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.
• If you decide not to take your suggestion to voting, please remove it from this page to avoid clutter.
• 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 your 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.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list

---

Suggestions

Virulent Blood

Timestamp: 22:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Zombie skill

Scope: Zombies

Description: The new skill "Virulent Blood" would be a new addition under the Digestion tree, requiring Infectious Bite and Digestion to be purchased. The effects of the skill are to override the effect of Infectious Bite with a new type of infection, which will not stack with a regular infection, instead always taking preference. This new variant infection will not be flagged any differently in-game after it has been delivered, but is cured with a First Aid Kit in exactly the same manner. The only difference will be that 1HP is lost per AP the survivor spends, not per action. Although narrow in its use, high level zombies will be able to make all the difference in siege situations with this, as combat revives will now cost 10HP; and maintaining ruins will become somewhat easier, as large repairs can be deterred even more strongly by resident zombies. It'll also aid zombies seeking to hold a position, for the same reasons. Necessary flavour jazz: You bite your ma for 4 damage. They drop to 56 HP. They become virulently infected. Your ma bit into you for 4 damage. (23 hours and 20 minutes ago) The zombie's bite was virulently infected! (You'll now take 1HP damage for every action point you expend. Infection can be cured with a first aid kit.) (23 hours and 20 minutes ago) No other mentions of the infection will use different text, for handiness' sake.

Discussion (Virulent Blood)

Kind of screws over infectious bite, doesn't it? I mean, who would use normal infections but newbies, who don't buy bite until late in the game due to its lack of EXP-gain? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Imagine it more like Pistol Training/Advanced Pistol Training. You use the earlier one until you get the later one, which is an improvement of the earlier one. 22:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it. It's dramatically excessive.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This would be very bad news for The Big Prick. They would have to choose between carrying just as many FAKs as needles, or getting only 3 revives per day instead of 5. I won't go into whether that's a good or bad thing :-) --Explodey 22:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a very bad thing. The BP are the closest survivors have had to a mega-horde, and what they're doing is just damn good work. Nerfing them won't get us anywhere.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting that survivors are sorta vastly advantaged. Zombie mega-hordes are the only edge the undead have which survivors can't really counter. A survivor nerf, or zombie boost, is needed badly, so that's not really a viable excuse. 22:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You're joking? The sides are balanced. My zombie character can break down the barricades of a NT in one day, with plenty of AP left. I'm not kidding, I've done it before. It was The Hazeldine Building in South Blythville.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and one of my rotters can open Creedy's gatehouse every day. That doesn't equal balance. Balance is when both sides are equally capable of making experience and playing the game well, and currently zombies are dicked until they scrape enough for a few skills so they can start to maybe find the occaisional treat. Survivors make mucho xp from day one, and don't have to contend with combat- and random-revives, or headshots. Also, game numbers show vastly imbalanced ratios. There is no balance between the sides, and a small measure to dissuade combat revives is the kind of subtle help that could shift things slightly. 22:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Scuze' me? Survivors easy? I've been playing a scientist for about five months and he still doesn't have all the skills I want him to have; not everyone whack-and-FAKs, you know. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I. If you've had a scientist for five months, with 10xp a revive, 4xp a scan, and countless xp for clearing rotter from revive queues, healing the actual wounded, clearing bodies, etc, you'd have what you needed by now. Took me no time at all over in Gibsonton, with no punch-healing involved. XP for survivors is like gold coins to Scrooge McDuck. 22:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't really seem to understand how the game works. 50/50 is NOT an equal balance in urbandead. The only time that it got to 50/50 in recent history, almost every suburb on the map was red. Was that even? Not remotely. a 55/45 balance IS a balance in urbandead. And zombies don't have to deal with PKers. Or death at all, actually. These are all basic axioms, and I assure you that the game is balanced.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Balance isn't about being 'even', it's about being fair. Death for survivors is a hassle, yes. But it's one that any survivor can overcome very quickly. No needle gives you your 10-15 headshot AP back, or coddles your new players to a level where they can do anything worthwhile. A survivor with 2-3 skills can fend for themselves right away, without needing to huddle in numbers. Zombies can't, without a streak of luck, do shit all on their own except stumble on someone sleeping outside, or bash cades til they get inside with about 7 or 8 AP to spend until they're headshot again. Also if you're arguing the 55/45, remember to factor in the huge amount of mrh cows that're reflected in the zombie population. I'd make a stab at 55/40/5 survivor/actual zed/revive queue. 22:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Factor in PKers. 40/15/40/5. And, if you include PKers as zombie sympathisers, which effectively, they are: 40/55/5, in favour of zombies. Survivors by no means have an easier time, because they need all of their skills to be effective, whilst zombies need just a couple. Also, frankly, I have more fun as a zombie than as a human, and, I find it easier.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

We're getting off-topic. Balance, whatever your meaning, is a good thing to have. I think we all agree on that. What's being debated here are the merits of this suggestion, not necessarily it's justification. Personally, I think that Infectious Bite could use a buff, but I'm not sure that this is it. The fact that this suggestion hits combat reviving specifically, which I do not feel needs to be nerfed, is difficult to get around. —Aichon— 23:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with infection is that it does nothing until the character logs in, and if it does something before then, it'll stack and becoem overbearing. This wouldn't really change that in the slightest.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I follow this. If you mean that this would affect players while they aren't logged in, then perhaps I worded something wrong. It's per AP actively spent, so an action worth 3AP nets a 3HP loss, for example. It won't stack or even come into play until the player is logged in and doing things. 23:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the improvement that infection needs is to be able to do something to offline survivors. This does not. Hence, it doesn't solve the problem with infection.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhh, thought you meant that's what it did do. My bad. I can't really see a fair way that it would affect offline players, without unfairly penalising the "weekend warrior" types. 23:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't think this is a very good idea. It is both unnecessary and slightly overpowered. I say to just make infectious bite take 2-3 FAK's to heal or 1 with the first aid skill.--Winman1 01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

But that would be a dupe. --Explodey 01:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If Winman hates it, it can't be that bad, can it? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

oh, I didn't look it up. disregard the last statement.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Winman1 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

---

Toxic Rot II

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 22:09 22 November 2009(BST)

Type: New Skill

Scope: Zombies

Description: Sub skill of Brain Rot. Now the zombie is so toxic from infectiousness that is oozes infected juices. This Player is always Infected and cannot be cured by a FAK, even when a Survivor. Also, after a building is Ruined there is a new option: Toxify. This costs 5 AP and makes a building a Toxic Ruin. This wil be noted in the building decription. Toxic Ruins double the rate of AP cost to repair, that is each day the cost goes up by 2 AP instead of only 1 AP to Repair. Also, for each action preformed inside the building by any player, there is a 10% chance they become Infected.

