Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

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

Further Discussion

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

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Please Read Before Posting

• Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe, or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.
• Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.
• It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.

How To Make a Suggestion

Format for Suggestions under development

Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header "Suggestions", paste the copied text above the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in red with the details of your suggestion.

===Suggestion===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=~~~~
|suggest_type=Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.
|suggest_scope=Who or what it applies to.
|suggest_description=Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Suggestion Name)====
----

Cycling Suggestions

Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit.

This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the Overflow-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.

If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the {{SNRV|X}} at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.

---

Suggestions

Adrenaline

Timestamp:	Super Nweb 06:08, 24 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Humans
Description:	Epinephrine also known as adrenaline is a "fight or flight" hormone, and plays a central role in the short-term stress reaction. It is released from the adrenal glands when danger threatens or in an emergency. Such triggers may be threatening, exciting, or environmental stressor conditions. My idea is that you can trade (The eact amount I need help on) 15hp for an extra 5AP. This may seem like a big advantage, and most people will try and heal themselves after so look at these stats. With First Aid, and bargain hunting: 7AP to reheal With First Aid, without bargain hunting in a mall: 11Ap to reheal Without first aid, with bargain hunting: 12AP to reheal Without first aid or bargain hunting, in a mall: 18Ap to reheal Hospitals and churches are even worse. This shows that int he end this would be a negative skill in the end. But if you really need those extra barricade lvls you can sacrafice that AP later. No zombies could NOT use this since theyre body systems really don't work. It would be usefull in a dire situation (Just like real adrenaline). But like real adrenaline would harm you later, because of the strain on your body. This is not a skill, you start with a button called "Adrenaline". It would be very balenced and would add soem strategy to the game. --Super Nweb 06:08, 24 September 2008 (BST)

New zombie speeches

Timestamp:	Kolechovski 19:37, 23 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Zombies without Death Rattle have very few things they can say. Basically just several different versions of “graah”, and a revival request. Their current words available: Graagh. Graaaagh! Grrrh. Grh. Mrh? Brnhr. I think a couple more would be sufficient. First, a likely taunt, “Brahnz”. Second, a way to point out food sources, especially useful to those with flailing gesture, “Harmanz”. Those both should be in demand and would likely be very useful to any zombie player talking with others.

Discussion (New zombie speeches)

Sounds like a good idea.--Super Nweb 06:30, 24 September 2008 (BST)

---

Creating “Speaking Points”

Timestamp:	Disreputable 08:24, 23 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	A small Point System allotment for encouraging in-game communication
Scope:	All
Description:	This is something about the game that I feel has hindered a lot of the social interaction, both practical and roleplaying, that could really make the game more enjoyable. I’d like to say things like “Hey, Insert-Your-Name-Here, thanks for healing me”, or “Nice description, What’s-Your-Name”, or “Some peeps might want to get to that building over there, there are a few noobs who could use help reinforcing the barricades again” … But I can’t (especially if it isn’t a super critical issue) because my action points are just too dang precious (and I usually run out by the time I manage to find safety again). General flavor communication/interaction is a waste of time when it’s so heavily tied to the actual actions that you need to undertake that are the real hard-core mechanics of the game. Basically: it feels like people who really want to try to “play in character” are penalized. After all, roleplaying isn’t about shooting something, it’s about interacting with others in a way that perpetuates the actual game environment. I understand that “Free Talking” would just flood the screen every time you login, and I don’t want that either, but maybe some Speech/Speaking/Social Points (or whatever) to allow for roleplaying, simple communication, and whatnot, would be nice. Just a few, like 3 or 5 points max, and after that you have to actually spend APs (like it’s set up now). They could be gained at a rate of 1 an hour (or 1 every half hour, like Action Points, if that would be simpler). The points could be used for stuff other than speech, too, but at this moment I have no idea what else someone would want to tie them to (and I am specifically not including Radio use in this). Being able to just chat a little with the other players (the random collection of survivors that I spend so much time holed up with) would be kind of cool, but as things are it’s EXTREMELY impractical when you need every AP to keep yourself (and others around you) alive. I really think it would help foster a stronger community and create a more socially active environment. And possibly create more in-game friendship-like situations where small groups can co-operate more effectively. Plenty of people are already talking freely outside of the game and carrying on lengthy discussions. I would like to see some of that social communication actually taking place in the game, in the characters’ actual locations, like it should be. And Zeds can go about and make their random noises and sounds freely, just because they can and because it’s what zombies do. Hell, if you implement this, then it’d be cool to have players outside of buildings be able to “hear faint conversation” from the inside of buildings - and players inside of buildings be able to hear the sounds of Zeds who want to make noises on their doorsteps. But that maybe going too far. Then again, it would be a fair price for using Speech Points too frivolously.

Discussion (Adding Speaking Points (SPs) to foster a better game environment)

This is too vague, that said; I would be all for allowing everyone to make 1 or 2 free speak actions per day or even just allowing every third to be free (like it is/was in Nexuswars) I do like the idea of being able to hear "faint" sounds if the chatter got too much... say more than 5 in an hour? Probably a bit complex though, especially for a bit of flavour text! --Honestmistake 10:02, 23 September 2008 (BST)

I think the concept of a few points solely to be used for speaking is simple enough, and that giving a separate pool of APs just for that wouldn’t be too complicated (it would be listed right after your real Action Points). And I like the idea that these Speech Points regenerate like APs (but slower, like .5 or .25 every 1/2 hour, and they have a very low max, like 3).

The extra flavor of having people get messages if such actions happen in their vicinity (sounds through buildings) is debatable. I would just have it as simple as a message (such as the specific zombie groan overheard, or a generic “muffled conversation” message) appearing every time Speech Points are used to create conversation. Zombies, which aren’t like normal functioning humans, are attracted to movement, light, sounds, vibrations, etc, and they should be able to pick up on hiding survivors who are making too much noise.

This would make it “profitable” for zombies to loiter outside of buildings to find out if they can hear conversation inside. But this conversation would also be very helpful to survivors. APs used for communication would work as they do now, but Speech Points used for communication would create messages for others in the vicinity (they use a different action/point system, and therefore trigger the generic message to other qualified presences). I think there is a fair and balanced trade off (nothing is “free”, right?). Speak freely when you think it is safe, use APs when you need to be extra quiet, Zombie groans freely drifting across the city (and it getting crazy if mobs of zeds are outside your building!) … I think that’d be great flavor. Perhaps only zombies will get messages for survivors speaking from inside buildings and only survivors will get messages of zombie groans from outside buildings. That might cut down on a lot of excess postings of info.

This speaking ability would still be limited to 50 people max, and (IMHO) be a lot less annoying than the endless blather that floods your login because of radios. Seriously, 50%-75% of the stuff coming in over radios is garbage. Actual communication with the people immediately around you would be far more worthwhile. -  :|Disreputable 19:25, 23 September 2008 (BST)

--

IMO there is just no need for this. First of all, nothing for free. Second of all, survivors have immensely powerful tools for communication at their disposal... 1) un-garbled speech, and enough space to say a LOT in one tick 2) radios 3) spray tags 4) cell phones (not really super efficient, but safe and confidential). There is no need for any kind of free communication... But, if these powerful in-game tools are not enough for you, then I recommend getting your metagame on. --WanYao 19:42, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Oh... "And Zeds can go about and make their random noises and sounds freely, just because they can and because it’s what zombies do." ... Try playing a zombie, and get your facts straight. They don't get spit for free. --WanYao 19:44, 23 September 2008 (BST)

"I would like to see some of that social communication actually taking place in the game, in the characters’ actual locations, like it should be."... Uhhm... Dunno what game you're playing... But it does. Or, it used to... but it does seem like the overall level of survivor play has plummeted dramatically in recent months, so, yeah I guess people are just silently shooting zombies in the street solo these days... But that's not the game-engine's fault... The game engine is already hugely supportive of effective in-game survivor communications. --WanYao 19:50, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Wow, don’t get all knee-jerk defensive on me!

First off – I really DON'T want to metagame. I'd like to see more real in-game interaction. That’s the whole point here. I’ve only been playing for about a month and, like you so keenly observed, I’ve noticed that the player interaction does suck. Maybe that is what I am trying to address and remedy? The “powerful in-game tools” you mention (radios, spray tags, cell phones) are completely useless from everything I have seen so far. As a new player, I have enough problems staying alive, not getting PKed, and scavenging for supplies … making real connections with other players isn’t happening, and that seems like a big blackhole in the game play. I think it can obviously be connected to the fact that talking interferes/hinders with the basic survival mechanics (searching, hiding, killing) of the game, and I’d like to see more quality player interaction on a roleplaying/in-game level. I can't afford to make fruitless attempts at connecting with other players, and other players can't afford the same luxury either.

And secondly, if you had bothered to read it, it applies to “ALL”; I want the zombies to have the Speech Points too. Living or dead, you still have them and the rules are pretty much universal/uniform according to what you are playing. They’ll be able to make their 3 FREE grunts or groans whenever they like, and spook any hiding survivors all they want if that’s their bag.

Thirdly, it’s not free. Giving away your hiding spot just to use a “free” speak ability, and giving zombies another tactic/tool for searching for survivors, is hardly free. Zombies would actually be the only ones getting something for pretty much nothing in this case, because they receive something without any negative trade-off. And why should zombies need to spend their APs to use a largely worthless speech ability? - |Disreputable 20:31, 23 September 2008 (BST)

I dislike separate speech points, but I would enjoy seeing useful in-game communication increase. Your suggestion is good in that it accepts that a non-linear progression of AP costs is able to combat spam. However, you offer something free, which goes against the idea of the game. Find a way to motivate speech without it being free or as convoluted as separate speech points, and I will gladly support you. -- Galaxy125 22:16, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Well, certain things are free in game, like dropping stuff, Galaxy. No AP spent there. I like this idea, as long as zombies get the same benefit as survivors for the 2 or 3 'free speaking points' (though if being fair, maybe give zombies 4 'free speaking points' and survivors 3, since zombies have a much tougher time getting communication across in a non-metagame fashion. I can see how this idea might be used to encourage people to spam more, but it's nothing which doesn't already happen with throwaway characters. --Tselita 23:18, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Well, Galaxy125, if you don’t want to somehow encourage real communication attempts in the game by preventing them from hindering your characters progress, then you have to start rewarding people who make such efforts and sacrifices. And something like awarding EXP for just uselessly running your mouth in the game sounds like an AWFUL idea. So … how would YOU suggest motivating more communication? How could you make allowances for people who really want to do a little roleplaying and make the game more fun and rewarding?

I really can’t think of another way. If using your Speech Points helps forge allies, helps people to start networking, and creates friendships in the game, that will lead to more productive uses of cell phones and other communication means. And it would lead to using your actual APs to continue worthwhile conversations.

And I honestly believe that creating a downside will be really interesting, creating messages for players to overhear. Zombies can make their presences known, can overhear players being too casual with conversation, zombies can now listen for chatty survivors by just standing outside of buildings (which is great for us starting players who don’t have all of those cool skills to fall back on).

Tselita, if the zombie noises are really that important to them, then I don’t see why zombies can’t receive more Speech Points (like a max of 9 SPs, 3 times more than survivors). After all, they can’t create long complicated and verbose sentences, so it would only be fair to allow them more basic grunts and stuff. And if the suggestion after mine has any merit, then perhaps a few more “words” in their scroll down menu to use as well. It’s all about getting people to try to communicate more in-game and create a more interesting and enjoyable game experience. - Disreputable 00:46, 24 September 2008 (BST)

There's a strong case to be made that you probably don't want to hear what an awful lot of players are saying. Try switching your radio to 28.01 sometime soon. These idiots don't need any encouragement to start babbling away and making everyone's pages 50 lines long. I may be fairly lucky in that the guys I currently hang around with are a talkative bunch, and there's something new to read every time I log on. The simple fact is, a lot of UD players simply don't want to talk in-game when they can metagame with the other members of their group (pretty much the only people they talk to) without the risk of being overheard by zombie spies/PKers or others they may not want hearing what you've got to say. That said, I'm in the same boat as you - I wish people were a bit more talkative in-game, but whilst you can take a zed to brainz, you can't make it eat. --Target Practice 01:57, 24 September 2008 (BST)

---

Link to profile for victims

Timestamp:	Kolechovski 20:01, 20 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Victims
Description:	I suggest that the profiles of victims (those slain or dragged out into the street, etc.) be linked to, just like those when zombies gesture to them, or when you DNA extract a zombie. I've had numerous cases where I've wanted to check the profile of a victim, but can only get the one of the attacker.

Discussion (Link to profile for victims)

Next new suggestion please. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:08, 20 September 2008 (BST)

Also... there is this ... not quite what you're looking for, i don't think it gives you dead people's profiles... but it rawks and i wanna hype it anyhoo ;P --WanYao 20:06, 21 September 2008 (BST)

While we're on the topic of irrelevant but awesome, did someone say 2 Cool? All for you Wan :P --xoxo 07:38, 22 September 2008 (BST)

In the words of the Two Mouseketeers, "All for Wan, and Wan for all!" :D --WanYao 19:36, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Greasemonkey saves the day! ...but it hasn't been well tested because PKs don't really happen that often. Should work, though. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 23:04, 23 September 2008 (BST)

---

Advanced Free Running

Timestamp:	Funt Solo QT 16:50, 19 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	new skill
Scope:	prerequisite of Free Running
Description:	Two effects: 50% chance of not suffering the 5HP damage inflicted (sometimes) when attempting Free Running into a ruin. 50% chance of being able to enter a pinata ruin from the street. If the attempt fails, the survivor suffers 5HP damage from a bad fall, and remains outside.

Discussion (Advanced Free Running)

Anyone? --Funt Solo ^QT 16:50, 19 September 2008 (BST)

I can see it now, a whole map of EHB's full of trenchcoaters gloating that they have pwn'd the noobs while all around them the few buildings that fall stay ruined cos trenchies don't carry tools and the rest of the survivors are dead or gone in disgust! --Honestmistake 17:27, 19 September 2008 (BST)

I've added the word "ruin" after "pinata" to make it clear this would only allow special entry to a ruined but over-'caded building. Does that make a difference to you? --Funt Solo ^QT 18:07, 19 September 2008 (BST)

It does make a difference but not enough. Ithe potential 5 damage is the only downside to free-running and lowering the chance of it even further is not something i could support --Honestmistake 18:53, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Whilst I see it as a minor buff, what do you think of the ruin/pinata entry part alone? --Funt Solo ^QT 19:14, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Not needed in any way, shape or form. --Papa Moloch 18:56, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Said the hard-core zombie. --Funt Solo ^QT 19:13, 19 September 2008 (BST)

You really are an utter hypocrite. I have a pro-survivor in the NW as it happens. Meanwhile, oh look! You have a list of characters on your user page, all of them survivors. Edited to add something that I forgot: Only one of my characters makes no use of Free Running and, guess what, it's not Moloch, who is a death cultist. --Papa Moloch 20:09, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Chill pills. Second shelf, on the left. Help yourself. (Pssst - all my characters are dual nature, but don't tell anyone.) --Funt Solo ^QT 23:32, 19 September 2008 (BST)

First effect: does this just mean the chance of getting injured would be further decreased by 50% from the current? Second effect: way, way too strong. Even if the chance for success was 10% instead of 50%, and searching for FAKs and healing the damage caused by the failed attempts was taken into account (25AP total for a maxed survivor), it would still be a lot cheaper on average than taking EH barricades down to VS (50AP). Not to mention that it would save you from having to re-build the barricades. Also, judging from the name of the skill, you probably don't mean this to be a "prerequisite of Free Running", but a subskill of Free Running. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 20:16, 19 September 2008 (BST)

I actually like the first effect. Having an advanced version of free running might mean that when you're about to 'fall' to the street' you manage to grab onto something to prevent yourself from falling out and getting injured. I think pinatas shouldn't be touched though - it takes quite a bit of effort to actually get them up, and so it should take a bit of work to take them down. --Tselita 20:45, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Good gawd, no!

1. Taking damage from FRing into a ruin is not automatic, anyway, no need to nerf that effect. especially since it helps keeps the otherwise very, very powerful FAK-in-a-mall monster a little less vicious.
2. you can free run into the street at no penalty.
3. falling can never kill you, in any event.
4. don't you dare nerf pinatas! They are the result of either completely idiotic survivor play (which deserves to be punished), or coordination by zombie players (which deserves to be rewarded). In both cases you need a big dose of good luck, to boot.
5. screws newbies, who often seek out injured parkour artists for first aid experience.

No... Not only is this uneeded, as Moloch said, it's just horrible... all round... sorry. --WanYao 20:43, 19 September 2008 (BST)

The fist effect is a dupe of in game; there is ALRADY a (unknown, like 50%) chance of not being injured when you "slip and fall to the streets". The second effect is probably a bad idea, because it makes ruins easier to enter than repaired buildings. Which maybe makes sense, for ruins with holes in the roof, but few Pinatas are that old. Anyhow, this would make pinata's a pure survivor advantage; the building could be reclaimed with full barricade levels in place, instead of just giving survivors VSB++ on a ruin for the cost of whatever it takes to pull it down to vsb++ (which is often much less than building UP to VSB++ would be). That makes it (even more) pointless for a zombie to ruin any heavily+ barricaded building the happen to be inside.
Pinaas are the result of the interaction of a few simple rules and are only a minor nuisance to survivors, and no help to zombies. The KISS principle says to leave them be.  Swiers 22:30, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Okay, I understand why pinatas should be left alone. The first effect is meant as a reduction of the in-game chance, not as a dupe of the in-game chance. However, nerfing newbies on XP-harvesting was not something I'd considered, so thanks. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:32, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Summary: I think I'll let this one slide. Thanks (all who offered constructive criticism) for pointing out the things I hadn't thought of. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:32, 19 September 2008 (BST)

---

Zombie Incursion

Timestamp:	Funt Solo QT 16:43, 19 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	ruin Free Running for zombies
Scope:	zombies with MOL & Free Running
Description:	As survivors are killed to become zombies and latterly revivified, the cycle of death and rebirth is causing a sort of evolutionary tactical osmosis. Zombies are learning more about the Free Running network which survivors maintain in an attempt to stay off the dangerous streets. Now, when zombies ruin a building, they pile debris up in order to attempt to create a Free Running route to neighboring blocks. When moving from inside a ruin to another block, a zombie (with Free Running and Memories of Life) has a 50% chance to enter the neighboring block, rather than exit to the street outside said block. They have a 25% chance of falling to the street, and a 25% chance of falling to the street and suffering 5HP damage. This allows a 50% chance of the following types of movement: Inside ruin to inside neighboring ruin. Inside ruin to inside neighboring block that is not ruined and has any level of 'cades.

Discussion (Zombie Incursion)

Not sure about this one, and am wondering what veteran zombies make of it. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:43, 19 September 2008 (BST)

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Honestmistake 17:29, 19 September 2008 (BST)

As a zombie player, I love this, we can now crack a mall by just breaking open the easy entry point next door, kill the weakest corner and score the important ruin. And all with no down side, because losing HP doesn't fuss us at all.

As a player of the game however, no, for the above reasons. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:36, 19 September 2008 (BST)

I hear ya. What about the ruin-to-ruin idea alone? Would that be appealing to zombie players? --Funt Solo ^QT 18:05, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Ruin to ruin has been done before. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:57, 20 September 2008 (BST)

very useful for scouting in heavily ruined areas but I am not sure if I would like it if I was a survivor trying to hide in there!--Honestmistake 18:58, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Well, exactly. The idea is that ruined areas are dominated by zombies, as non-ruined areas are dominated by survivors. Why should zombies have to pay through the nose, AP-wise, to scout their hard-won territory? --Funt Solo ^QT 19:12, 19 September 2008 (BST)

It'll nerf legitimate tactics like HIPS, if you remove survivor aids to retaking territory then you'll be faced with a situation where no-one bothers and the Ghost Towns increase to the point where Kevan initiates a half arsed change to try and restore balance that'll completely fuck the game up. Also what flavour are you going to use to justify this? If zombies can ruin to ruin, why can't harmans? If zombies can do ruin to ruin, especially when it's so difficult for harmans to go repaired to ruin, why can't they go repaired to repaired? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:01, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Free running is not a network of bridges. Free running involves athletic leaps between buildings. More importantly, this is a massive buff to an already reasonably powerful weapon, and the idea of zombies building what are effectively siege ramps is unbelievable. Why not a zombie catapult as well? Corpses were flung over fortifications in medieval times as an early form of biological warfare. --Anotherpongo^Where? 19:15, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Free running involves use of The Force to float themselves into high up windows. Zombies, being dead, can not use the Force since their midichlorians are in stasis until they are revived. So they can not free run. End of story. --Tselita 20:37, 19 September 2008 (BST)

PS - about this idea. No. --Tselita 20:38, 19 September 2008 (BST)

You mentioned midichlorians, you lose all respect until you send me more pictures of you in that Princess Leia slave outfit. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:44, 20 September 2008 (BST)

Actually, Funt appears to have previously suggested zombie catapults, albeit in a humourous suggestion. --Anotherpongo^Where? 17:01, 22 September 2008 (BST)

I still not-so-secretly wish that was in the game. For shits 'n' giggles. I mean, those forts are always such a letdown. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:57, 22 September 2008 (BST)

I'm not buying this at all. Regardless of effect on gameplay, it makes no sense from any angle. --Papa Moloch 20:24, 19 September 2008 (BST)

I'm opposed to this, as everyone above. It's also been suggested a nmuber of times, "zombie free running". --WanYao 20:56, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Has several problems. First, zombies are (with the exception of those dumb resident evil mutants) noted for the LACK of ability to jump and climb. Heck, they aren't even that good with doorknobs, so it makes sense they would have to find a normal entry point, not some tricky one that requires climbing / jumping. Second, this would result in unpredictable effects from movement (you would not know when moving run to ruin if you would end up inside or outside), which is probably a bad thing. Third, its a survivor skill benefiting zombies,which, while it happens, should generally be minimized.  Swiers 22:37, 19 September 2008 (BST)

The Force makes more sense. --Tselita 23:54, 22 September 2008 (BST)

---

Alter Stand-up Costs

Timestamp:	Funt Solo QT 15:56, 19 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	game mechanics
Scope:	stand-up costs, Headshot, Ankle Grab
Description:	New zombie players losing 30% of their daily AP allowance through being Headshot sucks large chunks, and yet nerfing Headshot altogether is never a popular solution. This suggestion proposes a compromise that I hope is seen as a step in the right direction, if not a complete solution to the problem. Current stand-up costs for zombies: Ankle Grab ✘ Headshot ✘ : 10 AP Ankle Grab ✘ Headshot ✔ : 15 AP Ankle Grab ✔ Headshot ✘ : 1 AP Ankle Grab ✔ Headshot ✔ : 6 AP Suggested stand-up costs for zombies: Ankle Grab ✘ Headshot ✘ : 5 AP Ankle Grab ✘ Headshot ✔ : 10 AP & -10HP Ankle Grab ✔ Headshot ✘ : 1 AP Ankle Grab ✔ Headshot ✔ : 6 AP In other words, the effect on current mechanics is twofold: Reduce the basic stand-up cost for everyone (zombies and survivors; without Ankle Grab) from 10AP to 5AP. Headshot still causes an additional 5AP to stand-up costs (as it does now) but also causes a zombie without Ankle Grab to stand up with 10HP less than their normal total (which will be either 40HP or 50HP, dependent on whether or not they have Body Building). Notes: Ankle Grab may be considered a sort of zombie stamina skill, that allows it to recover or regenerate (however you want to think of it) faster than a zombie without the skill. This would not effect veteran zombies, but new players would no longer suffer the galling 15AP stand-up costs associated with Headshot. Survivors with the Headshot skill should not feel hard-done by, as they get to reduce the HP of the newer zombies, thus reducing their effectiveness via another avenue of game-play. References: Reduce Stand-Up Cost Headshots remove HP, not AP

Discussion (Alter Stand-up Costs)

I'd welcome feedback on this one. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:56, 19 September 2008 (BST)

"Ankle Grab ✘ Headshot ✘ : 5 AP" - Would it also be 5AP for zombies without ankle grab who are revived to stand up again as humans? --Tselita 20:41, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Yes, as it stands right now - that's stated in the suggestion. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:22, 19 September 2008 (BST)

I will always vote kill on any suggestion which takes another players AP without something in return... in this case you are condemning new zombies to an almost permanent -10HP but giving then 5 of their AP back in return... If they don't have ankle grab they sure as hell are not going to have digestion so no way!-Honestmistake 17:36, 19 September 2008 (BST)

But given that the current situation is already a loss of 15AP ("without something in return"), you don't see this even as a step in the right direction? (Especially given the point about HP not mattering as much as AP.) --Funt Solo ^QT 18:03, 19 September 2008 (BST)

I think its a myth that zombies don't care about their HP... 60 HP means it takes a survivor at least 2 more shots to kill me (ignoring flares) that's 2AP of extra effort everyday. More importantly though this would actually be a big survivor buff because it will make it easier for them to claim the kill XP's without giving an equal benefit to zombies. While the version up for voting is not perfect it is a much better balance than this. Personally I think a better mechanic might be to allow zombies to accrue "phantom" AP at a rate of 1 per hour which could only be spent on the stand up cost, that would also answer the concerns about meat shielding that get raised whenever this is discussed.--Honestmistake 19:13, 19 September 2008 (BST)

I agree about the HP myth, but note that I didn't say "zombies don't care", I said that HP weren't as important as AP. What would you think to the penalty being 5HP as opposed to 10HP, for the sake of argument? I'll mull over your phantom AP idea. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:19, 19 September 2008 (BST)

I approve. I hate the 15AP standup cost as a babah zombie. I dunno about the rest of the players, but I don't care about my HP one bit when I'm a zombie...I'd much rather lose 10 HP than 5 AP. --Jen 17:47, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Mmm, I dono about the trade off. More AP or more/quicker deaths? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:43, 19 September 2008 (BST)

The way I figure it, it's partially psychological - the player is less annoyed because at least they get to spend their AP. Also, the 10HP punishment is negotiable. What if it was 5HP? What if it was a slightly reduced attack %? The latter would allow the given zombie to do something constructive with their AP, even if it wasn't to attack survivors. (I'm wary of punishing baby zombies on their attack %, though, as they already have it tough.) --Funt Solo ^QT 19:10, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Avoiding the health penalty just because you have Ankle Grab doesn't really make sense. I mean, how does grabbing an ankle heal you? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 19:48, 19 September 2008 (BST)

How does grabbing an ankle save you AP? I think it's a question of "ankle grab" sounding good, and the game mechanics coming later. Or, in the case of what I'm proposing, Ankle Grab being the skill that's already there. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:15, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Reduces the "death tax" for a non-AG mrh cow from 20AP to 10 AP. Survivors already bounce back crazy fast, and this would just make low-level meatshields more worth using / reviving....  Swiers 22:41, 19 September 2008 (BST)

If you've got the time, could you explain that further, as I don't really follow. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:15, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Death tax = the price paid by a survivor orientated character to return to survivor status. A zombie expends AP to bring down the cades and eat a survivor. That survivor, if he chooses to immediately return to survivor play must pay a certain minimum amount of AP to return to being a breather. This amount for someone without Ankle Grab is 20, 10 to stand as a zombie (so that they can be stuck with a needle) and 10 to stand again as a survivor.

