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

Sewers (work-in-progress)

Timestamp:	--YoEleven 11:31, 6 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Predominantly zombie players, players unable to find building access.
Description:	I have never understood why, beyond extra coding work for big-K, that Malton has never had a sewer system. Having sewers accessable via man-holes would allow zombies and survivors alike an alternative method for travelling around the city - underground. For ease of negotiation there could be a simple north-south and east-west grid system with sewer tubes running at intervals of every fourth or fifth block. Likewise man-hole access points could be limited to all 'street' blocks - And no access into a building of course. Access to the street could be marked by a message of "you can see light coming from a hole leading to the street above" or something of that ilk. AP cost for entering or exiting the sewer system would be the same as that of entering or exiting buildings. Once inside the sewers, due to darkness, players would only be able to see others in their current block much like players inside buildings currently do. This would provide limited cover for survivors hiding out inside the sewer system instead of being trapped outside on the street, plus it would allow zombie hordes to mask their numbers by sleeping underground if they so choose.

Discussion (Sewers)

Dupe, many times over. Sorry. --Pestolence^(talk) 12:01, 6 May 2009 (BST)

Too bad. Maybe it should also be on the frequently suggested ideas page as I have a short memory and might bring it back up again in a month. --YoEleven 19:03, 6 May 2009 (BST)

It's on the talk page at Frequently Suggested now, anyone who wants to give an opinion on Sewers being added to the Frequently Suggested List can make it known there. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:47, 6 May 2009 (BST)

---

Marksmanship (Work-in-progress)

Timestamp:	Alexandy 05:07, 6 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors with guns who have Basic Firearms Training
Description:	Gives survivors the ability to lean out of the windows of a building and fire at a zombie outside of the building. Simply because we have idiots who barricade up to EHB while we are outside fending off an invasion of our current safehouse. Chance of hit drops 2%-3%, damage remains satus-quo.

Discussion (Marksmanship)

Shooting zombies outside is a stupid idea, why should we be encouraging it? Also you do realise you can always exit a building if you do want to go outside and do this? So saying that people are barricading above VSB doesn't actually stop you going outside. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:21, 6 May 2009 (BST)

He means "We go outside to shoot, and in the minute we're outside someone active inside cades up so we can't get back in," I think. It's still a positively moronic argument. You want to be a trenchie and spit in the face of real survivor goals, you deserve it if you get caught outside by cades. Fend off invasions from the inside, where you can actually keep them out. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:24, 6 May 2009 (BST)

I like how some players tell others how to play (ie. "shooting zombies outside is stupid"). Of course, I'm doing the same, in a way, with regards to this suggestion. This HAS been suggested a lot. The problem with it is that ZOMBIES ARE PLAYERS TOO All this does is gives EVERY survivor in the building as much as 21 points of "armor" that zombies have to get through to get to the survivor who is shooting at them. And since said survivor is actively shooting, they can spend an AP to keep the barricades from falling too. And then probably Free Run away for an AP if the barricades did fall. While it may be realistic to shoot out of the safety of a barricaded building, it doesn't work for Urban Dead where one of the main tenants is that, if you want to get XP for attacking another player, you have to risk they will attack back.--Pesatyel 06:40, 6 May 2009 (BST)

For fuck sake .... READ THIS STUFF: Frequently_Suggested#The_List and Suggestions Dos and Do Nots.

Anyway... it's not "telling people how to play" by pointing out that shooting zombies in the street is idiotic. It's also obvious that, while the game allows it, the mechanics are such that it's pretty clear you were intended to defend buildings from inside, not to go shoot zombies outside who'll just stand up again for 6 AP... --WanYao 10:27, 6 May 2009 (BST)

If your trying to make the game realistic, when you lean out the window, wouldn't your target drag you out and brutally murder you. Just that one, tiny little flaw that its a stupid idea. -- User:Ben A Martin

Unless you are bright enough to use stairs and shoot from an upper floor window :D --Honestmistake 12:58, 6 May 2009 (BST)

Note that in this ame, all buildings have one floor. -- User:Ben A Martin

"we are outside fending off an invasion of our current safehouse". We ought to have a guide telling people to spend their AP on re-barricading buildings, or securing nearby buildings as back-up safehouses, or searching for radio transceivers, or indeed anything that doesn't completely waste the AP... In regard to the suggestion, it's game-breakingly powerful. I'd spam it if it were up for voting. --LaosOman 13:50, 7 May 2009 (BST)

---

Blunt Weapon Critical Hit

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 15:47, 5 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Blunt weapons
Description:	Blunt weapons have no purpose, but it makes sense a sharp ergonomic axe would be more damaging and accurate. However bats and pipes can do massive harm occasionally, it's the difference between a bruising blow and a bone shattering one. Therefore I suggest giving some blunt weapons a high but infrequent critical hit. Right now axes do 6 av damage per 5 attacks. Several blunt weapons do 2.5 av damage per 5 attacks. I suggest giving those weapons around a 60% chance of doing 3 additional damage on a successful hit. Since these weapons only have 25% accuracy that means that survivors are likely to only have one crit per 5 attacks, making the overall average damage per 5 attacks identical to the axe (my math is inaccurate but the final numbers would be tweaked to statistical perfection). This would give blunt weapons a much wider variance in possible damage compared to the axe. The axe would have a range of 0-15 damage per 5 attacks. A blunt weapon would have a maximum (very unlikely) damage of 25! However it would also be much more likely to do very little or no damage. With only a 25% hit rate, and just a 60% crit rate it would be common to only do 2 damage per 5 attacks, or maybe none at all. Blunt weapons with different stats could also be given criticals, but they'd have to be calibrated differently. So that's the improvement. Now there are two ways of introducing this. One is just a blanket improvement to blunt weapons. This would make blunt weapons the ideal choice for new players after they get hand to hand combat but before they get axe proficiency. Or it could require an additional skill, with would leave blunt weapons solely used by roleplayers (but now more viably) or by gamblers who want to play the odds.

Discussion (Blunt Weapon Critical Hit)

This made my head hurt. If anyone can figure out the correct numbers it'd be happy to hear them, these are just ballpark figures. --A Big F'ing Dog 15:55, 5 May 2009 (BST)

I think this is too much of a boost. More reasonable might be a 25% chance to cause double damage and a headshot (headshot skill not required but obviously the blow would still have to be the killer!) Still I do hate headshot as it stands and giving it away as a freebie, even a rare newbie special freebie, would upset a lot of people. --Honestmistake 16:53, 5 May 2009 (BST)

ugh. more realism =/= more fun, you know. also... "realistically", how do you justify critical hits against the fucking undead??? bludgeon damage is mostly meaningless, and edged crits would have to dismember the Zeds to mean anything. and i don't think zombies would take kindly to having what would need, to be logical at all, to be permanent damage from crits.

bad idea. all round. --WanYao 19:07, 5 May 2009 (BST)

I mean, technically headshot is a kind of critical hit. Just because they're dead doesn't mean they don't have bones. --A Big F'ing Dog 19:59, 5 May 2009 (BST)

No, it isn't. Otherwise it would work on survivors as well. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:17, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Does it not work on survivors? I know the old XP drain version didn't but i didn't realize the newer version didn't either. Probably should have tho, must be ages since I last got PK'd --Honestmistake 23:50, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Actually it is a kind of critical hit, imo. But an automagical one, sigh. Anyway... yeah... zombies have bones... exactly... and if you crit them, they're fucking dead so those broken bones, etc. aren't going to mend. are they? meaning... a crit = a permanent penalty/disability if it has any meaning at all = really shitty if you're zombie. as I explianed before. and, as I said, and repeat, "bad idea. all round." --WanYao 10:32, 6 May 2009 (BST)

/me is losing patience with all these horrible suggestions ... apparently. siiiiiiiiigh. --WanYao 10:43, 6 May 2009 (BST)

Why wouldn't they mend? Zombies heal. Also, with all that jumping out of windows they must have broken bones now and then. --A Big F'ing Dog 14:42, 6 May 2009 (BST)

I present the zombie chewbacca defence: Zombies do not heal in canon, being dead, and Chewbacca is not a zombie! It - does - not - make - sense! I rest my bum. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 14:58, 6 May 2009 (BST)

Right. Anyway... Zombies in canon do not heal, what with being CORPSES and all. However, eating corpses in UD heals HP, I sorta forgot abt that, it being such a useless feature which I never use.... But, anyway, is HP = to physical integrity when you're dead? Not necessarily. Anyway, more realism =/= more fun. And Chewbacca is dead, it was "a long time ago", remember? --WanYao 15:25, 6 May 2009 (BST)

Ok. I will support this suggestion under one condition: large trout are added to the game and act as blunt weapons. --WanYao 15:29, 6 May 2009 (BST)

---

Gun Range

Timestamp:	Ben A Martin 01:45, 5 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	Survivors with guns
Description:	Seems to me like the only reason that one would us a pistol over a shotgun is for the clip, (accuracy is hardly differnt) so to make the pistol a ittle better, the shotgun can only hit the block your in, while the pistol can hit your block, adjasent blocks, and blocks adjasent to those, but accuracy decrases 15% for every block away. I'm escepting this idea to get shot down, but its a dream. Posted by Ben A Martin

Discussion (Gun Range)

*shoots the suggestion down* No. No multi-block range and please, please, please think about what's horribly wrong with "Seems to me like the only reason that one would us a pistol over a shotgun is for the clip." For the love of jimminy crickett we can't even see past one block away. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:48, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Perhaps when this guy has a character above level 10 and more than one zombie skill between his three alts he'll understand pistols are the superior weapon. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:12, 5 May 2009 (BST)

While it may be more realistic to have guns being able to hit a target more than a block away, it's not really fair to allow survivors to attack from the relative safety of adjacent blocks. Pistols are superior to shotguns because you don't need to waste an AP reloading for every single shot -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:41 5 May 2009 (BST)

Sniper pistols = INSTA-SPAM! --Pestolence^(talk) 03:02, 5 May 2009 (BST)

That sounds like a bumper sticker. -George Zip ^◆◆◆ 03:27, 5 May 2009 (BST)

The pistol and shotgun already have roles. Why change them uncessarily?--Pesatyel 06:08, 5 May 2009 (BST)

"Seems to me like the only reason that one would us a pistol over a shotgun is for the clip" -- from your opening phrase you're wrong. Pistols are far better than shotguns. Calculate AP usage per damage point and damage relative to encumbrance... Pistols win hands down, especially in the all-important-in-Urban-Dead AP war. In fact, pistols are superior on every count except one: shotguns inflict more damage faster. And sometimes this is important, and when it is, it makes using shotguns worth incurring the disadvantages. However, I still prefer pistols -- and so do many experienced players. --WanYao 15:37, 6 May 2009 (BST)

---

GPS Use - Display Suburb

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 18:28, 4 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	GPS Device
Description:	I suggest allowing people to use GPS units to inform others of their general area. Clicking a GPS unit would cost 1AP and turn on this feature. Clicking it again would turn it off. If you have a GPS unit your contact list would display the current suburb of any contact with an activated GPS unit in their inventory. Your own GPS need not be activated. This makes GPS units useful but risky to use, as they can attract both friends and enemies. However only providing the suburb, not the precise location, prevents them from being overpowered or overly dangerous. Zombies would be able to use this as well, but they'd have to acquire their GPS units and turn them on or off while living. They'd also be able to drop their GPS units to hide.

