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

Infected Slash

Timestamp:	Super Nweb 22:05, 4 June 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Infectous Bite is realistic, but it's not only the mouths of zombies that are infected, what about the hands? They have blood all over them and such, therefore I propose a new skill under the infection tree "Infected Slash" when you attack a human with claws as a zombie there is a 5% chance of infection, this means it would take 40AP to infect someone if you had a 50% hit rate, this obviously is not good odds but it can be one of those things that is rare but can help you without being just Infection 2.

Discussion (Infected Slash)

Melee Weapon Breakage V1.2

Timestamp:

Zombie Lord 03:20, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Type:

Improvement.

Scope:

Melee Weapons

Description:

Now all Melee Weapons have a chance to break any time they are used to attack Generators, Transmitters and Barricades. When used to attack Zombies or Survivors the base numbers are halved. The break percentages are in front of the Weapons names, vs Barricades/Generators/Transmitters first, followed by the chance against Survivors/Zombies. The average number of attacks you will get per weapon found are after the Weapons name.

0%	0%	Crowbar	N/A	N/A
2.5%	1.3%	Baseball Bat	40	80
2%	1%	Length of Pipe	50	100
1.5%	0.8%	Knife	66	133
2.5%	1.3%	Fire Axe	40	80
2.5%	1.3%	Cricket Bat	40	80
10%	5%	Fencing Foil	10	20
3%	1.5%	Golf Club	33	66
2.5%	1.3%	Hockey Stick	40	80
20%	10%	Pool Cue	5	10
3%	1.5%	Ski Pole	33	66
10%	5%	Tennis Racket	10	20

Discussion (Melee Weapon Breakage V1.2)

I know I went over the 1% max suggested by Kamikazie-Bunny, but I decided to see what people thought with the split attack % thrown in. Mostly I'm looking to see what people think about tweaking the numbers further, if they need to be, and by how much. Also, I'm not sure if the RNG can actually handle numbers like 0.8%, so that might need to be changed as well.--Zombie Lord 03:20, 4 June 2009 (BST)

I think you need a header bar at the top of your spreadsheet to make things a little clearer (and you might just name the "devices" rather than having to put "generator and transmitter" all the time). And yeah, its come up before that the RNG cannot handle fractions. So let me see if I read this right.

~~Fire Axe has a 2.5% chance of breaking against a barricade and a 1.3% chance of breaking against a device. Against humans and zombies, you say the chance is halved~~ Ok, I get it now (had to read it again to be sure). The Fire axe has a 2.5% chance of breaking against a barricade or device and a 1.3% chance of breaking against a zombie or survivor.

Why would you, necessarily have the same chance against a barricade as you would a device? I understand simplicity, sure, but a barricade is significantly different from a generator or radio transmitter.--Pesatyel 07:34, 4 June 2009 (BST)

I just decided to go with Hard (full %) and Soft (1/2 %) targets for simplicities sake. Maybe once I get the base % settled I'll work on separating Barricades from the rest.--Zombie Lord 08:44, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Still don't like it. Now I can kill roughly 6 people with a knife ever? Well they aren't THAT easy for newb survivors to find, so i'm not keen. Also, I hate the premise.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:41, 4 June 2009 (BST)

The chances are still too high. The axe is specifically made for hitting things with yet you have it down to break 2.5% of the time. I still support this in theory but those numbers mostly need scaling down by a factor of at least 10! --Honestmistake 07:51, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Ok, at 2.5% you'd get 40 "whacks" against barricades, per Axe, on average. Give me a number of average attacks, per Axe, you think works best and I'll work backwards from there? So, what, 50? 100? 200?--Zombie Lord 08:40, 4 June 2009 (BST)

For me anything less than 100 attacks from a real melee weapon (knife/axe/crowbar/bat) is right out. For most of the novelty weapons I don't really have a preference but I do like that you have pretty awful odds of keeping a tennis racquet for long ;)Basically you should be able to rely on the weapons that are suited to the role for at least 100 hits and that suggests giving only a 0.1% breakage for them.--Honestmistake 09:28, 4 June 2009 (BST)

0.1% would be 1000/2000. That's 2400 HP worth or 48 people you could kill at 50 HP, 40 people you could kill at 60 HP. OR, 200 Levels worth of Barricades. Per Axe.--Zombie Lord 09:55, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Seems reasonable to me... I'd go with much higher breakage odds for the bats and knife against barricades but against softer targets they seem good numbers that would make it more of an inconvenience than a major ball ache. --Honestmistake 12:05, 4 June 2009 (BST)

As Honest said, anything less than 100 attacks (avg) before breaking is unbalanced, if you were a pure-combat character you'd be searching for weapons every 2 days. I'd rather search for a weapon once/twice a week at most. I do like the split % though but don't overcomplicate it by dividing it up further than hard/soft targets. Don't worry about the less than 0% numbers, Kevin could quite easily have a system using two %'s, (1% * 80% = 0.8%) besides that's a coding issue and not for the wiki to argue about. --Kamikazie-Bunny 14:25, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Zombies can no longer read

Timestamp:	MrCarver 20:49, 3 June 2009 (BST)
Type:	Gameplay
Scope:	Zombies/Survivors
Description:	Zombies should not have the ability to read spray painted messages. Messages spray painted by survivors should only be readable by survivors. This could add a more realistic sense of how public messages are relayed between survivors and change the game play slightly. The idea of a higher eduction zombie's ability to read graffiti or hasty written message is a bit of a stretch and should be removed. It doesn't take away a zombie's ability to function. I do not think this ability by zombies should be gained in anyway either, even with memories of life skill. Doing something out of repetition from the past, like opening a door, is different than reading "Regroup at 2NW 1W" for a zombie. If zombies can read then they can wield firearms is my stance. So lets remove this ability for game play reasons.

Discussion (Zombies can no longer read)

Uh, they can use weapons crudely. They're in the drop-down menu. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:02, 3 June 2009 (BST)

See I had a brain fart, I was thinking one thing and typing something else. I'll correct--MrCarver 21:18, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Also you have to remember that zombies are players too. While I don't bother with graffiti as a zed, others probably do... anyway the next step after this would be to suggest that zombies don't get to see what the buildings are cos they shouldn't care and that (while very canon) is also very shit!--Honestmistake 21:11, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Well that's a tough call. Many landmarks such as buildings offer familiar surroundings. How many time have you gotten and given directions based on buildings and not street names? I would suggest then that zombies without the memories of life, not see the building names until they got that skill. Basically they are lost, dazed, confused, and terribly hungry. --MrCarver 21:18, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Well, even that is not quite canon, Honestmistake. In DOTD the zombies were specifically attracted to the Mall because, "They just know they want to be in here". So they did have some understanding of building types. So I could see no reading without having to push it into not recognizing buildings and the like.--Zombie Lord 21:38, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I always assumed that they were drawn by memories of life... and the smell of course :) --Honestmistake 21:44, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm, yes. Then again, Bub in DAY seemed to understand speech to some degree, and he even glanced over a book. Hard to say whether he could read or not...he also used a gun though...And I guess the movie never really makes it definitive on "why". Just speculation on the part of the living.--[[User:Zombie Lord--Zombie Lord 21:48, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Of course if we are being reasonable about things we should consider that once zeds do find a survivor hidey hole the survivors are trapped and invariably die when the zombies finaly get in... to that end we should bar free-running when there are more zombies outside than survivors inside, we should also have survivors who leave their safe little cades have a chance of being driven back in the same way zeds stop cading. Just running past any significant number of zeds should of course cause shed loads of damage. Oh hang on, this is a game and that wouldn't be much fun for the survivors. Now I am not trying to have a go at you in particular but all this type of suggestion saying "Movie Zeds can't do it so neither should UD zeds" basically boil down to screwing players for no actual balance reason, as such they pretty much always fail horribly. --Honestmistake 23:03, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I'm all for making it hard to move through masses of Zombies...I can't remember if I sent that one to Voting or not...--Zombie Lord 23:10, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I like this suggestion. It makes a lot of sense. Reading is definitely a higher brain function, and zombies aren't known for their higher brain function. --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 21:23, 3 June 2009 (BST)

No. And a quick question, have you or Giles ever played a career zombie character? Honesty please.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:29, 3 June 2009 (BST)

nope --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 21:53, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Yes, my id is id=1392383 for you to see. I play as a dedicated zombie playing in rotter mode. I'm just burning "extra" XP to increase my overall level with survivor skills. Nothing else to do other than that. --MrCarver 21:58, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I'd support this suggestion if it became: Zombies can't read, without memories of life. With MoL, they should be able to.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:12, 3 June 2009 (BST)

That's the only way this idea would work and, to be honest, I like it. It makes more sense to me. But beyond that, just saying "no they can't read anymore" is stupid. I'm guessing the author doesn't really play zombies much.--Pesatyel 02:39, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Also, MoL would mean more. Right now, you can open doors. Normally, you're either attacking the barricades, or someone else has finished them, and the door's already open. Normally, MoL isn't much, but adding this to MoL would make it a much better skill.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:43, 4 June 2009 (BST)

This is a shit idea. Zombie in-game communication is very difficult anyway, and this makes it worse - for example, I spray up recruiting graffiti for my zombie group, and that's screwed if zombies can't read it. This doesn't add any fun, and nerfs the side that has to work harder. Shit idea. Billy Forks 09:06, 4 June 2009 (BST)

This doesn't "nerf" zombies in any way. It's a perfectly logical decision, and if this was changed so that MoL gives them the power to read, then it would be pretty much perfectly fair. And in my opinion, Zombies don't have to work harder even in the slightest. Both sides have different things about them which make them as good as each other.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:57, 4 June 2009 (BST)

I was just thinking about the logic of zombies not being able to read. I hadn't considered the balance issue there. So for the sake of balance perhaps zombies could communicate basic things with their blood smears that humans couldn't read. So they could post links and speak in zombie tongue via blood graffiti. So the justification would be that the smears contain smells and stuff that only means something to a zombie. --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 20:24, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Zombies can rip off clothes

Timestamp:	Kolechovski 22:28, 2 June 2009 (BST)
Type:	logic improvement
Scope:	zombies
Description:	Currently, zombies have no way to change into or out of their clothes while dead. Well, why not change out? Sure, they lack the dexterity to remove clothing normally without damage, but why couldn’t they just rip it off? Brush off those glasses! Tear off that shirt! Smash those shoes against the rubble! If a zombie can select a piece of equipment and drop it, I can’t imagine how hard it would be to grab an article of clothing and tear it off. What could be more fulfilling than seeing a zombie stripping in front of you?

Discussion (Zombies can rip off clothes)

Why would anyone not twisted in the head want to see a zombie stripping? Thats nightmare quality. I don't like it, simply because of the fact that some idiot will use it to be an idiot and harass people. Sorakairi 22:58, 2 June 2009 (BST)

"They're zombies." "No, they're strippers." *Cocks shotgun* "They're zombie strippers!" --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} (status:‎Mudkip!) 23:28, 2 June 2009 (BST)

(Hey. You bought this up and I couldn't resist the Zombie Strippers! quotes.) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} (status:‎Mudkip!) 23:31, 2 June 2009 (BST)

As Sorakairi. What about making zombies rip off clothes without other people being able to see it? --Janus ^talk 23:42, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Or we could just make it toggable. If someone wants to see it, let them. If someone doesn't, turn it off.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:47, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Goddammit; as the sole remaining member of "Slaves of the Mistress" I demand this be visible to anyone nearby!!!!!!!!!

or to put it another way... I like zombie strippers and I applaud this suggestion! --Honestmistake 00:42, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Slaves of the Mistress? Wasn't that the group started by MrA with like 5 of MrA's characters in it? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} (status:‎Mudkip!) 01:20, 3 June 2009 (BST)

well it was a group started by MrA but there were a few of us in it and they can't all have been him. Most of them didn't bother signing onto the wiki though and I am pretty much the only one still active. Come visit, I'm inside Caiger waiting for the snacks to come home. --Honestmistake 09:58, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I approve of this suggestion only if survivors get it too.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:29, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose?--Pesatyel 03:40, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Not if it shows up in other peoples events list: "SexySurvivorGrrl ripped her clothes off" I don't really think we want to go down that route though so perhaps limiting it to just zombies would be best. --Honestmistake 10:02, 3 June 2009 (BST)

That's what I mean though. I was referring to Sorakairi's idea to allow zombies to do it without anyone else seeing. What would be the purpose really? Self satisfaction? Given that, the zombie player could just as easily pretend they are tearing off their clothes since nobody but them would "know".--Pesatyel 20:38, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Opps, should have realized what you were refering too. --Honestmistake 21:12, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I favor any suggesting that enables zombies to perform a strip-tease, lap-dance, or sexual favor. You have my vote, sir. --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 21:29, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Toggability (definitely should also be a word).--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:31, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Going to have to go with No on this one. Enough humanizing zombies. They should be interested in food, not taking off their clothes. (Another reason Zombies should not be allowed to attack each other...maybe some day)--Zombie Lord 21:55, 3 June 2009 (BST) This suggestion would give reason to use spam, but not as a strong kill. It's spam.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:14, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I believe this is a dupe of Suggestion:20081125 Depants --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 22:17, 3 June 2009 (BST)

not even close.... this one only effects the zombies own clothing while the dupe link is an attack to steal survivors clothing!--Honestmistake 23:05, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Oh no, Honest, it has the word clothing in there! Both authors also use periods in their sentences! Obviously a dupe! ;)--Zombie Lord 23:12, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Now now, no need for sarcasm :) --Honestmistake 23:34, 3 June 2009 (BST)

