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

Advanced Rot

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 05:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill.
Scope:	Zombies.
Description:	Sub-Skill of Flesh Rot. Cost: 100 XP The body is now so far gone with rot that even in a powered NT it often takes more than a single syringe to revive, not only that but prolonged contact with this walking cadaver risks infection! Powered NT revives fail 50% of the time. Scans, Revive Attempts, Body Dumps, and Melee Attacks have a 10% chance to spread infection (as a bite) Contributors:Honestmistake

Discussion (Advanced Rot)

Modesty forbids me saying how good this is :) I would remove the chance of melee attacks causing infection though as it a bit much. I also think that even 10% might be a bit high, 5% might be nearer the mark --Honestmistake 08:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Another rehashing of the Jorm skill, haven't seen this suggested for at least a month.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

should be easy to find a dupe link then...--Honestmistake 08:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

the closest I see is [[1]] It gives a 10% chance of infecting anyone who kills a zed with the skill. You will note that I have asked for the melee infection chance to be removed, mainly as i think it should be restricted to prolonged contact. --Honestmistake 09:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still against the whole Infection Sans Warning of any kind, for any chance of it happening. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 16:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Falling from ruins causes damage but you don't get a warning each time you try to free run into them, admitedly there was a lot of complaint when they first came into play but its just an accepted fact now. Because there is only ever going to be a minority of zombies that even buy this skill due to its main effect (and requisites) its not going to be as common as falling but it will make people fear the rotters a bit more. Obviously reality has little to do with it but lets face it, after so many years of being dead a lot of the older zombies should be pretty rank by now and even coming close to them should put you at risk of disease; in the face of that a low chance of infection when you are poking, probing and hauling them about probably shouldn't be a surprise.--Honestmistake 17:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I can still tell when there's a danger with freerunning because there will be this grey building tile. With this, there's no way to tell whatsoever if any dead body of five in a building will randomly infect me. Something like this would likely encourage more people to get the Rot, too. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, fear of the unknown is what makes the game exciting and the more rotters the better :) --Honestmistake 17:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If it made it into game I would be all in favour of "hazmat" suits being introduced into NT's and airdrops. Wearing them could negate the infection chance and make you look like Homer Simpson. Oh and one last thing, I would also support an survivor skill under the first aid tree that allowed identification of advanced rot via an asterix or changed font or some such.... Skill would need to get into game first before it could be suggested but i would be all for putting a note about such an idea into the suggestion if/when it goes for voting.--Honestmistake 17:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Infection from scanning would be a really big hit to the starting NT scientist. Its already pretty tough to make your first level that way. But hey, I suppose folks could always start as doctors instead. Still... maybe if it was limited to dumping bodies (helps in holding buildings) and attempting revives (to discourage idiot needle wasters).
Really though, I think the FAK nerf has done a LOT to boost the power of infection. My death cultist got one recently, and I wasted 9 AP NOT finding a FAK in a powered mall (there were no powered hospitals, thanks to my own efforts). I finally gave up and went off to build a pinata. Speeking of which, giving survivors a way to infect themselves, would be a big boost to pinata building!  Swiers 17:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Bellow

Timestamp:	Swiers 01:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	skill
Scope:	zombie
Description:	Requires "feeding groan". Can be used in the same situations as feeding Groan, but costs 10 AP to use. Can be heard at double the range of feeding groan.

Discussion (Bellow)

This skill is for when your zombie breaks into a REALLY crowded building, and wants to draw in a LOT of ferals. It could be heard for 12 blocks (for a net 625 block coverage), and the message for those who hear it would be written such that Bellows could be distinguished from Groans.
My thinking is that 12 blocks isn't to far to travel for many ferals, not when they know somebody (likely a member of an organized horde) thought it was worth 10 AP to let out a bellow.
Obviously, it COULD be used in less crowded buildings, but there would not be much point. Still, maybe it should require a minimum number of humans present? If so, how many?  Swiers 01:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest 25 as the minimum number of humans. I'd also suggest that there only be a single button, "Groan" if the zombie only has the groaning skill, "Groan" if the zed has both this and the groaning skill and there are less than 25 humans inside, and a "Bellow" button for zeds with both skills and 25 or more humans inside. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

25 Minimum sounds good. Maybe it only costs 5 AP though?--Zombie Lord 05:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I like this one alot. 10AP seems about right. Survivors have a number of ways to spend in excess of 10AP with a single action, it would add a nice strategic balance if zombies could make similar decisions with their AP. Also I like this as an alternative to the group moan suggestion currently under voting. Great idea. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 06:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Awesome suggestion! --Johnny Bass 15:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC) I think 25 survivors is a bit high; there are plenty of times when your 3-4 zombie strike team crakcs open an "important" building with 15-20 survivors in it. Then again, maybe survivors do deserve to be able to cluster SOMEHWHAT. How about 20? And yeah, obviously you would still get the groan button, and would only see a "Bellow (10AP)" button when the circumstances actually allowed you to bellow. And if the circumstances changed before you hit the button (say to many survivors got killed / left the building), it would simply trigger as a normal groan.  Swiers 17:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Anti Zerg Legislation

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement.
Scope:	All Players.
Description:	Now all players must have an Account, registered with an e-mail address. Under this Account you should be able to create and manage Alts. One per week an automated e-mail is sent to your Account mail address where you must Validate your Account or have it Eradicated. Since all your Alts will be associated with an email address, the system should be able to tell if they get too close, and Eradicate the lowest level Alt in such a case. You can put your Account into Suspension if you need to go on vacation or whatnot. Once you do so it may be reactivated at any time after 3 full days have passed.

Discussion (Anti Zerg Legislation)

Multiple e-mail addresses breaks this in a snap. And that would be a LOT of e-mails. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

But it's better to require none? At least this way the zergs would have to register a new address for each zerg and validate it each week. It's basic, but it's something. Unless Kevan just WANTS zergs to boost his Ad Revenue.--Zombie Lord 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is just going to make it marginally harder to zerg. People who still want to zerg are going to go through one more tiny little hoop, and that's all. It's not going to be strong enough of a deterrent anyway. And again, there are simply WAY TOO MANY e-mails to send out. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Better than NO deterrent. Which is pretty much what we got now. Like I say though, I suspect Kevan really wants zergs...and probably so do a lot of players. No matter how much bitching you hear about zerging.--Zombie Lord 00:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The current deterrent is major, major hits to your chances. I wanted to see how effective they were, so I took two characters as zombies and moved them near each other from the same IP - first zombie beat someone up fairly normally, second one got exactly zero hits with 50 AP and full claw skills.

Thing is, you can't eliminate zerging without eliminating real-time coordination at the same time, and that would piss off a lot of people. Both zombies and survivors would be miffed. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Either that or the majority of the players AND the creator of the game actually want zerging around.--Zombie Lord 01:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How exactly do you propose the validation would happen? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 00:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

UD sends the Account an email each week, and you should be able to Validate all your Alts from that email. The same way Forums and other Online games require validation.--Zombie Lord 00:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So you'd validate just by clicking a link? You do realize how easy something like that is to automate? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 00:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't have call to automate may mail responses, so that didn't occur to me. Dont they have anti-automated measures though? Picture codes that must be entered and the like?--Zombie Lord 00:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Most e-mail validations don't. And even if they did, CAPTCHA (Picture codes) can still be beaten. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So why bother even trying I guess right? Jesus. So UD will forever be a zerg broken game, and as a direct result of that a mechanics broken, bland, pointless game because people are terrified that zergs might get something out of a balanced game with sound game theory behind it? JESUS.--Zombie Lord 01:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

One per week an automated e-mail is sent to your Account mail address where you must Validate your Account or have it Eradicated. Fucking hell no. This is the real world, not netopia. People loose computer access for many reasons, not the least of which is relocation or poverty (its a free game after all). I wouldn;t even be able to play my characters any more under those restrictions.  Swiers 01:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You could freeze the Account for Vacations like I said. I assume in that case the mails stop until you reactivate. And even if you lost a character, so what, its a GAME. Make another one. Everyone wants complain about zergs, but not make any little step to actually get rid of them. It just seems to me more and more that people just want zergs around.--Zombie Lord 01:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, we can't effectively get rid of zergs without severely hurting normal players. And just because we can't get rid of them doesn't mean we want them around. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm... no. The UD community maintains lists specifically designed to track down and kill zergs. And nearly every major group has an anti-zerg policy. The only real way would be to simply block proxies for accessing Urban Dead, and for a free browser-based game, that may just cost too much. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have little faith in these lists to be honest. The supposed evidence required to get you on a list is minimal, and if a player isn't aware of these lists they can easily get caught up in the half-assed self-policing that is going on without having a clue why they now seem to be picked on. No, I haven't been on one of these lists myself but the accusations our group has experienced from a group we regularly interact with online is beginning to get tedious. I'm definitely for more server-side anti-zerg measures if it reduces the omg zerg claims in the game. --Roorgh 12:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone wants complain about zergs, but not make any little step to actually get rid of them. It just seems to me more and more that people just want zergs around. Everyone? I don't recall ever complaining about them. Seems to me more like a vocal minority complains really loudly, and the rest of us roll our eyes and houmour them, and then get on playing the game. I for one give not one shit about the (very small, IMO) impact zerging has ever had on the game. Aside from the efforts of the SA crew (which wasn't just an issue of zerging) I can't think of one time its really affected what I could do in the game. Unless you metagame to a level I simply find not fun (and that's saying something) you can't really tell a zerg from a co-ordinated group- and usually the group is MORE effective, and certainly more intersting.
Besides, like you say, its a GAME. A few cheaters (and its fairly few) who don't really affect other people on a wide scale isn't worth the hassle getting rid of them would cause.  Swiers 17:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, this will just end up having actual players having their characters deleted, without actually impeding zergers. All it takes is multiple emails. A small inconvenience for zergers, but a potentially much larger one for actual players.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"All it takes" How is this NOT going to stop someone from running an ARMY of 50 to 100 zergs? Are they going to get 100 fucking email address and validate them all each week?! Nobody has that little of a life!--Zombie Lord 03:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, with the current system, zergers have to use a proxy (differ their IP) for each zerging character (to avoid the RNG penalties). When the IPs are different, there's absolutely no difference to the server between co-ordination between unique players and zergers. Are people who want to zerg going to set up 100 proxies and use them all regularly every day? Well, apparently, some people do. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they had to register and maintain 100 different email address on to top of that wouldn't it cut zerging down at least?--Zombie Lord 03:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think going through 100 email addresses once a week is a large chore to someone who goes through 100 accounts every day? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 08:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Most zerging accounts are simply throwaways, and it's not much effort for someone to create a throwaway email account as well - perhaps even less then setting up a proxy. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't need 100 email addresses, merely a catch all on your own domain. Then a very small filter/script as somebody else suggested. What it probably wouldn't do is stop the hard-core zerger, but it'd likely cut down on the moderate zerger. Casual zergers would only be concerned about one or two addresses so I'd guess it wouldn't be much of an impact to them either. --Roorgh 12:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Free Running Lanes