I believe this is what Swiers means. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:26, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Got it - thanks. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:35, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Yeah, that's just what I meant. But thinking over that twice, it may not be such a bad thing. Theoretical meatshield alts don't really use APs, so saving them 10 APs per death doesn't make them any more effective. The survivor "bounce back" rate really depends on how much energy survivors put into revives (and in the long run, on the "floating" needle find rates) which would not be much if at all effected. So all this would really do is make Ankle Grab less of a "must have" skill for both newby zombies and newby survivors. And THAT seems like a good thing.  Swiers 00:57, 20 September 2008 (BST)

I know everyone believes that zombies don't care about health, but AP regenerates HP doesn't. Zombies have such limited ways to recover HP that anything that takes it away without costing survivors AP annoys me. There is nothing that zombies can do to survivors to reduce survivor AP at all. Why should survivors be able to take away AP AND HP from a zombie? Just that basic situation doesn't seem fair at all. -- #99 ^DCC 13:27, 20 September 2008 (BST)

DCC is right, by taking away the zombies HP you are just giving the survivors more AP which can then again be used to reduce more zombie AP by using it for cades or other actions that undo zombie AP. I would vote keep for this because I simply do want the zombie to get more AP, but I'd rather see it without the HP reduction. It is after all reducing the survivors need for ankle grab, so it buffs them too. - User:Whitehouse 13:53, 20 September 2008 (BST)

Nothing that zombies can do to survivors to reduce survivor AP at all.... except, y'know.... kill them? They get up with half the HP and have to do the whole -10 AP thing as well (unless they have ankle grab, which many don't have until significantly later in their development).

As for zombies having limited ways to recover HP - they have the biggest advantage I know of... They can die and get up with full HP. In addition to the less frequently useful Digestion (while at the same time lowering survivor's XP). And of course they can get healed by an FAK (from someone else healing them). The first way is the big zombie advantage.

Zombies have ways of reducing a survivor's HP continuously, via infection, which survives the survivor's death so when they do get revived they start losing HP immediately (particularly harmful when the survivor is revived and all the surrounding buildings are overcaded, and the survivor doesn't have an FAK). Not that I'm agreeing with this suggestion (I'm on the fence about it), but just because one side has one advantage doesn't mean both sides need to, otherwise there would be an equivalent 'infection' and 'digestion' power for survivors. --Tselita 14:46, 20 September 2008 (BST)

Holy shit. Your 3 month vacation didn't make you any smarter. The death mechanics aren't the problem.

They get up with half the HP and have to do the whole -10 AP thing as well (unless they have ankle grab, which many don't have until significantly later in their development). So do new zombies. That wasn't what I was complaining about.

As for zombies having limited ways to recover HP - they have the biggest advantage I know of... They can die and get up with full HP. Did you read the fucking suggestion or are you just posting because you HAVE to post on Talk suggestions? This idea would TAKE AWAY HP from zombies when they stand up. They wouldn't be standing up with full HP. They wouldn't have what you describe as "their biggest advantage".

Once again DIGESTION as a means to recover HP for a zombie is fucking useless! It has a 20% base hit rate. FAKs never miss. Advantage: Survivor. Also, you can use FAKs at any level. Digestion costs at least 100 XP not to mention TG and NL. 300 XP to for a 30% to heal 4 fucking HP when survivors can heal 5 HP 100% of the time. Or even up to 10 HP with 100 XP. Survivors can use FAKs on themselves. Zombies can't bite themselves to heal. And seriously, who the fuck heals zombies unless they are in the south and looking for easy XP? Oh and you can't see how many HP a zombie has so you would never know if you could use a FAK on a zombie like you do with survivors and zombies can't say FAK me please in any meaningful way. So, that means they are left with standing up or wasting AP trying to bite.

infection ...(particularly harmful when the survivor is revived and all the surrounding buildings are overcaded, and the survivor doesn't have an FAK)' Not our fault you survivors are fucking retarded. How many times on this page alone do people post FAK then REZ is the way to do it? -- #99 ^DCC 14:52, 21 September 2008 (BST)

Boy I missed the third grade mentality you bring to the wiki.

Standing up with -10 HP is not the same as standing up with HALF the HP. That -is- an advantage still. Which was the point of my post which you missed. And in exchange for taking away 10 HP when standing up, it would let them have 5 additional AP which, under current rules, they wouldn't have. Zombies get a lot more usefulness out of AP than HP. It's called a balance. Not even one I necessarily agree with, but it's better than the idea of someone whining "Boo hoo, zombies have to spend 15 AP to stand up when they don't have ankle grab after being headshotted! It should be lowered! Whine!" Whine, whine, whine. You want headshot nerfed more without giving anything in return.

Instead, Funt makes the compromise (a foreign word, I know) to make the AP damage from headshot a little LESS severe, in exchange (see: compromise) for 10 HP from the zombie's health.

Survivors can use FAKs on themselves. Zombies can't bite themselves to heal. - And if zombies had to search for their teeth I might agree with you on the inherent unfairness of that.

And seriously, who the fuck heals zombies unless they are in the south and looking for easy XP? - ever since I was told you get XP for healing zombies? Me. Yep it -is- easy XP. Everyone should do it. Plus it helps keep the infection level down.

Oh and you can't see how many HP a zombie has so you would never know if you could use a FAK on a zombie like you do with survivors and zombies can't say FAK me please in any meaningful way. - Point being? I didn't say FAKing zombies is common. I just said it's a method that zombies can get healed... for example, by death cultists (if they're attacking a building) or by revivers (if they're mrh cows/dual naturists/etc).

How many times on this page alone do people post FAK then REZ is the way to do it? - I'm a big fan now of the 'fak then rez method' nowadays. --Tselita 23:42, 22 September 2008 (BST)

not once in all the time i have been playing has anyone ever used a FAK on one of my zombies and that includes doing so just before reviving. It simply does not happen with any frequency outside of this wiki's anal discussions regardless of how desirable it would be! As for digestion not being useful? WTF it may rank somewhere just below the attack skills but it is the single most in genre zombie skill and virtually every zombie that has it also has infection and is thus biting folk anyway. Very few zeds use it just to gain health at the moment but only because they so rarely get the chance... personally I would advocate giving all zeds with "vigor" an extra 10 on their max health that could only be built upto by digesting!--Honestmistake 23:47, 21 September 2008 (BST)

I already got that idea into Peer Reviewed with Advanced Digestion (+10HP Temporary), but the big K never implemented it. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:32, 22 September 2008 (BST)

I don't understand Sweirs' "death tax" comment above, but if it is about affecting revived survivor stand ups, why not just make it NOT affect reviving survivors? In other words, they stand up at the "normal" (before this suggestion) rate.--Pesatyel 07:11, 22 September 2008 (BST)

Because that would be unfair. If it's balanced at the moment, then reducing it for everyone would also be balanced. This suggestion is about removing the annoyance of losing 15AP to a headshot. Nothing more, nothing less. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:59, 22 September 2008 (BST)

"Death Tax" and headshot costs are not equaly aplicable. Mrh cows almost never get headshot, so they pay the minimal stand up cost x 2 (once when dying as a survivor, no headshot, once when being revived, again no headhsot). So reducing the stand up cost for no AG to 5 does help newbysurvivors who lack AG more than newbie zombies (who tend to suffer from headshots rather often). The benefit for newby zombies who get headshot is (IMO) good, but not directly balanced in the sense of "whats good for one, is good for both".  Swiers 21:02, 22 September 2008 (BST)

I don't think that is an accurate example. When the survivor dies and stand up to act as a Mrh?-Cow, AP is, for the most part, irrelevant. They don't effectively DO anything (hence being a Mrh?-Cow). And few Mrh?-Cows get revived same day (unless part of a group and that is different). And who says that cows "almost never" get headshot?--Pesatyel 06:12, 23 September 2008 (BST)

---

Zombie Hunting

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 14:20, 16 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	All players
Description:	What I'm suggesting is a new zombie hunter skill and a slight tweak to headshot/ankle grab independent of each other, hopefully to make it slightly less effective against newbie Zeds but more effective against their seniors. Feel free to dupe either of these, I've looked but could not find, although I know someone had something similar to 'Overkill' in discussion some time ago (credits to them). If either of these reaches a point of potential voting I intend to put them up separately. 1st: The old (tweak) Headshot Change, Headshot now has a 50% chance to affect the killed zombie, all other mechanics remain the same. Ankle Grab Change, Ankle grab no longer reduces the AP to stand up to 1, instead it reduces it by 5! Results: Zombies without ankle grab will now have a chance to stand up without the extra AP loss. Zombies with ankle grab will not benefit from ZKills to prevent headshots as much as they normally do. Zombies, although still without fear of death will be affected more when they are killed if they recieve a headshot. 2nd: The new (skill) Overkill (100xp) Whenever a survivor kills a player (zombie or survivor) there is a 50% chance for any excess damage to carry over when the zombie rises. e.g. PKr shoots Bob(5hp) for 10 damage, PKr gets overkill bonus Bob rises with (45hp) (55hp w/body-building) Now this seems to be acceptable with most weapons (especially if they have a Flak and Body-building) however the Fuel/Flare combo on someone with 1 health does raise issues (rise with 21hp) but please discuss... There is also the possibility of making this cross-class but I don't think zombies enjoy hindering zombies!

Discussion (Zombie Hunting)

Seems quite good, the numbers of different situations would be good as it's late and i cbf figuring them out. I've defo seen the overkill thing elsewhere but it might just have been on this page. Do the numbers! --xoxo 14:29, 16 September 2008 (BST)

Will never pass because you have just suggested a permanent headshot-1AP. With the added possibility of 10AP to stand up for zombies with all the skills if I read this correctly. Just that means dead in the water to me. I would vote kill. - User:Whitehouse 14:55, 16 September 2008 (BST)

You haven't nerfed survivor AP reduction possibilities at all. You just increased it. Taking away a definite 5AP reduction from the zombie hunters abilities, and replacing it with a (on average) 2,5AP reduction is not a nerf if there is an innate 4AP reduction. You just increased headshots AP reductive ability from -5AP to -6,5AP (note: numbers here are without the 1AP required to stand without being headshoted). The only good thing about the suggestion is that newbies would benefit from -2,5AP rather than a -5AP from headshots. But the second they get ankle grab they are losing 4AP to regular survivors, and 6,5 to zombie hunters. Sound like an improvement to you?

And your overkill is a survivor buff. Because only survivors can get high enough damage to make the overkill effective. I can't vote keep for this. - User:Whitehouse 15:12, 16 September 2008 (BST)

So if I understand your views on the headshot change your ok with how it benefits new zombies but not how the more experienced zombies are in? It is actually intended to ease the effects of headshot on new zeds but not weaken it overall.

numbers for those who do not want to work out the new maths

With headshot

• 12.5AP avg without ankle grab (15/10)
• 7.5AP avg loss with ankle grab (10/5)

Without Headshot (ZKill)

• 10AP without ankle grab
• 5AP with ankle grab

I know the overkill is a survivor buff, if zombies could use it though it would not be a good thing, whatever a zombie kills becomes a zombie, in siege situations, why would they want a zombie to stand up with less than full health, that's something survivors benefit from? I've been trying to think of zombie equivalents of hunter skills, you can't have something that boosts a freshly killed zombies as ZKilling would run rampant, reviving is the only other place I can conceive and 1/2HP+Infection does that already. --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:14, 16 September 2008 (BST)

Well yes, I like the idea of helping newbies. I'm all for that, but the fact that those newbies become fully fledged zombies one day, and then find that life isn't that much easier is kind of a deal breaker from my point of view. Quite some time ago I thought that it would be wise to reduce overall standup costs (unaffected by headshot and ankle grab) to 5AP. That would help newbies, and would not affect the older zombies. Didn't work for some reason. Anyhow, point is I want to help the newbies, but not punish the older zombies (and the newbies that will one day become older zombies). - User:Whitehouse 16:36, 16 September 2008 (BST)

---

Barricade Creaking Effectiveness

Timestamp:	Tansiv 18:47, 15 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Creaking Effectiveness
Scope:	Barricade attacking zombies
Description:	Over the past few days, while bashing on survivor defenses, I was thinking on this suggestion. Every now and then, when attacking a barricade, I get the useless creaks 3-4 times in a row, along with the usual "You smash at the barricade." My suggestion is that if an undead gets three creaks in a row, the barricades go down a level. But if it collapses before then, the number of creaks needed is reset to zero. Flavor would be easy, "Your glancing blow knocks down a loosened part of the barricade." Three creaks in a row is generally uncommon, so I hope the multiply by a billion shouldn't be too much of a factor.

Discussion (Barricade Creaking Effectiveness)

Don't kill the useless flavor. We've all learned to live with it. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:05, 15 September 2008 (BST)

I actually support this. It's a good way to help the newbie zombies gain that extra XP. Chaplain Drakon Macar 22:16, 15 September 2008 (BST)

How about if you hit a barricade and it creaks you get a 50% chance to gain 1XP, that would help the newbie zombies and not have an effect on higher level zombies? --Kamikazie-Bunny 13:30, 16 September 2008 (BST)

They're just flavour. If you'd rather have the creaks gone and replaced with the plain message then suggest that, don't fuck with cade probability without good reason.--xoxo 08:43, 16 September 2008 (BST)

A profile option to disable them, perhaps? It's not like anyone else can hear you creaking against the barricades. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 10:14, 16 September 2008 (BST)

The only possible alteration I could conceive of for barricade creaking is for it to be audible indoors. Otherwise... you hit the barricade, it creaks, and slides right back into place. Changing it to the "three in a row" would force the server to keep track of everyones' actions, whether or not they were actively attacking barricades - how would it know the difference? - which is impractical. And why would three creaks in a row imply some sort of damage? My door creaks sometimes when I open it, but nothing comes of it. Hearing it creak can be a tease, but it doesn't really matter. --Blackboard 10:39, 16 September 2008 (BST)

---

Talking should not cost an AP

Timestamp:	Mousey
Type:	AP Modification
Scope:	Mostly Survivors
Description:	Basically i don't think talking should cost an AP.Lets talk some sense, Reloading a gun, walking, searching for stuff, can be considered quite a task in a real life situation.But maybe its just me, but i think that talking isn't that tiring compared to others.Look at Al Gore or even Former President Clinton, they can speak for at LEAST 30 minutes, how many words is that?Some people i think would rather have an infinite time to talk, plus they have a limit of 160 clicks of the website.Removing the 160 click limit when chatting wouldn't really matter i guess, since talking doesn't really affect the flow of gameplay.Last but not least, sometimes its just plain rude that when a conversation is getting along, and suddenly the person you are speaking to, or you, suddenly can't finish because you ran out of AP.

Discussion (Talking should not cost an AP)

You do realise this can't be done unless we want to increase the traffic and server load? Maintaining this game costs Kevan money, this suggestion would probably increase said costs. - User:Whitehouse 11:51, 15 September 2008 (BST)

If this was introduced i'd use my ip free character to spam everyone into oblivion just to prove a point.--xoxo 12:17, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Donations don't make your character immune to IP hit lmits; thy just give you 300 IP hits for that character. Real spammers would just use proxies.  Swiers 19:55, 15 September 2008 (BST)

This is not DnD, Speaking is not a free action. Communication is one of the key survivor advantages over zombies, you shouold not get it for free. Also, massive server load issues. Some people, such as myself, can and have ranted for hours in game and are limited only by our ap. Do not remove that restriction, or i shall launch such a rant, and the only way to shut me up will be to PK me. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:22, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Server load issues and spam issues. Trenchcoaters will spam the server to hell. Linkthewindow 12:24, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Also, dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:33, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Nothing for free. Zombie communication take 2, 3, 4 times as much AP to get the message across. Stop whinging and enjoy the very powerful communications tools survivors have. --WanYao 06:29, 16 September 2008 (BST)

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TalkingIsAFreeAction --Tselita 21:24, 20 September 2008 (BST)

---

Crutches (Or Crutch)

Timestamp:	Alex1guy 20:04, 15th September 2008 (BST)
Type:	New Item
Scope:	Survivors (Maybe Zombies)
Description:	Just something simple. A crutch, would be found in hospitals and be a basic meele weapon, like a hockey stick or something. I mean come on, they're peiecs of metal, they are the same an iron pipe. They could also make cool Role Play items.

Discussion Crutches(Or Crutch)

Phale.--xoxo 09:16, 15 September 2008 (BST)

The only problem I see with this is diluting search rates in hospitals. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:34, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Hi Iscariot :) The search rate dilution in hospitals could be fixed by having newspaper/scalpel search rates proportionally decreased at the same time as crutches are introduced so that it doesn't affect FAKs (if that's your only problem that you'd have with this) --Tselita 20:48, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Search rate "dilution" is a myth... Turn crutches off on your settings and nothing will change. Leave it on, and you just get AP-wasting extra spam, it does nothing to anything else. In event even, I don't like this idea enough to support its inclusion, it's just not interesting enough. --WanYao 06:31, 16 September 2008 (BST)

Turning items off on your settings doesn't take it out of the items searched. It just means you don't keep it when you find it. These are the items your character is currently in need of. If you untick a box, your character will automatically discard that item if they find one while searching a building. Search rate dilution is very real. Think about it this way - you have a drawer of red, white and blue socks. If you add in green, purple, and black ones your odds of getting a blue sock go down. But you are right that this is a damn dull idea.-- #99 ^DCC 08:41, 16 September 2008 (BST)

Search dilution is a myth... Assume: I have a 10% chance of finding Item A and a 15% chance of finding Item B. I add Item C, with a 10% find rate. Item C's find rate has no impact on the find rate of the other items: we now have the following find rates: A = 10%, B = 15%, C = 10%. The only thing that changes is that you find stuff, in general, more often. This is how I approach all new items and search rates... If a new item is added like the socks, sure, you're correct, obviously. But I never assume that's how it works; ergo, using my way it makes no difference to the old items' search rates. --WanYao 19:07, 18 September 2008 (BST)

Sorry, but how does Bargain_Hunting's 25% search rate increase work with that, WanYao? Is it distributed across the items available in that Mall store? Or does it increase the overall likelihood of a successful search, with the subject of that search determined by the relative search likelihoods between items? To work from DCC's example, is the search rate the likelihood of finding a sock in the sock drawer, or is it the likelihood of finding the sock drawer among all the other clothes drawers in the first place?

Another thing to note is that if Item C's find rate had no impact on the find rate of other items, it is conceivable that you would find multiple items in a single search. There is a correlation between search rates. -- Galaxy125 19:36, 18 September 2008 (BST)

WanYao – to the best information available, that is incorrect. According to the research at Search Odds, the chance to find an item and what that item is are determined via separate chances, i.e. when you hit Search in a lit PD, you have a 25% chance to find an item, any item available; if you find an item, you have k% chance to find a pistol clip, f% chance to find a flak jacket, and so on. Does nobody do even the most basic research any more? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:42, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Ok... then if that is case, Rev... the "myth" is confirmed... and I stand humbly (yeah right!) corrected. --WanYao 01:45, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Gah, edit conflict... anyways, actually the myth was the unsubstantiated story, and has been debunked once again. :P Now what was I adding again? Ah yes...
TL;DR: search rate dilation is very real, these guys did the maths.ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:52, 19 September 2008 (BST)

If/when the other weapons are made more useful, then maybe this would be something to consider. But the game is already cluttered with useless clutter weapons nobody uses in the first place.-Pesatyel 07:00, 16 September 2008 (BST) Also, you seem to be new so I'll tell you this ISN'T a suggestion, it is a "lets add this!", which isn't the same thing. A suggestion has stats we can dicuss. What is the damage? What is the encumberance? What are the search rates? Are they ONLY found in hospitals? That sort of thing.--Pesatyel 07:00, 16 September 2008 (BST)

The crutch would probably serve the same function as the fencing foil, the cricket bat, and the pool cue, which is nothing at all, unless you're a level 1 consumer. --JaredV 01:02, 17 September 2008 (BST)

The pool cue actually is slightly better than the other useless weapons, except it breaks after about 5 uses. If it was like the pool cue but -didn't- break, then the crutch would have a use... but then people would say no to it because it would nerf the pool cue :) --Tselita 02:55, 17 September 2008 (BST)

---

Recognize who broad casted the message on the Radio (Bad title, I know)

Timestamp:	Mianthadore 02:48, 15 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	View
Scope:	Everybody with a radio (Human and Zombie alike)
Description:	Well, it's simple. When you hear a radio message broad casted by somebody in your contacts list, you will 'recognize' their voice. It will look something like this... 26.70 MHz: "Uh, Hiya?"(0 seconds ago) You recognize PlayerX's voice Why? First off, it helps groups who choose not to metagame get there messages around quickly without the risk of receiving Falsified information (eg. an enemy pretending to be a member of their group). Secondly, It helps identify Radio Spammers. I think I Spelled recognize wrong, so please disregard that error if I have.

Discussion (Recognize who broad casted the message on the Radio)

We already have it in Peer-Reviewed. --Aeon17x 03:11, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Dupe? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:59, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Yeah, epic dupe. Been suggested many times before Linkthewindow 07:15, 15 September 2008 (BST)

I'd find you all the reasons this fails.. But Kevan purged the history.. I'm thinking this should make it to Frequently Suggested.. _■^■ 00:05, 16 September 2008 (BST)

---

Raise Ruin Initial Repair Cost to 5 AP

Timestamp:	Silisquish 23:53, 13 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Skill upgrade
Scope:	Decaying buildings, zombies with Ransack, survivors with Construction and a Toolbox
Description:	It costs zombies 5 aps of Ransack to ruin a building, which means they performed five actions to ruin a building. But survivors only need one action to undo the zombie's five actions. When you think about it, it doesn't make sense; how can survivors perform in one action what it took zombies five actions to do? Zombies are slow, but not that slow. Besides, in a siege if the building that is ruined is taken back the same day it was ruined, the survivor side actually gains 4 action points, as it cost the Horde 5 action points to ruin the building, but the Survivor side only lost 1 little ap to repair it. When a building is captured (ruined) by a zombie, it should cost a few aps for survivors to take it back (just like it costs zombies aps to take a building they've lost in the form of having to destroy barricades), and 1 ap just seems too meager. I know you'll have to clear the zombies to retake a building, but zombies also have to clear the survivors as well to retake a building

Discussion (Raise Ruin Initial Repair Cost to 5 AP)

I agree (it always used to take shorter to make a mess of my room than to tidy it up again), but I'm sure this has been suggested. - User:Whitehouse 00:48, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Good idea.-- #99 ^DCC 02:54, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Shrug. There was a time i would have agreed with this, considering ruin goes up so high it seems somewhat unneccessary. I mean the other day i spent 106ap repairing what took a zombie 5ap. If you want the survivors to have to spend 5ap or more to repair the building, hold it - simple.--xoxo 03:17, 14 September 2008 (BST)

It did not just cost that zombie 5 AP to ruin it, fuckhead. It didn't instantly get to 106 AP. That zombie had to keep survivors out of it FOR OVER 3 MONTHS. Your little just "hold it" comment is insulting because you know it isn't that easy. Unless the building fell into a worm hole and only re-appeared on the map the day you saved it that zombie had to actively protect that building and the ones around it, too. I can't speak for the Eastonwood Ferals, but I can certainly tell you that the Dead have spent a hell of a lot more than just 5 AP to keep DH ruined. Even when the ruin update wasn't in play it wasn't fair that 1 AP could undo 5-6. -- #99 ^DCC 06:26, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Yeah, i'm, aware of that and completely agree. Ruin should be able to go indefinitely high if the zombies involved put the work into holding it. On the other hand i don't think the price should automatically start at 5ap.--xoxo 07:56, 14 September 2008 (BST)

What's wrong with 5 AP? That is less than a syringe. It will take a week before the ruin gets over a CR amount of AP. So, what's wrong with starting it at 5? -- #99 ^DCC 11:15, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Nothing's wrong with 5ap, but considering if i don't get onto the ruin quickly it will blow out to more than 5 in a matter of days, i have to be carrying a 16% toolbox to be able to repair in the first place AND any zombies have to be killed at a minimum cost of 10ap (as well as the 7ap i spent searching for that syringe and the 1 ap i spent scanning) it's a fairly ap intensive operation. IMO it's just not an aspect of the game that needs changing.--xoxo 12:54, 14 September 2008 (BST)

I AM SO SICK OF SURVIVORS WHINING ABOUT THE FUCKING 16% TOOLBOX. You only need one. That leaves you 84% encumbrance to do whatever the fuck you want with. 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 !!!!! Not to mention that you CAN GO OVER 100% AND STILL MOVE! Once again - the weapons, FAKS, needles, dildos, cum rags, furry porn, and NAMBLA pamphlets that you survivors all carry only take up under 6% each (and that's just shotguns! - every thing else is around 2%)! Oh and any zombies have to be killed you mean the ones that are actively keeping you out of that building spending their AP ? You think they should cut you a break on repairing? -- #99 ^DCC 06:34, 15 September 2008 (BST)

No, i don't think repairing survivors should be cut a break on repairing, however i don't think it should be made any more difficult either.--xoxo 08:33, 15 September 2008 (BST)

It hasn't been suggested to my knowledge, Indeed, And Yes, Hold it. Still, In a siege.. Maybe it should see voting? _■^■ 05:07, 14 September 2008 (BST)

This has been suggested before the update. Before I'd have agreed with you, however it's not a pure AP deficit, as most survivors aren't carrying toolboxes when clearing buildings, it doesn't matter that trenchie A eliminates all the zombies in a building if he can't repair it himself. That allows the ruin cost to increase through stupidity. If the survivors ever got their act together, then maybe this would need resuggesting. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:28, 14 September 2008 (BST)

