Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

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

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Further Discussion

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

Please Read Before Posting

• Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. You can read about many ideas that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe: a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles.
• Users should be aware that page is discussion oriented. Other users are free to express their own point of view and are not required to be neutral.
• If you decide not to take your suggestion to voting, please remove it from this page to avoid clutter.
• It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.
• After new game updates, users are requested to allow time for the game and community to adjust to these changes before suggesting alterations.

How To Make a Suggestion

Adding a New Suggestion

• Copy the code in the box below.
• Click here to begin editing. This is the same as clicking the [edit] link to the right of the Suggestions header.

• Paste the copied text above the other suggestions, right under the heading.
• Substitute the text in RED CAPITALS with the details of your suggestion.

{{subst:DevelopingSuggestion
|time=~~~~
|name=SUGGESTION NAME
|type=TYPE HERE
|scope=SCOPE HERE
|description=DESCRIPTION HERE
}}

• Name - Give the suggestion a short but descriptive name.
• Type is the nature of the suggestion, such as a new class, skill change, balance change, etc. Basically: What is it? and Is it new, or a change?
• Scope is who or what the suggestion affects. Typically survivors or zombies (or both), but occasionally Malton, the game interface or something else.
• Description should be a full explanation of your suggestion. Include information like flavor text, search odds, hit percentages, etc, as appropriate. Unless you are as yet unsure of the exact details behind the suggestion, try not to leave out anything important. Check your spelling and grammar.

Cycling Suggestions

• Suggestions with no new discussion in the past two days should be given a warning notice. This can be done by adding {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section, where date is the day the suggestion will be removed.
• Suggestions with no new discussion in the past week may be removed.
• If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the warning template please remove the {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section to show that there is still ongoing discussion.

This page is prone to breaking when the page gets too long, so sometimes suggestions still under discussion will be moved to the Overflow page, so the discussion can continue.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list

---

Suggestions

Infection resistance

Timestamp: Winman1 17:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: skill

Scope: survivors and zombies

Description: There is a new zombie hunter skill called "resistance" thats can be bought for 100xp. When you aquire this skill zombies with Infectious Bite must sucessfully bite you 3 times to give you an infection. this would be very useful if you are attacked, have low hp, are infected, and want to run away without dieing.

Discussion (Infection resistance)

No.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Still no.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just god-awful. Did you even read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots? Do you even think before you post, or do you see DS as some sort of dumping ground for the abominable brain-abortions that you don't feel like taking care of your self? Most of your ideas would only take about thirty seconds (if that!) of serious consideration before their gaping flaws became evident; try to at least think about them for that long, okay? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 17:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

NO!

NO!

NO!

NO!

NO!

NO!

NO!

--Orange Talk 17:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

New skills are usually a bad idea because maxed-out characters with thousands of spare XP will get them immediately but newbie survivors will take time to earn them, meanwhile becoming more attractive targets. That seems to apply to this suggestion. Infection takes about 6-9AP to cure (depending how far the harmanz have to walk to find the replacement FAK and whether the building they get it from is lit.) So it's worthwhile for zombies to infect everyone in a building (assuming they're unable to ruin it) at present because it costs only 3.3AP to get the bite. 3 bites would cost 10AP making it not worthwhile against maxed-out characters, only against newbies. --Explodey 17:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Easily solved by always holding a first aid kit. My issue here is that it suggests all players play the game in a certain way. Infection is bad. You might die! Dying is part of the game. It happens. And a dead survivor can do things a living one cannot. Why should we make infection weaker? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Survivors do not need any more of a boost. If anything, infection should be made stronger. 19:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Infection needs a buff, not a nerf. Winman1, might I suggest no more zombie hunter skills? —Aichon— 21:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Or, better, how about, he actually PLAY as a zombie for a few levels.--Pesatyel 21:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

