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.
- With the advent of new game updates, users are requested to allow some time for the game and community to adjust to these changes before suggesting alterations.
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.
- The following suggestions are currently on the Overflow page: No suggestions are currently in overflow.
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
Contaminated Needle
| Timestamp: | I AM TARA 18:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: | equipment |
| Scope: | revivers and people getting revived |
| Description: | Using a revive syringe that was found instead of manufactured comes with a risk of giving the revived person an infection (assuming they weren't already infected when they died). I've been on hiatus for a while so I'm not sure if has changed, but I used to search for needles instead of making them myself so I guess this would deter this kind of action. |
Discussion (Contaminated Needle)
Free Running Edit
| Timestamp: | Chuckiferd 04:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: | Rule Change |
| Scope: | Survivors with Freerunning |
| Description: | I propose that survivors be *unable* to freerun out of ruined buildings, as currently they can.
My reasoning behind this is it would open up a new tactic for long term seiges, pro-survivor zombies could ransack adjacent buildings to help prevent parachuting zombies. Of course pro-zombie survivors could repair the buildings up, so it is not really that biased or unfair. Organized use of this tactic could make a "fort" out of any building or group of buildings. On the other hand, zombies could apply the same tactic to cut the survivors off from any help or support. |
Discussion (Free Running Edit)
Erm, you're saying people should be trapped inside buildings? As much as I'd like to support this given the current zombie-survivor ratio, it's really too much. --WanYao 04:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- -I am saying that they should be "trapped" inside *ruined* buildings. In any case survivors left after 5 ransackings would be an extreme case, and most likely the barricades would be down. But the real purpose would be to give survivors a tactic against zombies who will sneak in as humans, and give zombies an ability to cut areas off from outside support.Chuckiferd 05:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC) (could someone help me fix this, I can't seem to get it)
- How could you be trapped? A zombie can't ruin a building if there are survivors inside and if the building is ruined you can't free run into it. If the building is over VSB you can't enter it and if it is at VSB or below you can just leave. I've just woken up so I might have missed something, but it seems like if you could get inside, you could get out as well. You just couldn't use ruins as entry points. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 10:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- This makes no sense. Either Free Running simply doesn't function, and if you move you find yourself outside -- in which case it's not much different than the status quo, just adds AP to the process (and this is a dupe). Or, you actually are trapped inside, in which case you've created a death trap -- not a form of "protection" ... And a form of fucking with my AP, i.e., griefing... Ergo, totally spam... --WanYao 17:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also, what Midian said: buildings can't be ruined if there are survivors inside. Therefore, the only time this would even work is if a) the cades were VSB++ or lower (and why would you enter if you know you'd be trapped??) or b) someone makes a pinata and a revifying corpse who was already in there stands up. In either case, it's nonsensical suggestion that doesn't work within the game's mechanics. --WanYao 18:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, all the zombies would have to do is get the barricades at VSB and then send a parachuter in. I don't think parachuters are common enough to justify ever using this as a defence. This would cut off help for survivors and thus drastically shorten sieges, and break free running lanes much more severely than the current ruin does. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 10:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Gas Siphoner
| Timestamp: | Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 23:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: | Skill + Item |
| Scope: | Survivors |
| Description: | This does two things to the game. Firstly, it adds Empty Fuel Cans to the game, with the same stats as a regular fuel can, only you can't use it to fuel up generators.
Secondly, it adds the skill Gas Siphoner to the Civilian skill list. This does three things:
In-game messages would read:
|
Discussion (Gas Siphoner)
So, for ~10AP you can get a full fuel can regardless of the state of the suburb? Way overpowered. And aren't petrol stations Borehamwood-only? --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Technicality. There are plenty of locations where one would possibly find fuel: Auto Repair, Carpark, Junkyard, and Police Station. Possibly Factory, Fire Station, Fort, Power Station and Railway Station.--Pesatyel 03:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't know about the gas stations being only Borehamwood. I suppose for Malton and Monroeville that Auto Repairs would work in the place of the gas stations. As for the over-powered aspect, maybe I should up the cost to 20AP, just like the syringes? Oh, and I suppose the pumps might be knocked out of submission via. cutting the power.--Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 04:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
You'll want to have a large failure rate, so it's worth the risk on ruined suburbs, but pointless in smaller ones. Linkthewindow Talk 00:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe an increased AP cost will make searching more viable. --Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 04:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
What about the possiblity of, well, injury or getting splashed? If your physically sucking the fuel out of a car's gas tank, there is the possiblity of accidentially swallowing some or getting the gas on your clothes.--Pesatyel
- Good point. I suppose that failed siphoning attempts could coat the player in fuel. How about a 50% chance of failure with spillage? --Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 04:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
This is just retarded. Search Autos and Factories like the rest of us. --WanYao 04:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Jump from window
| Timestamp: | Dr Rosenrosen 19:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: | Interface |
| Scope: | Anyone in a building |
| Description: | When a Survivor jumps out of a window it shows upon all the other residents interface. Just like "A Zombie brought down the last of the barricades" shows.