But it was a bad thought on Ross's part. Way too far apart for a dupe. now, there may be other suggestions that could dupe this, that one isn't it though.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:14, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Balls. Misread. Dupe retracted. Sorry. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:48, 4 June 2009 (BST)

New Skill "Rapid Infection"

Timestamp:	Yessir 12:18, 2 June 2009 (BST)
Type:	Realism.. it matters.
Scope:	Infected Humans
Description:	In most awesome zombie movies something along these lines happens. A human is scratched, bitten.. they have come into contact with a zombie. Now the suspense here builds knowing that it is possible that the person has become infected. Several moments later theyre sinking their teeth into their best friends` faces. It`s ridiculous that this cannot happen in urban dead. A zombie should have a 100% chance of infecting a human if it has "infectious bite" however, if they possess the sub-skill "Rapid Infection" then there is a 5% chance that the human will very quickly become a zombie with little warning (much like in awesome zombie movies). If a human is bitten by a zombie with Rapid Infection.. you`ll still lose 1HP per action point (because of infectious bite) but 10 AP later it will say surprise the player with, "your vision becomes hazy and you struggle to think clearly.." and 1AP (or very, very soon) after that.. "the virus has overcome your mind and body and you have an overwhelming need to feed on human flesh". You flat-out turn into a zombie on the spot, retaining your remaining AP without "dying", (dying: a slow and very anticlimactic way to become a zombie) with the option of feeding on your former friends. Also, just a balance issue - perhaps Necrotech employees should be able to recognize that a human is infected. This would work similar to the way that diagnosis works, i.e. JoeSixPack (26) (Infected). That way survivors have a better chance of dealing with infected people who may become zombies if appropriate precautions aren`t taken. This may also make the "bite" attack more appealing. Being bitten by a zombie is supposed to be a big deal and I think these changes would make the game more exciting, suspenseful and dynamic. If it sucks, by all means shoot it down; I know it would be a big change but I think it has potential.

Discussion (New Skill "Rapid Infection")

It's not very fair at all to have any chance to suddenly become a zombie. That's not fun or fair from a player's point of view. Seeing infections as a survivor is a touchy topic too, if I recall. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 12:21, 2 June 2009 (BST)

I'd vote for this except for a few very important flaws:

It would make it ludicrously easy for even semi organized zombie groups to get past barricades.
Almost every survivor carries a FAK and would cure this well before 10AP let alone more.
Would this "rapid infection" remain after death... ie if you get it and turn then get revived would it work again?

Even if you could find work arounds to some of these I think that too many survivors would scream blue murder if this gets suggested. It would certainly be an interesting twist for the next new city though. --Honestmistake 13:41, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Wow is that overpowered. I could see, maybe, after X amount of time you suddenly get hit for 2 (or maybe even 3 HP) for an action.--Pesatyel 03:44, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I'm also with Pesatyel on this one. And I understand what the author is driving at, but even in zombie canon (ala Dawn of the Dead) the infected person still actually dies before they become a zombie. So the idea of the infection growing worse and dealing more damage over time if not cured makes more sense. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:27, 3 June 2009 (BST)

If you change it to 2 or 3 health lost, then not only is it overpowered, but it's probably a dupe, and if you suggest it, then said dupe shall be found.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:32, 3 June 2009 (BST)

A flat change to 2 damage per action would be a dupe but working in a mechanism that allowed the infection to become more virulent (after 10 actions) and thereafter cause 2 damage would be a big enough change from anything I remember. Actually if this requires a new zombie skill and only works in a low % of attacks then it might even be possible to make it so a FAK only cures damage and resets the infection to normal rather than clears it completely once you get into the 2 damage per action zone. --Honestmistake 10:07, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I've seen a suggestion where there are two levels of infection, where one does 2 damage, then when you cure it, it gives you the original. So, that would be a dupe. I think it was plague, and it wasn't too long back. Not to mention the fact that that would still be completely overpowering.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:02, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Dupes: Number 1, Number 2, including taking two FAKs to heal.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:15, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Actually I WASN'T suggesting changing it to a flat 2 damage. The author was suggesting that when survivor gets infected, after 10 AP of activity, they IMMEDIATELY become a zombie. That's uber overpowered. What I was saying, instead, was after X amount of AP is spent (without the infection being cured) the survivor takes a hit of 2 HP (or 3) instead of just the normal 1 for that action' then it would return to the normal 1 for subsequent actions (maybe a nother "flare up" to 2 or 3 occurs later).

Example: Bob gets infected and can't cure it. He loses 1 AP per action, as normal. But upon spending his 6th AP, he loses 2 (or 3) HP instead of the normal one. He then spends his 7th and subsequent AP which are back to the normal 1 HP loss. When he spends his 11th AP, he has another "flare up" where he loses 2 (or 3 HP) instead and his 12 and subsequent AP spendings are back down to the normal 1 HP per.--Pesatyel 20:46, 3 June 2009 (BST)

So you suggest that survivors should have no idea when they will be dealt more damage, and should therefore be left unawares to when they'll be dealt a massive heap of damage? No. Still don't like it.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:17, 3 June 2009 (BST)

2 HP instead of 1 HP is "massive heaps" of damage? Did you even read what I put? If you go by what I put, a survivor, by the time they've used 12 AP, they would be down 14 (16 at most) HP. Hardly massive over the 12 that would normally affect them, especially since it is spread out. And, no, I'm NOT strictly suggesting players not know when it happens. That's what I was thinking, sure, but that's not how it has to be. I'm not even suggesting it has to happen more than once. Do you know how often survivors ACTUALLY die of infection? It doesn't happen very often unless the players is like level 3 or lower. Most survivors carry at least 1 FAK on them just in case they are infected. Or they can pretty easily find someone to heal them for XP. Why do you think so many of us hear complain about infection being "weak"?--Pesatyel 02:58, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Have you played as a survivor? I have to ask, because normally, after getting up from being revived it takes about the same amount of health to find a FAK than you get healed. Now with malls gone, it's even more screwed. For those survivors in a swing-suburb, this suggestion would erase every survivor in the suburb. Instead of ending up at 30, they'd be at 25, and a zombie would kill them two or so attacks earlier, which is often all it takes.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:48, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Answering Machine

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 17:53, 1 June 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Mobile phones
Description:	Mobile phones aren't useful if the person you aim to speak to isn't in an area with a mobile phone mast. They might receive a message weeks too late. I suggest adding an autoreply text option. Players would be able to save a very brief answering machine message. Anyone sending that person a text would instantly receive the message. Someone might save an autoreply like: "I'm wandering through Darvall Heights. Reception is spotty but I'll get back to you as soon as I receive your message." Players would only be able to change their answering machine message when they're in an area with a working mobile mast. This isn't any more overpowering than contacting a player on the wiki, but it allows communication to remain in game.

Discussion (Answering Machine)

I like this.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:04, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Not bad, but only if it doesn't say where you are. --Johnny Bass 18:15, 1 June 2009 (BST)

I think that that was just an example he was iving of something someone might say.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:03, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Yeah, it wouldn't automatically say where you are. It would just say whatever message you leave. If you leave your location in the message it could become out of date when you're forced to move if you can't get mobile reception. --A Big F'ing Dog 01:01, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Oh, sorry. I must have misread that. That would be pretty sweet actually. It should cost 1 ap to set the message though. --Johnny Bass 02:06, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Yeah, it sounds good. Gives people a reason to carry a phone. --Bjorn 18:44, 1 June 2009 (BST)

I like this, I might actually have kept my phone if this was in game while I was part of a survivor group. --Honestmistake 19:09, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Simple and nice, I like it. --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:16, 1 June 2009 (BST)

So, basically, you're just suggesting bypasing the phone mast requirement?--Pesatyel 06:01, 2 June 2009 (BST)

No, he's suggesting that when you send someone a text message, if they're unable to receive it (no coverage), you immediately get an answering machine-type reply saying "I'm not in a powered mast suburb, so I haven't got your message yet." And it's "you're," not "your." --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:43, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Ok.--Pesatyel 07:37, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Seems like a generic message "The person you are trying to reach is out of area" or something would be better. This WOULD get around the phone mast requirement with a little work otherwise. Telling those who are trying to contact to meet you at such and such location, for example.--Pesatyel 07:37, 2 June 2009 (BST)

How much of a free lunch do you want? Instead of having to move to a suburb and text all your contacts for the appropriate AP cost, you want to send a single message for one AP that all your contacts can get? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:56, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Yeah... but then it costs each one of your contacts that wants to retrieve it one AP - and it lets them that you didn't get it immediately. A variation of this suggestion might be "If the receiving contact is in a suburb without coverage, you get a 'message not immediately delivered' notification alongside the 'You send a text message.' notification." --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 09:37, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Moving the AP cost onto someone else doesn't change the fact that this is taking a current action that costs lots of AP for your character and it now costs him a single AP. Survivors have plenty of ways to bank AP, above and beyond that of zombies. They don't need anymore, certainly not this overpowered pile of shit. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 10:24, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Communication is overpowered? Talk about the Wiki and major other groups... I can only name one person who doesn't use any metagaming whatsoever. It's not like mobiles see a whole lot of use anyway. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 10:27, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Pay attention and read my response before you think up your unwitty response. The AP reduction is overpowered, the only way to make this fair would be to subtract an AP every time someone received your message, unfortunately that would be open to so much abuse, no-one would ever use it. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 10:32, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Iscariot, I feel that you are the one who wasn't listening. He's saying that it isn't overpowered, because either survivors or zombies can already go on the wiki, without spending action points, and dodge the AP costs anyway.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:17, 2 June 2009 (BST)

It still costs all your contacts 1AP, and if you try to use this for short term communication ("Meet me at X hospital within 24 hours") you'll constantly have your message go obsolete and be unable to change it when the local masts are ruined. So it's more likely to be used for more long term general messages "Currently guarding X Mall" --A Big F'ing Dog 14:42, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Yes it does and that's not the point. They were trying to contact you in the first place, thus spending the AP regardless.--Pesatyel 03:59, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I still like this but those opposed do have something of a point. Change it so that the phone mast buildings are also the suburbs message retrieval stations too... then if it gets ruined or goes powerless all stored messages are lost. Also, i doubt that the systems would be good enough to store messages forever so a week long timer before deletion would also be good. --Honestmistake 10:03, 2 June 2009 (BST)

I figure it works however the real system works. I set my voicemail message two years ago and haven't had to think about it since. I can also create a reply for text messages that would last until I change it. I don't think in real life messages are stored in any one mobile mast but rather in a central computer somewhere. --A Big F'ing Dog 14:42, 2 June 2009 (BST)

I really like this. CITIZEN VI 23:24, 2 June 2009 (BST)

I think in real life they are stored locally and then downloaded into the main system (albiet on an hourly basis) however comms in and out of the city are supposed to be cut so this can't be the case (if they are not cut then how come I can never call people outside the city?) that means local, limited storage which coincidentally also helps to balance the suggestions pro's. --Honestmistake 00:45, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Shout

Timestamp:	IntoTheDark 17:10, 1 June 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	This gives survivors a new button: Shout. You write a message into a box, which will be shouted. This takes 2AP, and is heard both on the square you're standing in, and in or outside any building on your square. So if you use it while you stand outside the Woodborne Building, for example, your shout is heard both inside the Woodborne Building and outside, on your square. And if you is inside the building and shout, it is heard outside too.