Discussion (GPS Use - Display Suburb)

Certainly allows for a lot of harassment. I'd say you should only be able to access it if yours is on as well. No free rides (positions). Then again, I'm not a fan of the idea in general. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:38, 4 May 2009 (BST)

I thought about that, but someone could just turn it on, check their contact list for someone's positions, and then turn it off again. Making it work for mutual contacts only is one option, but people use their contact list for enemies as much as allies. A complicated system to only allow certain color contacts would work, but I decided to follow K.I.S.S. Also to make it less "free" this could be dependent on both parties having a powered phone mast in their suburb.--A Big F'ing Dog 19:13, 4 May 2009 (BST)

"Last known location" could be one way to discourage people just flipping it on for a second. You ping, you're visible. Like active sonar in a submarine! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:15, 4 May 2009 (BST)

True, but since the odds of the person staying in the same location the entire time your using your AP for te day is pretty high, that wouldn't matter so much.--Pesatyel 06:11, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Pinging isn't a bad idea, but can't be the only method or zombies wouldn't be able to use GPS units they carry. How about if your GPS unit is on it displays your current suburb in normal text, if it is off it just displays the last suburb it was on within in faint gray text. Dropping all GPS units would make it blank.--A Big F'ing Dog 15:02, 5 May 2009 (BST)

---

Weather

Timestamp:	LaosOman 17:06, 4 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Flavour
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	It's not so much needed as it is wanted. I'm sure I'm not the only one who fancies some climate. I've yet to find a duplicate for this suggestion: most of them have only three options, and most of them affect gameplay. Now, here's the idea. Outdoor areas and certain buildings would get a small line added to the description of the site. This would be right after "You are standing outside the Millett Building, a fire-damaged red-brick building with smoke drifting from its roof." Basically, first you get the description of the building, then the weather, and then the building's status. "You are standing outside the Millett Building, a fire-damaged red-brick building with smoke drifting from its roof. The rain forms small puddles around you. The building has been very strongly barricaded." Weather would be one of the following: sunny, heat, cloudy, windy, rain, downpour, gale, thunderstorm, snow, hail. Buildings that allow the survivors to witness weather are Stadiums, Fort Gatehouses, all Zoo buildings except the Reptile House and the Aquarium, Buildings (NT or normal), Hospitals, Hotels, Schools, Towers and Junkyards. Standing on an Empty Block or outside a building also lets you witness the weather, obviously. The weather changes every day at midnight, and the available weathers depend on the season. Spring: sunny (20%), heat (5%), cloudy (20%), windy (15%), rain (25%), downpour (10%), thunderstorm (5%) Summer: sunny (30%), heat (25%), cloudy (15%), windy (15%), rain (10%), gale (5%) Autumn: sunny (10%), cloudy (15%), windy (20%), rain (25%), downpour (15%), gale (10%), thunderstorm (5%) Winter: sunny (5%), cloudy (25%), windy (15%), rain (15%), snow (25%), hail (15%) Flavour text for outdoors, Zoo Enclosures, Stadiums and Junkyards could be like this: You are standing outside <place>. The sun is shining. You are standing outside <place>. Heat pounds down on you. You are standing outside <place>. Clouds block the sunlight. You are standing outside <place>. A few leaves are blown around. You are standing outside <place>. The rain forms small puddles around you. You are standing outside <place>. The ground is completely covered with rain. You are standing outside <place>. The strong winds almost blow you over. You are standing outside <place>. Lightning flashes in the sky. You are standing outside <place>. The ground is covered in a blanket of snow. You are standing outside <place>. Hail falls down all around you. For indoors: You are inside <place>. The sun shines in through the windows. You are inside <place>. With the AC broken, the heat is killing. You are inside <place>. Through the window, you can see a grey sky. You are inside <place>. Through the window, you can see tree branches swaying slightly. You are inside <place>. Rain droplets slide down the window. You are inside <place>. Rain washes constantly down the window. You are inside <place>. You hear the wind howling outside. You are inside <place>. Every so often, you hear thunder. You are inside <place>. Through the window, you see the snow falling down. You are inside <place>. Hail constantly taps against the windows.

Discussion (Weather)

You'd have saved yourself lots of typing if you'd have found the real dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:12, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Could you provide a link to "the real dupe", please? --LaosOman 14:14, 5 May 2009 (BST)

I could. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:15, 5 May 2009 (BST)

*snark* --Pestolence^(talk) 20:30, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Why did I even try...? Anyway, I went through 181 seach results containing the word "weather". Either they affected gameplay, or they had significantly less possibilities for the weather. --LaosOman 19:08, 6 May 2009 (BST)

As Iscariot, and you pretty much duped yourself even though you say it's "not a dupe." I still think it's dupish enough to be duped. Weather should be the same across Malton (both for realism and ease of coding on Kevan's part, really), and freak snowstorms and all that jazz in the middle of summer doesn't make any sense either. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:40, 4 May 2009 (BST)

What, so all weather-related suggestions are now dupes because there's one weather-related suggestion already in existence? I still believe that this is arguably different - more weather types and it doesn't affect gameplay. I'll take the other things you said into account, though. --LaosOman 14:14, 5 May 2009 (BST)

So it's just flavour? As such it's not a bad idea. I don't love it, but I don't hate it, either. Oh.... pls find the "real dupe"... otherwise it's hearsay. --WanYao 19:11, 5 May 2009 (BST)

---

New Communication

Timestamp:	Ben A Martin 12:31, 4 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	Zombies and Survivors
Description:	Starting with the zed bonus, a new communication skill, under the death rattle skill, allowing them to make out basic words,(such as Helllp?, or Saave!, etc.), and with Survivors, the ability to Whisper, privately talking to someone in the same building, and (not or, must have both) on your contacts list. This is my first time suggesting, so im not sure if these have been asked for before. Posted by Ben A Martin

Discussion (New Communication)

Hmm. Not bad. I think whisper has already been suggested. See http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/5th-Feb-2006#Different_Speech_Types As for the zombie side, do you mean they can say these words? Because at the moment zombies can understand everything you say...... --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:43, 4 May 2009 (BST)

I'm not sure how else to reply, so ill do it this way. For the zombies, it adds more advanced options, so rather than mere groans. While they cannot type willy-nilly, they get a select set of word options to replace the groans and inform the survivors of there intensions, so, for example, if at a revive point, zombie gestures at you. zombie cries helllllppp to you, so you (hopefully) won't kill him, and know that he wants to be revived.

Why not just Mrh? and gesture at themselves? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:40, 5 May 2009 (BST)

The beauty of zombie speech is that if you want to make yourself understood in a lengthy dialog, you need to put some effort into it, meaning that all those idiot talk spammers just STFU unless they've something useful to say. Zombie communication is superior to survivor communication for this reason. No scrolling through pages of drivel, either it's a short "speech", or it's something that gives an informative message like a feeding groan (which is very hard to fake) or a "Mrh?". Whisper is fairly well duped already -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:05 5 May 2009 (BST)

this comment was sheer genius. boxy, you get ALL my cookies. --WanYao 19:13, 5 May 2009 (BST)

---

Slanted Killing XP

Timestamp:	Parakirby 10:36, 5 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Balance change
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	As it stands now, both teams are running around, killing people at complete random. While this may seem fair for long term players, people who are new and have yet to level up may find the constant death frustrating. In order to counteract the constant lower-level character killing, why not change the amount of XP gained from killing? As it is now: 10 XP is earned per kill, no matter what. What is suggested: 5 XP for someone who is five levels or more under you, 8 for anyone between four and one level under you, 10 for anyone your level or two levels higher, 12 for anyone three to five levels higher, and 15 for anyone higher than six levels above you. Impacts: This means that all players who are more experienced will be targetted over new players, leading to a decrease in frustration among the newbie population. It will also encourage players to attack other players who are much higher levelled than them, in an effort to get the larger XP bonus.

Discussion (Slanted Killing XP)

Speaking from experience, as A zombie I always try and kill the highest level survivor in the room anyway. And if im killing a zombie chances are I don't know his level anyway unless I've DNA scanned him first. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:08, 3 May 2009 (BST)

This is another one that's been suggested in various forms, many times. Anyway... Ross'ss is right: most organised zombies already target high level characters first because they constitute the greatest threat. Ferals, however, are often another story... And because zombies are anonymous, this won't help babahz -- sadly, because headshot sucks as a babah. Anyhoo... Revives are easy to come by, so getting killed lots isn't an issue. Get used to dying, it's part of the game. And as a babah harman, avoid the most dangerous suburbs. Hit the orange or "hot yellow" suburbs where there will be opportunities to level up (green burbs are a waste b/c there's nothing to do to level, red zones are well you know...) And btw it's not random if you join a good group, wink wink nudge nudge... --WanYao 17:00, 3 May 2009 (BST)

You do realize that the kill XP is only a fraction of the total XP you gain from a kill? You get 1 XP for every point of damage you cause, so you end up getting 50 or 60 XP just from that. 5XP either way wouldn't make much of a difference. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 17:31, 3 May 2009 (BST)

Works fine for zombies, sucks for humans. Even if you can scan, if the stack is already all scanned, you'll only be able to hit one zombie unless you use contacts. Zombies can target and view profiles of anyone they choose. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:00, 3 May 2009 (BST)

But levelling is WAY easier for survivors. Still, you have a point -- though if they matter, I have local zombies all contacted. --WanYao 11:13, 4 May 2009 (BST)

I think it is being forgotten that 80% of the time, fights encounters players aren't active. That is to say, that when one player encounters another, the other player is most often not actively controlling the character.--Pesatyel 18:07, 4 May 2009 (BST)

---

Day / Night Cycle

Timestamp:	Allope 22:26, 2 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	Survivors and zombies
Description:	To make things easier and challenging to both sides I would suggest a day and night cycle. This could make things interesting by utilizing the games dice roll function. During the night cycle it would make finding objects harder for survivors and decrease the visibility of zombies to survivors until they were closer. Also it could affect the the dice roll for survivor/zombie battles. During day cycles it could improve the dice roll for survivors for finding/fighting objects/zombies. Since this game is played by people all over the world the clock could be based on GMT time or something. Zombies are scarier in the dark aren't they? I got this idea from old greats like "Ultima" and Zork (remember the grues when you were in the dark w/o a lantern??). I am new to this game so forgive if the suggestion is "out there" hah. Look forward to running into some of you in Malton. alex255

Discussion (Day / Night Cycle)

First off I think it has been suggested before, I'm not sure though. Second, what about those players who live in the wrong time zone for their side? The easy example being survivors who can't be awake during the in-game daytime and take advantage of that, forced to always search during in-game darkness because that is when they play? - User:Whitehouse 23:00, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Dice? DICE? How dare you blaspheme the Mighty RNG!! On a more off-topic note, I don't mind new blood, but all these junk suggestions lately coupled with the "I'm new (and didn't do my homework) so don't hurt me" lines in the suggestions is getting old. On-topic - if you use GMT (or any timezone for that matter), you're screwing players who happen to be in other timezones over if they're only able to play at night. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:18, 3 May 2009 (BST)

Similar stuff has been suggested before. But as said above, it can't, simply can't, be based on GMT or any other 24hr timezone. It needs to be out of sync with any timezone, so that everyone gets their share of positive and negative day cycle changes in their own preferred playing time. I suggest making a full in-game day cycle last either 36 or 48 hours. Also I'd make sure that all styles of play had something to do that will benefit them, and also something that would detract from them, in both day and night cycles, so that there isn't a time of day when players need to do nothing but hide without being penalised -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:05 3 May 2009 (BST)

Sure, it could be based on a Urban Dead standard time which isn't a time clock but just some kind of day/night timer. But if this has been a suggestion that was not able to be considered in the past then it should be put in the dead topic list. Before i suggested this I made sure it was not in that list. --User:Allope 01:25, 3 May 2009 (BST)

As long as you make it sufficiently different from past suggestions (easy enough if you put a bit of time into it here), it won't be duped -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:43 3 May 2009 (BST)

Thanks for the advice Boxy, I'll do my best. I have a question though. Being an IT person myself, I am wondering if this sort of change is technically possible since it would affect a large part of the game? And do any of you think it would really make the game more interesting. These are probably the more important questions.