Discussion (Toxic Rot II)

The Toxic ruin bit is overpowered. As for the infection bit, how would this benefit survivors / zombies?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It would just be one more step that Brain Rot takes a player in. Plus, it would be cool.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:13 22 November 2009(BST)

Fair enough, and I agree, it would be quite cool. It would also help parachuting, which is never a bad thing. However, I'm not keen on the fact that it would make it impossible to play as a survivor. For instance, I've just started a level 43 dual natured character, and it wouldn't feel right not buying the 44th skill, thoguh that would make it impossible to play him. Do you see what I mean?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, maybe you cant be Revived when Infected, but if you get FAKed first and clear the infection, then you can be Revived again. Maybe FAKs fail to clear Infection 50% of the time or something.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:18 22 November 2009(BST)

I love the first option actually, but stacking with brain rot, it becomes a bit excessive. That's really annoying, because it's a brilliant idea. What I thought of was if infection can't be healed when they're a survivor. I like the idea of encouraging pre-revival healing. I think it could bring an exciting new element to the game.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, sounds good. How about you can't be cured while a Zombie, but you can after revival. That sort of messes with pre-revival healing but, I dunno. I'll think on it for awhile.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:44 22 November 2009(BST)

I dunno, yours makes more sense, but it doesn't really change anything, because survivors only get healed afterwards anyway. Ooh, how about making it so that when you get revived, you don't have half your maximum, but half your current health? But, as a general change, not skill specific? I dunno, that might be excessive.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It still sucks, just like all of ZL's other ideas; I'm positive he doesn't intend to take it to voting, and is only posting it to cause flame wars, drama, and trolling opportunities. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, cunt. Stop trolling up my suggestion.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:20 22 November 2009(BST)

Oddly enough, the only person here who's trolling is you.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC

It's yet another one of ZL's god-awful unbalanced and broken ideas; how is it trolling to point that out? Anywho, I'll not comment on this any further for the sake of drama-avoidance. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. He just modified it in response to comments. He would not have done that if he was just trying to pick a fight. --Explodey 22:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

He modified it so he could try to justify removing the comments others had left in the previous discussion, including another warning to others to ignore him for being a troll. And, evidently, now a vandal. 22:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No, he's done the exact same thing many times before with different suggestions. It's better than leaving the old conversation, and posting a whole new suggestion on top of it. He has the right to remove his own suggestion from this page at a whim. You don't have the right to return it. If anyone was vandalising, it was you. (N.B. no-one was vandalising).--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Zl I for one think the idea has fucking merit.-- SA 01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The first part is good. The second part is pretty far out of whack. --Papa Moloch 02:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

First part. What is the benefit? How is this an improvement or make the game more fun? I'm not attacking. I'm asking a legitimate question. Getting a rotter revive is, generally, difficult enough. Why would I want to make it, effectively, harder? Not to mention Dual Nature players kinda get screwed. Second part. Almost completely overpowered. We hear plenty of stories of 100+ AP ruins. IF there was a ruin cap, this might be better, but until that, its over powered. The other part of it, the 10% chance of getting infected, isn't so bad. If you limit how much time you have to GET infected (say 6 hours after the ruin?) that might not be so bad.--Pesatyel 04:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a skill, not an addition to an existing skill. If you don't want permanent infection then don't buy the skill.

---

Astronomical telescope

Timestamp: Winman1 19:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: item

Scope: non-combat oriented players

Description: There is a new item with 20% encumbrance called an astronomical telescope. It can be found in mall Sports Stores, Railway Station, schools, warehouses, factories, office buildings, and Towers at a 5% search rate in a lighted building, with a 2% search rate in an unlighted building. Astronomical telescopes cannot be found in ruined buildings. Telescopes can only be installed and used in tall buildings. Installing a telescope costs 15AP Once an astronomical telescope is installed in a tall building there is an option to "look through the telescope". There are 4 things that can be seen through a telescope. 1. 50% chance of seeing nothing with the message "You look through the telescope. You see nothing. 2. 30% chance of seeing a bright star, granting 1xp with the message "You look through the telescope, detecting a spot of light." 3.10% chance of seeing a planet, granting 5xp with the message "You stare through the telescope, studying a faint planet." 4.5% chance of finding a comet, granting 15xp with the message "You glance through the telescope. You gasp as you discover a comet." This would help low level players who don't have the skills for an improved xp source. This would also help if you find it too dangerous to venture outside. Telescopes can be destroyed with 5 successful attacks at normal accuracy, granting 1xp per successful attack.

Discussion (Astronomical telescope)

No. Stop obsoleting zombies, plzkthx. 19:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots? EXP from non-gameplay sources=bad; also, this will probably get shot down in flames for being completely worthless. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 19:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Misanthropy conflicting my edit? It's more likely than I think...

Attacking zeds. DNA extracting. Traditional FAKing. Whack-'n-FAKing. PKing. All of these are available methods for low level survivors to gain significant XP, which is already easy, as it is. Survivors don't need any more help gaining the lower levels. There are lots of other issues with the suggestion too. —Aichon— 20:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What. The. Fuck?--Pesatyel 04:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Alt Proximity Warning

Timestamp: —Aichon— 08:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Interface

Scope: Players with alts

Description: Many Urban Dead players have multiple characters (alts) that they play. The rule regarding alts is relatively simple, but is oftentimes overlooked by new players. Even veteran players may occasionally run afoul of the rule if they don't keep track of the locations of all of their characters, and find that a few of them wander into one another's vicinity. This suggestion is aimed at helping players identify and move away from these sorts of accidental occurrences, rather than dealing with intentional zerging. This suggestion proposes a proximity warning whenever characters controlled by the same individual (as identified by e-mail address) are getting too close to each other. Similar to the IP warning, if a character moves within 10 blocks of another character controlled by that player, they would receive a simple warning along the lines of, "This character is nearing CHARACTER_NAME, another character in your control (you are X blocks away). Please be aware of the rules regarding multiple characters and be sure to abide by them." As for why e-mail addresses are used, rather than IP addresses, cookies, or some other means, the reason is simple: if those other means were used, zergers could test, map, and learn the limits of the current detection mechanisms used by Urban Dead for anti-zerging, enabling them to more easily circumvent them in the future. By using e-mail addresses instead, the accounts that are linked are obvious, no information about the actual detection mechanisms is given away, and the warning becomes a tool for honest players to identify times that they might be absentminded. Again, this suggestion is not aimed at curbing intentional zerging, but, rather, just honest accidents made by regular players. Please note that the existing countermeasures will still be in place, as they are currently. This suggestion is not intended to modify, remove, or otherwise alter them at all.

Discussion (Alt Proximity Warning)

Essentially a Dupe. Apparently I'm too tired to read properly. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I've often wished I had a tool like this. I have 6 characters in Malton and some of them by their nature tend to spend more time in the central suburbs, so they often do get too close without me noticing (though I've never noticed my attack or search rates decrease as a result.)
And it's not a dupe. The previous suggestion was rejected partly because it is based on IP address and might have revealed too much about the implementation. This one is based on e-mail address and does not have that problem. --Explodey 10:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Woo! Reading that was a rollercoaster. The initial idea was brilliant, but your counter-counter argument kind of made me more against it. At the end you picked it up. You've got a Keep from me.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how many people deal with this kind of thing, since I think those who have multiple alts generally know where they all are. But it certainly can't hurt. You've got my support too. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 14:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, for most people it shouldn't come up often, if at all, but that's actually kinda where this suggestion comes into its own. The few times my characters did get close to each other were infrequent and unexpected. It'd just be good to realize it immediately, rather than discovering it after the fact. Most people definitely won't bump into this on a regular basis, I should think. —Aichon— 19:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not? My one question is whether this warning pops up on every action inside the range, or just one that makes you enter it? I'd kind of like to know when I leave the range in case I just need to speed through on the way to somewhere else. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I had thought it would pop up every time while you're in the vicinity. So, the "X blocks" I mentioned would change as you get closer or move away. In other words, you'd know the entire time that you were in range, and could tell you were clear when the message went away. —Aichon— 19:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 19:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, possible griefing if you know the target's email, but still a relatively minor flaw.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, that is true. In fact, that could be a fatal flaw in this system. It'd either let you track them down so that you could attack them directly, or it might engage the actual anti-zerging measures. I don't know how the countermeasures work, so if Kevan does use e-mail addresses as a means of linking accounts together, you could effectively render another person's character useless by putting a throwaway character of your own with the same e-mail address near them. I don't have a quick solution, unfortunately. Any ideas? After all, this is developing suggestion. :) —Aichon— 20:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

