--xoxo 13:13, 7 April 2009 (BST)

How about changing it so that an injured survivor suffers attack penalties rather than movement penalties. That way they can still run, but it makes fighting back harder. At wounded there would be 10% penalty on melee attacks. When dying the penalty applies to all attacks.

How about a wounded zombie flies into a feeding rage instead, and so can only make bite attacks against people. They could still use hands attacks against barricades, of course. Unfortunately, that option makes less sense if the zombie lacks digestion. The Mad Axeman 14:38, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Revised Version

---

Bolt Action Rifle

Timestamp:	William Retallick 01:37, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Weapon.
Scope:	Survivors.
Description:

Bolt Action Rifle

- Location: PD, Armory

- Search Rate: 2%

- Damage: 12

- Capacity: 4 Rounds

- Hit Rate: Base 5%. Basic Firearms Training 30%. Rifle Training: 55%. Advanced Sniper Training: 65%

- Encumbrance: 6%

- Misc: Takes 1 action point to reload rifle with 1 round. Takes one action to cock 1 round; must be done after every shot. Can shoot targets 2 blocks away.

- Comments: Reloading and cocking will take a lot of AP. The only advantage will be the high amount of damage and range.

.308 Ammo

- Location: PD(4%), Armory(5%)

- Contents: 1 Bullet

- Encumberance: 2%/0% when loaded

Discussion (Bolt Action Rifle)

These may seem like silly questions, but without answers to them this would be shot down in less time than you think.

• Where do you find them?
• What is the encumberance of the ammo?
• Where do you find the ammo?
• At what rate do you find the ammo?

These are things you gotta think about, y'know. Oh, and this is one of the ideas no-one around here will like. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 02:06, 6 April 2009 (BST)

No! No killing people 2 blocks away! =[ D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 02:22, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Definitely. It only empowers trenchies, unless you can shoot into buildings - which is even worse! "Hey guys, let's clear that NT from the next building over!" --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Spupe. Please try again never.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:45, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Sniper rifles, or other ranged weapons that allow attacks outside of the block you are in, have always been considered a bad idea for this game. You will find links at the top of this page that will take you to the arguments against such weapons. --Winton 05:22, 6 April 2009 (BST)

what possible point is there in firing 2 blocks away (not to mention the fact that you can normally only see 1 block anyway!) just walk over and use a shotgun then walk back. About the only way I can see a 'ranged' weapon working would be to allow it to shoot immediately outside from a tall building... and thats still a waste of time/ap. --Honestmistake 07:52, 6 April 2009 (BST)

The point is pretty obvious, I think. Retaliation. Under the normal rules, in order to perform combat, you must be in the square with the target and that invites the possiblity of being attacked yourself. This would negate that possibility, to an extent.--Pesatyel 08:44, 6 April 2009 (BST)

that point is one of the most pointless things about this though.... All it does is eliminate an already tiny risk at the cost of avoiding live combat (the best part of the game) and for about 2 to 3 times the AP drain. --Honestmistake 10:47, 6 April 2009 (BST)

To be honest, I don't see the big deal about allowing someone to shoot into another square, given what you just said. But beyond that I was explaining the point.--Pesatyel 04:32, 7 April 2009 (BST)

One more gun suggestion and I'm creating a template. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:06, 6 April 2009 (BST)

What would the template say? -CaptainVideo 04:08, 8 April 2009 (BST)

And lo the trenchcoaters came to the wiki, and there were gun suggestions, and they looked upon the suggestions, and they decided that it was good. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:43, 9 April 2009 (BST)

1. Being able to fire from a block a way(or even 2) is a PKers dream. That would eliminate the possibility of retaliation from their target. In fact, that goes for everyone in the game. Being able to attack from one or more blocks from the target is a game altering thing. And I say that as an avid survivor.
2. The shotgun already does 10 damage, and with flesh rot or body armor, it does 8. It seems that you are not taking into account the FR and BA. If the rifle does 12 damage, than would the reduce rate of damage be 10 or even 9? that isn't too far off from the shotgun. However, if you were to increase the damage to 15 the reduced damage would be 12. Now. I am not advocating this! I am simply saying you should think about it. You will probably get into trouble in the voting with spam and kill votes for being too over powered. You might get spam votes simply because of this: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Frequently_Suggested#Military_Weaponry.
-- That being said, if you work those out you've got my vote. Conner Martel 20:48, 9 April 2009 (BST)

your suggestion dies now, this is far to overpowered and is a huge dupe, and Iscariot, if you need help with that template I'm more than willing. Alex1guy 09:40, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Well, there is this:

	Billy Mays
	Hi! Billy Mays here with an amazing product! But wait, there's more! Here's how to order!