While I don't want to take credit away from the zombies for their accomplishments, fact is that the super-high ruin costs are mainly the result of mass survivor laziness and stupidity. Survivors abandoned the NW, and with no good reason -- not after June or July... And, while toolboxes are not that bad, they are the penalty survivors pay for making repairs. And that 16% does matter... And, fact is, this suggestion is already in effect, to some degree -- because many ruins do last several days, there are very few 1 AP repairs anymore, not where there is a large zombie presence. Thus, this is unneeded. --WanYao 13:32, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Yes, Iscariot is right. This has been suggested various times. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:34, 14 September 2008 (BST)

I repeat: I AM SO SICK OF SURVIVORS WHINING ABOUT THE FUCKING 16% TOOLBOX. You only need one. That leaves you 84% encumbrance to do whatever the fuck you want with. 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 !!!!! Not to mention that you CAN GO OVER 100% AND STILL MOVE! That 16% is nothing. -- #99 ^DCC 06:34, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Who was "whining"? What I said was it makes a difference. That's all. Sheeeeeeeeeesh, have a beer, man. --WanYao 07:57, 15 September 2008 (BST)

16% equals 240 (potential) points of damage in pistol clips. On average that's enough to kill two flakked 60 HP zombies. That's hardly nothing. No, it's not crippling either, all my survivors carry one around, but it reduces one of the biggest advantages survivors have; being able to stock up. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 10:28, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Wan, that was just a C&P. I wasn't saying you were whining. Midianian, you don't hear zombies bitching about the encumbrance rate of the ... the... you know ... that thing... that thing that makes them have an attack that does 5 points of damage. Oh WAIT! THERE ISN'T ANYTHING! There's not a damn thing a zombie can do that will make its' attack do 5 points of damage. Damage to characters, I might add, that can easily get body building and a flak jacket. So don't expect me to cry about your fucking 16%. -- #99 ^DCC 08:49, 16 September 2008 (BST)

It's really quite simple; 16% ≠ 0%. 16% = 16%. It's nothing to cry about, but it is an inconvenience. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 18:36, 16 September 2008 (BST)

Simple is: you don't want to be inconvenienced by the 16%? - play a zombie. :D-- #99 ^DCC 13:39, 17 September 2008 (BST)

Before the ruin update, I'd have backed this 100%. But I'm with the folks saying it's unneeded at this point. I hardly ever see 1AP ruins either. --Jen 22:08, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Aye, agreed. Any building which has just been ruined is likely to have a stack of zombies inside for long enough to increase the effective repair AP cost, if not the cost to click the "Repair Building" button. IMO, the mechanic of escalating repair costs makes the status quo balanced. Not exactly the same, as some people seem to think balance requires, but balanced nonetheless.ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:01, 15 September 2008 (BST)

It IS an alright idea, but its just not necessary. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:28, 15 September 2008 (BST)

---

Breakable, Repairable Door Handles

Timestamp:	Silisquish 23:53, 13 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Environment interaction, barricade
Scope:	All, especially low-level zombies
Description:	This is a suggestion to essentially allow zombies without Memories of Life to spend Action Points to attempt to break open doors by smashing at the door until the door handle breaks. (If they can smash generators, why not door handles?). Door handles will take 3 hits to smash (as they're not as strongly built as generators). When the door handle is broken/destroyed, another door handle must be used, along with a toolbox and the construction skill, to fix the door. Search rate: it shouldn't be too hard to find door handles in mall hardware stores, warehouses (it just so happens one of the things they were warehousing was door handles for hardware stores), and factories could have a decent search rate, junkyards might also yield some door handles. They'd have a 2% encumberance. But why do this? Because it adds to the realism and variety, and not being able to open doors to get at your food is frustrating. It would cost maybe 6-12 aps to break a door but at least it would give you a chance to feast. And it would not be much of a threat to survivors who would either sleep in barricaded buildings or be Hiding In Plain Sight if the whole 'burb is ruined, in which case leaving the door open is a wise choice.

Discussion (Breakable, Repairable Door Handles)

Bad idea.-- #99 ^DCC 02:54, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Suggestions that try to bypass MoL have been made many many times. Iscariot will rail at you about the duping later I'm sure. And making the mall a source for another damn item is what we are trying to avoid. The cost of the AP to break a door seems to be the same as taking down 2 levels of barricades at least. How is that fair? -- #99 ^DCC 02:58, 14 September 2008 (BST)

As DCC says, this is a fairly massive dupe, also adding this new item is going to serious dilute search rates for the actual items survivors do need. If we dilute them the idiots will just go and get more clips and the stupidity will continue. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:23, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Just allow babah zombies to smash through a door as if it were a regular barricade. Simple. Everything else is not KISS-y. --WanYao 13:35, 14 September 2008 (BST)

I would probably support zombies being able to bust through doors at 10% of normal barricade attack chance but frankly i think the whole mechanic needs a re-evaluation which is beyond the scope of acceptable changes to the game at this point!--Honestmistake 20:48, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Truthfully, does not make sense. The door frame is much more likely to break then the knob. and i doubt that people would be able to fix the knob that easily. impractical. stop posting 5 ideas a day, and just wait and work on the basic logic of these things. - tylerisfat 21:55, 14 September 2008 (BST)

---

New Zombie Skill: Eviscerate

Timestamp:	Silisquish 23:53, 13 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies and their victims
Description:	A special clawing attack with a 10% accuracy penalty (40% with maxed claws) where the zombie attempts to claw at the victim's insides to get a taste of those delicious, nutritious innards. Can only be used on survivors with less than 25 health and deals 3 damage, but also lowers the amount of healing that survivor will get from First Aid Kits down to 5, even with First Aid Training, until the survivor gets healed in a powered hospital by someone with the "Surgery" skill. This is because first aid kits are not very effective for treating injuries to internal organs. So someone healing the victim would get a message indicating they heal some of the damage but can't heal the internal bleeding without surgical instruments. And zombies would get a message saying something like: You claw at xxxx's insides for 3 damage, causing internal injuries. or just You claw at xxxx's insides for 3 damage if the victim has already gotten its guts clawed up. Zombies with Scent Blood will see an asterisk along side either the victim's name or the victim's displayed hps to show he's already been gutted. Victims will see A zombie gutted you for 3 damage! You've sustained serious internal injuries. This would make the Surgery skill, and powerd-up hospitals more useful. And it is realistic, as zombies don't always wait for their food to die before digging in. The effects of evisceration would continue even after death. But I should also point out that FAKs would still be able to cure eviscerated survivors of their infections, and this skill would not really harm low-level survivors who don't have First Aid Training and can already heal for only 5hp anyways.

Discussion (Eviscerate)

Crappy Idea-- #99 ^DCC 02:56, 14 September 2008 (BST)

The main problem is that powered up resource buildings tend to be overcaded by scared stupid survivors. This would hurt the new players that don't have free running. -- #99 ^DCC 03:03, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Yeah, what the user above me said. Also very few players have surgery (it's a crappy skill for medics (limits XP growth) I don't completly hate the suggestion, just needs quite a bit of work first. Linkthewindow 07:06, 14 September 2008 (BST)

This is overpowered. Its cool you tried to make Surgery and hospitals more important, but beyond what DCC said, it completely negates a skill and that is rarely a good idea. Going from XP view, few players would want to get First Aid as it is, let along Surgery since BOTH limit XP growth (and I'd say First Aid does more than Surgery).--Pesatyel 08:33, 14 September 2008 (BST)

This is a myth. This First Aid slows down growth thing... Without First Aid you burn through FAKs twice as fast and have to go searching for them again. With search rates just under 50% in a mall, and if you're searching from a Hospital way less.... you're shooting yourself in the foot by doing twice the searches without First Aid. Unless you like running back for FAK scrounges every day and a half. No, First Aid is full of win from an AP efficiency POV -- and even babah harmanz need to conserve their AP. And, trust me, I learned this the hard way -- in practice with a new alt... not based on some abstract and oversimplified and decontextualised math formula that doesn't really work in the real world. --WanYao 08:04, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Wan, you were actually healing to you know, heal and RP. These people are talking about grinding out levels. In which case, the only good skill is Bargain Hunting or whatever it is called. That way you can find more FAKs.-- #99 ^DCC 08:54, 16 September 2008 (BST)

We should not be penalising survivors for moving into dead zones. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:29, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Pointless over-complication that solves no "problem" and doesn't add much to the fun... --WanYao 13:36, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Ewww....i can barely understand this stupid idea. All these other people are right, especially wan ;) --xoxo 13:57, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Way too complicated and does nothing good. -tylerisfat 21:52, 14 September 2008 (BST)

---

Permanent Ruin

Timestamp:	Janine 17:18, 13 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Ruin Change
Scope:	Survivors who repair and Zombies who ruin.
Description:	After decaying for months on end, ruined buildings have become unrepairable. Buildings that have reached over 100 ap to repair are ruined completely. The buildings can still be barricaded as normal buildings would, but search rates and the inability to free run would remain the same. Hopefully this would spur survivors into repairing deserts and zombies into actively protecting and defending ruins.

Discussion (Permanent Ruin)

I don't think permanent ruin is a good ides, all it takes is an organised group of zombies to perma-ruin the Necrotechs one at a time until it ends up like monroeville is. There's is also no balance for this zombie bonus, imagine you could perma-barricade a building, zombies would be unable to get to survivors and probably go on strike (again). --Kamikazie-Bunny 17:31, 13 September 2008 (BST)

Unfortunately, Kamikazie is right. A big horde could travel round the city, perma ruining buildings.UPDATE: Harmanz already spend too much time moaning about ruin, this won't pass, and the brainless harmanz would have shit fit.--Drawde ^{Talk To Me! DORIS Red Rum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing!} 17:36, 13 September 2008 (BST)

I must admit as a survivor I do dislike the new ruin mechanics, requiring more effort with time is fine but expecting me to not play for two days and risk death for one building is too much. I play one d/n character per city and I don't meta-game, as a survivor I try to survive so dying for a building goes against that. If there was a +100AP zombie action I'd only use it when I knew I wouldn't be back for the next few days. --Kamikazie-Bunny 17:54, 13 September 2008 (BST)

A suburb full of 100AP ruins is enough of a perma-ruin in itself. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 17:57, 13 September 2008 (BST)

It's thinking like yours and Kamikiaze that makes those 100 ap ruined buildings in the first place. Either fix it or stop whining about it. And buildings could never be "permanently barricaded" as buildings would need to be cleared of zombies to have barricades built and those barricades couldn't be above VSB or survivors couldn't use said building.--Janine 17:59, 13 September 2008 (BST)

Not whining, and I am fixing them. Just woke up today from a two day hibernation period. So, kindly shut up and fuck off. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 18:07, 13 September 2008 (BST)

Not repairing +100AP buildings and not repairing buildings at all are completely different scenarios, I don't tend to repair buildings that cost 50AP or more, but I do repair everything else where practical. Also, a little update for you, you can access VSB+ buildings with a little known skill called Free Running --Kamikazie-Bunny 18:23, 13 September 2008 (BST)

YOU CAN'T FREE RUN INTO RUINED BUILDINGS. DUR. Secondly, I just assume that everyone who replies on a Ruin suggestion is either whining about the mechanics, which you did by suggesting that 100 ap is already permanent, or somebody who is tired of the people whining about the mechanics.--Janine 18:37, 13 September 2008 (BST)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you when you said "buildings would need to be cleared of zombies to have barricades built and those barricades couldn't be above VSB or survivors couldn't use said building" I was thinking of perma-ruin Or Perma-cade not perma-ruin AND perma-cade. I think the new mechanic has a bit of a Marmite effect on people, they either love it or hate it. --Kamikazie-Bunny 18:58, 13 September 2008 (BST)

You should pay more attention. I didn't say that a 100 AP ruin is permanent, I said that a suburb full of 100 AP ruins is pretty much equivalent to having perma-ruined buildings. This wouldn't ecourage survivors to repair buildings, this would only encourage them to permanently abandon suburbs that have a number of perma-ruined buildings, which is already quite superbly achieved with the current ruin mechanics. This would only make the situation worse. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 19:33, 13 September 2008 (BST)

A suburb full of 100 AP ruins is not the equivalent to having permenantly ruined buildings. Sheesh. It's just not -- because they can be fixed. Daker is no longer in 90+ range all round because people have been there fixing the ruins. Which they should have been doing before.... but they weren't, because they pretty much decided to permenantly abandon those suburbs. But that was a player choice, not a game mechanic choice.

In any event, this suggestion is a bad idea because it's the polar opposite of those ruin nerfs, therefore it's grossly unbalanced. The game should never force away a dynamic environment. Ever. You should have as much control over the environmment as your actions, your coordination with others -- in conjuction with that of your opponents -- creates. Anything else is very, very unfun. This suggestion is unbalanced, and anti-fun. --WanYao 21:25, 13 September 2008 (BST)

NOOOOO! Don't take away my ability to repair lovely 100+ ruins!! It wouldn't spur survivors to repair anything -- there's too many lazy people out there. All it would do is frustrate the handful of us who find it fun to go into areas that no one else seems to care about, and fix the place. Why would you ever WANT there to be an area of the map that's stuck permanently one way or another? That's like saying...oh...I dunno. That if survivors manage to keep a building unruined for three months, zombies should never be able to ruin it. NO! --Jen 22:31, 13 September 2008 (BST)

Permanent effects are way too radical and will never work. When a building or suburb is ruined for good, survivors will compeltely ignore it as there would be no hope in recovering the area and thus it would have no use for them. Zombies would then ignore it as well, since there are no brains there. So you would effectiveley be destroying sections of the Malton map. You could just as well have said "after 100 ap a building/a suburb of buildings gets deleted off of the map" it would have done the same thing as no one will play in those perma-ruined areas. ---Silisquish 00:02, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Oh wait, I read your suggestion wrong (or more accurately, barely read it at all); perma-ruined buildings could still be cadable, etc. so it wouldn't be that bad. But still, as it's permanent, eventually we'll end up with all/most of Malton perma-ruined. And if you can cade perma-ruined buildings, it seems quite illogical that you can't cade non-perma ruins --Silisquish 01:24, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Will be too unbalancing for survivors. Even though a 100ap ruin is (pretty much) permanent-making that official will just piss off survivors. Linkthewindow 07:08, 14 September 2008 (BST)

100+ AP ruins are NOT fucking permanent. Get off your ass and fix some. Sheesh. --WanYao 13:38, 14 September 2008 (BST)

I meant permament in that way-no-one is ever going to get off their ass and fix them. It's not worth it.Linkthewindow 22:33, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Oh i'm sorry...did i just hear someone say J3D's awesome? Coz he totes is eleven.--xoxo 13:45, 14 September 2008 (BST)

And not like the age 11, like the number.--xoxo 13:46, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Simple logic fails to register with this linkthewindow person. Therefore, I'm done with this suggestion. --WanYao 08:07, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Even as a hardcore zombie, I am not for this. I don't think we need anything that will effectively make the map smaller by taking buildings out of play for one side. -- #99 ^DCC 08:56, 16 September 2008 (BST)

---

Circus

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 16:58, 13 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Building
Scope:	New addition to Malton/any new city!
Description:	The circus is a new building that the residents of Malton (or any city it gets put in) can visit, visitors can except to see the finest gathering of clowns, jugglers and sword swallower's this side of quarantine, in addition to these magnificent acts are terrifying new additions that transcend the very boundaries of life and death. If the show happens to unsettle you feel free to purchase one of our cuddly toys to keep you company as the night draws in! (New additions to Urban Dead have been bulleted). Circus Large Building (2x1) No doors: but can be barricaded. Internal descriptions: Unpowered: "The big top lies in darkness, " Powered: "Coloured spotlights highlight the empty ring." Items Fencing Foil Mobile Phone Tool box Stuffed Animals Juggling Balls (novelty/unique item) (Survivors can either give their balls to another survivor or zombie, or if none are present, juggle them themselves (doesn't remove it from their inventory). Despite having 0% encumbrance, only one set of balls can be held at a time.) Clothes Face A big red nose Head a bright <red/green> wig a <black> top hat Neck a <polka dot> tie Shirt a <white/red/orange/yellow/green/blue/pink> T-shirt jacket a dark red waistcoat Trousers a pair of baggy trousers a pair of <black/white> trousers Boots a pair of oversized shoes a pair of <black> boots

Discussion (Circus)

Too long. And silly, anyway. There are so many other new kinds of buildings that would make more sense than this. And, circuses are mobile, by definition. And, all the animals are dead. At least, in theory. And, Malton PETA would not approve of the exploitation of the animals. --WanYao 21:27, 13 September 2008 (BST)

Dude, I swear, the horses are still alive. And the WTFCentaurs. -- Galaxy125 22:00, 13 September 2008 (BST)

No. Different buildings are needed before this Linkthewindow 07:10, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Different buildings? Like what? What is needed is to make the CURRENT buildings more useful. 70% of the buildings in Malton are, effectively, useless (and jumps to 82% once you get the unexpendable items).--Pesatyel 08:40, 14 September 2008 (BST)

That what makes many of the current buildings useful. Paradoxically, they are useless-so they make good safehouseses. What I meant is that other buildings should be implemented first for flavor (airports, etc) Linkthewindow 22:35, 14 September 2008 (BST)

I know that is what you meant. But the inherent problem with incorporating new buildings is that ALL updates follow linear progression. What I mean by that is how would a building suddenly become an airport and nobody noticed? One bulding can't suddenly just become an entirely different building. I understand the "useless" buildings make good safehouses and the like, but even with all the recent changes, I don't think the game has changed enough from the mall-centered gameplay that has pervaded the game since the introduction of the two mall skills. Most survivors, unless I'm mistaken, STILL hang out in the (non-overrun) malls on a relatively permanent basis. So if we can make the other buildings more useful then "just a safehouse", we wouldn't really need NEW buildings (even if we could incorporate them). At least not for awhile.--Pesatyel 03:27, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Best. suggestion. EVAR!--xoxo 08:46, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Whilst some buildings would probably be better to put in first; although I actually want the river. I believe your meant to keep suggestions independent, saying X should be before Y isn't appropriate; even if it is logical. As for how it got there, as WanYao mentioned, MOST circuses are mobile, I hope it's not too much of a stretch for the circus to travel into malton, set up and get eaten leaving behind their equipment. Or if Kevin really wanted he could make it a timed event, the circus arrives for two weeks then leaves again! --Kamikazie-Bunny 13:40, 16 September 2008 (BST)

I was sure this was a dupe. Its all fine though, apart from people handing me their balls (shivers). --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:41, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Not sure how to barracade a tent... plus where would it go (unless Malton's quarantine zone expanded) - I do like the clothes though - especially the clown nose. But - I like the airport idea even better if we're suggesting adding new large buildings, especially since airports would have places to get all sorts of stuff in them (guns at security, first aid, fuel cans, newspapers, all sorts of stuff in Lost and Found, etc., and can be barracaded a lot easier than a tent. Zombies outside a tent? Or a single person with a knife outside an EHB-entrance tent? Rip! Barracade ignored. --Tselita 23:12, 16 September 2008 (BST)

Huh. Has anybody ever suggested varying possible barricade levels for different buildings? -- Galaxy125 03:23, 17 September 2008 (BST)

What do you mean? --Tselita 13:42, 17 September 2008 (BST)

Airports would have to have a metal detector barricade that all characters must spend AP removing their shoes and all items from their pockets. (hope you don't get stuck behind a trenchcoater!-- #99 ^DCC 13:49, 17 September 2008 (BST)

Yeah, but they're great places to search for grenade launchers and wide variety of Japanese swords. --Blackboard 15:40, 17 September 2008 (BST)

---

Zombie Plant

Timestamp:	Silisquish 19:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	balance change
Scope:	Survivors, Italian plumbers
Description:	I propose that after 7 days of a building being ruined, a zombified plant will grow in it and guard it against those pesky survivors. This plant will inhabit and occasionally peek out of the building's plumbing systems to chew at their meals. At higher levels of decay the plant will grow big enough to be able to spit fireballs at survivors. Their bites and fireballs will do 50 damage, so than small, meek little survivors with no body building will die in one hit, but big and muscular survivors will need two hits to die - the first one greatly weakening them, and oddly enough, reducing their height by half.

Discussion (Zombie Plant)

Not unless we can find flowers which gives us fireballs to shoot at those plants. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:24, 12 September 2008 (BST)

I 2nd that!--Kamikazie-Bunny 17:01, 13 September 2008 (BST)

This is a great idea! (Shhhhhh! zombies come with Kuribo's Shoe as a drop down clothing item but most of us pick combat boots to be fair.)-- #99 ^DCC 21:55, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Do want. *Starts drooling over the plant, thus it suddenly grows larger..* _■^■ 03:41, 13 September 2008 (BST)

I'd like to have some of those mushrooms you're on. --Aeon17x 07:35, 13 September 2008 (BST)

There must now be a template made! "This user supports the addition of Triffids to the game!". Someone go make it, now! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:51, 13 September 2008 (BST)

I can't find a good photo.. _■^■ 19:36, 13 September 2008 (BST)

Try this. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:33, 14 September 2008 (BST)

If you want a rationale, it isn't very hard to see (no, no, no). Stop and think it over, pal. The pic sure looks like Triffids to me. The pic sure looks like Triffids to me. The pic suuuuuuure looks like Triiiiiiiffids to meeeeeeeeeeeeee. -- Galaxy125 16:00, 14 September 2008 (BST)

I was searching for something a tad more.. Retro, Like Mario? _■^■ 23:49, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Oh my god, don't stop now! -- Galaxy125 01:53, 15 September 2008 (BST)

lol trolling. Shoo. _■^■ 03:01, 15 September 2008 (BST)

My first post in this thread paraphrased the musical 'Little Shop of Horrors.' My second quoted the film 'The Little Shop of Horrors' upon which the musical was based. The latter, I assure you, is far more retro than Mario. Incidentally, the second line was delivered by a very young Jack Nicholson. -- Galaxy125 03:12, 15 September 2008 (BST)

I always thought the line was "the guy sure looks like plant food to me"? -- #99 ^DCC 08:58, 16 September 2008 (BST)

Hence "paraphrased." -- Galaxy125 19:24, 16 September 2008 (BST)

I'm temporarily coming out of haitus to do this... Here.

	Scary/Cute Zombie Piranha Plant! Oooh!
	This user supports Triffids in Urban Dead.

--Tselita 23:26, 16 September 2008 (BST)

Perfect! Just what the game needed to counteract all these demands for ruin nerfs. -- Adward  12:34, 13 September 2008 (BST)

---

Unstable Barricades

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 10:17, 12 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Balance Change.
Scope:	All players
Description:	I logged into my character in Creedy today. I had been succesfully revived after being PK'ed yesterday, so I thought I'd hunt down the guy who did it and give him a piece of my mind. So, I search the fort, and find that someone's over-barricaded the armoury. Again. This pissed me off to no end, and I thought about what could be done about it. Now, if you're making barricades out of everyday materials, there's only going to be so much you can stack before the barricade becomes unstable and a bit wobbly, eh? You try stacking office materials and make the whole thing stable. Anyway, I was thinking that perhaps if you took down a level of barricades, and the barricade was already at HeB or higher, that there would be a 10% chance of it losing two levels instead of one. After all, you can only put so much stuff there before things get wobbly from the weight and all that.

Discussion (Unstable Barricades)

In other words... about a 2-2.5% increase in overall probability of taking down barricades. Sounds reasonable, although the flavor doesn't really fit well. --Aeon17x 10:56, 12 September 2008 (BST)

OK then, how about After spending a long time in Malton, both survivors and zombies alike have caught on to the idea of taking out the support objects used in large barricades, as this may cause other objects to shift and fall as well. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 12:09, 12 September 2008 (BST)

It has never made sense to any of us zombies that it is just as hard to take down a loosely barricaded door as it is an EHB door. You expect us to believe that we can thrash a pile of rubble larger than ourselves for several AP doing damage but when it gets down to a board leaning against a door we are helpless? I like the idea of this, but the actual numbers and such may need work. -- #99 ^DCC 13:40, 12 September 2008 (BST)

The more objects you stack against something, the more likely that you'll knock away something thats supporting something else when attacking it. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:46, 13 September 2008 (BST)

Without barricades Harmanz are dead so you have to be VERY careful when tampering with them. While i think the associated logic of cades needs an overhaul and the flavour text rewritting so as to be more believable I don't actually think there is too much wrong with the actual mechanics... apart from those fu**ing indestructible doors!--Honestmistake 14:20, 12 September 2008 (BST)

That's why I limited the bonus to HeB+ barricades. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:46, 13 September 2008 (BST)

Honestmistake, think outside the barricade!! And... if you wanna make this apply to zombies, as well, then I might be game. But barricades are the zombie's nemisis, not the survivor's. --WanYao 15:06, 12 September 2008 (BST)

See the flavour text I added in response to Aeon17x's comment. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:46, 13 September 2008 (BST)

"hide in plain sight"... no thanks, i will stick to my heavily barricaded target rich areas if you don't mind. At least then if they do get in they might eat someone else and i can piss off sharpish or at wait for a revive ;) Seriously though my 2 biggest bugbears in this game are "invincible doors" and "uber freerunning". Both are essential in some respect but both help to make the game dull... sadly every suggestion to fix them has been shot down (often for very valid reasons!) At the moment barricades are little more than nuisance to an organised horde and almost insurmountable for ferals, any (even slight) alteration will either totaly screw ferals or will severly screw harmanz.--Honestmistake 15:42, 12 September 2008 (BST)

The fact that your little story is about a survivor in fort creedy who got PK'd shows how silly your understanding of the game is. this suggestion, regardless of any merit in the hope of reviewing barricades that was accidently included, is obviously just you reacting to someone else's playing style that you don't like. and it has never been ironed out that barricades are a single, large stack of objects. many people, discussing it on this page, have come to one conclusion that its a series of barricades, around the whole building. thus, the zombies and survivors alike are already aiming for the sturdy parts as best they can, but its still hard work. while i do think barricades are not how they should be, this is not a solution, either in form, or in flavor. - tylerisfat 02:57, 13 September 2008 (BST)

---

No Reading in the Dark

Timestamp:	--Nny The Person 00:25, 12 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Ruin Change...thing
Scope:	Poetry loving Survivors
Description:	This is a pretty small idea, so I'll get this over with. How is it we Can't see dead bodies, see graffiti, or be able to aim as good, yet we can read fine? In Dark buildings, We should not be able to read books/poetry books. It would just fit in with it better. First Suggestion, Spam me gently. (Also, If someone could get rid of the Keep/Kill thing, thanks. :p)

Discussion (No Reading in the Dark)

.....wow...I have nothing snarky to say so I am going to wait for Wan..Chaplain Drakon Macar 00:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Sure, why not --silisquish 02:04, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Good for both flavour, and a loss of the ability to gain xp in that certain way while more "protected" in a dark building. I'ed keep it.--G-Man 02:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)

This is not a dry run for voting it is for discussion. -- #99 ^DCC 02:59, 12 September 2008 (BST)

1. Keep - Makes sense to me -- Galaxy125 03:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)

   Wow - are you a mucking foron? Did you miss the big text that said where the votes "go"? -- #99 ^DCC 03:42, 12 September 2008 (BST) Non-Author Reply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DCC (talk • contribs) 03:42, 12 September 2008 (BST).