He uses IP. People using the same IP but different emails have beened banned before.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we know he uses IP, but who says he doesn't use e-mail as well? I didn't want to limit the countermeasures through this suggestion. That's all. —Aichon— 22:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't both characters get that message? Then all the victim would have to do is change his listed email address; also, kevin isn't going to start letting people get hit by zerging countermeasures because they list a certain email. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 21:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't change your email, methinks.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes you can. --Explodey 22:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I thought you couldn't. Ah well, no problem then. Oh, but you might not know they were using it to find you. I guess it's just the personal preference of whether the benefit is worth helping griefers find you.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could add an opt-in to the settings page as well, that way people have to choose to use it, rather than having it defaulted to "on". —Aichon— 22:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The person being targeted would always know someone was using it, because they'd be getting an alt alert message with no alts nearby or getting the same message; it can't be used to track someone, because they'll just change their address. I like Achion's idea of making it optional as well. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume that both alts would need to have the box checked then?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, wait. Filling in an email essentially would work as checking the box, wouldn't it?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, some people already have their e-mail addresses filled since they want to be able to recover their passwords in case of losing them, so we can't really consider it an opt-in to this suggestion. As for how that would work, yeah, I would assume so. Both would have to have it checked. —Aichon— 22:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that certainly deals with griefing, but you may face opposition with cluttering up the settings page. That's a doozy of a problem for some people.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No one really understands all the anti zerging countermeasures that are in place, and I feel it should stay that way. I feel its a lot easier to force people to play it safe, rather then pushing the nearness of characters to its limit. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely, which is why this suggestion makes a point of not telling people when they're activating the actual countermeasures. All it does is look at e-mail addresses and tell people when two characters with the same address are near. It doesn't tell people when they've been spotted as a zerger via the countermeasures, since I too think that would be a bad idea. I addressed this very issue in the (admittedly lengthy) suggestion text, just because I knew it would come up. —Aichon— 22:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I know it is a poor reason, but I had suggested something similar to Simon, and the response was "too many database checks". And not everyone has set an email, what of those people? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go for "they miss out on this handy feature", also, server load isn't really a legitimate downvote reason for something like this, is it? If it's a good idea, I think whether it's too tough to implement code-wise should be a developer call. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It should just be a single SELECT statement followed up by some simple math to calculate distance between blocks. Getting a list of people in a normal building would be on par in terms of stress, I would think. Getting a list of people in a crowd would probably be more stressful. Oh, and yes, as Lelouch said. The people simply wouldn't be able to take advantage of it. There's no harm in that; it simply doesn't benefit them though. —Aichon— 22:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really have anything to do with complexity, just that the constant checks every time any character does something. And I just figured out that I can add an email, haha. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, to put it in perspective, loading your inventory (even if you're a zombie) already happens with every page load, and the inventory would be significantly more demanding to query (though even that is pretty light anyway, I'd imagine). This lookup would really be a VERY lightweight operation, since I think it should be easier than inventory, even if it had to happen with every page load. —Aichon— 22:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Your inventory doesn't change every time you do something, though. Neither of us has any idea what we are talking about, but the suggestion ain't too shabby. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I would make one change to stop this feature being used to locate other characters (in the rare cases when you know their email address.) Include a built-in delay, so you only start getting the warning message 4 days after you update your email address. But the other player (whose address you matched) probably set their own e-mail address months ago, so they start seeing the message immediately. 4 days gives them time to react or idle out. --Explodey 23:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like you're starting to over complicate things there. I'm not saying that would be a bad system, but why add bells and whistles to something that is inherently beautiful in its simplicity? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus, if someone is hunting in order to grief, that would just delay the griefing by a few days and wouldn't fix the problem. I do have one other idea though: what about simply confirming e-mail addresses? If e-mail addresses were confirmed by having to click a link that gets sent to your address, this whole thing would be a non-issue. Of course, there's the question of how to deal with everyone currently in the game that has an e-mail address entered. Thoughts? —Aichon— 04:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What about for those people that didn't include an email address when they started a character?--Pesatyel 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Players can enter an e-mail address from the Settings page. If none is entered, then as far as this suggestion is concerned, the characters aren't considered to be in control of the same player, and the person won't get the benefit of being warned when they get close to their other characters. The existing countermeasures would not be affected, of course. —Aichon— 04:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Pinning jump

Timestamp: User:Kralion Time:011:05 19 November 2009

Type: New zombie skill

Scope: Zombies

Description: Basically,Pinning jump costs 2 AP to perform and has a 20% chance of hit,it will appear as an attack option and if successful, It will prevent the survivor from attacking. The only option the survivor will se will be Struggle Which takes 1 AP for the survivor to perform and has a 20% chance of begin successful.If successful,the survivor will be free from the grip of the zombie. The only attack the zombie is able to perform when the survivor is pinned is Claw which has the same hit chance (maybe a 5% chance because is very close to him) and damage as normal.Any other suvivor can free the pinned survivor by simply attacking the zombie(%80 chance of begin successful)(the chance that the survivor is free,not the hit chance of the weapons that the other survivor may use).The pinned survivor cannot be attacked and the zombie can be killed while he has pinned the survivor,in which case the survivor is free.

Discussion (Pinning jump)

Just god awful; not only is your wording shot to hell, but the basic idea is ridiculous. So, for 2 AP, I can pin a 50 AP survivor and make him waste on average 10 AP to get me off, assuming the RNG doesn't crap out on me? How in the bloody hell is that balanced? Not only that, you've said nothing about attack targets on either side; can someone knock the zombie off or kill it? Can someone attack the survivor? Try reading the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots next time. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

RE:okey,lelouch.I read what you say and added your suggestion of people attacking the survivor and the zombie and I HAVE ALREADY added that the zombie can be knocked out so that the survivor can be free —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kralion (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

So now you just want to add a way to allow zombies to force survivors to spend 5AP without doing any damage? Considering 10 AP is a combat revive and waiting for someone to shoot a zombie off you is waiting to die, this suggestion would royally fuck up every zombie versus survivor fight. That's not even mentioning that a life cultist can shield a survivor for an infinite amount of time by harmlessly leaping on him. Can you understand what every person on this page is saying to you, or do we need to get the shiny letters and templates? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So, you want to add the Hunter's ability from Left 4 Dead, essentially? No way. It works in that game, since that game is all about team dynamics. It in no way works here, because this game is definitively NOT about team dynamics. Teams play a role, but people should not be required to be a part of a team or else get picked off, as they are in L4D. Also, as was pointed out, you haven't adequately addressed the mechanics, but I don't think that will help anyway. This idea goes philosophically against the design of the game. —Aichon— 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Terrible. Assumes that all combat between the factions is in real time when 90% of the time it isn't. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