"Dr Rosenrosen jumped out of a window." or
"Dr Rosenrosen jumped out of a window and plunged to a certain death." or
"Dr Rosenrosen couldn't take it anymore and jumped out of a window." |
Discussion (Jump from Window)
Dupe. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 19:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Headphones
| Timestamp: | Robshadow27 9:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: | Item |
| Scope: | Survivors |
| Description: | Spamming altogether has created an element of gameplay that some survivors are not fond of. Others wish for their younger children to be able to play, but choose not to because of constant radio broadcasts of vulgar language by those who wish only to annoy, and by passerby's harassing survivors huddling together in buildings. Therefore, I would like to propose an idea whereby survivors could mute the speech of other players by wearing headphones, which could be found at any mall in the Tech Store. Of course, like any other item, it would be necessary to search for the headphones, which would have a search rate of roughly 10 %.
Alternately, instead of a search function, headphones could be worn in place of a hat, in which a survivor would either A)not hear any conversation, or B)hear only muffles, equivalent to a groan being heard. The text could read "You see <insert name here> talking, but only hear muffles behind your headphones." This would eliminate the problem of encumbrance, if that were to become an issue. |
Discussion (Headphones)
Radio Spam is a pain in the ass but such an action to filter language for children who may play would deprive them of the many benefits talking has... In any event, any child mature enough to want to play a zombie game has probably heard more bad words in the playground than they will hear in game so I am not really sure that this is worth programming. --Honestmistake 10:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see where you're coming from but the more i think about it the less useful it seems. What about offensive graffiti or profile names? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I actually like this. I think this is the first suggestion of the year that I do like. We have a benefit (removal of messages that may offend) for a downside (ability to hear helpful speech removed). I'd prefer the item to be an findable item rather than a clothing slot, only for the reason that all clothing slots should be flavour only, with no implied use.
The problem is where to find them. For their intended purpose they'd have to be found first, meaning the cute kiddies that this is meant to help would still be subject to the 'bad' words until they do find them.
The only foolproof way to manage this is to put an age bracket on the signup screen, giving all players 15 and under this as a bonus item automatically (players aged 16 and over would start as normal). The item could then be found by all players at certain locations in the game should they choose to gain the item. A small encumbrance penalty, say 2%, would be fair. Limiting it to mall tech stores is flawed, add in buildings, clubs and junkyards and this might actually work. -- 
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 14:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I find it disturbing that you're worried about "vulgar language" in a game that involves:
- lots of blood,
- zombies killing survivors,
- survivors killing zombies,
- zombies killing zombies,
- (and most importantly) survivors killing survivors (ie. MURDER).
To fix that, I'd suggest another item to complement the headphones: Candy-Lensed Safety Goggles. For the wearer they'd turn all weapons into Template:Wikipedia, melee attacks into hugging and kissing, infection into cooties, blood into lemonade, zombies into hares, and survivors into rabbits. Damage would be called "nuggets of joy" (as in: a hare hugged you for 3 nuggets of joy) and dying would be called "fainting from happiness". And the interface would be pink. And the game would be called Urban Lagomorphs. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 15:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd play that game. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah... maybe 8 year olds shouldn't be playing UD. However, if you do have your children playing, and you're concerned about the content -- follow what all the advice on good parenting says, and play with your kids, don't leave them unsupervised -- and then try to nerf the game for the adult majority because you CBAed to supervise your kids.
- As for spam... sheeesh, who's making you read it? Why doesn't it bother me? Or, how about this: leave the safety of green wanker suburbs 00 which is where all the spam happens, anyway -- and go help where it's needed. Less spam. More impact.
