Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

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

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Further Discussion

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

Please Read Before Posting

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

How To Make a Suggestion

Adding a New Suggestion

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

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

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

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

Cycling Suggestions

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

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

Suggestions in Overflow: No suggestions currently in overflow.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list

---

Suggestions

Infected blood

Timestamp: Ash Cianatti 20:42, 24 July 2009 (BST)

Type: improvement

Scope: clothing,survivors,buildings

Description: In every 3-D zombie game I've seen, shooting a zombie results in a spray of blood behind it as the bullet punches through. Now, since the Infectious Bite is transmitted via saliva and therefore probably the blood also, I propose the following. When a survivor successfully shoots a zombie with a pistol, there is a 35% chance that the shot will spray blood. Obviously, shotguns will have a 85% chance of doing this. The first change will be the addition of flavor text: You shoot the zombie for 5 damage, spraying the wall behind it with blood. They drop to 45 hitpoints. This will increase the chance of the bloodstained building affect. If the zombie has the Flesh Rot skill, odds of blood spray increase. Now, how does this affect survivors? Easy: if a survivor is nearby, they are sprayed with blood, giving them a limited amount of time before they become Infected. You can see if a survivor was hit by blood spray by looking at their description - clothes will read "Blood-flecked", "blood stained", or "blood soaked". "But wait," the observant reader will say, "that's already in the game". Yes, now changing your clothes can be a matter of life and death- contaminated clothing must be removed before you become Infected. If this change is implemented, all clothes will lose blood flecks, stains, etc., effectively resetting themselves. Onward, any blood hitting you from another survivor attacking a zombie results in the following messages: To you: >survivorname< shot a zombie, spraying your >bodypart< with blood. To the shooter: You shot the zombie for 10 damage, spraying >survivorname< with blood. The zombie's rotten flesh absorbs 2 damage. They drop to 52 hitpoints. The more bloodstained items of clothing you are wearing and the more extensive the stains, the higher a chance that with any given action you will become Infected. This extends to bloodstained walls and rooms in a building, affecting all survivors inside. Notes and add-ons: For a reference example, a survivor with a bloodstained shirt in a clean environment would have 50 hours until infection. Neck items, footware, and headgear damage-stain status do not affect Infection risk.

Discussion (Infected blood)

(Author Note) 1: You can't infect yourself, blood spray comes from other survivors shooting zombies. 2: Chance of spray from shotgun blast being larger is because, have you seen a friggin shotgun wound in someone? Blood everywhere. Percentages are just random numbers I came up with, feel free to suggest numbers OTHER than 0%. 3: My bad, I forgot the times, will go insert them right now. Ash Cianatti 16:07, 27 July 2009 (BST)

Survivors shouldn't be able to infect themselves. Also, who's to say the blood's what's infectious? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:13, 24 July 2009 (BST)

Sorry, but this adds nothing to the game. People will just change their clothes, that's not fun or challenging at all. It's just annoying--Orange Talk 21:17, 24 July 2009 (BST)

The easier way would be to turn malton into a nudist colony... "Urban Dead - A Massively Multi-Player Web-Based Au Naturel Zombie Apocalypse". Also, just to nitpick, "Obviously, shotguns will have a 85% chance of doing this." why obviously? If you thought it out and given a reason for the % could you clarify... --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:31, 24 July 2009 (BST)

Oh? it isn't obvious to you? *giggles and points at KB* --xoxo 01:25, 27 July 2009 (BST)

Pointless zombie buff. % of infection is way too high. Try 0%, then I might agree with it more.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:57, 24 July 2009 (BST)

As Orange. I'm not gonna go look for another Monocle. >_< --Haliman - Talk 22:07, 24 July 2009 (BST)

Its also a dupe of a failed suggestion from waay back!--Honestmistake 22:38, 24 July 2009 (BST)

Actually, it is incomplete. It says "...they have a limited amount of time before they become Infected...". But it doesn't actually SAY what the time frame is. The percentages in the suggestion are to get sprayed with blood NOT get infected.--Pesatyel 20:18, 26 July 2009 (BST)

---

Nerf Mobiles

Timestamp: Necrofeelinya 05:25, 24 July 2009 (BST)

Type: improvement

Scope: mobiles

Description: I'm just gonna float this and see what people think. The problem with groups is that they're organized on boards, not in-game. Noobs don't understand them, ferals don't want to waste the extra time with them, they circumvent the rules for AP use for speaking, broadcasting, using mobiles, all communication in-game, because people arrange for unlimited communication out-of-game with no AP cost. I propose a change that will ease communication in-game, promote in-game group organization and be usable directly from the player's interface so even noobs realize they can do it. I suggest implementing a Private Messaging system for contacts in-game. Here's how it would work: 1. PMs cost no AP to use, but do create a server hit and so count against your IPs server hit restriction. That means no more than 160 per day, max. Characters would be limited, but should be more than the current restriction on broadcast characters. I've never used a mobile, so I don't know what the restriction is on those. 2. Survivors can PM any survivor in their contacts list. Zombies can contact any zombie in their list. No survivor/zombie, zombie/survivor PMing. This is, however, negotiable since I know so many of you love your Life Cultists. 3. Zombie PMs would be in plain english, not Zombese. This is to facilitate in-game organization, not roleplaying. 4. You should have the option of blocking PMs from anyone you want. This basically reduces the need to organize groups on other forums, and allows even small groups to organize effectively in-game with minimal effort. It makes it possible for even noobs to do what experienced metagamers do all the time. I could see restricting it to only a handful of contacts, maybe 5 or 10, to try to encourage microgroup organization and discourage large hordes, but the goal is basically to focus the metagaming community's activity on UD itself rather than on a bunch of other boards. It facilitates zombie communication in-game in a way that encourages ferals to participate with other players while not forcing them into large hordes, and it immediately allows noobs and baby zombahs to create effective groups through their UD interface rather than having to join a group and check in at Invision or Barhah.com regularly. Fire away.

