Developing Suggestions

Suggestion Navigation

Current Suggestions • Suggestions up for Voting • Clothes Suggestions

Cycling Suggestions • Peer Reviewed • Undecided • Peer Rejected • Humorous

Suggestion Advice • Topics to Avoid and Why • Help, Developing and Editing

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

Creaking weakens the barricades

Timestamp:	LaosOman 15:18, 19 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Barricades
Description:	Currently, hitting a barricade may make it creak. And when it creaks, you gain absolutely nothing, while survivors are undoubtedly having a cup of tea on the other side, laughing at your ineptitude. "Har har har, we are untouchable." This doesn't seem right. A barricade creaking should be a cause for terror, the survivors should know that their brains are not safe - zombies are knocking at their door! So, here's the actual idea. When a barricade creaks, the percentages are a little altered. The chance to miss would remain unchanged. The chance for the barricade to creak would be lowered by 5%, and the chance to make part of it collapse would increase by 5%. This change would apply to all zombies clawing at the barricades - it's the same barricade, just a different pair of claws. When part of it does collapse, the percentages are returned to normal. An example. We take a zombie (let's call him Bob), who has a 50% chance to hit the barricades. Out of those 50%, Bob has a 25% chance to do damage, and 25% chance to make the barricades creak. He makes the barricades creak. Now the chance to miss is 50%, but when he does hit, he has a 30% chance at damaging the barricades, and only 20% to make it creak again. Bob swings again. This time he misses. No changes to the percentages. He makes it creak again. Now Bob has a 35% chance to actually damage the barricades when he hits, and only 15% to merely make them creak. The survivors inside are trembling in fear, knowing that their barricades will not hold much longer. Bob is happy with their terrified screams. When Bob finally does damage to the barricade, the unstable part collapses, leaving a stable (but weakened) barricade. Percentages are returned to 50% miss, 25% creak, 25% collapse. A survivor strengthening the barricade ("You add a such-and-such to the barricade") will restore the percentages. If you're making improvements to the barricade, you'd probably make sure it can take some hits before falling over.

Discussion (Suggestion Name)

Return of the Power Grid

Timestamp:	CaptainVideo 12:50, 19 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Service improvement
Scope:	Everyone (potentially)
Description:	For three years, Malton's power stations have been dormant. I think it's time to turn the lights back on.

It would go like this:

First, you'd have to clear a power station of the undead and do repairs to all parts of it. Then, you would be presented with a clickable button. In Krinks, which I figure is atomic, it would say "Restart the Reactor." In Tolman (solar) it would say "Reactivate Solar Array." Just bear with me on that point - I understand that there are many switches and buttons, but I'm figuring that there's probably one master kill switch that's been down for three years.

What stops this from being a nerf to the undead is how the power is actually distributed. In order to get on the grid, you have to be next to, or diagonal from, another building on the grid - and ruined buildings, parks, cemeteries, streets and wastelands won't transmit power. Multi-square buildings - forts, malls, etc. - would be treated as a unit. Any part that has power gives power to the rest of the compound.

I got the basic idea for that from playing a game called ConFuseBox at Newgrounds.

After that, service could potentially be returned to all of Malton - although, of course, it won't. If the chain is broken, everything from the break outwards would go dead. People used to free power and light would suddenly find themselves in the dark. Were this implemented, I have no doubt that the living and the dead would converge upon the power stations as never before. Who knows who will get power, and who will have to continue using generators?

Discussion (Return of the Power Grid)

I like this as a temporary thing to mix things up and stir up some activity around the power stations, but not as a permanent game effect. Generators are a key item that have been around for a while, so just the possibility of being able to get around that fact and not worry about grabbing them really sets you up to get shot down in a vote. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 14:03, 19 April 2009 (BST)

Raises the issues of how Islands are powered? And I don't really agree with the multiblock partial powered assumption. If only 1 corner of a mall is unruined, I dont think the other three corners should count as powered. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 14:25, 19 April 2009 (BST)

Finally you're assuming the power generation methods. I don't know a lot of Nuclear plants in the heart of a city and a solar array seems to need a large surface area.......--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 14:26, 19 April 2009 (BST)

I like the general idea of this and I think it would be a fantastic one-month feature, or the feature of a 4th city. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 14:45, 19 April 2009 (BST)

I'm pretty sure this has been suggested before (the distribution method), but due to the huge number of power station suggestions I can't seem to be able to find it :/. Could also be that it was only discussed, not actually suggested. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:38, 19 April 2009 (BST)

XP gain depends on Starting Class

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 07:44, 19 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	All players
Description:	Players who play as their class now receive extra bonuses to their XP dependant on what their starting class was. Military-based characters will get 1.5x the regular XP for attacking, killing and dumping zombies. Scientific-based characters will get 1.5x the regular XP for DNA scans, revives and healing survivors Civilian-based characters will get 1.5x the regular XP for repairing things, tagging and reading. Characters that started as Zombies get 1.5x the regular XP for killing survivors, attacking barricades and ransacking (while as a zombie)

Discussion (XP gain depends on Starting Class)

They already do get better XP than others as they have better skills in those areas. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:30, 19 April 2009 (BST)

And cheaper skills, to. Military characters level faster if they uy military skills, and leveling lets you earn XP faster, so... Military characters earn XP faster for killing zombies. Feature exists in game already. The only change this would introduce is making low level survivors earn XP faster (bad because they already outpace low level zombies) and making high level survivors earn XP faster (which just puffs up a meaningless number).
Its also worth noting that this suggestion does not really affect "all players". People who choose to play as zombies would get jack squat all, unless you count "the finger". Zombies pay the full 100 XP for every skill no matter what class they start as, and have fewer XP sources than survivors, and yet you want to give SURVIROS an xp buff, and ignore zombies? I think I'll let the rest of the zombie players post the letters "F", "U", "C", "K", Y", "O", and "U" for me.

Swiers 15:31, 19 April 2009 (BST)

Morse Code

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 07:44, 19 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill (Civilian)
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Sub-skill of Radio Operator, with it you can use Morse Code to prevent people who do not know Morse Code from understanding it. A drop-down box next to the field where you enter in your message will enable you to send the message either as "Normal" or as "Morse". No change to the character limit, however. With a Morse message, only those who also have the skill Morse Code will be able to interpret your message. Other players will get the message "You heard an encoded message on (Frequency)"

Discussion (Morse Code)

I think you should actually print out the Morse transmission, so that people can still choose to translate it manually. -CaptainVideo 12:34, 19 April 2009 (BST)

I would, but since each character of regular text would become 4-5 characters of Morse Code, even a small spam message would become 4-5x as annoying. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 12:59, 19 April 2009 (BST)

Not a terrible idea, but the spam would be annoying for people hearing encrypted messages. Technically nothing prevents someone from typing in dashes and dots and actually using morse code, except not knowing it. --A Big F'ing Dog 15:28, 19 April 2009 (BST)

Draging grasp

Timestamp:	Supflidowg 06:24, 19 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	It basicaly would be a skill whenever a zombie falls (while still being a zombie)the action menu will have a"grab ankle" option along with stand up grab hold of the nearest standing individual (zombie or surviver) and pull themseves up while they drag that person down it would cost 3Ap to use and would not give any Xp (its basicaly a move to get revenge on the nearest person for "just standing there") it would be located to buy under a subsection of "Ankle Grab".

Discussion (Draging grasp)

Erm... what? So it's a subset skill that allows you to drag someone down after you fall down... dead? Does it instantly ... make the target dead? What's this all about? UD doesn't support people plain old "falling down." --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:43, 19 April 2009 (BST)

Sounds like it. I was always inclined to think Ankle Grab was overpowered. I think what he's implying, maybe, is that, to use Ankle Grab, you have to have someone there to actually grab. You stand up and they go down.--Pesatyel 06:50, 19 April 2009 (BST)

Narrow the Quarantine

Timestamp:	Murray Jay Suskind 18:33, 17 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Everybody
Description:	I know this is going to rain hell-fire upon me as I'll be suggesting that somebody's favorite suburb disappears, but Malton is far too big right now. We have 10,000 square blocks for 28,000 players (and about 15,000 of them are active daily). At a given moment there are about 12-15k standing survivors. This means that there is an average of 150 standing survivors (being generous) in a suburb. Obviously the distribution is unequal. However, this means that there's a large number of suburbs that are functionally abandoned. Additionally, the average suburb has absolutely no hope of standing up to a zombie horde like the Ridleybank Resistance Front, Mall Tour, or Militant Order of Barhah. Even if the average suburb crammed every single survivor into one building, that would only even out the numbers, which still isn't a winning proposition with coordinated zombies and barricade obstruction. Even in relatively well-populated areas of Malton, there still aren't enough survivors to defend against well-coordinated zombies. For instance, almost every single mall in the game will have a population distribution of roughly 75, 25, 30, 15. Even if survivors ran a proper distributed defense, this generic mall doesn't stand a prayer against a well-coordinated zombie horde. Then there's the impact upon the game being too spread out upon the feral zombie. There are roughly 9,000 standing zombies. About 1,000 of them are active metagamers (ie. members of an organized horde that's on the stats page). Let's say another 3,000 aren't active everyday or are level 1's about to idle out. That leaves about 5,000 true feral zombie players (and that's being generous). That's only 50 feral zombies per suburb. It may sound like a lot, but if they're not coordinating then there's not going to be the same kind of specific targeting you get with the organized hordes, with only one (maybe two) ferals active in an area at a given time, they aren't going to break into an EHB building and if they do, it's going to be small enough that they can't obstruct the barricades to any effect. Essentially the feral zombie is completely alone and powerless unless they happen to be in the same suburb that a large horde is targeting, and even then they're going to have a hard time following them because of how quickly the organized hordes are gobbling up suburbs. All of this is a long way of saying that the quarantine zone in Malton needs to close in somewhat. I personally feel that the game would greatly benefit if Malton were reduced from a 10x10 suburb map into a 6x6 suburb map. Simply make the corner suburbs Darvall Heights, Santlerville, Gulsonside, and South Blythville. I know, I know... but I'm tearing up Creedy!?! I'm cutting Caiger in Half!?! I'm getting rid of Giddings and Perryn!?! I'm daring to completely do away with (insert your group's suburb here)!?! Yes. That is exactly what I'm proposing. If we get rid of 9 malls, all of a sudden we'll see the density of the population surge in the rest. If we get rid of 64 suburbs, the density of players in the rest of Malton suddenly increases three-fold. Survivors would suddenly be able to meatsheild again. Ferals would suddenly be in groaning distance of other ferals and create more organic break-ins. Large zombie hordes would have to chew their way through some suburbs building by building again. Survivors would be close enough to one another to, you know, help each other in case of zombie attack. This game needs a kick-start. I know it's asking a lot to abandon the sentimental attachments to certain places, but things are more fun if you have more people you're playing with. If we share a smaller area, then suddenly we've got a lot more neighbors to play with. Anyway, discuss.