If you read the areas describing suggestions, I'm fairly sure it mentions somewhere that we're not supposed to talk about coding feasibility or program efficiency when it comes to suggestions - that's for Kevan and Kevan alone to decide. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:11, 3 May 2009 (BST)

People still do however - one must remember that those guidelines are old, and it's not all that unreasonable for those with some coding experience (don't look at me) to discuss how hard it may be for a suggestion to be implemented.

Oh, and one must always remember that Kevan doesn't really like coding, so difficult mega-suggestions aren't likely to be implemented. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:11, 3 May 2009 (BST)

Don't forget that we're not allowed to shoot down suggestions because of coding difficulty. It's written down in the rules. -George Zip ^◆◆◆ 03:24, 5 May 2009 (BST)

I reckon a cycle where day and night are both 24 hours long would work well. Perhaps with Survivor benefits during the day (improved search rates), but with improved Zombie benefits at night (accuracy boost) --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 09:21, 3 May 2009 (BST)

Above issues asides, you are suggestions a 12 hour period when survivors have a search rate advantage, and a night were everything is hindered. It is sounding like the right way to make Urban Dead less fun, with no drawcards bar a search rate boost for the group that is currently dominating. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:24, 3 May 2009 (BST)

I, for one think it is a great idea, and will for for it when the time comes. You have to agree, in all movies, the zombies are at the full stage of power in the night, and weaker during the day. However, a server time indicator would be needed, otherwise this idea would be horrible, because some would always see the negative, and sticking to realism, can't you notice when it day or night? Great thoughts.-- Ben A Martin

Those are vampires. Zombies don't give two brain cells (mostly because theirs are, you know, dead) about whether or not it's daytime. And you forgot a verb and duplicated a preposition too. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:38, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Actually, that was just a general jumble of incoherency. You are awarded no points, sir. --Pestolence^(talk) 03:33, 5 May 2009 (BST)

---

Move Body

Timestamp:	--01:17, May 2, 2009 Alex Randall
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I don't know if this has been suggested before so don't get mad at me if it has. Okay, basically I have noticed that the survivors are losing, quickly. The reason why is because of the fact that we can only throw the zombies outside of a building but never farther than that. I think there should be a skill that allows you to carry a dead body a certain distance away from where is was before. Maybe there is a limited amount of moves you can make before you just drop the body, or it could make it so the each move you make costs you more AP. Of course, if the character logs on and does the whole entire get up kind of thing the person instantly drops the body. If you need another risk to make this skill not seem overpowerful then how about whenever the body awakens and is still being carried it decreases the AP cost of reviving, and/or the person carrying the body is damaged by the body getting up. An exception could be if the body is a person who was revived, they could gain the decrease in AP cost but they don't injure the carrier. It would be a nice skill to have due to the fact that the survivors are indeed losing way too fast, the major cause is that once a zombie is in a suburb it doesn't have to leave, and imagine whenever a horde of zombies invade. Look at the maps. Zombies own about 3/4 of the city.

Discussion (Move Body)

Survivors are not losing. This is a dupe. There's massive potential for zerging body-carriers to move people where they don't want to be. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:51, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Im curious. Why do you think survivors are losing? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:54, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Fireman skill, survivor whining = INSTA-SPAM! --Pestolence^(talk) 19:56, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Moving bodies would be an absolute waste of AP, even if dragging a corpse cost only 1AP. You see, you have drag the corpse to where ever you're taking it, and then you have to walk back. The zombie only needs to walk the route once, while you need to do it twice. And guess what the survivors at the other location are going to do? That's right, they're going to drag it somewhere else, quite possible right back to your doorstep. You lose AP, the other survivors lose AP, and zombies laugh at the stupid harmans dragging them back and forth. The only places where moving bodies makes any kind of sense are the forts, and they can already do that. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:05, 2 May 2009 (BST)

The stat's page tells the story, and barring huge events or the addition of a new mega-group of zombies, the ratio of survivors to zombies stays around 60/40. Zombies may hold more territory, but survivors have plenty of places to call safe. Dragging bodies is a terrible idea in any case, as Midian explains from the survivor POV... unless there is a big tactical advantage (such as the need to clear a fort, or empty a building of potential zombies) player's bodies shouldn't be able to be moved elsewhere on the whim of individuals (who can gang up to grief unpopular players even further) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:23 3 May 2009 (BST)

I can see why this has been suggested but it wont pass and wouldn't work if it did. (AP expenditure balance etc.) I've always wondered about the possibility of flare guns working like zombie lures (pied piper I know, but it's an idea that has bounced around my head for a while.) A flare fired into the air has a X% chance to attract zombie within X number of blocks. It'd be a way for survivors to break up mega hordes but without any real control over the process.--DI Sweeny 12:13, 3 May 2009 (BST)

First of all, I join the chorus: zombies aren't dominating, anything but, so quit your whinging. In any event, short terms swings in the balance between one side or the other is not a justification for game changes. Secondly, all this is is a griefing tool. I could drag bodies halfway across the map and SCREW OVER the person I did this to. Multiply by a million, add in zergs... Super-spam.

Please, people, read the fucking Do's and Don't's ... .--WanYao 13:02, 3 May 2009 (BST)

As do I. Imagine if a guy like Finis had a tool like this. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:09, 3 May 2009 (BST)

We could play Bub soccer! Go find his body, drag it to the centre of Malton, and the first team to drag him to one corner or the other wins. A four way tug of war... AWESOME!!!11 ;) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:15 3 May 2009 (BST)

Now that does sound kinda cool. --WarlockVI 13:05, 5 May 2009 (BST)

---

Booby Trap

Timestamp:	--02:16, 1 May 2009 OMGitspattyrick
Type:	Skill and item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I was thinking that perhaps the game would be more fun if there was an option of creating booby traps. The concept is pretty simple. You would need first a Booby Trap skill (or what ever other name fits bits perhaps Gurilla tactics). The skill would be learned through the military tree, or perhaps it could be learnt through finding a guilla warfare book in an armory. Then you would also need the items to make a trap. Items: Trip wire, pistol or shotgun, and maybe small amounts of explosives (big maybe) Once you have all of the items you would create the booby trap on the inside of a building. I suggest it would cost 2 or 3 AP to create a booby trap considering how in real life it can be time intensive and labor intensive to actually create a booby trap. The booby trap itself doesn't discriminate against its target so it would damage humans and zombies alike, including yourself. The actual trap will go off if someone attempts to enter the building. Causing perhaps the damage that the weapon itself would cause if you used it against a player. This would not give an advantage to either the survivors especially because it will still damage other survivors if they enter that building. The reason i said explosives are maybe its because of course that would be a new introduction of an item and they of course could theoretically be used against other players as just the c4 themselves instead of a booby trap. This is my first post on the wiki so please critique me on my post.

Discussion (Booby Trap)

Now, I like this idea, but I think it needs a little change. In the Zombie Apocalypse, people would try to set up booby traps. I don't think explosives would be right exactly, but I'd be for adding in a trap that the first person who enters the building (without free running) gets attacked by one attack from the weapon set up. This would most likely require maybe like, construction, One loaded pistol, shotgun, or maybe even Flare Gun (removes from inventory) --LarzAluphe 20:48, 1 May 2009 (BST)

I don't like this idea one bit. It doesn't give advantages to either side, but it gives strong advantages to a single survivor. More specifically, to a griefer - survivors are a lot more likely to enter a building than zombies are, putting a great question mark over the point of it all. --LaosOman 21:44, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Booby Trap, Set Trap, Shotgun Trap, all from Frequently Suggested - The List. Just saying.--Necrofeelinya 01:11, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Auto-attacks and the ability to hurt yourself with no warning are no good at all. Imagine if you managed to survive being dragged outside with 3 HP only to die trying to get back inside. And these definitely cannot stack... though they're not going to get implemented anyway. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:29, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Nope, as necro and BobBob. --WanYao 04:46, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Frequently Suggested, Suggestion Do's and Don'ts, etc. Who would of thought the links we put around here aren't obvious enough. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:26, 2 May 2009 (BST)

It makes sense, but not only is this a dupe, LaosOman makes a good point by saying that this would really only have a real benefit for griefers. You can't control who will step into your booby trap, which makes it more likely that you're going to hurt your fellow survivors, and if you COULD control who would step into it, that would be seriously unfair territory. Add in what BobBoberton said about being killed in a booby trap after just barely making it to a safehouse, and you've got a really, really irritating piece of work here. --Fujiko Mine 04:47, 5 May 2009 (BST)

---

Thorough Search

Timestamp:	--05:32, 1 May 2009 (BST)LarzAluphe
Type:	Balance Change?
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Alright, so I've heard a lot of people complaining about adding new weapons would make it harder to find ____, (yet oddly, they vote FOR new random useless items *shrugs*) I don't know if this has been suggested or too hard to implement, but the idea pretty much goes like this: Let's say, in a Police Department, there is a 15% chance of finding something. instead of looking for any old thing, wouldn't you, if you were in this situation, try and find specific items? Like, instead of picking up random items when, in this instance, Bob Bobberson searches, he has a set goal in his head. He WANTS those pistol clips and shotgun shells, but why does this mean Bob is FORCED to pick up random things? (or waste that search anyway by making him auto-discard such items) He has a set goal he wants, so he's going to search more thoroughly for them Pistol clips. So, this suggestion would be: in a separate box that that you can hide/unhide, you check off items that you wish to search for. This then devides up that 15% into parts for each of what you are looking for. This would be devided up based on the BASE search rate (regular search rate), so that way you would have about the same ratio of items found. This could be implemented by adding a new skill: Thorough Search: after obtaining the skill, survivors will from now on be able to access a new search button that lets them decide what exactly they are searching for. This then divides up what they are looking for based on their regular search percentage for that item and the total search percentage (up to a MAX of 10% per item). This skill would probably be forced, in all fairness, to cost more AP then regular searches. It would probably be 2 or 3 AP for Thorough Searches, if not maybe even more?

Discussion (Thorough Search)

Thorough and specific searches have been suggested before. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:38, 1 May 2009 (BST)

"(yet oddly, they vote FOR new random useless items *shrugs*)" Well I hope you didn't hurt yourself shruging... but the reason we can vote for useless items is because they're not found in the same locations as useful items (usually Museums etc.) As with guns, these sort of things have trouble getting passed - if they increase overall search rates, zombies are going to rabble and kill it; if they don't increase overall search rates, why implement it in the first place? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:17, 1 May 2009 (BST)

This would actually make SENSE in a game like this. Also: I would like to say that, despite popular belief among the wiki, CHANGE IS GOOD.