Discussion (Shout)

I like the idea. There is a similar suggestion in Peer Reviewed Suggestions already. :) - User:Whitehouse 17:18, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Oh, I see now. How stupid of me :S --IntoTheDark 17:33, 1 June 2009 (BST)

At leased you duped something that was peer reviewed and not something that was spaminated? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:37, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Melee Weapon Breakage

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 10:05, 1 June 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement.
Scope:	Melee Weapons
Description:	Now all Melee Weapons have a chance to break any time they are used to attack other players, Generators/Transmitters, and Barricades. 2% Crowbar 5% Baseball Bat 2% Length of Pipe 2% Knife 5% Fire Axe 5% Cricket Bat 10% Fencing Foil 2% Golf Club 5% Hockey Stick 10% Pool Cue 2% Ski Pole 10% Tennis Racket

Discussion (Melee Weapon Breakage)

No. The whole appeal of melee weapons is that they don't need ammo, and thus don't require a trip to the mall every twenty attacks. Linkthewindow Talk 10:59, 1 June 2009 (BST)

I wholeheartedly agree with Link. We already have a couple weapons that break (like the pool cue) and you know how many people actually use them? NONE. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:17, 3 June 2009 (BST)

The reason no one ever uses them is because once you pick up the Axe, there is never a need for any other Melee weapon again. The way it is now, you might as well just get rid of most of the other Melee weapons the same way as the Wirecutters were dropped. If they broke though, you might see more people hanging on to the other weapons as back ups. Especially in a situation where they can't get good access to a Fire Station or Mall due to Ruins after a zombie attack. People might still go for some of the "lesser" Melee weapons in that case if they lose their Axe and do have access to unruined buildings that offer the other Weapons. Some more attack boosts to the "lesser" weapons would help too. Something like a new Skill that boosts attack % to everything but the Axe and Knife. If the Fire Axe/Knife breakages were high enough, you might even be able to justify a further attack % boost to the Axe/Knife.--Zombie Lord 20:35, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I'm all for Melee Weapon Breakage but the numbers are too high, I feel that the % for a weapon to break should not exceed 1%, this way you don't have to keep running back for more but they will break, normally when you don't expect it and due to the rarity you may not have bothered carrying a spare; leaving you in an "O' Shit" situation. If the numbers are right/low enough you could probably extend it across ALL weapons, imagine your gun suddenly jams/breaks or smashing your tool box just before you need it for that big repair... People probably won't like it because it means they won't have Incredibly-Destructive-Invincible-Owning-Tools thus forth known as IDIOT^TM equipment, but it would make the game more interesting. --Kamikazie-Bunny 11:33, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Yeah, the numbers will have to be tweaked more. The only reason I didn't go for 1% across the board was I though it would be neat to give the Knife a slight "boost" over the Axe by being a bit longer lasting. I guess we could go into fractions under 1% and still give slight boosts to one weapon or the other.--Zombie Lord 21:52, 1 June 2009 (BST)

This is a horrible suggestion. I see no way that it can be developed in any way to accomodate it. Melee weapons shouldn't just break. --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:52, 1 June 2009 (BST)

As Kamikazie... lets face it stuff does break and its not like you can't easily find more. Hell if its that much of a problem I say let folk with their generic uber toolkits repair broken stuff for 5AP and a gain of 1XP (lit buildings only!)--Honestmistake 12:18, 1 June 2009 (BST)

How in god's name am I going to break a crowbar on a human body? The suggestions just get worse and worse.. Not to mention this is almost certainly a dupe. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:24, 1 June 2009 (BST)

that is possibly the only exception and its just typical of you to be so bloody minded as too bring it up :) --Honestmistake 15:39, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Well how about the length of pipe? How would that break on flesh, or even a generator? If we're assuming that it's a large metal pipe, asx it seems to be, it wouldn't break in any of the situations. And an Axe is hardly likely to break when cutting through someone either.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:22, 1 June 2009 (BST)

All it takes is for the pipe to get dented, this is a pipe, not a rod... that dent creates a point of weakness and swinging it into objects will cause this to worsen, do this repeatedly and eventually the effects of fatigue will cause it to fracture. The generator has screws and such which could come loose causing it to literally fall apart in your hands. As for the axe, although it's designed for repeated impacts its designed to do so in a specific orientation, hitting an object with the broad side of the blade is likely to loosen the head after repeated broadside impacts causing it to loose its head. Out of these three the axe is the least likely to break but it is still possible. --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:14, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Took the words out of my mouth on the Pipe part. With the Axe it also depends on the quality of manufacture and whether your Axe has a Wooden or Fiberglass Haft, the Fiberglass variety being much less likely to break in a given situation. I tried to go for a median on that, but if this kind of thing was passed I could see eventually having different kinds of Axes made available. Hardware stores would probably carry the wooden variety, while Fire Stations could offer both wooden and fiberglass types, giving player the opportunity to find Axes with two different breakage numbers. --Zombie Lord 21:30, 1 June 2009 (BST)I guess the same could be done for Knives, because there would be difference between using a thin kitchen knife vs say a Bowie Knife.--Zombie Lord 21:39, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Firstly, for the generator, I meant how would a generator break a metal bar. You also seem to be forgetting that said bar is capable of holding a door shut with the same strength as a bookcase. I find it impossible to believe that said bar would break on someone's head or generator. And with the Axe, which would have been designed for long-term repetitive use, what with it being a fire axe and all, if the blade did mystically fly off of the end, then it would take less than ten seconds to move it back against the handle. This suggestion STILL has no credibility.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:23, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Impressive, so while we are implementing such an intense level of hypothetical realism, might I question how the head of an axe is going to loosen and break after 20 hits? I imagine I could stab someone 50 times before the knife itself broke, and most probably the same for a cricket bat. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:38, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Still tweaking those numbers. This IS Developing Suggestions afterall. Nothing is written is stone.--Zombie Lord 08:01, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Fair enough. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:26, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Pool cues already have a chance of breaking iirc. Considering that a length of pipe can be used as a loose barricade, you might have a case for making that breakable. Crowbars definitely shouldn't ever possibly break. The percentages are a little high, as mentioned earlier. --Johnny Bass 16:40, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Yeah, the Crowbar should not break. Not only does it make sense, but that would make it the premiere anti-barricade tool, as it should be. Finally a reason to carry one!--Zombie Lord 02:12, 2 June 2009 (BST)

While this would improve the crowbar, what, really is the point? And, no I'm not trying to "attack" you. I just don't see how this improves much of anything since 80% of the weapons aren't even used by anyone by roleplayers. All it would do would be make people less likely to use them then they already do. How about instead of just whenever they are used to attack, certain weapons have a chance against certain targets. For example a pipe would bend/break more readily against a generator or radio then against a person or barricade, so it could, say have a 1% chance against a person a 2% against a barricade and 3% against a device. A Tennis Racket on the other hand could be 2% against a person, 3% against a barricade and 1% against a device. Those are just quicky number examples.--Pesatyel 05:58, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Already ahead of you on the split % idea. Still working on the numbers.--Zombie Lord 07:06, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Something else to consider is that certain weapons would NOT have any affect on certain targets. I don't see a fencing foil having an effect on a barricade, for example. Or, say, a tennis racket agaisnt a device (I mean, sure, you would be hitting it with the edge, but I don' think a typical tennis racket would be sturdy enough to do any real damage). That having been said, I'd imagine either the tennis racket would have a way high break % against devices OR simply changed to NOT be usable against them at all, to continue the example.--Pesatyel 07:41, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Yeah, good points. I'll work that in.--Zombie Lord 08:03, 2 June 2009 (BST)

This weapon decay, we've seen it before, and will unfortunately see it in the future. Realism =/= UD. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:58, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Sleep visibility

Timestamp:	Zombie President 17:50, 31 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Erm...
Scope:	All players
Description:	OK, now what I'm suggesting, is that when you run out of AP, it is visible to other players, which means that they will not waste their AP talking to you while you are offline.

Discussion (Sleep Visibility)

Bad idea. You'll see their talk messages et al when you wake up. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:12, 31 May 2009 (BST)

I don't see the point, you'll only be asleep for 30min at most... If someone else is active in the area and notices you doing something they'll likely interact with you in that 30min window assuming they don't before you run out of AP If you've done something that leaves a lasting effect such as giving someone a good Faking when they're off-line there's a high chance you'll have at least one AP when they notice. It would make more sense to have a "Last Active" time on their profile page so you can guess-timate what time they are online. --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:02, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Yes, great idea! This way my PKer can pick off sleeping survivors and not have to worry about active player attacks, dramatically unbalancing the game! Just what we need! --Pestolence^(talk) 21:45, 31 May 2009 (BST)

I'm with Pestolence on this one. Just a bad idea all around. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 23:08, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Just screams to be abused by PK'ers --Bjorn 18:46, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Beyond movement, talking and killing another player, how many of the ingame actions are even visible to other players? I mean, for example, you can't see someone ATTACK someone else (unless they kill them). Healing isn't visible and neither is generator repair (unless I'm mistaken, you don't see "bob fixed the generator"). So, simply put, a room full of characters, the characters could be doing a LOT of things that don't show up as displaying the character(s) are being controlled.--Pesatyel 23:50, 31 May 2009 (BST)

You do see "Bob repaired the generator" messages. But still, this isn't a very useful idea. Usually, the only place you are online with another online survivor (and let's face it, this only applies to survivors, because of zombie anonymity) is in a huge building, and it's easy to see who is offline... they are the 90+% of survivors at the top of the list of names. The most recently active survivors are last on the list -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:28 1 June 2009 (BST)

Well I knew there were more. I just meant the majority of actions aren't visible.--Pesatyel 05:43, 2 June 2009 (BST)

As already mentioned, think about the heaven this would create for PK's. --Rolfero 14:20, 1 June 2009 (BST)

I guess it would be ok... But when a player logs in it should say "As you slept you could hear someone faintly speaking. *insert what the player said here possible mess it up a bit sort of like death raddle* EG. "th zombi ar break th barrica dow !"

Alright I admit it's a load of tripe --Zombie President 18:55, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Headshot variation #1

Timestamp:	Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:30, 31 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	People with headshot.
Description:	Now, before I begin, I'll say that I have two different suggestions for this whole thing. I'll post them here seperately, so that you can comment on them seperately. In the end, I'm only gonna post one, or maybe none, we'll see. In addition, I've checked the suggestions logs, and I'm almost certain that these aren't dupes, so I'll save you the trouble, Iscariot. My first proposal is that we change Headshot in to two skills, headshot and improved headshot, or something of the like. The first would be exactly where the current one is, and would cost the same XP. The only difference would be that it gets rid of 3AP for the zombie, instead of 5AP. This way, there would be less newbie survivors running about with headshot, causing problems for zombies. But, to ensure that survivors can still have the same level of headshot skill, there would be a second skill off of this, the advanced headshot thing, which would cause the zombie to lose 6AP when it stands up. Hardly enough to cause game obliteration, but enough to warrant a second skill.

Discussion (Headshot variation #1)

I like the current system as it is, thanks. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} (status:‎Mudkip!) 16:31, 31 May 2009 (BST)

There is already a system in place to prevent "newbie survivors" from running around with headshot. You need 10 levels to purchase it. --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 19:49, 31 May 2009 (BST)

I meant a better one. Saying you can get it at level 10 makes newbies WANT to get it at level 10. This way, it isn't quite as good, so they are more likely to leave it to a more appropriate level.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:15, 31 May 2009 (BST)

How do you "advanced headshot" something, you either shoot it in the head or you don't... --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:17, 31 May 2009 (BST)

More accurate or something. I'll work on the flavour before I actually suggest it.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:21, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Actually, kamikazie makes a good point. I don't get the need for an "advanced" version anyway. Comparatively speaking, there really isn't anything wrong with headshot. The problem lies more with the base standup cost and Ankle Grab.--Pesatyel 00:12, 1 June 2009 (BST)

But if we manipulate the rate at which the regular standup and ankle grab work, then it will cause too much of a knock-on effect, all at once.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:24, 1 June 2009 (BST)

What do you mean knock on effect?--Pesatyel 05:48, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Currently, the zombie hordes decimate the whole city roughly twice a year. Each time, they have new strategies to make sure that it gets easier, and has a larger effect, every time. Afterwards, the survivors take it back to level equally overpowering for themselves, because the zombies get bored, and can't hold that much ground. If we made it so that the base standup was 5AP lower, then we'd likely end up with the zombies rising again, far too quickly, and being able to swarm malls and buildings with only newbie zombies, whereas currently, it takes at least one powerful zombie to take down a building's defences. If we changed ankle grab, so that it cost more AP, then survivors would have an unfair advantage. Despite what everybody thinks, the game is in a good balance now. Changing anything too drastically would not solve anything.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:28, 2 June 2009 (BST)

So, with that argument, your nullfiying your suggestion here.--Pesatyel 03:48, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I'm saying that there's no need for new implementation in to the game. But since everybody things there's some massive problem with the game, is it not better to make small suggestion than overbearing ones?--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:38, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Well the basic "problem" is the stand up cost. But Headshot and Ankle Grab both modify it. So, in order to affect the stand up cost, you'd have to deal with ALL three together.--Pesatyel 20:49, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Headshot variation #2

Timestamp:	Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:30, 31 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	People with headshot.
Description:	Now, before I begin, I'll say that I have two different suggestions for this whole thing. I'll post them here seperately, so that you can comment on them seperately. In the end, I'm only gonna post one, or maybe none, we'll see. In addition, I've checked the suggestions logs, and I'm almost certain that these aren't dupes, so I'll save you the trouble, Iscariot. This proposal also involves replacing the current headshot with two skills, headshot and advanced headshot, but this time, there would be a more sufficient change. The initial headshot would make the zombie rise with less AP, and the amount would be equal to the weapon used for the kill's damage. However, with guns, this would obviously be game-breaking. In this case, guns would give the standard 5AP. So, basically, if you used a knife for the killing blow, the zombie would cost 12AP to rise, or 3AP with Ankle grab, with a fire axe, it would be 13AP or 4AP, etc. The second headshot would be a standard 6AP loss on the zombie when rising.

Discussion (Headshot variation #2)

I'll grant that the first one isn't a dupe, but have you checked everything for this, it sounds familiar. I'm assuming by guns you are including flare guns and the additional damage caused by fuel?