NO!!!! Oh my god, no. Do you know how many bites an infection takes to begin with? On average, it takes me personally about ten tries to get a successful infection!!! Do you really want to triple that to 30? The math doesn't work out, and it just nerfs an important zombie skill that is fine the way it is. --Chekken

Maybe if you had to manufacture special Resistance Needles (with the skill required to do so) for 20 AP. Cost 1 AP to inject yourself or another. And then, only 2 bites needed to infect. Can't be stacked. Would wear off after being Infected, requiring another needle to gain the benefits again. Even so, Survivors would probably just make hundreds of "Resistance Needle Manufacture" zergs and abuse the hell out of it. Maybe if Infection was incurable through a normal FAK, but required an "anti-infection" Needle to cure it.--

| T | BALLS! | 08:24 16 November 2009(BST)

Or maybe we just say "no thank you" -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:06 16 November 2009 (BST) 09:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And that intellectual fart gas grows thicker... --Papa Moloch 09:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Pipe buff

Timestamp: Explodey 13:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Barricade change

Scope: Barricades

Description: Reduce the chance of successfully starting to build new barricades using the "barricade" button, encouraging all survivors (including those with Construction) to block the doors with a pipe (with 100% success rate.) How it works: The probability of successfully barricading using the "barricade" button when there are no existing barricades is reduced from the current chance (undocumented but probably 99%) down to 25%10%. So the result of using the barricade button when there are no barricades present is (75%90% probability) "you push a <object> in front of the entrance, but fail to wedge it in place" (25%10% probability) "you begin to rebuild the barricades, using a <object>" (same as what happens with 99% probability under the current system.) However blocking the doors with a pipe works reliably, even if the building is ruined. Blocking with a pipe would not be immune to interference. Advantages: Makes pipes (and hence warehouses) more useful Adds an encumbrance cost to barricading (just as you need a toolbox for certain repair jobs, you will now need to carry some pipes to be an efficient barricader.) Slight real-time combat advantage to the zombies (as not all active breathers will be carrying pipes.) Adds realism (this is a problem when barricading in real life; Even if you can find a heavy object and a space to fit it in, it is not always easy to wedge it in place. This becomes easier if other objects are already wedged in place.) Increases the cost of barricade strafing. Notes: I have not experimented to see whether or not pipes are affected by ruins or interference at present. I assume they are. Pipe search rates probably wouldn't need a buff, but if they do then it would be at the expense of fuel cans in warehouses. I was wrong there - you would need a search rate of at least 1 in 10 to make searching for a pipe cheaper than repeatedly attempting to barricade. So increase pipes to half of all items in warehouses (1 in 8 or 1 in 10 overall.)

Discussion (Pipe buff)

NERF NERF NERF NERF NERF. 1 in 4 chance of barricading? You're insane!!!--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

