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

Attack Injured Zombies

Timestamp: Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Gameplay Change or Skill

Scope: Zombie/Survivor combat

Description: I propose a new zombie hunter skill that either allows humans to see injured (30-HP) and critically injured (12-HP) zombies differently, or makes them select the weakest zombie in the room to attack. The reasoning? Heavily injured zombies should be easy to spot, and it's rediculous to have to knock another zombie down to 5 HP because you can't attack the first one. I'm not trying to nerf zombie anonynymity with this, although I realize that it is a potential side effect. This isn't a finished suggestion, just a proposed concept; what do you guys think?

Discussion (Attack Injured Zombies)

Please go to your local morgue. Look at 10 corpses. Tell me which has the least amount of hit points. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Trick question. They're all at 0HP. —Aichon— 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

They might have 50 AP though. Better watch out.--Trevor Wrist 23:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that guns leave big holes in zombies, and anyone at 7 HP is probably missing some body parts. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, shouldn't near-death survivors be penalized for doing certain things? Like, y'know, freerunning, aimed attacks, installing gennies, all that stuff that usually requires you to have your body parts where they belong unless you want to fail/suck at it? I'm also very excited about your narrative justification of how those body parts and bullet holes magically grow back after reviving/standing back up/feeding.--Trevor Wrist 00:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How would this be displayed? We can't see individual zombies, so where would the low-HP indicator be shown? —Aichon— 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There would be no indicator. He's saying that you would just attack the one with the lowest HP.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Then what was he talking about with seeing the 30- and 12- HP zombies? —Aichon— 22:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There's an "or" in there guys ;) - User:Whitehouse 23:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks WH, and I was thinking either a catagorization (unjured/dying zombies) or colors. Colors on what? I guess I'll stick with catagorization. You are inside the balls building, a powered balls sign glows dimly over the front testicle. There are two zombies and a dying zombie here (Attack: A Zombie, A Dying Zombie). Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's mindlessly buff those poor, poor zombie hunters. And how do you spot a "heavily injured" zombie exactly? Do you compare the amount of limbs still attached? Count the number of bullet holes? And while we're at it, what makes zombie hunters so more special that they would be able to spot "injured" zombies while zombies, who can actually smell each other, can not? Also, I'm pretty sure that this would extremely hurt newbie zombies, y'know, those who can't heal themselves unless they get killed or commit suicide and trenchie zombie hunters love to shoot at for no good reason.--Trevor Wrist 22:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't going to work I'm afraid, see above , and eventually, below. --Thadeous Oakley 22:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WHY??? --Honestmistake 23:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should survivors have to kill a 60 HP zombie to remove a 5 HP zombie? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Because they have that fucking huge advantage called barricades. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it's one of the core advantages of being a (feral) zombie in a larger group. Ever wondered why most newbie zombie guides have "Find a horde" in them? Among other reasons, they "offer" protection by becoming a target among many, regardless wether you're on full health or one attack shy of dying. With your idea, this becomes redundant, if not even dangerous. You're a newbie zombie low on hp thanks to random trenchies (or the occasional fellow newbie zed), but hey, lucky you, you found a fresh break-in nearby and the amount of zeds there seem big enough to give you cover. Oh wait, guess not cause now you're among the first to hit the fan. Enjoy your -15AP. And let's not even start about the idea of automatically getting targetted by every zombie hunter in the building because you've got 1HP less than the other zeds around.--Trevor Wrist 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I know this suggestion is influenced by mine but I still don't like it at all. It has all the griefing potential but none of the possible benefits for zombies. Trenchcoaters will now target the weakest zombies (probably newbies too) so they can go into the mall and brag about how many they've killed, add more notches to their shotgun barrel etc. Combat revivers would get a buff too because they can kill the weaker zombies and combat-revive the stronger ones, improving their HP ratio. But it's no use at all if you want to heal a specific zombie. And worst of all it's a new skill and new skills almost always nerf newbies. --Explodey 01:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm hearing some pretty big worries about newbies being abused, and I don't want that to happen. Would just having survivors attack the weakest zombie around fix this issue, or do you think that would still be a problem? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue would still be there. Maybe if you changed it so it only affected zombies that are already in your contacts list, and keep it vague by giving the zombies who are at less than full health a * next to their name. This way the survivor doesn't know if the zombie in question has 59 HP, 48 HP, or 1 HP. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Current proposal: Against, for all the reasons above. But how about: Scanning a zombie with a DNA scanner will also give you his current HP and infection status? I see several advantages:

• DNA scanner becomes more useful
• Trenchcoaters might actually start using scanners, helping NecroWatch
• Revivers will know if they have to slab a FAK on you before hitting you with a needle.

On the whole, I don't think this entire thing is very necessary (if a horde of zombies shambles towards you, you shoot the nearest, not the one with the least limbs. Besides, zombies get up, and they don't really wash their clothes each time they do so, so what exactly is the criterium for a `near-dead corpse'?) but if you want something like this, that's how I'd do it. --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 12:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet another attempt at ruining zombie anonymity. The lack of HP displayed is a very important part of that in game function of zombies. Don't nerf one of our more important advantages that actually discourage retarded survivors from shooting zambahz on the streets. --Papa Johnny 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you want an RP reason for this: considering the state of decay of a zambah, you should only be able to tell when they are in 1 of 2 states. State 1 being standing and zombified and state 2 being on the ground. See? Simple. --Papa Johnny 17:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what if I went with Itsacon's idea and made HP be displayed upon DNA extraction? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a false assumption that this will hurt newbie zombies specifically. Because of zombie anonymity, there is no guarantee that the "lowest HP zombie" will be a newbie. With digestion it is a little more likely, but no guarantee. Unless you kill the zombie or it interacts with you, you won't KNOW if it is a level 1 or a level 41. I like the second option better. I think, at best, it should only work on zombies with, say 9 HP or less. If there are none such in the stack, the attacker would get a message saying "you cannot differentiate the zombies well enough to note severe damage". Maybe it could be called "Aim" or something, which lead me to this for a comparison.--Pesatyel 06:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

---

DEFEND

Timestamp: --Honestmistake 12:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: new action