P.S. In order for this game to progress. The zombies will have to one day get over themselves. One day they are going to figure out. If they want to play the same game for the next five years, fine, I'd like the source code so me and a few friends can play a game that would actually CHANGE and become better.--LarzAluphe 10:34, 1 May 2009 (BST)

zombies have to get over themselves? huuuuuuuuh??? the people who think that these factions exist have to get over themselves. assuming "hardcore zombie players" exist, which they don't, really, b/c most of those players you're talking about also play "hardcore survivor alts" too... they are often the ones who push for some of the bigger changes in the game. but, people who are into the zombie metagame are usually very knowledgeable about the game and its mechanics and know bad ideas when they read them. and, they also KNOW that zombies get the short end of the stick in terms of balance, and point it out sometimes. so what? but, they have nothing to get over. they keep playing and having fun. and eating silly, badly organised survivors.

i think you need to get over yourself, buddy. and your idiotic, arrogant and obsolete us vs. them attitude. see, change is good when it's good. but a bad idea is just a bad idea. period. deal with it. or... go code your own game if you're so much smarter than the rest of us. good luck with that project. --WanYao 13:54, 1 May 2009 (BST)

You aren't going to get anywhere by coming onto the wiki of Urban Dead, making 20 contributions, suggesting a dupe that's littered with unfounded and ignorant statements that offend the community, and then insulting the community when they tell you that you're wrong. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:10, 1 May 2009 (BST)

I tried a suggestion like this before. Didn't work. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 14:47, 1 May 2009 (BST)

It makes you wonder, given his responses, if the author has ever actually PLAYED a zombie.--Pesatyel 16:09, 1 May 2009 (BST)

With all his caps, I'm reminded of Zombie Lord shouting about hardcore survivor balls! And yes, he's being blatantly moronic with fallacious argumentation. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:00, 1 May 2009 (BST)

While I have played a zombie, I just find it illogical that the Wiki community seems to think change is bad. Whenever someone says something should be added, it's more or less immediately shot down because they fear it's too big of a change. While it may be a big change for survivors, what we need to do is buff Zombies too. As it is, I see too many Survivor ideas, and not enough Zombo ideas. I just find it funny how, in the actual game, people actually seem to be nice and smart, but on the wiki, people seem to act immature when they disapprove of a more realistic idea. The only real reason that I suggested the Rifle idea in the first place is to counter the fact that there's only TWO real weapons in this game. The Revolver, and the Double-barreled Shotgun. I mean, this game has been around for, what, two, three years? And there's ONLY a Revolver and an Obsolete Shotgun?

The only reason I really SAID that zombies need to get over themselves, is that so far, by what I've read, most kill votes to help survivors come from Zombies (and most kill votes that help zombies come from survivors). And now, instead of continuing to argue, why don't we ALL grow up (including me) and try to improve this game's realness AND funnest? (Is that even proper grammar?)

P.S. No matter how much some people hate it, this is actually something that would happen IRL. I mean, if you were in the zombie apocalypse, searching through a police station, would YOU pick up the first things you find and go back to camp? I mean last night, I got four radios on my main guy, and then this morning, I go to search with my alt, and he gets THREE Fire axes in a row.--LarzAluphe 20:42, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Couple important notes: As before, you're ignoring people saying "Change isn't bad, but bad changes are bad." Not to mention this is a dupe. The reason there are more survivor ideas versus zombie ideas is simple: Zombies eat brains, Survivors survive. There's a huge complexity difference there. Buff everyone? Then it turns into "I can kill 5 other players!" Player "power" is in a good place now, let's not upset it by buffing both sides simultaneously. "Two" "real" weapons? I would say four - Pistols, Shotguns, Axes, and Knives. Mor importantly, UD isn't a game that prides itself on having "over 25 weapons to beat up your enemies with!!", it's about the balance. Finally, it is very important to realize that realism ("realness") does not equate to enjoyability ("funnest"). Zombies aren't realistic. You have to be extremely careful bringing "this makes sense" types of arguments into UD's realm. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:48, 1 May 2009 (BST)

For what it's worth, you're wrong about "zombie players" and voting on suggestions. I've been at this a long time (gaaaad) and I will tell you that most people vote on the merits of the suggestion. I've seen those alleged "zombie players" vote for good pro-survivor ideas, and shoot down crappy zombie buffs. All the time. And the same for alleged "survivor players". If you perceive a bias, it's because so many suggestions have been (and still are) made from a pro-survivor POV usually by people who don't really understand the ins and outs of how the game treats zombies. So people with that experience are often vociferous in attacking stuff that hurts zombies, or that is blatantly one-sidedly pro-survivor.

It's great you want to get involved in the community. Seriously. But you have to understand that this is a community, an established one. And you can't waltz into a community and offend people, or not listen to the "elders" of the community when they try to tell you something. I try not to flame people like I used to, these days.. But shit your comments pissed me off... --WanYao 04:59, 2 May 2009 (BST)

You have to consider what you are saying, too, with your "Most survivor buff suggestions that are killed are from 'zombies'". The game has been going for 4 years, and you come in and after 3 days, you spurt crap about the trends in the suggestion voting system. Also, try considering this: In this wiki, you will encounter some of the smartest personalities you'll care to remember, but you'll also notice the most ignorant. You'll meet the most engaging, but also the most droning and lethargic. So please don't try and tell us that we are all retarded and all fearful of change. We generally know from our suggestion history (something you still need to grasp), what suggestions are bad and what are possible. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:26, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Oh, and I had noticed WanYao's lack-of-flaming. I used to get a lot of it with my crappy suggestions. Still, I stuck around and really got into the game, and I noticed my suggestions getting better. Heck, my last 2 suggestions became Peer Reviewed. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 15:02, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Even when yours were strange and only worthy of rejection, at leased you pumped out lots that were original. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:57, 4 May 2009 (BST)

True 'dat. My ideas were very rarely duped. Then again, they were even more rarely accepted either. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 12:21, 4 May 2009 (BST)

If all you're grousing about is finding unwanted items, the answer is simple. When you next log on with your character, click the button that says "Settings". Scroll down to "Game Preferences". Uncheck all the little boxes of items you don't want your character to find, and leave all the ones you're looking for checked. Adjust your settings to your preference of observation of feeding groans, radio broadcasts, flares, and barricades. Click "Make Changes". You are no longer required to pick up random things, and it costs you no additional AP. Continue playing as usual. If what you want is a way to buff search rates for desired items, all the above bickering still applies, as do the objections due to dupishness, pardon the intrusion, and please carry on.--Necrofeelinya 00:59, 2 May 2009 (BST)

All that does is auto-drop unwanted items. It doesn't change search rates for a designated 'wanted' item, as this suggestion proposes. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:36, 3 May 2009 (BST)

He isn't saying "dupe" or anything. The author's main premise is that a person would be searching for specific things rather than just keeping whatever they have to find. THAT is already part of the game.--Pesatyel 18:13, 4 May 2009 (BST)

You can't use that kind of "reality" argument in Urban Dead. In "reality" we wouldn't have unlimited materials to scavenge. Once building was completely searched, it would be EMPTY.--Pesatyel 18:13, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Maybe we need to compile a list of "Suggestions that 'make sense' but should not be implemented or submitted to DevSug." I'll start:

1. Eating, Drinking, Pooping, and others that fall into the category of Ye Olde Bodily Functions
2. "New" guns and "useful" weapons "that aren't dupes"
3. Permanent death after headshot (oh you mean if I blow your head off, it just grows back?)
4. Running out of supplies to search for in buildings
5. The military carpet-bombing the hell out of Malton and/or nuking it!
6. Sewers, multiple building levels, hiding on top of ladder forts since we all know zombies can't climb ladders, hiding in closets, hiding under tables
7. Auto-attacks or free attacks of any kind ("Would YOU stand around while a zombie nom'd you to death?" "No goddammit UD doesn't work that way goddamn!")
8. Changing up the FAK/HP system because gauze doesn't heal wounds in real life
9. Removing rot revives ("So... the only thing that causes rot revives to work is... wireless necrotech internet?" "DO NOT QUESTION THE WIRELESS GODS!")

I bet I'm missing tons. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:25, 4 May 2009 (BST)

This idiot was very lucky I was taking a break from this page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:18, 4 May 2009 (BST)

---

Choke Tube

Timestamp:	Treviabot92 00:54, 1 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Man, it's been some time since I've been here, let alone posted a suggestion. Anyways...Ok, so choke tubes are meant for shotguns. They actually narrow the spread of the projectiles, so that the damage is focused onto one specific place. For our purposes, this will either do more damage to the target or increase the chance of hitting your target. Your choice, not mine. If this is put in, I'd suggest it be placed in the gun store, because it's used with shotguns.

Discussion (Choke Tube)

Shotgun choke applies to "flechette type ammo rather than the standard issue police shells and as such does not fit with the current ammo. In any event, even if we assumed a shotgun round that fired in a spreading pattern then surely any increase in damage would represent a narrowing of pattern and hence reduced accuracy and vice versa (ie bonus to hit/penalty to damage)--Honestmistake 01:06, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Actually, it doesn't apply only to flechette type ammo. My dad uses a semi-auto 12 gauge shotgun with a choke tube (albeit, he doesn't hit the clay birds as much as my pump-action 12 gauge, because of that choke, plus he has to rely on special glasses to see the bird properly). The penalty to damage wouldn't make sense, because more pellets are hitting the target. If anything, then, in retrospect, it should be a penalty to accuracy. Treviabot92 01:10, 1 May 2009 (BST)

This is YOUR idea, not ours. If you don't know what YOU want with the idea, why should we bother discussing it? We are here to critique and discuss the suggestion, not make it for you.--Pesatyel 01:49, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Well, which would you suggest? Damage buff or hit buff? Cos I ain't decreasing anything if I can help it, a person's accuracy isn't affected by the weapon they use (unless, of course, the weapon is never maintained, then it sucks). Treviabot92 02:51, 1 May 2009 (BST)

I would suggest "neither." Shotguns are fine as is. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:40, 1 May 2009 (BST)

...No, they're not. Treviabot92 04:53, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Aaaand that's where the disagreement lies. If you improve guns at all, your suggestion isn't going to be passed because everyone will rabble about unbalancing. If you don't improve them and make them on-par with current guns, your suggestion isn't going to be passed because it'll be extra junk in the system (why implement it in the first place?). --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:51, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Sorta reminds me of you Bob... ALRIGHT: On topic. I do believe that shotguns SHOULD be changed in some way. There is NO chance that a Shotgun is as accurate as a Pistol (assuming this is longer range) This is why, in some way shape or form, I support making the Shotgun LESS accurate, but packing it with extra punch.

I remind you of me? Well, alright... but have you ever seen Olympic Shooting? That's pretty damn accurate (and we all have advanced shotgun training - and these might be long-barrelled models), not to mention that there's no such thing as "range" in UD. You're either standing right next to someone in the same location, or you're not. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:13, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Um, yea, I'll let you in on a secret Bob. They are most likely using Choke Tubes in the olympics.--LarzAluphe 10:44, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Who's to say the shotguns in UD don't already have choke tubes? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:58, 1 May 2009 (BST)

It is not our job to make that decision. This is YOUR idea! YOU don't even know what you want? How are we supposed to discuss the subject if the AUTHOR doesn't even know what he's suggesting? YOU tell us what you are suggesting and we read it and give examples of why the idea wouldn't work and/or how it could be improved.--Pesatyel 16:14, 1 May 2009 (BST)

I think what he's arguing is that a shotgun firing normal ammunition, the shot in the shell would disperse over a wide area. But with this "choke tube", he's effectively turning the shotgun into a "rifle" as the tube lessens the dispersal pattern of the shot.--Pesatyel 07:34, 1 May 2009 (BST)

I like it. -CaptainVideo 08:27, 1 May 2009 (BST)

What's to like? The suggestion doesn't DO anything.--Pesatyel 16:11, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Ok, Instead of leaving the shotgun as is, how about we decrease the attack by a couple of points, let this item bring it up to the attack it used to be, and add some accuracy? Treviabot92 17:10, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Any overall buff is going to be shot down by zombies who don't want to die faster than they already do. If you nerf it additionally to begin with, that's just more reason for survivors to vote kill. Do you have to find one choke tube per shotgun or just one, like a flak jacket? How heavy are they? Do they add weight when installed? Does it cost AP to install it? Any of those being true will result in rabbling survivors. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:58, 1 May 2009 (BST)

How about instead of adding a new item that just magically appears you alter this suggestion to allow a survivor with a shotgun and a tool kit to saw of the barrel. The shotgun then becomes a "sawed off shotgun" in your inventory and now does 8 damage but with a +5% accuracy. Oh and enc should drop by 1% too. --Honestmistake 13:24, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Dupe. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:55, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Yup... and I voted kill on the other one. Mind you i would dispute the dupeness as my version has very different stats ;) --Honestmistake 09:18, 5 May 2009 (BST)

---

Notice When Out of Ammo

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 18:42, 30 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	When a survivor tries to fire a gun and they have no loaded ammunition it'll cost them 1AP to receive a message telling them their guns are empty. This can happen very easily mid-combat since unless you scroll down to check your inventory after every shot, it can be hard to keep track of a jumbled mass of guns with varying amounts of ammo. I suggest when you empty all of a kind of gun, either pistol or shotgun, you receive a tiny message after the result of your last attack: You empty your pistol. Simple as pie.