Discussion (Narrow the Quarantine)

Less distribution of survivor forces that comes with fewer buildings makes it easier for the "bad" endgame to happen. I say "bad" because in zombie canon the zombies are the bad guys, and them winning is "bad." Fewer overall NTs makes it easier for groups of zombies to coordinate and stack up inside and it becomes exponentially easier to cut off survivors from revives. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:52, 17 April 2009 (BST)

What makes you think any single given building (especially a mall) must be defensible against a well co-ordinated zombie horde? Large, organized zombie groups SHOULD smash all that stands in their way. Theres only maybe 4 groups in a game that consistently approach that level, and even they can only take out a few buildings at a time. That leaves 96% of the suburbs and 99% of all buildings safe from major zombie attacks.
Suvivors don't need to cluster up and stage a static defense; in fact, they should do exactly the opposite. By spreading out and focusing on rapid recovery (IE, lots of revies, repairs, and cading) they ensure there is always someplace safe to move to. Shrink the city down, and you just make it so there's fewer places to run to once the area you are in gets wrecked. Swiers 18:56, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Dang, BobBoberton got the ninja post. Basically the same idea. Swiers 18:56, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Its also worth noting that the games population has at times been almost 3 times what is is now. It didn't make the game notably better, and lower populations don't make it worse.

Swiers 18:58, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Whoop whoop! Not to mention it's good to have room to grow if another invasion of the Dead or such happens or the game naturally gets more players. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:05, 17 April 2009 (BST)

I don't think it should be easy to defend against a well coordinated horde. I think it should be in the realm of a realistic possibility. Right now it's really not. Zombies have been running over malls on auto-pilot that we would have been forced to really try on in the past. Also, the game was much better when the population was higher (see: Blackmore, Caiger III, Shacknews at Stickling, Mall Tour II at Stickling, RRF at Santlerville). Finally, if the Dead invade again, Kevan will take care of it the way he always does, nerfing / buffing the game mechanics. Nothing prevents survivors from playing the game they're currently playing, it just gives them another option. Also the game is pretty horrible for ferals (moreso than usual) right now. -- Murray Jay Suskind 20:59, 17 April 2009 (BST)

I think you're vastly underrating the attachment some of these emotional retards have for "their" Suburbs. I was thinking of something along these lines (but only the outer 36 boundary burbs to start with and then shrink further if needed) but decided that getting such a thing passed would be a herculean effort, plus I wouldn't want all those suicides on my hands.--Zombie Lord 19:50, 17 April 2009 (BST)

It's not bad because of the act of eliminating "their" suburbs - there are other issues with this as well. See above. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:11, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I read it. I'm still not convinced it would be bad to shrink the City. It's just NEVER gonna happen because of the attachment people have for their burbs, even if it would improve the game.--Zombie Lord 20:37, 17 April 2009 (BST)

I'm not trying to get this past a peer review. Peer review doesn't remotely matter in getting a change implemented. I'm arguing this on the off chance that Kevan is actually reading this. -- Murray Jay Suskind 20:59, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, thats usually what I try to do...I don't even want to imagine the On Strike campaign someone like Mobius would try to organize if he though Dulston might go down though. Good luck at any rate. I think shrinking the city would be great for the game myself. Or better yet, a total redesign with less malls, less NTs, and an actual street plan that organized buildings into blocks cut off from each other as far as running lanes went.--Zombie Lord 21:14, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Again, this'd be something nice to do with a test city or a new city... in fact, I feel a suggestion coming on... --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:03, 17 April 2009 (BST)

This sounds like a "multiply it by a billion" kind of thing. A feral zombie CAN get through even the tougher barricades on their own. a "horde" of 3 can do quite a bit of damage even through that.--Pesatyel 04:12, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Call this a place holder for comments later. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:28, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Leave my Butt alone. >=( -- C h e e s e 12:10, 18 April 2009 (BST)

There could be problems with people's alts (ie: zerging, and keeping them outside of 10 squares with less squares) and as above, attachment to locations. Linkthewindow Talk 13:02, 18 April 2009 (BST)

What you want is a new Monroeville or Borhamwood. Your idea has too many problems to be taken seriously. What happens to characters in the suburbs you are eliminating? Density might end up higher, but then you also eliminate a core idea of zombie canon--survivors SHOULDN'T clump up. They spread out and avoid the zombie hordes. Add in the problems that everyone else has already brought up and I tell you to quit whining. If the population bothers you, get more people to play the game! --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 13:10, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Exactly. IMO an organised zombie horde should tear down everything they come across. And even then, they still don't always win. And when they do, you should MOVE. Do the old "clean up behind them" tricks, etc. Sadly, your suggestion would just cluster fark MORE survivors and have the opposite effect of what you intended: more mallrats, etc. No, what K needs to do is make non-life for ferals easier somehow. --WanYao 19:44, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Anger, Rage, Berserk

Timestamp:	Sorakairi 13:40, 17 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	new MoL skills
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	This is 3 new skills, like a sub-sub skill. You buy Anger as a skill, which gets you able to buy Rage, then Berserk. Now, explaining. Anger works when you reach 15HP, where you get an attack boost of 1 but accuracy deboost of 5%. Rage activates when you reach 7-10 HP, and does the same thing, except you get an accuracy decrease of 5% so you have a decrease of 10%. Berserk activates at 3HP, where you become unable to choose who to attack, but have a 3rd attack boost of 1. You also have to be taken down to negative 5HP to be killed. Anger: +1 damage, -5% to hit. Rage: +2 damage, -10% to hit. Berserk: +3 damage, -10% to hit, but have no control over whom you attack. Must be taken to -5 HP to be killed.

Discussion (Anger, Rage, Beserk)

If you don't like it, tell me why and I'll try to fix it. I'm also going to do other Emotions, like Happy, if this one is liked. Sorakairi 13:40, 17 April 2009 (BST)

I just don't understand this idea at all. For one thing, I'm not ever active when my HP is getting whacked down. And if I were active, how does it make sense to lose control of my target? I just don't get it at all. --Winton 16:10, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Er... -5 HP? That makes all kinds of not-sense. *fixes Discussion title* Also, as Winton, how often are you active when you're attacked - and of that, how often are you able to attack back in the 0-15 HP range? You die pretty darn fast in real-time! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:04, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Zombies already fight like berserkers (zombie claw attacks are nastier than survivors axes) and don't much care if injured. Better attacks for being damaged makes little sense for them, and doesnt fit how the game works very well. Swiers 19:39, 17 April 2009 (BST)

You know, I have rethought this a little bit. After all, when I think about it, there have been periods of days long when my zombie has wandered around with single digit HP. What if me and a zombie buddy clawed each other down to 10 HP (Rage), and then went into a mall with a crowd. Now we are clawing 5HP @ 50% (w/Tangling Grasp). Now I am a habbah zambah! I'm taking down TWO survivors with my 50 AP, at least until I cycle up through the crowd and someone shoots me. I mean, you gotta like that, right?--Winton 21:12, 17 April 2009 (BST)

I added in the stuff above to try to explain things better. If the author dislikes it he can remove it.--Pesatyel 04:17, 18 April 2009 (BST)

What about two people attacking a zombie? How are we to know that the bastard is beserk? We might AP out taking him to 0 only to find that the zombie is still alive and more destructive than ever. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 08:50, 18 April 2009 (BST)

The -5 HP seems like it would only confuse and upset people. Just change the HP ranges for the skills so the zombie still dies at 0 and I think it's fine.--Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 12:58, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Gain More AP skills

Timestamp:	Tigerfam1 03:27, 17 April 2009 (BST)[User:Tigerfam1][Tigerfam1]
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Everyone except the science class.
Description:	Everyone regains their Ap every hour, but only one point is given.There should be an AP skill that would make the regain process quicker like 2 to 5 more AP evry hour. Another skill should be added with the ability to regain your AP fully over the course of 1 to 2 weeks, but you still get AP hourly, however you get one point every 5 hours. I'm constantly running out of AP and so are others. In theory this should balance out.

Discussion (Gain More AP skills)

The problem with putting a curve on AP recovery is that in inherently favors people who have been in the game longer, and puts newbs - who come almost toothless anyway - at an even worse disadvantage. -CaptainVideo 04:10, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Always running out of AP? This is a game designed to be played a little bit each day - not "Oh man! It's been six hours since I last logged in!!!" That's what Q2019 is for, if you're interested. The reason we don't alter how AP regen works is because it's a huge balance quandary and it works fine the way it is. That, and people are very used to it. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:58, 17 April 2009 (BST)

That game has some of the stupidest rules I've ever seen. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 11:26, 18 April 2009 (BST)

the game is supposed to be slow. it's not an FPS. 50 ap is balanced to keep people from doing too much in a turn. please read the dos and don'ts. also, WTF would you screw scientists in this suggestion??? --WanYao 12:12, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Two things:We regain AP at two an hour, not one. and also, denying Scientists the skill insinuates that you are creating class-specific skills, which is a big no-no. Oh, and there's the 'mess with AP' thing. All in all, this suggestion just couldn't be done. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 12:44, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Body Drag

Timestamp:	Baz Baziah 20:21, 16 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill but with possible balance change
Scope:	Humans.
Description:	Humans can currently dump bodies from within buildings to avoid the usual stand and attack routine, but there is nothing to stop the "Body" once dumped from standing up as a zombie and immediately break back into the building. Allowing a human player a new skill of "Body dragging" which would for a cost of additional AP's -say 1 or 2 per block or based on there current Encumbrance total, allow them to drag a dead body away from the block it is currently located in to another, each additional block would cost the same number of AP's as the first. You would do this in the "Real world" so why not in Malton ?

