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

Picking Up Items

Timestamp: Acidifiers 12:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Type: Gameplay, Survivors

Scope: Gamechanging, to a certain extent.

Description: Alright! Are you read-ey for this? Big long absurd groundbreaking gamebreaking suggestion. One of the biggest problems with suggesting any new items that aren't strictly necessary for gameplay is that, while they may be fun, they're all but useless. They decrease search rates for more valuable items, and for no good reason. Yet the current set of items seems a tad lacking in flavor, realism, and complexity. However, what if there's an item right in front of you? After all, do you really need to search a whole building to find the wine bottle that's on the table next to you? What I'm suggesting is a second way to get items. That is, in any given block, your character will have a certain chance of seeing an item. Thus taking note of where it is, for 1AP, said character will then have the choice to pick up an unimportant item with the use of a drop-down menu, without searching for it. "Pick up [such and such]". Theoretically, you should see something like this: You are inside Suchandsuch General Hospital, its emergency room in disarray. The building has been extremely heavily barricaded. Also here are Bob, Billybob, and Billybobjoebobsally. A portable generator has been set up here. It is running. One of the wards has been decorated with a conceptual painting. You notice a plastic bag, a stethoscope, a cardboard box, a first-aid kit, and a newspaper on the ground. Since your last turn: You notice Billybob drop a first aid kit. (8 hours and 9 minutes ago) Possible actions: Here, you would include a button, labeled "Pick up". After that is drop-down list including a plastic bag, stethoscope, cardboard box, first aid kit, and newspaper. What you can pick up changes as you move from block to block. Therefore, "minor" items cannot be found be searching, but you will always have a chance to pick them up. In this way, minor items can be implemented into the game without reducing search rates for the necessities. Much like clothing suggestions, minor, "take" items could be suggested frequently, with limited uses. These could be little roleplaying items, or items with a small use, but more necessary items will have to be found the usual way of searching. There may be a tiny, decimal-percent chance of finding a minor item while searching, or perhaps none at all, to avoid complexity. However, I still haven't addressed the "You notice BillyBob drop a first aid kit". If a user drops an item, there is a very minute chance that another person on the same block will see the item being dropped and be able to pick it up. The more people that are in the building, the more likely that at least one user will see the item being dropped, and the more likely it is to be picked up. The taller a building is, the larger the building is, and therefor the less likely it is for someone to see you drop an item from the other room. Likewise, you cannot pick up or notice items dropped in the dark. Seeing an item drop in a ruined building has a chance of yielding the message "You notice Billybob drop a first-aid kit, but you lose it in the rubble." If "drop giving" is to be done on purpose, it would have to be done in a small, lit, crowded building, and even then, there's no guarantee as to who will receive the item. So that in a very limited way, this would allow people to "give" items without the risk of zerg abuse. For instance, a user could now freerun into a crowded mall and drop FAKS for the group, thus allowing the inflow of supplies in a siege situation. If said user does not yet have the Diagnosis skill, he or she can give first-aid kits to those who do, rather than having to rely on shouts of "I need a FAK ASAP!", or simply trying to heal everyone in the mall. If it's simply that danger is eminent, but nobody is hurt as of yet, he or she can quickly supply everyone with a kit for their use later. The same for ammunition. If you don't want the item, you may pick it up and drop it someplace else, for somebody else to find. This change, plus the sudden influx of new items, should also yield a few new XP purchasable skills. A military skill, perhaps dubbed Instinct or Reflex Training, should allow you to notice item drops more easily. Athlete, a miscellaneous skill, should allow you to take better aim when using sports gear for weaponry. And the like. But of course, I don't want to forget the Percentages and other Technicalities. If you've got the gist of it, it's not necessary that you read on. But if you wish to critique, or are simply interested in, the details, then by all means: The base "notice rate" for most buildings would be 5%, with a 15% chance of losing an item in ruin rubble. Dropping an item outside has a notice rate of 9%; balanced out, I think, by the fact that a large gathering of survivors outside is very rare. In small churches, banks, junkyards, pubs/arms, railway stations, and auto shops, the rate would be 7%. In a tall building, hotel, or tower, notice rate is reduced to 3.5%. A noticed dropped item will be available for you to pick up as long as you are on the same block. Leaving a block and returning to it later, you will not be able to take that item. Should multiple people notice the same item, the rule of first come first serve applies. The latter user will receive the message "Billybobjoebobsally picked up the First-Aid Kit you noticed earlier", and it will not be included among the drop-down list of pick-up-able items. However, if one user picks up the item before the other user refreshes his or her screen, and the second user tries to take the item without knowing that user one had already taken it; then the "...picked up the First-Aid Kit you noticed earlier" appears on his or her screen, and the item is not taken. Dropped items can be noticed by zombies, but they will not be able to pick them up. That said, dropping an item with zombies around decreases the chance that a survivor will be able to take the item. Minor items you notice lying on the ground as you enter a building increase in number the more AP you spend within a single block, and return to the normal of 1 or 2 upon entering a new block. Within ruined buildings, you may notice bits of debris such as a brick, a broken wooden beam, (more rarely) an iron rod. Numerous books laying around should be seen within libraries; garbage cans and debris can be found within dumps. Each block type has it's own unique items, which I'd list a few, except that I don't want to add to the already ridiculous length of the suggestion. So, discussion? *crosses fingers*

Discussion (Picking Up Items)

While it does break the rules of "no trading" this does it in a way that zergers (the main problem with an idea like this) would find it inefficient to rely on... so I'd go for it. Enigma^talk 12:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You're only considering individual zergs, I think. What about zerging groups that don't care so much which individual character gets the boost as long as the group gets some advantage? I'm not going to name names, but you know certain groups would suddenly open up new sections for "procurement officers" if this got in. --Mold 17:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea. Realistic? Yes, but really bad for the game. --Papa Johnny 17:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Right. Here are some things im not clear about.

• Can you see multiple dropped items from several players, or from the same player?

• If I'm in a room with 100 survivors, say an NT, will there be literally 100's of DNA extractors all over the floor?

• Would search rates be lowered to accomodate the items dropped by this system?

--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You can see dropped items from any player, as many times as possible. In a 100 survivor NT building (a tall building) the notice rate for each player would be 3.5%. So if everyone in the building dropped an DNA extractor, it'd be probable that everyone in the building will notice 3 to 4 DNA extractors beings dropped. It could be that search rates would have to be lowered for some items, depending on the details, but I doubt it.