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement.
Scope:	Free Running
Description:	1. Freerunning is no longer a Skill. Everybody loses it. 2. All Players CAN "Free Run" across buildings inherently, under the following circumstances: a.Free Running Lanes are Structures, makeshift bridges that span buildings. They must be built and maintained. Inside each Building (that is directly adjacent to another building) there is a new Option to Build Free Running Lanes. This requires a toolbox, 5 AP, and a new Item: Lumber Lumber. 20% Encumbrance. Found in Warehouses, Factories, Junkyards, and Mall Hardware Stores. Once built they can be destroyed the same as Generators, with the following Levels of damage: Undamaged, Lightly Damaged, Damaged, heavily Damaged, Destroyed. The Running Lanes level of damage is reported in the building the same as Generators so all can see how damaged it may be. Running Lanes that are damaged from Lightly Damaged to Heavily Damaged can be repaired by a Survivors with a Toolkit for 1 AP, which totally restores the Lanes to Undamaged status. Running Lanes inside Ruined buildings cannot be Built or Repaired. A building that has it's Free Running Lanes Destroyed cannot be Free Run into or out of. If you try to run into a building that has its Lanes destroyed you get a message: "That building has no Running Lanes" at 0 AP cost to you. A survivor who is encumbered at 75% or less can free run freely as long as the lanes are not Destroyed. A Survivor who is encumbered at 76% or above has a 25% chance to fall to the street, as long as the lanes are not Destroyed. A zombie has a 50% to fall to the street if they attempt to use a Running Lane, as long as the Lanes are not Destroyed. Destroying a Running Lane grants 5 XP to the destroyer, but only if they are a Zombie.

Discussion (Free Running Lanes)

Free Running. Since you appear to want the game to be completely different from what it currently is, why don't you make one yourself? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a stretch. The Free Running you link to allows people to fly I guess; or teleport. As far as I know Kevan has never explained what "Free Running" actually is in UD, so this is in no way an attempt to "change the game from what it currently is". Sorry, but "street acrobatics" does not allow one to span buildings like Spiderman.--Zombie Lord 19:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

First, notice that the skill is not called Bridges. It's called Free Running. The street-acrobatics-thingy is called Free Running. It's not like I'm assuming the pistol to actually be an evil monkey that spits miniature black holes. No, I'm "assuming" that Free Running is Free Running. Second, those two sentences weren't supposed to be connected, I meant the game mechanics (and your Death Penalty suggestion) with the second sentence. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 20:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're telling me that every person in Malton is a freakin Cirque du Soleil performer...Yeah, THATS more logical that bridges...Jesus FUCKING Christ.--Zombie Lord 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is also a surgeon, so fuck off with that reasoning. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 20:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hell no. That shit should be changed as well.--Zombie Lord 20:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we now need to get into the whole "Zombies are impossible" thing and how survivors can just walk up to zombies and stab them in the neck with syringes? And how there seems to be an infinite number of supplies in buildings? etc. etc. I'd rather have a fun, balanced game than one where everything is completely and totally logical. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why do you play UD? --Zombie Lord 23:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I play because I find it to be fun and it's mostly balanced. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it's balanced all right. 1 Survivor = 5 zombies.--Zombie Lord 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's how a zombie apocalypse functions. And it's still only 2 to 1, not 5 to 1. The population balance like this fluctuates normally. It's not a sign of unbalanced game mechanics. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that 1 Survivor can hold off 5 Zombies with 50 AP forcing them to spend 250 AP on barricades. Throw the 2 to 1 pop ratio on top of that and its even worse. The main battle in this game is over barricades. 1 Survivor cancels 5 zombies. Now add in that zombie are outnumbered 2 to 1. Do the math.--Zombie Lord 00:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Except it's not pure math - two or three zombies can tear down EHB cades before the one survivor logs in, and then do damage to said survivor. Maybe even the other two zombies would log in before the survivor too and kill him off. With more volume (more total players, say 50 survivors to 250 zombies), as in Mall sieges and hordes etc., the zombies invariably have the upper hand - more log ins and break-ins around the clock. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe 5 zombies MIGHT kill off one survivor. This is what kills me about Survivors. They just accept the fact that their opponent REQUIRES 5 to 1 odds just to maybe kill one of them as if its somehow balanced.--Zombie Lord 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're just plain wrong there. At best the barricade construction/destruction advantage is a bit below 4 to 1 in favor of survivors, but that's only on QSB and below. As the cades get higher, the advantage gets lower, until at EHB level the advantage is on the zombies' side. Building barricades from none to EHB+2 takes an average of 34.67 AP, while taking them down from that takes an average of 76 AP, meaning that the true advantage of barricades is only about 2.2 to 1. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You obviously don't know how to barricade properly.--Zombie Lord 13:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And you obviously don't know what you're talking about (or math, for that matter). --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're giving me a mouthful of greek salad. A bunch of charts and numbers that don't mean anything. Only fools cade to EHB. You give me any 5 zombies and one building and I'll hold those fuckers out. Guaran-fuckin-teed.--Zombie Lord 14:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm really tempted to prove you wrong ^{(though I doubt you'd aknowledge it even if I did)}. Anyone else interested? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Course I'd acknowledge it (that's acknowledge with a c, fool). You must be projecting your own bad habits on me. So, where shall we throw down? The funny thing is that you're too thick to realize that even if you DID get in, you'd still be proving MY overall point, cause you're not going to be able to KILL me. In the end, I'll spend 50 AP and your Zombies will spend 250 and achieve nothing. It's about the AP ratio, not whether or not you can make the breach. --Zombie Lord 15:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha, oh wow. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 15:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You still don't get it that the best ratio you can achieve (on average) is 4 to 1? That leaves 50AP to kill you with. Let's see if anyone else is interested, I'm not going to start alt-abusing just to prove you wrong. Then we'll talk about the location. Also, you did read this, right? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if you DID kill me, I'd still be right fool. 50 AP vs 250 AP. Hello?! I will concede that it's possible to achieve both those things (but not likely), but it's still 50 to 250. Even if for the sake of argument you could do both those things with only 4 zombies it's still 50 to 200. You're just trying to distract from my real argument with a Red Herring (like your Surgery dodge earlier)--Zombie Lord 16:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you'd be wrong. You said you could hold five zombies out, "guaran-fuckin-teed." Please don't set yourself up for "No matter what happens, I'm right" arguments. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 16:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Was I talkin to you, bitch? I already stated above that I concede he could possibly get in with 5 zombies. I let Mid side rail me with his Red Herring into this totally irrelevant issue. The point is he is going to need 4 or 5 fucking zombies to deal with one Survivor and blow 200 to 250 AP vs my 50. When you toss the 2 to 1 Pop ratio on top of those ridiculous numbers its obvious we have a major AP imbalance in this game. NOW GO GET YOUR FUCKIN SHINEBOX.--Zombie Lord 16:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a stupid argument. There are too many factors to make any accurate claims on how many zombies a survivor can repel (except broad claims based on known facts like to-hit chances, etc.). Are the zombies organized? Has the survivor player paid $5 for additional IP hits? Does the survivor player have a life away from the computer? If the survivor player cannot afford to hit refresh every two minutes, and the zombies act in coordination, there is a very good chance that they will get in and eat him before he can react, because the interface of UD favors the active player. Perpetually keeping barricades at VSB against multiple zombies really requires that the survivor player can refresh the page constantly and that the zombies aren't coordinated. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 16:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are some great points Extro. But which side does being active benefit more? Survivors. Active cading...extremely efficient. Active decading...useless. About the ONLY thing on the Zombie side in this is holding a Ruin, and even then you're pushing yourself to least dangerous place in the stack every time you check, so you can watch other Zombies die and hopefully get the word out that Survivors are whittling away at the stack. I have one Survivor character and active cading is about the only way I cade with it. Zombies, and zombie players in general play the one log in a day method because there is hardly any reason not to. Survivors OTOH, play active and conserve their AP for use throughout the day A LOT more, cause its so damn useful. So, they have an AP advantage, numbers advantage AND are about the only useful characters for an active style of play, which is the best style of play. This helps their numbers because Survivors can play lone wolves if they want. More play styles, more players interested. Zombies are pretty much required to use metagaming hordes to achieve anything, more restricted play style, less players interested. The advantages just keeping stacking up on the Survivor side, and a few more AP sinks, harder maintenance for their buildings/tools are desperately called for. It's not going to "break the game" for Survivors to give up a little in one area of these numerous advantages in game mechanics.--Zombie Lord 23:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me; when I say the UD interface favors the active player, I do not mean the player who logs in 10 times a day-- though certainly, they have an advantage by being able to keep tabs on things. I meant the player who is currently acting. A "sleeping" player cannot do a thing. Urban Dead has an active attack, passive defense scheme: survivors spend AP building cades so that they can walk away from their computer, and zombies spend AP attacking buildings, hoping to take advantage of the fact that the survivor player if off at work. Just as an anecdotal example, I have a character who hangs around quite a bit with MCM at Saint George's, where there are commonly 60-90 survivors clustered in a VSB building. Usually, the building is penetrated twice or three times a day by zombies, usually in groups of 2. And they accomplish this because they act in concert, as opposed to the survivors inside, who cannot watch the barricades every minute of every day. I've only engaged in "real time" combat twice in the four months I have played, and your "1 survivor can hold off 4 zombies" idea seems to be predicated on a real-time barricading/de-barricading model, where everyone is taking their actions at the same time. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 17:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's possible to get 4 to 1, but it requires a lot of work (and IP hits) and is risky. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 17:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Based on the average response from Zombie Lord there's nothing to be gained in going beyond saying the idea is shit (if that's your opinion). Any comment seems to be rewarded with (essentially) I don't care how you want to play, this is how I want it. --Roorgh 14:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're clear on this, the building's going to be unbarricaded when the experiment starts? Or you lose if you can't get it back to the same level it was in the beginning? Either way is fine with me, but in any other situation it wouldn't be just you keeping the zombies out, it would also be the person who barricaded it in the first place, making it 2 vs 5, not 1 vs 5. Also, the experiment should be repeated to smoothen any bumps caused by the RNG. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion isn't even internally consistent, never mind the game-breaking ramifications. And as Mid said, Free Running ≠ Makeshift Bridges... --  RoosterDragon  19:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Not internally consistent". Explain. How is it not internally consistent?--Zombie Lord 19:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Building A has FR lanes built. Building B does not. Can you free run from A to B? Unclear, and the converse? Yet survivors in A would appear to have these lanes built that lead to buildings for whom the same lanes do not exist. And the fact these are supposed to be bridges? Some sort of special one-way variety? Even addressing this, still spam of inordinate magnitude. --  RoosterDragon  20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's simple. If a building has no lanes you can't run in or out of it. So, no you cant run from a building with lanes to one without. A building would need several actual bridges that lead to all possible buildings. So a building with lanes would have all it's bridges up that lead to other buildings with their lanes up, but not building that don't have their lanes up. Its a way of simplifying what would actually take several bridges leading from one building. So, a building that technically had it's own lanes up but no other building around it did would indeed be cut off, and yes that's not entirely logical, but it's just a way to avoid excessive over-complications.