You expect me to flame a good idea like this? Wow, get with the program, mate. See, this is not spam. You therefore have NOTHING to worry about from us alleged "trolls"... It's the suggestion spammers who are the REAL trolls...

Anywaaaaay... this is a fantastic idea. It's minor, sure, but it addresses an illogic in the game pefectly. Practically an automatic keep. --WanYao 15:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)

I'm curious. Does anyone still waste AP to read? I stopped after the first few months of playing. Once I realized it wasn't like Moria and the scrolls. I wanted books to summon monsters or something. -- #99 ^DCC 15:29, 12 September 2008 (BST)

I'll read every once in a while when I don't have anything vitally important to do with my APs. --Jared^{Talk W! P!} 17:43, 12 September 2008 (BST)

it used to be advocated as a bona fide "safe" way to level up. sometime pre-dead, i remember a couple of people on Brainstock still seriously advocating reading as a way to level up! insanity. i tried it at first, and realied really quickly how utterly useless it was. --WanYao 19:46, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Some of us like reading. Also, you want to stop people reading because they can't find dead bodies, but you can accept that they can find a nice and sturdy piece of furniture and add it to the pile in such as way that it structurally strengthens the barricade in the same amount of darkness? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:38, 14 September 2008 (BST)

Indeed. If there isn't something gnawing on my extremities. "Waste"? Also, I'll look into the remaining Library and Museum. _■^■ 05:15, 21 September 2008 (BST)

---

Rethinking Ruined Building Decay and Repair

Timestamp:	Silisquish 00:05, 12 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Change Skill Effect
Scope:	Ruinous Zombies, Constructive Survivors
Description:	Reading the discussion on Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP by Deyo, I thought about an alternative way ruined buildings could work that might leave both breathing and breathing-impaired sides happy: Instead of having ruined buildings require 1 AP extra to repair every day, indefinately, I propose making it cost 1 AP to repair per hour (or 0.5 per 30 min.), to a maximum of 45 AP. Now Survivor players, you're thinking, 1 AP per hour? How unfair is this?! but with a limit of 45 AP the final bill would never reach astronomical heights and one lone survivor could be able to fully repair it and escape (but you couldn't really barricade it). Now Zombie players, you're thinking So you're basically debuffing Ransack? Yes and No. You read the debuff, here's the buff: because buildings will accumulate repair costs 24x quicker, you'll be able to do a lot more damage by ruining multiple buildings quickly and repeatedly. Survivors will have to work together and retake, cade and repair buildings faster to make sure they don't get overwhelmed with 45 AP ruined buildings (so, it would still take some teamwork to achieve, as only one person repairing leaves the building vulnerable to further ransackings). This will force survivors to keep an even more watchful eye out on their neighbourhoods for ruined buildings. As a side-effect, during a siege this will slow Survivor's advancement even more when regaining grounds than the old Ransack skill.

Discussion (Rethinking Ruined Building Mechanics)

Another Ruin nerf? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! Stop suggesting nerfs to ruin. If survivors cared they would go and fix it instead of whining about it and trying to change it through suggestions.STOP SUGGESTING RUIN NERFS!--Janine 01:07, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Please explain to me how one-AP decay per hour is a nerf? Especially during sieges. --silisquish 01:50, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Maybe the fact it only goes to 45? --Nny The Person 01:53, 12 September 2008 (BST)

It goes to 45 in less than 2 days, as opposed to 6 weeks with the current system. How many ruined buildings outside of ghost towns do you see with a 45 ap repair bill? I'm surprised, I was actually expecting the harmanz to be against this --silisquish 02:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)

First of all - THIS IS A 5 MINUTE A DAY GAME. Forcing players to have to log in obsessively like you do just to keep a building from reaching your ungodly 45 AP in less than 2 days is stupid. Second, the ghost towns have such high repair costs because the zombies there ACTIVELY keep survivors out, but your idea punishes them by capping the repair cost. Third, nothing in this game (except AP recharging) is BASED IN REAL TIME! The survivors can't even organize when they have DAYS to fix up a repair you expect them to be able to whip up a plan in hours? And fourth, just to be DCC you're a FAG!-- #99 ^DCC 03:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)

1)Who said you have to log on more than once a day? 2)Yeah and once someone repairs a building, poof! there goes months of work keeping humans out. With this suggestion, survivors might make more attempts at recovering ghost towns, but it would be almost infinitely easier for zombies to re-ruin restored buildings 3)Decay is already based in real time. My decay system could tick along with the AP system doing 0.5 AP per tick. And yeah, some buildings might get maxed AP but someone can still repair them and AP out safely. Maybe tweak it to 40 AP max if people really can't. 4)what's your point? --silisquish 04:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Strange, in the other suggestion, you said: So for 1 day's worth of AP a survivor can undo a month's worth of damage and still be able to get away. Seems you agree with me --silisquish 04:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Seems you can't fucking comprehend. I was bitching about a suggestion that made repairing severely ruined buildings something that could be done in less than the daily 50 AP. Exactly like this suggestion does!!! Except this one tries to be "balanced".

It says, "Hey look, the repair costs are up to 45 AP!!! I mean 45!! That's a lot! That's almost higher than we can count!"

And the smart zombie players are saying, "Wow! that's still under your daily 50 AP and still less than a lot of the buildings in the NW. Go fuck yourself"

This suggestion is about rushing to a reasonable cap that won't really hurt the survivors at all. Why not say the cap is 75 AP? Why does it have to be under 50? Oh wait, here's why:

And yeah, some buildings might get maxed AP but someone can still repair them and AP out safely. Maybe tweak it to 40 AP max if people really can't. (my bold) That's the part where you admit your suggestion is worthless and are just trying to make it seem like it should appeal to zombies. And if you can't see my point then take your head out of your ass and read it again slowly.-- #99 ^DCC 14:00, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Dumb survivor repairs building alone and escapes. Zombie comes back, and ruins uncaded building again. And I said 45 ap, but it could be 40ap, or 50ap. The point is one survivor can't repair and cade at the same time--silisquish 19:15, 12 September 2008 (BST)

I just pointed out that zombies could "win" the game by going suburb to suburb destroying every NT building, killing people with toolboxes and ruining buildings with toolboxes (unless junkyards have toolboxes) as it would quickly take a large amount of aps to repair everything. And you think this is... a debuff? Over the long term it's a debuff (if the building is ruined for more than 45 days) but we'll be able to mass-ruin everything. And I'll ask once again: how many ruined buildings in populated areas do you see with a 45+ ap repair bill? --silisquish 19:22, 12 September 2008 (BST)

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow are you new to this game!! The closest anyone has come to "winning" is when The Dead (led and) inspired all the other hordes to kick the shit out of humans and get the population of survivors down to 39% (by mostly killing every mall almost simultaneously ironically) and if this ruin update had been in play then survivors would be an endangered species now. You can ask your question all you want - it doesn't mean anything. I could ask how many repaired buildings do you see in the NW. What's your point? Oh, when humans are around buildings they can fix them. Brilliant! There are buildings over 45 AP because of the dedication of zombies to keep it that way. Stop trying to change that. -- #99 ^DCC 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)

ANY LIMIT TO RUIN IS EFFECTIVELY A NERF! Keep this in mind. Also this isn't a survivor vs. zombie type of thing. Suggestions should be based on a perceived unbalanced game condition and a remedy. The only thing you suggested is nerfing ruin completely and making deserts impossible for zombies to maintain. I'll leave the rest of this argument about how lazy survivors are and why buildings get 85+ ap repair cost to Wan Yao.--Janine 02:38, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Any limits to ruins cost is effectively a nerf, but any increase in speed of decay is also a nerf against survivors. What I'm basically proposing is changing the way Ransack works, making it a more effective short-term tactic, but less effective long-term tactic. (It seems unfair that you have to wait weeks/months to get a good amount of decay and then in a day with just a few survivors you have to start all over again, why not speed up the process) As for lazy survivors, I don't know honestly... that's why I'm asking, how many ruined buildings in populated suburbs have you seen that has a repair bill of over 45ap? --silisquish 02:57, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Don't try to fix what ain't broken. Your super-rapid decay would create far more problems than it attempts to remedy -- and it would eliminate those awesome triple-digit ruins that a lot of us have a blast finding and repairing. NO NO NO. The whole map would start to look the same again. :( --Jen 05:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Perhaps Kevan could find a way to make those buildings with repair bills above 45ap unaffected by the change, or at least have their costs stay put--silisquish 19:22, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Oh noes! I just realized there's a huge flaw to this that could lead to the extinction of the harman race: Rampaging mega-hordes could ruin whole suburbs in their path and survivors would have a hard time restoring whole suburbs with factories, NT buildings down. Eventually, everything except junkyards would be ruined. But I just thought of something else: Make zombies able to ransack ruined buildings for 1 extra AP per day (max 2 AP decay/day if a zombies perform 1 ransack on the building every day). Because ransack as it is now seems underpowerd to me. Before I post yet another suggestion, anyone got any other ideas for improving ransack? I think I'll wait a little bit in case if I think of something better. Another alternative would be for the starting AP cost to repair ruined buildings to be something like 5 AP --silisquish 05:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Holy shit! you finally said something smart! Of course, it was statistically bound to happen (1,00 monkeys typing on typewriters and all that...) Another alternative would be for the starting AP cost to repair ruined buildings to be something like 5 AP This is a good idea that would balance with the cost of ransack/ruin and doesn't have a shot in hell of passing. -- #99 ^DCC 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)

fuck the decay nerfs, already! ALL OF THEM and get off your ass and earn yourself one of these funky templates, you lazy whinging wankers...

{{{name}}} repaired {{{building}}} for {{{many}}} AP.

--WanYao 15:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)

And afterwards... DON'T LET IT GET THAT BAD! Ever again.... It's your own fucking fault the NW is in such bad shape. Up the level of your game, already. Getting out of Creedy or Dowdney might be start in seeing how the game is played by the rest of us. --WanYao 15:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Who are you talking to? Anyways, 100 ap repair bills look sweet, but they take 100 days to accumulate. As soon as the humans take repairing buildings seriously, we'll probably never see 100 ap repair bills again. Not that it matters much as I now think this might be too powerful for zeds --silisquish 19:30, 12 September 2008 (BST)

I'm talking to you, and everyone who keeps suggesting Decay nerfs. Also, considering that still, in spite of all this, only a handful of people are up there dealing with the problem... once we get bored, i am sure it'll be another 4 months before it's done again... --WanYao 19:48, 12 September 2008 (BST)

It's not really a nerf as much as it is a modification. Both sides are going to see it as a nerf if they think that way. And how well ruined is the NW anyways? I've been playing only for a few months, never visited those places. The reason why I suggested this in the first place is because I don't think most ruined buildings will be able to decay long enough to seriously deter survivors but I could be totally wrong--Silisquish 20:00, 12 September 2008 (BST)

The median repair for the NW (until these assholes started suicide runs) was 45 AP with the non resource buildings easily in the high 80s. Basically, the entire NW started decaying the moment the update was applied. -- #99 ^DCC 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)

The NW was abandoned even more fully than usual post-March of the Dead. As survivors huddled in the East, moaning for zombie nerfs. The update simply reflected in concrete #s what was already happening for a long time. And, DCC's numbers are pretty accurate, I can attest to them from experience. Although, many TRPs were ruined from day one of the update and never repaired, i.e. at 80+ when the "assholes" showed up... ;) Showing how utterly ABANDONED the region was. And, thing is, zombie #s have been fairly low -- low enough that there was no need for it to get this bad -- for a long time. Which is why I have no sympathy for ruin whinger. None. --WanYao 14:29, 13 September 2008 (BST)

Sounds like, despite being able to undo weeks/months of defending a decaying building from humans in a day with a small team of suicide repairers, Ruin is still working the way it's supposed to. So my suggestion is n00bish and redundant --Silisquish 16:36, 13 September 2008 (BST)

---

Scavenging Version 2

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 14:40, 11 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Skill change.
Scope:	Survivors.
Description:	Scavenging would replace Bargain Hunting as a Skill. Scavenging gives a +10% chance for a successful search in ANY building. Advanced Scavenging (sub-skill of Scavenging) Costs: 100 points Each Powered Building has a new option to do a focused search. A building will have a drop down menu of every item you can find in it, and you can choose what you want to look for. You have a flat 5% chance to find the item. Unpowered buildings have no option at all to do a Focused Search.

Discussion (Scavenging Version 2)

Still no. Give it up already. Go get drunk, or do some productive volunteer work, or something. --WanYao 15:43, 11 September 2008 (BST)

I think it would look a little something like this:
File:Focused.jpg
Shame about the high failure rates though ... -- #99 ^DCC 21:06, 11 September 2008 (BST)

Funny thing is... Those who think we're TROLLS... Go look at posts by me and DCC... Actually count the posts where we offer something constructive... And put in their correct context the non-constructive posts, i.e. we're dealing with a thoroughly retarded idea and/or people who refuse to listen to constructive criticism. The numbers might surprise and enlighten you... Then tell me: who are the real trolls??? I'm not whinging, I'm just sayin'... And... strange bedfellows, these times make... :P --WanYao 15:32, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Yeah, but only on the wiki and most likely only on T:S. I see you in the Hills and troll code or not I'm killin' ya. :D -- #99 ^DCC 03:11, 14 September 2008 (BST)

I <3 my Bargain Hunting. --Jared^{Talk W! P!} 00:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)

I think even with 5% search rate it's too powerful, because if I can choose what to look for anywhere, I could hide in a lit bank where zombies rarely break into, and search for that genny or that 1 piece of equipement I need (toolbox, flak jacket, phone...). In about 20 APs chances are I will find it. So instead of running around to find the best place to get a knife, or having to travel far away from a siege to try and find a new generator, I could just use this skill and everything I need is at my disposal. (Then again isn't that how Malls work? Heh...) --silisquish 00:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Well I was thinking you could only do a focused search for things that that building already provides and nothing else. So a Bank would never really have the option since I don't think you can find anything in them anyway. So Hospitals would only have the option to focus search for FAKS/Newspapers, PD's for guns/ammo/Radios/flak jackets/and Flare Guns.--Zombie Lord 17:21, 12 September 2008 (BST)

In that case, what would be the point of advanced scavenging? If I'm in a hospital searching for FAKs I'll get a better search % with the regular search than with this 5% advanced scavenging search. --silisquish 19:28, 12 September 2008 (BST)

---

Bargain hunting only works in a powered mall block

Timestamp:	Aeon17x 12:34, 11 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Skill change
Scope:	Survivors in malls
Description:	Does what the title says. The search bonus from bargain hunting should only take effect when there is a powered generator in the mall block. Reason one: you should have a lot more light than usual to determine where to best find the supplies you need in the middle of a hundred other people in the mall. Reason two: the higher-tier skills of First Aid (Surgery) and NT Employment (NecroNet Access) both require power to use. Reason three: even without power, search rates within a mall with the current Bargain Hunting is still ridiculously high. With the reworked Bargain Hunting skill, non-powered mall search rates are in balance with other TRP search rates like in hospitals... and of course generator killing turns into serious business. By the way, props to WanYao and karek for pointing out that mall search rates need a bloody nerf.

Discussion (Bargain hunting only works in a powered mall block)

shrug. malls are almost always powered and search rates take a hit without the power anyway to the point where the benefit of having power outweighs the hassle of installing a genny.--xoxo 14:07, 11 September 2008 (BST)

Yeah, most malls are powered anyway. At least the ones not under attack. I imagine this would be critical for malls under siege though, especially if the power keeps getting cut for hours. --Aeon17x 15:32, 11 September 2008 (BST)

Malls under serious siege have enough to worry about as it is. And if you have death cultists or even just parachuting CR targets, then this would actually make a big difference. It's also not logical: I can loot in the darkish just fine. And, finally, to toot my own horn... It's really only FAK search rates IMO that need nerfing. The rest is fine. --WanYao 15:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)

---

Scavenging

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 20:01, 10 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Skill change.
Scope:	Survivors.
Description:	Change the name of Bargain Hunting to Scavenging. Now the skill gives a flat +10% chance for a successful search in ANY building. What item you get would still be random as normal. Sub-skill: Focused Search Costs: 100 points Each building has a new option to do a focused search. A building will have a drop down menu of every item you can find in it, and you can choose what you want to look for, but you suffer a -10% to the base chance for a successful search. So it would be as if you didn't have the Scavenging skill at all, but still take a -10% to the unmodified base chance on top of that.

Discussion (Scavenging)

Bnhr. Doesn't seem bad.. Your thoughts? _■^■ 20:27, 10 September 2008 (BST)

So its a global 10% increase in search rates? Justification? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:36, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Well, There's that..

It would lower the Mall search rate to +10%, but let other buildings get the same. So instead of Bargain Hunting, you're just really good at scrounging things. Would make Malls less awesome fortresses, but make other resource buildings more useful so defensive battles would be more based on keeping lots of places open instead of just the Mall always being the best spot to search. That's the idea anyway.--Zombie Lord 04:03, 11 September 2008 (BST)

Would this skill also buff mall searches or just searches that are in regular buildings? Any search buff that includes malls will get spammed out of existence pretty fast.--Janine 22:15, 10 September 2008 (BST)

The author said ANY building. Malls normally get +25% with that skill. This suggestion CHANGES it to +10%.--Pesatyel 01:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)

The main problem with searching other buildings is that, except for PDs, Hospitals, NecroTech, Auto Repair and Factories, all the other places are pretty useless. Granted this MAY make them more useful (supposedly a generator can be found in the power stations, but there is no proof yet and a 10% bonus might be the proof necessary), your still limited in what you can FIND to begin with. I'd suggest ADDING some items to buildings.--Pesatyel 01:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)

So... +10% chance to find syringes in NTs? --Aeon17x 04:09, 11 September 2008 (BST)

Yeah. +10% to find anything in an NT, but you'd have the usual random breakdown to find DNA scanners and all that stuff. But since Kevan lowers and raises those NT rates to always keep the game in balance (which is gay), it probably wont matter to much.--Zombie Lord 04:17, 11 September 2008 (BST)

Overpowered survivor buff that negates all the randomness and uncertaintly in searching. --WanYao 11:22, 11 September 2008 (BST)

I guess you are referring to the focused search part. And I agree, that part will never pass. I even doubt the change of Bargain Hunting would pass. - User:Whitehouse 13:10, 11 September 2008 (BST)

So, in the eternal quest for searching for loot, this would de-emphasize the importance of malls (no longer +25%), but make all other decent resource buildings equal (+10% to all). This may mean that there would be less people in Malls, Malls would be less special. Which might mean less mall sieges. (or not... malls have almost everything under one roof). But it would mean that survivors would have a net search % debuff, as most would probably go to malls for searches, and they'd now have 15% less search probability. Considering the ratio of human:zombies, I'd be okay with this... "Scavenging" makes more sense than "Bargain Hunting" as a realistic survivor skill anyways --Silisquish 14:34, 11 September (BST)

I <3 my Bargain Hunting. --Jared^{Talk W! P!} 00:11, 12 September 2008 (BST)

I love Jared's Bargain Hunting, too! But I'm not ready for a commitment.-- #99 ^DCC 03:13, 14 September 2008 (BST)

I <3 this suggestion. --Tselita 23:38, 16 September 2008 (BST)

---

Expand Malton Map

Timestamp:	Silisquish 17:52, 10 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Map Improvement / add-on
Scope:	Survivors, Zombies
Description:	This would make for a lot of work on Kevan's part, but I suggest adding a suburb-sized corridor of forest to one side of the map's edge, leading to a small town or a cluster of small towns a few suburbs large. This new area would have limited resource buildings (because it's out in the country) and no NT buildings so that it would be very difficult to revive there. It would be ideal for experienced survivors willing to take on the challenge, as it would be a little bit like Monroeville only instead of permanent death you'd have to travel very far to get revived or face a long revive queue. Survivors who don't like this area or think zombies have an unfair advantage can simply stay in urban Malton.

Discussion (Expand Malton Map)

As much as I like the idea of introducing elemts of the Monroeville map to Malton, I just can't see it happening this way. Besides, we already have suburb sized survivor deserts - walked around Dunell Hills lately? Plus you couldn't justify it in game - why does the city have a line of forest nest to it? And why has the barricade zone been increased? --Necrodeus ^{T M!} 19:54, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Stay outta the Hills and off my lawn, you damn kids!!! -- #99 ^DCC 17:00, 11 September 2008 (BST)

It could be made justifiable: The quarantine walls in some places has been breached (and some sneaky zombies made it to Monroeville) so they rebuilt it, but as they were repairing they also decided to link up with a nearby village / a small cluster of nearby villages to make management easier. --Silisquish 14:19, 11 September (BST)

You've been Fallback'd. Still nice idea, And starting with T:S first. _■^■ 20:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)

I personally think that a new section to Malton would be cool, but there isn't a need really. right now, survivors can go NE if they want a challange. zombies can go east. as for justification, something like zombies overwellming the border and pushing into the country a bit before getting stopped again.--Themonkeyman11 03:35, 11 September 2008 (BST)

This already exists. We call it the North West. Now leave Pitneybank and go be challenged!--xoxo 09:27, 11 September 2008 (BST)

What J3D said, which is what I always say... Also, damn dupey, STOP SUGGESTING NEW MAPS ALREADY. --WanYao 11:24, 11 September 2008 (BST)

Oh noes! I was about to suggest reshaping Malton to the shape of a brain, to encourage more people to become zombies --Silisquish 15:22, 11 September (BST)

I didn't know this had been suggested already. Since Monroeville might close forever I thought I'd suggest to make a part of Malton Monroeville-y. But it is true that we already have a suburb with no NT buildings, Mornington. Still, it would be fun to have a wilderness area or two to break the monotony of buildings, streets and more buildings. --Silisquish 14:19, 11 September (BST)

---

Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP

Timestamp:	Deyo 20:57, 8 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	New usage of existing skill.
Scope:	Survivors in ruined, especially long-ruined buildings.
Description:	A survivor with the Construction skill and a toolbox has a new action button: "Repair One Day's Decay (3AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs, and reduce the building's number of days decayed, and the AP required to repair it, by one. This option would only appear if the building has been ruined for four or more days. This gives survivors who are repairing long-ruined buildings, such as forts which have been in zombie hands for weeks, an opportunity to coordinate and distribute the AP cost of repairs, which in some cases can drive a fully-rested survivor into negative AP. This coordination is extremely time-consuming, and thus requires triple the AP that repairing the building alone would consume. Eventually, this coordination would reduce the remaining work to a job that one survivor could finish, and that survivor can simply click "Repair" to complete the repairs. This suggestion is an attempt to build consensus for or against several previously Undecided Suggestions, such as Repairing Really Ruined Buildings, Ruin Repairing Change, and Partial Repair.