I originally figured that if a group of alts holed up in a school building and began drop giving, they'd run their IP limit before they'd be able to take enough. You'd then have tons of characters with maybe 49 unused AP, AP that could have gone to searching a police station for a lot more than just one or two pistol clips/shotgun shells. Then, the only way you could purposefully give an item is in a coordinated movement of a group into a hideout with, as Mold called them, "procurement officers", nearby. I figured that would be a legitimate way of giving your group supplies; everyone starting off their day with some extra pistol clips. Now that I rethink it, it might be too reliable.

How about a 25% chance that your item drop isn't noticeable?. Perhaps there'd be a cap on how many of one item you can notice; perhaps you can only notice 1 of any item. High encumbrance items could be more likely to be noticed, and low encumbrance items less likely.

Originally, I'd started with very very low notice rates, as an anti-zerg measure, of (1%-7%), but then I thought that noticing a drop "accidentally" would be too rare. Maybe it wouldn't.

--Acidifiers 04:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Decreasing search rates for valuable items" is a poor excuse. Why? Think about the resource buildings. NTs (syringes), Hospitals (FAKs), Malls (nearly everything), PDs (guns/ammo), Firestations (fireaxe; at least until you get the mall skills), Autorepair (fuel), Factory (generator). According to the wiki, EVERYTHING but the syringe can be found at the mall. So how do you include new items without "decreasing search rates"? There ARE other buildings. Cathedrals, Churches, Mansions, Power Stations, Stadiums, The Zoo, Banks, Cinemas, Clubs, Hotels, Junkyards, Libraries, Museums, Pubs, Railway Stations, Schools, Towers, and Buildings. That is a whole 18 locations (21 if you include Street, Wasteland and Park) that aren't used for any "valuable items". New items could EASILY be accommodated at any of those locations. As for the suggestion itself, are you suggesting we can pick up "junk" items?-Pesatyel 04:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No no, I'm saying that it's silly to search for a brick. My opening refers to a common argument against implementing new items, one that I personally don't agree with, but figured others would. Apparently those people aren't here today. Yes, I am in fact suggesting we can pick up "junk" items, though as the saying goes, one mans trash is another mans treasure. To those who do not roleplay, roleplaying items will be useless, except the choice to take them will not depend on the RNG anymore. --Acidifiers 11:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Roleplay is lousy argument too. Why? because if I pick up "an umbrella", ONLY I CAN SEE IT. It takes up space in my inventory and provides NO value whatsoever in game terms. If I could give it to someone or display it ("Bob is standing here leaning on an umbrella") or something, then you might have something. But as it stands all that can happen, roleplay wise, is I can SAY I have an umbrella. That's it. Want a better example? We already have the crowbar, baseball bat, cricket bat, fencing foil, golf club, hockey stick, pool cue, ski pole and tennis racket. Those are all roleplay weapons (you could probably include the pipe since most people only use it for barricading, if at all) since the axe does more damage and the knife has a higher hit percentage. The only reason people use them now is because the "murder weapon" now shows when you kill someone. Otherwise nobody uses them.--Pesatyel 00:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Click on the item to use it.

Geez luise, you sound almost exactly like Iscariot! It is impossible to obtain a minor item unless you want to. Also, do you think that the minor uses for these items would be too insignificant? Is that why you think that the only use for them would be roleplaying, or are you just only addressing the example this time? And the last thing; you say that these items are useless and therefore should not be implemented, but at the same time you hold that they should be implemented as search-able items within "Cathedrals, Churches, Mansions, Power Stations, Stadiums, The Zoo, Banks, Cinemas, Clubs, Hotels, Junkyards, Libraries, Museums, Pubs, Railway Stations, Schools, Towers, and Buildings."? You're contradicting yourself, Pesatyel! --Acidifiers 04:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm not contradicting myself. The suggestion was for a new way to include new items without diluting the current search rates for the current necessary items. My counter was that we already have more than a dozen locations in which new items can be found that would NOT dilute any search rates for the current necessities because those locations don't HAVE any necessities currently found in them. As for the rest, the suggestion does not say any "minor uses". Tell me what the in-game uses are for a cardboard box, stethescope and plastic bag (to use the 3 items included in the suggestion). In other words, WHY would I want to pick them up?--Pesatyel 05:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Crack Heads

Timestamp: Cookies and Cream 12:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Type: Skill

Scope: Zombies

Description: Skill gives Zombies 40% chance to do extra 1 damage while biting by cracking open the skull. Also heals 1HP if successful. Any bite attampt after this has a 10% higher chance of gaining the head bite. As usual, can be fixed with FAK, like everything else.

Discussion (Crack Heads)

Are you saying that a player with a cracked skull suffers 5hp damage from all bite attacks? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that, once cracked, a Zombie has a 50% chance of doing 5HP damage from connecting bite attacks. Cookies and Cream 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Kind of like a specialized tangling grasp for bite? --Honestmistake 23:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. It sounds like once a zombie bites, subsequent bites have a chance of doing +1 damage.--Pesatyel 04:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What I had intended was that, firstly, the zombie has to get a successful bite attack. Then, they have a 40% chance to crack the skull. If the skull is cracked, the zombie does 1 extra damage, gets 1HP, and raises the chance of cracking the skull to 50%. Then the cycle repeats, except subsequent bites don't raise the crack chance. Cookies and Cream 06:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a real hard time understanding it. Can you give me an example. My Zombie ALAN managers to enter a autor repair shop and sees NEWB1 standing there. I click bite. What happens Next? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'm having real hard time trying to find an explanation!

• Alan's first bite is rolled at 40% chance and succeeds, initiating a secondary roll which also has a 40% chance of hitting.

• The secondary roll fails, Alan does 4 damage.

• No changes occur, next bite is rolled just as the first one.

• The secondary roll succeeds, Alan does 5 damage and inflicts "cracked head" upon Newb1.

• Subsequent attacks against Newb1 have their secondary roll at 50% chance due to Newb1 suffering from "cracked head".

I hope that helped, I don't know why but I found that really difficult to explain. - User:Whitehouse 12:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Does tangling grasp alter this in any way.?

is cracked head a condition, like being infected?

If another zombie bites NEWB1 between my attacks do I lose the bonus. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's like infection, because he said it could be fixed with a good FAKing. Enigma^talk 13:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming this (or something easier to understand but similar in effect) was implemented it would have to cause 4+1 damage rather than a straight 5 or flak would just make it pointless! --Honestmistake 13:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. What Whitehouse has said is correct. That is the way I wanted it to be like. Probably should have provided an example. Cookies and Cream 13:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Annoying Half of Malton.

Timestamp: RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Type: Massive Game Breaking Change.