Discussion (Notice When Out Of Ammo)

Dupe of in-game. It tells you this already, pay attention. --WanYao 20:26, 30 April 2009 (BST)

He's right. It also doesn't waste an AP, thank God. Treviabot92 00:57, 1 May 2009 (BST)

It doesn't cost AP to dry fire? Good to know.--DI Sweeny 14:09, 2 May 2009 (BST)

The AP cost represents the panic of dry firing a gun. If you can't keep track of how many bullets/shells you have yourself who else is going to tell you?--DI Sweeny 00:55, 1 May 2009 (BST)

---

.22 Rifle

Timestamp:	LarzAluphe 22:04, 29 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Weapon
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	As to break away from the fact that apparently there are only Pistols, Shotguns, and Flare Guns in Malton, and to break away from the usual Rifle spam. I'm introducing: the .22 Rifle! Damage 7 points (5 against a flak jacket.) Base accuracy 10% Capacity 1 Round Locations Mall Gun Stores (2%) (The rounds 4% or maybe Higher?) Police Departments (3%) (Rounds 5%) Encumbrance 8% * Starting Skill: 15% Accuracy * Basic Firearms Training: 35% Accuracy * Rifle Training: 60% Accuracy * Advanced Rifle Training: 75% Accuracy Now, while this is going to be subject of spam and mass kills, I WOULD like to say, that this would mostly just be there to fill the gap of a less-damaging but more accurate gun, and to get rid of the fact that there's only pistols, shotguns, and flare guns in this city when it comes to guns.

Discussion (.22 Rifle)

This is too similar to the shotgun to justify adding it into the game. Plus, how would hunting rifles make it into the city in the first place? I doubt that too many people in a large city like Malton would have them before a zombie outbreak, and they wouldn't be able to make it in after the quarantine. --Pestolence^(talk) 23:13, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe. That's about how many times this has been suggested. We have shotguns and pistols and that's balance - and that's all we need. Check Frequently Suggested, please. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:59, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Honestly? It's easy that they would make it into a city. What do gun stores have in them? Only pistols and Shotguns? No, they do have Hunting Rifles in gun shops, even if it's the big city. Also: It's not ALL about balancing. It just bugs me and my cousin (who also plays this) to the point that he said that there's "only Revolvers and Double-Barreled Shotguns. What is this, the Wild West?" --User:LarzAluphe 23:30, 29 April 2009 (BST) ((Last time I edit that. Can't get the link to work)

I actually think that hunting rifles are more likely to be found in shops than pistols and shotguns. Since, you know, hunting rifles are actually legal... But I too must ask, how is the difference significant enough to warrant a new weapon? --LaosOman 14:45, 30 April 2009 (BST)

This is an instance where the mechanics are more important then the realism. In Urban Dead, The shotgun fills the role of a high damage, low ammo weapon. The pistol fills the roll of a medium damage, medium ammo weapon. What does THIS weapon do? It gets a +5% accuracy bonus over the shotgun and that's it. It is heavier then the shotgun --User:Pesatyel 04:37, 30 April 2009 (BST)

I don't need to read this. UD doesn't need new weapons. --WanYao 20:28, 30 April 2009 (BST)

Alright, I changed the suggestion a bit to reflect the fact that the Hunting Rifle would fill in a roll of higher accuracy, but at a damage Penalty. Also: I find it funny that people thing that cities should only have Revolvers (What pistols do YOU know of that uses CLIPS (different then magazines) and only has 6 shots?) and Double-Barreled Shotguns? They would have at LEAST an Auto-shotty or SOMETHING better then a double-barreled shotgun. P.S. I changed the name to a more realistic name, which is an actual rifle caliber.--User:LarzAluphe 23:32, 30 April 2009 (BST)

This has been suggested about 80 bazillion trillion times. And it's always shot down by experienced players for a number of reasons. Primarily, UD doesn't need any new weapons. Period. The choices we have make for game balance and simplicity. Adding more weapons will water down all search %ages in PDs. Adding more weapons is considered trenchcoatish - but let's explain why that's said... The focus of the game is not on shooting zombies. The focus of the game is not on guns and military types. Sure, these exist, but mostly it's about regular people scrambling to make do with what's around them. Surviving. And surviving isn't about shooting stuff: it's about hiding behind barricades or running when the barricades fall... and on healing the injured and reviving the undead... These are the most important and productive things for survivors to do -- not shoot shit -- and the game mechanics actually reflect this assumption. Except for XP gaining... but that's another story. Focusing on shooting zombies is seen by experienced players as non-productive behavior, and combined with a certain attitude which thinks this is an FPS and revels in pointlessly killing zombies in the street for example, then it's bona fide "trenchy".

Anyway... no new guns are really needed in UD. --WanYao 01:12, 1 May 2009 (BST)

As I said, its NOT about "not wanting" new guns in the game. We already have a combat shotgun, flamethrower, MP-5, Pipe Gun, and Another Submachinegun in Peer Review (as well as Brass Knuckles, Chainsaws, Bricks, Machetes, and Molotov Cocktails). Take a look at those and see WHY they made it into Peer Review and this idea won't. Urban Dead has very simplistic. And I don't think a +10% to hit bonus outweighs all the negiatve comparisons to the shotgun.--Pesatyel 01:57, 1 May 2009 (BST)

What I would like to say, is that this game pretty much NEEDS a rifle. No one IRL would suddenly be able to craft a Rail-spike shooting gun, or randomly find a FLAME thrower, but they WOULD be able to find a RIFLE. I do believe that there should be more Weapons in this game, a way to single down your searches (Only look for, say, Shotgun, Shotgun Shells, Pistol Clips) that would recalculate what you'd find, based on what you're LOOKING for. Another thing: where the HELL would you find a flame thrower? It's not like someone wold suddenly become McGyver and fashion one of of a paper clip, two rocks, and a piece of clothing. Once again, I would like to state the more or less NEED of a Rifle in this game. The best way to DO this, is find a balanced way to combine less powerful shots, with more accuracy. Another thing about this game, is that you won't be able to fire a shotgun as accurately as a pistol. So you we should PROBABLY try and tone down the accuracy on that, while buffing the fire power.

First, don't forget to sign your posts. Second, the flamethrower is found in the Armory. Third, I've already tried to explain it, now THREE times, that Urban Dead is very simplistic. When it comes to guns, you have 3 factors involved:

• Ammo capacity
• Damage
• Accuracy

The shotgun has high damage and low ammo. The Pistol has medium damage and medium ammo. Both have high accuracy. So what does that leave? A gun with low damage and high ammo. Your really NOT going to be able to affect accuracy at all since guns are meant to be highly accurate in the first place.--Pesatyel 07:39, 1 May 2009 (BST)

AUTO-SPAM - 'Nuff said. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 01:32, 1 May 2009 (BST)

---

Relay Baton

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 16:49, 29 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Special events, like the Malton itidarod
Description:	Players invent special events, and their own games and contests within the overall battle for the city. Here's a fun idea for a special item people can find a variety of uses for: relay batons. A relay baton is just a metal stick. It'd have 2% encumbrance. It'd be useable as a weapon, but no better than a pipe. You wouldn't be able to bar doors with it. Survivors or zombies holding a baton would be singled out in the room description, and you'd be able to select them with all actions as if they were in your contacts: Survivorname/A zombie is holding the red baton Players would be able to give relay batons to any other player (that has unchecked a default box in the preferences preventing this), transferring it to that person's inventory. Unlike every other item, a relay baton cannot be discarded and deleted. Instead, someone can (still for 0 AP) drop it wherever they are. It would appear on the location description, along with any artwork. Unlike artwork though any person can pick up and take the relay baton for 1AP. If someone is killed, they automatically drop any relay batons they are holding. Someone who idles out will also drop the relay baton. Relay batons can be moved from person to person, dropped and taken, but do not leave gameplay at any point. To prevent batons from piling around all over the city there would only be a limited number. You would not be able to find batons by searching. Instead a number would appear in the city's stadiums, parks, and schools for whoever comes first to take. Each baton would have a color unique to it, so there would only be one "red baton" in the game. How many there should be is up to debate, but I think there's no need for more than a few dozen. In time people would think up events and games to use them in, or maybe just hoard and fight for them pointlessly which is a kind of a game in itself. Thematic to a zombie apocalypse? Not really. But it fits in with fun flavor stuff like artwork, halloween masks, etc. And who says people quarantined in a zombie city wouldn't find ways to amuse themselves?

Discussion (Relay Batons)

All hail green baton! Maybe even 0% encumber, as these things are dead fixed in number. It'd certainly be interesting to see cults of batons and baton control warfare break out. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:58, 29 April 2009 (BST)

The good thing about the way special events and mini-games work now is that people who don't want to be a part of them can just ignore them. Maybe announce that someone has one of these on their profile page, but don't include it in the room description. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 03:28, 30 April 2009 (BST)

Good suggestion. The final version won't announce anything on the room description, unless one of your contacts is holding the object. --A Big F'ing Dog 19:36, 30 April 2009 (BST)

These ideas have been suggested before and haven't been received too well. That's not to say I don't like the idea, just that people aren't too fond of them. The main problem is that this is NOT thematic. A baton? A soccerball (the last similar idea I recall)? While it makes sense the survivors would "find things to do" it should be more in keeping with the story. In this case, instead of a "baton" how about a large animal femur or something? You see Bob holding an elephant femur or something like that.--Pesatyel 08:28, 30 April 2009 (BST)

A dog skull.... then we can play jugger! --Honestmistake 12:13, 30 April 2009 (BST)

Why??? In any event, you could do this with special items like halloween candy. So, again, why? --WanYao 20:29, 30 April 2009 (BST)

On one hand, it makes sense the survivors would "find things to do". Realistically speaking they would find ways to entertain themselves to keep themselves sane (well according to the Zombie Survival Guide). In UD terms, the game is, apparently, boring and they want other things to do.--Pesatyel 07:41, 1 May 2009 (BST)

---

Many Will Search, Few Will Win

Timestamp:	CaptainVideo 08:17, 26 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	New items of epic rareness. None of these are weapons.
Scope:	Survivors or treasure hunters
Description:

What makes these special is that they would all have extremely low yield rates. I don't just mean that it'll take more than one day to find one of these. I mean that they are so rare finding one can never be reasonably expected to happen. My proposed yield value is one in one thousand for starters - there would be even rarer things.

None of these items has any practical value. They are all either decorative additions to buildings or usable items that can be displayed to other survivors. No weapons. And the search yield would be so low that this suggestion wouldn't throw off yield values for anything normal in any detectable way. Since this is 'development,' pitch any suggestions you may have.

One in One Thousand

Non-alcoholic beer (pubs, motels) (E: 2)

• For when you just want to enjoy the taste of something that isn't quite right.

Rotary phone (hotels) (E: 5)

• Obviously it doesn't work, but you can set it up somewhere and look at it.

One in Ten Thousand

Music Boxes (Mansions) (E: 5)

• A nod to Night of the Living Dead, where Barbara finds a music box in the farmhouse. These would be small, and you'd just break yours out to show other people. "____ pulled out a music box and wound it up. It plays for a little while." Winding it would cost 1 AP.