OK, you have all presented good arguments, but I would still very much like to see this in UD. So basically, the main complaint is that firing into another block is unbalanced, so what If I made these changes.

1.Range shortened to that of the pistol and shotgun

2.Damage increased to 15

3.Cocking is an AP free process, the only AP expenditure would be reloading the rifle like with the shotgun

Do you think that would be better?--William Retallick 17:05, 10 April 2009 (BST)

I like it. However, you still have to answer the four questions above, like where this item will be found. -CaptainVideo 18:09, 10 April 2009 (BST) Seems you've done that, sorry. However, will you still need "Advanced Sniper Training" now that this is no longer a sniping weapon? -CaptainVideo 18:11, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Not really becuase we already have the shotgun. Yes, this does more damage and holds less ammo, but that's only ONE round and I don't really think that's significant enough. Now if it was the PISTOL (just for example) instead, you might have something (but then doesn't the flaregun qualify there?)--Pesatyel 06:40, 12 April 2009 (BST)

---

Hide in Darkness 3

Timestamp:	--Necrofeelinya 01:15, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Zombies and Humans
Description:	Not a skill, just a normal feature, always in effect. Survivors entering darkened buildings have a 25% chance per resident zombie of seeing a zombie in that building, otherwise the resident zombies are invisible like corpses currently are. For example: If there's 1 zombie in the building they might miss him on entering, so might want to search, let's say 2 times to have a total of 3 separate 25% chances of seeing a lone zombie in the dark, and those odds are pretty good at a cost of 2 extra AP. If there are 2 zombies in the building, they get a 25% chance for each zombie when they enter, then if they search they get an additional 25% for each zombie, so that by using 1 AP to search in addition to their chances upon entering, they've got 4 separate 25% chances to see at least 1 zombie. If there are 3 zombies in the building, they get 3 separate 25% chances to spot at least one upon entering, and if they use 1 AP to search, they get 3 separate additional 25% chances to spot at least 1 zombie, for a total of 6 whopping 25% chances to see that something's not right. Those are damn fine odds, and nothing to complain about. If two survivors enter a building with 1 zombie, each survivor gets a 25% chance to spot him, and can spend an additional AP for an additional chance. If one spots him, he can alert the other for 1 AP. If two survivors enter a building with 2 zombies, they each get 2 separate 25% chances to spot at least one, and can spend an additional XP for two additional 25% chances at a cost of 1 AP each, and either one can alert the other for the standard 1 AP. That's two separate 25% chances each, or a total of 8 separate 25% chances between the two of them of spotting at least one of the zombies. When survivor groups number 3 or more, or the number of zombies in the building number 3 or more, the number of chances to spot at least one start to get ridiculously high... it's a given that they'll be spotted. They might not see them all, but spotting even one lets them know there's a problem and that they need to either install a genny, get the hell out or get rid of the one or more they've spotted and just hope there aren't more in there. If the survivor installs a fueled genny, the zombies appear as usual, same as corpses would. Every day the survivor stays in the darkened building he gets another 25% chance to notice each resident zombie (noncumulative). Additionally, as a function of the search button the survivor can spend 1 AP for an additional 25% chance per resident zombie of spotting at least one zombie, and can do this as often as he likes. If a survivor enters a building where there are other survivors and notices a zombie they've missed, an "alert" button appears on his screen which, when pressed, makes the zombies he's seen appear to everyone in the room. Zombies he didn't notice remain hidden. Pressing the "alert" button costs 1 AP, just like talking, would be accompanied by a text window that would allow him to customize his alert, and others in the room would hear his alert as normal speech. Should a hidden zombie attack or groan, of course he appears to everyone in the room. Zombies entering a darkened building have a 25% chance per zombie to see each other in the room, as well as the 24 hour additional chance just like humans, but can't search for each other because they're too stupid. They could reveal themselves to one another by groans or attacking one they already see, but who doesn't see them. Yes, I know, skills that allow for hiding are generally instakills, but in this case I think the scope of it is so small as to make it acceptable, being restricted to just darkened buildings, of which there are few enough. Plus, it adds wicked badass mood to the game and promotes feral, new zombie and small zombie group play while not aiding megahordes at all. It doesn't really promote ambushes since zombies can already hide in darkened buildings as corpses under current rules, so it doesn't strike me as a gamebreaker. Basically, I believe this change does little more than encourage survivors to be a little cautious when exploring darkened buildings at minimal AP cost and adds to the overall mood of the game. Oh, and obviously Kevan would tweak the percentages to suit whatever effect he wanted it to have in the game. If he wanted it to have more effect, he'd give a lower percentage chance of spotting zombies. If he wanted it to have less, he'd give a higher percentage chance. That's all his call, though.