Also, why should zombies be spending more AP to get up? Having two skills or even one, this is nothing more than an unwarranted survivor buff that only harms zombies. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:34, 31 May 2009 (BST)

What? This costs less for zombies mostly. If you get the second skill, it does 1AP more, but normally, it costs less, so I don't see where you're coming from. And I did include flare guns and oil. I checked all the old archives, but it could have appeared on DevSug before, just not on the actual suggestions.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:37, 31 May 2009 (BST)

So you did a search of pages in the Suggestions space? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 16:39, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Well i didn't really know how, so I looked at all suggestions that have been made, and on each page, I did a Ctrl+F for Headshot. The only things that turned up weren't like this--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:43, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Here --Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:44, 31 May 2009 (BST)

So you didn't actually check everything, great. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 16:50, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Do explain how I can find the rest.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:54, 31 May 2009 (BST)

In the search bar type headshot, click search. At the bottom of the search page you'll see "Search in these namespaces" Check the Suggestions box.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 17:09, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Massive fail, he's already searched that, but thanks for playing. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 17:11, 31 May 2009 (BST)

It wouldn't let me search that. So what else is there to search, other than that space?--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:12, 31 May 2009 (BST)

This probably sounds familiar because I suggested a similar mechanic called overkill that takes the extra HP damage a zombie receives of it's health when it stands back up. It never got of this page though. Might be worth a retry now that we have Feeding on the dead. As for this suggestion, it just doesn't seem to agree with me and I'm not why. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:39, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Wouldn't this just force players to carry a shotgun to use for the kill shot? You would have a greater chance of getting a kill using a shotgun over a melee weapon anyway. And I don't understand the "second headshot" part. Does it make the headshot cost 6 regardless of weapon or just add +1 to the regular cost?--Pesatyel 00:08, 1 June 2009 (BST)

I was thinking just 6AP, though a +1 cost wouldn't be a bad variation. And on the note of guns, people are already using them all the time. this way, if they wanted the 5AP headshot, then they'd be forced to save ammo. Normally, they might run out of ammo at about 10HP, and finish with a fire axe, but with this, they'd be more prone to keeping some spare ammo for the kill.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:55, 1 June 2009 (BST)

It saves ammo to wail away with an axe or knife then go for the "kill" with a pistol or shotgun for the "extra XP" effect. I just meant players are more likely to use a shotgun for the kill shot to maximize the AP effect.--Pesatyel 05:46, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Yeah, but is that a bad thing? It's not like they get anything more than they currently get, and have the disadvantage of having to stock extra ammo for the kill. Also, if malls were down, then it'd be harder to restock, and headshots would be less powerful.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:29, 2 June 2009 (BST)

I'm not saying its a bad thing, I'm saying that is what's going to start happening. Malls don't stay down for long because the game is too mall-centric to let that happen. And your forgetting about PDs.--Pesatyel 03:50, 3 June 2009 (BST)

In my experience, PDs are usually crowded with 20+ zombies.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:37, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Gameplay Change

Timestamp:	--Rolfero 11:04, 31 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement of Gameplay/Skill Change
Scope:	Zombies and survivor
Description:	I suggest... I suggest we lower the AP cost of standing up to either 5 or 1 (if taken down by headshot this changes to 10 or 6). (Please tell me what you think is an approtiate number). As we change the AP cost, the Ankle grab should also be changed. If we change the AP cost to 1, we should remove the skill Ankle Grab, giving every player with this skill 100 XP. If we change the AP cost to 5, we could either keep the skill, or remove it (giving every player with this skill 100 XP). What does you think? I'm open to suggestions. In fact, unless everyone like the suggestion, i suggest you either say that there is no way you can make this good, or come up with a way to make it better. :D

Discussion (Gameplay Change)

I'm trying not to be offensive about it, but, there's no way to make this good... Because it's just pointless, 100xp isn't to hard to get, and ridding of it just getting rid of a challenge of being a zombie. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:05, 31 May 2009 (BST)

This doesn't help zombies, it helps survivors. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:06, 31 May 2009 (BST)

How does this help survivors? Please, fill me in. --Rolfero 11:28, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Think about it this way. There are two players, one is a survivor who didn't get any zombie skills, and one is a zombie who didn't get any survivor skills. Both of these are semi-legitimate pathways to go for characters. One dies. Which one gets hurt more? The survivor. He pays 10ap to get up, and then has to spend another 10ap to get revived. And that's if they don't get killed/headshotted again whilst waiting for a revive. The career zombie? Just 1AP, or 6AP, depending. Implementing this would help survivors more, because as I would say to that idiot Zombie Lord in response to his opinion below, Getting Ankle Grab is one of the top priorities of a zombie, and survivors too. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:34, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Okay, changed in the description. Now the AP cost would be changed for ALL players. Happy? BTW, Iscariot still said this helped survivors more, you said it hurt them more. --Rolfero 11:38, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Flip a coin I guess. It really doesn't matter to either of them. They just like to see their words up there. On your other point, I assumed you meant it would apply to both Survivors and Zombies equally, so yes that change is good.--Zombie Lord 11:43, 31 May 2009 (BST)

It feels like people usually don't check the developing suggestions, only the current suggestions. Guess I'll need to put it there to get more points of views. Unless other people came to look here. :P :/ --Rolfero 11:46, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Unfortunately, yes, not many people look in here, and about 90% of the ones that do aren't here to actually help anybody, but rather to troll, show off their "game knowledge", and generally talk down to people. It won't get much better over at Current though.--Zombie Lord 12:25, 31 May 2009 (BST)

No, I was specifying the current situation that Malton is in, when it comes to standing. Now imagine that scenario, and take away all AP costs for survivors at level 1. There's no longer a cost of dying (which was 10ap) and getting revived (also 10ap), whereas a Zombie achieves that at level 3 already. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:27, 1 June 2009 (BST)

I would vote Keep on lowering the AP to Stand to 1 and getting rid of Ankle Grab. As I have said before, Ankle Grab was just a bad band aid fix and as it is now the 10 AP to Stand only hurts newbies in a ridiculous manner, and means nothing to the older players.--Zombie Lord 11:11, 31 May 2009 (BST) Keep Ankle Grab and lower the default stand up cost to 5 so you have 1/6 & 5/10, better for the newbies and experienced players don't get affected keeping them happy... --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:20, 31 May 2009 (BST)

I fixed up your suggestion a little to make it a bit clearer. I don't think your going to have any luck getting rid of Ankle Grab. Bad skill or not (and it could stand to be "fixed"), people aren't going to like having it taken away (refunding the XP or not). So you'd probably do better to go with the 5 AP cost version. This has also been suggested before and didn't make it to Peer Review, so you might want to slog through Peer Rejected and Undecided.--Pesatyel 00:00, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Installable bulletin board.

Timestamp:	Nitalo 04:24, 31 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I think that a small bulletin board that you can install into a building would be a pretty useful feature. It could have up to about five things written on it. And there would be something you could click on to be able to read it. Anyone really would be allowed to write on it. Unless someone wanted to add like a pen item. In which case who all could write on it would be somewhat limited. It could be extremely useful if there were a few notices that you wanted survivors who entered the building to be able to read. Any help developing this idea would be appreciated.

Discussion (Suggestion Name)

Multiple graffiti slots, essentially? It might be a bit harder on the server... but I'm all for it. Just have the newest tag erase the oldest one, or something? How does turnover work? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:32, 31 May 2009 (BST)

I suppose that is what it would be close to. Yeah, I had guessed that the newest one would erase the oldest one. Installing multiple bulletin boards in a building would be impossible. I just think that the extra spaces would be pretty nice.

The having to click to read it thing is quite interesting. I assume zombies can read it? --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 10:17, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I think that zombies would most likely be able to read it. Maybe with memories of life skill? Itd probably cost like 1 AP to look over it.

That would make sense, it would make MoL less "use doorknob".--Pesatyel 00:02, 1 June 2009 (BST)

New Flavor Text- Gunsmoke

Timestamp:	FlashHawk4 00:20, 31 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Flavor Text
Scope:	Firearms
Description:	This addition would add a flavor text indicating that certain amounts (I haven't decided yet) of rounds have been fired in a building. Some examples: level 1: "A slight scent of gunpowder hangs in the air." level 2: "The air smells of burnt gunpowder." All the way to the maximum level: "A thick, choking cloud of gunsmoke drifts throughout the room." It would help add to the atmosphere of a siege, similar to bloodstains, and would help identify the site of a battle involving firearms (survivors versus zombies, survivors versus PK'ers, etc.) It would be rather interesting to see, I admit. And if you clicked on this suggestion believing it to be a reference to the Western TV show, I'd support that!

Discussion (Gunsmoke)

Most people are probably going to bitch that this would make too much SPAM text. (This is a BS excuse though since they could just turn it off in their settings) I think we should take it one step farther and just have flavor text that indicates (to the 50 nearest people) that a gun was fired and by whom. Too many pussies in the game like to be super secret ghosts though that can fire off hundreds of rounds without anyone knowing it happened or by who. I'd vote keep on an idea like this though. Good job.--Zombie Lord 01:27, 31 May 2009 (BST)

How long would the smoke last and more importantly how do you explain why folk can see and smell it but didn't hear it? It provides no useful info and doesn't really add much to the atmosphere so I can't see much point in Kevan coding it. Nice try though. --Honestmistake 01:34, 31 May 2009 (BST)

I support any western-themed suggestions. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:44, 31 May 2009 (BST)

I think you mainly should hear it, but maybe both. --Rolfero 08:05, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Boost Contacts Limit for Donors

Timestamp:	Marcusfilby 21:41, 29 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Interface
Scope:	Survivors/Zombies
Description:	Something of a request, but one that would greatly aid players into the metagame aspect of UD: for a nominal fee (either included in the $5 already donated by players who get an IP hit limit waiver or as an additional $2.50 or $5), paid supporters would have the 150 profile limit on their contacts list doubled to 300. With several major groups on the stats page at or near the 150-member mark, one's contacts list can become quite swollen, without even considering the need to keep track of unaffiliated friends, close allies, sworn foes, that cute guy/gal/shambling corpse you once made eyes at, and the like. So, if it doesn't carry a punishing burden in terms of server overhead, a limit bump would be a great perk for paid supporters.

Discussion (Boost Contacts Limit for Donors)

You could also use some UI/coloring modifications to highlight an essentially infinite number of names. This isn't a bad idea, though. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:54, 29 May 2009 (BST)

True, I should mention there are some 3d-party tools out there to try to expand the limit, but miss the value of corpse/zombie recognition. Thanks for the tip! Marcusfilby 21:58, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Excellent suggestion. That 150 limit is a real pain and encouraging people to donate is a decent idea. Also I bet Kevan would implement this because it would line his pockets lolz --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 01:14, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Dupe. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 03:25, 30 May 2009 (BST)

An old one, at that. Oh well, maybe this will remind Kevan that that particular suggestion passed. I wonder if he reads DevSug... --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:56, 30 May 2009 (BST)

It's quite possible. He reads through more than A/PD, his talk, and finished suggestions you know.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 19:31, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Indeed. He's got quite the lurker or lurker-like stance though, he's certainly less likely to edit or intervene than, say, you! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:30, 30 May 2009 (BST)

He walks amongst us but not one of us, He is the overseer, the harbinger of change.. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:25, 31 May 2009 (BST)

New Survivor Weapon - Rifle (Revised)

Timestamp:	Franklin Castle 19:22, 29 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Item - Weapon
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	A semiautomatic rifle with a 5 shot magazine, reloaded using Stripper Clips. Rifle and S. clip would be found in Forts, PDs, and maybe supply crates. Rifles at 3% in Armories and 2% in PDs. S. clips would be found in Forts and PDs at rates of 7% and 6%. Neither the Rifle nor Stripper Clips would be found in Mall gun stores. Mall search rates would remain unchanged. Search rates in Fort Armories and Police Departments would only be changed in the sense that instead of a failure (You search and find nothing.), the Survivor would find either a Rifle or a Stripper Clip. Stripper Clips would have an encumbrance of 3% (as opposed to the 2% for either shotgun shells or pistol clips). The Rifle's damage per shot is greater than the Pistol but lower than the Shotgun. The Rifle has more ammo per reload than a Shotgun, but fewer than the Pistol. It weighs more than the others (EDIT 12% encumbrance). It takes 3 AP to reload (Explained as having to clean the rifle every time it is reloaded. Flavor text "You wipe the residue out of the receiver and reload the rifle."). Reloading a pistol takes 1 AP and gives 6 attacks (14% cost). Reloading a shotgun takes 1 AP per attack (50% cost). Reloading the rifle would take 3 AP and give 5 attacks (38% cost). A pistol's max damage from a full load is 30. A shotgun's is 20. The rifle would be 40. 1 kill with the pistol would cost 27 AP and the encumbrance for that kill is 12% (Pistol 4% + 6% for 3 extra clips). 1 kill with the shotgun would cost 22 AP and the encumbrance for that kill is 26% (Shotgun 6% + 20% for 10 extra shells). 1 kill with the rifle would cost 25 AP (9 AP to reload the rifle three times and 16 AP to kill with 4 rounds left over) and the encumbrance would be 21% (Rifle EDIT 12% + 9% for 3 extra clips). (All calculated as against 60HP + Flak) The Rifle's Accuracy may be upgraded by Military skills. Base accuracy is 5%. It receives the "Basic Firearms Training" boost of 25%. A new skill, "Rifle Training" would provide another 25% boost, and another new skill "Advanced Rifle Training" would give the last 10% boost, raising total accuracy to 65%. The Rifle has no special abilities (cannot shoot through barricades, cannot shoot at targets in the next block, etc.).