RE:Revolution,I am not saying that we must always use the ability,if it isnt live combat I know its useless,so simply dont use it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kralion (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

I think DDR is saying that if the combat ISN'T live, then the survivor is gonna get killed every time since this ability is so overpowered. —Aichon— 02:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The entire suggestions mechanic is absolutely redundant because it is designed for a game/scenario where all the combat has to be in real time. And since when did Zombies do leaping jumps? And the entire point of being able to kill the zombie on the survivor to free him is flawed because you can't target specific zombies. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiply it by a billion (there's a reason why Hunters are "special" zombies in L4D) and imagine the havoc it could create if it would fall into zerg hands.--Trevor Wrist 15:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the general idea. I think I'm going to take the gist of this concept and rework it a little, actually. However, as is, it stands to be a griefing tool in the wrong hands. 17:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Overpowered and convoluted. Compare to Tangling Grasp. First, why can't survivors get attacked? Why would you have an 80% chance to hit the zombie instead of the "normal" chance? Second, if the zombie is pinning, how are they pinning that they can only attack with their claws? By comparison, Tangling Grasp limits it to BITE. Why would a survivor have such a pathetic chance to escape? Your talking life or death there.--Pesatyel 03:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Infection resistance

Timestamp: Winman1 17:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: skill

Scope: survivors and zombies

Description: There is a new zombie hunter skill called "resistance" thats can be bought for 100xp. When you aquire this skill zombies with Infectious Bite must sucessfully bite you 3 times to give you an infection. this would be very useful if you are attacked, have low hp, are infected, and want to run away without dieing.

Discussion (Infection resistance)

No.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Still no.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just god-awful. Did you even read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots? Do you even think before you post, or do you see DS as some sort of dumping ground for the abominable brain-abortions that you don't feel like taking care of your self? Most of your ideas would only take about thirty seconds (if that!) of serious consideration before their gaping flaws became evident; try to at least think about them for that long, okay? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 17:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

NO!

NO!

NO!

NO!

NO!

NO!

NO!

--Orange Talk 17:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

New skills are usually a bad idea because maxed-out characters with thousands of spare XP will get them immediately but newbie survivors will take time to earn them, meanwhile becoming more attractive targets. That seems to apply to this suggestion. Infection takes about 6-9AP to cure (depending how far the harmanz have to walk to find the replacement FAK and whether the building they get it from is lit.) So it's worthwhile for zombies to infect everyone in a building (assuming they're unable to ruin it) at present because it costs only 3.3AP to get the bite. 3 bites would cost 10AP making it not worthwhile against maxed-out characters, only against newbies. --Explodey 17:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Easily solved by always holding a first aid kit. My issue here is that it suggests all players play the game in a certain way. Infection is bad. You might die! Dying is part of the game. It happens. And a dead survivor can do things a living one cannot. Why should we make infection weaker? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Survivors do not need any more of a boost. If anything, infection should be made stronger. 19:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Infection needs a buff, not a nerf. Winman1, might I suggest no more zombie hunter skills? —Aichon— 21:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, better, how about, he actually PLAY as a zombie for a few levels.--Pesatyel 21:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

NO!!!! Oh my god, no. Do you know how many bites an infection takes to begin with? On average, it takes me personally about ten tries to get a successful infection!!! Do you really want to triple that to 30? The math doesn't work out, and it just nerfs an important zombie skill that is fine the way it is. --Chekken

Maybe if you had to manufacture special Resistance Needles (with the skill required to do so) for 20 AP. Cost 1 AP to inject yourself or another. And then, only 2 bites needed to infect. Can't be stacked. Would wear off after being Infected, requiring another needle to gain the benefits again. Even so, Survivors would probably just make hundreds of "Resistance Needle Manufacture" zergs and abuse the hell out of it. Maybe if Infection was incurable through a normal FAK, but required an "anti-infection" Needle to cure it.--

| T | BALLS! | 08:24 16 November 2009(BST)

Or maybe we just say "no thank you" -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:06 16 November 2009 (BST) 09:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And that intellectual fart gas grows thicker... --Papa Moloch 09:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Badsug Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 17:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

LoL. Great Justice. --Thadeous Oakley 22:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Infection is adequate as is. It is one of the few things in the game where the AP imbalance actually tilts in the zombies' favour. --Anotherpongo 18:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Collapse Barricades II

Timestamp: -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:02 15 November 2009 (BST)

Type: Barricade change

Scope: Zombie Barricade Attacks

Description: If a building is ruined and unoccupied by survivors, there is a 30% chance that any successful attack upon the barricades by a zombie already inside, once it reach VS or below, will make the whole pile collapse, leaving only the doors secured (if that building has them). This in no way weaken barricades that people are hiding behind or meatshielding, only those that are abandoned. It's main use would be in mall (or other large) building sieges, where zombies break into one corner, and attack other corners from the open entry point. Once abandoned, the barricades can be pushed over from inside easier than breaking in as normal.

Discussion (Collapse Barricades II)

This seems to just be a Piñata nerf and nothing else. The condition for the attack to function (ruined and unoccupied by survivors) makes this unlikely to see much actual use in attacks on malls. Folks that already know what's up are going to be going to the opening that's actually there, and folks following feeding groans won't be directed to corners where this attack is at all possible. --Mold 09:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, something I hadn't considered. Bodies of survivors killed in the attack, that stand up inside a pinata. Any ideas about how to remove this loophole? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:15 15 November 2009 (BST)

The way I see it, if a building was ruined, it was unoccupied at some point, which is sufficient reason for the barricades to be faltering now (i.e. they don't have a structure to brace themselves against once they lose their own internal structure). It doesn't affect people hiding behind barricades, since zombies would still have to come through them (or else they're already inside...either way, it's the same as before), nor does it affect meatshielding, since zombies would still have to clear the survivors before they could ruin a building (and survivors have no reason to meatshield a ruined building). By the time a building is VSB, the building is no longer a good piñata anyway, since it's already enterable for survivors, so it's not a piñata nerf. I would, however, make this work for both zombies and survivors alike, just to be consistent. —Aichon— 09:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

…body dumping? If you're creating bodies in the process of creating a piñata then you're either a PKer or a death cultist, and in either case you should be able to get by with a little help from your friends. Can't help but think of the saying, "Friends help you move, real friends help you move bodies." ;) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides, seeing as 1) this suggestion only takes effect at VS and lower, and b) once a piñata gets down to VS it can be entered by survivors and repaired, iii) I really don't see how this can be anything but good for zombies. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I've been hanging around Treweeke Mall for quite a while now, and I could have used this numerous times in the last month. Often I find myself meatshielding a ruined corner that is still barricaded, and come back and have to find an open corner, despite the mall still being completely ruined -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:18 15 November 2009 (BST)

What are you getting, visits from the barricade-smashing faerie? Weird situation, there, I'm not sure what's provoking that. As for killing the loophole... heh, maybe you could make it a child skill of Brain Rot. Tongue firmly in cheek but hey, it might work. --Mold 09:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, I like the child skill thought... will consider it more :)
Treweeke is a delicate balance. A small/medium core of zombies seem to hold the mall, and attack out to the surrounds (but retreat to the mall), while the survivors hold the suburb (more or less) and make occasional attacks (some successful, some not) on the mall, regularly barricading corners once cleared -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:46 15 November 2009 (BST)

Seems significantly overpowered.

