Developing Suggestions

NOTICE

The Suggestions system has been closed indefinitely and Developing Suggestions is no longer functions as a part of the suggestions process. However, you are welcome to use this page for general discussion on suggestions.

Shortcut:
DS

Developing Suggestions

This section is for general discussion of suggestions for the game Urban Dead.

It also includes the capacity to pitch suggestions for conversation and feedback.

Further Discussion

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

Resources

• The Frequently Suggested List
• Suggestions Dos and Do Nots

How To Make a Discussion

Adding a New Discussion

To add a general discussion topic, please add a Tier 3 Header (===Example===) below, with your idea or proposal.

Adding a New Suggestion

• To add a new suggestion proposal, 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.
• The process is illustrated in this image.

{{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.
• 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 month may be cycled without notice.

Please add new discussions and suggestions to the top of the list

---

Suggestions

Graffiti only Defileable Once

Timestamp: Lpha 01:53, 20 April 2013 (BST)

Type: Slight Change to Interface

Scope: All zombies.

Description: Today, the few new players who decide to start playing as zombies are often confused when they defile graffiti and after pressing that button, the button is still there. This leads to the frustrated player clicking on the button several times until that they realize that the grafitti has already been defiled and that they have now wasted several action points. While this is not that important, adding it will help lessen the confusion faced by most new players upon starting to play the game. While this may not singlehandedly help keep all of the new players who choose to play as zombies, it will help them keep a few action points. Although some say that a few action points are not that important in the long run, and they are somewhat right, losing a few action points to a problem in the interface may frustrate them enough to make them leave the game, depriving it of another player. Urban Dead is hard and complicated enough for new players without a button that sucks up action points like a vacuum cleaner on the zombie interface.

Discussion (Graffiti only Defileable Once)

I think you're overstating a problem and ignoring the actual usefulness in being able to defile more than once. For instance, it's not uncommon for short messages to be almost entirely readable after defilement since they'll oftentimes only have 1-2 letters defiled. Being able to defile again means having a chance to make the message unreadable. As for the newbie issue, every time they press the button, the defilement changes. If they're confused about what the button does, it should be pretty obvious once they see that the red text is changing locations every time they press the button, thus eliminating their confusion immediately and forevermore. Worst case, they lose a few AP one time and only one time, whereas eliminating the button will mean that zombies are from now on incapable of being sure that they can properly render a message unreadable. —Aichon— 07:42, 20 April 2013 (BST)

I see your point. Lpha 20:03, 20 April 2013 (BST)