Discussion (Nerf Mobiles)

First thing to start you off - perhaps should only work for mutual contacts so people you don't know can't spam you. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:36, 24 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah, that's not a bad idea, though I did mention that you should be able to block PMs from anyone.--Necrofeelinya 06:09, 24 July 2009 (BST)

Extremely abusable. Someone could log in via a proxy, send 160 messages, then use their standard IP and play the game. It should cost AP. While that doesn't solve the problem, it limits it somewhat. - User:Whitehouse 11:52, 24 July 2009 (BST)

Abusable. Right. Abusable because someone could go out of their way to use a proxy so they could send over 160 messages... as opposed to using a separate forum for unlimited messaging. Why should it cost AP? It doesn't cost AP to use a separate forum. If anything, this discourages "abuse" that's already happening.--Necrofeelinya 18:28, 24 July 2009 (BST)

It would give access to pretty much any character in game as it is written now, thus it can be a far more useful tool than a forum where it is required for the other person to be on said forum and actively checking for information, that's why I think it should be limited by AP (and all other forms of in game communication cost AP so why shouldn't this?). Also, would you mind clarifying what you meant by ""abuse" that's already happening"? - User:Whitehouse 19:43, 24 July 2009 (BST)

Your response said abusable in a manner that implied that extensive communications without costing AP was an abuse. But with forums, that's happening right now, with no limit on # of characters, no limit on # of messages, no limits of any kind. In fact, with restricted forums people can arrange to PM one another, give each other info for a service like AIM, then IM one another and coordinate in unrestricted fashion while they play the game, which is no different than what this would allow, though this puts at least some limitations on it. The main thing is that it would take such behavior out of the exclusive domain of experienced metagamers and put it in the hands of all players, noobs and ferals included. So if there's a potential for abuse, it's nowhere near as big as the potential we deal with now, and this is essentially a measure to level the playing field for all characters.--Necrofeelinya 02:14, 25 July 2009 (BST)

Actually, if you listened to his response, this lets you contact ANYONE, at any time. Name one forum in which you can contact any other urbandead character that you want.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:30, 25 July 2009 (BST)

Okay, but in forums you can contact people who aren't in your contacts list at all. This limits it to people in your contacts, which is limited to what... 100 people? You still need to have made the effort to add them to your list, and you still are restricted by the number of people you can add. Forums still have more advantages, though they require more attention, but this would help even play a bit.--Necrofeelinya 12:29, 26 July 2009 (BST)

No, because forums will only have specific people on them. You can't call up anyone at any time. This suggestion, coupled with the name database, gives you any character at any time, whether they want you to or not.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:23, 26 July 2009 (BST)

How would zombies text each other? O__O --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}11:54, 24 July 2009 (BST)

Same as survivors... I envision a PM function added to the standard game interface. Maybe you hit a button and it opens a box on your contacts page, allowing you to choose a contact and send a message. Something like that.--Necrofeelinya 18:28, 24 July 2009 (BST)

Alas. It is already made. You click the wiki button, it takes you to the wiki where not only do you get to just talk, but make groups pages, link them to forums for secret stuff, and all kinds of glorious things.--Agunin_Anoven 23:17, 24 July 2009 (BST)

And just what percentage of players use the Wiki? The point of this is to make something everyone can already do more accessible. Making it involve a bunch of steps just discourages people... it should be part of the player interface in-game.--Necrofeelinya 02:14, 25 July 2009 (BST)

Nerf? Don't you mean buff mobiles? No zombie texting... please. It's just so out of character/genre -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:38 24 July 2009 (BST)

No, he means it's a nerf because there's a better system.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:46, 24 July 2009 (BST)

Oh, I thought the suggestion was to allow text messages if you've got a mobile phone for no AP. Surely PMs need to be explained, and using the mobile phone is the obvious choice. Just having it so you can magically, perhaps telepathically, contact others is ridiculous... may as well leave it for the meta-game -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:15 26 July 2009 (BST)

Perhaps instantly registering all new characters to an official forum? Although not everyone would use it by any means.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:24, 26 July 2009 (BST)

I've always wanted a Nerf-o-mobile. --Midianian 17:31, 24 July 2009 (BST)

I'd be satisfied with a small plot of land in a warm area, with a source of fresh water, a self-sufficient farm, a couple of dairy goats and some chickens, a place to grow fresh peppers, a dark cellar for mushrooms, an olive tree, a lemon tree, perhaps a walnut tree or some other kind of nut, and a chance to watch the sunset each day as I set off improvised homemade explosives and rockets, performed bizarre chemical and medical experiments that create and eerie and unnatural glow when viewed from a distant hillside, perhaps even signaling to alien spacecraft, and burned and buried the bodies of indigents and girl scouts unfortunate enough to cross my path... oh, for the simple life... just like Little House on the Prairie. : )--Necrofeelinya 02:26, 25 July 2009 (BST)