• Benefits: A claw-maxed zombie is +5% to break a barricade while a Convert is +18% and a level 1 corpse is +13%. Not to mention only having to attack it half as many times (assuming an EHB barricade) as you normally would.
• Hinderances: Having to be alone (no survivors) in a ruined building.

Personally, I don't see the hinderances as being significant enough to compare to all the benefits.--Pesatyel 22:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of this suggestion is that there are no XP benefits to this suggestion (in fact it reduces the AP a zombie can achieve from simply knocking down each level of barricades separately). It is designed to be only useful to increase the benefits from zombies actually holding large buildings after they've already been cleared -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:00 16 November 2009 (BST)

I don't get it though. Isn't a Pinata more useful? If survivors can't use a resource building until they both get through the barricades AND effect repairs, wouldn't that be better than tearing down the barricades? In fact, wouldn't that technically help survivors more than it would help zombies? I don't think LIfe Cultists are as prevalent as Death Cultists, but it still seems this whole idea benefits survivors more than zombies.--Pesatyel 02:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not shocked you don't get this...? This helps zombies, it helps survivors, it helps life cultists. It hinders death cultists and PKers. Would you like a diagram? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

How does it help survivors in any way? It doesn't help to open up pinatas, which was the only thing I was concerned about -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:16 17 November 2009 (BST)

Parity. A zombie on the inside of VSB cades holds the ruin, a survivor on the inside of VSB cades repairs. A survivor on the outside of VSB cades can enter and repair, a zombie on the inside cannot. This shouldn't be just 'inside' only, this suggestion should make VSB cades enter-able for zombies while the building is ruined. Otherwise it helps survivors by ignoring the great deficit zombies face in terms of general cases, if it was pro-zombie the suggestion wouldn't be about cades, it'd simply increase hit percentages in large buildings where at least one corner was already ruined specifically. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm not understanding you. With your talk about the "deficit," the examples you give seem to indicate that it's maintaining the status quo for survivors, rather than helping them, as you say. That's why I think I'm misunderstanding you. I can see how this helps zombies on the inside, and how it doesn't help zombies on the outside, but I don't see how this improves the situation for survivors past where it is currently. —Aichon— 00:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How does this help zombies? I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I just don't understand. Would zombies NOT be better off MAINTAINING the barricade of a ruined resource building? What benefit do they gain for tearing down the barricades if the ONLY way into said building is by tearing them down (no free running)?--Pesatyel 07:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that this suggestion doesn't take effect until the barricades are at VSB. At that point, the building is no longer a useful piñata anyway, since survivors can enter, so it doesn't nerf piñatas at all. If anything, survivors should prefer to keep the barricades intact at that point, since they'll still be in place when they repair the building. It could save them ~12AP worth of barricading. Letting the zombies break the barricades down once the barricades are no longer of use doesn't do the survivors any good at all, while it does make things easier for the zombies if they happen to lose the location later. I don't see how it helps life cultists or survivors at all, and I think it benefits death cultists and PKers indirectly. —Aichon— 05:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it starts the moment there are no more survivors in the buildinng.--Pesatyel

I disagree. Go back and read the suggestion again. The moment there are no survivors in the building, nothing changes from how it is now, unless the barricades are already at VSB or lower. If the barricades are higher than VSB (i.e. they make for a good piñata), then this suggestion changes nothing and the barricades collapse at the usual rate. All that this suggestion does is allow zombies to break down VSB or lower barricades more rapidly. If a barricade is at VSB, it's already useless as a piñata, and thus useless to zombies, but it still might be useful to a survivor, since they could reclaim the building and have some free barricades on it already. —Aichon— 15:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Your right. I misread it (I maintain it was worded poorly lol).--Pesatyel 04:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the benefit of this for zombies. Is not the objective of ruin to keep survivors from using resource buildings? And as the only way into a ruined and barricaded resource building is THROUGH the barricades (ie. no free running), would it not make more sense for zombies to maintain the barricade so as to keep survivors from resuppling? Please explain how breaking down the barricade of an empty AND unaccessible barricaded building is useful to zombies.--Pesatyel 07:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

But the building isn't inaccessible. If the barricades are VSB or lower, survivors can already enter it again by just walking in the front door, so they're useless to zombies and should be taken down. If the barricades are above VSB, this suggestion doesn't pertain to them, as was specified already in the description. —Aichon— 15:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It is most useful in large buildings, where zombies are holding a ruin. Survivors clear you out of a corner and barricade up, but leave it unattended. You stand up, find another corner that is open and simply walk back inside the corner you just got dumped from. You can then ruin it again, and once it's down to VSB or below, collapse the barricades. And yes, I can see it will not help life cultist zombies to take back pinatas. I think it's pretty well right to go, as is -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:12 17 November 2009 (BST)

I misread the suggestion so that changes quite a bit. Your example doesn't work for me since you have to already be inside to use it. It is, basically, contingent on NOT getting dumped.--Pesatyel 04:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if the building is ruined, it's till not inaccessible, as you can still Free Running into it from a nearby building, much like you can enter a Ruined building and Free Running to another from that point; To prevent Survivor occupation, you'd have to maintain ruination in every building adjecent, as well. Honestly, I like this idea. I'd vote keep if it came to a vote. -KainYusanagi 22:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not quite right. If a building is ruined, you cannot Free Run into it, regardless of the barricade levels. Attempting to do so will get you dumped outside on the street, occasionally suffering injury. The ONLY way for a survivor to enter a ruined building is from the street (or somewhere else inside the building, in the case of Malls, Stadiums, etc.). You can Free Run from ruined buildings just fine, but you can't Free Run to ruined buildings at all. —Aichon— 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Additional Suicide Method

Timestamp: Chekken 04:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: New action, New use for firearms

Scope: Survivors only

Description: If a dedicated zombie does not wish to be revived, they then must go through a great deal of trouble to kill themselves (or they could become a PKer, which actually works against survivors). This is a simple change that I am suggesting. My idea is that we should allow survivors who are either in a hopeless situation, or unwilling to be alive, to commit suicide using shotguns and pistols in addition to already being able to jump off of a tall building. In order to do this, the survivor needs at least one weapon with one shot or more remaining. There will be a button (much like being in a tall building) that says "suicide". When you press it, a message will appear saying "You are about to shoot yourself. If you do this, you will die and awaken as a zombie. Are you sure?" When you confirm, the message will say "You place the gun to your head and pull the trigger. Everything goes dark". "You go outside, place the gun to your head and pull the trigger. Everything goes dark". This will take one AP and one IP hit. You will suffer the ordinary penalties of dying as dictated by your current skills, plus a headshot (whether you have that skill or not). To the moral people out there who are saying "This promotez teh suicidez! Oh my gawd, we will haff moral debatez!"...no, we will not. Because you can jump off of buildings to begin with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody has gotten into any huge arguments about that recently. Therefore, my understanding is that if this were to be implemented, it would not be such a big deal. You could just as easily use the same argument to say "this game shouldn't have PKing in it because it promotes violence!" As well, to debate against those saying it could be used as a "trolling tool"...the penalties of doing this act without any zombie skills at all (note: trolls are usually level 1 to begin with) far outweighs the "high" that a troll may get from doing this.