Television set (malls) (E: 20)

• But all you get is static, since you don't have cable or an antenna. "A generator is here. It is running, and powering a television set displaying only static."

One in One Hundred Thousand

Fireworks (Fire Departments) (E: 10)

• Another Romero nod (to a later film). For one action point, light that sucker up and everybody in Malton gets "[X amount of time ago] A bright [color] explosion filled the sky briefly before dissolving into twinkling sparks." If people used these things as they surface, you'd be seeing a couple each week. Then again, if these people were to get together and stockpile their finds, they could have a holiday celebration. Their call, really.

Military Radio Transceiver (forts) (E: 15)

• This one is almost practical. Almost. It's a portable broadcasting device that would let you be able to use 26.96 (the channel just above the one Flyboy uses for the helicopter reports). You're probably thinking this would an amazing stealth tool, or an awesome transmitting one. You'd be wrong. It's not stealth (anyone could listen) but it's not really any better than having a channel on the regular bands to yourself (because nobody would HAVE to listen). Useless or epic? You decide!

Rocket launcher (forts) (E:20)

• "But you said no weapons!" Well, yes, but there's a catch: there are no rockets to go with it. For one AP, you'd be able to "use" it: "You take out your rocket launcher and examine it." Other people would get: "____ took out an unloaded rocket launcher and inspected it." It's a weapon that's totally useless but conceptually awesome. The trenchcoaters will love this.

Discussion (Where do you come up with this stuff?)

"Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive." Way to mess up formatting a suggestion. HOWEVER I love this idea! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:40, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Lots of potential here, I would like to add cigars to the list. 1AP adds something like this to a rooms description for 1 hour "survivor bob is smoking a big fat stogie" --Honestmistake 08:25, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Edit: Oh wait it's just flavor items. --Parakirby 14:33, 28 April 2009 (BST)

First of all, what are the search rates? Secondly, RARE means nothing in game with UNLIMITED resources.--Pesatyel 02:45, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Oh yes it does. You can only have unlimited results with infinite time. We each get 50AP a day. Also, the items above are categorized by how rare they are - one in X searches, in the (place in parentheses). -CaptainVideo 02:51, 29 April 2009 (BST)

And with the RNG God always being a douche, the people who really don't need to get a hold of these things would have them all before the days end. While the rest of us who aren't annoying trenchie bastards spend months searching for the shit. But still kind of a fun idea. :) --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Cuckoo clocks. We definitely need cuckoo clocks. -CaptainVideo 02:57, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Oh god yes. 1AP to wind and it will annoy the living piss out of everyone present by cookooing loudly enough to be heard outside, it will do this every hour for 24 hours. If placed in a fort or mall it will only be destroyed with a successful flare gun hit ;) --Honestmistake 09:34, 29 April 2009 (BST)

What is the point of something with search odds of 1/100,000? That's so rare as to be practically worthless. --Pestolence^(talk) 03:08, 29 April 2009 (BST)

None of these items have practical value. They are all pure flavor - rarity is part of that. -CaptainVideo 03:57, 29 April 2009 (BST)

A lot of players have nothing better to do....--Pesatyel 05:30, 30 April 2009 (BST)

A bucket of water. 1AP to set up and the next person to enter the building via the door (ie not freerunning) gets the message "someone balanced a bucket of water above the doorway, entering the building caused it to drop on you and you and thoroughly soak your clothes!" clothing descriptions will include the prefix "wet" for an hour or so. --Honestmistake 09:39, 29 April 2009 (BST)

A banana. Set next to door. Whichever survivor/zombie enters the building slips over, loses 1HP and says "XXXXXXX just slipped on a banana." If a zombie slides on a banana, and said banana is laid by a zombie hunter, headshot applies. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:14, 29 April 2009 (BST)

while that would indeed be very funny I think it only fair that the zombie should get to keep the banana and (if he spots said hunter within 36 hours) yell "Ram Bananah in harmanz azz!" thus killing said hunter with a quick and embarrassing auto attack!--Honestmistake 13:31, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Honestly? No. Bad idea. Instead of putting in more useless crap, why don't we try adding things like guns. We don't NEED joke items right now. What we need it more things that we would actually find IRL. And, before that even, working on the actual gameplay itself. --LarzAluphe 05:11, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Fair enough, but you don't get those suggestions from me. You get those from most everybody else. -CaptainVideo 08:26, 1 May 2009 (BST)

I'd love the idea, This doesn't it seem too random at all, one account, times 50 searchs a day, times any other alt accounts leaves many searchs.--Joseph Temple 02:48, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Yes, giving Real Gamer access to the military frequencies is a great idea.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:20, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Thank goodness I'm wearing Sarcasm Repellent. I was almost slightly put off. No, I don't think I'm going to take this to the next level - put it was an interesting experiment all the same. -George Zip ^◆◆◆ 06:12, 5 May 2009 (BST)

---

Sprinter

Timestamp:	12:09, 27 April 2009 (BST) (By WarlockVI)
Type:	Skill.
Scope:	Zombies/Humans/both.
Description:	+10 to your AP max. (Basicaly allows you to store more AP, so you can do more things in a big sprint.) (you can do Exactly the same ammount as anyone else, in total, just more in one session (if you want to)).

Discussion (Sprint)

Not against it per say but it would lead to a rush of violence when all the office only players log in on a Monday morning--Honestmistake 12:11, 27 April 2009 (BST)

As with HM, I think it would be interesting to see this in action. I doubt that it would be game breaking, but it would cause all sorts of chaos. --Johnny Bass 20:44, 27 April 2009 (BST)

Not to mention that IP hits would need to possibly be re-calculated. The hit limit now is 160, and this is for 3 characters - about 53 apiece, so 50 AP and some login stuff. This would potentially require a 190 hit limit, or people with this skill are going to more frequently run into the current limit. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:53, 27 April 2009 (BST)

Not really. All the characters would still get only 48 AP per 24 hours, so most of the time there wouldn't be a problem. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:46, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Well yes, but if you take a day off then it's going to stack up and your third character will be screwed over halfway through playing. The IP limit is based not on regen, but on max AP. Well, if we change max AP... it's still something to take into consideration. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:49, 28 April 2009 (BST)

How?--Pesatyel 03:29, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Exactly, under what circumstances? What is the inherent disadvantage of choosing to use this action? There needs to be more details to this suggestion. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:11, 29 April 2009 (BST)

? Disadvantage to using this action? it isnt an action, The Disadvantage would be that you wasted your xp on the Skill, it just is, like so many other skills. +x% to hit combat skills, Free running, actualy 90% of the skills, they dont have a disadvantage, They just are. Ps: more details?, this kinda says all thats needed i believe. namely exactly what it does, it simply adds +10 to you AP storage Max. Aka Allowing you to store up to 60ap, instead of just 50.--WarlockVI 12:36, 29 April 2009 (BST)

The other skills are generally limited in their use by requiring some extrnal addition. Free Running requires you be in a building from which you can free run. Tagging requires a spraycan. This is an "always on" skill. So why not just suggest +50 AP? +100 AP? ALL skills require some level of realism. Just saying you want more AP doesn't mean you should just GET more AP. Take a look at the update history of the game. Everything that has been added has been added with a thematic/realism element attached. All THIS suggestion says is that veteran players can kick the crap out of newbies that much longer. There HAS to be some kind of penalty/downside.--Pesatyel 04:44, 30 April 2009 (BST)

there is a downside, if you come back after a weekend away and burn through those 60AP over your monday morning coffee break you will log on for tuesdays coffee break to find you have 12 less AP than you had yesterday... thats the same number you would have had before the AP cap was raised but its going to seem less. Also (as pointed out above) if you play 3 characters without donating then one of them is only going to run out of IP hits pretty fast. --Honestmistake 09:23, 1 May 2009 (BST)

This would result in many players (esp zombies) creating an extra character so they can cycle round the IP hits for maximum actions per day... not necessarily a bad thing but worth considering the negative aspects, IP switching zergers would just have more actions for less effort while the rest of us would have the annoying option of choosing which character didn't get to use all his AP today--Honestmistake 13:36, 29 April 2009 (BST)

---

Contacts Management Page

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 15:22, 26 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	The contacts system is great, but can get unwieldy when you have many contacts. I suggest added a link to the Contacts Page leading to a Contacts Management page. This is basically an advanced control page - it doesn't change anything we have now, but if you choose to use it it'd provide several useful tools. Among those tools: Color A to Color B: Allows you to switch every contact of the color of your choice to another color of your choice. Handy for when you alter your internal labeling system, or combine two labels. Would also let you delete every contact of that color. Delete Inactive Contacts: Click and automatically deletes every contact you have with a line struck through their name. You'd also be able to select specific colors, for example if you only wanted to delete inactive green contacts. Add All To Contacts: Adds every single survivor (not zombies) in your current location as a default gray contact. Wouldn't let you save more profiles then you have room in your contact list for though. Delete All Present From Contacts: Removes every single survivor in the room from your contacts. This would be useful if you're moving to a new neighborhood and want to get rid of locals you probably won't see anymore. Auto-add: Would let you connect colors to specific actions, such as revives or heals, and automatically add strangers who do that to your contacts as that color. For example, you could make it so every time a stranger revives you they're instantly added as a blue contact. Or every time someone kills you they get added as red. While this by itself would quickly swamp your contact list, you'd have two subtools to prevent this. One would be the ability to set limits. For example, only allowing 10 green contacts so once you have 10 green no more would be added. Another would be a toggle to cycle new ones in and old ones out. So when a green contact is auto-added to your list of 10, one person already on the list is auto-deleted. So this would make the autoadded contacts a few small groups of the people that most recently interacted with you in those various ways. Whether technical issues prevent any of these, the remainder would still be worth implementing. I think each of these abilities would be very useful by itself.

Discussion (Contacts Management Page)

I know it sounds like I'm trying to find a reason to put this down, but it has to be expressed that I believe automation isn't a desired goal in Urban Dead features. I would find these convenient though. I do know that a one or two of these are already possible through extensions, but not most of your proposed additions. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:32, 26 April 2009 (BST)

I agree that automation has no place in the game, like autoattacks or pied piper skills. But I don't think contacts management is the game, just something you have to get out of the way in order to play the game effectively. Kinda like, a computer makes it easier to write than a typewriter because it's faster. But it doesn't ruin writing, or make writing unfair. Nobody misses ink ribbons. And everyone likes spellcheck. It's just getting rid of the obstacles that make life more inconvenient and waste everybody's time. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:15, 26 April 2009 (BST)

Those are all very good ideas. Enough so that I built a lot of those functions (as parts of more general functionality) into a GM script called massContacts. Color changing and "struck contact" deleting it handles just fine, by allowing you to clear the box and select contacts into the box via color or "striking", and then modify the color / status of the contacts in the box. The "add all" and "drop all" can be achieved by viewing the code for the page and pasting in any one of the drop down selections or that include character ID #'s into the box, and using the auto-format feature. It can't do auto adds, but that's about it, really.  Swiers 01:04, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Use masscontacts. --WanYao 20:30, 30 April 2009 (BST)

My first thought was that it is always better to improve the game itself rather than having to resort to metagaming or outside scripts. But given how in frequently he is able to update the game, it seems we have little choice.--Pesatyel 16:27, 1 May 2009 (BST)

---

Sanity

Timestamp:	Parakirby 22:32, 25 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Humans
Description:	There's only so much one man could take. People are social animals by nature, and the sight of their fellow man dying around them is bound to drive them closer towards the edge. A lack of stimulus, as well, can lend to the weakening of the spirit, as well as seeing contacts die. When a human goes mad, various things can happen: 1. They see players as zombies - Or zombies as players. With HILARIOUS results. 2. The player becomes a gibbering madman, whining in his corner. All actions cost +1 AP because he has trouble motivating himself. 3. Player believes he is a zombie, but is actually still human. Will talk like a zombie. Other players will be able to see him and will see him as a zombie (Although there could be a skill to see past this, as well as offer counseling to the insane). 4. Player becomes a kleptomaniac, and must search every other turn for items. 5. Player must go and hurt zombies. Otherwise, they take HP damage.