So go find a pipe. It's not hard to find one, it's just that characters with construction haven't paid much attention to them. --Explodey 13:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You aren't asking me to find a pipe. You want me to find several, just so I can barricade buildings. It's unfair to ask survivors to carry an army of pipes as well as what they already have. This is a terrible suggestion.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are a revivification specialist you have to carry needles. If you are a repair specialist you have to carry a toolbox. If you are a zombie hunter you have to carry guns and ammo. If you are a healing specialist you have to carry FAKs. How is this different? --Explodey 13:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Because we don't want to tell people to play the game a certain way? You can't just say that people who have been reviving and cading, fighting and cading, or any combination, now can't because you like pipes. The fact of the matter is that you can't tell survivors they have to specialise. The point of the skills system is that everyone can do everything. Should we make it so that zombies can only attack cades or attack survivors? Or maybe subdivide it, so that they can either have bite or claw? No. This suggestion is totally unrealistic.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It's too late to mess with UD's skills system now, but if I were designing a game like UD today then yes I would put in a penalty for diversified skills. --Explodey 13:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then, by all means, make your own game. But this game is completely different, so don't force diversifying classes on to us.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And remember you only need one pipe per building. How often do you cade more than one or two buildings per day? --Explodey 13:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Frequently.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Every single day. Its the entire basis of cade strafing. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Another entry for the "advantages" list - thanks :-) --Explodey 14:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My god that page is terrible. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And why would you search warehouses? Factories are just as good. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to put the extra pipes in warehouses to turn them into TRPs, rather than in factories which are already TRPs. --Explodey 15:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer not to have to defend a whole new building just to be able to barricade.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a useless, idiotic nerf. As Younna said, if you want a different game, go make one; this isn't what UD is about. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand where this suggestion is coming from, but I think that it would just make barricading more frustrating than it needs to be. Trust me; it's pretty frustrating to begin with. Not to mention boring.--Chekken 16:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with the others on this one. It's an unnecessary nerf that just makes things more annoying. SIGNIFICANTLY more annoying, and not in any sort of fun way. —Aichon— 21:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you a pat on the back for attempting a bit of change (making other buildings/items more useful) but this is just bad. Maybe the pipe could be treated as an extra level of barricade or something, but making the first level of barricading THAT difficult is ridiculous. Also, there is a factor to Urban Dead that needs to taken into consideration. And that is the "story". Significant (as this would be) additions to the game have to follow the story, not just added willy nilly. Basically speaking, your saying survivors suddenly got too stupid to figure out how to start a barricade? They already have to buy a skill in order to DO that.--Pesatyel 21:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the floors just got more slippery with all the decaying flesh or something. It doesn't really matter. The "story" explanation for interference wasn't great either, but it made the game more fun so who cares? --Explodey 00:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I do actually like the idea of bringing down the barricade chances by a bit, but why not bring all the odds down by 1-5%? Lowest odds down by 1%, highest by 5%, sliding scale in between. Would help balance cading better, given that it takes 2-3x the AP to tear them down as it does to build them. 22:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Collapse Barricades II

Timestamp: -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:02 15 November 2009 (BST)

Type: Barricade change

Scope: Zombie Barricade Attacks

Description: If a building is ruined and unoccupied by survivors, there is a 30% chance that any successful attack upon the barricades by a zombie already inside, once it reach VS or below, will make the whole pile collapse, leaving only the doors secured (if that building has them). This in no way weaken barricades that people are hiding behind or meatshielding, only those that are abandoned. It's main use would be in mall (or other large) building sieges, where zombies break into one corner, and attack other corners from the open entry point. Once abandoned, the barricades can be pushed over from inside easier than breaking in as normal.

Discussion (Collapse Barricades II)

This seems to just be a Piñata nerf and nothing else. The condition for the attack to function (ruined and unoccupied by survivors) makes this unlikely to see much actual use in attacks on malls. Folks that already know what's up are going to be going to the opening that's actually there, and folks following feeding groans won't be directed to corners where this attack is at all possible. --Mold 09:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, something I hadn't considered. Bodies of survivors killed in the attack, that stand up inside a pinata. Any ideas about how to remove this loophole? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:15 15 November 2009 (BST)

The way I see it, if a building was ruined, it was unoccupied at some point, which is sufficient reason for the barricades to be faltering now (i.e. they don't have a structure to brace themselves against once they lose their own internal structure). It doesn't affect people hiding behind barricades, since zombies would still have to come through them (or else they're already inside...either way, it's the same as before), nor does it affect meatshielding, since zombies would still have to clear the survivors before they could ruin a building (and survivors have no reason to meatshield a ruined building). By the time a building is VSB, the building is no longer a good piñata anyway, since it's already enterable for survivors, so it's not a piñata nerf. I would, however, make this work for both zombies and survivors alike, just to be consistent. —Aichon— 09:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I've been hanging around Treweeke Mall for quite a while now, and I could have used this numerous times in the last month. Often I find myself meatshielding a ruined corner that is still barricaded, and come back and have to find an open corner, despite the mall still being completely ruined -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:18 15 November 2009 (BST)

What are you getting, visits from the barricade-smashing faerie? Weird situation, there, I'm not sure what's provoking that. As for killing the loophole... heh, maybe you could make it a child skill of Brain Rot. Tongue firmly in cheek but hey, it might work. --Mold 09:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, I like the child skill thought... will consider it more :)
Treweeke is a delicate balance. A small/medium core of zombies seem to hold the mall, and attack out to the surrounds (but retreat to the mall), while the survivors hold the suburb (more or less) and make occasional attacks (some successful, some not) on the mall, regularly barricading corners once cleared -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:46 15 November 2009 (BST)

Seems significantly overpowered.