---

Wooziness

Timestamp: 20:39 18 April 2013 (BST) Jebidijed

Type: Game Mechanic

Scope: Zombies + Survivors

Description: What I think is that zombies and survivors should feel a quite bit uncomfortable after being revivified 5 times, after taking about 40 damage, and after being fed upon. What it does is that it makes your hit chance 10% off and makes it more difficult to hit your target. This lasts for 8 AP until you regain your regular accuracy. EXAMPLE MESSAGES: Revivified: As you stand up, alive once again, you feel slightly nauseated and want to lie down again as you were before. Taken Damage: You have been heavily beaten upon and are riddled with bruises, scrapes, and other various orifices. You feel woozy and want to rest for a while. Fed Upon: You feel blood running down your torso in various places, and you can see deep bite marks riddled upon your body. You would rather sit down to relax, rather than go any further. Discussion (Wooziness) I'd switch it to just be with revivification, and make it happen every time, rather than after 5 times. And make it wear off after 10 AP instead. Call it Revive Sickness or something. Anyone who's played WoW or some of the other MMOs is already familiar with the concept of "Rez Sickness" after dying in those games, and this would be similar in effect. —Aichon— 21:53, 18 April 2013 (BST) Grapple Timestamp: 17:44 15 april 2013 BST Type: New skill Scope: Zombies and survivors Description: Survivor grapple: A skill for survivors that allows them to grapple a zombie, preventing it from moving or attacking until the zombie escapes their grasp. A human may spend 1 AP to tackle the zombie and pin it against a wall or some rubble, either allowing allies to escape, or allowing them more accurate shots (plus 10%) against the grappled zombie. A grappled zombie may spend 2 AP (1 with lurching gait) to try and escape (50% chance, still costing AP if failed) A zombie with the equivalent skill can grapple a survivor, granting aditional accuracy to their own bites, all attacks against the human and hurting them for 1 HP if they fail to escape. example messages: "You slam into the zombie, grabbing it's wrists and restraining it." " The zombie wriggles in your grasp, but fails to escape" " The zombie violently throws you off, escaping your grasp" " You leap at a survivor, landing on it heavily. they are in your grasp" " The survivor wriggles and shouts, but your grip holds firm, their skin tearing slightly as your nails dig in" " The survivor moves with startling speed, throwing you off and running out of reach" " You are bowled over as a zombie leaps on you, it's powerful grasp keeping you from moving" " You struggle against the zombies grip, and think you've escaped, but it grips harder, nails cutting into your skin" " You push the zombie off with your feet and frantically dash out of reach" " You smell the zombies rancid breath as it opens it's mouth to bite you" " A zombie prepares to strike you, and you are to pinned down to dodge it's attack" " A daring human slams into you, pinning you against a wall/some rubble/ a table, restricting your movement" " You shake, but the human has a strong grip" " You throw the human off you violently, escaping its grasp" " A human takes aim at you, and your restricted movement makes you an easy target" Discussion (Grapple) So it's an op version of Feeding Drag for all characters? (Not sure which skill it resembles, but Feeding Drag seems to be the most like it.) Jebidijed 8:22 AM, 6 April 2013 (EST) 3:54 PM, April 15th 2013 (EST) In just about every zombie apocalypse story, including Urban Dead, the undead are the ones who are grabbing survivors, and the survivors are the ones trying to stay the hell out of biting range. Therefore: 1) Why the heck would grappling a zombie, which is stronger than a human, give you a better shot at it? Shouldn't it be the complete inverse? It's harder to use a gun when you're busy hugging it AND the zombie gets easier access to your vital organs. 2) Basic logic should also dictate that tackling a zombie would be a self-sacrificial thing, not an offensive strategy. 3) For the zombie side of this suggestion, Tangling grasp already does all of this. This is a pointless duplicate of an existing feature. 4) Speaking of which, this means that the survivor side of this is Tangling Grasp For Survivors, which is just... stupid. See point #1, the zombies want to grab you, you don't want to grab them unless you have a deathwish, as per point #2. 5) And again speaking of tangling grasp, this is far more powerful than tangling grasp and is therefore probably overpowered. 6) If you really want to keep a zombie from moving or attacking, how about just killing and dumping it? Seriously. I would suggest modifying this suggestion along the lines of #2 to make it a sacrificial sort of thing. Of course, *that* kind of ability would lend itself too well to zerging, so you may want to forget about this whole idea altogether. --RadicalWhig 23:56, 15 April 2013 (BST) Door destruction Timestamp: PayneTrain(NWO/FU) 15:29, 15 April 2013 (BST) Type: destruction Scope: zombie/death cultists Description: The ability basically allows a zed/death cultist to destroy the doors to building rendering them unbarricadable and open to attack from lower level zeds who haven't acquired the Memories of life skill. working-It takes 5 hits to destroy a door with no chances of a miss(not really sure about this part) and can be destroyed by anyone who wishes to do so.only melee attacks can do any damage,no ranged weapons or bites.It can only be done at 0 barricade level or loosely barricaded level.It can be repaired with and without the construction