Discussion (Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP)

Oh look, a survivor complaining about how hard it is to coordinate efforts among several survivors. You have clearly never played as a zombie. Zombies have to coordinate efforts all the time to just get into buildings. You don't want to spend 40+ AP to repair a building? Get off your ass and take it back sooner. Organize a better defense of it in the first place. Changing the mechanics because some players suck at the game is retarded. Let's stop pitching in Major League Baseball because not everyone can get a home run. Let's make it like T-Ball. If the game is made easier for THE MAJORITY OF THE PLAYERS that will really make it fun for the minority! -- #99 ^DCC 00:21, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Sometimes, when I read your replies, I wonder which game you're playing. Just a heads-up, this is the suggestion discussion area for a browser-based casual game about humans and zombies called Urban Dead. Some people have commented that survivors, despite outnumbering the zombies, have Rambo syndrome and never cooperate. This suggestion would give them an option to cooperate, though at a higher total AP cost than sacrificing one human to repair the building and then reviving him later, which requires no cooperation beyond standing at an RP and saying, "Mrh?" Deyo 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)

No, Dago, this suggestion will make it easier for strafing repairs without danger to the survivors and therefore completely nerf the ruin update. You seem to forget that there is no mechanic available to a zombie to speed up the AP needed to repair a building, so ideas like this that cost low AP to undo something that only time can change are stupid and horribly unbalanced. Using your numbers - 3 AP will remove 2 APs worth of damage. So,if a survivor has 40 AP to spend that is 13 clicks which equals 26 AP. So for 1 day's worth of AP a survivor can undo a month's worth of damage and still be able to get away. And you want to make this so more than one survivor can repair a ruin like this? The current system is much better because it is all or nothing. But please whine about how I don't offer constructive criticism since you didn't bother to read any of the comments on the suggestions you are raping to make this abortion of an idea. -- #99 ^DCC 13:30, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Again, you add racial slurs and little else to the discussion. You also have a math error there. A building costs 1 AP per day to repair, so this suggestion would triple the AP required. A survivor who happens to have maximum AP can repair a month of ruin and get away, by spending 30 AP, and would not need to click anything 13 times. Also, you are correct that you don't offer constructive criticism, you only offer rage and spite. Deyo 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)

You have reading errors then. You posted "Repair One Day's Decay (2AP)". Clicking this button will consume 3APs One day's decay is not 2 AP like you posted in the suggestion. If you are saying that it triples the amount of AP needed to repair then spending 30 AP should only undo 10 AP worth of damage. This goes back to my whole point about making strafing repair runs and how it isn't fair that zombies can't undo the exact amount of damage that survivors can repair, but you seemed to have missed all that you fuckstick. (are insults better than racial slurs? I could call you a wop if you would prefer that.) You know, the only reason I add the slurs and insults is so people like you and Galaxy have something to latch onto and reply to since you obviously don't listen to reason or experience. -- #99 ^DCC 15:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Congratulations! You can spot typos and swear on the internet! I'm afraid I can only fix the first, though. Thanks! Deyo 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)

You can't even be bothered to proof read your own suggestion? Really now. How hard would that have been? It wasn't even that far into the suggestion. It was right toward the top. The fact that you didn't read your suggestion before you posted it also tells me that you didn't think about it too much and just hit SAVE PAGE. -- #99 ^DCC 17:40, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Maybe if survivors don't act like Rambo and actually did teamwork, this would be a non-issue. After all you only need three people tops to repair a building: one to search for gennies and fuel and install them (for dark), one to repair, and one to barricade. On the other hand it takes more than three zombies to take one EHB building with those same three survivors in it. --Aeon17x 00:53, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Actually, this suggestion would encourage teamwork. Deyo 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Therefore, you admit that survivors don't actually do much teamwork in the first place if they have to get a massive buff for them to get their asses moving to repair all those dark buildings. Quite a sad state of affairs, isn't it? --Aeon17x 12:55, 9 September 2008 (BST)

It is. Want to fix it? Deyo 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)

You do not solve social problems such as survivor laziness by changing the game's design; if you do that, all it would do is show that their laziness is perfectly fine, and that mocks all the organized effort zombie groups do just to keep your shit ruined. --Aeon17x 14:08, 10 September 2008 (BST)

I look forward to your suggestion on how to solve social problems. Deyo 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)

I look forward to you making a non-crappy suggestion. --Aeon17x 17:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Don't hold your breath. I would miss you if you died.-- #99 ^DCC 03:26, 11 September 2008 (BST)

Bitching about how hard it is for one group and how crap the other plays is hardly constructive now is it? The main use for this would not be for survivors to co-operate (it should be but wouldn't get used in that way) instead this would enable altruistic survivors the chance to slowly fix up a ruin without leaving them self out in the open! Sadly that very fact means that this would just attract hordes of low level zergs to gradually rebuild an area with less risk of needing revives :( --Honestmistake 01:11, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Yes, but at a higher AP cost than repairing and reviving. It gives survivors options, but doesn't take anything away from Zombies except for APs that would otherwise be used pumping shotgun shells into them. Deyo 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)

This isn't needed. shit, Fort Perryn was just taken back and it was ruined for a while (not as long as some buildings up north, granted). oh, and DCC: calm down.--Themonkeyman11 03:12, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Needed? Maybe not. But it makes sense, it encourages survivor cooperation, and it soaks survivor APs. All are things that both zombie and survivor players have said the game needs. Deyo 03:56, 9 September 2008 (BST)

How in the fuck is survivors cooperating something zombies need? When did any ZOMBIE player say they needed survivors to pull together? Survivors are really fucking lucky this game doesn't have perma-death and that the creator steps in to help them out when their own stupidity leads them to the brink of destruction. -- #99 ^DCC 13:39, 9 September 2008 (BST)

How long have you been around? Zombie players have been some of the main ones bit*hing that survivors are too damn uncoordinated, not that it would help zombies, but it would make the game funner to play. Not everything is about game-mechanics, and if there were no survivors left why would you play? Sounds to me you're putting down the game because survivors are stupid, yet are bit*hing they shoulden't be forced to be smart, like zombies are... and that my friend, is more f**ked up then any susgestion ever made.--G-Man 03:02, 10 September 2008 (BST)

I've been around awhile. The survivors being coordinated or not does not make the zombie aspect of the game "funner". And when zombie players bitch that the survivors suck it is because instead of trying to get together and work as a team they all just suggest buffs to themselves or nerfs to zombies to solve the problem. Buffing them unfairly does not "force them to be smart". -- #99 ^DCC 03:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Remember that what is fun for you is not fun for all zombie players. Some zombie players want to do something other than turn brainz into Mrh? cows. Deyo 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Enlighten me, Oh Zombie Master, what else a zombie can do in this fucking game. They can't spread zombie grafitti, play on the radio, or even hold IC conversations (since their alphabet is so fucking limited). They can't even get XP through any means other than hitting survivors (or other zombies). Other than killing what the fuck can a person that plays a zombie do? That's why it is so frustrating when assholes like you want to come along and make things harder on the few people that actually fucking play zombies in this zombie "apocalypse" game. Keep suggesting stupid shit and drive off the zed players. Then you and the rest of the dipstick survivors can have your little circle jerk in peace without those pesky undead. -- #99 ^DCC 15:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)

And we can have campfires and sing "Kumbaya". I'm glad to see you're keeping an open mind. Deyo 16:49, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Who said buffing them forced them to be smart? I said that a buff to save the population may be required to keep playing the game, while other zombie buffs may force (Able to kill easier is not forceful, as things take time to adjust and with survivors, no quick option is aviable to get back up that causes this lapse of time) them to be smarter, which would elimate the need for those survivor buffs to come into place. Instead of a structured and logical approach on why this is a bad idea, I.E. constructive critism^(this susgestion would counteract a zombie buff designed in a way to help towards this, much better then if this system was put into place), you b*tched about how survivors have it easy. I never provided support for this susgestion and yet you seem to imply I have? In all of this you managed to accomplish hardening the authors stance against the reasoning that this susgestion would be poor in practice, and therefore paving the way for simular susgestions in the future, or turning players away due to a hostile enviroment. Congrats, *Hands Clapping*, im sure they'll put your name in a plaque, on the UD wall for your contributions here today.--G-Man 02:00, 11 September 2008 (BST)

Ah, the snowball argument. Classic. And I laughed heartily when you said there must be a 'buff to save the population'... got a bit of messianic streak lately? --Aeon17x 02:07, 11 September 2008 (BST)

I didn't say "Must", I said may be "required", by which I mean at times of rediculous peril where the game may truly end. If the population can't adapt to a change and shows signs that they won't, and the game ends, then so ends UD (At least Malton in any true form), and has us all starting from square one on a system proven to fail. A broken system can get you farther then a failed system.--G-Man 02:57, 11 September 2008 (BST)

Standing Survivors : 14295 (61%) Standing Zombies : 9022 (39%) HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH SOMEBODY SAVE THE SURVIVORS! a buff to save the population may be required to keep playing the game They are in serious danger of overcrowding at the malls.

You said I didn't offer any constructive criticism. You are wrong. It's in there. You are also ignoring the fact that he said he took this idea from 3 previous ideas which one would assume meant that he FUCKING READ the other suggestions, but since he can't even be bothered to READ HIS OWN suggestion I doubt he did. In the other suggestions there are a lot of constructive criticism and comments. I am not "hardening the author's stance" by disagreeing with him. If I am then he is a stubborn douchebag that will continue to ignore reason and just throw a temper tantrum because he thinks he is right. We have had a few of those before and we nailgunned them.

I think we should turn newbies away from here. I think anyone that hasn't been playing UD for more than 8 months should shut the fuck up and keep their ideas to themselves. You can't contribute to the game if you haven't played the fucking game. And if you bothered to read my links above you would see my contributions to UD. They are much better than a shitty survivor buff suggestion that steals from 3 failed attempts before it.-- #99 ^DCC 03:26, 11 September 2008 (BST)

DCC, your a fucking prick. why do you treat this page as a place to insult and belittle others? really, i dont get it. is there actually a reason, or are you just an angry person whos missed taking their meds? i think it was decided that this suggestion sucks, and isnt needed. no need to continue to respond to everything the author says with an insult and justification as to why your right.--Themonkeyman11 04:01, 11 September 2008 (BST)

Wow DCC, Im beginning to wonder if you can read... I said "may be required at times", not that "it is needed now", large difference, my saying susgesting when the odds are against survivors, I believe that zombies need a few more buffs as it stands, because as you pointed out the numbers are very sad. Next critism mixed in with ten insults won't do anybody any help, except piss people off and have them pull reasons out of thin air to conclude that there way is better (Note yourself in your previvous comment, you have been harped on for your chosen response, and now this has turned into a conversation on your conduct in response to this sugestion instead of on the susgestion itself, perhaps we should continue elsewhere instead of wasting space here?). As well many people read other peoples susgestions and gain there own idea, and don't use spell check (I fall into that category, as im sure you noticed from "simular" and other mistakes). Oh and I did read the links, my oldest self happens to be zach016, here a bit over a year, if it would so please you to have my opinon count over your 8 month limit, I truly believe it woulden't make that much of a difference other then introduce those people of eight months on how to use the wiki at a further period of time, they would still quote old susgestions that failed and would have more time to come up with needless buffs that no one wants.--G-Man 22:09, 11 September 2008 (BST)

DCC, your a fucking prick. That should be you're by the way, monkey. And, G-Man, I can't even keep up with your fucking mistakes. I hope some day you become bi-lingual and one of those languages is English. These become conversations about my conduct because there isn't enough in the suggestion to support so it is easier to bitch at me. -- #99 ^DCC 03:29, 12 September 2008 (BST)

LOL, Coulden't come up with any actual reasons against me so you just put down my spelling/grammer? wow, you are good my friend, you are good.--G-Man 12:06, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Even better, I just pasted it into microsoft word, lets see, 9 words wrong spread throughout, and one grammer mistake ("peoples"). Whats worse the spelling mistakes are not that far off and readable. Guess the tech., don't no nothin bout them der spelling and what not. I will conclude with yes, the possibility exists that there are mistakes that can bypass the system, but its apparant its readable anyway.--G-Man 12:18, 12 September 2008 (BST)

Holy shit! You had to paste it into MS Word to figure out the mistakes? HAHAHA! Micro$oft can fix the grammar and spelling, but it can't point out the flaws in your logic. I'm still trying to figure out what you were talking about when you said there is a difference between "must have" and "required". Now that statement is a noodle scratcher!-- #99 ^DCC 14:14, 12 September 2008 (BST)

I would have figured you would realise the "may be" before "required" had something to do with it. Guess were all wrong sometimes.--G-Man 03:08, 13 September 2008 (BST)

amazing. even when im not in school, i have to deal with grammer and spelling bull shit. i could care less if im off by a few letters, as long as you get what im saying. you say that theres not enough in this suggestiong to critique so people harp on you about your attitude? works both way buddy. your right, theres not enough here to even bother with. but rather than just say that, you toss in a bunch of insults that just get people pissed off o that what we end up with is a pointless arguement. seriously, just drop it.--Themonkeyman11 23:21, 13 September 2008 (BST)

Quit having such a smarmy attitude and responding to everyone's comments with something that you seem to consider a comeback, Deyo. People are offering straight forward critiques of this, and all of the similar ideas. Reaching a compromise of idea's that were spammed or duped or otherwise rejected for their overall um-workability is still just an unworkable idea. The whole point of saying dupe is that what needs to be said has been said, and we don't need to hash over all the arguments all over again. its up to you to read through those and realize for yourself that it won't work, and try to come up with something actually creative or unique, otherwise you will simply be spam voted or dupe voted down. - tylerisfat 07:25, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Between smarmy and hateful, I'll take smarmy every time. Zombie replies to any suggestion that gives survivors any additional options have been akin to "YOU RAEPD MAI DOG!" I don't claim to understand it, so I attempt to defuse it by turning their own words against them. For example, you say that the ideas were spammed, duped, or otherwise rejected. This is untrue. The suggestions were all Undecided at the end of voting. My hope is that by making this option unattractive to all but the most organized survivor groups, it will be less offensive to the zombie players who seem to be the most vocal and impassioned contributors to this wiki. Deyo 05:42, 10 September 2008 (BST)

No. You say this is to encourage them to work together, but really, all this does is make it so that individuals can do the damage rather than groups, as currently exists. This doesnt in any way encourage group play, it instead encourages the opposite, lone wolf stupid survivor play thats been a huge detriment to the survivor game since the dawn of UD and its that attitude that has resulted in all the nasty holocausts performed by zombies. (I know, i helped plan several of them). You have an "Us versus Them" mentality, which definately isnt going to serve you well here.
You have probably already noted that they have stopped discussing reasonably and started flaming you. This isnt because they are zombies and dont want the humans to get new toys, this is because you are being, to put it mildly, a stubborn intransigent nullwit. You dont see the game from both sides, and therefore have a false impression of the other side. Having been zombie fodder, zombie leader, survivor, bounty hunter, pker and specialty reviver on various alts through the years, i can tell you right off the bat that this kind of suggestion is a bad idea, not as bad as your headshot one you suggested previously, but only because that was so horrendous that it makes Cthulhu look handsome by comparison.
What is needed is some way for humans to work together (Current ruin does this, with one person clearing, another fixing, and more cading). This isnt to make the game more fun for zombies, but so humans such as yourself stop bitching and moaning on this page for buffs every time som e treasured area goes up the creek without a paddle, or when some large area of the city is devestated by a huge confederation of allied zombies pulling a gargantuan cloud of ferals. The other, and more important reason follows on from that: If you know how to play properly, alone or in a group, you wouldnt get in that kind of mess in the first place. The only reason you think this is needed at all is because some buildings have ruin repair costs of as much as a hundred ap at this time (Best ive seen anyway), but you dont realise that its been ages since the zombies were even there, and the only reason the costs got anywhere near that is because you guys were fucking lazy.
Fortunately there are some groups out there actually getting off thier arses and fixing those regions so the braindead fuckwits that make up the majority of the survivor population have a place to live when the zombies come and rape the rest of the city out from under them. Those people fixing those eareas in the city are the real heroes, not the stupid twits who it in a buiolding as the horde advances shouting our orders to barricade and whatnot.
This suggestion simply defies the entire concept of making survivors play better and smarter, alone or in groups, encouraging retarded recovery operations that, while they would probably work, would leave the survivor population as the bunch of gibbering morons they are now. Forcing them to play smarter, like kevan forced zombies to do, is the only way to even out the game properly. Giving one side toys because its losing doesnt make things fair, it only shores up the innat unfairness already there.
Ugh thats long and rambling, but it has some key points in there you should consider. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 06:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Thank you for a considered and reasonable response, Grimch. Obviously, I agree with you that the game needs both methods and reasons for survivors to cooperate, but most of the suggestions I've seen to encourage, enforce, or enable cooperation have been unbalanced, overcomplicated, or both. What I had hoped to provide here was a mechanism for cooperation that was simple and balanced, allowing three survivors to do the work of one, bit by bit. You mention the 100+AP buildings in the north, and I'll admit that you've topped my record -- the worst I've seen was 86AP. Even that building would take more than five survivor-days work to repair cooperatively, whereas a single survivor could run in with max AP, repair it, and walk to a revive point two days later, where a second survivor could revive him, for a net cost of 110APs, or just over two survivor-days total. Those who vociferously decry this suggestion as a "survivor buff" don't seem to me to be looking at the hard numbers. A single survivor using this system to repair a 100+ AP building would be spending 4+ AP per day just to walk back and forth between a ruined and a barricaded building, and the remaining AP fighting back entropy two weeks at a time. That method would take four days to get the building down to a single day's repair job, for five days' total repair time. It's unrealistic to me to think that there's a survivor out there willing to spend weeks "Rambo repairing" ruined buildings. And if there is, what's the harm? If there are more than 20 buildings in such a state, they'll be decaying faster than he's repairing them. I remain unconvinced that this suggestion would lead to "vigilante repairmen". Deyo 07:26, 10 September 2008 (BST)

No, but if it leads to wasted AP, why promote it? Its a new but DUMBER way to do things. OTOH, theres a small but growing group of people who do "suicide repairs" just for fun and giggles, and they are kicking repair costs on those 80+ AP buildings back down to 1, and having fun doing it.  Swiers 18:58, 10 September 2008 (BST)

I like this idea, because it means that GROUPS of humans can work together to fix a building, instead of one person losing two days as an immobile stone while the building is zerged. 74 AP building... that means I'm a rock for a loooong time. Doesn't it make sense that the AP repair costs could be shared? Especially if it costs MORE AP to do distributed repair... it would be worth it if it meant the survivors could remain active. Just as a note: I play dual nature, so I'm aware of the ransack-ruin drama from a zed's point of view quite intimately. Qızılbaş 15:53, 10 September 2008 (BST)

You can pretty much do this right now. Again, you only need at most three people to repair any building block in the game, provided they have been emptied of zombies. What this only provides is a massive survivor buff against ruin by getting rid for a measly 3 AP to remove one ruin point while zombies wait for one whole day to achieve the same. --Aeon17x 16:00, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Mister Deyo, I suggest that you stop suggesting Survivor Buffs that nerf Ruin. Matter of fact I might suggest a new zombie skill specifically to double the ruin already in place in any building just so people stop trying to nerf ruin and darkness. Seriously buffing survivors to get them to work together is just a horrible idea. There are how many survivor groups already in place? If a survivor doesn't join a group, it's because most groups are the same. Not because they have no reason to join a group.--Janine 22:11, 10 September 2008 (BST)

I'm not even going to bother reading any of this. Go look at my user page. Read the report I cut and pasted... And look at the last of my wiki templates... And then go earn yourself one of those triple-digit repair templates which I made for the select few of us who are working together and doing it and dealing with it -- rather than sitting on our asses in Pitneybank and whining about how hard survivors have it because of ruin. --WanYao 11:28, 11 September 2008 (BST)

Wan, I'll give you the cliff notes: Stupid idea, pointing out the reasons, author ignores them and reacts with a smarmy attitude, I call a lot of people "fucksticks" or whatever the word du jour is, People rail against me for "being mean", and a lot of people get butthurt. You know, the usual.-- #99 ^DCC 03:29, 12 September 2008 (BST)

---

Loot dead bodys

Timestamp:	Nequa 03:02, 8 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Skill.
Scope:	People how like to steal.
Description:	Looting dead bodys is pretty self explantory. This would be a 100 XP skill that allows you to loot from peoples dead bodys with a 20% succes rate. When you loot a dead body you dont know what you will get, so you could get a genrator to a baseball bat. I will go into more detail if this idea is well accepted.

Discussion (Loot dead bodys)

Looting dead bodies = trading. And that one's been spammed and duped so many times it's in the do-not-suggest list. --Aeon17x 03:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)

except for the fact about wastin alot of AP, and not knowing what your goint to get. Yes it is like trading :Nequa 03:59, 8 September 2008 (BST)

This is a dupe, probably more than one. Taking items from people is a bad thing (and if it's magically conjured items looted from bodies, that's bad as well and likely a dupe too). --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Don't be lazy. Its obvious you think this is going to tank if you'll "go into more detail if this idea is well accepted". This isn't even a dupe since there is hardly anything IN the suggestion to dupe. From what I can tell, your suggesting that a single dead body of any level, regardless of the corpse's actual equipment, becomes an instant reservoir of unlimited equipment of any type. The fact it is 20% and "you don't know what you get" is irrelevant. This, as I read it, would make a single zerge (level 1 corpse) a perma-search item.--Pesatyel 06:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Dupe-o--bloody-rific and utterly spam-o-fucking-licious. Nequa, please just read and comment on other peoples' suggestions and comments for about a month -- at least! -- before suggesting anything more of your own. Seriously. --WanYao 11:33, 11 September 2008 (BST)

A. "Scope: People how like to steal." What?? B. Can I loot any dead body, or only my zerg alts? C. Can we tack on a way to also have sex with dead bodies? --Blackboard 15:57, 12 September 2008 (BST)

---

Improve the Banks

Timestamp:	Nequa 23:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Add to Bank.
Scope:	All people how enter a bank.
Description:	I belive banks need a improvement becuase of how usless they are. The only good thing I can think about them is becuase they are so useless no zombie would go near it, and it would make a good hiding place. But the problem is what good could a bank be in a place like Malton. The only iteam I could think about finding there would be a pistol and clip becuase of securtity guards. So if not iteams why not something else? What is a bank if not a big place to safly guard your valuables? Why not allow the bank to be more heavly barricaded or use the vault? This is still a rough idea, which is why I am talking here. Now, allow me to address two problems I can see with my idea. One is why you would even want to have a extra lelvel of barricades or a vault, the bank does not have anything. And the other being that you should not mess with the barricades, to those people look here [[1]]. and then go to "Max Cades Varies by Building Type" sujestion. As I said, this is still a rough idea and I would like inmput, and not just "this wont work so shut up".

Discussion (Bank improvment)

Don't banks go dark? If so why isn't that defensive buff enough?--Karek^maps?! 01:16, 8 September 2008 (BST)

I'm pretty sure the bank description says the vaults are already looted empty. --Aeon17x 01:24, 8 September 2008 (BST)

"The vault lies open, its contents either looted or transferred." thats what the text is. They make great forward bases and safe houses so they are fine as they are. Chaplain Drakon Macar 01:31, 8 September 2008 (BST)

I meant using the vaults as a defensive measure, any way banks are useless.Nequa 01:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)

They make great safehouses for PKers. --Aeon17x 01:46, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Okay go look at the 2-10 player sized groups. They thrive in banks. As a defensive measure they would be useless to begin with, as entry points, safe houses and lit, they keep zombie hordes down enough.Chaplain Drakon Macar 02:17, 8 September 2008 (BST)

True, but that is really it. You dont get anything from the bank or find any purpose for it execpt from what you already said, I just want banks to contribute to Malton in a bigger way.Nequa 01:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)

The same can be said for wastelands. You think we should plant flowers in them? I'm all for multi-colored wastelands... pink is nice... --Aeon17x 02:05, 8 September 2008 (BST)

We need flowers for wastlands dude, there a eye sore. But sersouly, ther is a diffrence between a wastland and a bank.Nequa 02:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Yeah, banks make great safehouses. --Aeon17x 02:35, 8 September 2008 (BST)

It appears this is a bad Suggestion, so I will think of a new one.Nequa 02:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Dupe-o-rific. And, some buildings are useless. Not everything is a TRP. This is a good thing. --WanYao 07:49, 8 September 2008 (BST)

A FUCKING MEN! Next thing these assholes will suggest will be clips and ammo found in the street.-- #99 ^DCC 00:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)

They can be, you just have a horrible horrible search rate for them though. Ive found a shotgun shell and a flare gun. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 05:13, 9 September 2008 (BST)

My Monroe PKer accidentally searched the street and found a rusty knife. I took especial joy in shanking people with it, and with luck they got tetanus. :> ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:32, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Maybe a powered bank will "close" the vault for ? hours a day (Random times), and anyone entering the bank can't enter the vault during this time, but can destroy the generator. If the Generator is destroyed the locks are once again unpowered and the vault opens up. Entering the vault costs 1AP and is treated as a seperate room (Outside cannot be seen, and it must be exited for 1AP before movement once again). No-one can leave the vault while it is locked and the vault cannot be entered if the building is ruined (Treated as one building once again, with anyone inside "pushed" out.--G-Man 22:00, 9 September 2008 (BST)

---

Switch FAK search rates between Hospitals and Malls

Timestamp:	WanYao 14:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	search rate adjustment for First Aid Kits.
Scope:	survivors
Description:	I can't find this in PR or Undecided, I looked. But if someone can find the dupe, please do. The suggestion: Reverse the search rates for First Aid Kits in Hospital and Malls, i.e. make it easier to find FAKs in Hospitals and harder in Malls. The rationale: Pretty self-explanatory, I think. Hospitals should be the easiest place to find/jury rig first aid kits. Not malls. This would also be a nerf to mall-centric play, which I don't think is a bad thing at all. But it's a highly logical nerf, and far from unbalanced or game-breaking. Extra details: As it is, you have about a 50% chance of finding a FAK in a drugstore. In a hospital, I'd guestimate it's about 20% (I might tally my stats and see... others' experiences would be useful, too). Perhaps an exact reversal isn't in order: say 25-30% in Malls, 40-45% in Hospitals, something like that.

Discussion (Switch FAKs search rates between Hospitals and Malls)

No to exact reversal, yes to your suggested percentages. That is because there are one hell of a lot of hospitals compared to mall squares. - User:Whitehouse 14:32, 7 September 2008 (BST)

We could apply the same logic to police departments and forts, in that they should have higher search rates for firearms and ammo there than malls. Not that I'm totally against your suggestion, but the way the game is designed it strikes me that Kevan intentionally made malls as the ultimate stronghold and as such they have the highest search rates for most items in the game. --Aeon17x 15:33, 7 September 2008 (BST)

Police Stations don't keep ammo lying around. It is actually a bad idea to have excessive weapons and ammo stored where you are holding prisoners. Wal-Mart has more weapons in the sporting section than my local police station. Police Depts. have armories and firing ranges to keep weapons. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 22:24, 7 September 2008 (BST)

Hospitals don't keep stockpiles of first aid kits, too (or at least here they don't). The fact that there aren't any ready-made FAKs and you have to build one in a hospital reflects that. And going by supply and demand the one which is filled up with all sorts of supplies would still be the malls, and that's why they have much higher search rates for everything than all other TRPs. --Aeon17x 01:28, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Malls would have First Aid Kits lying around in a drug store during the zombie apocalypse, Hospitals tend not to keep First Aid kits stockpiled.. If any at all, Perhaps a few.. A local sports store has far too many guns in plain sight right beside the doors. _■^■ 04:51, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Even if you think of FAKs are mostly badages and tape and some ointment... and I think of them as somewhat more complicated than that... Hospitals have TONS of this stuff stashed around. TONS of it. Everywhere. Moreover, they have all kinds of other medical supplies that you'd use in reality in dealing with the serious injuries that zombies cause: scissors, scalpels, sutures and needles, etc. etc. No, I just can't buy that you'd be able to get such a plethora of medical supplies in a Mall, but not in a hospital. It just makes no sense. And... Mall drugstores are overpowered. Period. 50% find rates for the second most powerful pro-survivor item in the game is just outrageous IMNSHO. --WanYao 08:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Utility != economics. Hospitals might need those materials the most, but since malls still face the greatest demand for everything it naturally follows that they will have the greatest supplies for everything. And no, mall drugstores aren't overpowered when you consider 50% of the zombie population tend to congregate within a few blocks of one. --Aeon17x 15:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)

You're whole view on this is based on cyclic thinking and is confusing cause and effect. If the malls weren't so resource independent they wouldn't need as many resources, just look at the Mall-Necrotech relationship. Right now malls are making hospitals, which are meant to be a major building, all but useless. That leads to a very simple truth, malls give FAKs too freely. Malls are too resource intensive and it's causing them to be too central to the game, zombies are near malls because all the survivors are in malls, all the survivors are in malls because they get freakishly good find rates in them. Claiming that you don't weaken that because of the thing it causes is completely backwards.--Karek^maps?! 17:26, 8 September 2008 (BST)

karek pretty much hit it right on the head there. in other words, malls are overpowered. and i feel the freakish search rates for FAKs are primary to that. meanwhile, find me a shopping mall that specialises in selling the man on the street medical supplies over consumer goods, and i'll drop this suggestion and revive all my zombies and use proxies to gather all my alts in Caiger and NEVER leave. CAIGAR 4 EVAR!!! --WanYao 11:39, 11 September 2008 (BST)

I agree with Wan Yuo, since it is a hospital of course you would be more likely to find a FAK there, and anyway Malls have alot of other stuff you can gain there.Nequa 16:10, 7 September 2008 (BST)

Uhm, it's "Yao", not "Yuo"... It's a lame old joke alias, but it's still my alias, and it means something... Anyhooo...