Scope: survivors and Zombies with MoL

Description: There are always certain folks you just don't want messing with the radio/generator/safehouse/revive line. Currently you can't do much to stop them if you are not online so I am suggesting a new option that would be available through the settings page. If implemented this would allow you to designate a single action that you wish to protect against; once set it would remain until you came back to change it. Actions you may select (via a dropdown) would include: Free-running into the location. Attacking Generators Setting up/fueling Generators Attacking Barricades Building/adding to Barricades Attacking Radio's Broadcasting Setting up decorations (Why you would I can't imagine but what the hey?) Creating Revive Syringes Necrotech scanning Reviving Ruining (dubious about this one but its probably only fair) Repairing Others that people think might be worthwhile..... Once an action is selected you then choose a target: "colour" contacts all contacts all survivor all zombies all. Finally you would choose a weapon... any weapon including newspapers. What Happens: Once set up, a new action will appear in the normal game panel, For a cost of 5AP (more/less?) you can activate your selected "defend" criteria. Should anyone from your target list attempt the action you are currently defending against you will then make a single attack with the chosen weapon. If this attack causes damage the action defended against will fail (1AP/IP hit no item loss, free running fails should be subject to potential falling damage as if falling from a ruin though!) the target will receive a message saying something like "Arson Lover tries to prevent you damaging the radio by attacking you with an axe, they hit you for 3HP and foil your action" or "Arson Lover tries to prevent you damaging the generator by attacking you with an axe, they miss and seem winded by the attempt!" While "Defending" you may not regenerate to above 45AP. "Defense" will end when it is triggered, when you spend AP on any other action or if you are injured. All players defending a given action will be triggered by it but regardless of actual numbers no player will be reduced to less than 1HP and it is only the action that triggered the defense that will be prevented. Discussion (Defend) A heavily reworked take on a previous discussion.... I take all the blame though :) --Honestmistake 12:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Wouldn't this be a huge pain to code and program? Also if I multiply by say...50..50 people will "defend" a genny, if one player would try destroy the genny, well that would be quite fucked. Also if you defend a barricade, and a zombie attacks it from the outside, you somehow manage to defend it by attacking through the barricade, or wa?--Thadeous Oakley 12:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC) In order: coding is not really an issue for us... I think it even says that in the guidelines? However setting it up should be very easy as its just going to put a few more boxes in the settings page and a flag on the character when active. How that flag links to the action is (i would think) going to be the more problematic but it can't be that hard to do can it? multiplied by a million (or even 50) and this could easily get very messy but remember it just cost 250AP to do (or 5,000,000!) and cannot kill the target no matter how many people do it! The action would have to be one done in your sight. Attacking the barricade from your side of it, free running into your location etc... I suppose it might be advisable to put a limit on how many folk can be defending at a time though as 50+ folks watching a generator might be a bit OTT :) --Honestmistake 13:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Doesn't this effectively give people more knowledge than they normally have? For instance, normally, people can weaken the barricades without others in the building knowing who weakened them, so long as the barricades aren't actually broken through. Or they can attack the generator in the same way. As for ruining, people already stop that simply by being in the building, so I don't see a reason to have it as an action you can defend against. —Aichon— 15:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC) The thing about not noticing barricade/generator attacks is that you really should have the option to notice. Of course there are often very good reasons to attack the barricades as a survivor so perhaps the option to make this only apply to dropping below VS might be a good idea. As for the blocking ruin, I include that purely because some zombies may wish to try to prevent it... They may be rotters in a revive clinic or just Mhr cows waiting somewhere convenient for their group to find them or even just survivors who die defending their mall and stand up as a zed with only a few AP left. --Honestmistake 16:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC) That's a big boost for life culting when again, multiplied by a billion. 30 undead mallrats "defending", while one zombie tries to ruin the corner. Vice versa for repairs. --Thadeous Oakley 16:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC) So the ruining zombie gets mauled to 1HP and fails his 1AP action. Hardly upsetting as all it cost him is 1 click while each of those billion cultists just spent 5AP each to slow his effort. Remember this only works for the next action so as soon as triggered it needs an active player to re-click defend for another 5AP.... Just not going to find this chain reacting very often in my opinion. --Honestmistake 18:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC) You know how they say opinions are never wrong? That doesn't apply here, your opinion is wrong. Everyone will use this, mostly for the same kinds of targets, and the only times you won't get a chain reaction like this is when you're in a mostly-deserted block, or when everyone's auto-attack has already been burnt up. --Mold 21:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Most players are too selfish to even barricade so how many do you think will be willing to spend AP defending against a single action for 10% of their daily AP? The only real problem would be zergers, but as it would require them to log on lots more than i suspect is normal it would be of little real use to them so i can't see it being a huge problem! On the whole i think this would mostly result in G'kers and Pker's and Combat Reviver's getting a nasty shock every now and again. --Honestmistake 23:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Auto attacks are bad mmmkay? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC) cari is right; this suggestion sucks. Basic D&DN violations going on here. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 1st; you cannot "violate" D&DN as they are only recommendations and they are pretty broadly expressed guidelines at that! 2nd. How is it an auto attack? You have selected a pretty specific target and payed 5AP for the privilege... should no relevant target present itself then you have burnt those AP for no reason. Sure the attack you make is triggered automatically if/when the criteria are met but so is every other attack (it fails if the target has moved!) --Honestmistake 23:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC) How is it an auto-attack? Hmmmm, I walk into the location, you aren't online, your character automatically attacks me. Would you like a diagram? Yeah, only if the criteria are met, because no-one free runs into malls.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Free running is the biggest problem I see with this as its the only action that carries any real penalty for the victim, in that it could easily leave them stranded outside! However, I personally think that free running is waay overpowered and could use a serious nerf anyway which is why I put it on the list. As for it being an auto action is it really such a huge problem? Manufacturing syringes is (in effect) an auto search for a very high cost, placing a generator affects other players and provides an automatic bonus on things even after you log off, Infection is an auto attack triggered by anotherplayers actions and feeding groans result in effects after you have logged out too. OK so none of those is exactly the same as my suggestion but they are all things that add to gameplay and have effects which are not immediate, do not necissarily benefit the actual player and cause harm (or inconvienience) to the opposition. Put simply.... what is wrong with the concept? --Honestmistake 09:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Infact... exactly which of the various D&DN guides does this even contradict? --Honestmistake 23:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC) It doesn't contradict d&dn, however it is mentioned on frequently suggested. Also, I think it's just overly complicated for a simple game. - User:Whitehouse 23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Multiply it by a billion, and you can violate D&DN by stupidly ignoring blatant warnings telling you that these kinds of ideas are fundamentally flawed. Would you prefer I called them "blatant ignorances of freely and obviously given common sense that's been tested over many years"? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Multiplied by a billion zombies are unstoppable.... perhaps we should ban them? Almost everything in game has the potential to be overwhelming in mass use so that guideline makes very little sense. What this suggestion aims to do is give new options to both sides, those options are expensive in terms of cost to use and have little real effect (as you need to be active to reset your defense) The only one of the actions which are ever likely to cause any real grief is free-running because as presented it can leave the victim outside, in the case of just about every other action the worst possible outcome is that you are injured and waste 1 AP! --Honestmistake 08:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I see you've addressed some of the common problems with auto attacks (AP spent while logged off etc.) but the result is that it's too complicated. --Explodey 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I agree that setting it up is complicated (well as complicated as choosing a new set of clothes anyway) but once set it hardly changes the actual interface at all. Can you think of anything to make it less complex or is it just the uncertaintly that it would add to certain gameplay styles that is the problem? --Honestmistake 09:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Rather than having the drop-downs on the settings page and an activation button on the map page, maybe you could use the same format as the "attack" button, with two drop-downs beside it (if it would require more than two drop-downs then reduce the number of options to make it fit.) Having it on the settings page takes too many clicks (Go to settings page; Select target to defend; Select weapon; Select group to defend against; Back to the city; Press defend button: 9 clicks total.) --Explodey 18:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I did think of that but figured that it would clutter the main page a little too much. Also the ability to select all 3 items separately is pretty important to functionality and would easily work in a similar way to clothing selection (at least to set up). Remember too that once set the selection is stored it only needs to be changed if you want to change your options. --Honestmistake 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC) As Honestmistake said, they are GUIDELINES, not set in stone rules. That is what these discussions are for. I don't think the "attack" should do damage. Your just stopping the person from performing the action. Thus no "weapon selection" would be needed exactly. Or, at best it could require a melee weapons (maybe it could be a "special" ability of the hockey stick ala the pipe or crowbar?). The only problem is Free Running which, I agree, is overpowered. If the point is to impede the action, either the person falls outside or doesn't make the "run" at all. In that case, maybe the person attempting the free running gets the message "someone is blocking the window, you cannot see a way past them at the moment".