Name	Dmg	Dmg w/ Flak Jacket	Enc	Acc	Acc+1	Acc+2	Acc+3	Ammo	Notes
Pistol	5	4	4%	5%	30%	55%	65%	6 Bullets	Gun can be reloaded with one clip
Rifle	8	6	EDIT 12%	5%	30%	55%	65%	5 Rounds	Gun can be reloaded with one S. clip
Shotgun	10	8	6%	5%	30%	55%	65%	2 Shells	Gun can be reloaded with two shells.

Since version 1 of my Rifle proposal was, indeed, too complex and unbalanced, the concept has been refined and simplified (Version 1 discussion below).

Discussion (Rifle Revised)

You've done an excellent job thinking about this and weighing the encumbrances, ammo, damage, and AP. There are still 2 problems: search rate dilution and balance. Your idea of search rates not being affected is admirable, but as I understand it, the game doesn't work that way.

You search in a building until you find something at a given probability, and that "something" could be a radio, flak jacket, pistol clip, etc. Someone else could give you a more detailed explanation of that particular mechanic.

There is also the problem of balance. A lot of things in UD are set up with advantages and disadvantages. Great items like generators/toolboxes have high encumbrance and are hard to find, for example. Pistols and Shotguns are greatly different in their advantages/disadvantages by design. It forces players to consider the pros and cons and make a decision.

This rifle is so perfectly balanced between the pistol and shotgun that it eliminates that choice for survivors and would pretty much become the default weapon for everyone. Does that make sense? --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 20:36, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I'm not sure how workable it would be for the purposes of searches. That's a mechanic problem, and I'm just a thinker. I can come up with an idea, but actually putting it to use is where problems can arise.

The Pros and Cons are still there for the other guns. There's just something between them to serve as a middle ground. Pistols would still be lighter, and would only take a little more AP per kill. That would allow a person to carry multiple loaded pistols and pistol clips, while the rifle wielder would have a much lower capacity for carry. The shotgun (plus ammo) would weigh more than the rifle, but it would also be much more efficient at killing enemies, leaving more AP for other actions, while the rifle would cut down on possible actions. Initially, the encumbrance was much higher to compensate for the advantages (15%) but when it was revised, I brought it down to a more reasonable level (8%). Maybe increasing it to 12% would serve as a mitigating factor. That would make it weigh 3/4 of a toolbox, and the rifle ammo would still weigh more than other ammo.

I understand your point on balance. I'm just trying to come up with a weapon that is useful without being too advantageous. If it's too good, it's unbalanced, but if it's useless, it's of no value to add, and being limited to pistol and shotgun just doesn't feel authentic. There's just the mentality that '3 is better than 2' I suppose. Each gun has its advantage, and disadvantage. Shotgun - Powerful, but ammo is heavy. Pistol - Weak, but light. Rifle - Middle ground, but heavy weapon and heavy ammo, plus high AP cost for reload. --Franklin Castle 21:20, 29 May 2009 (BST)

It isn't perfectly balanced at all. It's been nerfed to the point it is now useless. The max damage you can do with a full load is 10 more than the pistol, but I can carry 4 pistols instead of one rife. The encumbrance is ridiculous. You've underbalanced it so much there is now no reason to keep it. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:31, 30 May 2009 (BST)

The thing about UD is that the mechanics are very simplistic. The pistol has medium ammo and medium damage. The shotgun has low ammo and high damage. So what does that leave? Generally, it leaves high ammo and low damage. Or some kind of special effect. This doesn't do any of that.--Pesatyel 01:56, 30 May 2009 (BST)

I say that it leaves a large gap RP-wise, no rifle, so I say yes, provided we fine-tune it. Don't forget we can do that, guys. You're all complaining about a simple number that we can change. If we can tweak the numbers to find a good balance between encumberment and awesomeness, I would support this in a heartbeat. FlashHawk4 00:23, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Pointing out the obvious to these guys doesn't help much. Yeah you're absolutely right, but remember, most of these clowns are not here to help. They are here to troll any idea that threatens the Status Quo that they worship.--Zombie Lord 00:43, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Since the suggestion doesn't have BALLS in it, what do YOU care?--Pesatyel 05:11, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Exhibit A.--Zombie Lord 05:56, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Hey, did you happen to notice that everyone else is pretty much discussing the idea (for good or ill on the idea's part) while your just a fucknob troll with nothing better to do than whine because your ideas suck and nobody likes them?--Pesatyel 23:27, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Stop trolling up this guys suggestion. Take it to my Talk Page if you really must.--Zombie Lord 23:44, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Well, first off, did you look at Peer Review? There are several weapons in there, so you might take a look at those to see "what made them good". But, again, what is it your going for with this weapon? Just something "cool" for roleplaying? Take a lock at all the other melee weapons that nobody ever uses for "roleplaying". What is the goal of the weapon?--Pesatyel 05:11, 31 May 2009 (BST)

"New Skill"

Timestamp:	Mrbird123 13:06 GMT+0
Type:	Lunge, may weigh zombies to be a little stronger, New skill!, etc.
Scope:	Zombies can only use this skill, costs 1 action point like any other attack
Description:	This should branch off of the skill tree of Vigour Mortis. Basicly theres a starting chance of 10% that you well get the player with this. You jump onto the player, and if you get him - he gets knocked onto the ground and says " You lunge onto <name> and he falls to the ground". and you can continue to use attacks like bite and claw with a 5% chance extra than usual. If you miss an attack while down it will say "You <insert attack here> at him, but he dodges it and pushes you off" and the player cant get up unless : 1. you move to a different block/enter a house "The zombie stops the attack and lurches away" or "The zombie decides not to attack you and lurches away" 2.he uses an attack on you and it knocks you off. "You <insert attack here> as hard as you can and push the zombie off" 3.you miss an attack and the player automaticly pushes you off "The zombie attempted to <insert attack here> you, but missed and you toss it off" Now to help balance it: If you miss with it, the zombie loses one HP and it says "You lunge after <name> but miss and and land heavily on the hard floor below you" and as I said, takes away two action points and only has a starting chance of 10%. Even the most experienced zombie would have nothing but a 35% chance with it.

Discussion "New Skill"

Please fix this for me. until someone is kind enough to fix this just try to read it.*

It took a bit of tweaking (and I had to get off my phone browser at 3.30am in the morning) but I fixed it. I would suggest changing the "New Skill" name in the headers, to the name of the actual skill. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 18:37, 29 May 2009 (BST)

This sounds, to me, like a duplicate of Tangling Grasp. Also, the idea of taking 2 AP from the Zombie for failing to connect seems unbalanced. When we spend AP, we all know how many we're spending, and we act under that knowledge. If you're going to have an extra cost for missing, it should be HP (more than just 1), not AP. A survivor who free runs into a ruin gets hit with an HP penalty, not an AP penalty. I don't think the skill is all that necessary, since Tangling Grasp already exists, but maybe a mechanic like lunging out of a building (with the risk of splatting on the street) could make it different enough. --Franklin Castle 19:42, 29 May 2009 (BST)

This sounds likea dupe of various "survivor knockdown" ideas....but I'm not real sure. It still hard to understand.--Pesatyel 02:19, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Anatomy Skill

Timestamp:	Rolfero 17:15, GMT+1
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Both Survivors and zombies.
Description:	A skill that allows you to heal slightly better. This skill should only be available after the Lab Experience/First Aid/Surgery skill is bought. (Which one is best?) This helps others more than it helps you. The effects gained is the following: Each time you use a FAK, it heals 1HP extra. (Discussable) Each time you revive a zombie, it only need to use 5 AP to stand up. (Discussable) This is good both to survivors and zombies, the survivors advantage is pretty obvious, so I won't go in on it here. For the zombies, it is good because if a zombie gets revived against their will, it will take less time to commit suicide. (Discussable) EXAMPLE OF USE(S): playerA have the NecroTech Employment, Lab Experience, First Aid, Surgery and Anatomy skill. playerA find an infected player saying he needs to be healed. playerA heals him with a FAK, healing 11 HP, losing 1 AP, gaining 5 EXP. Later that night, playerA finds a zombie standing in a revive point. playerA then revives the zombie with a revivification syringe, gaining 10 EXP and losing 10 AP. The zombie now only needs 5 AP to stand up. (If the zombie got Ankle Grab, it still takes 1 AP to go up. It's not free, nor takes -4 AP) EDIT: Sorry, I meant FAKS heal 1hp EXTRA with this skill, not only 1hp.

Discussion (Anatomy Skill)

The drawback for zombies is that FAKs just became 10% more effective for survivors and standup costs for revived newbies just became 50% less expensive. No. FAKing is already one of the best things you can do during a break in -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:25 29 May 2009 (BST)

The ability for survivors to use a FAK at diminished effectiveness without wasting any AP is an interesting idea. Normally any action which doesn't use AP is a big NO... but people would still have to spend AP searching for those items. That is an idea worthy of it's own discussion. I don't think the revive bonus is balanced though and you might want to ditch that part of the suggestion. --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 17:29, 29 May 2009 (BST)

1HP is a bit of a stretch. Encumbrance is 2% so you'd need 50 to be able to heal 50hp off one person, then have 50ap left over and no items to help you do anything. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 17:38, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Sorry, meant 1Hp extra. That probably screws ALL of your comments up. Edited in text. Please excuse me :S Rolfero 18:42, 29 May 2009 (GMT+1)

Well now it's very imbalanced. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 17:48, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Then please make the world a better place by telling me how to balance it. Remember - It's a science skill. Rolfero 18:48, 29 May 2009 (GMT+1)

Hmm.. Well, the the major problem with it is the lack of XP gain means nothing to anyone with the right skills. In fact, it means nothing to anyone, if you don't lose an AP. Hence, you should be healing less HP units if the bonus is no AP deduction. Overall, have you read Frequently Suggested yet? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 17:54, 29 May 2009 (BST)

I think I should rewrite the suggestion. I meant simply that the skill doesn't alter the AP used and the XP gained from using a FAK. It remains the same. And yes, I have read the Frequently Suggested. Were there anything you tried to refer to there? Rolfero 18:57, 29 May 2009 (GMT+1)

I may have meant Suggestions Dos and Do Nots, both those pages have the same purpose to me so I often get them mixed up. Just generally, messing with AP is not on, plus the Multiply by a billion rule shows this suggestion's drawbacks. Actions are supposed to cost AP, and merely using 100XP to buy a skill which can bypass that for healing (one of the most useful actions in the game) is severely detrimental to the balance of the game. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 18:08, 29 May 2009 (BST)

In the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots, i guess you refer to the "Dont mess with other people's AP". It states that if you don't want to gain one AP per 24 hours, don't expect others to like it either. (It's just an example.) But, I want to use less AP to stand up if I'm lucky enough to be found and revived by a player with the Anatomy skill. Wouldn't you? Rolfero 19:19, 29 May 2009 (GMT+1)

So, as I now understand your explanation this is simply a 1HP boost to FAKs and a 5AP reduction to standing up after a revive. Both boosts would provide an advantage to survivors with no drawback. Survivor boosts are generally unwanted given the unbalance in the population of UD --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 20:09, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Uhm, unless I got something wrong, shouldn't skills just do that? Give an advantage to the player(s) whom it's affecting? After a quick check through all of the skills, none of them comes with any drawbacks. Why should skills start having drawbacks now? If you still think so, then please. I put this suggestion on the developing pages for a reason. Help me make it better! Rolfero 23:20, 29 May 2009 (GMT+1)

First part. This just makes FAKs heal 6 HP instead of 5. Unnecessary since we already have First Aid which heals 10 and Surgery which heals 15. It also, in a way, nerfs beer/wine. I also don't understand the point of "this helps others more than it helps you". Again, First Aid and Surgery. Lets not forget that healing is a MAJOR way to acquire XP, but only if you don't have First Aid and Surgery. How does this skill affect XP? Second part. You use a SYRINGE for reviving, not a FAK.--Pesatyel 02:16, 30 May 2009 (BST)

I know you use syringes, it affects both FAK's and Syringes. Tell me how to improve it! Should i throw away the +1HP to FAK's? I putted it here to get idea's and opinions. I have mostly only gotten only opinions. --Rolfero 09:38, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Well the question you have to ask yourself first is "WHAT are you trying to do?". The second question is "How will what you have in mind improve the game?". The first part with the FAKs, I already outlined why its unnecessary. The second part with the syrgines only helps survivors. That is not inherently a BAD thing, but then that's why I ask what it is your trying to accomplish with your idea.--Pesatyel 18:41, 30 May 2009 (BST)

I want to add a new skill to bring atmosphere and greater fun to the game, and other things they thought when Kevan/the suggesting people came up with the other skills. And you can't say syringes only helps survivors. My zombie character got revived 6 times in five days, and I haven't got the time to kill myself by going into an extremely large group of zombies/jumping out a tower yet, as it takes so much AP to get up! --Rolfero 18:53, 30 May 2009 (BST) Quick Edit: Just became a zombie again :D --Rolfero 18:56, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Well, based on your comment, your a zombie-primary, so why don't you have Ankle Grab? As for getting back to zombie status, your saying such zombies are "kill-cows" (the opposit of a Mrh?-Cow) but it is MUCH easier to get dead then to get alive. So, your survivor has 40 AP after getting revive and and wants to "get dead" ASAP, right? Well since jumping isn't an option (in this instance), what else can you do? Well if your THAT dead set against playing as a survivor for any longer then necessary, all you gotta do is walk over to where some zombies are and NOT DO ANYTHING. I highly doubt it would take you more than 40 AP to find some zombies. Depending on how many are there, your very likely to "wake up dead" the next time you log in.--Pesatyel 05:20, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Owkay. btw, Zombie Lord, what do you think about the anatomy skill? Any suggestions how to improve? --Rolfero 08:08, 31 May 2009 (BST)