Discussion (Body Dragging)

And the zombie could still stand right back up and move somewhere else. I don't like the idea of having someone move me 20 blocks away for the hell of it (or with a zerging alt), either. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:28, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Then add the zerging mod to the AP cost to do such things. As for being moved, your dead you have no say in what happens to you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baz Baziah (talk • contribs) 20:38, 16 April 2009 (BST).

This may well fall under the "pied piper" rule, most people disagree with the idea of moving bodies, any further than tossing them from the window. I have also seen many suggestions like this before, most of which have been shot down. --Lord Evans 23:47, 16 April 2009 (BST)

This has been suggested a LOT and I don't feel like looking up the dupes at the moment. Body Dumping and Fireman's Carry have strict rules around them. That's what makes them work (well when he implements Fireman's Carry). Realism only goes so far. In reality zombies DON'T get up when you "kill" them. In the real world you would burn the bodies (or bury them). We can't do that here. Maybe if zombies were NPCs. But they aren't. this would be too easily abused.--Pesatyel 03:14, 17 April 2009 (BST)

This would be cool if we had PERMA-DEATH. Then you'd have to move the dead bodies and burn them and stuff or there would be penalties for DISEASE from all the rotting bodies. We could also have rules for PERMA-RUIN then and the game would be 10 times cooler. We need a HARDCORE city for players with BALLS. Then we could get some of these cool ideas in.--Zombie Lord 05:09, 17 April 2009 (BST)

mini pied piper. and dupe-o-rama. also... "there is nothing to stop the "Body" once dumped from standing up as a zombie and immediately break back into the building".... well, yeah, EXACTLY, dude. they're fucking ZOMBIES, didn't you notice? --WanYao 12:15, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Zombies are Scary to Move Through

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 17:23, 16 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement.
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Any time a Survivor tries to enter a square with 10 or more Zombies in it requires some fancy dodge moves to make it through. For every 10 Zombies in the square it costs +1 AP to move there. So, 10 zombies, +1 AP, 20 zombies, +2 AP and so on. Also, there is a 10% chance that a Survivor is forced back their original square by the Zombies and still loses all the AP for the try. This is 10% for 10 or more zombies so even if there are 100 zombies, it's still 10%. Squares with 9 or less Zombies don't cause any effect on movement. Zombies are not afraid of Survivors so they don't suffer any penalty for moving through them.

Discussion (Zombies are Scary to Move Through)

This definitely needs a cap on the amount of extra ap survivors have to spend if it were to go through at all. --Johnny Bass 17:26, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Maye not if it's outside only, since you would always have the choice and know the odds.--Zombie Lord 17:49, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I don't like the possibility of moving into a building occupied by 50 zombies - "Oops, that just cost you 6 AP with no warning!" And since we can't have X-ray vision, I don't know how you're going to roundabout this except by making this outdoors-only or something. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:41, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, moving in and out of buildings wouldn't count. Neither would FreeRunning since you could run across the bridges pretty easy without zombies getting in your way. So outside only.--Zombie Lord 17:48, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Well, it could apply only to actions involved in moving out of a packed location irregardless of if it is indoors or outdoors. That way, they player might be a little more careful in where they run to. Or perhaps it could be for entering a building that has a large number of zombies outside of it. Just some thoughts. --Johnny Bass 18:06, 16 April 2009 (BST)

So, when would it count?--Pesatyel 03:07, 17 April 2009 (BST)

It would appear simpler to have it if you moved OUT of a square with lots of zombies. I also think fewer , larger steps, say 0-10, 11-20 20-40 41+--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:30, 16 April 2009 (BST)

That sounds cool. Ok, so it's when you move out of a square that it counts. That way you could have it work inside and outside and with FreeRunning. How about Johnny's cap idea with +5 AP as the cap, plus we throw in it's a 5% chance to be "held up" per 10 zombies with a cap of 25%.--Zombie Lord 05:02, 17 April 2009 (BST)

I dunno, this version looks a lot like an AP suck. Since you can't see in or out of a building, or into ajoining buildings you might free-run into, you could very easily move into a location packed full of zombies, and not have enough AP to move out (or at least to safety). I know that's kind of the point, but it amounts to an unpredictable, unpreventable AP loss. As suchg, it would be much like headshot, only with no effort needed (other than standing in a cluster) on the part of the zombies, and with the very real potential of suffering the AP loss multiple times per day. There's also the simple fact that this would discourage revives, because reviving requires moving into (and out of) a block occupied by zombies.

Swiers 19:36, 17 April 2009 (BST)

OTOH, it might just make Survivors act more reasonable for a change. Less running off into dangerous areas without regard to life. Yeah, the Revive part was in the back of my mind though, big revive queues would become a problem...but only in the case of a major zombie assault that slaughters many. Would make zombies holding a Ruin a little harder for Survivors to negotiate as well. But really, a Survivor probably should be forced to consider things like that when it comes to deciding to stay with the safety of the herd or wander off into zombie controlled areas. I like anything that helps make Survivors value their life a bit, instead of the relatively cheap Revive process that allows for "casual" death to be considered just another part of Survivor strategy in many cases.--Zombie Lord 20:04, 17 April 2009 (BST)

there needs to be a cap. also, why wouldn't it apply to inside, too? i think it should. this suggestion isn't quite "there", but i like the idea. develop it more thoroughly. --WanYao 12:18, 17 April 2009 (BST)

I'll be auto-spamming this. It makes an assumption about how all players choose to play and their character's outlook. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:28, 18 April 2009 (BST)

I agree with Wan, it is a nice idea, if you balance it out then it could be a winner. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 13:47, 18 April 2009 (BST)

So how about a cap of +2 AP to move. +1 when there are 10 to 20 zombies and +2 when more than that. I'd be inclined to add that Zombie Hunters should get a bonus. Say there needs to be 15 to 25 zombies for the +1 and above for the +2.--Pesatyel 06:53, 19 April 2009 (BST)

The Happy Clown

Timestamp:	Sorakairi 14:04, 16 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Just Fun
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	Somehow, by some form of Happy Clownery, a clown has managed to get into Malton. He now wanders the streets, handing out balloons to those who speak to him. He is impervious to attacks, as Humans attacking him get the message, "His happiness radiates off, and makes you wonder why you attacked him, stopping you." Zombies get the message "As you attack, the Clown does a trick. You stop, amazed, and forget to attack." When you speak to him, he gives you a balloon. This balloon is useless, except that you can pop it in someone's face doing no damage at 100% accuracy, like a newspaper. You can only have 1 balloon at a time. Also, The Happy Clown is mute, as in he can laugh etc. but not speak. The Happy Clown will leave, as he moves from one end of Malton to the other, entering through one border and exiting through the opposite border.

Discussion(The Happy Clown)

Hooray for clowns! Sorakairi 14:04, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Humorous Suggestions is <-- that way. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:08, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I know that, this wasn't meant to be humourous. It was meant to be fun. Which is the same thing, I guess. But anyway, I just thought that people might like a change from constant killing. I mean, clowns are awesome. Everyone likes clowns, right? Sorakairi 14:24, 16 April 2009 (BST)

How about clown biker ninja nuns riding in horse drawn zeplins instead???

Swiers 15:05, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I'm torn. I like this idea - it feels like an Elvis sighting - but it's out of step with a game populated entirely by human-driven characters. -CaptainVideo 23:57, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, most people I know hate clowns. You'd have a lot of people just trying to kill his ass (whether they could or not0.--Pesatyel 02:47, 17 April 2009 (BST)

/me hates clowns --WanYao 12:19, 17 April 2009 (BST)

well, then i guess its no good. Ohs wells. I will type my Zombie MoL skill now. Sorakairi 13:26, 17 April 2009 (BST)

You bite The Happy Clown for 4 damage. They become infected. They die.--Winton 22:38, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Oops!

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 13:11, 14 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	'Improvement'
Scope:	Greedy survivors
Description:	Whenever a survivor who has a total encumberance rating of over 100% dies, they have a X% chance to lose their biggest item (read: item with the most encumberance), where X is the number by which you have exceeded the 100% encumberance marker.

Discussion (Oops!)

This will create an uproar. Might I suggest an extra AP to stand up? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 18:31, 14 April 2009 (BST)

I don't think the fifth generator really makes that much of a difference to the four I can stand up with and carry without any trouble. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:07, 14 April 2009 (BST)

I'm not sure which way your leaning with your comment. If your saying its ok to lose the "fifth generator" maybe, but what about your ONLY generator? Or are you saying that encumberance is irrelevant to your ability to stand.--Pesatyel 03:17, 15 April 2009 (BST)

No, it's neither of those. Am I really that unclear or is it just you? What I'm saying here is that why would the fifth be a problem, when four wouldn't? Though strictly speaking, even five generators wouldn't be a problem, you'd have to have some other stuff in addition to those five for it to be a problem. The inventory system is really unrealistic, this wouldn't fix that. This would just annoy people. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:55, 15 April 2009 (BST)

No, I think you clarified things. I agree, this wouldn't really help the inventory system.--Pesatyel 04:19, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I agree with gnome.--x o x o 06:49, 15 April 2009 (BST)

I like this, it seems altogether reasonable that a zombie is not going to struggle about hauling the extra weight that making it such a small chance even seems nice! It would cause uproar though. --Honestmistake 08:14, 15 April 2009 (BST)

At best, I'd say the character would would get to CHOSE which item(s) to lose to get under 100%.--Pesatyel 04:19, 16 April 2009 (BST)

While it does make sense, anything that serves to create a hindrance for survivors that wasn't previously present won't make it past voting. Think about trying to explain that rationale in the update. "Survivors across the map suddenly got weaker and...." I can't really think of a good way of explaining it via the update screen. --Johnny Bass 16:50, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I generally think the punishment for breaching the 100% encumbrance limit is merely that you can't get any more items, but despite my basic and boring opinion of the encumbrance system, I would probably vouch for either Blake or AHLG's ideas towards this. However, it might just be more basic and logical if you propose that people simply can't breach 100%. Although I am certain thats a dupe. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 13:39, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Over Emcumbered Slows You down

Timestamp:	Alex1guy 10:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	What I am suggesting is inspired from Fallout 3. When you are over encumbered (101% and up) it should cost 2 AP to perform an action as all the stuff on your back makes it difficult to move, shoot, hit etc.This would encourage survivors to take more care about what they carry and would stop people who are 99% encumbered, to suddenly be able carry an extra generator at virtually no cost.