Part of the atmosphere of Urban Dead is the sense of isolation and inability to easily coordinate; alas, that genie is already out of the bottle, and no amount of pushing will get it back in. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:17, 25 July 2009 (BST)

True, but if that's the case, why not accommodate it in a way that makes it easy for all players to participate? If you've got a system with exploits that only some players use, and it gives them an advantage, why not just acknowledge the exploit and help everyone use it?--Necrofeelinya 02:29, 25 July 2009 (BST)

I like the sentiment and mechanics of this, but ultimately I don't think people will go for it. External boards allow all sorts of stuff the game would never do (like pictures) and don't tax the UD server. You do have a good point about the newb problem - we have advantages they don't - but that also applies for all the in-game skills, like faster walking, free running, hitting what you shoot at, etc. That's just how it is, and although I don't necessarily like everything about that, nobody stays a newb forever. Anybody who really cares about blow-by-blow contact and strategic warfare will seek out the channels everyone else uses to communicate. I'm not trying to discourage you - I just think you're facing some pretty tough hurdles. -George Zip ^◆◆◆ 02:39, 25 July 2009 (BST)

I also like the sentiment, and I agree that in-game communication ought to be encouraged and made easier, especially for zombies. However it is a fallacy that newbs don't metagame. Noobs don't consider strategy and they won't regardless of how easy it is for them. That's what makes them noobs.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 07:00, 26 July 2009 (BST)

Wait, I don't see why "only some people" can use outside resources to augment playing the game. You mean to tell me if I meet some people in the game with whom I would like to organize that I can't get in touch with them out of game unless I'm a certain level in game or what?--Pesatyel 20:28, 26 July 2009 (BST)

Right, being lazy isn't a handicap that we need to design the game to accommodate; If someone doesn't want to make an effort they they shouldn't be surprised when they don't get a result. That said, newb ignorance probably constitutes a significant potion of non-metagaming UDers, especially for people who are new to this kind of thing. It seems like the answer would be to spread he word about IRC rooms in game, not to flood the server and/or reduce character playability. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 20:39, 26 July 2009 (BST)

---

Groan Improvements

Timestamp: Sorakairi 23:04, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Zombies

Description: My latest Groan Identification is now Groan Improvements. Firstly, you can identify Contact-Listed Groans as a Zombie. When you hear a Groan from the Groaner, you will get the message 'You hear (type of groan), which you recognise as (Groaning Zombie).' You can only identify one groan at a time, because of your decayed state, so if you hear another Contact-Listed Zombie groan, you will get a 'You heard several recognisable groans.' Secondly, you can now choose your type of groan. The Groans you can choose from are: Normal, Blood-Curdling, Mumbling, Sad and Happy. They still have a volume depending on how many survivors are there, (insert volume info here), just a different way of groaning, perhaps used a message sytem between Zombies attacking areas.

Discussion (Groan Improvements)

The first bit would get you nice and shiny dupe votes, and the second bit is flavor that... probably wouldn't see a whole lot of use and cause more confusion than help. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:28, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Firstly, the first part is a dupe of a suggestion I'm pretty sure was open only a week ago... The second part isn't so bad but I think it undermines the purpose of groaning (to allow zombies to find easier food) with flavour that, in the end, will mean the same thing: zombie sees survivor(s) and is alerting others around. It doesn't really need to be anything more than that. --ϑϑℜ 09:58, 26 July 2009 (BST)

Thats because I made it... Sorakairi 04:18, 27 July 2009 (BST)

---

Scent Chemicals

Timestamp: Sorakairi 23:04, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Type: Skill

Scope: Zombies

Description: Scent Chemicals is a new addition to the Scent tree, obviously. It is a sub-skill of Scent Trail, allowing you to follow the Scent of a Survivor recently revived or FAKked in the same block as you, not just one who has done something to you. You would get a message in your news saying 'Survivor X has a strange scent on them (4N 2E First Aid Kit/Syringe).'

Discussion (Scent Chemicals)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 31 July 2009 at 00:41 (BST)

What does this suggestion actually accomplish, though? It's not as if there's a raging demand in the zombie community to know where the person who revived or scanned someone else has moved to, and it would make attempting to scan a zombie in a large horde virtual suicide unless the scanner was prepared to run quite a ways. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:10, 23 July 2009 (BST)

obviously? Also, unneeded. Wouldn't be used by anyone. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}23:26, 23 July 2009 (BST)

So if I am reading this correctly, when survivor A is healed/revived by survivor B, you can follow survivor A. First of all, how often is a survivor healed in front of a zombie? Also, this, unlike scent trail, is activated by someone else, so you would have no control over whether or not this would be in effect on your character. This is especially true if you are revived, in which case you have just lost 10 AP and are probably infected and then, on top of that, you have to escape the zombie hoard that surrounds you, many of whom can track you. Which leads to the next question, how far is this effect's range? You might want to limit its effect to the survivor that used the FAK/syringe (in the above example, survivor B).--Uberursa 00:41, 24 July 2009 (BST)

---

New Strain Needle

Timestamp: Sorakairi 23:04, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Type: Item