Scope: Malton

Description: So anyway, Ive got my 404 alt over in Grigg heights. The order of the black rose had pretty much bored the local zombies to death, then the mob had run through and decimated everyone. That was three weeks ago. For the last 4 days ive been repairing 4 or so 15ap ruins a day. The last one each day leads me in negative AP. I go away for 24 hours and come back. So far, no zombies have come and eaten me, even though Ive spent most of the last week in repaired DWO buildings. I've escaped with barely a scratch. But anyway. Back when I started UD Zombie numbers were well above 10,000. Which works out about 1 zombie for every malton square. Now its about 6500. Simply put, any suburb with organised survivors can hold out ferals for eternity. The big zombie groups can destroy anything, but as soon as they move on, survivors can river back in and reclaim. Simply put Malton is too big. We need to concentrate fewer players into a smaller area. To be massively drama-istic, I suggest shutting the Western half of the city. The border would move 5 suburbs east. At the time of the change all players in the western half would simply be moved 5 blocks east, relative to their initial position. As for reason, just say a massive military push has been organised, as zombie numbers were falling, the military seized the initiative for a blitzkrieg attack. Survivors fled ahead of the onslaught and the zombies sensing all their prey heading east, followed them. Hell, you could even just split the city in two. Having a thin border between the two, perhaps having separate lower IP limits? After all that might even cut down on zerging? (As if this idea wasn't spamtastic ENOUGH) Anyhow, Savage.

Discussion (Annoying Half of Malton.)

Idea one: Destroying half the city: As someone in the East half of Malton, this sounds like a fun change. However, a few points. I'm inside a building. This is implemented. 50 blocks east of me is a park. How do we account for the fact that I'm no longer inside? Alternatively: I'm inside a mall seige. I'm a zombie. I finally break down the barricades and call for my zombie brethren to follow me in. We decimate the SW corner. Then, this happens. We're displaced to four squares half a mile away. We've now only breached one square, whilst before, we'd breached four.

Idea Two: A Tale of Two Cities: Splitting the city might work, but I don't see how it would combat the problem you mentioned. Unless we physically cut it with a line, preventing travel between the two. In which case it'll end up with one side with a lot more survivors, and one with a lot more zombies. For example: The dead / mall tour / big bash rally hundreds of zombies, who attack caiger mall. Now, all of the zombies are in the West half. Bang, split. The East half is safe, the West half is dangerous.

Oh, and the RRF will have a fit because you're cutting their territories in half. ;) --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Idea 1. Yep. It would screw people up for a few days.

Idea 2. Having a large zombie group in one half could cause a massive issue, but yeah they could always create alts in both halves. I don't know. Maybe a wizard could fix it? Or maybe a line of border with a few gate squares in them, to allow passage between, say one in the north and one in the south? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The gates sound better, but you could change it to a river, and bridges. But that would be a dupe of PR. So... Yeah.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Justify it as a military push and use radios and leaflet drops to warn everyone of the impending D(estruction) day. On the aforementioned day the army invade and contract the border by a few blocks... repeat on each following day until the area is reduced to a suitable size. Anyone daft/unfortunate enough to be caught up in the advance is dead and stands up to find they have been dumped on the streets by the new/current border. Makes sense, has the same effect (just takes longer) and gives people plenty of time to move if they don't want to die! --Honestmistake 00:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC).

I kinda like this version, I would vote for that... but that just shows how prone to suggestion I am. Enigma^talk 12:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear god, its a LOGICAL SUGGESTION to make the game better. Wow. I haven't seen one of these in ages. And i like Honest's version. Cookies and Cream 12:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Some other people have even brought up cutting the city down to 8x8 as a potential solution. See the discussions on those suggestions. --Papa Johnny 17:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the lack of zombie activity in the Grigg Heights area has been rather non-apocalyptic. Whether that can be solved by constricting Malton or some magical PR campaign bringing tons of new people to UD... I'm behind any logical idea that stands a chance, so you've got my vote. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's get rid of the southern half instead of the western. After all, the best mall (Caiger) is in the north. The best fort (Creedy) is in the north, and the best groups are either mobile or in the north already (note: this claim is unsubstantiated and baseless).

In all seriousness though, why not just shrink each suburb, that way people can keep their suburb of choice, while maybe just losing a few blocks. For instance, we could make each suburb a 7x7 or 8x8, which would reduce the size of the city to 49% or 64% of its current size, respectively. Sure, there'd be no real explanation for why the suburbs shrunk, and it'd require more work, but we'd probably also lose less people, since you wouldn't have as many people leaving the game after their favorite suburb simply ceased to exist. —Aichon— 21:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I can understand the "favorite suburb" argument, but at that point wouldn't it just be easier to wipe Malton and start over with a new city (or a smaller Malton, as you suggested)? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 03:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it just comes down to a cost-benefit analysis of whether the risk of losing loads of people outweighs the possibility of bringing in more money by making the place seem more lively. The problem though, is that a chain reaction may start, wherein the initial group leaves because they don't like such a significant change, leaving the city with few enough people that it still doesn't feel lively after the change is in effect. As a result, more people leave, since the city still feels empty, which simply makes a cycle that spirals downwards. —Aichon— 06:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What about the fact the game is still so heavily centered around malls and NTs?--Pesatyel 04:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. We need more zombie activity even if that means having to erase half the city.--Kralion 05:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I pretty much agree with this suggestion. It really is quite spamtastic. xD. But I see your point; I haven't seen much zombie activity; yet, I don't want half of Malton to disappear either. Quick thing though... how much would a smaller map help? --Acidifiers 14:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Less room = Less hiding for survivors, more concentrated packs of Zombies. Cookies and Cream 13:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this seems daft, but doesn't that also mean more concentrated survivor defense, and less revivification hiding for zombies? With zombie populations so concentrated, and survivors in Necrotech buildings also so concentrated, those without brain rot will be getting revived left and right. This would help make buildings harder to repair, since a lot of zombies will likely start accumulating inside them, but it could also make buildings a lot harder to knock down in the first place. Oh gosh; I feel like I'm taking Iscariots job, LeLouch. --Acidifiers 04:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure someone else *cough Iscariot* will come in and find an assload of flaws in this suggestion, but for now it does seem like an acceptable solution to a decreasing zombie presence. My only concern is that this "stopgap measure" violates the D&DNs. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 19:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

How about, rather than cutting one half or another off, bringing the map down from a 100x100 grid to a 90x90 one? Essentially cutting out the very top (or bottom) row of burbs, and the leftmost (or rightmost) column, displacing survivors either ten blocks vertically or horizontally as needed (or both for the corner burb getting wiped out). Justify it as a pincer attack from the military or whatever. Keeps the square grid, which would be handy. I like squares. 19:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

How about "maximizing" ruin? In that if a building remains ruined long enough, it is no longer inhabitable?--Pesatyel 05:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Ravenous Rage

Timestamp: Kamikazie-Bunny 21:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Type: Rage Attack

Scope: Hungry Hungry Hippos Zombies!