Over Emcumbered Slows You down

Dupish -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:11 14 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, it ISN'T a dupe. Working Load applied only to movement. This applies to ALL actions. That having been said, neither is a good idea, of course. The former got into Peer Rejected. NO way in HELL this will pass.--Pesatyel 02:50, 14 April 2009 (BST)

How is this an "improvement"? Suggestions are to strive to make the game more fun. I actually think we should introduce a NEW category of suggestions. Said category would be ideas in which players could VOLUNTARILY make the game harder on themselves without affecting or forcing others to do the same. This idea would qualify. I could have a toggle on my profile that would "activate" this idea for my character.--Pesatyel 02:50, 14 April 2009 (BST)

Makes total sense, adds somewhat to realism, and isn't worth bothering with. The ability to exceed encumbrance isn't a big deal, especially considering how unrealistic the ability to carry all the crap within the encumbrance limit is. But unlike Pesatyel, I don't think things have to be helpful to be improvements, and like seeing suggestions like this.--Necrofeelinya 08:30, 14 April 2009 (BST)

That DOESN'T say how this is an improvement. Realism should help a suggestion make sense, not be the sole reason for it. Also, WHERE did I say it had to be helpful? I said "suggestions should stive to make the game more FUN". DON'T put words in people's mouths. And, as a matter of fact if you actually read my post, I said suggestions like this COULD be a part of the game.--Pesatyel 03:22, 15 April 2009 (BST)

It isn't much of an improvement, or I wouldn't have said "isn't worth bothering with", though the notion that realism isn't sufficient reason for a suggestion is an opinion I don't necessarily share with you, particularly if added realism makes the game more fun for others. Maybe that difference in our perceptions of what might be "fun" is what gives me the impression that you prefer your suggestions to be beneficial. And sorry I overlooked your rant about how this "COULD be a part of the game" as long as players are given the option to "VOLUNTARILY make the game harder on themselves without affecting or forcing others to do the same" as part of "a NEW category of suggestions". I took it for sarcasm. Apparently you were serious. Nice use of caps, btw. --Necrofeelinya 04:52, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Overreacted a little perhaps. Thing is that this IS just a game, one that most people only play for, what, 5 minutes a day? Why make it harder on others, unnecessarily? I'm all for the game being more realistic, but realism only goes so far before it infringes on the the fun/enjoyability of others. And thats where the limited play time comes in. I said realism shouldn't be only reason for a suggestion, not that it shouldn't be included (or that it wasn't necessary). You say "realism will make the game more fun for others" In what way, given this suggestion? Shouldn't it make it fun for YOU too? How does this particular suggestion make it fun for others? And, as you said you took my idea as "sarcasm" am I to take it you dislike the idea?--Pesatyel 06:57, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Like I said, I don't share the view that realism alone isn't enough reason for a suggestion. I think it can be reason enough, if it doesn't complicate game play. I just don't want to discourage suggestions which, like this, are mainly based upon added realism. But no, I don't support this since the amount of crap players can carry well within encumbrance w/o movement penalties is unrealistic to begin with, so this doesn't really add realism. The AP penalty doesn't make sense because of that, and would just be an annoyance that people would have to deal with, since it'd just lead to people wasting time trying to max out their inventories without penalty. But I like that he tried, and I think maybe there might at some point be a place for something like this, if it were radically different, fit the game better, and people actually wanted it, which nobody does.--Necrofeelinya 09:32, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, I meant my idea about a new group of suggestions where a player can voluntarily make the game "harder" for themselves without forcing other players to take the same limitations/quirks.--Pesatyel 04:25, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Like Diablo's Hardcore mode or a Hardcore city! I'd actually be interested in such a thing. Harder for both sides, that is. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:31, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Might not be a bad idea. The best time I've had in Urban Dead has been in the early stages of Borehamwood or Monroeville, and I've wanted to see that kind of hardcore map made a more permanent, workable feature anyway, but there might be a way to introduce a hardcore element to Malton. Check my suggestion for the "Harman" class in Humorous Suggestions to get one notion of how it might work, for humans anyway. : ) --Necrofeelinya 07:40, 16 April 2009 (BST)

what i get in a search is random. i could be over-encumbered against my will. --WanYao 19:43, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Then throw some stuff out. Don't be greedy now. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 13:40, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Seperate groups for seperate states

Timestamp:	A Zombie ^Talk 23:08, 13 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Minor profile change
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	Currently, if someone is Dual-Natured, they either have to be a loner/feral or leave their group everytime they die or get revived. This is kinda annoying, and seems odd, from a realistic perspective. Just because I'm in a survivor group when I'm alive doesn't mean I can't join a horde when I'm dead. Therefore, I think that there should be two group boxes, one for Survivor and one for Zombie, just like for descriptions. Only the active group would be counted, so If I'm in the RRF and I get revived, I would no longer add to the user count for that group, until I managed to die. If you don't want to do this, you could just have the same group in both slots. Any questions?

Discussion (Seperate groups for seperate states)

Not a bad idea really, but so minor I wonder if Kevan would bother to code it.--Necrofeelinya 23:22, 13 April 2009 (BST)

As above, I think it's a good idea though --Alex1guy 10:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmh.. dunno. Can't you just change the group in your box? Such as: You join RRF and DEM. You get killed, write RRF. You get revived, write DEM. :/ --Janus ^talk 23:52, 13 April 2009 (BST)

I think I remember seeing something like this before...like. Oh, I don't know. This? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} (status:‎Mudkip!) 00:33, 14 April 2009 (BST)

Ah. Do I delete this or just let it fade then?--A Zombie ^Talk 00:44, 14 April 2009 (BST)

Just let it fade into the world of nothingness. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} (status:‎Mudkip!) 01:11, 14 April 2009 (BST)

Amidoinitrite? --Janus ^talk 01:32, 14 April 2009 (BST)

Huh. I thought it would be darker... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} (status:‎Mudkip!) 01:52, 14 April 2009 (BST)

This seems like a fix for very lazy people. Just go to your settings and change it! Besides, this should really only be an issue for DUAL-NATURE characters, which is a small part of the UD population. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:55, 16 April 2009 (BST)

So small means insignificant? --Haliman - Talk 01:24, 17 April 2009 (BST)

actually dual nature play is growing all the time. look at the stats page. dual nature is how UD was intended to be played. it's anything but "insignifcant". there are also a few dual natured groups out there; the Dual Nature "group" itself isn't really a group but more a label for what amount to ferals playing in a certain style.

in any event there is no need for this, as others have said, it's just for lazy people, meh. --WanYao 12:23, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Civilian/Improvised Weapon Bonus

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 19:43, 12 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Civillians
Description:	"The civilians in Malton draw upon their pre-outbreak experience to better wield their improvised weapons." It is logical to assume that a civilian who plays golf three days a week is going to be able to swing a golf club more effectively than a soldier who is constantly training for armed combat or a scientist who studies in a lab all day. Civilian Class Players (Consumer/Cop/Fire-fighter) gain a 5% attack bonus to the following improvised weapons: Baseball Bat Beer/Wine Bottle Cricket Bat Fencing Foil Golf Club Hockey Stick Pool Cue Ski Pole Tennis Racket These weapons have no secondary purpose and are often discarded as soon as a player finds an axe of knife even if there is no bonus until they purchase proficiency. By giving them a minor bonus it increases their usefulness to civilians until they purchase axe/knife proficiency. In fact it makes some weapons more effective than the axe until they train in its use. To a fully developed player there is no noticeable effect on game play, but to low level civilians these weapons now have a use. Fire-fighters will still start of with the best melee capabilities and knifes will remain the most accurate weapon at all levels. This just provides the other weapon a purpose until they 'specialise' in the axe or knife. Arguments for every class being identical should note that scientists are 'unique' when it comes to books.

Discussion (Civilian/Improvised Weapon Bonus)

I do not care if scientists are slightly different. I did not vote for that, and think it should be changed. Existing flaws are not a justification for adding more. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:50, 12 April 2009 (BST)

I'm not using it for a justification, I'm just making a note of it for others. Aside from (and I'm guessing here) you wanting everybody to be identical is there any other constructive feedback? What I've tried to do is give potentially useless items a purpose with appropriate justification and balance. --Kamikazie-Bunny 23:27, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Constructive feedback: don't make it civilian-only. These are regular people we're talking about. They're pretty much just as likely to have experience with sports as military and science people. Other than that, no, at the moment I don't think there's much to change or add to this. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 00:14, 13 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, there is; this would make cricket bats and hockey sticks better than axes all the way until you get Axe Proficiency. Think what you're suggesting; a stick of wood would be better than a stick of wood with a sharp metal thingy at the end. I really don't think that's right. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 01:07, 13 April 2009 (BST)

Actually it WOULD be better than the axe, which is why you need the Axe Proficiency skill. It takes less skill to hit something with a club than with the sharp edge of an axe. An axe without the Axe Proficiency is, effectively, just a club because you don't really know how to "use it properly". Besides, that's the purpose behind the suggestion, to make the "other" weapons more useful if but for awhile.--Pesatyel 01:48, 13 April 2009 (BST)

Even if you don't hit with the sharp side, it's still a lump of metal at the end of the stick. I can accept the damage being equal until you learn to hit with the sharp side properly, but not that it's better than an axe. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 02:41, 13 April 2009 (BST)

The axe/knife is still a better weapon once you learn how to use it. Imagine this, you play tennis, you know how to swing the racket at your target and hit it (most of the time), suddenly someone gives you an axe to do the same task with... trying to do the same thing is going to be a lot more awkward, your not used to the size, weight and general feel of it. It's not until you've had a lot of practice/training that your going to be as/more proficient with it as a you were with a tennis racket (substitute terminology for a different item if it helps). --Kamikazie-Bunny 03:00, 13 April 2009 (BST)