Discussion (Additional Methods for Committing Suicide)

I like the concept, but this makes parachuting a lot easier. What's to stop a bunch of Death Cultists from running into a safe house, blowing their brains out, and eating everyone inside at much higher hit rates? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the text should instead read, "You leave the building, put the gun to your head and pull the trigger". Role-play wise, you probably would not have the courage to shoot yourself in a (sometimes crowded) room full of people. People would be trying to stop you, etc. and then the whole idea wouldn't work at all. You bring up a valid point. --Chekken 04:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I don't see any harm in it; however, a lot of people might say "just go find a tall building" and vote it down. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

65% to hit with pistols and shotguns versus 50% to hit with claws, 60% once you grab hold of them....clearly....much higher rates for zombies. Though i do understand what you are saying, a Death Cultist is revived with 1 pistol round and he pops it in his brain so he doesn't have to search for ammo. Maybe we apply it as say a Headshot, you point the gun at yourself and take a headshot (headshot skill not needed) this ups the amount of AP it would use up and levels it much more. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

05:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but keep in mind that this skill is designed for convenience. Zombies wish to remain dead; we should not punish them for this. I mean, we don't punish survivors for wanting to be alive :P OH MY GOD I FORGOT TO SIGN MY POST. *Explodes* --Chekken 05:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Bad Chekken. Do not do the ZOMG *asplode* thing. Ever.-- SA 05:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to be revived just get ROT! --Zaphord 05:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Because Rot isn't completely negated in the most important target for coordinated zombies to get into and attack or anything. --Mold 06:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but a Rot can be only revived in a NT, which the character can jump out of if they desire.--Zaphord 06:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That was kind of a knee-jerk reaction from one too many discussions in which Brain Rot was slang for STFU zombies, you're not allowed to have an opinion on CRs, but you're right, in this particular case Brain Rot being useless in powered NTs is irrelevant. My mistake. --Mold 09:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

First, this is a dupe (I'll look for it later). Second, just HOW hard is it to NOT do anything and let a zombie kill you? And third, as pointed out, this is what brain rot is for. Considering how difficult it is to get Rotter Revive, they are easy to avoid. Don't stay in the NT. Hit the generator ASAP. Things like that. It is MUCH easier to die then to get revived. Your just not trying hard enough.--Pesatyel 07:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC) As for dupes, I found this.--Pesatyel 08:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Single AP deaths need to deposit the body outside, and we don't need another button for it, but rather make it part of the drop down list of targets for guns. Put "yourself" at the bottom of the list of valid targets -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:12 15 November 2009 (BST)

Agreed. If this suggestion is to go through, there shouldn't be a separate button, and the body must get dumped outside automatically. Headshots should be included, as applicable, of course, and you'd still need a warning to confirm the action. —Aichon— 09:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to discuss the purpose of the headshot suicide. Is it for realism, or is it simply to damage the player's AP (as in, the consequence of suicide)? As well, Boxy does have a point, but making "self" a drop-down target would encourage people to try to suggest ideas whereas this same drop-box suicide could be used with other weapons. At that point, this becomes too complicated of a suggestion. I like it, but I don't like it at the same time. And I realize this is a dupe (thank you, Pesatyel and Iscariot for pointing this out), but the way the other person went about suggesting this idea was absurd. I don't think he thought it through very much. I want to develop the idea further and work out all of the kinks before putting it through player-review. Maybe the drop-box idea isn't so bad after all...---Chekken 16:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Massive dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting note: You actually used to be able to attack yourself, but that feature was removed. Also, I really don't think that one shot would be enough to do it, considering the amount of damage characters in this game can absorb… remember, everyone in this city is enhanced by the zombie virus and is much more difficult to kill than normal people. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion is flawed from the very beginning. "If a dedicated zombie does not wish to be revived, they then must go through a great deal of trouble to kill themselves." I'm pretty sure that if a dedicated zombie does not wish to be revived, they will take Brain Rot. And if they get CRed attacking an NT there are likely plenty of zombies outside (bahbahs included) who would love the XP from eating him. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Even so, if you consider the suggestion itself, absent from the justification originally provided, it seems to have merit. I'll agree that the justification is flawed and incorrect, but the idea as a whole seems good, I think. Not all dedicated zombies have picked up Brain Rot yet, and some people may wish to be rezombified while having the option of returning to the world of the breathers later, which is a reasonable choice. Supporting that gameplay style with this change is both simple and not game-breaking. —Aichon— 07:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the key there is "dedicated". What "dedicated" zombies doesn't have Brain Rot? That's probably picking nits. As for the suggestion, all that is required is that the survivor end up outside if they kill themselves whether it be by jumping out of a window or using a weapon on themselves.--Pesatyel 07:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Even looking at the suggestion by itself I cannot rationalize why I would potentially support it. Suicide is suicide--the means may be different but the result is the same. And while I love flavour as much as the next bloke, there isn't a way to give the "gun suicide" suitable flavour without making it a new-and-improved way of making pinatas all over the city. After all, why should you have to be outside to shoot yourself in the face? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote for this. The current system is horribly unrealistic. You can jump from a window or feed yourself to the horde but you can't shoot yourself with a pistol? Makes no sense (unlike shooting yourself with a shotgun, which is difficult in real life. So maybe this should apply to the pistol only?)
Would eliminate crap like this too. --Explodey 23:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Shooting yourself with a shotgun is difficult? If heroin junkies can manage to kill themselves that way, I don't imagine it's that difficult. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be confused...He is suggesting we allow survivors to shoot themselves not marry Courtney Love! --Honestmistake 00:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He was commenting on the "...shooting yourself with a shotgun, which is difficult in real life." part of his post.--Pesatyel 04:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So was I. --Honestmistake 08:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Advanced Foraging

Timestamp: Wsmith 01:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Skill

Scope: Survivors

Description: A 5,000 exp skill to add the ability to find rare items in ruined buildings. Some of the items I am considering adding with this skill include flashlights, batteries, (for seeing in dark buildings, improving accuracy) Hiding places (where you find a niche in the building you can Hide in, after buying a Hide skill for 5,000 exp points) Vaccinations (limited immunity to infection) Iron Rebar (for heavier cading) Light tool kits (no encumbrance from tools) All these items would be very very rare, and only available in ruined buildings, and the exp cost to buy the skill would be very very high. Personally, I think we need to add some very expensive experience skills to give people something to look forward too a year from now.

Discussion (Advanced Foraging)

Have you read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots? Rare=/=Balanced, multiply it by a billion. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

First, why can these items only be found in ruined buildings? What sense does it make? Second, and more importantly, no need to even wait a year, considering most leveled characters already have 5000 XP in the bank. Heck, there are even a few with 40K, 50K, and well beyond at this point. Personally speaking, I've been playing about two months, and my character with the lowest level has still managed to accrue about 2200 in that time, while my faster characters are more around 3000, and that's without ever really making an effort to level up quickly.