Description: Hungry Hungry Hippos Zombies! The Hungry Hungry Hippos Zombies are meant to be consuming balls brainz yet appear to prefer to paw their prey rather than munch on their tasty tasty balls brains. Zombies who have not successfully bit a survivor within the last 250AP automatically become "Hungry Hungry Hippos Zombies", when these zombies attack a survivor they go into a ravenous rage, any attempts to attack the survivor instantly become bite attacks as the Hungry Hungry Hippos Zombie attempts to eat the survivors Balls brainzs, "Hungry Hungry Hippos Zombie" mode ends/resets when the zombie lands a successfully bite attack.

Discussion (Ravenous Rage)

Super nerf on newbie zombies.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

While I do realize that this suggestion is very stupid, newbie zombies actually are more effective with their bite until they get rend flesh... then again, newbie zombies only get street treats very rarely, so this would be a big problem... Enigma^talk 12:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it nerfs them because they would almost always be in this mode.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is true... however, as I understand it, they would remain in control of the character, it's just that whenever they attacked a survivor, they would automatically bite instead of clawing if they tried to claw, meaning it doesn't really matter until you max out claws... still, not needed, and kinda stupid too. Enigma^talk 13:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a joke right? Cookies and Cream 22:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope so. It's a lot of work to get zombies to shoot themselves in the foot. --MikeLemmer 02:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh if only zombies had a real reason to bite things... --Honestmistake 00:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Highly Theoretical XP Reform

Timestamp: OnlyKillingZombiesIsRacist 20:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Type: Levelling Structure

Scope: Survivors and Zombies

Description: Getting started in Urban Dead as fresh, never-been-dead (or freshly dead) meat is hard; you grind away for XP, you scrounge for vital supplies or a decent-sized horde, and you either stick it out until you have a few skills and the gameplay becomes fun in and of itself or you quit without seeing what UD really has to offer. Waxing lyrical about how much you love building new characters or pointing to meta-gaming are not solutions to this problem, gentlemen. The fact is, counter-intuitively, as you advance through Urban Dead gameplay becomes easier, not harder, irrespective of tactics or skill. My highly theoretical part-remedy is skills that would cost a character 100XP would cost 25XP x Level, skills costing 75XP would cost 20XP x Level, and skills costing 150XP would cost 35XP x Level. Character level would need to be considered seperate between zombie and survivor skills for this purpose, and starting skills do not count towards your Level. (Obviously, this may need to be first implemented in a new city to prevent inevitable whining over XP refunding or other ways of implementing this in Malton.) Therefore, a starting Level 1 NecroTech Lab Assistant pays 20XP for his second science skill, or 25XP for his first Civillian skill, or 35XP for his first Military skill. A Level 5 NecroTech Lab Assistant pays 100XP for a new science skill, or 125XP for a new Civillian skill, or 175XP for a new Military skill. A Level 20 NecroTech Lab Assistant pays 400XP for a new science skill, or 500XP for a new Civillian skill, or 700XP for a new Military skill. You get the picture. This garners a sense of fun and payoff for hard work and fast advancement at lower levels, a longer and more rewarding 'campaign' towards becoming an omni-badass jack-of-all-trades or superzombie, and greater specialisation between characters as the impetus is on getting vital XP-gaining skills in areas of gameplay you wish to work in before they become expensive. I appreciate this is far from perfect, and welcome all suggestions.

Discussion (Highly Theoretical XP Reform)

Not terrible. I'd perhaps bump it to say (level+1) multiplied by X XP. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I like it, the mechanic could need a tune up. Most older players will see this as unfair on newbies but suggesting they get rest to lvl 0 would upset them even more. --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs up from me. Always found it odd that gaining levels becomes easier as you level up. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, wouldnt happen --Chicken 03:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

So, rather than taking 4225 XP in the worst case (i.e. Scientists), it'll now take 12600 XP in the worst case (i.e. Scientists making non-optimal skill choices). Once I thought about the details you laid out, it wasn't as bad as I initially thought, but it'd still mean that some newbies might take as long as a year to reach max level, even with playing regularly. That doesn't sit right with me for Malton, but for a new city, sure, it'd be a fun experiment. —Aichon— 05:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hurm, I'm just thinking about all the little zerglings that get abandoned because it takes so long to level a new character. In the end, the XP system might be the only anti-zerg measure that actually works in this game.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 06:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The main problem I see with this is rather obvious, and it's that doing this would first off screw up the entire current XP system, which I (and many potential voters, I'm sure) wouldn't appreciate, as one of the guidlines is "Do not reset the game" or something along those lines. However, a new city solves this. The other problem is that in the long run it will cost more, and I'd say that you aren't a newbie once you reach level oh I don't know, 8. Someone more experienced could probably give you a better number, but with this system you start paying more then you currently do at level 5. However, from a logical point of view (and that of other RPGs) the higher costs make perfect sense, and it would be nice to not have as many zombie hunters as zombies...--Enigma 10:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the higher long-term expense as a bad thing necessarily, mainly due to the vast number of maxed-out zombie hunters toting around thousands of spare XP, and also the fact that levelling usually becomes faster and easier in UD at the moment as each skill expediates XP gain in one way or another. I think the general feeling so far is for slightly lower cost in the long run than I initially proposed, which sounds good to me. OnlyKillingZombiesIsRacist 19:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Brainrot would have to be a free option for zombies for me to give this any serious consideration.--Honestmistake 12:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not free, but perhaps avaliable after only Level 5? Free would be a bit much, I think, as with the inclusion of the Flesh Rot skill, taking Brain Rot is a bona-fide upgrade for a dedicated zombie player instead of a trade-off.OnlyKillingZombiesIsRacist 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The way I look at it to be a survivor requires no skills whatsoever.... merely surviving is your goal, as such being killed is a failure (albeit an inevitable & temporary one) on your behalf. To be a zombie means death is not a failure... life is and nothing short of taking rot will protect against life. In short remaining a zombie without the rot is mostly luck (or being in the middle of a big horde) while remaining a survivor requires only an avoidance of risky play. Even as the game stands now anyone choosing to play as a zombie should have the option of beginning play with ROT for free... in a system where it will cost you a very healthy chunk of game time to earn I would that its being free would be a must! --Honestmistake 21:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Except there is a huge difference between brainrot and simple surviving. Simple surviving can still be interfered with at any location, by any character. Once brainrot is bought a zombie can only fail if they break into a NecroTech building. Thus I do not see the justification for it becoming a free skill. - User:Whitehouse 23:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Zombies can still be interfered with at any time and any location and usually that interference takes the form of a headshot and its potential 15AP leech. 'Fail' doesn't really apply to zombies tho as they simply cannot be blamed for their numerous re-births as they really can't do anything to prevent combat revives except avoid combat until they get rot! --Honestmistake 00:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your missing his point. Your comparing Brainrot (the ability of a zombie to not be revived) to the survivor's ability to survive (the ability to not die). A survivor's ability to survive can be interfered with at any time. The only way to revive a rotter is if they are going to stay in an nt. You can't revive a rotter at "any time" like you can kill a survivor "at any time".--Pesatyel 04:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes but a survivor can never be taken from full health to down in a single click. interfering with a survivors survival is a slow process that involves getting past the barricades in the first place and thus probably involves several zombies and 100+AP... thats a pretty serious impedement to "interfering" your non rot zombie on the otherhand requires a single syringe (which almost always cost less than 10AP to find) and 1 click. Giving starting zombies the choice of having rot for free would make it a damn site better for zombies (it would also be a Z zergers wet dream but still)--Honestmistake 13:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does everyone ignore the fact that for a rotter to be revived they also have to be IN an NT building with a working generator? For a rotter to get revived they have to either want it or they have to be barricade interferring (which is actually a dumb thing for a rotter to do in an NT). But if the latter, odds are the rotter is doing more than "just standing there". They would take out the generator first thing, for example. So if your going to factor in attacking barricades and such, your going to have to factor in ruin, finding and installing a generator and the possiblity of barricades....just to revive the rotter.--Pesatyel 04:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I really like this idea, but I've played too many other games with similar ideas, and the sense of moving forward diminishes the farther I move into the game. It's more of a psychological offset to me. And I'm afraid to do so, but I'm pointing at meta-gaming. Urban dead does not offer a game with tons of rewards; the basic concept of gaining experience to level up seems too repetitive and serves no purpose till you find the wiki and become all but addicted. It would be nice experiment, though, to see this tried out in a new city.--Acidifiers 12:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Spraypainting People (and Zombahs!)