Discussion (Hunt in Darkness 3)

Specifically I'm looking this time for input on the way zombies percieve zombies in the dark, so I'd like to lump responses about that together here at the top. ----

Additionally, the question has been raised of whether survivors should also have the ability to hide this way. I think that, on top of the defensive asset of 'cading, the defensive bonus of darkness, and the fact that survivors always have the option of relocating and healing if they wake up before a zombie's managed to accumulate the AP to finalize his kill, any further enhancement of their already significant defensive capacity would just have a negative impact on playability. I could see it applied equally to humans if the defensive bonus of darkness is eliminated, though. If so inclined, please give an opinion on that in this section. ---

And for other input, whether it's just "this idea sucks" or "I'm likin' it", or actual constructive comments, please add it in this section.---

Complicated. It seems like it would make more sense that you have a base chance to see a zombie and then +% for each additional zombie. In other words, eventually, there will be so many zombies you CAN'T miss them. Right now, if there are 50 zombies in the room, then the computer has to roll 50 25% chance to spot. So, what happens? From a realism standpoint, this makes NO sense whatsover, this suggestion I mean. What makes more sense would be to offset the darkness penalties for zombies rather than allow them a feature that is out of genre.--Pesatyel 04:09, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I can see the merits of a +% chance for each additional zombie, but that means that when one zombie is discovered they all are, and I don't think that's quite the best idea either. I like the feature of knowing zombies are present, but not being sure you've spotted them all, particularly because it's dark... you shouldn't suddenly be able to account for everything. You have an excellent point about the computer needing to roll a lot of 25% chances to spot, but I'm not as computer savvy as some and so I'm not aware if this would cause excessive server load or something given the scarcity of darkened buildings in the game - perhaps a cap WOULD be in order, a limit that said that all zombies after the 5th are instantly visible, but if a player enters a building with 10 zombies, how does the computer decide which 5 are the potentially hidden ones? As for offsetting the darkness penalties for zombies, I'll say this - having darkness is a nice feature. It just doesn't work right in my view. Darkness needs to have some effect, but I see its current effect as being basically absurd. But just getting rid of the penalty without replacing it with something else seems to me to be a waste. I'd rather find an alternative, a way of making darkness more effective and realistic.--Necrofeelinya 02:39, 8 April 2009 (BST)

That's just it, it doesn't HAVE to find "all" of them. The percentage to find zombies is just that, to "find zombies" not a specific number, just that there are some present. You could then make a more conserted effort to actually locate them (and it should cost more to do than a normal search). But your still using the wrong logic for realism. Your arging that a zombie should get to "hide" because the player is inactive when, as I was trying to explain, the ZOMBIE isn't "inactive". Hiding in the darkness would either apply to ALL characters in the room because of the nature of the darkness OR would imply a conscientious effort to use the darkness to hide which "zombie genre" does not allow (but survivors would most assuredly do). Or, simply put, darkness is fine how it is, relatively speaking (relative to this suggestion) becuase it takes those factors into account.--Pesatyel 03:40, 8 April 2009 (BST)