I would not be able to vote Keep on it as it stands. It's a fine concept, it's just that Survivors already have too much advantage over zombies, IMO, and I suspect this would only exacerbate the problem. I can't think of anything at the moment that would improve this idea. If I do, I'll let you know.--Zombie Lord 08:33, 31 May 2009 (BST)

The more I think about it, I think the best solution would be for Kev to just drop the silly 10 AP to stand mechanic and let everyone Stand for 1 AP (6 for Headshot). The Ankle Grab Skill was just an ill-conceived band aid fix for the ridiculous 10 AP to stand thing anyway. All it does it hurt newbies to a ridiculous degree and hardly effects you at all once you get the Ankle Grab Skill. It's high time that bit of bad game design was excised.--Zombie Lord 09:16, 31 May 2009 (BST)

O.o yeah you're right, that does sound good. Although if they implemented it, and removed the skill, each and every zombie with that skill would gain 100 XP, as compensation, right? Maybe I should suggest that instead. --Rolfero 09:26, 31 May 2009 (BST)

New Survivor Weapon - Rifle

Timestamp:	Franklin Castle 18:51, 28 May 2009 (EST)
Type:	Item-Weapon
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	A semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle that holds 20 rounds of ammunition. I know that rifle suggestions tend to be shot down, but I have an idea that I felt was worth sharing. We currently have two firearms available for Survivors - Pistol (revolver) and Shotgun (double-barrel). The Rifle would be the third. Like all firearms, it would be limited to only the square where the wielder currently stands - no shooting at targets one block over, no shooting through barricades. The rifle is more powerful than the pistol, but weaker than the shotgun. It holds more ammunition (I suggest 20, but that could be lowered for balance) than either. It weighs more than either (15% Encumbrance) and reloading takes more than one step. The magazine must be removed (click on the rifle), the magazine must be loaded (1 click on the ammo box loads half the magazine - half the box of ammo), and the magazine must be inserted into the rifle (click on the magazine). Each action costs 1 AP, so reloading takes 4 AP total. Additionally, after every 100 shots, the rifle must be cleaned (which takes another 5 AP) before it can be used again. It would be found in police stations and fort armories at the same rate of discovery as other firearms, but not in mall gun stores. Any suggestions for improvement would be appreciated. Rifle: Dmg - 8 Dmg w/ Flak - 6 Enc - 15% Acc - 5% Acc+1 - 30% Acc+2 - 55% Acc+3 - 65% Ammo - 20 Rounds

Discussion (Rifle)

I highly suggest you read Frequently Suggested before considering a suggestion like this. You're going to get a lot of flak because this is suggested really frequently. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:33, 29 May 2009 (BST)

I looked at the Frequently Suggested page and saw the multiple rifle entries, but the most common reason for those being rejected was either that it was "automatic" or that it had no drawback. This weapon weighs a lot more, is less powerful than the shotgun, and has higher maintenance costs. I know it'll probably be shot down, but I just wanted to make an attempt. This Rifle could also be altered to make it more workable (10 rounds instead of 20, lower discovery rate, etc.). --Franklin Castle

Congratulations, a new gun suggestion that actually makes sense! I'll give this a keep if it goes to voting. --Pestolence^(talk) 02:11, 29 May 2009 (BST)

It still doesn't deal with the problem of diluting the search rate for useful ammunition, or making people carry even more weapons to use the ammo they find in PDs. You want to find more pistol clips, not dozens of types of guns and ammo that you should just drop anyway to make way for syringes or FAKs. Make it the only weapon and ammunition findable in a fort armory, perhaps. Make it a truly trencherific weapon, so the rest of us don't have to deal with it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:28 29 May 2009 (BST)

Any change will result in secondary implications, both positive and negative. The question is whether the benefits of a Rifle outweigh the detriments to the Shotgun and Pistol. I think it would. I've had to carry multiple pistols and shotguns because I kept finding the weapons instead of just ammo. That's detrimental, but it's a part of the game. It's also a big exaggeration to say "dozens of types of guns and ammo." We're talking about 1 new gun, 1 new type of ammo, and 1 accessory (magazine). It's not likely that anyone is going to be able to increase the rate of discovery for ammo. Also, if we relegate it to only the fort armories, then there's no point in it being added, since the forts are almost completely inaccessible 95% of the time. By keeping it in only the P.D.s and the Forts, it's kept from being too abundant, but it's still available for survivors. --Franklin Castle

So a weapon with an encumbrance of two and a half times of a shotgun, damage 8 with an effective 5 round clip for AP purposes? That's before the massive increase in ammunition capacity for a loaded weapon, 20 rounds? There's a reason shotguns and and pistols have low capacity, they force additional ammunition or weapons to be carried. I'd carry two of these and treat them as super pistols and back-up weapons and it'd cost me a grand total of 30%, loaded and unloaded weapons have no difference in the game.

How will a player know if there's a 'cleaning' phase coming up? Is there a count down? Is the game going to apply a separate timer on each one of these weapons that's found? If these have anything near the find rate of normal weapons in normal conditions they're never going to get cleaned, I don't think I've ever reloaded any weapon more than five times before finding a new one while looking for ammo, whether empty or full.

The fact that these aren't found in mall serves to make the game more mall-centric given that it dilutes the search rates for ever other ammo location. Mall-centric is bad. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:47, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Even without it encouraging mall centric behavior I'd be against this for the usual ammo and weapon dilution reasons. Put it in forts or some random useless building and maybe maybe --_GANG Giles Sednik_CAPD 07:04, 29 May 2009 (BST)

If we only put it in the forts, then there'd be no point in adding it, because the forts are always either in Zombie hands or under siege where no one can get in. --Franklin Castle

How long have you been playing this game? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 07:21, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Not too long. I've been on a few months, and I've spent most of that time as a Zombie because I died almost as soon as I began. My reading on the Wiki has given me the impression that Forts tend to be either in Zombie hands or are under siege. If the rifles and their ammo were only found in the Forts, it would only serve to make the Zombies try even harder to keep survivors out. Letting them be found in PDs makes them accessible enough, but prevents mall shut-ins from being able to hold up with rifles looted from a mall gun store. If they want the guns, they have to risk their lives to get them, and risk their lives again to replenish ammo. --Franklin Castle 07:47, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Like I said, if 20 is too much, 10 might be more appropriate. That would result in 3 AP spent reloading (1 to remove magazine, 1 to reload, 1 to replace). I threw out 20 as an estimate because if it's too low, then it's useless, but if it's too high, it's overpowered. I need input to calculate what is balanced.

The player will have the duty of keeping track of his count. If he loses count, then after the 100th round is fired, he'll suddenly know because he'll receive a message like "Your rifle is jammed. It requires cleaning." Neither the pistol nor the shotgun have that problem because one's a revolver, which virtually never needs cleaning, and the other's a break-open shotgun, which also virtually never needs cleaning to make sure they fire. The rifle is a semi-auto, so the recoil of a shot chambers the next round. The gunpowder residue gums up the works. To prevent one character having multiple, perhaps a limit of 1 per character could be implemented, or the find rate could be lower than the other guns to compensate for its power.

It only makes malls more centered if the Rifle isn't used. If the person uses the rifle, then the mall doesn't help, as they can't replace their ammo in the Mall (ammo wouldn't be found there either). If a survivor wanted the rifle, they'd have to risk leaving the mall and searching PDs or Forts, and they'd have to look in those locations for ammo for the weapon as well.

Don't just look at an idea and say "It sucks." Look at it and try to come up with a way to improve it. --Franklin Castle

Regardless, the game is going to have to keep track of a 1000 shot timer on each weapon? Yes? The amount of lag that will happen will be tragic, it was bad enough with Moronville and Boredomwood, I don't want the current lag expanding, I want it decreasing.

There's a reason guns aren't received well and are on the Do and Do Nots list, better people than you have tried to fix them, but there's a reason we have three types of firearms in this game with increasing damage (5, 10 and 15) and decreasing capacity (6, 2 and 1). We call this reason balance.

You are misunderstanding what we're saying about mall-centric play and diluted search rates. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 07:21, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Then instead of having it every 100 shots, every time the weapon is reloaded, we make it necessary to clean it out. Every 20 (or 10) shots, the person must not only spend 4 (or 3) AP reloading, but must also spend an additional 3 (or whatever) AP to clean out the weapon to keep it in use. Instead of saying "That'll increase lag," try to come up with something that won't, but maintains some balance.

The Flare is an improvised weapon, not a true firearm. The point of the rifle is to try to create a balanced (true) third firearm. It's got better capacity than a pistol, but it's not as damaging as a shotgun. Reloading takes more AP than the others to compensate for its advantages, and it's increased weight also acts to try to balance it. If it's not balanced at the original proposal, then suggest improvements - calling for the idea to be scrapped isn't an improvement.

It wouldn't dilute the search rates. It would simply mean that if your normal search with 20 AP would yield 2 pistols, two pistol clips, and a shotgun, your new search with 20 AP would yield all of that PLUS a Rifle and rifle ammo. Instead of the search returning to say "You found nothing" you'd get a message that 'you found one of the two new items.' That increase would only take place in PDs and Forts, while the malls would have the original find rate. Maybe I am misunderstanding your meaning about the malls. I'm in an area without a mall, so mall play has never entered my considerations. Give me some input on what effects it would have on the malls so I can try to adjust my thinking. --Franklin Castle 07:35, 29 May 2009 (BST)

The flare may not be a real firearm to RL trenchies, but in this game it runs off the firearms skill, ergo firearm. I don't have to suggest how to fix it, it can't be fixed for the reasons everyone has already stated. The fact that you aren't grasping basic concepts and are under some fairly large misconceptions about things such as Fort conditions might make you want to reconsider suggesting stuff until you have this grounding in the game. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 07:48, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Let's reset the parameters, then.

Instead of being a 20 shot, 8 damage, etc. weapon, make it 5 shots of 8 damage. It is between the pistol and the shotgun in terms of damage per shot. Ammo count is more than a shotgun, but less than the pistol. It weighs more than the others, as well (10% encumbrance). It takes more AP to reload than the others. Reloading a pistol takes 1 AP and gives 6 attacks (15% cost). Reloading a shotgun takes 1 AP per attack (50% cost). Reloading the rifle would take 5 AP and give 5 attacks (50% cost). A pistol's max damage from a full load is 30. A shotgun's is 20. The rifle would be 40. 1 kill with the pistol would cost 27 AP. 1 kill with the shotgun would cost 22 AP. 1 kill with the rifle would cost 25 AP (10 AP to reload the rifle twice and 15 AP to kill). (All calculated as against 60HP + Flak)

Name	Dmg	Dmg w/ Flak Jacket	Enc	Acc	Acc+1	Acc+2	Acc+3	Ammo	Notes
Pistol	5	4	4%	5%	30%	55%	65%	6 Bullets	Gun can be reloaded with one clip
Rifle	8	6	10%	5%	30%	55%	65%	5 Rounds	Gun can be reloaded with one S. clip
Shotgun	10	8	6%	5%	30%	55%	65%	2 Shells	Gun can be reloaded with two shells.
Flare Gun	15	12	2%	2.5%	15%			1 Flare	After used, gun is discarded. Double damage if the target is fuel-soaked.

Rifle and S. clip would be found in Forts, PDs, and maybe supply crates. Rifles at 3% in Armories and 2% in PDs. S. clips would be found in Forts and PDs at rates of 7% and 6%.

Now, what are the balance problems if we use those parameters?

Also, does anyone mind if I rewrite the suggestion and delete this discussion thread with the updated proposal? --Franklin Castle 08:40, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Probably best to rewrite it and put it above with a note clearly explaining that it is a reworking, leave this here so people can refer to it if they want to. --Honestmistake 11:36, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Crowd Feeding (Bites Work Better With Support)

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 15:33, 27 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Here's a suggestion to make a crowd of zombies more terrifying than the sum of its parts. I suggest adding a skill that provides a 10% accuracy increase to bite attacks, but only when there are many other zombies around that make it harder for your target to evade you. The accuracy increase would come under either of these two conditions: There are at least ten zombies present including you and survivors do not outnumber zombies There are at least twenty zombies present including you, regardless of survivor numbers This would make combat more interesting also, since it would give zombies an incentive to switch between the now slightly better bite and hand attacks to use tangling grasp.