Timestamp: Acidifiers 09:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Type: Equipment Change/Improvement

Scope: Survivors and Zombies, Interface, and Spray Cans

Description: While the majority of Urban Dead users rely on guns and sharp weapons for combat, every weapon-like item is usable as a weapon in game. But there are some that skim the list of what can and cannot be weapons, such as fuel cans and beer - not to mention newspapers. But there's another that isn't on the list, and I think is just as deserving as a fuel can, and quite a lot more deserving than the newspaper. That item would be the the spray can. In a nutshell, what I'm proposing is the addition of the spray can to the weapons drop-down menu. So, should you find yourself in possession of a spraycan and your creativity floundering, or you simply wish to preserve the graffiti that is already on the block, you now have the option to spraypaint other people. Whether you're just getting a kick out of turning someone's pants pink, or using the paint to mark out known PKers, GKers, and BKers; likewise, whether you add graffiti to the walls or jot directions to the nearest revive point; how you chose to spend your spraycans is up to you. You cover the zombie in spraypaint The effects of a spray can used on a person is obvious: Any part of you in the path of the spraypaint will receive a light dusting of paint, thus coloring the outer layer of whatever you happen to be wearing at the time. Unless, of course, you happen to be naked, in which case you now have a purple skin (don't worry, it wears off). So that while clothing could previously be blood soaked and blood smeared, torn, ripped, and covered in oil, we add paint sprays to the mix. For instance, one could be wearing. "a black balaclava dusted with white", or "a blood-stained white short-sleeved shirt with a streak of black paint". Painted skin would also be displayed under the "wearing" category (yellow paint on the face, green paint on the torso). Paint color is chosen at random. Wearing: a fireman's helmet with a dusting of white, a set of rosary beads, a blood-flecked dark blue jacket coated in red spraypaint, a blood-flecked dark brown coat with streaks white, a pair of pale yellow trousers and yellow spraypaint on the face. There are some exceptions. For instance, attacking the barricades or a generator will simply yield the message "That doesn't seem to work." Zombies who attempt to use the spray can will not be able to; they'll be met with a simple "You don't know how." The Nitty-Gritty: Spray cans have a 60% hit rate. Each can may be used twice before depleting. The levels of "colored-ness" go as follows: "...dusted in <color>" "...streaked with <color>" "...stained with <color>" Completely changes the color of the shirt. "A <color> shirt." Spraypaint has a 45% chance of painting the torso and pants, a 20% chance of painting the pants and shoes, and a 35% of painting the head and torso. New paint will simply cover over old paint. A limited about of paint colors, perhaps five. Discussion (Spraypainting People (and Zombahs!)) Sounds cool, but wait for some random wiki jackass to say 'ZOMG GAMEBREAKING SUGGESTION' and use some excuse that makes them sound like their mothers where on crack during pregnancy--Arthur Dent BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 10:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Hooray, positives! *wipes sweat off brow*. I'm still not sure about the percentages I put up.--Acidifiers 10:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Do you need a list? Well.. you got one... A new and unbalanced weapon. You wanna play with big guns? Try HALO 2. Or a bath house. Pointless griefing tool. You wanna teabag, join the Republican Party. Dupe. Not sure, but I'd presume it was rightly spaminated. --WanYao 11:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Quick, to the retaliation station! A weapon with less than half the damage of the flare gun, but only half a percentage chance greater of hitting. As stated, useful to mark others with neither harm nor inconvenience coming to those you spraypaint (unless, of course, you absolutely must change out of your paint stained clothing.) Checked, with utmost tedium, not a dupe. Now, WanYao, I'm off to sell your mother some more crack. --Acidifiers 11:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC) No you're not. You're more likely off to troll 4chan or something with the one other un-funny, overdone and totally cliched meme you saw someone use somewhere on the interet. --WanYao 12:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Paint in your eyes would hurt but would it really hurt as much as being shot with a .44 revolver? Given the choice i think a bit of paint in my face is going to be greatly preferable to a knife in the ribs so your 5 damage is waaaaaay to much. Oh, and spray painting people and zombies has definitely come up before... If there is no dupe it must have been here and not made it as far as voting but I would go searching again if you really want to take this further. --Honestmistake 12:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Hurt, not neccesarily, but I couldn't think up a better way to make up for "temporary blindness" besides higher damage. I did originally decide it to be 1 damage. Would that be better? Gunna go dupe checking. Also, Wan, what's 4chan? --Acidifiers 12:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC) 4chan is some lame internet meme i heard someone talk about once... meanwhile, you can rest assured that this idea has come up many times before, though perhaps it never made off talk:suggestions. this suggestion, however, is very similar. while this one also deals with tagging other character, albeit without inflicting any damage or negative effects in-game. --WanYao 12:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I think you just marked the suggestion above this one as a dupe. Your second link does have some merit though; however, their suggestions makes spray paint as a weapon that lowers hit rates and writes words on you. Would it help if I decreased the hit percentage? If users want to bother people by turning their pants pink, they're going to have to waste quite a few AP searching for Spray Cans. Or instead, should the spray can be a one use attack, with a high hit percentage? --Acidifiers 12:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC) No, that isn't the suggestion above. Also, the damage is far too high. If you want this suggestion to be redeemable, make it equivalent to the damage it would actually do.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC) The first link may not be an exact dupe but its mention has merit because it's a very similar idea with a very similar mechanic: a spray cannister which causes damage. The second link is also not a perfect dupe, but it's only the details which differ: inflicting damage vs. penalising to-hit %ages. But none of these arguments over semantics change the fact that your suggestion is an unbalanced, unnecessary new weapon and a griefing tool. --WanYao 12:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid penalizing hit was one of the main things people were complaining about when they voted Kill. Could you tell me why it's unbalanced? @Yonnua Koponen, see my response to Honestmistake. The spray can is mainly a fun item, as it is already for the majority. It's similar to the newspaper or the previously passed Suggestion:20090411 Music! Music! Music!. Perhaps someone should suggest the ability automatically exclude certain weapons from the drop-down list, if they wish to reduce clutter? --Acidifiers 13:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC) If you want it to be "for fun", make it do zero damage, and let me ignore it.