Essentially, you're talking about making an elite class of survivors once they reach a certain point, by giving them access to special items that no one else gets access to. While I do think it's a very cool idea, it simply wouldn't balance well at all with the way things are. As Lelouch pointed out, rare != balanced, and you needed to multiply it by a billion since it'll become overpowered in a hurry. —Aichon— 02:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

How would this work for zombies? Many of them clear 5K no problem, my newest one in a group has about 1K built up already and he barely kills anyone. This would not become balanced for zombies at all, we would need to get revived (hard to do with rot) and then go searching for some rare item, only to jump to our deaths or be killed again and never use it. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

05:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Beyond what was said above, ZOMBIES ARE PLAYERS TOO. Why should all the "super cool" stuff only go to survivors?--Pesatyel 07:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I buy a bulletproof head for 5,000 XP? Or complete immunity to the IP hit limit for 5,000 XP. Both once I've managed to rack up 10,000 XP. I could bullet sponge forever. --Mold 10:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about.--Pesatyel 22:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

He's giving other examples of getting game-breakingly powerful shit for 5000 EXP. WILL YOU KILL THIS HIDEOUS MISCARRIAGE OF AN IDEA NOW, SC? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm requesting (as a joke, but also an example) the ability to play ?rise all day, and get 47 successful rises out of it (entering with 1 AP, standing up for only 1 AP even if headshot, and never having to slow down because I won't hit the IP hit limit if I refresh too often). Imagine having to kill me 48 times -- that is, removing 2,880 hp through a flak jacket -- to eject me from a building. Imagine the dent I could put in building defenders' AP with that. --Mold 23:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As well as the points made above, it's also a multi-item & skill suggestion, since flashlights, vaccinations etc aren't in the game. Avoid multi suggestions. Garum 11:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok. No harm done. I was commenting on the fac that EVERY time one of these kinds of suggestions shows up, it is overly balanced towards survivors. I'm not saying the suggestion is good by ANY means, just that these survivor fanatics need to remember that zombies make the game fun.--Pesatyel 03:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

How convenient, a stupid suggestion with no zombie aspects to it. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Humorous (flashlights, vaccine, huge zombie nerf and also a newbie nerf for reasons explained by Aichon above.) --Explodey 13:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Inspiration

Timestamp: Winman1 02:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Skill

Scope: survivors

Description: There is a new zombie hunter skill called "inspiration" for 100xp. After getting you have the option to "inspire" 5 random survivor players for 15AP. Inspired players get +5% accuracy for all weapons for their next 50AP and are healed for 5 hp if they are injured. It would simply be useful in dire situations when, say zombies just broke in, everyone needs hp, and you need to kill the zombies to get yourself safe again.

Discussion (Inspiration)

No, just god damn no. Survivors do not need this kind of buff in any way, shape, or form. Do some fucking research and play the game from the other side to see why they don't need this buff.-- SA 02:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As above. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This idea is unnecessary and survivors really don't need this sort of help at all. Plus, what's the math for search rates on FAKs? This might actually be a more AP-efficient way to FAK people up, and it would certainly be less of a hassle. The extra accuracy idea is interesting, but doesn't really seem workable, nor does it make much sense (what did the person do to inspire them?). —Aichon— 03:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Zombie Hunters are, generally, maxed out (or quite high level) characters with nothing "better" to do, if you will, that a lot wouldn't have a problem "beefing up" other players. You just have 5 characters enter the room and get beefed up, then replace with a new 5, etc.--Pesatyel 03:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Where the fuck did this Winman1 idiot come from? Wherever it was, I wish he'd go back there and take his shitty fucking suggestions with him. --Papa Moloch 07:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up, Papa Moron.--

| T | BALLS! | 08:29 14 November 2009(BST)

Oh look, it appears that there's the prospect of a shit suggestions tag team. Nothing says 'retarded suggestion' quite like support from this cunt. --Papa Moloch 09:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Offer up something constructive, or shut the fuck up, bitch. No one needs to see your insecurity splashed all over in pathetic attempts to boost your ego by driving new people off.--

| T | BALLS! | 10:18 14 November 2009(BST)

Calling you a cunt is most definitely constructive, because every new player needs to know that you are a raging fuckwit whose example they most definitely should not follow. Further, slamming shit suggestions like these is also constructive, because when people like you and Winman insist upon slinging every half-arsed, pile of shit that you can think of onto this page it means that the rare good ideas that are posted here are far more likely to be missed or ignored in the fog of intellectual fart gas. And finally, accusations of insecurity and ego are pretty laughable, coming from a guy who makes constant references to other people's testicles or lack thereof. --Papa Moloch 11:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Immaterial and unrelated. Shut the fuck up and go to lunch. 2. Add something constructive to the suggestion at hand or shut the fuck up. Go to lunch. 3. It doesn't get more ball-less and cowardly than being an inturdnet bully such as yourself. Difference between you and me is that I only attack worthless cowards like yourself, while you prefer to attack newbies that won't be defended by your shitheel buddies. You are weak. Will you go to fucking lunch?--

| T | BALLS! | 16:20 14 November 2009(BST)

Too overpowered I think, Win. I like the concept, but maybe with a different mechanic.--

| T | BALLS! | 08:29 14 November 2009(BST)

How about, instead of this, you have perspiration? It costs 15AP to use, getting yourself all hot and bothered, and it gives 5 survivors in the area a -5% to all attacks for the next 50AP, because they're so disgusted by what they saw. They also lose 5HP in vomit. New Death Cultist skill.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardy fuckin har. Shut the fuck up, Yonnua.--

| T | BALLS! | 10:18 14 November 2009(BST)

So, for recommendingan inverse which helps zombies, who you yourself have called the weaker side, you tell me to shut up? Hmm.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop talking to both of them. We all know they'll die on their arse/get duped in the main system any way. Don't drag out the time until these sections can be cycled by adding to them. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

---

=

Guard the Door

Timestamp: HellFreeze 08:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: new action

Scope: survivors

Description: This is my first suggestion, so 'don't taze me, bro!' I don't know about you all, but I'm grumpy about GKers. People on my 'do not revive'and 'kill on sight' list frequently free-run into my safehouse, smash the generator, and then leave without consequence. It takes them just a few AP to destroy, but it takes me most of a day to replace. So, I propose adding an action that would post the player at the free-run entrance to prevent undesirable survivors from entering. The list of folks to be blocked would be one color code on the player's contact list. This action should cost some AP (since they cannot be sleeping or doing other things) and should also put them at some risk by keeping them at the top of the occupant list. If feasible, the AP cost should be time-based. In other words, no AP accumulation while guarding. It doesn't affect zombies at all. It only discourages griefing genny killer free-runners. So, without changing the game balance, this action would make the game more fun. I would even take the first watch.