Discussion (Crowd Feeding)

As mentioned in one of the suggestion advice pages, bites don't really need any more buffing. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 16:12, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Good god no. If anything, you should be weakening the bite percentage. I've found many times that my feral could break into buildings and infect up to 10 survivors before APing out, why make that better when there are 10+ zombies there with you? I wouldn't be as against this if it added 1 damage instead of 10% though. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:55, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Why? Why would a zombie get a bonus just because other zombies are prsent? In actuallity, as DDR said you'd more likely get a penalty. Think about it from standard zombie genre. Zombies are a mass of INDIVIDUALS. The only reason zombies attack a living person in groups is because they are ALL trying to eat him at the same time, not because of a coordinated effort. Granted that doesn't apply as well to UD zombies (they aren't really "standard genre") but they are still bound (somewhat) by the genre.--Pesatyel 02:26, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Zombie Items

Timestamp:	Necrofeelinya 05:18, 26 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Zombie toys
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	A heavily modified version of Kamikazie-Bunny's Ravage Corpse idea. Feed On Corpse now would provide more than just HP to zombies, it would also serve as a search which could reveal a selection of organs to serve as items in a zombie's inventory. The items would be as follows in order of rarity, with most rare at the top: Brain - When eaten, you gain 5 HP and your next 5 successful attacks gain double XP. Also, gain Memories of Life for the next 5 moves. No added bonus for multiple brains eaten. These would be rare, but valuable since they are the focus of the zombie's obsession. Heart - When eaten, gain 5 HP, -1 damage modifier to attacks against you for the next hour. No added bonus for multiple hearts eaten. Bone - When used, your next 5 attack attempts w/hands get a +1 damage modifier, bone is then auto-dropped. Liver- When eaten, gain 3 HP and the Infection ability for the next 5 moves. Lung - When eaten, gain 4 HP and the Feeding Groan ability for the next 5 moves. Eye - When eaten, gain 1 HP and for the next 5 moves gain the Scent Blood skill and ability to recognize NT buildings. Spleen - When eaten, gain 1 HP and the Death Rattle ability for the next 5 moves. I assume Kevan would choose a specific encumbrance and search % for each of these, so I haven't suggested anything exact for that. Zombie items would only be found on non-reviving corpses, of course. This way, the zombie has good reason to want these in its inventory, and zombies become more fun to play for those who tire of just 'cade bashing. And of course, since AP has to be spent searching for these things, the benefits are offset by the time spent looking for them, like with firearm ammo for survivors. The zombie FAK and defense aspects aren't that big of a deal, except for those who want to avoid being killed while using Scent Trail so they don't lose the scent of their attackers, but because of the way Scent Trail works they're still relevant. And an "all organs" option could be added to the Drop Item dropdown menu for revives, or they could just fling the body parts at others for no damage. It would give zombies a zombie-relevant inventory and add interest. And baby zombahs get the opportunity for temporary high-level skills by finding items, adding to their playability.

Discussion (Zombie Items)

I changed the effect of "Eye" because the binocular effect was a little far out, and I toned down the effect of "Brain", which may have been too strong, while adding an effect that would benefit baby zombahs. I didn't want to get over complicated with "Bone" by adding meat to it, so we're left with what's above. I figure the best part of it is the usefulness for less experienced zombies... most older zombies will see most of these items as just light FAKs, but younger zombies could get real use out of them. Sorry about swiping your idea, Kamikazie-Bunny, but I also wanted to shift it away from the notion of destroying a corpse and just incorporate it into the whole "Feed On Corpse" concept. I've deliberately left the notion of how characters might throw organs at each other after revives vague... I figure that would make a separate suggestion if this were to get implemented, or Kevan would implement it however he wants with this. I did a couple of quick searches for Dupes, and didn't find them, which surprised me. So let's see if this thing bucks the trend and gets a positive response. Whaddya think?--Necrofeelinya 05:18, 26 May 2009 (BST)

I like the idea, but I haven't played a determined zombah. So while I think it sounds fun and even interesting for low-level zombies, I want to hear what some more career-zombie players have to say. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:28, 26 May 2009 (BST)

Other then the "FAK" proprties associated with the body parts, older zombies would not really bother with any of them. They already have all the abilities listed, effectively.--Pesatyel 03:12, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Except for Brain, Heart and Bone, which all provide benefits for older zombies, although maxed zombies would probably be most interested in Bone, maybe Heart. Also, the FAK value shouldn't be underestimated. It's possible that zombies could benefit from healing to keep Scent Trail functional. You lose a harman's trail if you or the harman are killed, so avoiding death can sometimes be extremely important to zombies, if rarely.--Necrofeelinya 08:06, 27 May 2009 (BST)

I wasn't underestimating the FAK value. That's the ONLY "good" thing about this suggestion for older zombies. Older zombies don't need the "brain" benefits. If they aren't already maxed, they can acquire XP much eaiser then newbies who do need it so that's canceled. How does "bone" confer a bonus? Is it a melee weapon? And "heart" is way overpowered.--Pesatyel 02:21, 28 May 2009 (BST)

I think the fact that older zombies won't get as much use out of this to be a plus. They get to actively choose whether to pursue these items or not. It may not be in their interests, depending on the % chance of finding something useful. Maxed zombies are already powerful, baby zombahs need help. Bone confers a bonus by added damage if you successfully hit with one or more of your next 5 attacks. When you choose to utilize it by pressing the button in your inventory, it modifies a hand attack with +1 damage for the next 5 attempted attacks. If you miss all those, you get nothing. Heart only confers a -1 damage modifier for 1 hour, so I don't consider that overpowered. It isn't cumulative with additional hearts. It's far less powerful than a flak jacket. It won't save a zombie from a determined effort to kill it, even with a standard 50 AP.--Necrofeelinya 07:50, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Your not listening. HOW does the bone "confer a +1 to damage"? Magic? Just saying it grants a bonus doesn't mean realism is irrelevant. And, yes, the heart is overpowered. Flesh Rot and flak jackets have restrictions, this does not. A -1 damage against ALL attacks? That's pretty powerful. And an hour is a long time considering that all the other effects are limited to "the next 5 actions". And how DOES it interact with flak? Does it mean that a pistol only does 3 damage? EVERY zombie would be "powering up" at the beginning of any attack (especially if a concerted effort).--Pesatyel 03:51, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Two questions, how will noob zombies (who is the only target audience of this suggestion, really) going to know the difference between a dead and non-revivifying body? Also, what happens to these items when a survivor tries to 'eat' them? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:44, 27 May 2009 (BST)

I believe the game already accommodates discerning between dead and non-revivifying bodies. Don't you get a message when trying to feed on a revivifying corpse saying that it burns your mouth and you spit it out? At least I believe that's what it says elsewhere in the Wiki. And survivors wouldn't have the option of eating them. Just drop or throw, unless you want to add a suggestion where things get really gross, and which I would support wholeheartedly, of course.--Necrofeelinya 08:02, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Interesting. But I wonder how does the encumberance would work on these body parts...--Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 23:53, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Like I said, I figure Kevan will determine encumbrance as for normal items. I didn't want to set a specific number knowing he'd just choose his own anyway. But organs would be just like other items as far as encumbrance is concerned... they'd have a percentage, and you could only carry so many. If your zombie was already encumbered to the max, it couldn't pick up organs. It'd have to drop something.--Necrofeelinya 07:50, 28 May 2009 (BST)

I'm of the view that the MORE information you put into a suggestion the better it is "received" by Kevan. Whether or not he chooses to change the numbers is irrelevant. Without the information, you will be getting lots of "incompletes"....if you put this up for voting.--Pesatyel 03:51, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Older zombies aren't going to bother with this, they already have these skill effects, except for the NT identification (why is it they get this through eating bits of harmans that may not even have NT Employment?). Newbie zombies aren't going to take this because Digestion is one of the last two trees normally taken by zombies, claws or movement first, the other of that choice second. Rot might come as a third tree if CRs are a problem in that area (and they are, even if you're stood on a street) or Memories. The Scent tree is more attractive that the Digestion tree. The Digestion tree is only not going to be the final tree on those characters wanting to play the other side at some point, death cultists or dual natured players, Rot is more useful to actual zombie players and is bought accordingly.

Newbies aren't going to use it, older zombies have better things to do, what's the point? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:05, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Newbies may choose Digestion earlier because of this, much as zombies that previously avoided Brain Rot at all costs now choose it to get to Flesh Rot. I think Digestion is much more appealing than Rot anyway. What's a zombie without the ability to infect others? Right now newbies waste time on 'cades (usually missing), XP farm each other (dull and uninspiring), or chase hordes in the hope that someone drags a harman into the street to feed them (also not the biggest thrill). They could be empowering themselves with organ meat and gaining limited access to skills that otherwise would take forever for them to obtain. Older zombies can use the bonuses of Heart and Bone, they apply to everyone. NT identification as a feature of eye consumption implies temporarily improved perception... maybe they notice a sign zombies wouldn't normally notice. And honestly, I've never cared to get Rot. Just get bodybuilding and a flak jacket as a human. If someone CRs you, PK them. Not that the merits of Rot really matter to this discussion anyway.--Necrofeelinya 19:11, 28 May 2009 (BST)

What to take apart first? You are never going to pick Digestion before claws and movement, and you'll need Memories if you're going to be a feral. The wasted AP to get the items will be.... wasted in a half decent strike team or horde environment. As a feral I'd much rather have the scent skills to score kills for more XP rather than spend time on this picking up and using body parts malarkey.

The idea that newbies waste AP on cades is fallacious, all zombies must take down cades at some point and it takes a single skill (on top of VM) for a newbie to be just as effective at taking down cades as a fully levelled zombie. Any strike leader worth their title has newbies throw into the cades after a single skill in order to free up AP for the rest of the team to feed the newbie. Zombies more efficiently level and attack in a horde, but this idea doesn't fix it for ferals. It just forces them to by a substandard skill that doesn't help them level anywhere close to the standard way.

The point about zombie should be able to infect people is all well and good in fiction, where they get that skill from the outset, but they also get the useful skills in fiction like AG and BR from the start as well. Unfortunately in the game the ability to infect people costs 200XP and gives no return on increased hit or damage. It means that there is no decrease in the time between levels or the frustration in playing the game in that low levelled turgid manner.

This is a discussion about the merits of BR over Digestion, as it's a debate over how useful any skill tree is, and Digestion is simply the most pointless.

As for increased perception through eating eyes, go to your local fishmonger and butcher today and test something for me. Buy some fish eyes and some cow eyes and then eat them raw. Then look about and see if you can spot water and grass respectively more effectively. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 06:20, 29 May 2009 (BST)

I prioritise Digest&Infect over claws all the time, every zombie I've had feeds on the dead and digestion is a big part of that. From a purely numerical view point D&I is fairly pointless but most people are playing the game for fun, they're not 'trying to "win" at at the apocalypse'. Granted there is a small portion of people who play to win (they appear to be doing well...), read guides and adhere to them to become the 'best' player but I think it's safer to say more people use them as guides and play their own way and learn whilst having fun even if it's not ideal. We have Trenchies and Spammers shooting stuff and broadcasting pointless/entertaining messages all the time, I enjoy biting survivors, you appear to enjoy criticizing suggestions. It may be pointless but we enjoy it. --Kamikazie-Bunny 23:39, 30 May 2009 (BST)

I like the idea of zombies finding parts on their victims but if zombies have items they can use you get numerous problems:

Zombies will now have to see their inventory in the main view (I have no problems with this but I bet some ass does),
How to identify what is a zombie/survivor item (separate inventories with shared encumbrance/colour coding/trial and failure),
I'm sure some one out there will bring back the whole 'Hel' argument (of which we'll see 'Hel' everywhere cause people want to sound smart using it) of zombies doing something a survivor can (searching/using inventory).
Balancing of zombie items in the game, they we're designed not to need items so any items giving bonuses have to be very carefully balanced,
And I just know some shit stirrer is thinking about the "Future impact on the wiki" argument where they use the fact that because zombies will now have items people will suggest items for zombies which will undoubtedly be spam and spoil their prettywiki.

Solve those middle 3 problems and I'll be happy with it. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:57, 30 May 2009 (BST)

Ravage Corpse

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 22:33, 24 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Fun
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Zombies across the city have been spotted tearing up corpses in a most savage manner. A Ravage corpse button is now available to zombies when in the presence of dead bodies. When clicked, it gives the message You ravage the corpse. This costs 1 AP, the corpse can no longer be fed upon/ravaged and there is a 5% chance that the zombie will 'find' one of the following items. Bone Brain Eye Heart Liver Lung Spleen These items have no in game effect and they each have 2% encumbrance. They only act as collectables.

Discussion (Ravage Corpse)

Feel free to suggest any additional organs/body parts (non-gender specific parts only). --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:33, 24 May 2009 (BST)

Why, oh why, do trenchies not think before they suggest zombie improvements?