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 14:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Fun, flavor, and realism. But okay, zero damage. Hrumph, I was really looking forward to turning people's eyeballs green. --Acidifiers 06:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC) I say just randomly apply a random colour to their clothes, a similar system to blood splatter ie. "A red t-shirt with a dusting of black" to "A red t-shirt with a black spot" to "A red t-shirt covered with black stains" to "A black t-shirt". Chances of affecting various clothes would differ with same percentages as bloodstains. I don't think that it should do any damage personally, but that's just me. And it ain't griefing, otherwise shooting people and getting "blood on my suit!" would constitute griefing as well... and whacking people with newspapers goes right out... hell why would you shoot someone? Enigma179 13:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC) AWESOME. Though I'd say take out the damage; not because it's overpowered, just to make it a bit simpler. --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 14:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Wan let you off light. This is stupid. Very stupid. Republican level stupid. It's also a multi-dupe. Go ahead and put it up for voting, right now. We'll all save our time arguing here when it dies quicker that way. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Goodness Gracious Iscariot, you only need state the rationality behind your opinion to turn a random insult into usable, valuable critique! I haven't learn't a thing about my suggestion; "It's stupid, very stupid, and very very stupid, and it's worthless garbage" tells me absolutely nothing! Iscariot, how exactly do you expect me to respond to that? Do you expect me to simply say "Yes, I'm so sorry for making this worthless garbage; I should never have tried"? The second you launch a friggin unprovoked attack like that, you launch people into self-defense. Why do you say, "Wan let you off light"? Are you to say that if someone does something you do not agree with, they deserve to be punished? You are not infallible. Why be blatantly derogatory, Iscariot, when you can simply say "This is what's not good. This is why. I suggest you delete this." And before you say anything, just place in the first few lines: "Spray Paint Can Attack is stupid because _______ . Please delete.", and fill in the blanks with evidence, not flames. --Acidifiers 08:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Spray Paint Can Attack is stupid and you know it, that's why you stealthily changed the suggestion without leaving the former proposal, rendering the comments already added looking nonsensical. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Tisk tisk, you don't follow me Iscariot! - "Spray Paint Can Attack is stupid because ______ . Please delete. " And, see, now that was advice! "When implementing improvements discussed in Talk, make a New (developing) Suggestion as opposed to editing the old one" I don't think it would be very stealthy of me to delete half my suggestion and expect nobody to notice. --Acidifiers 09:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Did you notice the 'make a new one' part of the thing you just quoted? You've tagged a new one onto the discussion of the old one. Perhaps you're unaware that altering text that makes responses to it look unfounded or nonsensical gets ruled vandalism on this wiki and has got people banned for impersonation. Now go put it all back so people coming to the party late can see the great stupidity of the original 'idea' you had. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Iscariot, could you please clarify your response? What do you mean "tagged a new one into the discussion of the old one". New and old what, the "tagging" of what, and could you define "tagging"? I don't think I'd be banned for impersonation, since this conversation provides a decent explanation - but, just in case, could you advise me on how and where I might retrieve my original suggestion as not to hide it from people "coming to the party late"? Also, by singling out only my "original" idea as stupid, does that mean you now view the edited version as acceptable? Iscariot, you still haven't explained yourself! You claim that the stupidity of the suggestion is obvious, but it is not as of yet obvious to anyone else until you tell me! Just plain tell me why! Just finish the Complete the Sentence, afore I'm forced to use even more exclamation marks! As long as you provide a logical explanation, you win! (Well, we've both won, as I now know exactly what to do to improve my suggestion) Once more, Iscariot: "I think the Spray Paint Can Attack is stupid because _______. Please delete it!" Just fill in the blank with a logical reason; it's that simple! Just fill the blank with a good reason! --Acidifiers 05:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC) FILL THE BLANK DAMN YOU --star 14:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC) He said I let you off lightly. Sounds likes he was referring to my little list of problems. Don't get me wrong, Iscariot can be a fucking twat, but you're just being a git... --WanYao 06:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Cut the hit chance down to 30% and make them run out as they normally (random percentile chance improved by your tagging skill) and I'll vote keep. Especially if it overwrites blood stains, the white mask (The iconic symbol of my order) gets to be red after the first few bounty hunters... It would be very nice to make them white again. -Devorac 02:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Ah, that's a good idea. And, plus a practical use! Okay, overwrites blood stains too. Though, should I really keep editing the original, as he said, or should I make a new proposal? I'll fix it in a .txt document in the meantime. Also, I'll be changing one more thing. In order to avoid clothing like, "a red shirt stained with white and streaked with green and black and blue and dusted with orange and purple", or "dark blue jeans stained with white" turning into "dark blue jeans dusted with yellow" with just one spray (doest make sense for the white paint to simply, "disappear") I'll have to remove "dusted with". Your clothes can only be stained with 1 color, and streaked with 1. The most complicated thing you can now be wearing would now be "A dark blue shirt stained with yellow and streaked with black". Get sprayed with a new colored paint, only the "streaked with" changes. Get sprayed twice with that paint, and you're now only paint stained. That is, if I want to keep the colored paint. Wording subject to change. Still revising. --Acidifiers 05:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Make a new proposal incorporating all of the updates you have gotten from discussion, consider it a rough draft for the actual suggestion room. After people flame that, revise it again put it back for one last flame dunk in the DS room, and then if there are no horrific gaping flaws that people want to change you run it through the actual system. Then you pray. (Or whatever)-Devorac 10:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Mutations Timestamp: Zombehman 14:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Type: Zombie Feature Scope: Zombie Strategy flavoring Description: This idea is a way of giving the zombies a new way of working things. Essentially, this allows zombies to mutate into different forms. Before you kill this, let me elaborate. By mutating different attributes and forms, it allows zombie players a little customisation and strategy. For example, a muatation that makes the hands change to scythe-like claws. (not exactly that, just an example off the top of my head.) You could have the Mutation skill as a purchasable skill, and the more levels you buy, the more mutations you gain axcess to. They would be ballanced with detriments. For example, the scythes would do more damage then the hand attack would, but due to their larger size and weight, cost double the AP to use. Please note two things. One: I am somewhat new to Urban Dead. Two: This is but a concept. This could be reworked if it has a chance.