It's still more reasonable than teleporting with magical FreeRunning acrobatics.--Zombie Lord 20:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You've over-simplified evidently. A building that has lanes up doesn't have them unless the other one does too, but only for that building? If you build some lanes you could still be trapped because the others don't? That is magic. Unlike free running which, in case you have heard, is possible in real life. You could try and close the hole in this odd explanation, but this isn't the major issue with the suggestion, the major issue is the game-breaking-ness of the whole thing. --  RoosterDragon  20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Free Running as described in that link does exist, but trying to use that as a reason for the ability that exists in UD is stretching the boundaries of that real life skill considerably. Again, whats more reasonable, that we make bridges or that everyone in Malton is a super acrobat? And saying "game-breaking" is not a magic talisman that explains everything. How is gods name would this break the game. It would just make it a bit harder.--Zombie Lord 20:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you make this too complex you get hit with the KISS principle, but it could be changed to only buildings with their Lanes up can be run into or out of. So, a building with Lanes up could always be run into or out of regardless of whether the buildings around it have their Lanes up or not. This would actually help low level Survivors since they would not have to have a Skill in order to free run.--Zombie Lord 20:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not saying I support this, just pointing out that the concept of bridges from each building only extending half-way across the gap that is the streets is not impossible to grasp. If one building doesn't have its section of bridges up, well then the bridges from the other buildings that extend half-way across to that building have nothing to connect with and end up with a drop into the streets until the bridges that are to connect to them can be raised (I think that made sense). - User:Whitehouse 21:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah that would make sense too actually. Thanks, I think my original concept would work fine under that reasoning. It would make more sense that way, with each building requiring its own section to be anchored properly, which would be hard to do from the building over. --Zombie Lord 21:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Game-breakage. I am assuming the suggestion lifts the limit on cade entry, if not it's even more breaking, whatever.

1. Let us initially assume survivors would seek to maintain these lanes as a method of safe travel. Any survivor wishing to build them will need a toolbox and 20% per bit of lumber. This is a massive encroachment onto the carrying capacity. They now need to search for lumber, spend 5AP to make the damn thing and an additional cost of entering the building from ground level.
   1. Survivors now have a heavily reduced carrying capacity. Limiting the ability to stockpile other important items.
   2. Survivors now have a new AP sink where one did not exist before. Searching, building lanes and getting into the building adds up to a lot, for one measly extension to the network.
2. Let us now assume that the network is low priority, being hard to create and maintain and needing a lot of infrastructure before it creates a network of a useful size and spread. Now survivors are forced to use an AP to exit buildings, then go towards their destination. Once there, they must spend another AP to get inside.
   1. You've cost the survivor additional AP for movement.
   2. You save zombie AP since some survivors may find themselves stuck outside when they would've otherwise been inside the FR network and safe.
3. Further, you've just allowed zombies to bypass cades. They can now raid a building but leave the lanes intact. At which point they can now free run into adjoining buildings with 50% success, and spend only a few AP to keep trying, certainly saves AP as opposed to knocking down those EHB cades that are now everywhere. So much for the usefulness of cades then, since zombies can just walk in from next door. In which case, lanes are strategically destroyed when under attack to prevent this, limiting mobility and wasting their high AP cost for their installation.
   1. Zombies can bypass cades? That's game breaking spam in itself.

To summarise:

• Survivor AP is now used heavily on this new addition, leaving less for other things.
• Survivor efficiency is reduced due to less carrying capacity and lengthier movement times.
• Zombies could bypass cades.

And if high cades levels still prevent entry...

• Survivors could get stuck outside in overcaded areas, along with wasting AP looking for an entry, zombies get free meals occasionally when one gets stuck outside.
• VSB cades would have to be more common, saving zombies a lot of AP in breaking down cades.