--Pesatyel 05:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC) 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) Exactly, which is why I don't see the problem with infection being fixed any time soon.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:39, 23 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. Think about whom this will hurt. Humans standing after getting revived without Ankle Grab (10 AP). Reviving (10 AP). Spraypainting Billboards (10 AP). Manufacturing Syringes (20 AP). Repairers (1+ AP). The first group will get hit the hardest. It would be newbies. Your basically telling all "virulently" infected survivors they will stand with 15 HP AND be infected. That hurts too much. And repairing could be a death sentence.--Pesatyel 04:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC) One issue: if it doesn't display any differently after the initial message, and it doesn't behave any differently except in case of multi-AP actions, this could be very bad. Someone might not remember if they have a regular infection or virulent infection, and there'd be no indicator for them to determine which it is. They could very easily CR themselves to death, or, even easier, repair themselves to death especially in the case of extreme repairs. I'd say that you definitely need some text that alerts the player to which type of infection they have. —Aichon— 04:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC) It's meant to serve as a combat-revive deterrent, so CRing yourself to death is part of the intention. I'll admit that no one's going to get caught doing repairs with it, but that's a feature, not a redundancy, as it can be used as a deterrent to aid in holding zombie areas. 09:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Well, deterrent is one thing, but this is like having a speed limit along a road, but not posting it, then pulling people over for exceeding the unposted speed limit. People need a reminder that they are virulently infected, otherwise it doesn't act like a deterrent and it catches them by surprise. It is definitely not fun to die for avoidable reasons, just like it's not fun to get pulled over. It becomes a nuisance. —Aichon— 14:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Well revives and repairs are one thing. Your STILL screwing newbies pretty hard.--Pesatyel 05:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Anyone who goes on a repairing spree while infected is clearly taking the piss anyway, pretty much the same could be said of revive runners. Infection is supposed to be scary instead its "Ooh, i think i ate something a bit funny... well let me just finish what i am doing before i wander off and look for an asprin!" The only good criticism I see of this is Pesatyel's point about newbs awaiting revive. Easily solved though as it would be best to just make this drop to a normal infection upon death! --Honestmistake 08:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC) This suggestion would once have left me on -301hp. That is all. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC) I like this, it's a reasonable response to the 100% hit ratio that syringes get. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 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. --Papa Moloch 04:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Weak excuse. "You don't want it, don't buy it". There is NO benefit to taking it if your going to be uncureable.--Pesatyel 04:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC) There is if you're a hard core zombie player.-- SA 04:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC) But not if your a dual nature or you have some need to get a revive. Why should such players have to forgo getting all the skills? NONE of the other skills are like that. This one is too limiting. And that STILL doesn't explain the benefit of the first part of the suggestion.--Pesatyel 04:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC) So basically because other people want e-peen points this suggestion is useless? If they want +1 BBMMORPG cock points they can get it and deal with it. If they don't want to deal with it, they can cry. It's game to play, not "LOOKIT MAH CHARACTER HE'S MAXED OUT WHEN I DON'T EVEN PLAY ZOMBAH EVER!" This skill is specialized to fuck survivors up, nothing else.-- SA 04:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Also, the first part is to help zombies go back to being zombies if they say, were CR'd. And to stay in theme with the toxification. Shit like that. Think about it next time please.-- SA 04:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Well, first beyond all your whiny blather, I said the FIRST PART had "no benefit" not "useless". That is why I asked for clarification from the author. Learn to read, M'kay? Secondly, Brain Rot is a requirement and combat revives are VERY easy to avoid unless you are specifically trying to obtain one. It is MUCH easier to get dead then to get alive.--Pesatyel 05:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC) "Why should such players have to forgo getting all the skills? NONE of the other skills are like that." That seems to me like you're asking WHY people should have to deal with permanent infection just to get all the skills. Which I explained. It's not whiny blather so much as you're a dumb bitch who doesn't seem to remember the shit you whine about yourself. You said it had no benefit, I just gave an example. Instead of calling people out on "not reading", why don't you pay attention to what you fucking read? You also didn't ask specifically for the author. This is an open discussion. Unless you want to discuss with us too, then make some distinction on who you want talking to you. Lastly, CR's are easy to avoid, if say not a single survivor in the area has a genny or fuel. If they do and you ap out trying to hold the door open at an NT, then you can quite easily be CR'd. Sure, they're hard to come by without looking for them, but that doesn't mean they are uncommon. I was CR'd 3 times in one week before I went inactive last on the wiki. 3 times. Doesn't seem that uncommon.-- SA 05:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC) No. You just whined. Are you the author?