--Zombehman 14:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Discussion (Mutations) You want to become Alex Mercer? -Devorac 02:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC) By gum, I would love me some zombie mutations. New chap! I think this is a fairly commonly suggested thing, but go on, you may invent new awesomeness. :D --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 04:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC) This is a scythe. You want these sticking out of the end of your fingers? Let's be clear, at the end of the fingers you currently have you want six feet of wood tipped with a steel blade? And you expect your fingers to ever move again? Not to mention that they wouldn't be mounted in a way to be effective at cutting. So what you want is nail extensions for zombies that do nothing but reduce their combat effectiveness? Inspired.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Okay this is a terrible idea... And scythes? You mean claws I assume? I am almost certain this has been sugested in the past. This would as above, probably hinder a zombies combat effectiveness. I would love to see something with huge talon like hands try to work a doorknob or rip barricades apart. -Alex1guy 18:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC) God forbid you have to go to the bathroom, or itch your nose... Still, this suggestion might have some merit after an overhaul... (I believe he meant scything talons, not scythes on his hands.) -Devorac 09:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC) I believe they know what he meant but prefer to be pedantic for their own amusement. As for saving this perhaps if such a mutation added 1 damage to claws at the expense of reducing their effectiveness at barricade attacks? TBH tho I think it is dead in the water as a concept ... just a bit too resident evil for my liking. --Honestmistake 20:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Yeah, scything talons was what I meant. You couldn't actually tack tool scythes to your fingers. I don't know, as I said, I'm new, and at least to me, the Zombie class seems a little bland. I'm probably wrong. Bite me. And as for the rest of you... shudda up. If you don't like it, say so, but don't be sarcastic. I will expand it more before I go anywhere with it. Oh, and for you people who can't read, the scything talons were just a slight example, not something that would actually work. It was just to explain how the system would work. Calm down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zombehman (talk • contribs) at an unknown time. I was attempting to be encouraging, to help new folks survive the horror that this page can sometimes be. Still, I would blatantly vote yes on giving zombies Freddy Krueger hands. --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 04:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Look Zombehman, the people on this page will chew any moderately complex suggestion up. Then they will spit it out, jump up and down on it, burn it, then hand it back with a sarcastic remark... Often for no good reason. Endure it, and you can get a suggestion through, if you let it get to you though you'll just end up looking a fool. "Discussing is an exchange of knowledge, argument is an exchange of ignorance." Take this suggestion off the page, rework until you have a clear idea of what you want, then bring it back. Bringing it to the DS room and saying "Imma be having an idea, lookie!" is a bad move. Have your idea ready to roll and then bring it here to get flamed, that way you can see where people like what you have. -Devorac 06:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC) The problem with something like this is that a) Skills should be straight upgrades (brainrot is special) and b) You gotta remember that this is a game where zombies can turn themselves back into humans... so extensive mutation is pretty much out of the question. Enigma179 08:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Not necessarily. Previous discussions involving revive have focused on the fact that zombies could be described as shot and/or chopped to pieces. Yet when one is revived, they are "whole". I do agree though that accessive mutations would be out of the question, but then those would be mocked, laughed at and ridiculed. The problem with THIS suggestion is that it is too vague. He wants mutations (plural) yet barely describes one. How much damage do the claws do? It would have to be significant if ALL future claw attacks cost 2 AP to use.--Pesatyel 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Teenage Mutant Ninja Zambahz??? No, thank you. --WanYao 11:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Smoking Timestamp: Mishimagoodness 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Type: Item Scope: Roleplaying applications only Description: Very simple. Create a new item. People IRL smoke, and it is an activity (or a vice) enjoyed by many. If I was in a safehouse and zombies were at my door I would need a smoke too. This item has the same rules as beer, found in the same places and at the same rates. Heals 1HP for 1AP, does not cure infections. This would have ZERO effect to any players around the person using the item. Cigs cannot be used as a melee weapon. As with all items zombies cannot use them. If this is the wrong place to post developing suggestions please correct me.--Mishimagoodness 17:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Discussion (Smoking) And why would this heal people? 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC) So, you want an item with the exact effects of beer, found in the exact places as beer, with different flavour text. Sounds like you want wine.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Why would they heal you? If anything they should hurt you. --Johnny Yossarian 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC) To that I would say how does beer and wine heal you? The effects are not written in stone. I figure using up an AP no little benefit would be enough. --Mishimagoodness 22:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC) We've had both cigarettes and cigars suggested before (and it sounds like cigarettes were suggested a few times even before then). Yours has different effects, yes, but they make no sense in-genre. If anything, it should damage you but calm your nerves. Unfortunately, we don't have NP (Nerve Points) in the game, so I don't see how you can make it work in a sensible fashion. —Aichon— 19:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC) I thought about something like that but the only thing in game that would be affected by nerves would be what, hit percentages? I don't think my suggestion should modify . I envision them merely as roleplaying aids. Some people have a crucifix even though they give no tangible benefit. I figured if beer should have an effect (let's face it. you may want a beer but it won't help you survive in a landscape swarming with zombies and murderers) then so should these. Would it be better if they took an AP to use but had no effect at all? I don't think any item which only wasted an AP and caused you to be harmed would have anybody carry one in the first place. Thank you for ideas and criticism.