Game breaking enough yet? --  RoosterDragon  21:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This all assumes Survivors REFUSING to adapt. It assumes Survivors carry on as under the old system without consideration for the new situation. A new AP sink is called for. Survivors already have an insane surplus regarding this in the overall AP attrition battle. Zombie entering your building through running lanes? break the Lanes around you OR just break the ones inside your own building. Simple. Your statement that zombies can "bypass cades" is an huge oversimplification, they cant just do it at will. You'd have to weight the bonuses and the drawbacks to maintaining your Running Lanes. Survivors would just have to adapt. Think a little maybe. Asking too much I guess.--Zombie Lord 21:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not too much to ask that survivors think and adapt (and they do it already) - you're just doing it in a game-breakingly bad way. And remember, a few zombies could easily use the lanes to get inside somewhere before someone in the sieged building logged in and destroyed the lanes. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's all pile up in a building and hit the Barricade button occasionally. Yeah, hardcore thinking there.--Zombie Lord 22:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not the fact it's difficult to overcome cades, it's the fact it might happen. Barricades are a core mechanic and you do not fuck with the cade mechanics. If you suggest even a minor change in build success you would get spammed. Let alone letting zombies bypass them entirely, and not to mention the other problems... --  RoosterDragon  22:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pretty reactionary. Survivors outnumber zombies 2 to 1, so I wouldn't be surprised if they spammed something that would lessen their not only numbers advantage, but also their basic mechanics advantage. That doesn't inherently mean anything though, aside from highlighting their fear of change and a challenge.--Zombie Lord 22:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Kevan alters the search rates on syringes occasionally to deal with such things, this has a direct impact on the revive rate but little unexpected collateral. Altering barricades affects everything. Ratio wise, it's always been pretty survivor biased. See the Statistics or even go nuts and check out Survivor-Zombie Imbalance for the full story. If you're looking to nudge it towards a more equal ratio, find a more directed, considered and non-breaking approach. This is a nuke that'll leave a smoking crater of a game afterwards. --  RoosterDragon  23:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I just don't get this whole "sacred core mechanic" thing. In a game where Survivors outnumber zombies 2 to 1 and a single Survivor can hold off 5 zombies, spending 50 AP to their 250 AP in a barricade battle, is it REALLY going to be the END OF THE WORLD to mess with things? Sometimes it just stinks too much of a majority that likes to play kick the cripple refusing to have any sort of balance introduced.--Zombie Lord 23:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Now who's being reactionary? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How is that reactionary?--Zombie Lord 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's reactionary when you're suggesting it because the survivor-to-zombie ratio is now 2 to 1. This ratio fluctuates normally and is not a sign of mechanical imbalances. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The only major fluctuation we ever had that meant anything was when The Dead came to town.--Zombie Lord 00:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. There was a flux in November 2008, with about 60% zombies to 40% survivors. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I said one that "meant anything" You do know that occasionally Survivor groups run a lot of zombie alts around tearing things up, just so they have something to "heroically fight".--Zombie Lord 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So, when survivors outnumber zombies 2 to 1 it's imbalance, and when zombies outnumber survivors (almost) 2 to 1 it doesn't mean anything. As for your claim of zombie alts around tearing things up, evidence please. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't, not when the AP imbalance is so far out of whack. As far as your request for "evidence", you're either being willfully ignorant, or are genuinely stupid.--Zombie Lord 13:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither. I just have not seen anything to point towards that. If it's that obvious, you should have no trouble with the proof. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to throw something out there, because the ratio thing bothers me. The ratio being 2-to-1 in favor of survivors simply means that more players are interested in being survivors than zombies; if my survivor wanted to be a zombie, I can leap out a window for 1AP and rise. It's easier in this game to get killed and stay dead than to get a revive and stay alive-- there's an immediate cure for revives, being suicide by window. No one is forcing people to be alive. What the ratio demonstrates is simply that more UD players right now (and I think, probably always) would rather play a "heroic" survivor than an "evil" zombie. So what you need to figure out is how to get players to want to be zombies, not punish them for wanting to be survivors. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 23:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree. I think it's because zombies are more difficult to play. If the Zombies had an easy time of it as the Survivors, I think you'd see the ratio reversed. I don't think its about good and evil, it's about what is easier. Most people take the path of least resistance. It's much easier to get a Revive and go about your business than spend 50 AP on cades to achieve no real result day after day. It gets boring, people quit or "go survivor" because you have more options. Survivors have it much better in the "feeling of achievement" department, simply because they have feast of options to choose from in what they wish to do. Even if its just to jack off over the Radio all day, or sit in the zoo and talk about molesting Koala bears with all the other furry freaks.--Zombie Lord 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It also makes Parachuting extremely easy, and then survivors have to sink even more AP to clear those EHB cades to VSB to even get inside. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And it allows survivors to create piñatas that can be maintained. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 21:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Game-breaking. Not to mention every failed free-run (no lanes) would result in an IP hit, and it would probably happen frequently. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Game-breaking, Rooster threw it down perfectly.--SirArgo ^Talk 21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as clarification, how does a player know if free running "bridges" are present? Is it a graphical change (little bridges connecting squares), or a wall of text describing the bridges going off in every direction they go? Also, how would damage to the bridges be textually represented to adjacent buildings? For example, let's say we have three buildings in a row, A, B, and C. Zombies crash into A and damage its bridges to heavily damaged. Then they break into C and damage it's bridges to lightly. Will survivors in B see "You are in the BLAH Building. There are heavily damaged free running bridges here leading West. There are lightly damaged free running bridges here leading East"? Or would they have no idea until the bridges in A and C were completely destroyed, and now they cannot free run anywhere? ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 23:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking just a line of text that would go next to the same area that Generators/Radios go. If you tried to freerun somewhere without Lanes, you just get a message that you cant go there at 0 AP cost to you. I suppose little graphics could be employed, or even the more involved description that would inform Survivors of the conditions of the Lanes around them that you describe. If we went with Whitehouse's idea of partial bridges (which I think is pretty awesome), maybe you would need to travel to discover the exact condition of bridges around you. I do think that little graphics would be a good idea though for the building you are currently inside of, that are only present if you CAN run to a building as that would save IP hits and having to "test" run just to see if it's possible to go that direction. There would need to be one graphic for each destination, so you could see the status of all possible directions.--Zombie Lord 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why is everyone still trying to explain why this lame suggestion is so fucking lame? For the love of Christ let it smother in its own lameness. Happy St. Paddy's Day! --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 00:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, refuse to even acknowledge the over the top Survivor advantage. Then you'll never lose it, right? Pathetic.--Zombie Lord 00:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The survivors have generally held a margin over the zombies over the game's history. Graphs FTW. Anyway, my point is, despite a generally high survivor population, they've never been able to go much higher than 2:1, zombies hold out well enough and some existential event or update sometimes comes along to reverse things for a while. The current 5:3 ratio is pretty run of the mill TBH. --  RoosterDragon  23:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Goddamit, Im talking about that basic AP attrition imbalance, not the population. If the population was 50-50, the AP imbalance would still be hugely in favor of the Survivors.--Zombie Lord 02:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the best thing in this whole discussion area. I am suddenly in agreement! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing particularly helpful to add but I will not let that stop me. Free running as in parkour is done by very fit people in light weight athletic clothing, Free Running in UD is done by a besieged population living on tinned food and wearing Flak vests while carrying a full load of shotguns/generators/medicine cabinets etc. They are obviously not the same thing! Changing the mechanic so comprehensively in Malton is not going to fly. --Honestmistake 01:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I will have you know, we're all very fit around here. We all find time to become bodybuilders and I can balance 3 portable generators on my head while I swing an axe at zombies. And I have never eaten food ever. I just drink beer and wine. It's the diet secret of the stars! ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 01:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My only question is why we are still discussing this lame notion of an idea. It would break the game. Can we move on, now?!? --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 19:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[2] --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Oh! Well, then... Carry on! --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 19:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus H. Me! OK people, repeat after me: Do. Not. Feed. The. Troll. This can't disappear until he spends five days talking to himself. It's already been explain to him multiple times why these are all stupid fucking ideas. Stop giving him an audience. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

thing is though, free running is broken and discussion of the topic can't hurt. Sure this version of change is not good but it stimulates discussion and that might lead to something useful.... stranger things have happened. --Honestmistake 00:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also it tickles my humerus. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Sirens, the founder and creator of RedRum, make a nearly identical suggestion shortly before leaving the game?  Swiers 01:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but Mr. Hardcore Zombie Overlord With BIG BALLS is going to make a suggestion a day until the BALL-LESS survivors get over their PUSSYNESS and submit to his overwhelming HARDCORE-NESS. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 02:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's right, bitch.--Zombie Lord 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Multiple Infection Strains

Timestamp:	Bob Boberton TF / DW 03:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Infection change
Scope:	Survivors, primarily
Description:	As of right now, Infection deals 1 damage per AP usage, except for speaking. With this change, Infections would work exactly the same way with one difference - if you are already infected and are bitten by a second unique zombie, you acquire a second infection strain, and take 2 damage per AP usage, except for speaking. I would suggest a limit of two strains maximum, as more would simply be too debilitating. I'm flip floppy on how many FAKs would be required to cure one or two unique strains of infection, though I'm leaning towards two. When you heal someone with two strains, you get a message to the tune of "You heal blabla for X HP - they still look sickly." or "You heal blabla for X HP but their infection persists." With zombie skills that allow you to see infected survivors, perhaps the color of their health could be black for two strains and the current green for one strain.

Discussion (Multiple Infection Strains)

You know, I like this idea. Something like, "You have been bitten by another zombie. You now have 2 separate infections. Each action will now cost 2 AP"? I'd get behind that. I think it should be 1 FAK to each separate infection, because each infection is caused by a separate bite. -CaptainVideo 04:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is one huge problem to this. I'm no doctor or anything that has to do with biology, but it seems to me that all of the zombies in Malton are infected with the exact same strain of the exact same virus. This would make sense because it would keep the game simple, plus it would explain how the reviving process always works when used on a zombie (excluding any zombies with Brian Rot, the reason they don't get revived has to do with a separate issue). I also think considering this is fully man made by NecroTech, I think they would only be creating one strain at a time. Therefore the most recent strain, which is the one responsible for the zombification process, is the sole strain capable of doing what is happening. They didn't have time to create any others, excluding possible the revival strain.

That would mean that if a zombie bites you after you are already infected, it would only be adding more of the same strain to your body. That would also mean that when you cure the first infection, you cure both because they are the same thing.

I guess if you really wanted to implement this, you could put in some blurb about how the strain has mutated on it's own or something, but I think that would create other issues with what is different about this strain and the original one and require the new one to be expanded upon more.--SirArgo ^Talk 07:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What about a second infectious bite type skill that has brain rot as a prerequisite? It's easier to justify a "mutation" in the virus in an infected zombie that's been infected for so long (ie, a zombie with Rot). That might make more sense. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 07:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[Damn Edit conflicts!]Maybe, but Brain Rot is only caused by the degredation of the brain from the sole strain in existence. I don't think that the infecteds bodies mutate a new strain after acquiring this skill. Don't get me wrong, I like the direction in which this idea goes. It's an interesting change, but I just don't think it makes a lot of sense. I could be very wrong though.--SirArgo ^Talk 07:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Infection ≠ the thing that causes zombification. Infection = just plain infection. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 07:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My idea about it was that a zombie is a breeding ground for all sorts of nasty bacteria and whatnot - and one zombie might be packed full of necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease, whoo) and another might have some nasty kind of flu, mold, ebola, e-coli, lots of different things. When a survivor gets bitten by two of these differing zombies, it makes sense that Ebola + Necrotizing Fasciitis is worse than either one of them alone. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this (as with most of the previous "make infection do 2 damage" suggestions) is that 2 HP is too much. The 1 HP increase might seem small, but it doubles the damage. Infection isn't very powerful except on the recently revived, and 2HP is simply too much for them. With no Body Building, you'd only have 11 AP to find a FAK instead of the 23 AP with normal infection ^{(you stand up with half of your full health, except infection takes the first nibble when you stand up. the last AP kills you)}. That's a radical decrease, and many, many newbies don't carry a FAK for these occasions. There are very few things more frustrating than being revived only to die of infection. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 17:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, however, 1 HP per AP damage with a newly revived person isn't much of a concern - 23 AP (or 28) to find a FAK or a safe place with people who presumably have spare FAKs isn't too difficult. This would make infections more effective and more threatening. I would definitely still agree that any more than 2 strains (2 HP per AP of damage) is far too debilitating. This suggestion certainly puts more emphasis on hospitals, and would probably encourage always having an emergency FAK or two among new players. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, how about a compromise? Infection does 1 HP per AP and has a 25% chance (or 35%, or whatever, but I would not go as high as 50%) of doing 2 HP per AP? I think the tradeoff would be that we'd really have to have a new skill or change an existing skill so that survivors can detect infections. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 01:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure - but do you mean after one bite or two unique bites? And then would it require just one FAK to cure? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think if we incorporated the ability to see infections into a previously existing survivor skill, we could have Infectious Bite get a bump up to doing 1 HP per AP, with a 30% chance of a 2nd HP. If we created a brand new skill to allow survivors to detect infections, then I would suggest a second unique bite (or possibly an "upgraded" version of Infectious Bite) would be necessary to add the 30% for extra infection damage. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 02:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is all getting too complicated for my liking. I don't think you should incorporate infection sight into a previous skill. I like the idea of percent-chance for damage, though. Perhaps after the second bite it could say something like, "You have been bitten again. You are now very infected and may lose additional damage when you move around." How does that sound? Otherwise it would be the same as a regular infection. -CaptainVideo 04:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, there's no reason for survivors to suddenly be able to see infections and that's not what I'm suggesting. Zombies can see infection and should still see these doubly infected persons as different from singly infected persons. I would also suggest the wording "heavily infected." Finally, one FAK cure-all sounds good with the system - what do you think? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm more-or-less on board, but I want to be clear that it can't just be a second bite attack from the same zombie; it needs to be a bite attack from a different zombie (who also has Infectious Bite, obviously). ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 05:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup yup yup - two bites from unique zeds. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Death Penalty