--Pesatyel 05:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Permenantly infectious Rotters? Hell Yeah! Infectious Ruin? Hell No! However I could certainly go with making virulently infectious rotters have a chance of infecting anyone stupid enough to try reviving them. --Honestmistake 12:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC) That I like a lot. Perhaps make it so that the DNA scan carries no risk (fair warning), due to being simpler, but the revive carries some (25%?). --Papa Moloch 21:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Yeah, that's sweet. I'd vote for it. --Paddy DignamIS DEAD 21:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Well I did post this: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20090326_Putrification a while back and it proved unpopular... Voters seemed split on which bit they hated most, the rotter revive Nerf bit or the 1% infection by body dumping and reviving attempts. That was just 1% mind you and even I would vote against 25% --Honestmistake 13:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Well, there's more than one idea floating around here. The idea of permanently infectious rotters is different from yours. These guys are so fucked up that even after they're revived (maybe it takes more than one needle, or lower the success rate of the revive?), they continue to be infected. Your guys are also permanently fucked up, and if harmans try to CR them, there's a chance of infection (yes, I think 25% is too high). Combining the two could be interesting. --Paddy DignamIS DEAD 18:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Isn't this technically a multi suggestion anyway? You don't necessarily need an "uncurable infection" to blight the building.--Pesatyel 05:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC) 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) What next? Ruined trains in all the stations and XP for "spotting" them? Introduce Post Offices and stamps so we can play "Urban Philatelist?" replace newspapers with copies of the big issue so the zombies can hassle people for change? How about we stick to suggestions that at least have something to do with zombies and trying to survive them? --Honestmistake 12:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Id support the train spotting one as long as The stations would have to be repaired. There were say 20 trains and you had to record them in a similar way to the video camers in monroeville. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Someone make me a die in a fire template that I can use on this. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:22, 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. --RosslessnessWant 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) Just make all changes from now on require confirmation. It won't harm anyone. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Simple solution. I like it. Does it seem ready to go to forward then with the things we've all discussed? —Aichon— 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Not my call, but I like it as is. Just add in the email-confirmation part. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:21, 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) I'm not reading wall of text, though a skim shows this idea has already been brought up. It's a radar system for me to find people to grief them. This could work as a personal add-on, recording where your characters are and giving you the option of seeing their proximity on a map, however as a game update it's pointless, I can have two characters 11 suburbs apart and breaking the rules, having numbers in the actual game about these things just gives certain groups a licence to zerg more. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC) We addressed the radar issue by suggesting that e-mail addresses will need to be confirmed from now on, that way people can't use others' addresses. As for the other issue, that isn't any different than it is now. You're right that this doesn't warn against all types of zerging, but that wasn't the point. As I said, this is simply a tool to help honest players recognize when they've accidentally brought two of their characters too close to each other. Nothing more than that. It's not meant to act as a deterrent to intentional zerging, nor do I see how it would encourage it, since I doubt zergers would want to open up a new avenue for possibly being detected by using this feature. —Aichon— 19:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I've changed my mind after reading some bug reports. I now think the player should be warned when they have triggered the real zerg flag, based on their IP address. Revealing more about the zerging countermeasures would reduce the bogus bug reports by people who think they have triggered the zerg flag but in reality just had an unlucky run of attacks/searches. These would be replaced by real reports of the zerg detection function being broken, which it is. Players who are determined to get away with zerging already can and do (by setting up a private proxy) so I don't think this would do any harm. --Explodey 16:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC) If we used the actual detection mechanisms, this suggestion wouldn't really have a chance (see the previous suggestion, as well as Rosslessness' comment here). Setting up proxies isn't quite so black-and-white, since some proxies don't mask IP address, leaving you open to detection still. Giving the zerger a chance to test that out and receive confirmation that they've succeeded in fooling the system is not something we want. We'd effectively be lowering the difficulty bar for intentional zerging, making it easier for new people to start doing it. Besides, dealing with bug reports is kinda outside the scope of this suggestion, I should think, though I do see where you're coming from. —Aichon— 19:07, 24 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) 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) Suggestions up for voting Meatshielding Skills Moved to Suggestion talk:20091111 Meatshielding Skills