Scope: Humans And Zombies

Description: Scientists, realising that the older zombies have entered a later state of decay, have formulated a new Revivication Syringe, known as a New Strain Syringe, to cure it. This new syringe can do what no other can: Revive a Brain-Rotted Zombie.Scientists, realising that the older zombies have entered a later state of decay, have formulated a new Revivication Syringe, known as a New Strain Syringe, to cure it. This new syringe can do what no other can: Revive a Brain-Rotted Zombie. Fortunately for the Rotters, these syringes are extremely difficult to make, requiring a powered Necrotech, and 30AP. Even then the New Strain is not entirely secured, as there is a 25% chance that you will fail at making the New Strain, resulting in a spent 30AP and a normal Syringe. The New Strain cannot be found. If you succeed at making a New Strain Syringe, you will get a message 'After much time and effort, you have created a New Vaccine for the Zombie Virus.' If you fail you recieve the message telling you 'All your time and effort has gone to waste, as you have only managed to recreate a normal Syringe.' Even though some of you will say 'You are an idiot. This totally nerfs Brain Rot,' it doesn't. At least not to me. After all, you will most likely go AP negative trying to create one of these, and the Zombies will target Necrotechs more because the lights on in there could mean people trying to create the New Syringe.

Discussion (New Strain Needle)

"Even though some of you will say 'You are an idiot. This totally nerfs Brain Rot,' it doesn't. At least not to me."
Hint: It does. Not only that, but this is 100% abusable by zergs. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:13, 23 July 2009 (BST)

I'm not a raving fan of brain rot per se, but I can tell you that this definitely nerfs it. For just 10 extra AP, you're giving a syringe maker the power to revive a rotter from any location; multiply it times a billion and you'd have whole masses of scientists just sitting indoors, collecting rot needles, and then going on reviving sprees. Furthermore, if this doesn't nerf rot, then it has no point; since it certainly doesn't buff rot, it's either a nerf or useless. Sorry mate, them's the breaks. Also, >.< Edit Conflicts! Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:17, 23 July 2009 (BST)

"It can do what no other syringe can do: revive a brain rotted zombie" = Not a Brain Rot Nerf. Hmmm... It doesn't quite piece together to me. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}23:24, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Change this so the 'failed' syringes still appear to be the improved variant and I might be tempted to vote keep... but only if its use required a successful scan on the target rotter 1st. I would expect a chance for normal syringes to fail against rotters inside powered NT's as a quid pro quo type deal though. --Honestmistake 00:21, 24 July 2009 (BST)

But what do you really get out of it in the end? Either you're nerfing rot, which screws with other people's skills, or you're having no net effect, which is pointless. This fills no gaping gameplay hole, and has no constructive end result. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:27, 24 July 2009 (BST)

While I agree with Honestmistake, there is only one place I can see this coming into effect: getting rid a rotter clogging up a revive point (which I don't mind at all). Of course, it is only a temporary fix, because they can just commit suicide and get back in line. Other than that, the cost of making one of these really stops it from being a full on rot nerf, just through sheer amount of AP necessary to make and use one (120 AP on average to make one+ 10 AP to use=130 AP to revive rotter without chance to fail on-site) and if the changes that Honestmistake suggested are put into effect add the AP necessary to successfully scan the rotter (which is in my limited experience about 3AP). If anything, it will be underpowered to the point of uselessness. My suggestion would be to change it to 50% success rate and don't tell whether or not it is really the right syringe(60 AP to make+20 AP to use both the new one and the failed attempt+6 AP to scan the rotter(s)= 86 AP, with 25% chance to fail on-site). --Uberursa 01:03, 24 July 2009 (BST)

Just butting in to point out that it says 25% chance that you fail to make the improved syringe Not 25% chance that you succeed. --Honestmistake 09:11, 24 July 2009 (BST)

But at the end of the day, what's the point? Before we try to lower the number of reasons why we shouldn't do something, we should first find at least one why we should. Either a rot nerf or useless overcomplication, that still stands. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:06, 24 July 2009 (BST)

I can think of a few points if my additions were made part of it... the 25% chance that your improved syringe is actually just a normal one means you could well be wasting about 45AP for no good reason... thats actually a buff for rot should people make a habit of using these to clear revive lines. On the other hand this would give survivors an instant (if not certain) way to clear Rotters from any where they need to... the uses in taking back malls, forts etc is pretty obvious here which is why I also say it should be further balanced by a percentage chance for rotters to have developed enough resistance to normal syringes that even powered NT revives are not certain.--Honestmistake 09:19, 24 July 2009 (BST)

You are an idiot, this totally nerfs brain rot -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:45 24 July 2009 (BST)

I think a lot of people forget that it's easier to die than live. To live, somebody must revive you. To die, you simply have to jump out of a building. For that one specific reason, the dead will never be overcome by the living - the dead can always go right back to being dead. So, in my mind, this is not a nerf. That being said, however, I would propose that the New Strain Needle be very hard to make, and so I would only support it under your manufacture specs. Anyone who doesn't like it could, of course, just go die. -George Zip ^◆◆◆ 02:47, 25 July 2009 (BST)

Look, I don't care how easy it may, or may not be to die if revived. The fact remains that the only reason that anyone buys brain rot is so that you can't be revived, unless you are in a very specific building (the powered necrotech building). This suggestion (and all others like it) removes the only reason all those brain rotted zombies bought the skill. Fuck that -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:32 26 July 2009 (BST)

Okay... So you want it to have a 50% chance to make a Rotter reviving tool that you won't know you've got till you use, as well as a chance that Rotters aren't always revived in Powered Necrotechs? Sorakairi 04:29, 27 July 2009 (BST)