• Benefits: A claw-maxed zombie is +5% to break a barricade while a Convert is +18% and a level 1 corpse is +13%. Not to mention only having to attack it half as many times (assuming an EHB barricade) as you normally would.
• Hinderances: Having to be alone (no survivors) in a ruined building.

Personally, I don't see the hinderances as being significant enough to compare to all the benefits.--Pesatyel 22:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of this suggestion is that there are no XP benefits to this suggestion (in fact it reduces the AP a zombie can achieve from simply knocking down each level of barricades separately). It is designed to be only useful to increase the benefits from zombies actually holding large buildings after they've already been cleared -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:00 16 November 2009 (BST)

---

Additional Suicide Method

Timestamp: Chekken 04:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: New action, New use for firearms

Scope: Survivors only

Description: If a dedicated zombie does not wish to be revived, they then must go through a great deal of trouble to kill themselves (or they could become a PKer, which actually works against survivors). This is a simple change that I am suggesting. My idea is that we should allow survivors who are either in a hopeless situation, or unwilling to be alive, to commit suicide using shotguns and pistols in addition to already being able to jump off of a tall building. In order to do this, the survivor needs at least one weapon with one shot or more remaining. There will be a button (much like being in a tall building) that says "suicide". When you press it, a message will appear saying "You are about to shoot yourself. If you do this, you will die and awaken as a zombie. Are you sure?" When you confirm, the message will say "You place the gun to your head and pull the trigger. Everything goes dark". "You go outside, place the gun to your head and pull the trigger. Everything goes dark". This will take one AP and one IP hit. You will suffer the ordinary penalties of dying as dictated by your current skills, plus a headshot (whether you have that skill or not). To the moral people out there who are saying "This promotez teh suicidez! Oh my gawd, we will haff moral debatez!"...no, we will not. Because you can jump off of buildings to begin with. Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody has gotten into any huge arguments about that recently. Therefore, my understanding is that if this were to be implemented, it would not be such a big deal. You could just as easily use the same argument to say "this game shouldn't have PKing in it because it promotes violence!" As well, to debate against those saying it could be used as a "trolling tool"...the penalties of doing this act without any zombie skills at all (note: trolls are usually level 1 to begin with) far outweighs the "high" that a troll may get from doing this.

Discussion (Additional Methods for Committing Suicide)

I like the concept, but this makes parachuting a lot easier. What's to stop a bunch of Death Cultists from running into a safe house, blowing their brains out, and eating everyone inside at much higher hit rates? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the text should instead read, "You leave the building, put the gun to your head and pull the trigger". Role-play wise, you probably would not have the courage to shoot yourself in a (sometimes crowded) room full of people. People would be trying to stop you, etc. and then the whole idea wouldn't work at all. You bring up a valid point. --Chekken 04:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I don't see any harm in it; however, a lot of people might say "just go find a tall building" and vote it down. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

65% to hit with pistols and shotguns versus 50% to hit with claws, 60% once you grab hold of them....clearly....much higher rates for zombies. Though i do understand what you are saying, a Death Cultist is revived with 1 pistol round and he pops it in his brain so he doesn't have to search for ammo. Maybe we apply it as say a Headshot, you point the gun at yourself and take a headshot (headshot skill not needed) this ups the amount of AP it would use up and levels it much more. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

05:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but keep in mind that this skill is designed for convenience. Zombies wish to remain dead; we should not punish them for this. I mean, we don't punish survivors for wanting to be alive :P OH MY GOD I FORGOT TO SIGN MY POST. *Explodes* --Chekken 05:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Bad Chekken. Do not do the ZOMG *asplode* thing. Ever.-- SA 05:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to be revived just get ROT! --Zaphord 05:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Because Rot isn't completely negated in the most important target for coordinated zombies to get into and attack or anything. --Mold 06:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but a Rot can be only revived in a NT, which the character can jump out of if they desire.--Zaphord 06:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

That was kind of a knee-jerk reaction from one too many discussions in which Brain Rot was slang for STFU zombies, you're not allowed to have an opinion on CRs, but you're right, in this particular case Brain Rot being useless in powered NTs is irrelevant. My mistake. --Mold 09:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

First, this is a dupe (I'll look for it later). Second, just HOW hard is it to NOT do anything and let a zombie kill you? And third, as pointed out, this is what brain rot is for. Considering how difficult it is to get Rotter Revive, they are easy to avoid. Don't stay in the NT. Hit the generator ASAP. Things like that. It is MUCH easier to die then to get revived. Your just not trying hard enough.--Pesatyel 07:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC) As for dupes, I found this.--Pesatyel 08:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Single AP deaths need to deposit the body outside, and we don't need another button for it, but rather make it part of the drop down list of targets for guns. Put "yourself" at the bottom of the list of valid targets -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:12 15 November 2009 (BST)

Agreed. If this suggestion is to go through, there shouldn't be a separate button, and the body must get dumped outside automatically. Headshots should be included, as applicable, of course, and you'd still need a warning to confirm the action. —Aichon— 09:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to discuss the purpose of the headshot suicide. Is it for realism, or is it simply to damage the player's AP (as in, the consequence of suicide)? As well, Boxy does have a point, but making "self" a drop-down target would encourage people to try to suggest ideas whereas this same drop-box suicide could be used with other weapons. At that point, this becomes too complicated of a suggestion. I like it, but I don't like it at the same time. And I realize this is a dupe (thank you, Pesatyel and Iscariot for pointing this out), but the way the other person went about suggesting this idea was absurd. I don't think he thought it through very much. I want to develop the idea further and work out all of the kinks before putting it through player-review. Maybe the drop-box idea isn't so bad after all...---Chekken 16:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Massive dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Advanced Foraging

Timestamp: Wsmith 01:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Skill

Scope: Survivors

Description: A 5,000 exp skill to add the ability to find rare items in ruined buildings. Some of the items I am considering adding with this skill include flashlights, batteries, (for seeing in dark buildings, improving accuracy) Hiding places (where you find a niche in the building you can Hide in, after buying a Hide skill for 5,000 exp points) Vaccinations (limited immunity to infection) Iron Rebar (for heavier cading) Light tool kits (no encumbrance from tools) All these items would be very very rare, and only available in ruined buildings, and the exp cost to buy the skill would be very very high. Personally, I think we need to add some very expensive experience skills to give people something to look forward too a year from now.

Discussion (Advanced Foraging)

Have you read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots? Rare=/=Balanced, multiply it by a billion. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

First, why can these items only be found in ruined buildings? What sense does it make? Second, and more importantly, no need to even wait a year, considering most leveled characters already have 5000 XP in the bank. Heck, there are even a few with 40K, 50K, and well beyond at this point. Personally speaking, I've been playing about two months, and my character with the lowest level has still managed to accrue about 2200 in that time, while my faster characters are more around 3000, and that's without ever really making an effort to level up quickly.