Cop shops are not armouries -- but gun stores in US malls practically are. So I don't really see a need to change that. You might disagree, but, c'est la vie. (And, yes, Malton is in the UK, but the city is a mix of the UK and US, it's not really one or the other in practice... so please don't go there... please.) Perhaps search rates in Fort Armouries need to be boosted, but this suggestion is not addressing that... And, yes, malls are supposed to be strongholds -- however, I think the 50% search rate for FAKs is absurd. Especially when it's so hard to find FAKs in Hospitals, by comparison. And, even if you nerfed search rates in Malls -- even hypothetically across the board -- they are still going to be "fortresses" by virtue of being "one-stop-shopping" places -- you can get everything you need at a mall other than syringes. That alone makes them very powerful... I, however, appreciate Whitehouse's comments about the fact that are more Hospitals than Malls, and the modified search rates ought to reflect that. --WanYao 16:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)

Then surgery becomes OMGMEGA-SUPER-GODLY. Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls. If it weren't for that I would support this, I don't think that this would change where people get FAKs from though which would mean it would just be a slight nerf to Malls and a big buff to Hospitals.--Karek^maps?! 17:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)

First of, sorry for mispelling your name Yao, and also you dont need a 50% chance for the hospital but maybe like 40%, or something that makes the hospitals be just as good as finding FAKs in the mall.Nequa 18:29, 7 September 2008 (BST)

Surgery.--Karek^maps?! 19:47, 7 September 2008 (BST)

I am well aware of what Surgery does. This is how likley you can find a FAK in a hospital and a mall drug store, from the wiki:Mall Drugstores (20%/34%), Hospitals (14%),. If they even made it 25 percent I would love it. Nequa 20:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)

"Right now Surgery pretty much only gives you a little more efficiency in hospitals than straight healing in malls" -- Well, maybe Surgery ought to be more than just "a little" better in a Hospital. I mean we're dealing with Surgery... in a hospital... come on! And to AHLG below, I don't want Hospitals buffed without Malls being nerfed at the same time. That's kind of the point... Also, I did search for a dupe, but couldn't find one... maybe someone else will? --WanYao 08:01, 8 September 2008 (BST)

The problem with that is that healing is already the most efficient thing in the game, even without surgery, with Surgery it's more efficient, buff surgery and it makes barricades look like a joke(surgery already does 10:1 vs zombie claws). The fix would have to be in weakening something unless you start buffing the ability to do damage.--Karek^maps?! 17:33, 8 September 2008 (BST)

I would agree with a small percentage increase in hospitals. But check for a dupe. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:19, 7 September 2008 (BST)

I'd support this as well. Malls need to be reworked a bit. The percentages are too high to warrant going any where else in the game for supply purposes. But I'd also support people who use the word "Glock" to describe their pistols have them blow up upon first use.--Janine 23:38, 7 September 2008 (BST)

Did you take Bargain Hunting into consideration? It is MORE than just a percentage switch. Hospitals also have newspapers where as Bargain Hunting automatically precludes such a find. A FAK in a hospital has a base 14% find, while the FAK in the mall has a base 20%. +14% if you have bargain hunting. This is according to the wiki (First Aid Kit). So which percentage is being switched? If is the base, then the hospital will be 20% and the mall will be 14%/28%. If it is the max, the hospital would be 34%, the mall would be 14%/28% (presuming Bargain Hunting). And, again, what about newspapers?--Pesatyel 06:21, 8 September 2008 (BST)

In actual fact, Mall search rates for a skilled Shopper are around 50%, or very close. And in a Hospital, a bit more than 14%, but not by much. Those stats on the Items page are grossly out of date and inaccurate. --WanYao 07:56, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Also... honestly, I don't know what you're getting at with all those numbers ... they don't make sense. FAK find rates in Malls would get nerfed, and %ages in Hospitals buffed. This would not affect the %ages for anything else, there is no connection. --WanYao 08:03, 8 September 2008 (BST)

What do you mean "no connection"? Yeah, I'm sure they are out of date, but they are intended to illustrate a point. Did you even check the link? The reason FAK find rates are so high in malls is because of the shopper skills. But the shopper skills do MORE than just buff the search. The also negate the search for useless items (ie. newspapers). Searching for a FAK in a hospital maybe be higher, with this suggestion, but you STILL find newspapers. Which you DON'T find in malls. So, again, why are you not taking into consideration the mall skills or newspapers?--Pesatyel 03:31, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Probably because you're misunderstanding what they represent. Not finding spam items doesn't mean the search rate is better for FAKs(what you want to find) it means that the search rate for what you don't want to find is dropped to 0. The only effect that would have is reducing encumbrance, which is already done by being checking it in your profile so you don't have to waste the IP hit dropping it. That there is no connection would be about right, buffing the search rate would still mean you're finding two FAKs in 3 AP even if that third AP digs up a newspaper every once in a while.--Karek^maps?! 04:16, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Pesatyel, what you're saying makes no sense. And the link you provided is irrelevant. Say in 12 searches right now you find 1 FAK and one newspaper. If I double FAK search rates... now, I find 2 FAKs and 1 newspaper in 12 searches. There is no connection between the two different items: the latter is totally unaffected by the former. Also, you don't find newspapers in Malls. Drug stores are spam-free FAKtories... And, the full set of Mall Skillz allows you (for 200 measly XP) to search these spam-free FAKtories at almost a 50% success rate -- a search rate totally unparallelled anywhere else in the game -- and an unparallelled find %age for the second most powerful pro-survivor item in game, after NT syringes.

Q.E.D. - In. Need. Of. Fixing. --WanYao 11:48, 11 September 2008 (BST)

I do think FAKs in hospitals need a buff but i am not certain of these numbers... lowering the find rate for malls so it tops out at about 30% would be good (sure the drugstore has pain killers and elastoplast but wide specrum anti-biotics and morphine? I think not!) Rather than a straight buff to the hospital search rates i would rather see the "medical" classes able to build Faks much like syringe creation. Searching already says something like "you gather supplies" so why not make it possible for those with a few pre-req skills choose to build those kits with some certainty (at a cost comparable to the Malls find rate) I would suggest 5AP for anyone with 1st aid and possible 4AP for anyone with a new skill :trauma nurse or some such! --Honestmistake 01:26, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Not a bad idea, but the proliferation of hospitals would mean an already prevelant item would become even more so. Malls are difficult to hold, hence benefits are found there. Drop the search rate in malls to closer to 30% and make surgery a 20hp hit, making holding a powered hospital useful, rather than powering one, hording FAKs and bailing.--xoxo 07:46, 9 September 2008 (BST)

---

Bloodletting

Timestamp:	Galaxy125 02:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	PKer buff.
Scope:	Survivors. PKers, mostly.
Description:	Update revivification syringes to allow for self-targeting. If used on yourself while infected, it becomes a "virus syringe," essentially transforming the item within your inventory. "Virus syringes" cannot be found or made except by infected individuals using revivification syringes on themselves. Like a normal syringe, they have a 2% encumbrance. If used on a survivor, there's an X percent chance that this new "virus syringe" will deal 1 HP damage to the survivor and infect the survivor, and a 100-X percent chance that the virus syringe will do nothing. X is the current HP of the PKer. "Virus syringes" do nothing against zombies. As it is highly corrosive to glass, the virus will eat through the syringe in a matter of hours. Therefore, "virus syringes" are removed from an inventory after 6 hours of existing. ...Because bioterrorism is an inherent part of the genre, and because it might entertain some PKers (and thus keep them from actual killing). Yes, the central idea is that the syringe is emptied outside your body, then you draw out your own blood, which contains the infection.

Discussion (Bloodletting)

I really wish I could be "constructive"... but this is just too retarded to comment on. Would you like some spam with that cheese, sir? --WanYao 02:11, 6 September 2008 (BST)

No, sir, nor did I want that frosty. "Retarded" is happily synonymous with "belated," so I'll assume you mean this suggestion is just a little behind its time. Speaking of which, some old-fashioned Lincoln logs might help with your construction problem. Spend a few hours with those and let your dad back on his computer, okay? -- Galaxy125 04:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Survivor infecting other survivors is a dupe, I'm fairly sure. It would be more greify than tactically useful for a PKer / death cultist, which is why (iirc) it wasn't worth keeping. Also, if you want to infect somebody, I fancy that axe you've been splitting infected zombie skulls (or the knife you just pulled from the guts of an infected survivor) would do the job rather as well as a syringe. So if infections COULD be spread that way, pretty much every sharp weapon in Malton would spread them.  Swiers 04:23, 6 September 2008 (BST) edit- also, if the infection were so corrosive, every blood stained weapon or piece f clothing in the city would crumble to dust.  Swiers 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)

It is a dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)

I'd been considering hydrofluoric acid for that, which wouldn't damage polyester clothes, although I am not a chemist. And blood-stained weapons tend to degrade in real life, hence the NRA's preoccupation with gun cleaning. That aside, do you think (at least) that the X% likelihood is an interesting mechanic that might be able to contribute to gameplay in some other fashion?-- Galaxy125 00:11, 8 September 2008 (BST)

PKing may be part of the game, but it does NOT need any emphasis. The game is, primarily, about survivors and zombies fighting each other with some PKing thrown in, NOT about PKing with some zombies thrown in.--Pesatyel 07:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)

I must agree with Pesatyel, this game is mainly about the Living VS Undead... with the abnormal ones mixing it up to make it more interesting (just like in reality). Emphasizing PKing just doesn't fit in well with me (although I really should "get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit" to quote Wanyao). --Kamikazie-Bunny 17:05, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Ehh, when I PK, I prefer "Bang. BANG BANG." And the kill is done. The idea would be something I would never use, and as Swiers stated, it's more useful for greifers then PKers like me.-- Adward  18:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)

K-B, I was referring to your comments, somewhere, which alluded to "pro-zombies" and "pro-survivors" as these inimical factions at each others' throats. That's an illusion, and a destructive one at that: most players play both sides, even if some do tend to focus more on one than the other... And most people judge suggestions on the basis of merit, not simply whether they help their "side". For example, this suggestion would be a giant-sized buff for my death cultists -- but that doesn't mean I support it... because it's just a griefing tool, and little more. --WanYao 18:35, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Does it grief more than, for instance, one of your death cultists outright killing someone? PKing is griefing, because survivors only ever want to be killed if they're feeding the hungry n00b zed masses. Sure, I can see survivors getting annoyed by being infected by a PKer, but it would be less aggravating than having to spend AP hunting a revive (which costs more AP than a FAK). Thank you for your constructive criticism. -- Galaxy125 23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)

NEEDLE SHARING IS NEVER SAFE! THIS SUGGESTION SPREADS HEPATITIS Z! Not to mention it's stupid as fuck and so out of genre gameplay here. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 23:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)

If you consider "fuck" stupid, does that means I can apply for a timeshare with your girlfriend? Although, for reference, I invite you to check out how the Fantastic Four were infected in Marvel Zombies. Or talk to me on my talk page and I'll happily spoil it for you.-- Galaxy125 23:57, 7 September 2008 (BST)

You see, this is what I am on about. I call your suggestion stupid and make a bad pun. You make a personal slur against my girlfriend. Then you bring up a comic book that isn't a survival horror comic, but just a zombie alternate universe. Yet you are still going to bitch about what I said even though you are the one making this personal. Get fucked and stop suggesting things. There that was personal. -- #99 ^DCC 14:32, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Marvel Zombies isn't a zombie alternate universe. The scene in question within the comic is not dependent upon any of the fantastical elements of the Marvel universe. I understand that you're unhappy that you unsuccessfully trolled for lols with 'NEEDLE SHARING IS...HEPATITIS Z,' so my deconstruction of your single-cheeked argument is just rubbing salt in the wound. But please, don't take it personally. I don't object to you, just your casual use of expletives. -- Galaxy125 17:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)

An alternate reality in which mutants are turned into flesh eating zombies, set on Earth-2149. In the end of the series, The Zombies eat Zombie Silver Surfer and get infused with the power cosmic. SPOILER ALERT! You are right. I didn't get as many "lulz" as your initial suggestion did. You bested me, good sir! I didn't add more than a quick comment because why would I need to repeat all of the other reasons that your suggestion is bad? Oh right, because you are a fucking retard. I forgot. And as far as my use of "expletives" that's a really bad argument seeing that this wiki is international and what is an expletive to you might not be one to me, you bloody cunt. And for the record, you couldn't handle MY GIRLFRIEND-- #99 ^DCC 00:38, 9 September 2008 (BST)

The only criticism you offered was saying that this suggestion is out-of-genre. That could've been done in six words, possibly fewer, without wasting your precious time with your, erm, "pun." And, moreover, you haven't yet discussed (or apparently thought about) that criticism, instead just quoting Comiczine where your own knowledge failed you. While I usually try to use the same profanity standards as the game, I take special exception with poor or improper use of words such as "fuck," as such tends to cause them to eventually lose their meaning. You, sir, are killing the English language. And for the record, I wouldn't want to handle your girlfriend. Ability is not equivalent to desire. -- Galaxy125 06:47, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Wait wait wait.. this stick is up your ass because I said more than "this is out of genre" and I called your idea stupid? You're all butthurt because I didn't like your idea and therefore by extension you? You resorted to personal attacks and some faggy rant about a shitty comic because I didn't come all over myself with joy at you sharing this EARTH SHATTERINGLY NEW (dupe) IDEA WITH THE UNWORTHY ?!?! Go cry more, you shit stain.-- #99 ^DCC 14:03, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Calm down. Pop some pills, you're wound too tight. Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic) thought that zombification was a positive evolutionary step, so he injected Susan Storm (The Invisible Woman), Johnny Storm (The Human Torch) and Ben Grimm (The Thing) with the zombie virus from that universe. After they turned, they infected him by eating parts of him. So, as there exists commonly-accepted (Marvel Zombies was very successful) prior art for my suggestion, it's in-genre. And if this rant sounds faggy, it's because I'm bisexual. And I'm annoyed that you keep dragging this discussion off-topic because you're incapable of supporting your argument. -- Galaxy125 18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Oh wait a minute! You are the guy that suggested horses. I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to comment on this suggestion. -- #99 ^DCC 03:48, 10 September 2008 (BST)

I has plastic syringes. Gawd. Oh, I forgot the part were I wake up when you starting moving and poking me, and I kick your ass.. _■^■ 00:02, 7 September 2008 (BST)

What about the part where zombies you are poking with a syringe do NOT wake up and kick... er, EAT your ass?  Swiers 21:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)

Recharging AP != sleeping. You might as well object to zombies not reacting to a knife or a shotgun, or humans not reacting to being clawed. It's how the game works. We've been over this before. -- Galaxy125 23:50, 7 September 2008 (BST)

Exhausted, you can go no further. That pretty much sounds like you are going to sleep to me. -- #99 ^DCC 14:17, 9 September 2008 (BST)

So having 0 AP = Sleeping. But Recharging AP != Sleeping. Because I could play the game without ever having to see that message, provided I logged out with at least 1 AP. These arguments have been made before. -- Galaxy125 18:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)

This has been suggested before. It's a bad idea, and encourages out-of-character play - ie survivors deliberately seeking infection and wasting syringes. Also, and I've said this before, there is a very easy way to harm someone with a hypodermic syringe. Empty out whatever's in it, fill it with air, and inject the victim to induce a potentially fatal gas embolism. Too overpowered to be considered in UD though. --Bob Fortune ^RR 23:13, 8 September 2008 (BST)

It's true, it was made for PKing. Thanks for the point about embolisms, I'd forgotten about them. Do you have any thoughts on the X% hit likelihood as a possible mechanic for a later suggestion? -- Galaxy125 06:23, 9 September 2008 (BST)

---

Latent Infection

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 01:14, 6 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Skill.
Scope:	Zombies, their victims.
Description:	After countless days of fending off the zombies, Malton's best and brightest have discovered an entirely new strain of the virus that the zombies have been using to infect their victims. Called the Sleeper strain, it typically has an incubation period of 6 hours before it becomes active, rapidly spreading through the victim's circulatory system, degrading living tissue at an alarming speed. The incubation period can be extended if the victim remains motionless, however. This new strain has proven to be almost completely immune to all forms of medicine when it is in its incubation period, however the virus seems to be easier to eradicate once it has 'awakened'. It can still resist medicine half of the time, however with surgery the virus can be always removed. Unfortunately, due to it's long incubation period, carriers of the virus often are not aware of when they have become infected until the virus begins to attack them. However, if the victim then gets bitten by a zombie with the more common strain of the virus, the Sleeper strain acts like an antibody, preventing the more common strain from taking hold. New skill: Latent Infection Subskill of: Infection Abilities: Takes 6 hours to kick in. Causes 2 damage per AP. Does not stack with standard Infection. 5% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd during incubation period. 50% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd when 'awakened'. 100% chance to be cured of it if FAK'd by 'Surgery' in powered hospital. Kicks in upon first movement after 6 hour incubation period. Victim not told of infection until it 'awakens'.

Discussion (Latent Infection)

in all this time have you ever even read the frequently suggested and D&DN pages? this is a dupey infection buff, the likes of which we've seen a bazillion times, and it has nothing special or redeeming about it except for a vry pointless 6 hour delay. such a delay is a) out of genre game-mechanically because time is abstract in UD b) griefs newbies c) griefs everyone who logs in only once a day d) it's overpowered -- zombies kill best by killing, and where they are weak, deal with that, instead.

i'm also sure someone will be less lazy and find about 30 dupes for this. please... GIVE IT UP ALREADY, blake. go design your own game, print up the rules, get together with some friends over dice and doritos. and give us a break. --WanYao 01:38, 6 September 2008 (BST)

It's... Urghh, it just over complicates a part of the game which doesn't need it, and is a huge buff to zombies. I'm a zombie player, but I don't like things like this. Just do what WanYao said and read the Frequently Suggested and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots. Seriously, just commit them to memory.-- Adward  18:03, 6 September 2008 (BST)

I'd vote keep. And ignore the Hive Mind Kool-Aid Drinkers, Blake. The D&DN page is for wimps.--Zombie Lord 13:38, 7 September 2008 (BST)

After three years they just now find an infection that incubates in 6 hours? somehow, that doesn't quite add up right in my mind. - tylerisfat 00:06, 9 September 2008 (BST)

---

Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab

Timestamp:	Deyo 19:50, 5 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Balance Change
Scope:	Zombies with Ankle Grab
Description:	The cost to stand up after a Headshot is 15AP, whether or not the target has the Ankle Grab skill. This suggestion is somewhat slanted toward a Monroeville survivor's perspective. In Malton, the survivor's best chance for survival is to find a location which zombies are not currently massing to attack. The only time attacking is a viable option is when zombies are already inside a strategic building, and the survivor wants to repair the structure. Even Trenchcoaters know that when the zeds open the doors, it's time to run. In Monroeville, there is never a time when attacking is the best choice. If zombies are near, the survivor runs or the survivor dies. Attacking, even with a massive numeric advantage, is ultimately suicide. Currently, a Headshot costs a zombie 6AP, or 15AP if it doesn't have the Ankle Grab skill. To kill a 50HP unarmored zombie costs a minimum of 8AP: Three to find three shotguns loaded with five shells total, and five to bring down the zombie. A more typical number would be 24 -- 6 to find a pistol and two clips, and 18 to fire the pistol at the zombie 16 times, reloading twice, with a 65% hit rate. This means that by purchasing four skills, with seven additional skills required to reach level ten, a survivor can spend 24 AP to take 6AP from a zombie who has purchased two skills. If the AP cost to stand up from a Headshot were 15 regardless of the Ankle Grab skill, the ratio would go from 4:1 to almost 3:2, still strongly favoring the zombie, but making offense a viable tactic in Malton. In Monroeville, the few who remain might actually come out and play once in a while, instead of running like hell when one zombie gets within a block.

Discussion (Headshot Ignores Ankle Grab)

Sure. I just fear its too late. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:59, 5 September 2008 (BST)

You understand nothing of this game. The AP balance on barricades is 4-1 in favour of survivors at best. Add to that the fact that it takes 35-40 AP for a zombie to kill a survivor, only for the victim to get a revive for 10 AP and the cost of the syringe search. Then factor in that any survivor who isn't killed straight away can be saved with a simple FAK. I could go on and on about this, but in reality I said all that was needed in the first sentence. And seriously people, stop whining about fucking Monroeville. It's a temporary city which is going to be shut down, which makes it entirely irrelevant when discussing the mechanics of Urban Dead as a game. --Papa Moloch 20:04, 5 September 2008 (BST)

"and the cost of the syringe search". I love how you abstract away about 10-15 APs and call it "balanced". Deyo 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)

And that only turns out to 20-25 AP, even if you factor in the syringe search. we could keep on discussing the maths of this, but Grim did it for us a few months back: read his rant on the revive imbalance. --Aeon17x 05:14, 7 September 2008 (BST)

Total Zombie AP spent (Including recovering from kills by Humans, thank you for padding your numbers): 483. Total Human AP spent: 322. Ratio: 3/2, compared to 4/1 for survivors headshotting zombies. Zombies win, again, by whining louder than the humans. I thought you were supposed to moan. In any event, thank you for showing us the math that proves that zombies have a massive combat AP advantage. Deyo 17:30, 7 September 2008 (BST)

You really haven't grasped this game at all. Allow me to explain: This is a game of 'classes' in which zombies are designed to kill whilst survivors are designed to, get this survive! Therefore zombies are the attacking class and survivors are the defending class. What a shock to absolutely no-one with a modicum of intellect then that zombies get a combat advantage whilst survivors get a defensive advantage. The greatest 'weapons' that survivors have in this game are revivification syringes, first aid kits and barricades, so whilst it may not appeal to your BOOM! HEADSHOT! masturbation fantasies to have killing zombies be far less important than barricading buildings, healing and reviving, that's the way the game works. Your job is to survive. --Papa Moloch 08:50, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Revivification syringes mean that survivors can go on the offensive, which nulls your given simplification. If each survivor revived two zombies and then died, the game would slowly progress to the survivor side of things. And that's with no barricading or defensive gameplay necessary.-- Galaxy125 17:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)

That's a byproduct of design and one forced by the nature of the game rather than intent. The only way to make combat revives impossible would be to make revives themselves impossible. As such the existence of combat revives in no way undermines the identification of the offensive-defensive class dynamic. Zombie skills are all created with a view to creating damage, whilst survivor skills are designed for preventing or undoing it; yes, that's right, even the combat skills for survivors are about that. They're there to clear zombies out of buildings and allow those buildings to be secured, not to 'kill' the zombies. The sooner people realise that the sooner they'll start enjoying their game, just as I do with all my characters. Oh and your combat revive scenario neglects to consider death culting and window-diving as responses to such actions. --Papa Moloch 19:27, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Also Brain Rot. My scenario worked from the assumption that all players were true dual-natured players, albeit dual-natured players who don't pick up Brain Rot. However, I would argue that (while zombie skills are indeed designed to deal damage) human skills revolve around maximizing the efficiency of revivification. Securing buildings just allows survivors to stave off death for a few more days, which in turn allows them to revive others more efficiently. Admittedly, this assumes a simplified version of survivors without death-culting and window-diving, etc., etc., but I think it is hard to argue the (relatively) balanced nature of the zombie/survivor ratio just from those extremes. The Mrh? cows tend to equalize that anyway. -- Galaxy125 20:10, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Moloch, it's possible for me to completely understand every aspect of this game and still disagree with you. It's also possible for me to refute your arguments without attacking you personally. Here's an example: This is not a survival horror game. It's World of Warcraft in text. The only difference is that here you can switch sides. Just like WoW, the "human" side is more popular. Just like WoW, the "other" side wants to get more and more advantages because they believe it will offset the numeric disadvantage. Here's a heads-up: WoW proved you wrong there. I proved you wrong here. And I'll do it again. Zombies attack humans with 483 AP, costing the humans 322 AP. Humans attack the zombies with 500 AP, costing the Zombies nothing. Why nothing? Because the cost of recovery is included in the 483 AP the zombies already spent. Deyo 19:20, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Wow, nice numbers. Got the math to prove that? --Aeon17x 12:58, 9 September 2008 (BST)

Not a survival horror game? So what does this: A Massively Multi-Player Web-Based Zombie Apocalypse mean? But no you are right. I must be forgetting that the innkeeper at Jacomb Arms sent me on the quest to recovery the Holy Golf Club of Lockettside while on my way to slay the Bank Manager of Ruddlebank. This is exactly like WoW!-- #99 ^DCC 16:20, 10 September 2008 (BST)

No dude. Just no. Monroeville is freaking dead anyway.--Zombie Lord 20:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)

Says the Zombie Lord... I actually had a nice killing spree a couple of weeks back, 5 survivors in 6 days...