skill(but at the cost of an extra AP) description for person performing action:- First hit-You smash at the door with your(example weapon/hands) and you see a few splints flying from it. Second hit-You smash at the door again with your (example weapon/hands), the door splinters even further Third hit-You smash at the door again with your (example weapon/hands),the door has formed a rather large hole(allows you to see players inside at door destruction conditions) fourth hit-You smash at the door again with your (example weapon/hands),hinges have given way last hit- You smash at the door yet again with your (example weapon/hands) and the door come off it's hinges and falls to the ground description after each level for bystanders and Ap for fixing After First hit-the doors have been secured but,you see a few splints on it.1 AP with construction,+1 without After Second hit-the doors have been closed but,you see rather many splints on it.2 AP with construction,+1 without After Third hit-the doors have been closed but,you see a rather large hole in it.(allows you to see players outside under door destruction conditions)3 AP with construction,+1 without After Fourth hit-the doors have been almost partially closed but,you see that it hangs at uneven angles 4 AP with construction,+1 without After Last hit-You see that the doors to building have been destroyed.5 AP with construction,+1 without pros-allows lower level zeds to gain exp at the cost of ap,the zed doesn't have to wait for other zeds to open doors for them and can instead break it down by themselves. Note:-you can see the people standing outside from destruction level 3 onwards UNDER normal...uhh do i have to say it again....door destruction conditions Discussion (Door destruction) So, if I understand this correctly, by making it impossible to barricade again until the damage is repaired, you're essentially giving every zombie in the game the ability to spend 5AP to essentially Ransack a building once from the outside, even if there are survivors still inside? No way. WAY overpowered. If the repair mechanics work the same as they do now, you'd have to clear every single zombie from inside the building before you could repair the damage, and that would mean that in the middle of a siege, any zombie at all could act as a perfect beachhead, thus eliminating the primary means by which the survivors stay alive during a breach. A better idea might be to simply make it cost them 5AP to get in, without any of that stuff about having to do repairs or breaking it down permanently, and even that idea is questionable. —Aichon— 17:48, 15 April 2013 (BST) From my point of view, it seems to me that this skill makes it so that zombies can just permanently disable barricades until the door is repaired. That makes as much sense as putting GRAVY on SKITTLES. Get the point? Jebidijed 8:22 AM, 6 April 2013 (EST) Man you never had gravied skittles? Fucking barbarians, I tell you. 21:20, 15 April 2013 (BST) As Aichon and Jebidijed. This is basically Super Ransack and there's absolutely no reason why a destroyed door shouldn't keep you from blocking all entrances with random junk. If you're concerned about low-level zombies not being able to get into places, might as well do away with doors and Memories of Life altogether, which would solve that problem. --RadicalWhig 00:00, 16 April 2013 (BST) Wounding Bite Timestamp: CyberOpposition 04:56, 12 April 2013 (BST) Type: Skill Scope: Zombies Description: This would be a shoot off from infectious bite, where it'll give zombies a chance to wound the other player after the initial Infectious Bite. So, not only will the infected player lose 1 HP per action, but it would cost 2 AP to move after. This would make it a bit more serious for players to plan their next moves. So, the zombie infects the other player and then there's a 40 to 60 chance that the infection slows the other player. Discussion (Wounding Bite) If the survivor is already infected without having been wounded, are they immune from being wounded? Or would each subsequent bite give a percent chance of wounding? Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 05:06, 12 April 2013 (BST) I think it'd be a good idea for each zombie to get a chance to potentially wound the survivor, unless the survivor has already been wounded. So the first initial infectious bite would be the only chance for that specific zombie to wound the player. If one zombie fails to wound, increasing the percent chance of other zombies initial bites could cause a wound as well. CyberOpposition 07:21, 12 April 2013 (BST) The flavor seems a bit weird to me. I don't see why it's an offshoot from Infectious Bite, since it's really a Bite upgrade as it's currently described, not an infection upgrade. If you want to call it "Virulent Infection" and put it under Infectious Bite, that'd be better, I think. Other than that, I actually kinda like the idea of having infected individuals take 2AP to move, though I'm not decided yet on whether or not I like the way it's suggested it should happen here. For some reason, 40-60% strikes me as a strange number, and I feel as if it should either be much higher (like 100%) or much lower (like 20%) once the skill is purchased. Not sure yet. —Aichon— 06:28, 12 April 2013 (BST) I wasn't quite sure how to convey the idea completely and it's my first suggestion. But, yes, I do like the name "Virulent infection" a lot better and I did actually mean it to be an upgrade, I'm sorry about conveying the idea poorly. I picked the percents just for a throw away number, thought it would be ok to discuss the percentages in the Developing suggestions page anyway. I think having a low percent like 10% and having it increased by 10 % the more zombies there are with the skill that bite the player. So, we'd get one zombie with wounding bite (or Virulent Infection, whatever) trying to wound the player and it fails, another zombie with the skill decides to also try to wound the player and his chance is increased by 10%. CyberOpposition 07:22, 12 April 2013 (BST) Id have to say this isnt going to go down well lol i made a very similar suggestion about movement and it got panned just because people didnt want to be slowed down by ap movement --Soul kai 11:33, 12 April 2013 (BST) i wouldn't reccommend putting this suggestion up for voting this is what happened to the last one with the same idea.