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 22:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement.
Scope:	All Players.
Description:	When a Survivor dies, they lose one random Skill. When a Zombie is Headshot, they lose one random Skill. Skills can be lost from either tree, regardless of if you were a Zombie or a Survivor when you lose it. Level 1 Players cannot lose their last skill. Losing a Skill through Headshot, replaces the old +5 AP to Stand effect. Now, with something to lose when you die, you would see a lot less Meatshielding Survivors and Zombies willing to stand in a building just to hold a Ruin. You'd have actual fear back in this game. Without fear, there can be no Bravery. Let's bring actual Bravery back, and dispense with all the false posturing. Let's have an actual ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE!

Discussion (Death Penalty)

Some other possible ideas to add:

Survivors can no longer distinguish Zombies in their contacts list.

Profiles only show Level and Skill sets for the owner of the player, for all others it shows everything but Level and Skill Set.

DNA Scanners now only report if a Zombie has Brain Rot or not, it won't give a Profile unless that Zombie is their Contact list. OR Profiles only show up in DNA Scans if the Player being scanned has submitted their DNA at a Necrotech while alive, which could be a new option in NT's for 1 AP cost. --Zombie Lord 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I expect howls of protest over this one. I joined after Headshot was changed to its current form, but I've seen the complaints to the XP hit it originally had. This just seems extreme compared to that (although equally fair to both sides). It would also seem to favour PKers at first glance. They could literally harass somebody until they were back to a level 1 player by free running in, blasting a couple of people and running off. Lastly, it would seem to remove all the fun from playing a zombie due to the distinct possibility of losing all of your combat skills. Imagine being a level 1 zombie left with Brain Rot. --Roorgh 23:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It would give PKers and actual reason to exist I guess, instead of just being AP inefficient assholes, they would be actually accomplishing something. They wouldn't get the a lot of XP out of it to replace their own losses in Skills though. If the PKers are harassing someone, people could always make groups to harass them back. An actual REASON for Survivors to fight each other...think of the possibilities! :)

As for the low level zombies. I think zombies would start to naturally congregate a lot more. Safety in numbers. Zombies moving in packs without metagaming...whoa...

But your last point is why I suggested all those "possible extras". Zombies are a lot more vulnerable so I was thinking some more anonymity might be in order --Zombie Lord 00:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The old headshot meant i didn't actually play a zombie for months as it was just no fun. Headshot taking AP is bad enough but losing xp on a daily basis will only result in driving players away. --Honestmistake 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Under this change, Survivors would be losing it too. So it would be a little different than just Zombies always getting the loss.--Zombie Lord 00:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Right- then it would just be no fun to play on EITHER side. :P  Swiers 02:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is everyone who plays this "game" so afraid of risk? competition? Some people might quit but maybe we'd just get a better class of players in the long run. Some with BALLS for a change.--Zombie Lord 02:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

or the better class of player gets really sick of zerging when it happens, and decides to just stop bothering. --Roorgh 07:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that's really on Kevan. This game has easily the weakest anti-zerg measures I've ever seen in an online game. Secretly, I think he likes Zergs. Ad revenue being the bottom line here; lets face it: zergs = Ad revenue. I wouldn't be surprised to find out over 50% of the "characters" in this game are zergs.--Zombie Lord 18:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree the game needs to be "tougher" but this is laughably ridiculous. You want this to be more of a zombie apocalypse? So why the hell would you promote PKing? This would SERIOUSLY hurt new players. Sure level 1s are immune, but level 2s would NEVER get anywhere. Imagine you just got your XP to purchase a second skill and get headshot. Guess what! The old XP losing Headshot was removed for a reason. It SUCKED. Remember, people are dicks and they WILL abuse this.--Pesatyel 03:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said. BALLS. You'd just have to plan your moves instead of just wander anywhere cause you know you're freakin invincible anyway. I can run a level 1 zombie and keep it from dying. Sure, its a challenge, but its fuckin doable. Maybe this is too extreme for most players, but there's got to be a middle ground between INVINCIBILITY and too extreme. Survivors should never decide "I'll just let this zombie EAT ME ALIVE for the team". THAT'S fuckin ridiculous, and its what we got now. Oh yeah, and I'd LOVE to see the PKer/Bounty Hunter wars that would erupt.--Zombie Lord 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"its what we got now" - I deg to biffer, good sir! I doubt any true blue pro-survivor player would willingly get eaten. Also, an eye for an eye (or a level for a level) leaves everyone blind - Cops, with their good shootin' skills at level 1, would become zerg favorites and shoot everyone to death and Malton would become a land of retards. Unless you had 50,000 XP stocked up like that one Experiment zed. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What game are YOU playin? Survivors allow themselves to be eaten...constantly. Its a tactic of using up a zombies AP for the "greater good". "Become a land of retards"? Too late, in most cases.--Zombie Lord 04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Urban Dead. And a more effective way to defeat zed AP is Barricade Strafing, and I'd still say survivors don't willingly die "to use up zed AP." Whenever I'm eaten, I'm offline. Which is 99% of the time. I've never and would never allow myself to be eaten willingly, and I'd bet most other survivors would say the same. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well of course they are offline. But they sleep there knowing they are going to absorb hits and likely die. If there was an real risk to dying, they would be less inclined to do this. They would sleep in safe places, not "this resource building we want with 25 Zombies outside, so if enough meatshields pile in we can probably hold it once the zombie AP runs out. And even if we lose it and die we'll just get reved for no real loss." Happens all the time. Maybe you're an exception, but it's rampant.--Zombie Lord 05:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sleep in safe places? There is no such thing in Malton, and that's the problem. Even EHB cades can be torn down by two or three high-level zeds in a hurry. And of course there's a loss for revives - the AP to get a syringe, the 10 AP use of the syringe, the cost of both players to move around to perform and get up from the revive, etc. I do concede that meatshields exist, but some of the time they're just normal players that turn into shields when zombies bust the doors down.

Take the "Multiply it by a million" policy on this - imagine a Malton full of level 1 characters only. It would be awful - low search and hit rates for everyone, zeds always taking 2 AP to move and ten to stand up, it would just make the game un-fun. That's what UD is - a game. UD with this suggestion implemented would cease to be a game and would be tortuous. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, safe places. Like an EHB building with no zombies outside, vs the EHB building with 25 zombies outside. How about a Suburb with very few zombies. You'd have to scout more, but as long as you kept moving, yes it would be safer than, say, a RED suburb that's 90% Ruined. Also, Zombie players might want to think twice about sleeping in the ruined Mall or NT's. Hordes would become a lot safer as zombies huddled together.

I don't think "everyone" would be level 1. It would make people think more. PKers, for instance. A lot of time they just kill someone and SLEEP RIGHT WHERE THEY KILLED THE GUY. Even though they KNOW the local cops are going to kill them. Why not? No loss really. But if there was a FEAR OF DYING, they would need to kill, and then HIDE SOMEWHERE. Survivors would think about...surviving..., not endlessly sacrifice attacking some zombie occupied building that they have a hard on for. Right now UD is like a chess game where all the pieces are Kings. Players just shuffle their Kings around until one or the other gets bored and concedes.--Zombie Lord 06:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact you aren't thinking is the current problem with this - it would ruin the game. All the new players who joined would find it incredibly hard to level up. Experienced survivors would never leave green suburbs because of fear, and the game would die. Your point about PKers "staying where they are" after killing is horrendous. Most intelligent PKers move away a bit if they can. Just try actually thinking how you would like it if you woke up every day to find a skill gone. If this is submitted, it will get spammed mercilessly.-- Adward  17:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The fear that we would lose players is a bit misleading. A game attracts players based on what they like. I'm saying, sure we'd lose players that like the Pussinton Pillow Fight version we have now, but we'd draw players with BALLS. Fair trade, IMO.--Zombie Lord 18:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You just skipped right over a certain section of the Dos and Do Nots, didn't you? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I do that often. Cause I'm not a sheep.--Zombie Lord 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not about being, or not being a sheep. It's about the part that says Make it More Fun, Not Less Fun. If the curve is too steep all you're going to do is put off a lot of people, and this is meant to be a little bit of fun, a distraction for a few minutes a day. --Roorgh 07:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I wipe my ass with the dos and do not list. If your idea of fun is being an invincible pussy, that's your problem. It's not everyones idea of fun though. --Zombie Lord 18:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this. It would shake up the game too much. I worked hard to get where I am. I'm simply not going to agree to a setup that would make my life harder. -CaptainVideo 04:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said. BALLS. Worked hard? You're talking about a "game" were any RETARDED MONKEY can hit level 40+ if they just bang senselessly on the buttons long enough. --Zombie Lord 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For me, this isn't a game of gonads. Oh, I've played it that way on occasion, but I like the subtle way better - the way that makes you find the weak places and push them. If you're finding it too easy, then congratulations. For me, it's just hard enough. -CaptainVideo 01:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could just suggest this in a new city, a "Hardcore" city, and have people who are interested join in. Leave those that don't want it (I would say a large majority) the way they are. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing is flawed! You admitted your self that you don't give a damn if it ruins the game for people! And as for your "BALLS" explination, how about you consider this whole thing in the long run. A TON of people will quit and we will see people to scared to fight or leave their heavily barricaded hovels. PK'ers will grief to no end and new comers to the game will leave in a snap. All of this is stated above but you ignore it. You just don't understand that in the long term, the game will be fucked by this. This will set things back, not advance the game.--SirArgo ^Talk 07:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I think we'd see the pop drop sure. Probably a lot of zergers actually and wed see the numbers drop dramatically. Making it HARD to maintain a character would make it especially hard on the zerger trying to maintain dozens of zergs. They'd get sick of it and drop most of them. The honest player focusing on a few legal Alts would have a much easier time of it.--Zombie Lord 18:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it might have the opposite effect you're looking for; instead of encouraging "courage" in survivors, it could easily lead low-to-mid level survivors to never leave the EHB green suburbs until they "built up" enough skills and extra XP to feel safe. Most of my deaths happened in the level 3-6 range, when I was still learning about the game and tactics, so this game change would have kept me at those levels for a while. The possibility of trapping a player at low level is very dangerous. Also, this inadvertently screws Scientists, who usually pay 150 XP to purchase Free Running at level 2 or 3. That makes for a very real chance of losing that expensive yet necessary skill over and over in the early levels. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 08:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'd see REAL bravery and courage at least. Sure, most players would probably cower in their Green burbs, but so what. Survivors would have to organize areas where low level players could train and level up, BEFORE heading out to the dangerous areas. They'd have to organize police forces to keep the PKers away. An actual society. As for being trapped at low levels, the strong survive, the weak get culled from the herd. Simple enough.--Zombie Lord 18:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "real" bravery/courage in a game. And we have actual societies now. As for setting up specific training areas, those already exist too, but they still fall to zombie hordes every so often when they rampage through. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no simulation of fear/bravery in this game either, which is what I'm talking about.--Zombie Lord 20:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How about a new Skill cost base. Instead of 100, make it 60. So:

Military: 40 for Military Skills, 90 for Science, 60 for all others.

Science: 40 for Science Skills, 90 for Military, 60 for all others.

Civilian: 40 for all Civilian Skills, 60 for Military/Zombie skills, 90 for Science.

Zombie: 40 for all Zombie Skills. 90 for all Survivor Skills.

This would have the added benefit of players "sticking to their class" a lot more as players would naturally be inclined to replace their cheaper class skills before others.--Zombie Lord 18:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The single biggest flaw here (aside from the fact that this sucks) is that zombies already get headshot at least ten times more often than the average survivor dies. It's something to do with these things called "barricades". The way this would make XP invaluable (instead of just valuable), and killing zombies have an effect other than a cost of 6AP, we'd have a shitload more people killing zombies outside, meaning a shitload of more zombie deaths (and headshots). I dare say this would turn the game into a zombie apocalypse with very few actual zombies. Also, zombies are not supposed to fear anything. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I was actually thinking along these lines myself, the part about Zombies not fearing anything I mean. So only Survivors lose levels for dying then. Zombies could lose their levels in some other fashion.--Zombie Lord 20:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Since we want zombies to eat and NOT just sit around in Ruins or be afraid to attack and enter buildings maybe something involving Zombies losing their levels if they don't kill enough in a certain time frame. COMPEL them to go eat, like they should be. They have a new attribute called Hunger maybe that goes from 0 to 50, or maybe 0 to 75. This decreases by 1 point every half hour. Every time they Bite a Survivor it increases by 4. If the Hunger ever falls to 0, the Zombie loses one random Skill.--Zombie Lord 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A new zombie with Vigour Mortis only has a 20% hit rate with bite, meaning on average 1 successful bite every 2.5 hours. So your current suggested numbers won't pan out. Now if a new survivor is killed and turned into a zombie they have only 10% as a hit rate with bite. It's still flawed. --Roorgh 23:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, zombie players could never go on a long weekend away from their computer, because they would come back to find they'd lost a skill. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 01:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure zombie lord even PLAYS the game. Reading the comnments above, he just wants to be beligerent I'm still trying to figure out where he is getting this "invinsiblity" nonsense. Or his "logic" that survivors "let themselves get eaten". Most people play once a day. You get your 5 minutes of playing it at 5 pm, then you play again at 5 pm the next day and so on. It takes 25 hours to max out your AP, hence why most people only play once a day. A LOT can happen in 25 hours. I mean he doesn't even TRY to refute people's arguments. He just says "balls" like that's ome kind of answer. As I said, you wanna make the game "tougher" THIS isn't the way. Its about making the game MORE fun, not less.--Pesatyel 03:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

BALLS.--Zombie Lord 03:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Aw, he's just trying not to be taken seriously now. ZL, do you still want to get this suggestion implemented or not? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

BALLS.--Zombie Lord 04:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Say what you will, the man won't compromise his vision. -CaptainVideo 04:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean the one where he is enamored of testicles?--Pesatyel

• SPAM – ZERG RUSH KEKEKE ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

All you people responded to this and only Revenant got it? This is a pro-zerger suggestion proposed by a supporter of zerging. The only thing this would achieve is making everyone play at the level of these cheating scumfucks. Remember, Extinction are like creationists, not worth your time to talk to. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I just hate BALL-LESS Survivors that want to play kick the cripple ALL day even more that you apparently hate "creationists". Douchebag.--Zombie Lord 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Advanced Diagnosis

Timestamp:	--Giles Sednik CAPDSWA 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill, balance change
Scope:	Survivors and Zombies
Description:	This skill would allow survivors to distinguish infected survivors from the uninfected. Infected survivors' HP would be shown in light green with this skill. Conversely, zombies could use this skill, in the same way that they can currently use diagnosis. Because undead physiology is different from the living, this skill could not be used to diagnose an infection in a zombie. Realism - It makes sense that survivors with a background in medicine (diagnosis) could pick out a survivor suffering from a zombie infection. In movies and literature infected survivors show signs of their impending demise in the form of cold sweats, palid complexion, shaking, etc. Even laypeople can spot a cold in a total stranger. If survivors and zombies can detect a 5HP loss in someone who slipped and fell in a ruined building they should also be able to spot the signature zombie bite and symptoms of an infection with the added experience of having basic diagnosis skills and witnessing their comrades die of infections. Game Balance - Just as Flesh Rot provided zombies with 2 advantages long enjoyed by survivors (Flak Jacket and Body Building), Advanced Diagnosis would provide survivors with the zombie advantage of being able to identify an infectection. Also it's a crossover skill so zombie players can make use of it. Furthermore, it would even out the number of survivor and zombie skills without having to introduce a new gameplay element. Implementation - This would go in the Scientific Skill tree as a 2nd level skill of diagnosis. However since Advanced Diagnosis would make it easier for survivors to heal infections, I could see introducing this new skill coupled with a boost to Infectious Bite, causing a 2HP loss for every 1AP spent.

Discussion (Advanced Diagnosis)

Make it a skill that is REQUIRED to cure infections, and make infections 2HP per AP, and you might get some traction. Sure, its "genre appropriate" that skilled doctors can detect infections, but its similarly appropriate that ONLY skilled doctors can cure them (not any shmoe with a first aid kit) and that they kill yah pretty quick.  Swiers 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I second Swiers. These are two ideas that have been offered up separately a couple (dozen) times, maybe together they would work. --Zombie Lord 03:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Prognosis.--Pesatyel 03:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How about the Swiers combo idea. That a dupe too?--Zombie Lord 04:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey I kinda like the idea of advanced diagnosis being required to treat infections. Anyone with a FAK could still heal damage, but the infection itself could only be cured by someone with advanced diagnosis. With advanced diagnosis you would get the message - You restore 10HP to JoeJoe, using your medical training to cure the infection. Though maybe the name would have to change if it was used for treating and not just diagnosing. Like Advanced Medicine , dunno --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 15:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

By the time you locate somebody who can cure you, you'll have perished... Whether the zombie ran out of AP or you just got revivified, you'll probably have 25 HP or less, meaning that you can take only 13 steps before dying of infection. I think survivors should still be able to recognise and cure their own infections: it's really not difficult. --LaosOman 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when could you NOT cure your own infection? That is the primary reason Infectious Bite is considered "underpowered".--Pesatyel 03:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Requiring an additional skill in order to cure infection wouldn't really do much I don't think. It would just make it harder on newbies. If I can't cure myself, I'm screwed until I can find someone who can cure me.--Pesatyel 03:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So let's set aside the notion of a boost to infectious bite (either by doubling the damage or requiring a new skill to treat it). Lets take the suggestion 1 proposition at a time. How do you feel about a new skill called Advanced Diagnosis that would allow survivors to see who is infected? --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 20:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Prognosis.--Pesatyel 03:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)--Pesatyel 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Advanced Diagnosis sounds good. Just don't make it a requirement for curing infection. --LaosOman 17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You did a good job outlining this skill. I'm surprised Prognosis wasn't implemented. Admittedly I've enjoyed the guessing game survivors have of predicting which survivors need infections cured, but this skill makes sense. I also like how you suggest it being paired with an update of a more intense infection. --Fiffy 03:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Bulk SMS Messaging

Timestamp:	User:J.W. 03:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	improvement, flavor
Scope:	Characters with mobile phones
Description:	Right now you can only send text messages to one person at a time. This change would allow players to send the same text message to multiple recipients at a cost of 1 AP. The obvious benefit is that it saves survivors AP when they want to send the same text message to multiple survivors at the same time. However, I don't think this changes AP dynamics at all since the same thing can already be accomplished via a radio transmission (albeit publicly instead of privately), and almost every mobile phone can already do this in real life. Therefore, this is really just a minor way to improve in game communication for survivors (and zombies who carry mobiles), hopefully making the game more fun all around. (And this is my first suggestion ever...so please be gentle)

Discussion (Bulk SMS Messaging)

You've pretty much nailed why this can't be passed in your own explanation, mate. SMS works because it's private and so more useful for coordination than the radio. Making it so easy to mass-message people would be an enormous communication buff. It's a balance thing: Radio is AP-efficient but public, SMS is AP-inefficient but private. Edit: You mention that in real life mass-messaging is easy and that is correct, but it also costs money per message sent. In-game the cost is AP. --Papa Moloch 16:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the only way I could see this working in game would be to put an increased ap cost to use it and limit the number of recipients (like 5 ap to message 10 people or something of the sort). Good first suggestion though. Keep them up! --Johnny Bass 16:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of being able to send the same message to multiple people. Right now this is a pain. I agree, though, that it would have to cost 1 AP for each recipient. --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 17:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm you guys are right, it is probably more of a survivor buff than I thought, so an added AP cost seems warranted, though I don't think it should be too high...The reason being, if a player or group of players wanted, they could set up a twitter feed, or an irc channel, or a password protected forum, or whatever else, to easily get to this level of communication. Wouldn't this change simply reduce the need for meta-gaming that already occurs and bring more of the game play inside the game? Otoh, i guess metagaming does have its place in UD.