It would be nice if we waited till there was one survivor, gave him a Tommy_Gun, ammo and every zombie his location to see how long he would last... --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)

:D I'm not sure if he means it as a Monroeville only thing or not, which would be fine with me if it was just contained to that city and not Malton. Seems like Kevan just wanted to kill it off anyway with those last changes to Monroeville. But yeah, the Tommy Gun goes the the last Monroeville Survivor! Would be a cool prize anyway :) --Zombie Lord 21:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)

The Tommy Gun is a seasonal weapon, found around 31st October/1st November. They'll have to survive til then and search really hard...--Bob Fortune ^RR 00:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Kamakazie Bunny, get over the fucking factional us-vs.-them bullshit, it's tired as all hell. In any event, as much as he is usually an idiot, zombie lord is correct this time. And Moloch hit it on the head even more squarely. Don't fucking nerf Ankle Grab. Period. Even in Moronville. --WanYao 01:46, 6 September 2008 (BST)

And don't forget, give him or her unlimited AP and IP hits. -- Galaxy125 20:14, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:36, 5 September 2008 (BST)

How about "Remove Headshot" then? Has that been suggested? It's currently a waste of 100 XP. Deyo 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)

You might have better luck if you suggest that headshot DOESN'T affect those without Ankle Grab.--Pesatyel 07:37, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Also a dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:08, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Where.--Pesatyel 06:22, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Balance Change HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA IMA GONNA RAEP YUO OF UR AP AND CALL IT BALANCED! Fuck off, Dago. You can't possibly justify taking away over 1/5th of the AP of just one class. Zombies can't do it to survivors in any amount and you want to increase it? Fucking play as a zombie for a year before you suggest anything that affects zombies. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 23:59, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Yanking a live survivor from a mall for 2/5 the AP cost of dumping a dead body from a fort is balanced, then? I don't see you railing against that. Oh, but feel free to turn my username into a racial slur if you can't think of any good reason to reject the suggestion. Deyo 04:54, 7 September 2008 (BST)

We've already posted enough reasons why it's a crap idea. Feel free to post it though, because even if it gets passed, Kevan won't touch it. --Papa Moloch 05:25, 7 September 2008 (BST)

How would you know? ANKLE GRAB was in PEER REJECTED when it came to vote here.--Pesatyel 06:23, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Which should give you an idea of how Kevan feels on the subject of the Headshot dynamic. --Papa Moloch 08:53, 8 September 2008 (BST)

It also shows you how fucking survivor-centric this damn wiki is. I'm not surprised that AG was voted down and a shit load of weapons and survivor buffs fill this page constantly. I'm pretty sure even if this ridiculous crap passed Kevan wouldn't implement it since last time I checked survivors outnumbered the zombies 61% to 39%. But hey! the survivors have it so fucking hard with all those damn zombies. -- #99 ^DCC 15:12, 8 September 2008 (BST)

But OHNOES DCC some people think it's because no one wants to play zombies instead of the fact that their so boring because of their intellectuality and lack of competetivity. Who cares that that's disproved every time zombies make some big event so they can actually do something.--Karek^maps?! 17:37, 8 September 2008 (BST)

Actually it is when you consider that it's not a bargain and it's an additional 4 AP per kill that will be payed regularly. All Feeding Drag ever does is transfer AP cost from the individual to the horde, you know, that central play mechanic that zombies are forced to deal with. This would just make it so that all zombies always lose nearly half the AP they get a day, that's not balanced. You're also proposing buffing what is the only skill in the game that is considered to exist for the sole purpose of pissing players off and not balance.--Karek^maps?! 17:41, 7 September 2008 (BST)

Im not going to argue the game balance here. What i am going to say is that you dont make a game more balanced by making it less fun. Taking away 15 zombie ap a day makes the game much less fun for zombies, which will drive them away. Given how many of them are hanging onto the game out of habit rather than out of any sense of enjoyment, i dont think making playing a zombie feel like pulling teeth is the solution to any balance problem, real or imagined. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 18:37, 7 September 2008 (BST)

---

This is not terribly effective. I mean, the search chances in Mville are all in ruined buildings. 8AP to load a shotgun I think not... ain't nothin' but ruined buildings. Qızılbaş 16:07, 10 September 2008 (BST)

Riot Shield

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 16:39, 5 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Item
Scope:	All Players
Description:	Locations: Armouries (2%), Police Stations (2%), Junkyards (1%?) Encumbrance: 16% - Grants a 10% (5% in dark buildings) chance to deflect any attack that deals less than 5 damage (it does not reduce the chance to hit, only those which would normally hit). Having a Riot Shield in your inventory automatically means that you are using it; no action is required to activate it. Zombies may use and benefit from Riot Shields. Using multiple Riot Shields has no additional effect; having two or more in your inventory will not give any further protection. - They may also be used as an improvised weapon with the following stats: Damage: 1 point Base Accuracy: 10%

Discussion (Riot Shield)

Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield (although rotters will have a harder time getting them but that applies to any cross-class skill/item from the humans). Also the zombie populace should be aware that a Riot shield is the equivalent of 8 clips/shells/Faks/Syringes that can be used against their cause. Survivors now have an active defence against the hordes (in my opinion barricades do not count as they do not directly protect the player or go with them on their journeys).
Things I'm unsure of:

Encumbrance

Chance to deflect

Findable in museums (Medieval / war exhibitions)

Zombies with a reduced protection chance (as they are more sluggish)

Flavour text for deflected attacks!

--Kamikazie-Bunny 16:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)

You fire at target zombie for 10 damage, but it deflects off their riot shield. They are unharmed --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:05, 5 September 2008 (BST)

Whilst I do agree with the flavour text the shot gun does not deal less than 5 damage. --Kamikazie-Bunny 18:13, 5 September 2008 (BST)

Balls. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)

Hi Kamikazie, this is an interesting idea. Given that zombies can't use melee weapons, it seems odd they might continue to use (and effectively position) a riot shield. Additionally, it seems it would get in the way of typical zombie attacks: grabbing, holding, biting. I don't want to seem like I'm favoring survivors, but this, like all other objects, seems it should be survivor-specific. Would players be able to use a shotgun while holding one? Shields of any kind make sense, especially in close-range combat. I'd see the value in making it "equippable" rather than simply automatically active if in inventory. --Zhani 18:18, 5 September 2008 (BST)

Ummm... zombies can use melee weapons, although it would get in the way of their normal attacks I don't want to hinder them or make this one sided although realism would want it so. Zombies are people to! Interfering with other functions is something else I disagree with. --Kamikazie-Bunny 18:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)

Hordes are the exception, not the rule. Lets see, a maxed zombie would traditionally score a total of 29 hits in 50 swings. Now, if 10% of those hits are negated, it goes down to 26. Given that the majority of zombies are not horde zombies, and that zombies have a seriously hard time getting past little things you call barricades (Which already are your defenses, not to mention your mobility, which is another, chronically underused one), this puts a serious dent in zombie ability across the board for the sake of defending yourself from the exception to the rule based on a flase assumption of defenselessness. Go away and think things through before you return to plague this page with your stupidity again. The description as written has this as a pure zombie nerf, they cant even use it, ebcause regardless of flaks, a pistol hits for five damage at first, with one subsequently negated, thus pistols will still go through. Given humans use firearms almost exclusively, becauuse axes and improvised weapons suck, they will most often suffer no penalty against a zombie with such a device. Zombies have no 5+ damage attacks. This is one sided zombie rape. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 18:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)

although I hardly ever agree with grims choice of words, the fact that flare guns and shotguns arent nerfed but all zed attacks are is a fair point. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:29, 5 September 2008 (BST)

Sorry if you misunderstood when I used the word horde, I used it to describe the zombies populace as a whole, not in a specific location. The pistol glitch is something which I must admit I did not anticipate and overlooked, thanks for pointing that out. The rest just seems negative for the sake of zombie-jeebus. Whilst this does primarily affect zombie attacks it also affects all survivor melee attacks, you say that survivors depend on guns because everything else sucks, I don't think you need reminding that the Jacket only benefits zombies and PK/DC victims (which their very actions benefit zombies). Zombies have no fear of death and any defence boosts through items come at no cost, survivors have to balance their inventory for survival/defense and the retaking of ruins. If you feel that 26 instead of 29 hits is too many feel free to suggest a change to the values. This is a discussion for whittling out 'stupid' ideas not for insulting them (which I consider pointless). --Kamikazie-Bunny 18:47, 5 September 2008 (BST)

Whilst many zombies will instantly think no, they should be aware that they can benefit from the Riot Shield ... Can, but won't. The vast majority of the damage zombies take s from guns, and this also provides no protection vs combat revives. HtH combat damage trails a distant third behind those in terms of impact on zombies. So really, this IS a pure zombie nerf.  Swiers 19:08, 5 September 2008 (BST)

Any proposes for a fix? Reducing deflection to 5% (that sounds so geekish). Lowering the limit to Less than 4 (which would account for the gun-bug and allow zombies still to get in their max claws) or would that be seen to be nerfing infection/bite/newbies/survivor melee? I know you might think this is the wrong school of thought but I feel there needs to be some active defence from zombies (running away is not defending) and barricades can't be taken with you, but due to the limited amount of high-powered zombie attacks any thing is essentially a nerf. --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:23, 5 September 2008 (BST)

After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this suggestion if it was to affect ALL attacks regardless of damage... however I am concerned about it stacking with flak jackets to nerf firearms but if you lot are ok with it then I have no objections.... opinions please? --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:03, 5 September 2008 (BST)

I think it's a neat idea, just not sure if its passable. Maybe if the Shield had a chance to be broken, or taken away by zombies? For every "deflection" there is a 10% chance the shield breaks as well? Maybe a zombie that gets a Tangling Grasp has a 10% chance to wrench the shield away and toss it aside for each attack it makes while it maintains the Grasp?--Zombie Lord 21:25, 5 September 2008 (BST)

This fails flavour as it implies active usage to gain its benefit, you must move the shield to cover the attack. A flak jacket is passive, it protects your torso regardless. In short, this would (or rather should) be useless while you are asleep...which for most UD characters is 23 hours and 50 minutes of each day.

Also it's a nasty zombie nerf. All zombie attacks are less than 5 damage, meaning all survivors would get a 10% chance to avoid every single zombie attack in the game. This suggestion will discourage zombie play and turn Malton into Monroeville after the first quarantine, tag with PKers. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:42, 5 September 2008 (BST)

"After re-reading over everyone's comments I feel that the majority of people would probably be ok with this..." We are not okay with this idea. It's awful. It's nothing but a horrible zombie nerf, and no changes are going to save it. Riot shields do not protect against firearms. Period. Any attempt to make them do so is just stupidity. But if riot shields work against melee attacks only, then you are nerfing an already underdog ability -- for both zambahz and survivors. Just drop it, it sucks and it can't be fixed. Also, Izzy, you've failed in your Dupe-meister duties, this is in there somewhere, I know it ;) And, Zhani, once again you demonstrated why you should stay away from making suggestions: please wait until you actually know the game, thanks. --WanYao 02:01, 6 September 2008 (BST)

As far as I understood from the comments people were making, the two major complaints were that it did not affect guns and that it affected zombie attacks. Including the ability to affect guns as well (which you conveniently failed to include in your quote) was the change that some people may approve of, as for affecting zombie attacks that kinda goes with the idea of a riot shield. "Riot shields do not protect against firearms" it may upset you to know that some do, although if you were arguing for true realism I think the zombies need to go... In defence of Izzy failing to dupe I could only find 2 similar suggestions, both from 2005 and both with completely different mechanics if it is that big an issue to dupe it go put in the effort and do it yourself. As for Zhani, he's learning don't try shoot him down because he's trying to be involved. --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Next person to shorten my name gets Jihad declared against them.

Wan; what he said about dupes :p

Bunny; would you care to comment on the point I made about active usage? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Falling asleep from exhaustion is a good reason why your character runs out of AP, it only takes 30min before you can 'wake up'. Whilst I do agree that a player would have to actively use it to defend themselves, the idea that I can hit someone who is asleep repeatedly with a fire axe and with such poor accuracy doesn't make sense (especially considering they don't wake up), I actually assume all players are awake and attempting to defend themselves if attacked which is why hit accuracy is not too high. --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:48, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Wait wut? How do zombies benefit from something that will only effect them and low level survivors? Last I heard pistols and shotguns did >= 5 damage, Claws and bites did <= 4.--Karek^maps?! 13:00, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Zombies would gain more defence from melee weapons, however it has now been changed to include pistols and shotguns. --Kamikazie-Bunny 17:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)

It just doesn't seem right. It destroys all zombie attack, survivor players could get them easier then zombie players... Even if Shotguns no longer worked, that would create an atmosphere where it would be CRing only.-- Adward  17:56, 6 September 2008 (BST)

How would this new version work in dark buildings? And Also, I still don't like it for the same reason why I think halving in dark buildings was a horrendous idea, 10% from 50% is a lot more significant than 10% from 65%, especially with the RNG the way it is But if you're going to go on with it might as well answer all questions that might come up.--Karek^maps?! 19:51, 6 September 2008 (BST)

As the Riot shield only affects the attacks that hit the player, the environment which the attack is performed in should have make no difference but since the user is making an effort, the same penalty as attacks receive should logically apply. (Chance of success halved in dark buildings added to suggestion) Thanks for that, the more holes you guys help me fill the better. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)

I like it. Rather logical especially when considering that several suburbs were just bad neighborhoods (Even BEFORE the zombies!). I think that his would be a bit more efficient if you kept it as a melee reducing item, the hand to hand flak jacket in other words, say knock off 1-2 Damage per non-firearm attacks. Take it to that level and THEN I'll probably vote a keep on this. Chaplain Drakon Macar 19:33, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Yes, I'm sure new players will appreciate 0-1 damage at 25% to hit.--Karek^maps?! 19:54, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Well the zombies are getting Uber Buffs. Survivors have always been a bit better than the zombies at base level. I think that just the 1 Reduced Damage is sufficient at say...30% but if we want to get technical with this option lets say Hand to Hand Combat skill gives the 15% bonus to this so base is 15% chance to block 1 damage and then with HtH skill 30% chance to block 1 damage and we drop that improvised attack method because it's going to be the same as a punch. Now for the zombies think of Virgour Mortis as a +10% Chance to block 1 Damage. So again, 15% base and with Vigour Mortis a nice little 25% because Zeds aren't quick enough to keep up with the survivors. It is a bit sketchy but I am going to support this method over sitting around fiddling with percentages. Chaplain Drakon Macar 20:02, 6 September 2008 (BST)

I would like for this to apply exclusive to melee weapons, but that would mean ALL zombie attacks and not the attacks used by high-level survivors which was a problem. I'm also unsure if the game distinguishes between damage types, if it does great, if not, going on damage inflicted presents a problem when pistols are reduced by flak jackets. The idea to reduce damage instead of deflecting it completely is possible, however it would just end up as 'a flak for melee attacks' different mechanics for each one helps to keep them unique but if people prefer that option let me know. The skills bit does have merits but I was hoping it would be independent of the skill tree although if people want it to upgrade as you buy skills your way is certainly an excellent way to do it, especially the uniqueness between the live/dead. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:18, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Consider the flak jacket. -1 point for firearms, hand to hand attacks still go through. As for the zombies...well survivors run out of ammunition every now and again, even in the sieges. To combine this item with hand to hand combat training is the most logical approach based off of common sense and lightens the work load if Kevan likes this. Like you stated, zombies and survivors can both hold them, lets apply our minds and think about how well a zombie would be able to block a hit. When you think of next to never apply this big piece of reinforced fiberglass and then you get your answer here. Chaplain Drakon Macar 03:53, 7 September 2008 (BST)

Zombies holding riot shields? I'd love to have some of that crack you're on. --Aeon17x 04:08, 7 September 2008 (BST) Dude the odd thing is that it is not crack! It's Jello powder! Chaplain Drakon Macar 04:23, 7 September 2008 (BST)

Zombies hold and use all sorts of items... Anyway, this idea is just awful and can't be saved, please give it up. All it does in any form is act as a zombie/PK nerf. Period. Drop it. There is NO NEED for this, and it doesn't improve the game, make it more interesting, or offer a solution to a problem. It's just... dumb. --WanYao 07:44, 7 September 2008 (BST)

---

No More Walking Armories: Less weapons, more ammo.

Timestamp:	Zhani 21:39, 3 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Change to firearm usage
Scope:	Survivors, firearms.
Description:	Add Equipped Weapon feature, adjust weapon balance numbers to encourage reloading over trenchcoatism. See below for details.

As things stand, players in Malton become walking armories, with as many loaded pistols and shotguns strapped to their bodies as they can carry. Essentially, everyone is a trenchcoater by default. This is due to how firearms currently work and their game statistics. Players are rewarded for carrying multiple loaded firearms, and there's little penalty for doing so. Guns have very little encumbrance relative to their ammunition, and there's no cost at all to moving on to your next loaded weapon. I think this is unbelievable and out of genre.

My proposal is to add a new game feature and tweak weapon encumbrance, find rates, and damage in order to encourage the carrying and use of only primary weapons, with plenty of ammo for those weapons.

1. Equipped Weapon The game supports selecting items that are "worn"; however, this is only used for clothing and flavor at the moment. With this addition, survivor players select any weapon in their inventory to be equipped.

• Above "Inventory (click to use):" there is "Weapon (select):". There will be a new drop-down list in this section: Equip [Weapon List] as weapon. This lets the player choose any existing weapon in their inventory, or an improvised weapon like a fuel can or crowbar.
• Equipping a weapon costs 2 AP. This represents getting it out of your backpack/belt and having it ready for combat. The AP cost of switching weapons provides an incentive to reload over switching between a stocked series of weapons.
• You can only attack with your equipped weapon. The "attack player" option no longer offers multiple weapons as a choice, but instead lists your equipped weapon: Attack [Joe Zombie] with pistol. If no weapon is equipped, all attacks are punches.
• Once a weapon is equipped, the "Weapon:" section no longer displays "(select)", and the selected weapon is displayed there, instead of in the inventory section. Below that, the weapon-selection control remains available to select another weapon.
• Clicking ammo to reload defaults to reloading the equipped weapon if it is unloaded. Clicking the equipped weapon removes it. Clicking a weapon that does not have a dual usage (most of them) will equip them as well (this is necessary so you can still click fuel cans to use them on generators, fire flare guns, etc.)
• Upon dying, the equipped weapon is removed and remains in the player's inventory. Zombies do not have equipped weapons. Revivified survivors must reequip their weapon.
• The currently equipped weapon can be seen in the profile description, along with clothing.

2. Weapon Encumbrance Values Firearm encumbrance values are increased. Guns can get heavy to carry, and shotguns are unwieldy. Pistols: 10%. Shotgun: 18%. Ammunition encumbrance is minimized. Bullets and shells take up relatively little space, and can be kept in backpacks, fannypacks, pockets, etc. Clips & Shells: 1%.

3. Reloading Reloading a clip or shell remains at 1 AP.

4. Weapon Balance: This change slightly increases the in-combat AP costs for survivors. With 8 loaded pistols in inventory, a player can currently do 240 damage in 48 turns at 65% rate, or 156 damage, or 3.25 damage/AP. With 1 equipped pistol and plenty of ammo, in 48 turns the player can empty 7 clips, doing 210 damage @65%, or 136.5 damage, or 2.84 damage/AP; a 12% decrease.

With current shotguns, 8 shotguns in inventory do 160 damage in 16 turns @ 65%, or 104 damage: 6.5damage/AP. With the change, two shots requires either switching (2AP) or reloading (2AP). Alternately, we can simply think of the unloaded shotgun as 2AP/shot. With the change, the shotgun would do 80 damage in 16 turns @ 65% or 52 damage, a 50% decrease. The change makes the shotgun even more front-loaded damage however.

It is very difficult to make absolute recommendations on numbers for game balance. Only in-game results can show whether items are unbalanced or not, and to what degree. However, as an initial rebalancing to make the change not appear so drastic, I suggest these figures:

Pistol: 6 damage/shot. (5 flak). In 48 turns (finishing empty), a pistol would do (6*7*6*0.65) or 163.8 damage on average: 3.4damage/AP, a 5% increase. This is a very modest change, and sticks to whole-number damage. In 6 turns, the existing pistol does 30 max damage, 19.5 average, the new does 36 or 23.4 average, but on subsequent turns the reload time brings the average damage back down. With 6 shots/7AP, the true average becomes 3.34dam/AP. Total pistol increase: 2.9%
Alternately: to kill 50HP enemy:

Current: 3.25dam/AP. (Assuming enough pistols in inventory) 16AP to kill

New: 3.34 dam/AP ((6*6*.65)/7). 15AP to kill.

Shotgun: 12 damage/shot (10 flak). 2 turns=24 damage @65%=15.6damage. Compare to current: 2 turns = 20*65%=13dam. This is a small front-end increase. However, comparing 16 turns (8 loaded current shotguns, vs 1 shotgun with reloading): (10*16*0.65)/16=6.5dam/AP. New shotgun: 2 shots, then 2 shots per 4 turns for 12 turns, then 1 shot in the last two turns. 2*12+12((2*12)/4)+0+12=108. @65%=70.2 or 4.39dam/AP. The shotgun decreases over time. If we compare current and new shotguns starting unloaded, it's 10dam/2AP vs 12dam/2AP. The advantage of starting a fight with a loaded shotgun goes up, but the advantage of carrying a stack of them goes down. It becomes worthwhile to consider switching to a sidearm after using the shotgun. This appears consistent with game believability.
An alternate way of looking at shotgun damage: to kill a 50HP enemy:

Current: 6.5damage/AP (assuming enough shotguns in inventory). 8AP to kill.

New: 2*7.8damage=15.6 for 2AP, then 7.8damage/2AP (reload, fire). 7AP to kill.

Shotgun opener + pistol: 15.6 average damage/2AP. 2AP to switch. 23.4 average damage/6AP. 1AP reload. 11.7 avg. dam. /3AP. = 50.7 damage in 14AP. Slightly more efficient than pistol alone, less than shotgun alone. (I have been working with current balance values; but the existing shotgun is much higher damage than the existing pistol. It requires more AP to find ammo, and reload.)

5. Weapon search rates Firearm search rate decreases slightly (most people will only want or need one of each type). Ammunition search rate increases slightly.
Pistols: Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Streets (1%?), Junkyards (1%?)
Shotguns: Mall Gun Stores (2%/3%), Armories (2%), Police Departments (1%), Pubs (1%)
Clips: Mall Gun Stores (13%/16%), Armories (13%), Police Departments (12%), Junkyards (2%?), Gatehouses (?%)
Shotgun shells: Mall Gun Stores (12%/16%), Armories (11%), Police Departments (11%), Junkyards (1%?)

• If a weapon is found, and the player has selected to discard that type of weapon, but they have NOT selected to discard the ammo, they retain the ammo that was in that firearm (if any).

Potential objections:

Game balance: the change to damage output/AP is relatively small. If game stats reveal survivors grow more powerful, or one weapon is more preferred than the other, damage values can be adjusted as necessary. The point of this change is not to drastically adjust game balance in any way, but to instead encourage a change in player behavior to something more consistent with genre. Any statistical flaws that benefit a weapon type or player group can be adjusted as necessary.

Inventory changes: this deprecates the value of carrying multiple weapons. Despite the increase in encumbrance of a single weapon, this should actually free up some space for people. The changes do not severely affect the contents of anyone's inventory.

Realism/Game fiction/Genre: Carrying an absurd amount of weapons is simply silly. The only reason people do is because the game mechanics encourage it. This change provides an incentive for players to behave much more akin to typical characters in zombie films: carrying a couple favored weapons, and enough ammo to keep them supplied.

Too long/complicated: This idea consists of minor changes to game variables (encumbrance, damage, search), and adds a straightforward feature which should work consistently with the existing interface and game data structures. It requires tracking one more piece of data per character: which weapon is equipped, and removes one piece of data normally transmitted on each attack: the weapon used. This should not be a prohibitive amount of development work. Balance changes are necessary to coincide with changes to AP costs for using weapons to minimize the secondary impact on gameplay.

Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit.

Areas for input:

How are the numbers? Are they reasonable to maintain balance while accomplishing the goal of this suggestion?

Discussion (No More Walking Armories)

1. Pistols are usually no bigger than two clips. Having 10% pistols and 1% clips is completely unjustified.
2. Shotguns are nowhere near the size or unwieldiness of generators (18% vs 20%).