Essentially, you're talking about making an elite class of survivors once they reach a certain point, by giving them access to special items that no one else gets access to. While I do think it's a very cool idea, it simply wouldn't balance well at all with the way things are. As Lelouch pointed out, rare != balanced, and you needed to multiply it by a billion since it'll become overpowered in a hurry. —Aichon— 02:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

How would this work for zombies? Many of them clear 5K no problem, my newest one in a group has about 1K built up already and he barely kills anyone. This would not become balanced for zombies at all, we would need to get revived (hard to do with rot) and then go searching for some rare item, only to jump to our deaths or be killed again and never use it. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

05:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Beyond what was said above, ZOMBIES ARE PLAYERS TOO. Why should all the "super cool" stuff only go to survivors?--Pesatyel 07:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I buy a bulletproof head for 5,000 XP? Or complete immunity to the IP hit limit for 5,000 XP. Both once I've managed to rack up 10,000 XP. I could bullet sponge forever. --Mold 10:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about.--Pesatyel 22:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

He's giving other examples of getting game-breakingly powerful shit for 5000 EXP. WILL YOU KILL THIS HIDEOUS MISCARRIAGE OF AN IDEA NOW, SC? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm requesting (as a joke, but also an example) the ability to play ?rise all day, and get 47 successful rises out of it (entering with 1 AP, standing up for only 1 AP even if headshot, and never having to slow down because I won't hit the IP hit limit if I refresh too often). Imagine having to kill me 48 times -- that is, removing 2,880 hp through a flak jacket -- to eject me from a building. Imagine the dent I could put in building defenders' AP with that. --Mold 23:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As well as the points made above, it's also a multi-item & skill suggestion, since flashlights, vaccinations etc aren't in the game. Avoid multi suggestions. Garum 11:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok. No harm done. I was commenting on the fac that EVERY time one of these kinds of suggestions shows up, it is overly balanced towards survivors. I'm not saying the suggestion is good by ANY means, just that these survivor fanatics need to remember that zombies make the game fun.--Pesatyel 03:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

How convenient, a stupid suggestion with no zombie aspects to it. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Humorous (flashlights, vaccine, huge zombie nerf and also a newbie nerf for reasons explained by Aichon above.) --Explodey 13:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Inspiration

Timestamp: Winman1 02:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Skill

Scope: survivors

Description: There is a new zombie hunter skill called "inspiration" for 100xp. After getting you have the option to "inspire" 5 random survivor players for 15AP. Inspired players get +5% accuracy for all weapons for their next 50AP and are healed for 5 hp if they are injured. It would simply be useful in dire situations when, say zombies just broke in, everyone needs hp, and you need to kill the zombies to get yourself safe again.

Discussion (Inspiration)

No, just god damn no. Survivors do not need this kind of buff in any way, shape, or form. Do some fucking research and play the game from the other side to see why they don't need this buff.-- SA 02:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As above. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This idea is unnecessary and survivors really don't need this sort of help at all. Plus, what's the math for search rates on FAKs? This might actually be a more AP-efficient way to FAK people up, and it would certainly be less of a hassle. The extra accuracy idea is interesting, but doesn't really seem workable, nor does it make much sense (what did the person do to inspire them?). —Aichon— 03:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Zombie Hunters are, generally, maxed out (or quite high level) characters with nothing "better" to do, if you will, that a lot wouldn't have a problem "beefing up" other players. You just have 5 characters enter the room and get beefed up, then replace with a new 5, etc.--Pesatyel 03:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Where the fuck did this Winman1 idiot come from? Wherever it was, I wish he'd go back there and take his shitty fucking suggestions with him. --Papa Moloch 07:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up, Papa Moron.--

| T | BALLS! | 08:29 14 November 2009(BST)

Oh look, it appears that there's the prospect of a shit suggestions tag team. Nothing says 'retarded suggestion' quite like support from this cunt. --Papa Moloch 09:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Offer up something constructive, or shut the fuck up, bitch. No one needs to see your insecurity splashed all over in pathetic attempts to boost your ego by driving new people off.--

| T | BALLS! | 10:18 14 November 2009(BST)