- That out of the way... The mechanic of this does more to discourage survivor organisation and encourage the undirected, individualistic trenchcoater playing style than anything I have seen in ages. --WanYao 20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Dupe of Ear Plugs specifically. Also Ignore Certain Types of Messages. As for the age thing, he just, perhaps, needs a disclaimer on the main page.--Pesatyel 04:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I actually don't have a problem at all with the radio broadcasts, and receiving all types of noises and communications. I enjoy the spamming for what it is. I really only felt like submitting this idea to actually get an idea out here, to learn the process, and because there are others in my group who are concerned for their children. I believe that it is really up to the parents to deal with the implications of playing a game such as this, as it does have a good deal of violence. I thank you all for your comments, and I will also think harder on these ideas for the next time. Also, thank you Pesayel for pointing out the dupe. That was my fault for not searching thoroughly enough.--Robshadow27 06:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's not problem, that's the point of the page. Finding dupes isn't that easy and there is nothing wrong with representing an idea.--Pesatyel 07:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Flare Accuracy Increase
| Timestamp: | Yungblood 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: | Zombie Hunter Skill |
| Scope: | Flare Gun Accuracy, which means survivors I guess |
| Description: | Decorated Malton survivors are now becoming more accurate when firing a flare gun at a target.
Logically, at the distance you have to be at to effectively hit a target with a shotgun, the proximity would have to be pretty close. So, shooting at you target with a flare gun wouldn't be too hard, but the room for error would still be large. My suggestion is simple, increase flare gun accuracy by means of a new zombie hunter skill: Flare Experience- Player gets +5% to hit with a flare gun. I chose 5% because i believe anything over 5% would be too overpowering. This wouldn't make a flare gun a primary weapon for someone to use, but it would make it a little more useful when ammunition is low and you happen to have a surplus of flares. P.S. I'm horribly at finding dupe suggestions, so I'm sorry if there already is one like this. |
Discussion (Flare Accuracy Increase)
Survivors already have really nifty things called Pistols and Shotguns. Flares are supposed to amazingly inaccurate, that's the whole point. However, they deal 15 HP of damage if they hit -- and 30 HP (!!!) if you hit someone with fuel-soaked clothing. Firearms don't need buffing, including Flares. --WanYao 00:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Flares are a novelty weapon-the point is that they are so amazingly inaccurate (as Wan said,) that they are useless except in a randomly find and then use environment. Linkthewindow Talk 11:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually for rank newbs, their high variance makes them better than firearms. For real. But, yeah, they'e not meant to be accurate, that's the point. --WanYao 04:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Find faces in a crowd
| Timestamp: | Linkthewindow Talk 05:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: | Interface |
| Scope: | People in crowded buildings |
| Description: | It's logical to assume that it would be easier to recognize people you already know in a crowded building. In short, people who you have added to your contact list will appear on a separate list below "list names"-similar to the message that shows you recognize zombies in a horde. A quick check finds no dupes, but I'll be happy to be proven wrong.
It would look a bit like this: You are inside St George's Hospital, dark corridors leading through abandoned wards. The floor and walls are marked with splashes of blood. The doors to the street have been secured. There is a crowd of 71 survivors gathered here. [list names]. You recognize Boots the Monkey, Mightyoak, Violet Begonia and mere bystander in the crowd. |
Discussion (Find faces in a crowd)
Tear apart when ready. Linkthewindow Talk 05:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I hate you. Because you thought of this, and I didn't.... IMNSHO this is a fantastic idea! As long as it applies across the board to zombies as well, then I love it! And hate you... ;P --WanYao 06:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
This is great. Save the IP hits :) --xoxo 06:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering why I couldn't but never put much thought into it. ■■ 06:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Simplicty itself. Of course, contacts you recognize among the survivors should be seperate from the contacts you recognize among the zombies. The two "recognition lists" should follow the total numbers of humans and zombies, respectively. --A Big F'ing Dog 07:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
How does this affect the order of precedence?--Pesatyel 07:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I could have sworn I'd seen this before. Turns out I had, and it ended up in Peer Reviewed. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not surprising-I was surprised I didn't find it in my search. Thanks. Linkthewindow Talk 10:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- No probs! I just searched the Suggestion namespace for "recognise". What can I say? I have search kung fu. ;) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Props
| Timestamp: | A Big F'ing Dog 22:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: | Improvement |
| Scope: | Clothing |
| Description: | This is a clothing suggestion, but I'm posting it here because it's to suggest a new slot of clothing instead of a single garment.