And thanks for the feedback! --J.W. 19:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, that's an excellent point. Why should we tack on a prohibitive AP cost, when all that does is reinforce the notion that players must participate in the meta to be effective? Look at the suggestions recently about changing or adding aspects to feeding groans and such-- all of them pushed the idea of less meta. Obviously we feel that zombies should not be forced to the meta to horde up and be effective. Maybe we should think more about this suggestion before assigning a high AP cost to it. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 21:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a meta concern. I can carry a radio and tune it to a particular frequency that those on my contact list can tune to as well. Then someone with a radio can broadcast to all said people simultaneously. The radio is for mass broadcasts, the phone for individual. In other words, there is already a tool in game that does what this suggestion is, well, suggesting: The radio.--Pesatyel 03:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Spec Ops training

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 01:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors mostly
Description:	After spending so much time in the military, you have learnt how to use gestures as a form of silent communication. Unfortunately, though, regular folk don't understand a lot of it. New military skill, survivor-equivalent of Flailing Gesture. In additioned to the gestures available to zombies, a user with Spec Ops training can use specialist gestures (which appear in a second drop-down box to the left of the direction one) to indicate 'hostiles', 'friendlies' and 'assistance needed'. However, unless the other users have Spec Ops training, they will not understand the connotations of such gestures, instead seeing [Name] made a complicated gesture towards [direction/building/person] A Spec. Ops gesture can be made with a direction but no connotation, or with a connotation without a direction, i.e. [Name] made the gesture for [friendlies/hostiles/assist], or [Name] gestured to [direction/building/person] When compared to speaking, this can designate less information, but to more people (everyone). A zombie with Spec Ops training and Memories of Life can also translate Spec Ops gestures.

Discussion (Spec Ops training)

Hey, not a bad idea, but i'm a little concerned about whether its actually necessary... Zombies cant talk so its a useful skill but humans can talk. I understand that only those with the skill will be able to understand it but that won.'t leave much control over who can see it in the long term. Will zombies with the skill be able to see the gestures? Sorry if it was answered above, im wiking via my phone so stuff is limited. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

just read the end. I actually think zombies with the skill shouldnt understand the gestures, otherwise i dont think this suggestion would be to useful :( D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Survivors already have 4 different manners of direct communication within the confines of the game and they barely use them properly. Personally, I don't see a need for yet another form of communication on the survivor side. Nifty idea though. --Johnny Bass 14:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree.--Pesatyel 03:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Zerged Barricade Obstruction

Timestamp:	--Johnny Bass 07:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	more zerg protection in game
Scope:	Zombie
Description:	Currently, zerged zombie characters can all contribute to barricade blocking rates if they are from the same IP address. Characters tripping the flag should not contribute to this rate in the same fashion that characters from the same IP address cannot heal each other.

Discussion (Zerged Barricade Obstruction)

Sounds very reasonable. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Is their rate of barricading affected like their healing, etc? If not then it should be as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Hierophant (talk • contribs) 07:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

It is believed that success rates for all things affected by chance are dramatically reduced, to 0% in some cases. I agree that the presence of a zerg flag should disable blocking for that character – it's only fair to harmanz.
Now, how about making zerging harmanz not block ransack? :D ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not very useful in an active fight (to preventing zerging) because survivors won't know the zombies in question can't stop them from building. If its ground holding that concerns you, well, survivors still have to kill and dump the zergs at normal rates before repairing a ruined building so they can cade in the first place.
In fact, the main purpose of cade blocking is to allow non-metagame zombie co-operation, by giving zombies who do not co-ordinate actions a chance to keep cades down long enough to do something. Zergers don't NEED cade blocking, and gain little from it.  Swiers 17:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically, it would just be another way of removing any benefits that COULD be reaped from having zerg accounts. They may not need it, but it certainly helps them when up against active resistance. --Johnny Bass 14:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it DOES help overall. Instead, what it does is encourage paranoid zerg-cryers to try barricading buildings that are under attack by legit zombies, and wasting APs. The typical survivor player can't tell a zerg from a normal zombie horde, so this helps them not one bit, because they wouldn;t know when the cade odds were normal, and when they were gonna get blocked. If people can't make consistent predictions of game behavior, then they are likely to use sub-optimal tactics- so much so that this suggestion might actually HELP zombie zergs, by wasting survivor AP on a wide (if shallow) scale.  Swiers 02:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

They might realise when when they try to barricade and real zombies lurch in their way. You actually get a special message to tell you that zombies obstructed you.--Ryvyoli ^{Y R} 08:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Minimap Class Emphasis

Timestamp:	Vince with Shamwow 05:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	Humans
Description:	The background colors for other survivors are very pale and extremely difficult to tell which class they are at first glance. I think they should be made to contrast with each other a little more.

Discussion (Minimap Class Emphasis)

The colors are quite easily distinguishable on my display, so it could be you just need to calibrate yours. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I've tried adjusting it but I can't seem to get it to work. Oh well, if it's just me I guess it's not a big deal.--Vince with Shamwow 14:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware you could see the class of others...(well without looking at their profile).--Pesatyel 00:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not alone. I recently discovered this, and I've been here over 2 years. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

news to me. Strikes me as somewhat useless at any rate...--xoxo 00:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Trail Blood

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 17:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	I suggest adding a skill to let zombies allow other zombies to know where they are. The Trail Blood skill would put a new button on a zombie's interface: [Trail Blood]. Clicking it causes your zombie to ooze and drip blood and bile as they move. This doesn't have any effect on the room description because the amount is relatively small, but it makes a zombie far more fragrant. If you draw attention to yourself by speaking it allows zombies with Scent Trail to track you. Here's how it works. A zombie has Trail Blood activated. They speak, doesn't matter if they have death rattle or not. Zombies with Scent Death that hear the message see this: A zombie said "Hrmmmm harman" (now 3n1w) A useful way of gathering fellow zombies to you. If you ever want to not be trackable you'd be able to press [Stop Trailing Blood] to switch back. Switching either way would cost 1AP. Each time a zombie speaks when Trail Blood is active there would be a 10% chance of losing the ability to leave a trail (they don't lose the skill, just the button). They've just run out of gore to drip. Killing a survivor replenishes this gruesome supply and restores the button. This ensures that only effectively muderous zombies would be able to keep calling allies. This skill would be useful in areas with limited feeding groans, or where survivors heavily outnumber zombies. Experienced players could call others to follow them - if a high level zombie or one in a reputable group is trailing blood, they may have a smart target in mind. Even more useful would be the ability zombies would gain to follow their contacts and stick together.

Discussion (Trail Blood)

What do you think? I'm trying to make something gross but plausible. Just a little dribble of blood from the zombie's mouth, or oozing from bullet holes in their side. That tiny residue is enough for zombies with enhanced scent to track them. And as a game function, I think it would prove fantastically useful. I think it remains balanced since you can't tell other zombies about targets, nor send them elsewhere, but merely convince them to follow you. --A Big F'ing Dog 17:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the range on this? 15 squares, I presume? And do we need another zed-gathering skill since we already have feeding groans? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

15 spaces does seem like a decent range. Feeding Groan is useful if you don't know anyone. But it'll quickly disperse a gathering of zombies as they log in at different times and go after the most recent groan. This would be useful for zombies that know each other, or want to keep working together based on past success. Zombie groups could even operate without metagaming mostly. The leader just groans, and the pack follows them to the new location. --A Big F'ing Dog 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I think 15 spaces to be too large. You can hear a loud groan from a ways away, but your nose won't be that good. I would suggest a range of 10 squares. Because this is more versatile than groan (they can find you at block without survivors present), it should have a shorter range. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 02:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well just make it 10 squares like Scent Trail. As for "replenishing" the gore, it would make sense that if the zombie is damaged they would get replenished also.--Pesatyel 03:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"They speak, doesn't matter if they have death rattle or not." I'm unclear why this skill should allow a zombie without death rattle to talk. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 06:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombies without Death Rattle can talk, it's just limited to the pre-defined choices. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oho, I misunderstood what was written. I guess using the "Hmmmm Harmanz" example mistakenly got me thinking that having this skill would allow zombies to talk, circumventing death rattle. So it might be Hmmm Harmanz (1w2n) or it might be Mrh? (1w2n). I understand now. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 00:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Either type of zombie speech would work. --A Big F'ing Dog 03:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Range of 10 seems better to me but i also think the mechanic needs work. If this was called something more like "Rotting Flesh" and allowed you to show up in some noticable form on a scent map as a contact i think it would have a lot more merit. Say on a scent death use you had an indication of where any of your rotting contacts are?--Honestmistake 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to keep it voluntary though, don't want to let people track enemy group leaders just by having them in their contacts. Also, requiring the leader to speak signals that they want people to track them. Maybe a zombie doesn't have a good target in mind. It would be a waste of people's time to seek them out. This way, when a zombie has a plan, that's when they can speak before a crowd of zombies and get them to follow. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Lay To Rest

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 10:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill.
Scope:	Zombie survival
Description:	Zombies can now purchase the skill "Lay To Rest" for 100XP with the following properties: A zombie can now "Lie Down" for a cost of 1AP A zombie that is lying down cannot perform any action except standing up in the normal manner and at the cost of 1AP (regardless of ankle grab). When a zombie is lying down it cannot be seen from adjacent squares (from a distance it appears as a dead body), it can however be seen/attacked/pricked by any player occupying the same square as if it was a normal (standing) zombie. A zombie that is lying down cannot be seen through Binoculars and is not included in External Military Reports. If a zombie lies down in a building it cannot be dumped (if your in the building you are in the same block (large buildings they must be in the same block to be seen) so it acts as a normal zombie). Effects: Helps to increase zombie survivability, Gives more of a purpose to walking the streets as opposed to free running everywhere, Practically useless to zombies in hordes because the sheer amount of activity means they are likely to be discovered by people going to and from the scene, Useful to feral/lone zombies in quiet areas because they are only likely to be discovered by chance/people searching for zombies outside.