---

Road Flares

Timestamp: Uberursa 21:46, 21 July 2009 (BST) Edit: --Uberursa 21:39, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Type: Item

Scope: All unpowered buildings

Description: Location: Auto Repair Shop (6% with lights;4% without lights; 1% in ruins) Fire Stations (5% with lights; 2.5% without lights; 1% in ruins), Mall Hardware Stores (6% with lights; 4% without lights; 1% in ruins),Police Departments (10% with lights; 5% without lights; 1% in ruins) Can be used to make it appear as if a building is lit on the mini map. This does not include when a survivor uses binoculars (the magnified vision allows them to see that it is not actually lit). These are LED flare lights, and thus do not have flames or fumes as a traditional road flare would. When standing outside the building the message There is a light flickering from inside the windows appears in the building description, when inside, the message There are road flares in the windows. If there is a generator in the building, the building's external description will ignore the flares as long as the generator is running. The internal description will indicate both the flares and the generator. They can also be lit and dropped on streets and outside buildings with the message There are lit road flares here. The flares will not be visible on the mini map when placed on the street, as they are hidden by low-lying debris. If someone lights a flare, the message XXX placed a flare behind the windows or XXX placed flares on the street appears (depending on the situation). The flare lasts 48 hours once lit. They can be taken down and subsequently destroyed or disabled (removing batteries, smashing, etc.). NO OTHER EFFECTS. The interior of the building will remain the same as if it were not lit, except for the message that there are flares in the windows. A flare on the street can also be destroyed/disabled. Destroying flares provides 0 XP to survivors and 1 XP to zombies.

Discussion (Road Flares)

I'm not entirely clear on the search system in UD, and the wiki was little help due to the amounts of conflicting/out-of-date/generally confusing information (and the fact that I'm lazy), but I felt the above ones were fairly reasonable. Any help from someone with a clearer understanding of that system would be appreciated. I just feel that it needs to be said one more time, in bold lettering, to ensure no confusion exist about the fact that this will not improve search rates or hit rates in any way --Uberursa 21:48, 21 July 2009 (BST)

I'm not big on misrepresentation or decoys, especially when they can't be removed for a fixed period of time. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:12, 21 July 2009 (BST)

I could change it so that someone could destroy it with a weapon, or just throw it in the street next to them.--Uberursa 04:20, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Also, who would want to do this. The only time I can see lights coming in to play are when zombies are looking for targets, and no survivor (the only person who can use this) would want to make their building a target. The other situation is for suburb reports, which this would mess with. Messing with suburb reports for newbies is not good.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:17, 21 July 2009 (BST)

As far as who would want to, a lone survivor in a ruined suburb could use it to make a decoy, on the flip side, the moment the zombies in the area realized it was a decoy (due to the description) they would search the surrounding ruins for a survivor. The fixed period of time is relatively short (in Malton terms, assuming a player logs in once a day on average) so they couldn't have gotten too far, depending on how long the building was ruined and to what point it is 'caded. It could be changed so that binoculars could see them as flares, thus the status reporter helicopter could see that they were flares.--Uberursa 04:20, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I'd consider rethinking this item as a weapon. Road flares look nothing like either incandescent or fluorescent light, and nobody ever uses them inside (they put off chemical smoke). Also, they only last for 30 minutes to an hour. No, I'd suggest you consider their possibilities in a more active role - perhaps a dangerous weapon that only works for a brief period of time. -George Zip ^◆◆◆ 01:11, 22 July 2009 (BST)

No one can see in or out of a building (for whatever reason), so saying that it could be mistaken for a light at a distance isn't too much of a stretch. I got nothing for fumes aside from "it is the zombie apocalypse, not real life" (bad excuse), or one could use their imagination (like with free running). As for a weapon, it could be essentially a melee flare gun. Any thoughts on that? --Uberursa 04:20, 22 July 2009 (BST)

You don't need to use your imagination with free running. It's a real thing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:01, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Good luck.--Agunin_Anoven 04:25, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Don't make it a weapon... it will get shot down :) As for a light source, it might work if you drop its duration down to 24 hours and call it a chemical light. Those things can glow for hours and produce no smoke. They are pretty light and increasingly common. --Honestmistake 10:08, 22 July 2009 (BST)

You're probably right as far as a weapon goes, it would just be another flare gun. It could be changed into a LED light signal, those things are pretty bright and could last longer than a standard road flare. Not to mention it wouldn't present the whole "toxic fumes" problem that was brought up by CaptainVideo. If I did change it to 24 hours, there would be a good chance that no one would see it, and by the time this is finalized, they will be able to be removed. In fact I'll just do that right now. --Uberursa 21:31, 22 July 2009 (BST)

As per your changes, what does this even do? I see nothing, other than the pointless building decoy method you previously mentioned, which no smart survivor woudl do. All I see that this would do, in a very rare situation, is a PKer/ Death cultist putting one in a ruin that survivors are hiding in to alert zombies.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:10, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Actually I think a lot of survivors would use these in an attempt to decoy zombies so my main concern would be wasting zombie AP... on the whole though I think there use as "bread crumbs" to lead zombies to easy targets would balance it out. --Honestmistake 14:24, 23 July 2009 (BST)