I skimmed through the other suggestions and this one seems so much more complicated than the other ones. I also cannot see myself ever vouching for a suggestion of this kind at all. People have the right to know their immediate threats. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 09:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I don't really think it's complicated, I just tried to illustrate all the ways in which it would affect the game. The whole thing would involve the adding of 1 "alert" button, which would appear only when entering a darkened building where you see a zombie and another survivor, adding a single function to the existing search button, and adding a percentage chance for zombies to be visible during encounters in darkened buildings. Other than that, there are no changes. I'm no coder, but I think that sounds like it isn't the most difficult thing ever proposed, and I think at this point it's pretty clearly defined as suggestions go. As an added benefit, since it depends on a percentage to determine whether zombies are spotted or not, it gives Kevan an additional way to tweak the game balance if he so chooses by adjusting the percentage. But I can understand your opinion regarding not wanting to vote for this, if you're just opposed to having people surprised in the dark at all. All I can say to that is I disagree, but to each his own.--Necrofeelinya 02:39, 8 April 2009 (BST)

---

Blood Scrawl

Timestamp:	Winton 08:37, 4 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Zombie Skill
Scope:	Advanced Zombies
Description:	An advanced skill that will allow zombies to tag in blood. Cost: 1AP, No XP gain. 1.A subset of the Memories of Life skill tree, requiring all other Memories of Life skills as a prerequisite. 2.Requires a dead body at the location as a source of blood. 3.Scrawls are written in Zambese, as Rattle. Game play and game balance should be minimally affected. It could be used as an organization or information tool, but should be no more effective than Rattle or Gesture. Effective in-game zombie communication is virtually impossible, and this should not change that. I see it used primarily as Rattle is used, as a taunt or horde announcement. It would also allow zombies to scrawl over human tags in areas or buildings they control. However, the more dangerous the area to humans, the fewer opportunities will arise to use the skill. It could script as: A zombie has scrawled in blood "--------" on a wall. Follow up note: Very similar ideas have been suggested before. The primary criticism or feedback has been: A. Zombies can't write. The game has been set up, through the Memories of Life skill tree, to allow leveling-up zombies the ability to slowly accrue vague remembrances and use of prior human abilities. Are we absolutely set on the fact that zombies can never write? If so, then this will never fly. Or, can this skill be seen as a natural outgrowth and combination of the slightly increased mental capacity represented by Rattle and the slightly increased physical coordination represented by Gesture and Open Door? There are zombies singing and dancing in nightclubs; is it too far a stretch to imagine that same zombie scrawling something unintelligible on a wall? B. Good idea, but incomplete. This criticism resulted in weak kills, but the idea has never been overwhelmingly thrashed. If this is a good idea, can it be tweaked in such way as to make it more palatable? What I like about this idea is that it enhances zombie game play without increasing zombie power. Anything that can make the zombie character more appealing, yet no more powerful, is probably helpful, and more likely to gain player acceptance. Many zombie actions consist of trying to undo what humans have done, and this maintains and extends that slightly, while offering the zombie character one more frustratingly difficult way to attempt to express itself.

Discussion (Blood Scrawl)

I am almost certain that this is a dupe... its a good idea but I would suggest a search through previous suggestions before taking this further. --Honestmistake 11:54, 4 April 2009 (BST)

It really is. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:07, 4 April 2009 (BST)

I acknowledge dupe status on this suggestion, Honestmistake and Iscariot. I have attached a follow-up note to the suggestion.--Winton 19:32, 4 April 2009 (BST)

The problem with zombies writing is that it's hardly a staple of the genre, which is why it won't fly. Also, most of the people that will be complaining for 'balance' reasons will be whining trenchies who rightly know that zombie players are cleverer and funnier. The thing that will get is killed is the aforementioned lack of genre. This does give me an idea about the evolution of a previous PR suggestion that I may stick in for voting if I can be bothered. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:04, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Please be bothered then. The suggestions page needs something good on it for once.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:27, 4 April 2009 (BST)