Discussion (Sanity)

This is a game - making it un-fun by crippling people is horrible. Forced Trenchcoating? Ahaha. You're going to be a world of hurt for even suggesting that here in developing. Not to mention you don't even remotely explain how these conditions could be cured mechanics-wise, if at all. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:02, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Cute... but this isn't Call of Cthulhu... or... wait what actually goes on down in Old Arkham??? --WanYao 23:26, 25 April 2009 (BST)

You see, death doesn't really exist in Malton. Seeing your buddies "die" is much easier to deal with when you know all you need to do is stick them with a needle and apply a couple of FAKs and they'll be as good as new. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 00:54, 26 April 2009 (BST)

Sorry, but I've always understood it that the 'characters' that couldn't handle the zombie apocalypse went idle as their creators just got off Mozilla and started playing their PS3 instead. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:50, 26 April 2009 (BST)

This sounds familiar. I know its not specifically a dupe, but the idea of making survivors "insane" has been suggested before. The idea, above, isn't exactly bad (at least not for a "hard" mode), it just has some significant flaws.. Primarily being how a character "cures" himself (I'd also imagine Zombie Hunters would be immune).--Pesatyel 05:12, 26 April 2009 (BST)

I'm sorry, I'm new to the game and I know it's -probably- been suggested before but I couldn't find a relevant topic in my searches. Generally, this is to stop human players from simply boarding up for all eternity and encourage them to get out of their bunker and go grab items or get in a fight, rather than hold off by barricading in a single building for all eternity. A way for it to be cured is a doctor's psychotherapy, attacking zombies, and/or acquiring items of the pleasing nature (Beer being a good example, as well as decoration). Nothing I suggest is 'this is how it should be done 100%', but rather 'I have an idea, what do you think'.--Parakirby 23:36, 26 April 2009 (BST)

The way to do that is by spreading all the "good stuff" (guns, ammo, generators, syringes, etc.) around to other locations.--Pesatyel 07:15, 27 April 2009 (BST)

The 1st and 3rd of your examples are already in game (to an extent anyway) I play a survivor who is convinced that all those "Non-Descript" guys are out to eat him and I used to see a lot of cultists who RP'd death rattle and general zombiness. The searching and hunting bits are pure SPAM and quaking in fear is not much better really as all it does is make the game less fun rather than more challenging. --Honestmistake 08:19, 27 April 2009 (BST)

Aaah, I guess you're right.--Parakirby 07:00, 27 April 2009 (BST)

---

Food and Water

Timestamp:	Parakirby 22:20, 25 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Balance change?
Scope:	Heavy fortifications with many humans
Description:	Every person needs oxygen, water, shelter, and food (In that order of importance). Why should survivors be the same? I propose the addition of food items that can be scavanged from Malls, Supermarkets (To be added?) and Farms, as well as rarely in suburb housing. I also propose that water items (Bottled water, canteens, etc.) be added to the same, as well as randomly finding bottled water in normal buildings such as suburbs. On top of that, although the water supply has been cut off, someone with a toolkit could access the building's pipes and let the water flow freely. A normal person can live one to three days without water, and one to four weeks without food. But because this is a game where you have fun, I suggest make it a week without water (Survivors will drink from sources of water automatically) and two weeks without food? Survivors who are starving/dehydrated have trouble fighting, moving quickly, and should take damage over time. This is a pretty big game changer. No longer will it be so easy for large groups to hole up in one extremely fortified building. Instead, they'll have to make occasional food runs. This means that buildings with no easy access to food feel more pressured when zombies attack.

Discussion (Food and Water)

It's only fair then that zombies have to eat too or permanently die of starvation. They have to get energy, somehow, or they simply can't expend any more. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:04, 25 April 2009 (BST)

This has been suggested about a zillion times before. More realism =/= more fun. --WanYao 23:27, 25 April 2009 (BST)

First of all, zombie is already assumed a part of the game. Characters have to use the bathroom and sleep too, but they are assumed to do that too. Such things are fundamentally part of the game, like the fact there is unlimited resources in every searchable building. While this won't pass, I DO want to help you with your work on suggestion ideas. All your giving us, here, is that you want food and water added. But you don't give us any "game stats". Where is "food/water" found and at what search percentage? What are their encumberance values? What happens if I don't eat/drink? What happens if a zombie doesn't eat/drink? I'm not saying all that to improve this idea. I"m saying that to point out that a suggestin is more than "I want this". You have to tell us HOW you want it.--Pesatyel 05:18, 26 April 2009 (BST)

What I'm trying to suggest is, like my sanity suggestion above, another reason for survivors to go out and search rather than barricade up in an office or a station. Water would be fairly easy to come by - Parks would have ponds to drink out of, most buildings would have pipelines that survivors can access with a toolkit, and almost everywhere there'd be bottled water to find (albiet at a low percentage rate, such as .5% in the street, but much higher in a mall/supermarket, somewhere like 10%). I'm not suggesting it be a major encumberance, but rather something to think about, especially during a major zombie attack. Food, on the other hand, would be a bit different. Since most buildings have been ransacked already, it comes down to fairly low percentages. Suburban homes, for example, should have somewhere between a 2% - 5% chance for food (Or higher, really, considering) whereas supermarkets and/or malls would have a 5% - 10% chance, and theaters have a 2% - 5% chance. If a person doesn't drink water for approximately a week real time (Which, considering all the available resources, would be difficult to do) would take 1 damage per action they perform. A starving person, on the other hand, would find it more difficult to defend himself and attack others, due to a lack of energy. Since it takes a while for a human to starve to death, perhaps the entire concept should be discarded for the game. To encourage zombies to go out hunting rather than grind barricades for XP or smash generators, perhaps an instant 10 damage for every 72 hour period without attacking a human? As far as encumberance is concerned, it varies. A bottle of water weighs very little at all, and 1% - 2% sounds decent enough, while a gallon of water is fairly heavy, and 5% or 10% sounds fair. Food varies more than water. Obviously, a small bag of chips would be much lighter than a whole turkey. The way food and water would be displayed would be percentages, with drinking and eating restoring a set percentage, based on the item imbiled. --Parakirby 23:50, 26 April 2009 (BST)

To me this sounds like simply penalizing them with no gains, possibly unbalancing the game. Therefore, i think if this would/should be implemented it needs to give a bonus as well, say +XHP For when ever you do drink/eat, as it refreshes you. WarlockVI 12:36, 27 April 2009 (BST)

That could work. It'd have to be a scale based on the food type, of course (A small bag of chips, while common, would require 1 AP to eat, but would restore 5% food and subtract 2% water, as well as restoring 1 HP. A large turkey, on the other hand, would restore 50% - 100% food, subtract 5% - 25% water (Turkey DOES make you thirsty. And tired, actually, there's a chemical in it!), 5 AP, and restore 10 health? It would be much more rarer compared to the bag of chips, after all. ...If it'll even exist. I don't want to start going into specifics with foods vs. numbers until I get a feeling that people generally like this idea.--Parakirby 07:03, 27 April 2009 (BST)

Not quite, and that's just sucking up too much AP. I don't think people are going to go for this to begin with as it adds complexity and micromanagement to survivors without doing anything to zombies. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:03, 30 April 2009 (BST)

Once this is implemented, we'd have to add a suggestion for taking a shit.--Pesatyel 04:44, 30 April 2009 (BST)

If I'm right, I already suggested this once, about, what, five years ago? It was blammed, so this is a dupe. Treviabot92 00:35, 1 May 2009 (BST)

---

Dang, This Generator Is Heavy!

Timestamp:	Winton 06:01, 25 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors/Generators
Description:	This proposal is to make generator possession and transportation more realistic and consistent with actual human capabilities. A portable generator as depicted in the items page, Portable Generator, would be the approximately correct size and wattage capacity to accomplish what generators do in UD. A generator that size will typically weigh about 91 kg (200 lbs). They are very heavy and unwieldy, and a single man has difficulty maneuvering and transporting one. It is simply not possible for one person to have more than one of these under his control. A man cannot transport more than one of these, and certainly cannot run with one, let alone climb stairs or navigate wooden bridges constructed between buildings. I propose the following: Generator Encumbrance: 51% (renders possession of multiple generators nearly impossible, more closely approximates actual encumbrance of a generator) Movement cost with a generator in inventory: 2AP Free Running not allowed with a generator in inventory These proposed changes will make the time and effort required to repair and power buildings more realistic. The anticipated argument is that UD need not be 100% consistent with reality, which is true. However, one of the touchstones of suggestion evaluation is that a suggestion not grant players any superhuman capacities in the post-apocalyptic world that they would not have had in a pre-apocalyptic world. As the encumbrance and movement currently stand, that is exactly what we have. Survivors are being ascribed a strength and capability which simply does not exist in "the real world". A previous suggester has already acknowledged the currently unrealistic situation (he described it as an "absurdity") and suggested a fix: Rename Generator. His suggested fix is to change the name "Generator" to "Generator Parts." This would remove the problem of generator transport, as he is suggesting that survivors are simply finding and transporting parts which are then used to repair broken generators that remain in place. This suggestion just sidesteps the issue. If you are carrying enough parts to be able to repair any damage done to any generator, you are then essentially carrying a generator. In addition, current scripting describes the generator as broken "beyond repair."

Discussion (Dang, This Generator Is Heavy!)

You obviously ignored the days-old message on your talk page regarding the absurdity of this suggestion, you are fully nullifying the gameplay of any account with a generator in their inventory. You have made 3 major nerfs and stuck them all into one suggestion. I can't wait for more ultra-realistic suggestions so we can add realism to a zombie apocalypse. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:28, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Well, you probably wouldn't really be able to carry ANYTHING else if your actually carrying a generator that heavy.--Pesatyel 06:51, 25 April 2009 (BST)

I did not ignore your message, DDR. I chose to post my idea in Developing Suggestions for additional input from others. If I had thought the idea had no merit, I wouldn't have been working on it.--Winton 07:42, 25 April 2009 (BST)

I actually agree with this idea, in terms of accuracy, but I don't think I'd support it if it went to a vote. It would make it extremely hard to get power to the critical NecroTech buildings, which, in turn, would destabilize the city - perhaps catastrophically. -CaptainVideo 06:50, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Hey, I just had an idea. This would be really interesting if implemented at the same time as my power station suggestion below. Again, I doubt there'd be any support for that, but it would be different. -CaptainVideo 06:55, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Think about it this way. If it took this much effort to get a generator to the place you need, and it took about 5 pistol shots or 10 claws, then do you see where this in inbalanced? If you buffed generators to have 40HP, then maybe you are balancing this out. But then it totally changes the nature of Urban Dead. Just think about the situation in hand. Reclaiming ruined areas where you have to travel across a whole suburb, thats a huge amount of valuable AP already gone, and once your there, you have nearly no items to help you sustain yourself, nothing except a massive generator in your building which tells all zeds where you are, and which, once a break-in occurs, gets destroyed in 10 seconds. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:57, 25 April 2009 (BST)

It would be almost cool to watch the whole city fall apart in 48 hours, though. It'd be like the apocalypse AFTER the apocalypse. The afterpocalypse. -CaptainVideo 07:26, 25 April 2009 (BST)

That's what it felt like when The Dead surprised us all. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:57, 25 April 2009 (BST)