Clothes are designed to act like costumes, correct? If you're a doctor wear a labcoat, etc. Playing soldier? Wear dogtags. But part of a costume is what you're holding. Since people can't see your inventory, I suggest adding a new clothing slot for a prop. What is a prop? It's something you hold. It could include stuff like: A purse. Guitar. Backpack. Flags. Walking stick. Cane. Flute. Boxing gloves. Flowers. Candy bar. Swiss army multitool. Mirror. Sleeping bag. Manila envelope. Polaroid camera. Etc. Props would be the same as clothing. You wouldn't search for them but instead add them to your profile in select buildings. Just like clothing they'd have no in game effect, and they'd get bloodied and damaged each time you're killed. There would be no props that overlap with actual items (so no fire axe prop). Zombies would be able to select one prop, but just like clothing after that they'd need to get revived to get new props. This seems like an obvious suggestion, so if you can find a dupe please let me know. |
Discussion (Props)
I'm not opposed to the idea, but there is a significant factor your neglecting. Most players have a weapon in hand. Would it mean you'd be able to see what weapon someone is using?--Pesatyel 03:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- No, weapons wouldn't be props. You wouldn't see anyone's inventory at any point. The idea is more about the thematic trademark possession your character might carry rather than weapons. Stuff like a cane, a cigar, or a purse. --A Big F'ing Dog 07:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There are just so many possibilities to cover. Too many. Just put it in your character description. --WanYao 06:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Construction Worker
| Timestamp: | Corinthias 22:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: | New class |
| Scope: | Survivors |
| Description: | There are many kinds of people that escape a post-apocalyptic zombiefied world, and no one has considered the working class. I suggest a new class of civilian, the construction worker, who starts with:
Naturally, this is a hard character to level up, as you don't gain experience with the construction skill. In itself, it balances out to being a skill that novice and beginner classes would have difficulty leveling up with, and experienced players would still have a rough time. |
Discussion (Construction Worker)
- The problem is that survivors could create lots of level 1 characters just to repair ruined buildings. All those 80+ AP ruins out there? A survivor could create a throwaway character to patch it up. I think this has been suggested before. --A Big F'ing Dog 22:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This has been suggested many times before and spammed out for the above reason. --Papa Moloch 00:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- What the above two said-mostly zerging issues, and we don't need another useless starting class Linkthewindow Talk 01:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
First, there is this already in Peer Review. Then we had this and this. That was just searching for "constructio worker". The game really doesn't need new classes since th are all, roughly, the same by level 6 anyway. Plus, this is just zerge bait.--Pesatyel 03:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Radio transmitters in more places
| Timestamp: | WanYao 18:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC) |
| Type: | Increased item availability |
| Scope: | Survivors |
| Description: | As it stands, radio transmitters can only be found in Malls and Forts. This doesn't seem right to me. Therefore, I suggest that Radio Transmitters be added to the following locations, which seem logical to me:
Specifics are up for discussion. It's only logical to me that PDs and FSs would have radio transmitters. At the very least, this change would help make survivor play less mall-centric. People could play far from malls and still have access to this very useful in-game communication tool. More flexibility for the non-mall rats and non-fort-roaches seems good to me. |
Discussion (Radio transmitters in more places)
apologies ahead of time if this is a dupe! --WanYao 18:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
My first thought, on reading the title, was "won't this just create more radio spam?" After reading, that is still a concern.--Pesatyel 19:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
A real problem in borehamwood, with only 2 locations to find them. Hmm. perhaps. I'll have a think. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 23:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't care about radio spam. I just ignore it, I don't know why everyone else doesn't. Or, if you catch a spammer, just shoot him. :) Anyway, radios are very useful. Back in the day when I hung around Pole Mall, we coordinated the feral harmanz with radios. Now that I don't hang malls around so much, I still wanna be able to use radios without having to deal with all those damn housewives in sweats! And the farkin' WalMart greeters, I do NOT need you to greet me, leave me alone already!!! :P And, thing is... It's exactly those places that are far from malls that could use radios the most... Again, a very cool added benefit of this would be another small shift away from mall-centric play. And I am pretty strongly in favour of anything balanced that makes mall-centric play weaker. --WanYao 03:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea. I don't think it needs to water down ammo search rates at all though. Just slightly decrease the chance of finding nothing. Since people search A LOT in police stations for ammo search rates should be fairly low. Maybe 2% in PDs? --A Big F'ing Dog 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Because people need a reason to complain. What search rates were you thinking?--Pesatyel 03:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fine. I've always wondered why Fire Departments don't have radios anyway. Linkthewindow Talk 05:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok... So let's make FS's the primary place to find a transmitter. I'm thinking somewhere from 4-8%, I dunno, these are very tentatives numbers, all of them. They can also be found in PDs, but rather rarely: 2% is plenty , imo. And as part of the pile in junkyards, however Kevan deals with junkyards. What do you's think about this? --WanYao 06:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Should I put it up for voting, then? --WanYao 00:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