It's quite different using something as a weapon than using it to hit a ball. As far as I know, tennis does not involve swinging the racket at another person. You're going to be awkward doing that anyway, regarless of whether you're doing it with a tennis racket or an axe. As for the other stuff, I hate to repeat myself, so I won't. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:04, 13 April 2009 (BST)

What about the length of pipe? Its a big hunk of metal. The reason the axe is dangerous is BECAUSE it has a blade. I'm not sure why Kevan decided to have the hockey stick have a higher damage, but since your hitting the target from, effectively, any part of the weapon it would stand to reason it would be easier to do then with a specific part.--Pesatyel 05:48, 13 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, no, it's not a big hunk of metal. It only weighs 4%, while the axe weighs 6%. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:15, 13 April 2009 (BST)

I think we're getting side tracked here, this suggestion does not have a direct effect on the damage a weapon deals, it effects the accuracy, if your used to using something you are more likely to be able to hit someone with it than a weapon you are not familiar with. I didn't include the pipe because it has a secondary purpose (barricading) and I may remove the bottle depending on what you lot think. --Kamikazie-Bunny 15:59, 13 April 2009 (BST)

"It is logical to assume that a civilian who plays golf three days a week is going to be able to swing a golf club more effectively than a soldier who is constantly training for armed combat or a scientist who studies in a lab all day." - Fallacious premise, GIGO. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:28, 13 April 2009 (BST)

I'm not sure what you find so fallacious about this premise? I wouldn't say it's a misconjecture that a police officer or teacher has easier access (both geographically and chronologically) to the facilities where they could practice their golf techniques than military personnel who are likely to be deployed on a base/training operation. --Kamikazie-Bunny 15:59, 13 April 2009 (BST)

Practising with something that can be utilised as a weapon does not equal weapons practise. I will concede that a fat CEO will have a better golf swing than a soldier, but a golf swing isn't really a combat technique, not unless you're going to saunter over to a zombie and then set up your swing and take out its ankle....

Let us look at the pool cue, that you included in the suggestion, how in any way is the cueing action a valid combat technique? I'll concede that the pool team downstairs have a better cueing action than me (well some of them at least), but in a combat situation I'm not going to set down my bridge (because there'd be nothing to rest on) and strike the zombie with a smooth cueing action, I'm falling back on my Iai.

How do bottles get on this list? 99.9% of 'civilians' only ever move the bottle from the bar to their mouth. How is action combat effective? Why do you presuppose they do this action more than soldiers? Clearly you've never gone drinking with Paras....

Practise does not equal combat effectiveness regardless of whatever you're practising or calling your practise. Alive training is the key to effectiveness, not the appearance of combat. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 23:37, 13 April 2009 (BST)

By your logic, Military-class players should get +5% to firearms accuracy (or civilians get 5% less, but there should be a difference) and Scientist-class players should be able to revive with only 8 or 9 AP instead of 10. Nay I say! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:03, 13 April 2009 (BST)

Overgrown Parks

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 19:06, 12 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Parks
Description:	Humanity may be dying but the parks are still alive. I suggest that as time goes on the park becomes more and more overgrown with weeds and wild bushes. Every day a park would become slightly more overgrown, just like a ruined building decaying. This would be visible two ways: The location description, which would go from "neatly manicured lawns" all the way to total overgrown wilderness. The color of the square as seen on the map. When maintained it'd be very light green, becoming a progressively darker green as the weeds grow. After many weeks it'd be a green so dark it'd verge on black. There would be a tangible effect to this other than aesthetics. When a park is sufficiently overgrown, after about a week or so when it is rather dark green, you would not be able to see anyone standing in there from an adjacent square. Players in the park would also been unable to see anyone standing in adjacent squares. This would allow survivors and zombies to use overgrown parks as a hiding place. If a survivor has a fire axe they can clear up the park, which would cost 1AP for every day its been since it was last tended to. Unlike ruins the presence of zombies in a park would not prevent this, mainly because it is easier and faster to attack plants than rebuild a building. Some survivors might want to maintain parks so zombies can't lurk there. Or they may let them grow so stranded survivors can hide there. Parks would have tactical uses for both sides.

Discussion (Overgrown Parks)

It's an Okay suggestion, but you should have more detail on the levels of "overgrown-ness", like Ruin does. Also, the cost should be changed a bit, it should cost more than 1 AP, and should have a cap. (It would eventually lead to massive negative AP as is). Other than that, it's fine.--A Zombie ^{User Talk:Pharo2i2} 20:04, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Part of me wants to say yes but the potential clearing cost is too high, if there was a set cost (e.g. 5ap) it would win me over, as it stands having a constantly rising cost would be a major inconvenience. The benefits for survivors would be negated by zombies hiding in them, if anything it is an AP drain to survivors, they either have to enter to check for zombies or cut it down to prevent zombies hiding in there. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:05, 12 April 2009 (BST)

If "it is easier and faster to attack plants than rebuild a building", then why is the AP cost essentially the same? Also, I think it shouldn't be a gradual darkening. To be clear which state it is in, it should be light green for when you can see in/out, and dark when you can't. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:57, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Well how overgrown would it get? So as to make the square impassible? I'd imagine that, eventually, the overgrowth would stop simply because there isn't enough of what the plants need to keep growing.--Pesatyel 02:03, 13 April 2009 (BST)

I like this, but agree it should be a flat rate to trim plants. Also, could you pick out some swatches so we know how different the greens will be? There's a table at the bottom of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green -CaptainVideo 03:45, 13 April 2009 (BST)

Found a better selection here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_colors -CaptainVideo 03:48, 13 April 2009 (BST)

The one thing I don't like about it is the axe. I mean, who uses an axe for removing weeds, really? A knife or wirecutters would make more sense. --LaosOman 14:40, 13 April 2009 (BST)

A weed is just an undesired plant... a tree is a plant... but then again I doubt a tree would grow back in a week. :-) --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:04, 13 April 2009 (BST)

How about this:

Parks will have three stages. Light green, normal green, and dark green. Every three days a park will darken one stage, stopping at dark green.

Only dark green will block views in or out. Survivors with a knife (instead of an axe) can reduce it one degree lighter for a cost of 1AP for each level of park overgrowth. So to bring it from dark green to light green would cost 2AP.

You would not be able to bring a park to light green if there are any standing zombies. Instead you'd only be able to bring it from dark green to normal green. The AP cost would also increase by one for every zombie standing. You can still cut the plants, but spend AP dodging the zombies. So if there are five standing zombies in a park that's at dark green, spending 6AP would bring it to normal green. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:56, 13 April 2009 (BST)

It seems much better to me. The knife change makes sense, but I'm assuming an Axe would still be usable, right? Also, why exactly wouldn't you be able to bring it to light green if there are zombies? I understand it might make it harder, but it should still be possible.--A Zombie ^Talk 21:21, 13 April 2009 (BST)

I'll endorse this, as long as you let people use axes and knives, and as long as you can clear parks even when there are zombies inside. -CaptainVideo 04:08, 14 April 2009 (BST)

How about using an axe to bring it down from dark green to normal green, and a knife to bring it down from normal green to light green? Use an axe for the wild overgrowth a knife can't cut through, and use a knife to remove those plants an axe is just not precise enough for. --LaosOman 19:35, 15 April 2009 (BST)

I'd accept that, but I think it would be better if you were allowed to use both for either, just for the sake of simplicity. -CaptainVideo 00:29, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I'd accept "both for either", but I think it'd be better if it depended on the level of overgrowth, for the sake of both realism and making the knife a bit more useful. Dog can decide which he likes best. --LaosOman 16:38, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I love this idea. More detail for various levels of overgrowth and I think you've got a winner. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:33, 15 April 2009 (BST)

I can help with that.

"You're in ____ Park, which has become totally choked with undergrowth. Vines and brambles prevent you from seeing more than a few feet in any direction."

"You're in ____ Park, which has reverted to the wild in the absence of human care. Tall weeds cover the pathways and vines have climbed up the benches. The plant life prevents you fro seeing the surrounding streets and buildings.

"You're in ____ Park, which is starting to return to its natural state. The grass is getting high and the shrubs are beginning to creep over the pathways.

"You're in ____ Park, which is starting to return to its natural state. The information kiosk has been gutted by fire, and several of the benches are broken.

"You're in ____ Park, which has been recently trimmed. The pathways are clear, and the shrubs have been pruned.

-CaptainVideo 01:06, 17 April 2009 (BST)

I still don't see any indication as to whether or not this affects movement. And if it does or it doesn't, that IS something that needs to be addressed.--Pesatyel 02:43, 17 April 2009 (BST)

The poster hasn't suggested any extra AP cost for movement. -CaptainVideo 04:23, 17 April 2009 (BST)

I'm aware of that. That's why I said it is "something that needs to be addressed".--Pesatyel 07:22, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Hm. What's your stance? -CaptainVideo 00:23, 19 April 2009 (BST)

I don't know about "impassible" but maybe just a +1 to movement through said areas when they are "fully" overgrown.--Pesatyel 06:55, 19 April 2009 (BST)

Further Axe Experience

Timestamp:	Roorgh 12:10, 10 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Another axe skill that survivors can get that comes after Axe Proficiency in the skill tree. It simply gives +10% with fire axe.