Discussion (Lay To Rest)

Pointless. At the moment it has no advantage other than costing 1AP more (to lie down and get up) as it does currently to simply die, and THEN get up. Also, it could be manipulated to prohibit survivor xp, by lying down to stop a survivor from getting the xp-gaining last hit. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The advantage is it reduces the chance for a zombie to be spotted, potentially saving them from the AP they would lose from a headshot and I don't see how it would stop a survivor gaining XP because the zombie can still "be seen/attacked/pricked by any player occupying the same square" this would actually be more useful to lower level players because they could lay down and reduce the chance of being spotted then get up later for a total of 2AP as opposed to the 10/15AP they would have without ankle grab. --Kamikazie-Bunny 10:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Zombies are predators, not prey. And no ninja zombies! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombies are predators, but how often (in the genre) do you see a zombie playing dead/still alive amongst the bodies that only attacks when a victim gets within range. This allows zombies a better chance at survival which is crucial for newbies, it also means I can't pop my head out and get a reading for 9 blocks as accurately, if a scout wants accurate data they'll have to check each block. This hopefully makes it easier for low-level zombies and more interesting for high level survivors. --Kamikazie-Bunny 11:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Newbies won't have this skill though. It's absolutely useless for gaining XP, and would only serve as a red herring. As for rising from a pile of bodies, we have this handy little skill you may have heard of called Ankle Grab.
The mere fact that people are proposing a skill that lets zombies hide from survivors speaks volumes as to the sad state of the game's current population balance, or more to the point, im-balance. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean that all the rocket launcher suggestions speak volumes to how hard it is to kill zombies? :) ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 02:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure this would be duped many times over if brought to vote. This is not new or original. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the idea... Just a few questions. If this were used inside a building, would the survivors be able to dump the zombie outside like with a corpse? How does this affect binoculars? Is accuracy increased when attacking a dead body (since, you know, they don't move...)? Will this influence the External Military Reports? It's a good idea, but it needs some work. More details, mostly. --LaosOman 19:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The idea of the suggestion is it stops zombies being seen from a distance, up close they function just the same as any other zombie. So... No to dumping, Binoculars can't see them, and they are not included in radio reports. Attacking the zombie would have the standard attack % as well. Update to description to include these details. --Kamikazie-Bunny 01:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the utility of this... if it is to hide zombie numbers in an area, then it hurts zombies just as much as it helps, because they would not see one another at range and that makes it tougher to horde up. If it's to prevent being "hunted," then... why? Since this is a skill, you are asking a zombie to buy THIS rather than, say, Ankle Grab. If they had Ankle Grab, it is easier to just get killed and hop back up again. So... how do you envision this being used? ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 02:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been suggested a lot before and this is probably the WORST itteration I have ever seen. You cannot use "normal" zombie genre logic in this context because the game is much too simple for that to work. Do you have ANY idea how this could be abused? Obviously not. This is not about "zombie survivability". That is already factored into the game by the ability of a zombie to stand at full health. Your argument, first of all, is confusing. Either the zombie is "lying down" OR it is standing. With this suggestion, you have them doing both at the same time. I have several other issues, but you have to clear THAT one up first.--Pesatyel 05:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see this being implemented. It doesn't matter if the zombie dies it only costs 1 AP to stand up (6 if you include Headshot) Apart from nerfing headshot, this serves the zombie very little. .--Ricci Bobby 12:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Vomit

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 10:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Zombie Attack
Scope:	Zeds&Victims
Description:	"It has been observed that some zombies have become so bloated from consuming the living that they have began regurgitating on their victims prior to consumption... whether this is to aid digestion, create room for fresh meat or if the zombie gains some form of pleasure from this torture remains unknown. Survivors of attacks describe the vomit as 'an intense burning sensation' however the real threat is if the fluid gets on the victims face and in their eyes, the fluid effectively blinds the survivor for an extended period of time or until they can rinse it out." Zombies will now gain the following: A new attack "Vomit" which causes 1 HP damage and has a base accuracy of 15% Upon a successful hit vomit has a 50% chance of causing 1AP damage. Vomit receives the bonuses of Vigor Mortis and Tangling Grasp (Acc. not Grasp) Gastric Acid (Subskill of digestion) - Doubles the HP and MP damage of vomit.

Discussion (Vomit)

dont.mess.mit.meine.AP! >=[ D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Vas vaiting for dat.... Anything useful to say rather than just quoting the wiki? --Kamikazie-Bunny 10:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't fucking touch my fucking AP, you fucking fuck. Also, we don't have Mana Points. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not mana, it's MAGIC points, mana is the stuff it is made from. --Kamikazie-Bunny 10:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We still don't have magic points. And don't mess with our AP. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add some things wrong with the suggestion. Firstly, in AP efficiency, this is sorta useless, because the small chance to deal 1 ap is not sufficient compared to the zombies, current damage potential. Also, all that with just an AP destroyer, and even then, 50% chance, isn't sufficient enough to use it as a tactic. Of course, with the bonuses, these chances become a bit better, but even then, theres no logic to hand-melee-related skills giving bonuses to mouth-related attacks, else it would affect the bite also. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

AP efficiency is meant to be low, if it was higher players could completely destroy survivor AP stocks by metagaming and dedicated tactics. This way a full supply of Z-AP is only more effective than headshot when maxed out (nearly all attacks are useless at low levels). I did not want it to be so that a lone zombie could demolish a players AP supply, only that they could hinder it in a similar fashion to headshot. I'm not sure why your complaining about the bonuses though V.M effects all non-weapon Zattacks that includes the bite and so does tangling grasp (effectively by grabbing the survivor for better aim). Whoops, forgot to sign! --Kamikazie-Bunny 11:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

When a new feature is introduced, people tend to expect it to be a buff or a nerf, else it is useless. If a new skill is introduced, it is expected to be useful in some way. If it isn't AP efficient like this skill, I'm afraid people just see a potential skill that they won't wanna use. And Blake has got a good idea down there. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, we need more requisition before we can implement such an unbelievably good skill.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 10:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

no. gb2 l4d. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps this suggestion could work well if it 'doubled' the scent value of a survivor in terms of Scent Death? Zombie puke would smell rank, and as such would be picked up by nearby zeds. Plus, a marker to same-area zeds to show who's been coated.--Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the AP loss would doom this suggestion as it stands. I could see vomiting being used to infect survivors, though. Make this a skill that requires infectious bite. Vomiting would hit at 40%, do 1 damage and cause infections. There would be no hp gain from vomiting, and also less damage caused or experience acquired. The Mad Axeman 11:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Blake has something of an idea. Under normal "tracking" rules, a zombie can only track a survivor if the survivor interacts with the zombie (ie attacks or whatever). With this, the zombie can puke on the survivor and thus intiate the same tracking ability (maybe even for OTHER zombies too).--Pesatyel 05:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing feels to much like the boomers from Left 4 Dead. -CaptainVideo 05:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not the only one to think that… *points at his comment further up* ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Rubble Usage

Timestamp:	=Col Noonan 11:38, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Humans
Description:	I had the idea for a quick and easily available weapon for humans that I read was used in a four hour long skirmish in Stalingrad. Add a brick to the weapons list. It would have to have a low accuracy rate and damage dealt, so that it isn't too cheap. It would be available in EVERY square, and would deal one more damage than a punch, with a little less accuracy rate. It's just for those that, say, run out of ammo and absolutely need a weapon.

Discussion (Rubble Usage)

I'm not arguing against your suggestion exactly, but your logic. When you "run out of ammo" that is what tennis rackets, baseball bats, pipes, knives, axes, hockey sticks, fencing foils, cricket bats, crowbars, golf clubs, and ski poles are for. As for the suggestion itself you really need to be specific with your game mechanics. "A little less accurate than a punch" is too vague.--Pesatyel 04:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Either way, it's a dupe. _Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 07:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And humans, by definition, means zombies too. Man, I'm such a perfectionist, I even make myself proud. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I created the entry being cited above, you have my endorsement if this makes it to Peer Reviewed. Bear in mind, however, that you'd have to satisfy the critics when I couldn't. -CaptainVideo 04:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

• Suggestion:20090301 Skyscrapers as Navigation Landmarks is up for voting. Discussion moved to here. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion:20090302 Basic Character Visuals is up for voting. Discussion moved to here. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 18:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion:20090310 Direction With Most Group Groans is up for voting. Discussion moved to here. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

---