When you get bothered to stop having one set of rules for certain people and other rules for certain other people and stop other sysops doing the same, then I will fix the suggestions system. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:21, 4 April 2009 (BST)

O_O. I wasn't even aware of having two sets of rules. You seemed fine with me before I was a sysop, then you suddenly went psyops jihad against me. To be frank, I try to adhere to the same standards I've always had, sometimes I deviate from them, but that's a rare occurrence. Other system operators though, I have no control over. I can prevent people from gaining the position, but I do it by the communities decision, not by some hidden idea on how the wiki should be run. If you can show me how I've treated some people differently than I do others, please do. This isn't the usual "I'mma sysops, show me I'm wrong or shut up!" scream you hear, I honestly want to know.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 00:30, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Also, yes, this is a good idea by the way. Just dupetastic.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:28, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Well, there is Blood Marks in Peer Review which could be argued is a dupe. The difference being this one allows you to "write in zombies" while the other leaves symbols (which would quickly be given meaning the way "Mrh?" has become "revive me"). Blood Smears makes more sense and, effectively, does the same thing since (and, I'd imagine, is easier to figure out with out a dictionary).--Pesatyel 20:39, 4 April 2009 (BST)

I'm not at all comfortable with zombies writing, even if it's in Zombese. I considered the idea of zombie grafitti as blood smears myself for a while, and could maybe see a system where zombies can place a few simple shapes and lines on a wall, maybe a half-dozen to a dozen, in the form of horizontal smears, vertical smears, diagonal smears, circular smears, etc., to which players would naturally end up ascribing their own meanings. I'd go along with that, but actual writing is a bit much for my tastes.--Necrofeelinya 00:50, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Gee, didn't even read Pesatyel's comment above... maybe I should go familiarize myself with Blood Marks. Might be interesting...--Necrofeelinya 02:22, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Personally, I like the suggestion, but I think that (as Iscariot noted) you'll probably get shot down for being out-of-genre (and dupe, but that's besides the point). --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 13:56, 5 April 2009 (BST)

I don't care if it's out of genre. It would be awesome as a survivor to come across some zombie graffiti and it would be awesome as a zombie to write - "HARHAR HARMANZ!" --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 18:10, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Thing is, zombies having any sense of intelligence at all is "out-of-genre." UD Zeds are PCs, though, so that doesn't fly. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:53, 5 April 2009 (BST)

It actually depends on which interpretation of the genre you go by. The "classic" interpretation would most likely be the Romero movies. And, in NOTLD, the first zombie Barbara and Johnny meet uses a rock, which is characteristically "un-zombie" like. Then in the later ones you have them using guns. Or other movies having them operate vehicles, think and run.--Pesatyel 08:47, 6 April 2009 (BST)

We have running (LG), we have rocks (blunt weapons), no-one in the game has vehicles, we have thinking (meta and superior tactics) and we had guns (actions via URLs, representing the intelligence needed to use the guns) but the trenchies whined, cried and threw tantrums until Kevan stopped the action. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:04, 6 April 2009 (BST)

That's my point. What specific "genre" are we talking about here? If you go by the Zombie Survival Guide, zombies are completely mindless and I think THAT is what people tend to think, but I was citing examples from the media (here too, by comparison) that counter that.--Pesatyel 04:36, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Even the smartest of zombies - like Bub from "Day of the Dead" - are only at the cusp of language. Anyone who's ever watched kids try and learn to write (or been a child, for that matter) will remember that it's a big leap from speech to writing. -CaptainVideo 06:52, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Clarification: Again, we're talking Romero here. Perhaps the smartest zombies are those of "Return of the Living Dead," who have a well-enunciated hankering for brains. -CaptainVideo 06:54, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Again, that's my point, there are a LOT of different "styles" within zombie genre. On one hand, that means it IS allowable to have zombies able to write. But I think most people would agree that zombies just aren't coordinated or intelligent enough to do it, even in "zombiese"--Pesatyel 03:51, 10 April 2009 (BST)

---

Feeding Crawl

Timestamp:	Sir Topaz DR ♣ GR 19:39, 3 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Zombie Skill
Scope:	Who or what it applies to.
Description:	100 XP. Comes after Feeding Groan. Zombies with this skill can toggle it on/ off at any time. When toggled on, the zombie will automatically move towards the next feeding groan it hears and stand outside the building, costing the normal AP for the distance travelled. The skill then toggles off. Exceedingly easy way for casual players to group up for feeding. OM NOM NOM.