Discussion (Further Axe Experience)

I'm not wed to the particular name I've chosen, just what it represents. All this does is bring the axe up to par with the zombie claw in terms of chances to hit for both people (excluding the effect of Tangling Grasp) and barricades. I find it odd that survivors are at a disadvantge for all current melee weapons. As it stands a survivor needs on average of 50AP to kill a person with 60HP. I couldn't see anything with fire or axe in the title for previous suggestions for something like this which I found odd. If it's a dupe I apologise. --Roorgh 12:10, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Axes are useful because they don't require the survivor to waste AP on searches, they may be below par when compared with zombie claws, however the attack rates balance out when the higher firearm skills are bought, and a survivor can invest search AP by searching for lots of ammo and being able to kill multiple zombies (or survivors) in a sitting when fully stocked. Not all weapons should do equal damage -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:57 10 April 2009 (BST)

Yeh survivors can stockpile shotguns and pistols and have a 65% chance to hit and do 10 or 6 damage. Making axes more powerful would unbalance the game. 40% to hit is the trade-off for not having to find ammo, like the rules said. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 16:26, 10 April 2009 (BST)

It takes the axe from an average of 1.2 to 1.5, why does this unbalance the game so drastically when it doesn't even bring it up to a maxed out zombie? --Roorgh 15:33, 11 April 2009 (BST)

Barricades. Zombies have to break through barricades before being able to use their claws on you. Survivors can just walk outside and start chopping. If you don't have to waste time searching for ammo, then the trade of is that you do less damage with an axe -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:24 12 April 2009 (BST)

They still will be doing less damage, even if this suggestion was implemented. With the suggestion they could expect to kill a Flesh Rot zombie in 40AP, while now it's 50AP. For 48% encumbrance they can hold 8 pistols and 8 spare clips and they could expect to kill 2 zombies with Flesh Rot the first day and stand a good chance at two the next day too (but not by the averages due to reloading). It shifts in favour of the pistol even more if the zombie doesn't have a flak jacket or Flesh Rot. As for survivors running outside and killing zombies; people seem idiotic enough to do it already, would tweaking the axe make any difference? --Roorgh 11:38, 12 April 2009 (BST)

It's not only trenchies that go outside to kill zombies. Anyone looking to gain XP, especially newbies, do too. And an axe is the best way for newbies to level up via attack. Simply start as a firefighter, and buy one skill (H2HC), and you're set. Making a level 2 survivor anywhere near equal to the attack capacity of a maxed out zombie (Vigour Mortis + Death Grip + Rend Flesh + Tangling Grasp) is ridiculous -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:12 12 April 2009 (BST)

They wouldn't be equivalent to a maxed out zombie, they'd only be equivalent to zombie with Vigour Mortis, Death Grip and Rend Flesh. Tangling Grasp takes the average 1.5 HP claw damage that a zombie can do with the other skills and increases it to ~1.7. Also, as I said this would be an additional skill under Axe Proficiency, a new survivor would need to get this skill + Hand-to-Hand Combat before being equal, this both would need to be a level 3 character in the game. --Roorgh 14:11, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Zombies should be more proficient in mêlée combat than survivors. This goes for barricade-breaking too. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:14, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Why? I understand why zombies have to be able to break barricades at a reasonable rate, but why must zombies be better at melee combat? (which they would still be because of Tangling Grasp) --Roorgh 15:33, 11 April 2009 (BST)

Melee - yes, barricading breaking - no. There's no reason that zombies have to be better at it than survivors (better at the task maybe). --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:45, 11 April 2009 (BST)

It would also further relegate the other weapons to "non-use".--Pesatyel 21:05, 11 April 2009 (BST)

Do you mean other melee weapons, and if so have you looked at them? They are already completely pointless. The only one that even remotely has a chance is the knife, and even that requires an average of 60AP against a zombie with Flesh Rot or Body Building. --Roorgh 11:29, 12 April 2009 (BST)

That's exactly the point about the other melee weapons. They ARE, unfortunately, crap. But they ARE in the game, so I'd rather see them either removed or improved and I DON'T think making the axe more powerful is going to help. And, if you read I said "further relegate".--Pesatyel 12:02, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Well feel free to suggest alterations to the other melee weapons then :-) and I did see what you read. The fact is though that all the alternative melee weapons are already useless, so this suggestion doesn't actually relegate any of them to any status they hadn't already achieved by themselves. You could remove the axe from the game completely and it wouldn't change the fact that the majority of the other melee weapons are a complete waste of space - they all still would be even without the axe existing (people would simply shift to the not-as-good-as-an-axe knife). --Roorgh 14:26, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Knives are good newbie weapons, and the better accuracy is sometimes more desirable than high damage. It is not useless. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:33, 12 April 2009 (BST)

I did acknowledge that knifes weren't completely terrible later in that message though. Saying that it's only the case for a level 1 consumer, medic, scout or any of those from the scientist tree as the others have better starting skills. As soon as a survivor gets the Hand-to-Hand Combat skill the fire axe becomes the better weapon based on average damage. Of course the difference is small, so maybe some people will still favour the chance to hit of the knife over the additional damage over the axe. --Roorgh 15:04, 12 April 2009 (BST)

But there won't be any difference left between the accuracy of knife and fire axe with this. Both would be at 50%, making the knife useless to pretty much anyone except level 1 guys. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:13, 12 April 2009 (BST)

You're right, but isn't the knife relegated anyway once a survivor has the choice between Knife or Axe Proficiency? The Axe has the better average damage. --Roorgh 15:24, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Average damage isn't everything. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:29, 12 April 2009 (BST)

To illustrate; your target is at 2 HP. Which would you rather use, a knife or an axe? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 02:48, 13 April 2009 (BST)

Depends on if you need the XP or not. You MIGHT do well to use a shotgun. But, of course, we are talking melee. If both weapons are equal (at 50%) then I'd use the axe if I needed XP. If not, then it doesn't really matter at all which weapon is used.--Pesatyel 05:59, 13 April 2009 (BST)

No, they're not equal. And yes, it does matter. If you use the axe, you have a 40% chance of hitting, meaning you shouldn't expect to hit them until your third try. Using the knife (at 50%) you can expect to hit on the second try. Both weapons kill the target, one is more accurate, the choice should be obvious. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:54, 13 April 2009 (BST)

That's a convenient argument. Increase the HP by 1 and you now have a completely different outcome. The axe and knife are tied for best weapon with each having an ideal purpose, my solution... carry both, it won't break your back! If you increase axe accuracy you pretty much destroy the point in having a knife once you gained the XP. --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:17, 13 April 2009 (BST)

You actually didn't read my post. We are talking about a suggestion that bumps the axe EQUAL to the knife in high percentage. If that is the case, the only qualifier is whether or not you need the XP. If you do, the axe is better for the extra point. If not, then it doesn't matter which you use because BOTH are at 50% to hit. If we AREN'T talking about this suggestion with your posts to which I was responding then your posts are moot and irrelevant.--Pesatyel 02:56, 14 April 2009 (BST) Unless, of course, *I* am misreading something, in which case this whole part of the discussion is a somewhat irrelevant tangent to the discussion of the suggestion.--Pesatyel 02:58, 14 April 2009 (BST)

I don't think you misread anything, you just didn't read the context. My point here is that, at the moment, knives are perfectly fine as last-blow weapons (weight only 2% but with higher accuracy). This suggestion would give axes the same accuracy, making knives entirely useless in that regard. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 07:37, 14 April 2009 (BST)

Not a chance. The axe already has enough value in that it is an everlasting weapon which requires no AP to be spent upon it after it is found. That's good enough. --Papa Moloch 21:26, 11 April 2009 (BST)

Surely you could use the same argument for any other of the melee weapons? yet they're all totally crap. It isn't a huge change I'm suggesting, just a minor one to give both sides a similar melee weapon. As zombies we still get to stand up and be zombies again so we still have that advantage. --Roorgh 11:29, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Can't you see that your fundamentally destroying the point of the Axe? If your concerned about the other melee weapons being so bad, then why not suggest buffing them? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 14:49, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Actually I can't, and if you can show me why I'll happily accept that, as long as you aren't going to say it unbalances the game with no further explanation. When I suggested this I saw it as a minor alteration to the game dynamics. The most powerful melee weapon that the survivors have is below that of the claws on a zombie. Survivors can't take down barricades as easily, nor can they kill a zombie as effectively. Firearms have the limitation of requiring ammo but I don't see the connection to melee weapons as to why that means they must all be less powerful than the melee weapons of a zombie. --Roorgh 15:17, 12 April 2009 (BST)

It's already been explained with these responses, the axe's role is as an ever-reliable melee weapon that survivors can rely on if they have no ammunition. It isn't supposed to be on par with the zombie's attacks, because the claws are their main weapon, as guns are survivors. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 15:48, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Can't what? Suggest ways to buff the other weapons? Why not? It isn't about "buffing them" its more about making them more useful and/or fun in some way. The knife is the newbie weapon, the pipe is the newbie barricader, the crowbar is intended for debarricading (which the axe is already better at and this idea would FURTHER scew the crowbar), the pool cue can break (which may or not make it "better" or "fun" but is, at least, something unique). So what's wrong with giving the other weapons something special?--Pesatyel 01:55, 13 April 2009 (BST)

tl;dnr. here's the skinny: axes are very powerful already. they're just not as fast if you play the typical survivor's loner game. you wanna know the trick to using them effectively? play like a zombie: en masse and with multi-player coordination. --WanYao 12:30, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Mornington Crescent

Timestamp:	--User:Fighting Irises 01:13, 10 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	etc.
Scope:	Who or what it applies to.
Description:	Okay this is kinda just of idea. If it is impossible to do just remove it. I think that the street in Morington that is Tanner Crescent, should be renamed to Mornignton Crescent. It is just a thought it could be impossible. I also I think it would be funny, thats all.--User:Fighting Irises 01:13, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Discussion (Mornington Crescent)

Could you clarify that? -CaptainVideo 02:23, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Er, yeah... you want to rename it because "it's impossible?" How's it impossible? Also, there's a place for humourous suggestions, haha. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:43, 10 April 2009 (BST)

This isn't humorous. At least I don't think so. He just wants a street renamed. Why? I have no idea. But it isn't a suggestion that hurts the game or anything. Its just...pointless.--Pesatyel 03:26, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Just to Clarify. I was wondering if it would be okay to rename that street as a suggestion. IF it is impossible then I just remove my post and we go on and forget about this. If it wouldn't terribly destroy the game, I was wondering if I could try suggesting it. The joke is that in the UK there was a radio programme that you won by being the first person to say Mornington Crescent. I know it is quite possibly a stupid idea I just enjoy the irony of it. The message could read. "You are on Mornington Crescent. Good Job you won." something like that. If this isn't a good idea. I will just remove this.--Fighting Irises 06:39, 10 April 2009 (BST)

I would whole heartedly support this if it was a station and you could only reach it via random journeys from another station as that would be far more in keeping with the radio show =D --Honestmistake 13:20, 10 April 2009 (BST)

You know I didn't really thing about the rail station. Although if this was made and implemented. It would have to be a crazy suicide action. Maybe 150Ap it try to get to Mornington Crescent. This would of course have to be something high like that in order to not over balance survivors with rapid transport around the city.--Fighting Irises 15:03, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Well a far more reasonable situation might be to announce the competition and have the 1st player to tag (or groan) in every station in the game (starting and finishing with Mornington) win the prize.... Of course I will call upon the '2009 U.D. rules addenda to the international (Commonwealth edition) rule set of 1984' to ensure that anyone coming close to completion must divert via Caiger and not leave until its ransacked! =D --Honestmistake 19:46, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Understandable why you chose 1984' rule set., but wouldn't 1972 be more appropriate? All players must start at Mornington and end in Mornington, while have to die in each rail station along the way? Maybe that would be to difficult though seeing is how player groups could spread out and kill their people and revive them as the arrive.=D, XD. (we should probably get back on focus) --Fighting Irises 23:12, 10 April 2009 (BST)

I'm pretty sure zombies weren't in the 1984 set. Not to mention, you can't perform a half-carruthers under the conditions that the 1972 needlessly forces on you. I'd say go for the 1999 Apocalypse edition; zombies are expected in those rules. --Sir Topaz ^{DR ♣ GR} 10:52, 13 April 2009 (BST)

SEAL THE ROOM!!!