--PayneTrain(NWO/FU) 06:59, 14 April 2013 (BST) That one had a similar idea, but a VERY different implementation of it. There's a big difference between having it happen with Claw and Bite. Claw is used for nearly every single attack. Bite is only used once against a target, generally, if even that. That said, it does bear a large resemblance to the previous suggestion, and I was very tired when I made my earlier comment. At this point, I'd probably still vote kill, just because it is similar enough, but it's definitely a better take on the same general idea. —Aichon— 07:25, 14 April 2013 (BST) Ok, I get the picture about the AP loss. But I think this could be easily fixed by changing out AP with damage instead. So instead of 1HP lost for each action taken, it'll do +2 damage until the infection has been cured. This would cause the bite to be a bit more dangerous. CyberOpposition 03:28, 15 April 2013 (BST) Do you mean 2 HP loss per AP spent? Not sure what +2 damage means. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 05:00, 15 April 2013 (BST) Yes, 2HP loss per AP spent.CyberOpposition 16:44, 15 April 2013 (BST) 1) Don't touch my AP. Make the game more fun, not less, to quote Aichon in another suggestion. 2) This will mess up noob survivors incredibly badly, you know. 3) This can make parachuting considerably harder. And I love death culting, so leave it the fuck alone! :P --RadicalWhig 00:04, 16 April 2013 (BST) I figured "messing up" noob survivors WAS fun.... CyberOpposition 05:36, 16 April 2013 (BST) You mean you like griefing level 1s?--RadicalWhig 20:26, 16 April 2013 (BST) I wouldn't consider killing a level 1 when you're a zombie griefing. Even if the level 1 is incredibly easy to kill and you can kill them multiple times. They're level 1 man, they're supposed to die a lot. What kind of player do you think I am lol? CyberOpposition 01:36, 19 April 2013 (BST) Anyway, I guess go ahead and log this Suggestion, archive it or whatever. I'm not entirely sure if I need to do that or what CyberOpposition 03:24, 20 April 2013 (BST) Technically this is only a developing suggestion, so you can delete it at any time. If you want to send it through the official review process, check the guidelines at Category:Current Suggestions. Bob Moncrief EBD•W! 07:03, 20 April 2013 (BST) Free running out of ruined buildingd Timestamp: PayneTrain 14:04, 11 April 2013 (BST) Type: game mechanic?i think.. Scope: zombies/survivors Description: even after ruining a building survivors can free run out of the building,but not come back in because it's too damaged?what the fuck is up with that? So my suggestion basically states that the Harmanz should not be allowed to free run out of ruined buildings too as the buildings can still act as Entry points even if they are ruined,which kind of ruins the point of ruining!!ZEDS RULE AHHH!! Discussion (Free running out of ruined buildingd) I've always liked it how it is. It's a nice balance, in that as zombies ruin a suburb, it gives survivors more of a chance to get indoors. Plus, doing it this way would effectively allow zombies to create clusters of buildings that are effectively pinatas. I.e. Surround an area of blocks that are EHB with ruins and suddenly no one can get into those buildings until the ruins are repaired or the EHB 'cades are broken down. While an interesting idea, I think it's a bit ludicrous that it could actually work. —Aichon— 18:03, 11 April 2013 (BST) There are some unorthodox survivor tactics built around the ability to freerun out of ruined buildings, such as the Roftwood Barricade Plan which relies on permanently ruined dark buildings as entry points. Changing that mechanic would just take away that angle without adding a new one. Make the game more fun, not less. -- Spiderzed█ 18:16, 13 April 2013 (BST) i know that,but i was just thinking that a shift in balance is required in favor of zeds rather than in favor of survivors,i mean almost all the suggestions or implementations have been made in favor of survivors,right. 1 of the basic reason's for ruining buildings is to obstruct free running,isn't it?so i feel this is a good suggestion--PayneTrain(NWO/FU) 07:11, 14 April 2013 (BST) I like this. It makes a lot of in-universe sense, and it would prevent populated suburbs from completely shrugging off or even benefiting from (in the case of overcading) small-scale zombie attacks, which is a huge peeve of mine. However, I think you may want to nerf this from the "no free running at all" to a 50% chance of fall out of the building/50% chance to free run normally, or something along these lines, to keep this from being too frustrating in heavily ruined burbs. --RadicalWhig 23:40, 15 April 2013 (BST) Suggestions up for voting The following are suggestions that were developed here but have since gone to voting. The discussions that were taking place here have been moved to the pages linked below. Add Rage to Malton by Spiderzed█ at 16:49, 6 April 2013 (BST)