Discussion (Feeding Crawl)

It's the epitome of Pied Piper, plus the fact that it's open to serious abuse from coordinated survivors attempting to sap feral AP. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:01, 3 April 2009 (BST)

"Hey GuyA, now that you're dead, wanna go randomly groan to lead these zombies away?"

"Sure GuyB, can do! Just give me a needle tomorrow and we'll be set!"

--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 21:05, 3 April 2009 (BST)

OH GOD NO! Zombie tactics would go completely out the window when it's on and if thats the case there is little point in having it at all! --Ricci Bobby 09:41, 4 April 2009 (BST)

If this applied only to groans from a zombies own group it might have some merit but applying it to any other groans makes it very rubbish! --Honestmistake 01:08, 4 April 2009 (BST)

I don't like automatic actions. The player should have to perform the action themselves. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 18:11, 5 April 2009 (BST)

"Hey GuyA, now that you're dead, wanna go Change your group name to RRF and randomly groan to lead these zombies away?" --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:56, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Chaps, it toggles off after one use. The worst you'll ever get is 6AP (or whatever it is) down. It's more aimed at the casual players who don't necessarily coordinate with groups. But, hell, go ahead! This game is only for hardcore players who spend their AP to the max, no? --Sir Topaz ^{DR ♣ GR} 00:15, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I congratulate you Mr. Vois. You have successfully made me realize I missed that last little bit. After reading your statement, I did not remember seeing it toggling off after one move set, and re-read your suggestion. I have been CNR!!!!!11!!!

No, really, I have, and I feel stupid. ^^. With it being toggled off after one use, it's a much more likable suggestion. But hey, you have to admit, if it was as I perceived it at first, my little hand puppet demonstration would be entirely true, no? And I actually save at least 5 ap no matter what. Rainy day fund when I periodically check in. :P --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:14, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, the most it could cost is 27 AP: A non-lurching zombie (12 AP) who's then headshot (15 AP) in the intervening time between the auto-move and the player's next login. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:16, 6 April 2009 (BST)

If there is even one zombie in this game with feeding groan and 100 spare xp for this who doesn't have lurching gait and ankle grab i would love to meet them so I could laugh at their stupidity!--Honestmistake 10:52, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Lurching Gait was actually like the second to last skill I got. I liked the challenge.--Pesatyel 03:53, 10 April 2009 (BST)

---

<math>Insert formula here</math>

Suggestions up for voting

Sign Up Bonus

Suggestion up for voting, discussion moved to here.--Kamikazie-Bunny 19:51, 30 March 2009 (BST)

---

Limited Give

Suggestion up for voting, discussion moved to here.--Kamikazie-Bunny 19:28, 6 April 2009 (BST)

---

NecroTech Training

Having taken your suggestions into account, "NecroTech Training" is now up for review at Suggestions (please check the modifications I've made before voting). The other two ideas I had - Facility Access and Memories of Employment - have been allowed to die, since people considered them too unbalanced. -CaptainVideo 06:04, 29 March 2009 (BST)

---

Contagious Bite

Moved to suggestions proper!--Honestmistake 09:55, 8 April 2009 (BST)

---

More ways for zombies to gain XP

This one is up for voting now. Thanks for the input. --LaosOman 23:17, 4 April 2009 (BST)

---

Music! Music! Music!

This is now up for voting: Suggestion:20090411 Music! Music! Music!. Thanks to everyone who helped me with this. -CaptainVideo 01:30, 11 April 2009 (BST)

---

NT Ruins Ruin Rotter Revives

Moved to individual suggestion talk page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:18 10 April 2009 (BST)

---