The "bread crumb" use was part of the whole point of this. Yes, a death cultist could use them to alert zombies to a survivor presence, or they could be used as a signal that a building was taken and needs a genny, or could be used to draw zombies from a more important target. They could be used to make a zombie player think that no one was in the building at all and check the surrounding ruins for a survivor that is not there. This would especially play a role in a siege environment so that survivors could draw in zombies and slow them from reaching the core of a 'burb, but the zombies would be pounding at their doors, and they would have the no access to the advantages of a genny. The uses of the item are endless, however it is not imbalanced in one direction or the other, because it simply alerts those outside that there is a flare in the window, and zombie players could figure out that it is a decoy, turning their attention pointedly away from it and towards other targets. It lights up a building without the need for 30% encumbrance, but that comes at the price of having all the attention of a genny, without the light granted by it.--Uberursa 21:36, 23 July 2009 (BST)

No, it's uses aren't endless. It can be used as a decoy, that's it. Rather ineffectively too. If you want a cheap decoy, give a building a quick 2ap repair, and zombies will flock to it. As I'm presently repairing a ruined suburb with my main account, I can tell you that i would never use this.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:59, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Plenty of players never use the radio and consider it nothing but useless span. A lot of folk ignore flares and groans as pointless. Many, many players never bother with clothing (or indeed descriptions... the lazy fucks!) However just because a lot of players wouldn't find use in this (or any of those others) does not make them useless. I would use these, I would use em even more if they were colored but thats a different matter, and I suspect may others would use em too. Question really is; would you vote kill or even spam just because you wouldn't use em? --Honestmistake 23:05, 23 July 2009 (BST)

in all of the cases you gave, the Majority DO use them. This suggestion would be used by a minority, and only by one side. It would annoy both sides, and survivors currently have a perfectly acceptable technique for setting decoys in a ruined area. If the area was ruined, you wouldn't be able to find these to use them. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:06, 24 July 2009 (BST)

First of all, in a ruined suburb you can't find toolboxes, but you still use them, you can't find FAK's in a ruined suburb, but you still use them (I think you get the point). ANY item will only be used by survivors, that's is one of the advantages to being alive in UD, you can use items. It is simply attracting more attention to a building, because there is a shade of difference between ruined and repaired buildings. A lit building will stand out better, and will attract attention even in a suburb that is not necessarily ruined. Yes, there is a current way to set a decoy. This is a different way to set a decoy, and this decoy can stand out in more than just ruined suburbs. Also, try to not make claims based only on your personal opinion. I will not say that it will be used by a majority of people in UD, I have no basis for that, but I would ask that you do not start making sweeping generalizations over its use when the item is not even in the game and six people, including the author, have even posted a comment on it.--Uberursa 05:53, 26 July 2009 (BST)

A minority is less than half. So, unless survivors and zombies use it, it's used by a minority. And this would do NOTHING in a ruined suburb. At present, lit ruined buildings don't show up. So, in a ruined suburb, this would be useless. And honestly, what survivor would set a decoy in a non-ruined suburb?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:31, 26 July 2009 (BST)

Groups that do not use meta game maps. Survivor X says to survivors Y & Z that he is going south to start ruin repairs and will m,ark his targets with these. They can then follow when next they log on and will have a much greater chance of spotting where he is and thus keeping an eye (and FAK's) on him while he wakes up.

Likewise a scout marks his path with these so that his group can follow or a group use these to mark their territory or to show zeds that they have invaded theirs. There are lots of uses for this, all of them are pretty marginal but they are still uses. --Honestmistake 17:55, 26 July 2009 (BST)

Thanks for not listening to me about ruined buildings being unaffected by these. I really wanted to repeat myself. Also, thank so much for forgetting that some buildings around an unruined area will actually have generators already, completely destroying the other uses you just mentioned. Absolutely lovely work there, because I really enjoy pointing out the insane obviousness of this situation.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:32, 26 July 2009 (BST)

---

Over encumbered

Timestamp: Kakashi on crack 21:26, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Type: game mechs

Scope: survivors (and zombies... kinda sorta)

Description: Pack Rats have been seen in buildings recently carrying too many things to even move, these have become easy prey to the phycotic maniacs and thieves throughout Malton... basically, Survivors who complain (rarely) about the encumberence levels can go above 100% items at some setbacks... 1. if they are above 100% they cannot move, this will leave them vulnerable to attacks... 2. if they are above 100% they get a reduced accuracy of 20% due to the heavy weight of all the items carried and the fact that they constantly get in their way hampering with their vision 3. if the survivor reaches 200% encumberence, they will start to loose 5 HP for every 10 AP spent 4. if the survivor reaches 300% encumberence, they are crushed by the sheer weight of the items and will die, losing everything they are carrying 5. A survivor who goes to search a building while they are over-encumbered has a 30% chance of having a random item stolen from their posestion (not really but it will disapear) (if this happens they will be informed that something seems to be missing when they search) 6. if a survivor becomes a zombie while encumbered, the weight of the items will slowly wittle away at their poorly supported structure (1 hp per AP spent) until they basically collapse (die) at which point they will lose all items weighing more then 5% encumberence

Discussion (Over encumbered)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 29 July 2009 at 15:56 (BST)