Zombies cannot see their inventory, so what's the point in collecting something if you can't see what you've collected? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:39, 24 May 2009 (BST)

Obviously this implies a method of seeing said items would also be implemented. Go be stupid elsewhere. -- C h e e s e 00:09, 25 May 2009 (BST)

No, it doesn't imply that at all. And someone telling me to take my "stupid" elsewhere when your last two suggestions were duped? Shows the fucking consideration you have for this system, Kevan's time and the time of every user that voted on your suggestion all because you couldn't be bothered to check the fucking archives. You are the biggest argument in removing the sysop spam clause. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:34, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Sorry, wrong again. Only one of my last two suggestions was duped and I only have two duped suggestions in total out of about 26-27 total suggestions giving making only 7.69% of my suggestions dupes. Your inability to check basic facts is precisely the reason why most of the wiki thinks you to be an arrogant dick with nothing better to do with his time than pick fights for absolutely no discernible reason other than to seek attention and continue in his misguided view that he's actually doing good for the community. -- C h e e s e 10:35, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Two in total? Are you sure? Now you're either deliberately lying to this community, failing to count to three or there's someone using your signature. Should I begin this hunt for the despicable villain who is besmirching your name? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 11:22, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Zombies CAN see their inventory items, if you click on the drop down list for dropping items you can see all your items. If you could interact with them then they would have to appear in the main view, but since you don't there is no need for them to appear there. The only time they would appear in the main view is when your revived and clicking them would do nothing (except maybe waste an IP hit). --Kamikazie-Bunny 00:42, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Open your page when you're alive and touch nothing, can you see your inventory? Do the same when dead. Because otherwise we'll be putting up with a dozen fucking questions here going "I picked up and eyeball today but can't see it, is this a bug?" and for each one of them there could be someone who doesn't use the wiki and thinks the game is fundamentally broken and leaves because of it. Well done. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:34, 25 May 2009 (BST)

The ones who come here and use the wiki will find this out by reading the wiki, it is here as a source of information. I fail to see the problem of someone coming here with a question and getting an answer related to UD. The ones who don't won't be bothering you. Having said that, if it's so much of an issue for you would you be happy if zombies could see their inventory? Obviously clicking something would waste AP/IP hits, but there is a big disclaimer saying "As a zombie, you are unable to use the objects you are carrying." which can be left in place or can you find something fundamentally wrong with this? --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:58, 25 May 2009 (BST)

"OMGWTF I CANT SEE MY EYEBALLS!! That's it, I'm quitting this game!" Seriously? As usual, your overreaction is completely ridiculous. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:18, 26 May 2009 (BST)

So this has less effect than Feed On Corpse, is entirely flavor, uses an AP, and uses some encumbrance, forcing the player to drop all their moist organ bits when revived to be able to pick up ammo? You can't even fling the body parts at people when you're revived? Hmmm... maybe not. I think I'd prefer a "Violate Corpse" option anyway... not as flamboyant, but more humiliating and embarrassing for your victim. Nice try, though. : )--Necrofeelinya 03:50, 25 May 2009 (BST)

How does this benefit anyone? MAYBE if you use it and you don't know what you picked up so that if/when you get revived, you get to see what you picked up. I bet this would get pretty boring after awhile. Maybe if you could throw them at someone or others could see that you have them or something.--Pesatyel 04:32, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Just as an idea of how to salvage this, why not make the items useful? Here are some ideas of how:

Bone - Your next 5 attack attempts w/hands get a +1 damage modifier, bone is then auto-dropped.
Brain - When eaten, you gain 10 HP and your next 5 successful attacks gain triple XP. No added bonus for multiple brains eaten.
Eye - When eaten, gain 1 HP and "Eagle Eye" option for 3 moves which works like binoculars. Must be in tall building to get binocular effect.
Heart - When eaten, gain 5 HP, -1 damage modifier to attacks against you for the next hour. No added bonus for multiple hearts eaten.
Liver- When eaten, gain 3 HP and the Infection ability for the next 5 moves.
Lung - When eaten, gain 4 HP and the Feeding Groan ability for the next 5 moves.
Spleen - When eaten, gain 1 HP and the Death Rattle ability for the next 5 moves.

This way, the zombie has good reason to want these in its inventory, and zombies become more fun to play for those who tire of just 'cade bashing. And of course, since AP has to be spent searching for these things, the benefits are offset by the time spent looking for them, like with firearm ammo for survivors. The zombie FAK and defense aspects aren't that big of a deal, except for those who want to avoid being killed while using Scent Trail so they don't lose the scent of their attackers, but because of the way Scent Trail works they're still relevant. And an "all organs" option could be added to the Drop Item dropdown menu for revives, or they could just fling the body parts at others for no damage. It would give zombies a zombie-relevant inventory and add interest. And baby zombahs get the opportunity for temporary high-level skills by finding items, adding to their playability.--Necrofeelinya 05:05, 25 May 2009 (BST)

I actually quite like that. The Brain one might be a little overpowered but the rest look pretty good to me. I'd change the bone slightly so that it starts as a limb then you can eat the flesh on it and gain a couple of HP and then get the bone bonus (just because it makes a bit more sense and gives all of them a healing effect). -- C h e e s e 10:57, 25 May 2009 (BST)

I like it... Hard to admit, but it just sounds quite fun. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:59, 25 May 2009 (BST)

As an added bonus to the mostly useless eating of corpses this might be a bit of extra fun. I would strongly prefer it to be limited to just "you feast on tasty brains" and "you devour still warm insides" though as Revive syringes regrowing whole limbs seems a bit OTT and the rest is needless complication ... Oh and the eyeball one seems too like magic for my liking. --Honestmistake 11:46, 25 May 2009 (BST)

The zombie 'finds' the body parts to avoid the whole 'I pulled his eye out but he can see just fine' argument, by finding the part it implies it comes of the victim but it could of just as easily been next to the body therefore giving no penalty to the corpse. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:06, 25 May 2009 (BST)

I don't think you need to worry about that argument. Nothing should be standing under that logic. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 20:09, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Interesting idea. Perhaps a Holding: a spleen and a brain or something like that, in the profile. I'm not fond of this being a no-skill/everyone has it type of ability or a separate, buyable skill since it only gives flavour. It could be worked into another skill (like eating corpses)? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 20:09, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Dupe of Size Up et al, showing certain items in the wearing description. Thanks for playing. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 06:49, 29 May 2009 (BST)

C'mon, size up displays the inventory, not a single item of choice they are 'holding'. You should remember this, you duped me for suggesting it and it kicked off because the 'dupe' was under clothing and mine was under suggestions... You're slipping scari.--Kamikazie-Bunny 22:37, 30 May 2009 (BST)

No Syringe Manufacture in Ruined NTs

Timestamp:	Kolechovski 21:56, 19 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	balance change
Scope:	ruined NTs
Description:	I noticed something from the suggestion NT Ruins Ruin Rotter Revives (try saying that 10 times fast), found here, http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20090409_NT_Ruins_Ruin_Rotter_Revives, that would support this mechanic. The CRing makes sense, because you are connecting to an outside source for the ability (NecroNet). But with Syringe Manufacture, that should require the ability of the lab equipment to do, so having ruined equipment should make it impossible to manufacture syringes. A few supporting mechanics… Zombies sweep lab equipment onto the floor. Afterward, you go inside…You are inside a ruined NT Building. The NecroTech logo is set in the wall behind the front desk, and doors open onto powered-down computer rooms and laboratories. The laboratories have been ruined, with broken equipment smashed to the floor.

Discussion (No Syringe Manufacture in Ruined NTs)

Your probably going to get the same "against" arguments that one did as well. People don't really make syringes, not when finding them is much more efficient.--Pesatyel 02:43, 20 May 2009 (BST)

Not in a ruined NT. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:20, 20 May 2009 (BST)

Sure, but it doesn't really take THAT much to do repairs, especially since NTs are so hotly contested, I don't think they stay ruined for very long. Besides, as Honestmistake said, this more fixes a seeming loophole then a nerf. I was just pointing out that people will bitch and whine.--Pesatyel 02:55, 21 May 2009 (BST)

To the contrary, the more contested a ruined NT is, the harder it is going to be to do repairs. Keep in mind to make syringes more efficient to search for rather than manufacture, you'd need to repair the NT (for whatever AP cost), barricade it, gen and fuel it. That could take 3 people to do that and not have any AP left over, and that's not counting the clearing of the zombies that might be inside. And to think that after all that, the players won't have the AP left over to search for the syringes, so then the 24 hour wait begins before they can give that a go. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:04, 21 May 2009 (BST)

It never even occurred to me that you could manufacture inside ruined NT's, I would think this to be a pretty obvious modification to remove a loophole rather than a survivor de-buff. --Honestmistake 08:16, 20 May 2009 (BST)

I'm all for it, for the same reason as Honest said above. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 20:58, 24 May 2009 (BST)

This could easily be solved by asking on Kevan's page if this intentional or an overlooked code feature. If it's intentional you'll need a suggestion to resolve it (although the flavour, I'm guessing on the degradation of state of the art infrastructure, would probably mean the removal of CRs in ruined NTs as well) however if it's a overlooked feature it should get removed quickly without the need for a suggestion, much like the genny glitch on first day of dark buildings. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:02, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Military Frequency List

Timestamp:	Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 19:56, 19 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Flavour improvement
Scope:	Anyone
Description:	Ramping up those other military frequencies, for more spam free broadcasts. 25.90 Fort Overview. Broadcast once daily, alternating daily between each fort, just like a suburb report, but fort only. 25.91 Consumer Watch, random daily update on the state of a mall. 25.92 Devastation Report- Random daily report on building/s with over 100ap repair cost 25.93 Zombie Tracking. Hourly report on location of block with most standing zombies in malton. 25.94 Phone mast report. Daily report on the staus of 5 mobile phone mast buildings. 25.95 Malton Overview. Daily broadcast, highlighting any change in the zombie survivor ratio, plus random information on a non mall multiblock structure

Discussion (Military Frequence Use)

I'm now waiting for those dupe to roll in.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 19:56, 19 May 2009 (BST)

Even if there is a dupe, I dig the idea. Problem I see is [an odd one] giving the location of the block with most zombies in it. An odd problem, but the only thing I really see wrong. Seems a bit unnecessary. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 02:23, 20 May 2009 (BST)

I also think it's a great idea, and I also agree that the zombie channel seems kind of rough. What about the suburb with the most zombies in it? Or maybe even the one with the fewest? Alternate between the two, like with forts?

Also, since many people don't know the names of the mast buildings, maybe make the 5 buildings that it gives be the masts for the five suburbs in a random district? Gives you a better idea of the general area. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:03, 24 May 2009 (BST)

Would this be hard for kevan to do? I got no idea...but it's a fucking awesome idea. Rooster could make some tasty thingys and maps and that to give NPOV statuses...--x o x o 09:04, 22 May 2009 (BST)

It wouldn't be hard for Kevan to do, the coding should be similar to the EMRBs, the problem with this is the 'free lunch', at the moment the status require actual scouting by players, the expenditure of AP by players and then the effort to update the wiki. Automatically doing this reduces the atmosphere of uncertainty as to where the danger is in the game, conversely where the food is. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:51, 25 May 2009 (BST)

I know this is my suggestion but i agree with iscariot. At least in part. I feel only a couple of these are really viable and the information must be sketchier than actual scouting. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:04, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Make it a skill to tune in? As the dead walk 21:30, 3 June 2009 (BST)

How about special radio channel where you can't type text? Click on a button that says, "Transmit condition." It tells the status of the generator, transmitter, barricades, mobile mast (if ther is one) and zombies (if present) in your building.

Drunkeness

Timestamp:	Brainguard 00:37, 4 June 2009 (BST)
Type:	Item change
Scope:	Beer and Wine
Description:	Alcoholic beverages should make the player take half as much damage during their Drunkeness. However, all actions during that time cost twice as many AP, and accuracy is halved. The Drunkeness immediately ends when 90 minutes of real time pass or 5 actions are taken

Discussion (Suggestion Name)

Suggestions up for voting

Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

Further Discussion

Please Read Before Posting

How To Make a Suggestion

Format for Suggestions under development

Cycling Suggestions

Suggestions

Infected Slash

Discussion (Infected Slash)

Melee Weapon Breakage V1.2

Discussion (Melee Weapon Breakage V1.2)

Zombies can no longer read

Discussion (Zombies can no longer read)

Zombies can rip off clothes

Discussion (Zombies can rip off clothes)

New Skill "Rapid Infection"

Discussion (New Skill "Rapid Infection")

Answering Machine

Discussion (Answering Machine)

Shout

Discussion (Shout)

Melee Weapon Breakage

Discussion (Melee Weapon Breakage)

Sleep visibility

Discussion (Sleep Visibility)

Headshot variation #1

Discussion (Headshot variation #1)

Headshot variation #2

Discussion (Headshot variation #2)

Gameplay Change

Discussion (Gameplay Change)

Installable bulletin board.

Discussion (Suggestion Name)

New Flavor Text- Gunsmoke

Discussion (Gunsmoke)

Boost Contacts Limit for Donors

Discussion (Boost Contacts Limit for Donors)

New Survivor Weapon - Rifle (Revised)

Discussion (Rifle Revised)

"New Skill"

Discussion "New Skill"

Anatomy Skill

Discussion (Anatomy Skill)

New Survivor Weapon - Rifle

Discussion (Rifle)

Crowd Feeding (Bites Work Better With Support)

Discussion (Crowd Feeding)

Zombie Items

Discussion (Zombie Items)

Ravage Corpse

Discussion (Ravage Corpse)

No Syringe Manufacture in Ruined NTs

Discussion (No Syringe Manufacture in Ruined NTs)

Military Frequency List

Discussion (Military Frequence Use)

Drunkeness

Discussion (Suggestion Name)

Suggestions up for voting

Navigation menu

Search