Discussion (Guard the Door)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: November 23

Massive dupe and open to cheating with zerging alts and an auto adding bot script. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but this suggestion is going to go straight into the dirt. You are basically saying "All survivors that are not in my contact list with X color can't get in the building without removing the barricades first". WAY too gamebreaking. Case-in-point: death culting. Death cultist has no names in his contacts (or only zombies), and therefore no survivors can get into the building... likely an NT or other TRP. I understand your frustration, but maybe you should just move to another part of the city, or maybe just a building that you don't need powered to be useful? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Missed a word upon reading the suggestion. Still no. As Iscariot. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, I won't taze you. BUT, If you think GKers are annoying, imagine the griefing you will get when someone who doesn't like you creates 20 new characters, places them in all the resource buildings in your suburb, puts you on their contacts list and then sets those characters to guard the door so you can't get it. Booom! You just got permanently locked out of every hospital, PD, and NT in the suburb. Think about it.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 11:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Taze! Taze Taze Taze! GKers are people too, it's a perfectly valid way to play the game. Billy Forks 12:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel your pain but no-one has managed to come up with a reasonable and measured way to make gking/pking etc.... carry a little more risk. Personaly I think allowing folk to spend 1 or 2 AP to defend a specific target would make sense. What you suggest though is just too easy to abuse and too strong anyway. --Honestmistake 12:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

D-D-D-DON'T TAZE ME BRO! Also, no. This suggestion is much too abusable.-- SA 15:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Open to too much abuse. All it would take is a few co-ordinated users (say, a group) and an entire mall could be off-limits for a whole shit-ton of people. Which I'd personally love, but we don't cater to death cultists. :( 16:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. Just what I was going to point out. If you multiply this by a billion, or even just a dozen, a group of people could effectively lock down a building or group of buildings. With a contact list holding up to 150 names on it, a dozen people in the same building could lock out 1800 people, with no way for those 1800 to get in, aside from breaking in. —Aichon— 16:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Good points everyone. I had never heard of auto-add scripts, and had not thought of nefarious abuses. It would have been horrible, with stronger instant pinatas everywhere! (This sort of thing is why I put the idea here, instead of the vote page.) Honestmistake's idea about defending a specific target seems like the better way to go. What if survivors in a building "move to block" someone attacking the generator (or other item), the same way zombies sometimes block barricade construction? --HellFreeze 19:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it actually be a dupe to suggest that players be able to defend against a (selected) action from anyone on his contact list only? Throw in a stipulation that it be a 1 time action (effectively a delayed action that may not be performed) and i don't remember anything that specific showing up in voting? --Honestmistake 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a god-awful suggestion that doesn't have even a bit of salvageable concept inside it. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

@Honestmistake, there was Protect v3 by Deyo, which sounds similar to what you said. It had some support but was unfortunately disqualified. Something like that would accomplish the same goal I had in mind, perhaps without so many horrors as my idea.--HellFreeze 08:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it was removed cos Deyo was spamming the system with a new version everytime it got spammed. In any event I was thinking more along the lines of 2AP to guard the selected target against a set colour from your contact list... Hell, I might even write something up for all you good folks to abuse :)--Honestmistake 17:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Air strike

Timestamp: Kamikazie-Bunny 22:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Destruction

Scope: Suburb

Description: The 24th August, a day that passes like any other for most ordinary people, however for those citizens of Malton who remember 2007 it was the first day the external military forces began transmitting data vital for survior. Some saw it as hope, others as information to barter and use, others believed they were faked from death cultists inside the city setting traps. In truth the military were researching the city in preperation, the surviors inside mearly fortunate to hear it. The military have been preparing for 'Operation:Cold Start' and now they are in the final stages... Operation:Cold Start In an effort to destroy the zombie menace the military will conduct a co-ordinated airstrike on the suburb with the highest zombie population regardless of survior presence (The 'survivors' of malton are to be considered expendable). Date: 24th August, 2010 This aerial bombardment has one ultimate goal, complete and permanent destruction of the zombie, nothing short of complete destruction of the targetted suburb is to be expected, all buildings, surviors and most importantly zombies will be ruined and killed. At 23:30hrs on the the 23th of August 2010 two bomber wings will be launched with a fighter squadron escort, at 24:00hrs the bomber wing will drop their payload on the targetted suburb and return to base. The HE payload will contain traditonal explosives and a classfied VX22-f additive developed by a NMO, it is expected and predicted that the modified explosives will prevent the targets from re-animating, permanently. Should this fail further development on the VX22 additive will ne neccessary and bombing will be repeated one calender year later every year until the desired effects are acheived. If VX22-f is succesful 12 further bomber wings will be lauched with objective of the complete destruction of Malton for the purpose of reclamation by non-infected personel. Commander K.Davis

Discussion (Air strike)

It's a good thing this will never actually happen, seeing as how "24:00hrs" doesn't actually exist. Also, humourous suggestions is over here. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:07, 8 November 2009 (BST)

24:00 does exist:

• 00:00 = midnight, start of day
• 24:00 = midnight, end of day

You can't display both at the same time as they overlap so most people are only familiar with one version. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

24:00 in military time is technically incorrect, and does not exist. There's 23:59, and then 00:00, but no 24:00. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:24, 8 November 2009 (BST)

The Internet's Big Book of Things That Might Not Be True says that airstrikes don't use 24:00. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a tie, it does exist, but not in the military, I suppose you win though as this is in military context. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Lawl. I know the RRF is frightening, but you can't expect Kevan to nuke Ridleybank and perma-kill a large chunk of the RRF for you, repeatedly. --Mold 22:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be permakill, "Should this fail... bombing will be repeated one calender year later!" The military wouldn't waste the resources if it would fail, they expect to succeed (but it won't) so this becomes an annual event. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a fighter escort, a brilliant tactic to counter our own interceptors.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, when did we get interceptors?-- SA 22:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you not buy the Airspace Battle Manager skill? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait! Who's team are you on, the E.M. just want to clear Malton, they don't discriminate between Surviors and Zombies they're all infected... are we looking at the beginning of the first Zombie/Survior alliance? --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, because now I'm going to get the ABM skill and learn to pilot a Titan so I can rain down fiery death upon the harmans. >:) -- SA 22:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

40K references lose you bonus points. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think "Airspace Battle Manager" and "Titan" would combine to be more of an EVE reference than 40k. 'Course, you could multi-task and pilot a Titan... in a Titan. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:43, 8 November 2009 (BST)

It was actually a Battlefield 2142 reference. :( -- SA 22:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Also good! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:54, 8 November 2009 (BST)

I just hate the amount of vehicle spam that goes on in that game. :/ -- SA 22:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So everyone dies, the zombies stand up again 5 seconds later and get busy ruining every building in the suburb with no interference from pesky survivors? Brilliant! --Explodey 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

All the buildings are ruined as well so they can just move on (need to mention that everyone receives an instant headshot as well, whoops).--Kamikazie-Bunny 22:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Rediculously OP in favor of zombies; this page isn't for Humorous Suggestions. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed this isn't. It's only funny because he so serious about it.--Thadeous Oakley 10:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Lawl.--Thadeous Oakley 08:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

	LOOK GUYS, ANOTHER ONE

--DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Center it on the NT that shows the most scans in the proceeding 72 hours and you got my vote.... of course it means the area with the most active scientists is the one that gets nuked rather than the one with the most zeds but you gotta love "military intelligence" :) --Honestmistake 00:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And make all the bodies stand up as survivors. After all, it's a chemical based on the Necrotech syringes. Now that's interesting: All zombies in an area suddenly revived, but the entire area ruined. --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Pffft...Call of Duty 4, much? No offense, but I sure hope this isn't a serious suggestion. --Chekken 04:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Meatshielding Skills

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091111 Meatshielding Skills

Arcade Machine

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091111_Arcade_Machine