First, the 2AP movement and inability to free run shouldn't be directly tied to having a generator in your inventory. It doesn't make much sense that you'd get penalized at 51% from one generator, but could do just fine at 100% from any other stuff. Second, this doesn't make multiple generators impossible or even difficult. If you're below 100%, you can pick up any item you find. Increasing the weight to 50% (the 1% over that is absolutely pointless) only prevents you from carrying more than two. It'd have to weigh 100% if you wanted it to be limited to only one generator. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:29, 25 April 2009 (BST)

I would prefer it if Portable Generators were still only 20%, but you could still only carry two. Though that still detracts from the logic of this suggestion. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:02, 25 April 2009 (BST)

"A portable generator as depicted in the items page, Portable Generator, would be the approximately correct size and wattage capacity to accomplish what generators do in UD. A generator that size will typically weigh about 91 kg (200 lbs)." I would actually say that generators in UD are little tiny things that only need to power a single bright light since all buildings in UD are just one room. You can't hide in a closet or attic or anything, it's either "inside" or "outside," implying one chamber. From that, I would say a workable generator would be something like this, which is only 14 kg / 30 lbs, far lighter than your suggested 90 kg / 200 lbs. If you really want to get nitty-gritty, 5 gallons of gas - presumably what the fuel cans in UD hold - weighs about 30 lbs. If a fuel can at 30 lbs is 10% encumbrance, then a slightly larger generator than the one described above weighing 60 lbs is 20% encumbrance. Yay maths. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:30, 25 April 2009 (BST)

One gallon gas cans seem more likely. That's what you typically find for sale at a gas station / auto repair shop, or stored in a car boot. 10 gallons of gas is 60 lbs, and could be quite unwieldy if in 10 separate cans, so 1 gallon per can fits the 10% encumbrence figure decently.  Swiers 22:37, 25 April 2009 (BST)

You know, reading the specs for that thing reminded me that wall voltage is higher in Europe than it is here in the States. Does the European grid use lower amperage for equal wattage, or is Europe actually using more energy than the US to actually power stuff? -CaptainVideo 07:56, 26 April 2009 (BST)

They use lower amperage for the same watts; its simple physics that Volts*Amps=Watts. Higher voltage is MUCH more efficient for long range transmission, because there is less loss due to resistance in the wiring; for that reason EVERYBODY'S power grid is (very) high voltage, with step down transformers at the neighborhood / building level. I'm not sure there is actually any real difference in effeciency once you get down to the user-level circuits, as it would depend on just how house wiring interfaces with the grid. In the US, a house breakerbox typically has two incoming 120 volt lines that are 180 degrees out of phase; that means it actually has 240 volts coming in, but you typically only use one line to power any given circuit (barring heavy appliances and HAVAC). Not sure if they do the same England; it maybe the same, only with both lines carried through every circuit. In either case, its likely similar enough to wash. Mostly it boils down to safety; 120 means less danger of electrocution, 240 means less danger of fire.  Swiers 01:17, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Again, Swiers astounds us all with his very large ability to know everything. :) --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:01, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Fascinating logic, if true: It would suggest that the Americans trust their equipment more than themselves, and vice-versa. At any rate, yes, that was my question. Malton's location in the world has always been explicitly vague (which is just as confusing as it sounds); I figure than any game characteristics should have plausibility on either continent. Or Australia. Or South Africa. Or Belize. Don't want to make any English-speaking people angry here. -CaptainVideo 03:10, 28 April 2009 (BST)

What's more, you'll end up with zerge "generator toters". If these things are going to be that much trouble to have/use, I'll make a level 1 to do that work for me.--Pesatyel 20:12, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Precisely. If having a generator makes free-running impossible, there's no reason not to use a level 1 over a higher-level character. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:30, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Balance asside (is there really to many generators in use? Do survivors really need generators at all?) I see two problems with the basic suggestion mechanics. First is that without free-running, you can't get the generator into the buildings that you'd most want them in. Second is that 51% encumbrance still makes it pretty easy to carry two of them. Pick one up. Is your encumbrence still under 100%? Then you can pick up another. If you really want to be sure people can only carry one, make the encumbrence 100%; that way you can always pick one up (if not already at or past 100%) but after you do you can't pick up anything else.  Swiers 22:34, 25 April 2009 (BST)

A part of me is sympathetic, what with all those powered useless buildings everywhere. However, it already costs 20% plus 10% (for fuel) plus the fact that gennies are one of the most difficult common items to find in UD... WanYao 23:31, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, but those places with needless generators are places that have no zombie threat. Remember the seiges/attacks. Generators get destroyed on a rate of 4 a day in Haslock at the moment, and thats against just 30 zombies. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:37, 26 April 2009 (BST)

Not to mention GKers. The Whitlock Building in Dulston has it's generator replaced sometimes 3/4 times a minute. Also, if we're going by "logic", how amny shotguns can you carry? Because if you can carry 12 shotguns, you're awesome. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:11, 26 April 2009 (BST)

---

Organize Your Inventory

Timestamp:	Master Nicholas 04:03, 25 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Zombies and Survivors
Description:	A method that allows you to organize your inventory, so items can be found easier, and the inventory part of the screen does not look so cluttered. :D

Discussion (Organize Your Inventory)

You need to be a LOT more specific on what you want. Take a look at these.--Pesatyel 06:00, 25 April 2009 (BST)

I can't believe that wasn't implemented. -CaptainVideo 06:57, 25 April 2009 (BST)

There are many scripts that do this. And many previoous suggestions to this effect. --WanYao 23:32, 25 April 2009 (BST)

---

Burn bodies

Timestamp:	Supflidowg 22:03, 24 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Human
Description:	(this may have been put up multiple times but I wouldn't know since im new and anyway this is a version I created) This is a skill that allows someone to burn corpses like in a real zombie armagedon. It would require you to have a fuel can(duh) and a flare gun(since there are no matches) it would cost 4Ap for every 5 corpses and so on,(pouring fuel is 2 Ap and lighting is 2 Ap) the person doing the burning would have a 20% chance at burning the corpses(with the flare) and the action pour fuel on bodies button would be first -(name here) pours fuel over the bodies-(100% chance of this)then they would attempt to light the fuel soaked bodies with the button fire flare -(name here) sets fire to the bodies on the ground- and if you miss -(name here) misses with the flare-. If the bodies are alighted,(set on fire) whenever they stand up they would have the condition Burned on them (it would sap 1 Hp per move untill they reach 40 Hp) and a 25% reduction in accuracy -(name here) misses due to the 3rd degree burns on their body- it shows no mercy to any body, surviver or zombie and a first aid kit would heal the burned status and 5 Hp but the accuracy is still reduced untill 15 moves after being burned(not including standing up), death or an extra first aid kit use(the extra kit will have a healing reduction of 3 points). Bodies cannot be burned more than once or you recieve the message -you see there is nothing left to burn-(appears when you attempt to pour the fuel and wont cost Ap) and burned bodies do appear on the browser screen as -there are X burned bodies here-(I also had another idea but I would like anyones opinion on it, Burnig the body of a surviver would also prevent survivers from becoming infected since you burned the infection off)

Discussion (Burn bodies)

First of all, this has been suggested a lot. Secondly, this just hurts newbies (especially converts). Is that 25% reduction off the top or straight? Meaning, if my bite is 30%, does tat mean its reduced to 22% or to 5%? You say it "shows no mercy to any body", so does that man my burning zombie gets a "flame" bonus to his sttacks?--Pesatyel 05:59, 25 April 2009 (BST)

It's a dupe. Although after a quick look, I couldn't find said original suggestion, so maybe the suggestion I'm thinking of never made it off this page. Hmm. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:59, 25 April 2009 (BST)

the % value is relitive of your total accuracy percentage so if your bite is 30% it is reduced to 22% and no, you cant be a flaming zombie(because if the flame still lingered after the body was burned it would also happen to survivers who DO feel pain and it would cause damage penalty like infection to the surviver for being on fire making an advantage to burned zombies and a disadvantage to burned survivers making the Burn Bodies skill a total PKer skill and useless to pro surviver people. And the "no mercy to anybody" means that you can use it on any dead body not just zombies(like in the real post apocoliptic zombie infested world) Supflidowg 19:02, 25 April 2009 (BST)

So, in other words, this is still pro-PKer since I can use it on reviving corpses.--Pesatyel 20:26, 25 April 2009 (BST)

"accuracy is still reduced untill 30 moves after being burned(not including standing up) or death." I'm sorry, that's just comically bad. An infection doesn't damage you for 30 HP regardless of whether or not you cure it - curing burns should cure the thing, hands down. Not to mention the dupe-y-ness of this suggestion. I found this suggestion, panned for XP loss (which headshot was when this game first came out), but not exactly a dupe. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:22, 25 April 2009 (BST)

To anwser all your questions(in reverse order) How about an extra FAK fixes the accuracy reduction and I cut the affected moves in half?(I said it would be LIKE infection not the human equivelent of the infection skill, I was using a hypothetical meaning if it caused the reviving person/zombie to stand up on fire) Also this move will still help survivers(example you take a bulding back from some zombies then you burn them to hinder them in retaking the building) so it could work both ways as a PKer skill and a survival skill. Supflidowg 01:32, 27 April 2009 (BST)

any other sugggestions or is this good enough? Supflidowg 21:28, 5 May 2009 (BST)

I suggest not putting it up as it will be duped immediately. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:55, 5 May 2009 (BST)

---

Field Medic training

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 12:50, 24 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill, Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Yes, I know I put an idea similar to this up for discussion before, under Nurses Training, or something similar. Military base skill. With all the injuries happening as a direct result of the zombie uprising, the local hospitals are running low on medical supplies. Thus, the surviving Malton Military enlistees are now utilising their field medic training in order to help already-maxed hospitals. Using bandages (found in hospitals at a 7% base rate, and in malls for a 5% base rate), a survivor with field medic training can help increase the effectiveness of FAKs by applying basic treatment beforehand. Bandages are used in the same way as FAKs. When used, they increase the recipients "Bandaged HP" by 2 HP each time. A player can have up to 10 "Bandaged HP", or BHP at a time, but can never have the total of their regular HP and BHP be more than their max HP. (i.e. if they have 46/50 HP, they can only have up to 4 BHP.) Bandaged HP does not contribute to the total when working out Scent Fear or Scent Blood, as bandages have such a mild smell. BHP is listed after the player's regular HP if the observer has Diagnosis, like this: [player name] (XX + B HP), where XX is their health, and B is their BHP. When a FAK is used on a survivor with bandaged HP, both the FAK value and Bandaged HP values are added to their current health. If, however, the player doing the healing didn't have First Aid, only 5 BHP could be added at a time. For example, if Survivor 1 has 35 HP and 5 BHP, if Survivor 2 had First Aid and used a FAK on Survivor 1, they would go to 50 HP, as this is the 10 HP from the FAK, plus the 5 BHP. If a bandaged player is attacked before the wounds are treated, their bandages are 'ripped off' and they lose all their BHP.

Discussion (Field Medic training)

Too complex. Perhaps if "bandaging" gave a status marker (like infection) that automatically increased the effectiveness of the next FAK it would be easier to understand (and help zeds target the bandaged!) Over all though I am not really sure that FAKs need this kind of a boost. --Honestmistake 15:14, 24 April 2009 (BST)

From what I can discern this would only serve to dilute the search rates for FAKs and bandages are less effective that FAKs. There's already been a decrease to FAK search rates in malls, so I don't think another decrease is necessary. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 23:30, 24 April 2009 (BST)

First Aid and Surgery.--Pesatyel 05:49, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Giles got it right. And, yeah, it's just too complicated. --WanYao 23:34, 25 April 2009 (BST)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Disembowel

This suggestion is now up for voting. It's discussion has been moved to its talk page. -- Cheese 16:03, 25 April 2009 (BST)

---