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 16:31, 9 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.
Scope:	Who or what it applies to.
Description:	Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.

Survivors inside forts have began repairing the destroyed equipment in an attempt to protect themselves. The blast doors of the armoury can now be closed by survivors!

Closing the blast doors

In order to close the doors the armoury MUST:

Be powered by an active generator.

and

Un-Barricaded.

When these conditions are fulfilled a survivor who is inside the armoury may choose to seal the room at the cost of 15AP. All occupants will receive the message "Player X closed the blast doors."

Opening the blast doors

The armoury will automatically become unsealed if:

The armoury loses power (the locks will automatically release), occupants receive the message "The blast doors automatically released."

or

A survivor inside the armoury unseals the room at the cost of 15AP, occupants receive the message "Player X opened the blast doors."

Effects

When the blast doors are sealed no player may enter or exit the armoury, this includes zombies and body dumping cannot be performed.
The only way to contact players outside/inside the armoury will be via radio.
Any players may bang on the armoury door for 1AP, players on the 'other side' receive the message You hear something banging on the blast doors.

If the armoury is un-barricaded the area description includes the text "The blast doors are open/closed."

Discussion (SEAL THE ROOM!!!)

Hopefully this will lead to situations where groups are sealed in during sieges and end up arguing with/killing each other about if they should go out or stay in! I know this is very rough around the edges so please help me improve in additon to saying yay/nay. --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:31, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Don't do this with forts. Do it with banks. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 17:55, 9 April 2009 (BST)

For the love of god, don't do this with any building. No building should be completely impossible to enter as zombies without the aid of cultists. This is a trenchie's wet dream. --Johnny Bass 18:03, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I kind of thought that too at first glance, but I've got to give him credit... it's got a default that unlocks the doors and leaves the place fully open if the genny loses power. I don't know if that's enough to make it passable, since it just means that people will crowd in there with fuel cans and flee as soon as they run out, but it does mean they have to come out eventually, if only for a moment. And not being able to use free running to get in or out is a plus, though I'd take away their ability to use radios on the premise that the walls would be too thick. If they're going to be this isolated, they shouldn't be able to communicate at all. But that wouldn't stop metagamers from keeping a zombie scout outside to let them know when the coast is clear to open up and grab more fuel cans, so I still think it has major flaws. In fact, you're probably right, it's a disaster waiting to happen. Unless you give zombies the option of somehow 'cading them in with outside junk, so that they all eventually expire after a certain number of hours when they run out of air. But zombies don't think that way. So maybe they all get poisoned from the carbon monoxide fumes of the genny, which they have no way of venting, and which they can't sense the effect of until it's too late and have no way of predicting how long it'll take for them to all die. That'd be kind of cool. Or we put a button on the outside of the building which zombies can use that turns the whole thing in to a giant duck press when pushed, but only works when there's a genny inside powering it. I dunno, there might be options.--Necrofeelinya 18:48, 9 April 2009 (BST)

So this would allow trenchies to seal themselves off from the rest of the game with nothing to do but congratulate themselves on how KEWL they are and butt-fuck each other in text? So exactly what is the downside except that you are making this an armoury only action instead of a bank...--Honestmistake 19:29, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Let's say some well organized survivors decide they don't fancy playing the game for a while. A group of ten takes over the armoury with plans for the long haul. Let's say on average each player has 8 fuel cans (80% encumberance) with the other 20%+ for whatever misc items they might want. (Some guy has a genny, another a radio, whatever). Between these 10 players, that's 80 fuel cans. Each can lasts 120 hours (5 days), so let's say the genny gets refueled reasonably efficiently, on average every 108 hours (4 and a half days). That's 8,640 hours of protection, or 360 days, basically they could hole up for a YEAR. Whew. Kinda defeats the point of playing the game there. --

Rooster Dragon

19:50, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Yup, a very organised group of survivors could take an entire building out of the game for ages which means the armoury really shouldn't be considered. A bank on the other hand... well i doubt the zombies would care! One thing though that does occur... sealed rooms don't have ventilation so those inside should all die after a set time!!!--Honestmistake 23:10, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Oh, I LIKE that. But how would the zombies get out? They'd have to wait for the power to run out and the locks to pop. -CaptainVideo 23:24, 9 April 2009 (BST)

or they simply destroy the generator... --Roorgh 00:38, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Its a pretty original idea, if I dare say so. However there needs to be a way for zombies to get in on their own. Which would kinda defeat the purpose of blast doors since we already have barricades. Meh...--Thadeous Oakley 20:14, 9 April 2009 (BST)

I can't even begin to imagine how frustrating it would be as a zombie to know that my only hope for entering a building would be to wait months or years for the occupants to get bored or run out of fuel. Good lord if people manage to stock x-mas trees year round they could certainly load up on fuel. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 00:26, 10 April 2009 (BST)

I have to wonder if it's really so bad. The room trenchies could only attack when they come outside, just as they could only be attacked when they're outside. It sort of balances itself out. And since there aren't all that many banks, only a finite number of jerks could do this anyway. -CaptainVideo 00:32, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, it would be a week, presuming nobody refuels.--Pesatyel 03:35, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Actually if combined with my (sarcastic) air shortage idea this might work. Obviously Banks not armouries and make it apply only to a "vault" within that building. It should require separate power and if the outside gets ruined the air con cuts out and the air starts to run out thus forcing the idiots within to either open the door and run for it or die a slow horrible death! Just think of the joy zeds could have suffocating moron trenchies who happened to log off 10 mins before the attack and die before they next log in =D --Honestmistake 00:45, 10 April 2009 (BST)

That's the ONLY way this suggestion would remotely work. I'm not even sure WHY he suggested it....--Pesatyel 03:35, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Actually to make it even more funny it should be barricadable from the outside thus allowing the rest of us to trap people inside :D --Honestmistake 13:23, 10 April 2009 (BST)

An iron pipe through the opening wheel of the vault should do it >:) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:40 10 April 2009 (BST)

Seriously, no, no impenetrable barriers to pure zombie play, even in banks -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:40 10 April 2009 (BST)

If a player or players wanted to completely insulate himself from zombies and/or gameplay, wouldn't it be easier to just not log-in? --Winton 07:01, 11 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, but then you're liable to wake up dead. -CaptainVideo 07:52, 11 April 2009 (BST)

The reason why this wouldn't work is because there will be that one guy who seals himself in, idles out, and locks off the armoury to everyone else forever. --Haliman - Talk 01:28, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Maybe it would be a self-eliminating problem, like the need for wire cutters. -CaptainVideo 04:21, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Joint

Timestamp:	Necrofeelinya 08:46, 9 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Locations: Warehouses; Auto Repair Shops; Pubs; Barracks; Outside of Malls; Cinemas; Hotels; Junkyards; Police Departments; Stadiums; Clubs; Schools. Encumbrance: 2% When used, the player gets the message "You light up a fat, juicy spliff, and the aroma wafts through the room." Other players in the room get the message "(player) busts out a joint and gets his mellow on." The player that lit up is then at -20% attack, attackers get a +20% attack modifier against him, and every movement costs +1 AP, except for moves which don't take him out of the room, like drinking beers or talking, which still only cost 1 AP. The effect lasts for 6 hours. Doing this to yourself is fully voluntary, and would be something that characters basically do just for shits and giggles. Players entering a room where a joint has been lit up in the last hour will get a message as part of the room description that says "You detect a faint smell of marijuana", "The smell of weed hangs heavily in the air here", or "This place absolutely reeks of pot.", depending on how many joints have been lit up there in the last hour. If 1 has been smoked, the first message is seen, and appears to new entrants for one hour. If 2 have been smoked, the second message appears to new entrants for one hour, then the first message appears for another hour. 3 or more and the third message appears for one hour, then the second, then the third, for a maximum total of 3 hours after its use that it can be detected. Should the player smoke more than 1, the effects on attack are cumulative, until the player reaches 0% to hit with any weapon and a +100% to be hit by any attacker, but the AP cost increases significantly for movement, with an additional +2 for the second, +3 for the third, etc., cumulative. So if you smoke two joints you end up with a +3 AP cost to move, if you smoke 3 joints you're at +6, etc. The effects of duration overlap, so that if a player smokes a joint, then smokes another joint 3 hours later, they're only doubly impaired for three hours, and the 3 hours on either side of those they're singly impaired. This suggestion is semi-humorous, because I realize Kevan almost certainly wouldn't implement it since it involves introducing illegal drugs as a game feature, but in all honesty, I'd love to see it actually added. I'm all for it. Jah, mon.