Honestly?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:19, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Alright then, you asked for it. 300%? You do realise that 100% means "Complete", "Maximum", etc. You can't have more than 100%. It's illogical. Then, there's the matter of everything about this idea being completely insane.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:19, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Depends on how you want to define 100%. It could mean the maximum weight someone can carry comfortably without penalty. Or it could very well mean the maximum any one person can carry. Having said that, no I don't think we need Survivors being able to carry 300%, so I'd have to vote kill on this. Maybe if the author worked up a penalty system that worked within 100%. But Survivors would shit a cow over that so...probably dead in the water.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:41 20 July 2009(BST)

what the fuck is going on here?--Agunin_Anoven 23:15, 20 July 2009 (BST)

You're still on crack. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:33, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Still on crack, but that won't stop me from writeing a sugestion a day to keep the moderators away XD (of course I haven't got anything big planned, heh, maybe I should put project T.O.G. in here for the hell of it to see how everyone reacts XD --Kakashi on crack 06:45, 21 July 2009 (BST)

This idea sucks big time, go kill yourself.--Agunin_Anoven 07:51, 21 July 2009 (BST)

^ He's just hating cus I forgot to post a siggy and he won't let it go XD --Crazy Hobo Man 08:29, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Keep your dumb ideas off the wiki, this suggestion sucks so much ass. Not only are you on crack, but your fucking dumb. Take your computer and throw it out the window, PLEASE.--Agunin_Anoven 22:57, 21 July 2009 (BST)

There's no need to be insulting just because you don't like the suggestion. You're so badly overreacting that you just make yourself look like an idiot.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:15, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Ignoring the fact that we can't currently find anything once we reach 100% encumbrance, this suggestion seems contradictory in part. If you have a 30% chance of loosing an item once you reach 100% you are very unlikely to ever reach 300%. Stuff would be getting "stolen" as quick as you'd find it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:24 21 July 2009 (BST)

According to this page, the average search rate is 20%. That means that with each search over 100%, there's a 20% chance of an item being gained, and a 30% chance of an item being lost. Over, that means that you are 1.5 times more likely to lose an item than you are to gain one.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:51, 21 July 2009 (BST)

However, in a powered mall with bargain hunting, the average becomes 50%. This means that you are 1.6 times more likely to find something than to lose something. Therefore, every 2 search would give you an item, whereas every 3(.33) would make you lose one. (For ease, we'll say that for every 10 turns, you lose 3 items, and every 10 turns, you gain 5). This means that in one 50AP day, you could gain 10 items. The average encumbrance is probably about 4%, so that would mean +40% in one day. From 100%, you could achieve 300% (and thus death) in 5 days.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:58, 21 July 2009 (BST)

That search odds page is woefully out of date. Regardless, given the nerfs that he kicks in at 100%, it's very unlikely anyone would sit there searching, unless they were trying to die. It's a needlessly complicated suggestion, that could achieve it's goal with one nerf... but given that we already can't find anything once we reach the 100% limit, it's all a bit pointless, really -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:56 24 July 2009 (BST)

Apart from the fact that if your encumerence is over 100% you can't pick anything else up. Which seems to be a major flaw with this suggestion. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:47, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I would assume that he's suggesting butchering that.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:03, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Leave Other People's Inventory Alone. This doesn't make the game more fun, no one would use it and it would just be a pain in the arse for survivors.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:12, 23 July 2009 (BST)

---

Item Giving

time: --Catachan 15:04, 19 July 2009 (BST)

name: [user: Catachan]

type: Player-to-Player interactions

scope: survivors

description:-- As the title suggests, players may give items they do not require to another person that can use the item. For example, a person who gets a toolbox and does not have construction may give a person with the construction skill his toolbox. It may also work if the player does not wish to have an item he can use, such as a weapon.

Doesn't really need a huge explanation, due to the fact the title pretty much gives you all you need to know.

Discussion (Item Giving)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 29 July 2009 at 21:21 (BST)

This is a massive dupe. --ϑϑℜ 15:08, 19 July 2009 (BST)

As DDR. Sorry but mechanics for moving items in between characters have been suggested many many times before. --Cyberbob 15:12, 19 July 2009 (BST)

This could work really well.--xoxo 15:17, 19 July 2009 (BST)

lollllllll --Cyberbob 15:17, 19 July 2009 (BST)

This is going to face the usual opposition: abusable by zergs. - User:Whitehouse 15:20, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Giving is bad, m'kay -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:27 19 July 2009 (BST)

The problem is that this is easily abuseable (as pointed out above). Higher level characters can search, more easily, for the "good stuff" (syringes, faks, guns and ammo) to hand off to the player's lower level alts.--Pesatyel 19:38, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Why the fuck do you suggest this?--Agunin_Anoven 23:16, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Agunin, this is called a SUGGESTION page. It's for suggesting ideas. Now, I'm sorry this is a problem suggestion, but for christ's sakes, keep it nice in the future (aimed at Agunin_Anoven. Everyone else is alright).--Catachan 23:40, 20 July 2009 (BST)

To be honest i think this is the nicest i've ever seen such an dupity/bad suggestion get rejected. So be thankful! --xoxo 07:29, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Was AliM really needed? ;) --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}21:21, 22 July 2009 (BST)

---

Dual-Nature Names

Timestamp: Necrofeelinya 22:24, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Type: Dual-Nature Encouragement

Scope: All players

Description: Simple, really. When you create a new character, you can pick both a survivor name and a zombie name. When you're alive, your profile shows your survivor name along with your description, and that's how you appear on the map, as well as in people's contacts. When you're dead, you still just appear on the map as "zombie", but your profile and other people's contacts display your zombie name. If you want to always be known by the same name, just choose the same name for both your zombie and survivor name when creating your character. It might encourage people to play their zombies and survivors differently if they're distinguished by different names, that's all. It would make you feel like a different person when you become undead.