Not just that, but raising the encumbrance of weapons doesn't really contribute to reducing the number of weapons and increasing the amount of ammunition carried. Changing the search percentages wouldn't affect much either. Just plain introducing the equipped-weapon gameplay would do it. It's simple; reloading costs 1 or 2 AP, changing a weapon would cost 2. Ammunition is lighter than weapons. For pistols this means you're paying 1 AP less per 6 bullets, and carrying double the amount of damage if you use clips over loaded pistols. For shotguns it means you're paying just as much, but still carrying one half more ammo by carrying shells instead of shotguns. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 23:28, 3 September 2008 (BST)

I don't believe the game's encumbrance values are based on real-world sizes or weights, but rather are a general reflection of carrying ability for the sake of game balance. They're arbitrary. No one can carry 5 portable generators at once, and being limited to carrying only 50 shotgun shells, when they're typically sold in small boxes of 24 to 48, reveals this. A Ruger Security Six revolver as listed on the firearms page weighs about 1 kilo; carrying 25 of them at 4% enc per, would mean 55 pounds of firearms. The point isn't to be completely accurate with size or weight, but present a tradeoff in carrying many vs. few. With 1 pistol (12%) and 8 clips (1%), for a total of 20% the user still comes ahead of carrying 8 current pistols (32%). While a shotgun does not weigh as much as a portable generator, carrying 16 of them (at 6%) is just as unreasonable.
The search values I adjust because finding new firearms becomes less important. This isn't critical to the suggestion however, especially if the part where I recommend that users be able to discard guns they find but keep the ammo in them. --Zhani 23:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)

The exact nature of encumbrance is pretty much irrelevant, as, like I said, changing the encumbrance values doesn't really contribute towards the goal of this suggestion. It just adds one more thing for people to find objectionable. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 09:59, 4 September 2008 (BST)

If currently people are carrying 16 weapons, and suddenly they can be just as effective with 3, they now have much more space for first aid kits, ammo, syringes, generators, etc. It's also about balance. While there is extra space, increasing weapon encumbrance means it isn't so survivor-favored in that aspect. --Zhani 10:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)

That reasoning would make more sense if you weren't halving the weight of ammunition. You still have to keep the values somewhat sensible when compared to others. 10% pistols and 18% shotguns are just too inconsistent. Something like 6/8% pistols and 12% shotguns would be better. Or you could bump up the encumbrance of everything else (which would make more sense, but would simply get spammed). --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:24, 4 September 2008 (BST)

Is it necessary for game-balance that survivors be limited to carrying a certain quantity of ammunition? To my mind, the limiting factor is search rates, more than carrying capacity. I halved the encumbrance of ammo to balance increasing the values for firearms, along with the fact that the new system encourages keeping plenty of loose ammo, rather than just that which fits in numerous weapons. As for game-realism, shotguns are large and unwieldy, it's implausible to carry more than two. Encumbrance can represent both weight and bulk. --Zhani 20:47, 4 September 2008 (BST)

I like this idea, both because it makes sense and it's better as flavour, but I don't think it will last two seconds in a vote..not that that's any reason not to suggest it, but all the trenchies will go "OMG ONLY 1 WEAPON + MORE RELOADS NOW I CAN ONLY KILL FOUR ZOMBIES A DAY KILL KILL KILL"
But I like it.. --Necrodeus ^{T M!} 01:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)

Thanks! :) Actually, I really am trying to keep the balance the about the same so that for purposes of killing speed, it's roughly neutral. --Zhani 02:07, 4 September 2008 (BST)

All these fucking words to just hide the fact you want to bump up the shotgun's damage. Go to hell. Go back and play Resident Evil some more if you get hard-ons from selecting and equipping weapons. You miss the point that this is a damn text game that only gives you 50 AP a day. You can't unload weapons when you find them and you are just as likely to find a pistol with 3 bullets in it as a full clip, but thanks to this GENIUS suggestion even if you aren't a trenchy you will still get your AP raped by swapping weapons. I like to think that survivors are smart enough not to carry their weapons in a back pack but to have them hidden on their body for easy access. I fucking hate gun suggestions. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 02:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)

Hi DCC. As I pointed out, in front-loaded damage the shotgun sees an increase, but over time it has reduced damage/AP compared to currently. If you compare the current system with someone carrying 10 loaded shotguns and enough ammo to reload & fire again for their 50AP, the new system represents an 11% decrease in average damage done. As I clearly stated, this isn't about altering game balance or enhancing/damaging the effectiveness of any weapon. As for searching, I provided a suggestion that ammo found in other weapons could be unloaded if the user already has a weapon. Also, I don't think being abusive is very consistent with rational discussion of people's ideas. --Zhani 02:39, 4 September 2008 (BST)

The game is not played in long term, at least for survivors it shouldn't be. They're more than mobile enough that they can pop in, do tons of damage, run out, and come back a few days later fully stocked and do the same thing. It's low risk and exactly why boosting short term gains for survivors anymore would be ridiculously overpowered.--Karek^maps?! 08:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)

This doesn't create a boost for survivors. Please see the graph I created. The intent is to create a change in behavior, without significantly affecting balance; which is why I'm happy to discuss the numbers used. The pistol remains almost exactly the same; the shotgun does very slightly more damage in the first two turns, quickly falls behind the damage put out by multiple preloaded existing shotguns. This is shifting the pre-combat AP investment to carry around all those loaded weapons, into combat itself, making it viable to have one weapon of each kind and reload during combat. This is more consistent with the game world and genre: frantically loading your weapon as the undead shamble towards you, than carrying 16 loaded weapons effortlessly. --Zhani 19:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)

I wasn't critiquing your suggestion. Now I am. To keep it simple I'm just gonna say this, you can't half ammo encumbrance it would have to much of an effect on the time survivors have that they can spend without restocking. That amount of time is a significant limiter on their ability to use/abuse their AP efficiency. You're basically doubling their Ammo carrying capacity and attempting to claim it's balanced by slightly reducing their attack efficiency(which is still being left close to 8 damage per AP). Yes, it makes individuals very very slightly less effective, it will also make groups of survivors insanely more effective and it will let those individuals spend more time without a break. That is a significant boost. Now I don't actually have too much of a problem with it assuming Kevan finally allows some specific zombie boost in response, and by that I mean finally letting them do a significant amount of damage per AP and letting them get through barricades with something closer to twice as much AP as they take to build instead of 4-5x. I don't think that will happen though.--Karek^maps?! 04:17, 5 September 2008 (BST)

Thanks Karek, this is an interesting point. Assuming a player wants to maximize their combat potential, and disregarding all other concerns (assume they're backed up by other players who will heal/rebuild etc.), a player might carry 16 shotguns (@6%) & 2 shells (@2%). That's an average of ((32+2)*10*0.65)=221 damage in 36AP, then they're empty. 6.14damage/AP. That's not including the significant AP investment to find and load all those guns. Under the proposed system, player has 1 shotgun @18%, and 82 shells @1%. They get 2AP of attacks, then thereafter it's 1attack/2AP (load & shoot). Over 166AP, they do an average of ((2+82)*12*0.65)=655.2 damage, or 3.94 damage/AP. They would have invested more AP in advance to gather all those shells.

I understand what you're saying. The existing system allows a quick burst of high damage, then the survivor has to go replenish. The new system would allow large restocking in a "safe" are, then being able to do damage for an additional 4.6x AP; however, both the average damage is reduced, as well as being spread out over more AP.

Say we go with 1 shotgun @18%, but 41 shells @2%. ((2+41)*12*0.65)=335.4 in 84AP, or 3.99damage/AP. Roughly the same damage output, just half the cycle time between attacking & replenishing; as well as less AP invested up front. So the question is: is the length of the attack/scavenge cycle significant to game balance? Do zombies depend on survivors running out, even if they're doing 2/3rd the average damage per AP? --Zhani 17:30, 5 September 2008 (BST)

That's not necessarily true either, with three, or even four, survivors striking together they can completely ignore the reduced efficiency. They would actually clear things faster and more efficiently then than they could now doing the same thing. Like I mentioned above, the average damage in the long term with shotguns is irrelevant because most of that cost occurs well outside of danger while most of the reward occurs when you want/need it to, all that would happen is who's holding the shotguns would change, that's actually what I like about an equipment based system. Lose everything else, keep that, the rest is irrelevant, likely impossible to balance, and seems generally based on the assumption that all Survivors are idiots; they aren't, they just don't have any real reason to work together. There's a good core idea here but the implementation needs work.--Karek^maps?! 13:12, 6 September 2008 (BST)

I think i like the start of this. Right now i can't focus to tell if all the numbers are good with me over a long base of time. but, first impression is i like this... i just don't know exactly how this would affect things until i'm actually using it. Also, i disagree with DCC... chill out, man. -tylerisfat 02:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)

This sounds great but really this is more of an AP kill. Consider that the majority of us survivors depend on being a walking arsenal, making us pay 2AP to get a loaded pistol out can highly unbalance the basics for siege survival. I say you drop it down to 1AP or just drop it entirely and make this a weapon pump. This has potential and I love the stats given, but you just gotta fine tone it. Try getting together a study group, devise a neat little generator amongst yourselves, provide a report in place of the hypothesis that we do have now and then try getting this into voting. Chaplain Drakon Macar 04:50, 4 September 2008 (BST)

There AP cost is there to provide the incentive to reload the weapon you're using, rather than switch out to one loaded weapon after another. For the pistol, it makes it more advantageous, for the shotgun, it makes it equal with carrying other shotguns, but the drop in encumbrance acts as a bonus. The increase in damage for both pistol and shotgun help balance against the increased AP costs so damage/AP is roughly the same. With pistols, you currently do 6 attacks in 6 turns, then switch. With the new system, you'll do 6 attacks in 6 turns, 1 turn to reload, then go again. So you need 1 pistol, and just clips. 6 damage/attack instead of 5 makes them close in damage output. Likewise with the shotgun, with the current system you fire 1 shot per AP for as long as you have shotguns. With my proposal, you still get two shots for two AP with your pre-loaded gun, then you get 1 shot every 2 AP: reload 1 shell, fire, etc. In the first few turns you'll have done more damage than the existing system, but after a few turns, it does a little less on average. Oh, and remember: with the existing system, you still need to spend the AP to load your weapons. You just do it before combat, not during. Like I said, this brings it more in genre: desperately reloading as the zombies advance on you, instead of carrying a dozen loaded shotguns on your back. --Zhani 05:32, 4 September 2008 (BST)

Re: weapon balance: Please see this graph. This compares current with proposed weapon damage. I'm somewhat inclined to increase the shotgun to 13 or 14, but the relative advantage between the old and new shotgun depends on how many loaded shotguns the player would have under the old system. I assumed 8 for this graph. If it's less, the difference is much narrower; it's unlikely a player would have many more. Note that the player has a damage advantage with the old shotgun until they run out; but they had to spend the same AP in advance to load those 8 shotguns. The new shotgun merely incorporates that loading AP into combat. --Zhani 06:16, 4 September 2008 (BST)

GRRRRRRRRRRH!!! KISS me, please. i.e., Keep. It. Simple. Stupid. This may be a fantastic idea, but I can't be arsed atm to read that wall of text. Please learn how to be more concise. Seriously. Thank you. --WanYao 16:22, 4 September 2008 (BST)

What I did read... led me here... This is unnecessary. Because carrying lots of loaded firearms is actually a very poor use of AP and encumbrance. The most Ap-encumbrance efficient weapon in the game is the pistol, by far. And the best way to use pistols is to have 2-3 of them and tonnes of ammo. Shotguns are spiffy weapons, but their ap-encumbrance efficiency is atrocious: if wind up with a few, use 'em... but once its empty? Drop it, don't reload it, that's a giant waste of AP... So, if people wanna waste their AP and encumbrance on carrying and reloading lots of firearms -- the zombies say go right ahead and be horribly inefficient!

That being said... What ticks me is that I never find pistol ammo in Malls. It's always shotguns. Graaaaagh! Which means... I don't think we need a big game mechanic overhaul, so much as search rates should be tweaked... --WanYao 16:30, 4 September 2008 (BST)

More thoughts... If people wanna carry lots of guns, more power to them. Because that helps the zombies... Because zombies can't be killed. And survivors should be focusing on barricading and reviving and healing first -- and when they are not... then the zombies win! By default.

Also, "walking armouries" are totally in genre. You always have the Armah Manz with billions of b!g bang-bangz... Always. And usually, these are the idiots who end up getting killed... And the consumer type who focuses on helping others and getting the job done most effectively lives and helps more people... As in the genre, as in UD... Now, I kind of would like to see trenchcoating get a bit of a nerf... however, i am always very cautious about "legislating playing styles"... And that is what this suggestion does. --WanYao 16:37, 4 September 2008 (BST)

I'm sorry you found the idea too long. However, I wanted to be specific in the reason for each change, and the expected effect. In order to make the change relatively balance-neutral while encouraging a behavioral change, adjusting numbers in several places is necessary. You said that carrying shotguns and reloading would be inefficient: that's part of what the change is attempting to address. People carry multiple weapons because they can front-load their AP to increase damage in a short time. This idea diminishes that effect while allowing them to output roughly the same damage/AP invested.

I disagree that "walking armories" are in-genre. The "Army Mans" carry an assault rifle, a couple grenades, and maybe a sidearm. The only reason players will carry 16 loaded weapons around is because the current game mechanics encourage this behavior; it's not something you'd typically see in a film. They can stock up on weapons and ammo in advance, then unleash that stored AP in the form of damage. What is more consistent with the genre and a plausible game-world, is carrying a couple reliable weapons, and reloading them as needed. This change isn't legislating playing styles: combat-oriented players will still be able to arm up and go to war. They'll just do it with a couple weapons and plenty of ammo, rather than 200 pounds of firearms on their back. Their combat effectiveness versus the zombies will be largely unchanged. --Zhani 19:55, 4 September 2008 (BST)

Instead of trying to play with the big boys in the flame department, I suggest picking up some reading comprehension skills. I addressed your "refutations" in my original post. First of all, the game does not actually encourage carrying 16 loaded weapons; in so far as you are able to do so, you're most assuredly not contributing to the pro-survivor cause. That you fail to understand why isn't my problem: do your homework. Secondly, dudes armed to the teeth shooting the shit out every zombie they see (and usually dying grisly deaths themselves because of their stupidity) are very common in both the movies and, yeah, even the video games. Pay attention next time, okay? And go re-read karek and DCC's comments and try to understand the words of your intellectual superiors. THEN get back to us. --WanYao 20:12, 4 September 2008 (BST)

I'm afraid that you really haven't supported your objections, despite claiming you have. Whether choosing combat-oriented activities in-game helps or hinders the survivor cause is irrelevant: you mentioned that we shouldn't be dictating player style. This suggestion as I've stated is largely balance-neutral. What is does, is discourages exactly what I describe: the "walking armory" effect, and encourages carrying only needed weapons with sufficient ammunition. This doesn't prevent or penalize anyone from walking in with guns blaring, it just means they don't look like this guy while doing it. More like this. --Zhani 20:34, 4 September 2008 (BST)

Balance neutral ? What's this shit? How can something be "neutral" -balance or otherwise- when it tries to change the way people play? Don't tell people how to play their characters. It's just that simple. Who cares if someone fills all of their inventory with weapons or with GPS units? So what if some trenchies want to carry 100 shotguns? I can tell you haven't been playing this game long. More likely you don't even play a zombie. Which makes your bitching about weapons even weirder. Your suggestion doesn't solve a problem. Your suggestion does not make gameplay more interesting. -- #99 ^{DCC SNACK STRONG} 23:54, 4 September 2008 (BST)

Could you be specific about how you feel it's unbalanced? And the suggestion is not telling people how to play. The intention of that guideline for suggestions I believe is that we shouldn't discourage RP or encourage non-RP. People can play their characters how they choose, and fill their inventory with what they want. However, the current game mechanics actively encourages players to be walking arsenals if they want to maximize their combat effectiveness. The problem the suggestion solves is that carrying a huge stack of weapons is anti-RP, contrary to the genre and game-fiction. As I've said, it's silly. Carrying a shotgun, revolver, and melee weapon seems much more plausible, and something you'd see in a zombie movie, don't you think? This lets someone who does that, be viable in combat. Additionally, I have attempted to balance this so it's neutral towards zombies, not shifting the advantage. Again, I invite you to show me how it is not. --Zhani 00:35, 5 September 2008 (BST)

You say you don't want to legislate how people play the game one moment, then the next you say that's exactly what you want to do! Make up your mind. Now... Zombies don't care if they get shot. If you actually played a zombie full-time, you'd understand this. Shot me all you bloody well want, I'll dirt nap and stand up again with, at worst, 44 AP and be ready to go. Therefore, shooting zombies is completely pointless except when you need to clear a building. To that end, you carry some guns. But smart survivors don't carry lots of guns: they carry maybe 2-4 pistol and 2-4 shotguns, tops. Why? Well... because the most powerful pro-survivor thing in the whole game is the revive-needle. Next come barricading and FAKing. Smart survivors know this, thus they carry several needles (sometimes a hell of a lot), a toolbox and a big whack o' FAKs. These are the survivors who benefit the "pro-survivor" cause. By contrast, anyone who just carries a whole bunch of guns is not really benefiting the survivor cause all that much, they are just parasiting off others' barricades, revives and FAKs. Nor are they really hurting zombies, because zombies don't care if they die. Capiche? You say I haven't backed up my arguments, but I have. I actually made an argument -- it's just that you either don't understand, or you're wilfully ignoring the argument. Meanwhile, you've just provided statistics and a flawed idea, which you haven't put in any kind of rational or argumentative or bona-fide in-game context... Meanwhile, I don't care if someone wants to carry 16 shotguns -- as a survivor or a zombie. As a survivor, I think that guy is a parasitic waste of space and I will make fun of him and belittle him for being a trenchcoating wanker -- but he's not really hurting me. And, as your picture of Ash demonstrates, all said and done, he is actually RPing in-genre. And as a zombie I outright laugh at his stupidity and I smash his barricades and eat bra!nz with a hearty GRAAAAGH!!... However, I do not wish to legislate how he plays the game in such a heavy-handed way... Which is exactly what your suggestion intends to do -- by your own fucking admission! This is not a good idea, and by clinging to it and not accepting constructive and reasonable criticism, you're proving yourself to be fucking git, a disruptive and non-contributive member of the community. --WanYao 12:12, 5 September 2008 (BST)

Hmm. When I said that, you criticized me for having a superficial understanding of the game. The shoe's on the other foot now, eh? -- Galaxy125 17:19, 5 September 2008 (BST)

Hi WanYao. How many shotguns is Ash carrying? One. How many firearms will a typical person in a zombie film carry? One, or one rifle/shotgun and one sidearm. In UrbanDead as it stands, how many firearms will a person carry if they want to maximize their combat potential? 16. The game mechanics are already telling them "how to play", it's saying that if you want to devote yourself to dealing damage, you carry a silly and fiction-breaking number of weapons.

I'm afraid your comments about what is actually optimal strategy are irrelevant and a red herring. This suggestion makes no change in what players should do in order to be maximally effective. It simply alters the game mechanics so that the optimal number of weapons to carry is one of each, and not 16. This is what is more in keeping with the genre, more plausible in the game fiction. There's no advocated or encouraged change in "player behavior": a combat-oriented player will choose ammo over other objects, while others will stock sufficient ammo and keep their FAKs and toolkits etc. You've already said that with the status-quo, even good players will have 4-8 weapons. Again, this is silliness that is a result solely of the game mechanics, not because they believe their fictional roleplaying character would actually be that kind of badass. The game dictates how many weapons they should carry. I'm for reducing that number, without significantly affecting game balance itself.

Now if you want to make the case that 1% encumbrance ammo too greatly reduces the tradeoff between being combat-oriented or rebuild/heal oriented, I'm happy to hear it. Karek's provided his support for a similar argument above. And as usual, your personal attacks are completely off-base. I've been giving all reasoned criticism due weight. I get that some people don't like the idea, based on personal biases, but so far, I've only seen one specific argument for what might be wrong. --Zhani 17:44, 5 September 2008 (BST)

This wall of text is getting pathetic... Anyhoo, there is another principle that no one has mentioned yet, but it bears emphasis: greater realism =/= better. Anyway, I'm done with this, it's arguing in circles now. Good luck. --WanYao 18:45, 6 September 2008 (BST)

That's just your luck. I find TONS of clips and pistols with 4+ shots. Last time I loaded up, such stuff was easily 75% of what I found in the gun store. In fact, I would have stopped searching, but it took me a long time to find a shotgun shell to top up the half-loaded shotgun I had.  Swiers 16:40, 4 September 2008 (BST)

I fucking hate you. This comment in particular - "Dupe: this is a new, comprehensive idea that stands on its own merit."

Put it up for voting, right fucking now. Watch me dupe it on basis of weapons damage buff, selected weaponry and ammunition encumbrance buff. Just because your 'suggestion' contains many shit suggestions does not mean I cannot find those many mindless trenchie buffs and rightfully kill it, it means you are fucking deluded for thinking I can't and typing such a moronic suggestion.

Shit, I wish karma was real, then some really bad things would happen to you, I'd find out about them and chortle my arse off. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:45, 4 September 2008 (BST)

Get arsed, yourself, Iscariot. Assuming trolls have arses, that is. Do they? Or does all your shit come out of your mouth?

Meanwhile, karek, swiers and DCC have pretty much show this suggestion for the BAD IDEA it is... So let's move on, kay, class? Next lesson please... --WanYao 19:44, 4 September 2008 (BST)

Please seek help. --Zhani 19:46, 4 September 2008 (BST)

Alrighty then... See, there is a time and place for being an asshole. I felt the situation was not appropriate, thus my comments to Iscariot. I take them all back now: go nuts, Izzy. --WanYao 19:56, 4 September 2008 (BST)

What makes you believe it's ever acceptable or appropriate to behave abusively towards people? This sort of behavior certainly isn't conducive to rational discussion and addressing the merits or problems in a suggestion. It simply brings the quality of the wiki down, and reflects poorly on the community. --Zhani 20:02, 4 September 2008 (BST)

Other than Iscariot, no one is trolling you. And, in context -- while I don't really think his comments are particularly helpful -- you've brought it on yourself. In any event, if you want a love-in, where everyone is nice to each other and they let you cry on their should if someone was mean to you, please go here. --WanYao 12:16, 5 September 2008 (BST)

I'm not trolling at all, trolling implies I'm after a certain response from him. I don't. It would be nice if he'd listened to all the nice people explaining it to him, but he didn't. The comment about duping is pure arrogance on his part, and I don't take kindly to it. The dupe system stops moronic suggestions entering PR because everyone reasonable gets bored of killing it. |I notice he hasn't taken me up on my challenge to see if I could dupe it....

Also Zhani, feel free to go and whine on any sysop talk page you like. The one you're after is Vandal Banning. Good luck with that, there is no civility policy on this wiki and until we remove to moronic-trenchie-weapons-buff gene from the general population, there never will be. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)

...Well isn't that one long suggestion. --Aeon17x 12:24, 5 September 2008 (BST)

...Well isn't that one long discussion. -- User:Whitehouse 12:31, 5 September 2008 (BST)

... Speaking of things long... ::looks down:: Oh, is that a banana in my pocket, or am I just happy to see a zombie in my safehouse? --WanYao 02:07, 6 September 2008 (BST)

Thats a whole lot of SPAM you typed up there... what's wrong with just making weapons assignable? Allow everyone to carry a weapon in each hand and have it cost 1AP per hand to change (shotguns requiring a free hand or having a -60% to hit!) reload or re-arm then cost the same and it becomes a matter of choice which style you prefer. Of course that makes maxed out survivors a lot less like the combat monsters they currently are but thats probably not a real problem! --Honestmistake 12:38, 5 September 2008 (BST)

Personally, I dislike this, but that's partly because i only carry two pistols and one shotty, thus giving room for more reasonable things. Like fencing foils, Wine, and poetry books. --Nny The Person 06:41, 9 September 2008 (BST)

---

Body Bonfires

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 01:48, 3 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Perma-death option.
Scope:	Characters in citys with perma-death alternatives.
Description:	I've got a zombie character currently running around Monroeville looking for the precious few survivors there are in order to eat them. One of Monroeville's biggest problems, I think, is that there was no way for low-level survivors from killing zombies permanently. Zombies could take out survivors, no problem, but unless you had Headshot, you couldn't take down a zombie. I know that's in-genre, given that they're the freaking undead and all, but it sucks game-wise. Thus, I came up with 'Body Bonfires', after watching the movie Night of the Living Dead. Should this get implemented, survivors can now douse corpses in gasoline (from fuel cans) and set them alight with matches (find stats TBC), lighters (find stats TBC) or even a flare gun, if desperate. A burning corpse will degrade into a 'charred skeleton', after which time the character would be effectively 'perma-dead'. Note that this is meant to replace Headshot as the survivor perma-death, not co-incide with it.

Discussion (Body Bonfires)

No. Why? Monroeville is quarantined and dead. Adding more items that make things even more difficult to find and implement will not suddenly change the dynamics of the city, nor will it make monroeville more fair. the point, i daresay, of that city is to more realistically show a zombie infestation, and the only way to do that is by making the limited amount of zombies unlimited, with only a small amount of very good zombie killers who can do anything about it, which still amounts to not much. its fine, and the city is pointless, and just leave it. and don't add matches and lighters to do what flare guns already do. -tylerisfat 02:33, 3 September 2008 (BST)

I think you misread my suggestion. For one, this is NOT for Monroeville. Monroeville is dead (or will be soon), this is for any new cities that will also have perma-death mechanics, should one ever be introduced. For another, you can only burn a zombie once they're on the ground having been 'temp-killed' (HP to 0). --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 09:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)

I didn't misread crap. Nothing in your post makes reference to any mythical city that is currently not existant. You only mention monroeville, and imply that is what your suggestion is about. And after reading it again, i've decided this is a) a dupe; b) spamtastic, given the non-existant nature of your supposed city; and c) incomplete, given that you don't actually talk about where it is implemented, or if its a skill, or how its done in the user interface. just allow it to die, and then we'll burn the suggestions corpse out of our memories. - tylerisfat 20:44, 3 September 2008 (BST)

Completely pointless because such a hypothetical perma-death city does not exist. You can't get more spamtastic than suggesting a mechanic for something that doesn't even exist. --WanYao 09:56, 3 September 2008 (BST)

Reminds me of both Suggestion:20070816 Burning Bodies and another suggestion which I can't quite find at the moment. It is entirely possible that this may be substantially a dupe. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:50, 3 September 2008 (BST)

I found Flare Gun / Fuel Attack interesting reading, to say the least. How many MrAushvitz suggestions have been implemented, now? Surely the apocalypse is extremely nigh... ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 12:57, 3 September 2008 (BST)

Sorry, no, perma-death would not go over in this game. It's simply not fun for the players, and gives a person a reason to give up playing. Favors survivors overwhelmingly, and doesn't really improve the game. I hate to be one of those types shooting down ideas, but this doesn't work. --Zhani 20:36, 3 September 2008 (BST)

A) You only mentioned Monroeville, the dead city. B) MV has one purpose now, and one purpose only: ZKing. I Am Sabbo 02:48, 5 September 2008 (BST)

---

Lighter, the item and him uses

Timestamp:	Obsdark 04:51, 21 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	improvement.
Scope:	Survivors. Create a new item, The lighter & affect the Spray Can too
Description:	Lighter: encumbrance 1%, 15 Uses, when activated its spend 1 by 1 each one of the uses per turn untile be turned off or the 15 turns are spended (it doesnt spend AP or uses turned off, but turned on spend 1AP and use 1 use). The description is "you found/see a Lippo Lighter, is rechargable & seen fancy". Them effects are: makes you easier search for items inside buildings, like power generators but just improve 1/4 the chance of find something than the power generator brings (that means is 1/4 efective than the power generator is to help the search rate) & if is active at the moment when you fight, you can use it with Spray Can's to attack enemys causing 5 damage (with fuel on target's Clothes the damage is x2) spending 1 Spray use, 1 Lighter use & 1AP for attack. Between other characteristics are: is completly useless to damage barricades (with or without Spray Can's) & can be launched again a fuel soaked enemy, causing damage of 10, the percentage is 10% and cant be bettered (if is not fuel soaked and is launched just damage 1) & just can have 1 (or 2) Lighters at the same time in your inventory (but just one turned on of at time of course). you can find it at Mansions(2%), Stadiums(1%), Factorys(3.5%), Clubs(4.5%), Auto Repairs Shops(3.5%) Hotels(5%) & Buildings(3%)

Discussion (Ligher & Spray Can Effect)

This suggestion of a suggestion needs correcting, I'll leave that to you. Had the idea, Plus some others:Matches. _■^■ 05:09, 21 September 2008 (BST)

Sure... But i am a noob in this of Post Suggestion, what u mean exactly with (needs correcting) Obsdark 06:53, 21 September 2008 (BST)

Maybie this fix it a little bit Doesn't it? Obsdark 07:04, 21 September 2008 (BST)

Suggestions up for voting

A Fairer Headshot

Moved to Suggestion talk:20080916 Headshots remove HP, not AP as suggestion is up for voting. Aeon17x 01:51, 16 September 2008 (BST)

---