Calling you a cunt is most definitely constructive, because every new player needs to know that you are a raging fuckwit whose example they most definitely should not follow. Further, slamming shit suggestions like these is also constructive, because when people like you and Winman insist upon slinging every half-arsed, pile of shit that you can think of onto this page it means that the rare good ideas that are posted here are far more likely to be missed or ignored in the fog of intellectual fart gas. And finally, accusations of insecurity and ego are pretty laughable, coming from a guy who makes constant references to other people's testicles or lack thereof. --Papa Moloch 11:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Immaterial and unrelated. Shut the fuck up and go to lunch. 2. Add something constructive to the suggestion at hand or shut the fuck up. Go to lunch. 3. It doesn't get more ball-less and cowardly than being an inturdnet bully such as yourself. Difference between you and me is that I only attack worthless cowards like yourself, while you prefer to attack newbies that won't be defended by your shitheel buddies. You are weak. Will you go to fucking lunch?--

| T | BALLS! | 16:20 14 November 2009(BST)

Too overpowered I think, Win. I like the concept, but maybe with a different mechanic.--

| T | BALLS! | 08:29 14 November 2009(BST)

How about, instead of this, you have perspiration? It costs 15AP to use, getting yourself all hot and bothered, and it gives 5 survivors in the area a -5% to all attacks for the next 50AP, because they're so disgusted by what they saw. They also lose 5HP in vomit. New Death Cultist skill.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardy fuckin har. Shut the fuck up, Yonnua.--

| T | BALLS! | 10:18 14 November 2009(BST)

So, for recommendingan inverse which helps zombies, who you yourself have called the weaker side, you tell me to shut up? Hmm.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop talking to both of them. We all know they'll die on their arse/get duped in the main system any way. Don't drag out the time until these sections can be cycled by adding to them. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Generator Installation Notice

Timestamp: 03:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: In-game warning notice

Scope: Survivors installing generators

Description: So we all know the deal with dark buildings. When unlit, they provide a halved accuracy rate for all attacks. It's great, especially in times of increased zombie activity, high PKer presence or group-on-group war. The only problem is, quite a lot of pro-survivor groups or individuals, either unaware or apathetic to the vital service these safehouses provide everyone, will install and fuel generators in every building they find, even the dark ones - where it does nothing positive, only negative. Basically the suggestion is this - when anyone clicks on the generator in their inventory to install it in a bank, club or cinema will recieve the following notice in-game: "You are attempting to install a generator in an otherwise dark building. Powering this building will negate the bonus effects of its darkness with no beneficial effects." Anyone who then wishes to install it anyway can do so by attempting to do so a second time. This will work exactly like the notice for jumping from a window, using no AP and taking one IP hit. Fort armouries will not be affected by this, as they actually have a function outside of being safehouses. And before someone says it, yes this will no doubt aid PKers. It will also aid any survivors who actually give two shits about staying alive, as shock horror, they gain the benefits too. 99.99% of PKers don't kill in dark buildings due to the waste of AP and ammo, all but the most all-consuming hordes skip past them for the same reasons, and since the clubs, cinemas and banks offer no tactical resources, this does not hurt the survivor side at all. In fact, it would help cut down on the much-maligned GKing. Also I wouldn't be surprised if his was suggested before, but a cursory search turned up nothing.

Discussion (Generator Installation Notice)