--Mishimagoodness 22:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC) You think to survivor-centrific. An item that causes oneself sufficient harm would be a handy thing for any death-cultist's arsenal. Free-run into the mall, gulp the purple kool-aid and get out the claws! (Of course, being of sole use to cultists would also make it highly unlikely that this passes voting.) --Spiderzed 23:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC) If this is purely a RPing item as you say, the AP cost shouldn't matter. Don't let it heal or hurt. Just give the option to spend an AP that gives some sort of flavor text like Johnny Yossarian lights a cigarette. Smoke wafts through the air. --Johnny Yossarian 02:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Only if zombies get a new item: Blackened Lungs --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 04:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC) All this discussion is pointless. And not for the usual reasons of dupeness. It's pointless for the very simple reason that Kevan will never implement any form of smoking into the game. Ever. Smoking in the UK has been under a concerted campaign to make it morally illegal for quite some time now, anything that could be considered 'pro' smoking (such as adding smoking to your browser game that can be accessed by school children) is going to give the game a whole load of negative publicity (regardless of the fact that smoking is still legal to a very limited extent, makes the smoker look cooler than a non-smoker and does considerably less damage to people and society than the other major legal, and socially acceptable, drug) from a whole load of morons. Kevan isn't Jorm. He doesn't rely on his game winning respect for doing new things, for being ground breaking, he relies on the stack-em-high-sell-em-cheap approach to this game, namely traffic. It looks good on Kevan's resume that he coded a game in his spare time that's still running five years later and has over a million registered accounts and he's not going to put that golden piece of positive career spin in jeopardy because some of us want a new flavour item in it. End of discussion. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC) It would look good on a resume! Cookies and Cream 13:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Hooray another pointless item to dilute search rates! Instead of finding a weapon or a med-kit! I find a pack of cigarettes! What do I do? I throw it away and block the item on my searh list because using precious AP blowing smoke at other survivors is a complete waste of time! --Alex1guy 18:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Uh... This wouldn't dilute weapon find rates, or FAK find rates. The only useful items this would dilute would reside in auto-shops, still I don't my fuel find rates diluted. -Devorac 09:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Smoking is bad. So no.--Thadeous Oakley 22:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC) If it's a purely RP thing then role play it. The game engine does not exist to play nanny to every person's unique role-playing fetish object. There are semi-professionals with whom you can "consult" for such things.... --WanYao 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC) Crippling Swipe Timestamp: MikeLemmer 21:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Type: Zombie Skill Scope: Zombie's Hand Attack Description: Crippling Swipe will be a new zombie skill under Rend Flesh. When a zombie with this skill hits a survivor with a Hand Attack, the survivor is Crippled: it now costs him 2 AP instead of 1 to move to another block (like zombies without Lurching Gait). Cripping can be cured by a FAK. One FAK can cure both Infection & Crippling. Anyone (survivor or zombie) with the Diagnosis skill can tell when a survivor is Crippled; their HP will show up as brown. If someone is Crippled & Infected and you can detect both of them, their HP will show up as black. The purpose of this is to let experienced zombies make it harder for survivors to flee a break-in, making it more likely they will stand there and get slaughtered or get caught in a bad locale with little AP. With Hand Attacks' higher accuracy & lower damage, it will also be easier to affect multiple survivors and harder for survivors to choose whether to spend a FAK curing it. (Do I spend a FAK to heal 2 HP & a Cripple on the off-chance he wants to leave this block?) Other modifications I'm debating adding include: 1. Crippled prevents survivors from Free Running until cured. (Might be too powerful, but the ability to temporarily nullify a vital survivor skill could make for interesting changes in strategy.) 2. Requires Surgery instead of Diagnosis to detect. (Increases Surgery's usefulness instead of Diagnosis's; the latter is already one of the Top 3 Survivor Skills in my opinion.) Discussion (Crippling Swipe) Nerfs walking. Also widens the class divide between poor zombies and rich zombies.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Class warfare! Peasants' revolt! 22:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC) TO THE PITCHFORKS --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 04:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC) It doesn't alter the survivor's ability to escape a break-in at all, movement allows you to go into negative AP, so you can escape even if you only have 1AP next door into that nice EHB building. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC) You must also consider that claw attacks compete with bite attacks, and confering special conditions is all bite attacks have going for them on high levels, as the average damage of maxed claws is way higher. (And even the infection effect is negligible, as infection with its slow damage and easy cureability isn't really threatening unless FAKs are very scarce in the area, in which case the area is anyway doomed. And don't bring up digestion - it's really more a gimmick that occassionally slows getting dumped by a single gunshot, than anything to go purposefully for.) --Spiderzed 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC) If this hampered a wounded survivors chance of free-running (say 50% fail rate) then it would be interesting. Sadly it would also have trenchies screaming :( --Honestmistake 00:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Doesn't do jack to stop survivors from running. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Don't make it a Skill. Just make it so that any Survivor that is Wounded moves for 2 AP and has a 50% chance to fail a free-running attempt(falling to the ground outside), and any Survivor that is Dying moves for 3 and cannot free-run at all.-- | T | BALLS! | 04:04 14 February 2010(UTC) Usually when a survivor dies in a break in, it is because they were asleep when it happened, in addition most competent survivors have at least one FAK on hand at all times. The break in itself would probably not have too much more survivor death than before, but the crippled survivors could become easy street candy if free running was disabled, especially sine the surrounding area would likely be paranoid and caded up to EHB. However, without disabling free running, it would be fairly ineffective as a survivor would free run into a neighboring building (as has been said before, in sarcastic fashion) -- Uberursathis bear wants honey 22:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Ability to see barricaders by Supercharazard at 09:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Timestamp: --Supercharazard 09:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Type: Balance, Survivors Scope: Newbies and over-barricaders. Description: Alright! Are you read-ey for this? Big long absurd groundbreaking gamebreaking suggestion. Many people die because of overbarricading, we can see when people begin to creat barricades but we CAN'T see the people who strengthen them! I say that survivors should be able to see who overbarricades buildings. Overcading is worse than taking down the cades because it kills newbies who will leave the game because they don't have free-running and can only get into buildings that have no-one in them or have no cades! Again, we need to be able to see who does the cading, not just at thye start but ALL THE TIME! The dialog for it would go like: Harmanz: Hey Brainz: Hey Brainze barricades the building...and again...and again...and again...and again...and again...and again... Harmanz: Hey, don't overcade! Suggestions up for voting Blood Splatters for Attackers moved to Suggestion talk:20100225 Blood Splatters for Attackers Glancing Blow moved to Suggestion talk:20100218 Glancing Blow Ladders moved to Suggestion talk:20100206 Ladders