Discussion (Dual-Nature Names)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 27 July 2009 at 23:10 (BST)

What if someone's zombie name is someone else's survivor name? In general, everyone changing names quickly would be complete chaos. If you made this so that when a survivor died, their name became the same in zombie-speak, that would be better, but I don't really like the idea of changing names.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:41, 16 July 2009 (BST)

There'd be a lot of names, then... twice as many. And do old players get this option? If so, how does the profile database compensate? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:42, 16 July 2009 (BST)

It explodes in fire and death. Or, it uses a specific name, either the one from the starting class, or the survivor, I would assume.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:48, 16 July 2009 (BST)

in addition to the chaos, this would negate the effect of contact lists. it'd destroy organised revive points. it'd make the random revive policy (which is nothing more than smatr play) obsolete. it'd be giantic buff for PKers and Death Cultists. as much as a part of me thinks this'd be fun on so many levels (bwahahahahahaaaa), it really is too much. --WanYao 22:52, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Having "AKA: <other name>" on a player's profile page so you could see their alias when on the other side of the life fence would remedy that. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:02, 16 July 2009 (BST)

All I'm suggesting is that characters have a zombie name as well as a survivor name. Yes, the number of names in use would double. No, names would not be possible to duplicate... a player could not use a zombie name for a separate survivor character. Contact lists wouldn't be that badly affected, the contact name would just change when the character dies. If you know that person, chances are you would quickly be familiar enough with their alter ego to recognize them on your list. Just the disappearance of their survivor name and the appearance of a new zombie name should clue you in. They even have the ability to write their survivor name in their profile's description area, so this wouldn't shaft organized revive points. And no, old players don't get this option unless Kevan decides to make it possible for some reason. Just make another character, for cryin' out loud.--Necrofeelinya 23:37, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I don't like it... add in BobBob's AKA part though and it might be workable. However I think it would have to be an automatic recognition thing.... ie you only get the contact name for whichever state they where in when you add them but get an in game message to say you recognize them when you 1st interact with them in their other state. Put simply you add "Bob" to your contact list while he is a survivor.... later he tries to eat you as a zed and you get the message " a zombie clawed at you and missed... you recognize it as Bob (aka "EVILDEADBOB") --Honestmistake 23:44, 16 July 2009 (BST)

It might encourage people to play their zombies and survivors differently...'. Can't/don't players do that already simply by the nature of what they are capable of in either mode? You have the gung-ho survivor who becomes a Mrh?-cow. Distinctly different, IMO. You have the revived dedicated zombie who offs himself as soon as possible, so I can't really see that as counting for anything. You have the Life and Death Cultists who modify the way they play because of the nature of the form. And you have the true dual natures who do it on their own. And, yes, Contact Lists WOULD significantly change. Your giving more information than a name change. Your giving every player the ability to determine the status of anyone on their contact list for free. Also, why SHOULDN'T older players get this?--Pesatyel 01:45, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Pesatyel, you can already tell whether a person on your contacts list is a zombie or not. I'm just saying that this would encourage people to play zombies as zombies, by giving a bit of different identity to them. If they want to just line up for a revive, fine... nothing's going to change that. And if older players want this, then they can start a new character with it. Or if it's easy for Kevan, then let older players have it too. Either way, I don't really care.--Necrofeelinya 02:25, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Based on the information from this wiki, I do not find ANY indication where you can deteremine a contact's status (whether they are alive or zombie). There is a listing for CLASS, but that is not the same thing as the contact list indicating whether or not a contact is CURRENTLY alive or zombie. Am I mistaken?--Pesatyel 07:40, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Class: Zombie = Dead, anything else = Alive. I think it may only properly update once the contact stands up (ie if a survivor dies and stays dead for a day it'll show them as "Military" or such until they stand as a zed. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:48, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Ok.--Pesatyel 07:58, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Oh, and really the benefit I see of this is that players can create a character named something innocent like "Li'lfluffybunny" and when it becomes a zombie its name would change to something like "Unholynibblingdeathterror". Or players could take a fairly normal human name, like "Jack Mehoff" as a survivor, and then use a more zombie-ish name for their alter egos, like "Namnamz Gutrupture". Or even something that would actually fit the character limit for names. The point being, survivor-ish names for survivors, zombie-ish names for zombies... all voluntarily, of course.--Necrofeelinya 02:58, 19 July 2009 (BST)

I think it could be nice flavour but I don't like the huge effect it would have on the metagame - I'm thinking of anything that involves highlighting names here like the contacts list function and UDTool. It's all well and good to have an AKA tag on their profile page but nobody is going to click through every single name in every single horde or building just to find the one person they want. --Cyberbob 07:43, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Makes people much harder to recognise for dubious role-play/flavour reasons -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:33 19 July 2009 (BST)

Aren't zombies fairly anonymous anyway? In addition, doubling the number of names on the server wouldn't be a good thing, making the number of cohesive names drop until there are twenty "Larry"s each with a different string of randomness afterwords (i.e. larry1102, Larry1, larry2.0, etc.) Personally I vouch for Bob's "A.K.A." idea. --Uberursa 23:10, 20 July 2009 (BST)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Groan Identification

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

| T | BALLS! | 09:33 13 July 2009(BST)

---