Discussion (Joint)

BIG PROBLEM... How are we going to light them, we don't have matches... You also forgot about food, for when we get the munchies. --Kamikazie-Bunny 14:13, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Penalties should only be relieved by becoming a zombie and feeding on corpses or digesting someone ;) --Honestmistake 14:18, 9 April 2009 (BST)

But we still can't light the stuff, I suppose we could eat it... but then we wouldn't get the smell in the buildings. --Kamikazie-Bunny 14:26, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Shoot a flare past your face. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 17:57, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Excellent suggestion! Think we can get anyone to try it in real life?--Necrofeelinya 18:24, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Please don't spam this page up with stupid shit. If you don't mean it to be entirely serious, don't put it here.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:20, 9 April 2009 (BST)

So, should I take that as a confirmation of my suspicion that Kevan would not consider adding illegal drugs to the game? Because otherwise, it's a perfect pairing with my very serious suggestion on intoxication, and I'd gladly put it to a vote. And I'd bet a lot of people would go for it.--Necrofeelinya 18:22, 9 April 2009 (BST)

No, he won't. Peer Reviewed or not, it not only doesn't fit into the genre it's also just a big waste of time to code in. The intoxication one is valid, although it's been suggested before. This one is just a waste of time so druggies can have fun in the game because they're too broke to buy their weed in real life.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:55, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Behold everyone! We have now come to the end of this page's usefulness. Now that SA has revealed his ability to psychically tap into Kevan's mind we can do away with this whole system of peer review. Simply go to SA's talk page and submit your suggestions directly, SA will then channel Kevan as he has done here and categorically tell you whether your suggestion will be accepted or not.

He makes shit up on the admin pages, why should I expect any different here.... --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 04:03, 10 April 2009 (BST)

I make up this shit on the admin pages? Please do tell where I explicitly state Kevan's will like that anywhere on those pages. I use logic and understanding in my views. Kevan has never shown any pro-pot ideals as far as I know, and were he to it'd hurt his public image quite a bit. Not to mention how many users he'd lose if he were to implement something like this into the game. Though please, do go on about how we make shit up all the time. Especially seeing as how the shit I make up has saved your ass quite a few times, or I've tried to when I feel you haven't done anything wrong. No, really. Go on. Tell me how I make shit up. Tell me how I have two sets of rules, one for one group of people, one for another. Tell me how I'm such a bad sysop and I'm going against the communities wishes. Tell me how I fuck up constantly and I'm not punished because of my sysops buddies. Go ahead and tell me all the mistakes that all of us sysops supposedly make.

Whats that? You're not going to? You're just going to ignore my post again aren't you? Just like last time where I asked you nicely to help me learn where I have shown to have two different sets of rules. Sure, you could have possibly missed it, but with you being you, I doubt it.

You have nothing to show that I'm as "Bad as the rest of the sysops", admit it. You have no consistent and substantial proof showing how "We're oppressive", how we're "Going against the wishes of the community who gave us our power", how we're "Constantly breaking the rules for the sake of our sysops buddies".

Iscariot, I've tried to be as fair as I possibly could when it comes to you, despite the bullshit you say to me and about the way I do my job, but someday my patience is going to run out. So I'd cool it with the baseless accusations and bullshit you say, because someday there won't be people here who will treat you fairly. When that time comes, you're probably going to be banned for an honest mistake because for the longest time you've treated the rest of admin team like shit. Sometimes it's deserved, but not as often as you make it out to be.

Good luck with your time here Iscariot. You're probably going to need it.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:18, 11 April 2009 (BST)

I feel a more appropriate response would have been "Thank you for your contribution." At least his first bit was humourous. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:39, 11 April 2009 (BST)

Thank you for your input only works when you don't want to hear from them anymore. I'm more than willing to speak with Iscariot about this, I'd love nothing more than for him to finally show proof that we're fucking up as bad as he says. But you deal with him long enough (Hell, I haven't even been an 'op that long) and he tires you out.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:46, 11 April 2009 (BST)

So, does that mean you like the idea?--Necrofeelinya 05:44, 10 April 2009 (BST)

No he doesn't (oh look, I'm psychic too!), try putting this suggestion up for voting and watch how fast Iscariot gets you onto A/VB. He knows that SA is almost certainly right, he just doesn't like the fact that a user is still allowed to have an opinion once promoted to sysop -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:04 10 April 2009 (BST)

Well isn't that just typical of our admin team? A passive aggressive threat of "put this up for voting and I'll escalate you for vandalism", fucking typical. Coupled with the fact they now think they can speak for me as to my thoughts on something with absolutely no basis, must be why they rule on 'intent' so often and get it wrong. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 18:52, 10 April 2009 (BST)

You're so wrong it's hilarious. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:34, 10 April 2009 (BST)

*Opens the Wiki, all at once* My God! It's full of dicks! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:28, 11 April 2009 (BST)

I must say, I'm beginning to understand "doesn't fit into the genre" to be simply a catch-all phrase meaning "I don't like it", unless by genre your meaning is "family-friendly MMORPGs" that just happen to include unlimited alcohol abuse without repercussions, Penis spammers, and easy workarounds to allow use of profanity in-game. Drug-addled survivors seem very in-genre to me, and the suggestion doesn't glorify drug abuse, it punishes it, though it adds enough flavor to lure people into that mistake. But I get your point... if Kevan wouldn't consider implementing it, it's a waste of time. Regarding the Intoxication suggestion, you mentioned it's a dupe... would you say its effects are similar enough to previous suggestions that it would be pointless putting it up for a vote, or is it sufficiently different to make it worth a shot? Got any links so I might compare?--Necrofeelinya 20:32, 9 April 2009 (BST)

It's used like that by a lot of users here, but I try not to use it like that. I can't remember many Zombie movies/books/games where the survivors were lighting up a joint. I've seen abusing medications in a last ditch effort to stop bleeding, but no mary-j. That's why I say it's not in-genre. On intoxication, just search for alchohol. It's not exactly the same, but then again, once one person votes dupe and a link is given, people tend to sheep that vote. It may not even be similar enough to dupe it, but it's a totally possible outcome. I'd personally just vote kill, maybe spam.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:18, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Well, there was a bit of partying going on in the remake of Dawn of the Dead, though not specifically pot, and I thought Caitlin Kiernan might have written a short story or two where survivors were holed up in an apartment after a party where some debauchery had been going on, though I don't think that focused on actual use either, and though I've never read it, I understand the character in the book I Am Legend is a complete wastoid, though that technically involves vampires, not zombies. But I've always felt that when locked in tiny rooms with no forms of recreation, terrified out of your wits, unable to safely venture outside and without any hope for the future, drugs would be a popular option whenever available. And in a zombie infested city, pot could be one of many weeds that makes inroads into civilization as infrastructure crumbles, especially if interested survivors are Johnny Appleseeding the place, which wouldn't be such a bad idea since they could also use it as a renewable fabric resource, minor source of protein, and if they really tried hard, oil, as well as the fact that it's both a proven painkiller (more effective in some ways than the more prevalent hydrocodone/acetominophen blends and their related opiates) and antidepressant, both of which they'd have quite a call for and which it would supply to them absolutely free of charge with minimal if any care. But it would give them the munchies, and Fritos are scarce in Malton.--Necrofeelinya 05:10, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Geez, how could I forget Return of the Living Dead???? Of course they smoke pot in that! And that's one of the greatest and most famous zombie flicks of all time!!!--Necrofeelinya 09:20, 10 April 2009 (BST)

YUP LETS TOTALLY GO WITH IT AND WHILE WE ARE AT IT LETS ADD COKE! AND HEROINE! AND METH! Meth You gain 1103485% chance to kill your opponent outright and you can fly! I LOVE IT! --Alex1guy 10:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Um... are you sure you're not already on it?--Necrofeelinya 05:10, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Somebody had to test it. -CaptainVideo 07:34, 10 April 2009 (BST)

This should be with the humorous suggestions. Why is it here? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:29, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Suggestions up for voting

Sign Up Bonus

Suggestion up for voting, discussion moved to here.--Kamikazie-Bunny 19:51, 30 March 2009 (BST)

Limited Give

Suggestion up for voting, discussion moved to here.--Kamikazie-Bunny 19:28, 6 April 2009 (BST)

NecroTech Training

Having taken your suggestions into account, "NecroTech Training" is now up for review at Suggestions (please check the modifications I've made before voting). The other two ideas I had - Facility Access and Memories of Employment - have been allowed to die, since people considered them too unbalanced. -CaptainVideo 06:04, 29 March 2009 (BST)

Contagious Bite

Moved to suggestions proper!--Honestmistake 09:55, 8 April 2009 (BST)

More ways for zombies to gain XP

This one is up for voting now. Thanks for the input. --LaosOman 23:17, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Music! Music! Music!

This is now up for voting: Suggestion:20090411 Music! Music! Music!. Thanks to everyone who helped me with this. -CaptainVideo 01:30, 11 April 2009 (BST)

NT Ruins Ruin Rotter Revives

Moved to individual suggestion talk page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:18 10 April 2009 (BST)

Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

Further Discussion

Please Read Before Posting

How To Make a Suggestion

Format for Suggestions under development

Cycling Suggestions

Suggestions

Creaking weakens the barricades

Discussion (Suggestion Name)

Return of the Power Grid

Discussion (Return of the Power Grid)

XP gain depends on Starting Class

Discussion (XP gain depends on Starting Class)

Morse Code

Discussion (Morse Code)

Draging grasp

Discussion (Draging grasp)

Narrow the Quarantine

Discussion (Narrow the Quarantine)

Anger, Rage, Berserk

Discussion (Anger, Rage, Beserk)

Gain More AP skills

Discussion (Gain More AP skills)

Body Drag

Discussion (Body Dragging)

Zombies are Scary to Move Through

Discussion (Zombies are Scary to Move Through)

The Happy Clown

Discussion(The Happy Clown)

Oops!

Discussion (Oops!)

Over Emcumbered Slows You down

Over Emcumbered Slows You down

Seperate groups for seperate states

Discussion (Seperate groups for seperate states)

Civilian/Improvised Weapon Bonus

Discussion (Civilian/Improvised Weapon Bonus)

Overgrown Parks

Discussion (Overgrown Parks)

Further Axe Experience

Discussion (Further Axe Experience)

Mornington Crescent

Discussion (Mornington Crescent)

SEAL THE ROOM!!!

Discussion (SEAL THE ROOM!!!)

Joint

Discussion (Joint)

Suggestions up for voting

Sign Up Bonus

Limited Give

NecroTech Training

Contagious Bite

More ways for zombies to gain XP

Music! Music! Music!

NT Ruins Ruin Rotter Revives

Navigation menu

Search