I don't like this. Searching for a generator takes a lot of AP. Anyone trying to install it probably has a good reason. They might just be a bounty hunter planning to kill your PKer who's hiding in there. Or they might want to use it to power a radio. Or to barricade. --Explodey 05:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Or to repair a free running lane, or to act as a decoy, or to do any number of other things. Completely agree. I don't install gennies in dark buildings often, but I've had reason to in the past, and I'm sure I will again in the future, and a simple warning is unnecessary since I think most people know what they're doing when they spend that much AP to locate a genny and fuel. —Aichon— 05:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you'd be surprised. I lead a pro-survivor group out in Gibsonton, and the number of times I've had people get that "Oh, never knew" moment when I explained the benefits of dark banks is beyond numbering now. If it's for something actually useful like a repair, then the warning won't stop that. It's simply diffusing more information to people who might not actually know it, since it's not reported in-game. 05:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose there are always people, but they should know, since you can't see HP levels with Diagnosis, there's a special flavor text saying it's a dark building, and hit rates are shown to be halved. But I definitely believe that many people don't know the difference. Even so, I'm not sure that warning text is the proper way to educate people to the benefits of dark buildings. Maybe just change the flavor text? Or indicate it more strongly on the minimap (bold black border, rather than appearing ruined)? A warning is a bit much, I think, since those other things are not easily reversible, while dealing with the genny is as simple as not fueling it or just destroying it afterwards. —Aichon— 05:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Aye, for the people in the building. For the guy who searched up a genny and fuel to do exactly nothing, it's a day's AP wasted. For an IP hit, a warning would let them know it's better planted elsewhere, saving a dickload of AP on their end. 05:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Confusing for newbies. They think they've put down a generator, they haven't, they try to attack their target, whether zombie, survivor, or PKer, and miss for about 30AP before wondering why. Bad idea.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't think that this should be implemented for a few reasons, namely it would introduce thoughts about a specific type of building (In this case all Dark buildings) from the meta game and tell everyone how they should play. It also incurs an ip, which may be unimportant, but it happens none-the-less. If someone does light a dark building, well oh no, it's not as if someone isn't going to come along and destroy it when they need their nights sleep to be peaceful. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}08:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

with no beneficial effects. What? What about needing them to repair the building, or doubling your chance of successfully barricading, or finding stuff in the armory, or combat reviving accuracy? And surely some dark buildings have mobile phone masts? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Powering this building will negate the bonus effects of its darkness with no beneficial effects." As Rosslessness pointed out having the building lit has benefits, also, darkness was meant to be a penalty to survivors not a bonus. Personally I would like to see zombies gain a bonus in dark buildings so survivors are scared to go in them. --Kamikazie-Bunny 12:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. As for the suggestion itself, I think it woulde just give too many confusing ideas to players. Besides, is it REALLY that hard to bust a generator?--Pesatyel 19:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Guard the Door

Timestamp: HellFreeze 08:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: new action

Scope: survivors

Description: This is my first suggestion, so 'don't taze me, bro!' I don't know about you all, but I'm grumpy about GKers. People on my 'do not revive'and 'kill on sight' list frequently free-run into my safehouse, smash the generator, and then leave without consequence. It takes them just a few AP to destroy, but it takes me most of a day to replace. So, I propose adding an action that would post the player at the free-run entrance to prevent undesirable survivors from entering. The list of folks to be blocked would be one color code on the player's contact list. This action should cost some AP (since they cannot be sleeping or doing other things) and should also put them at some risk by keeping them at the top of the occupant list. If feasible, the AP cost should be time-based. In other words, no AP accumulation while guarding. It doesn't affect zombies at all. It only discourages griefing genny killer free-runners. So, without changing the game balance, this action would make the game more fun. I would even take the first watch.

Discussion (Guard the Door)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: November 29

Massive dupe and open to cheating with zerging alts and an auto adding bot script. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but this suggestion is going to go straight into the dirt. You are basically saying "All survivors that are not in my contact list with X color can't get in the building without removing the barricades first". WAY too gamebreaking. Case-in-point: death culting. Death cultist has no names in his contacts (or only zombies), and therefore no survivors can get into the building... likely an NT or other TRP. I understand your frustration, but maybe you should just move to another part of the city, or maybe just a building that you don't need powered to be useful? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Missed a word upon reading the suggestion. Still no. As Iscariot. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, I won't taze you. BUT, If you think GKers are annoying, imagine the griefing you will get when someone who doesn't like you creates 20 new characters, places them in all the resource buildings in your suburb, puts you on their contacts list and then sets those characters to guard the door so you can't get it. Booom! You just got permanently locked out of every hospital, PD, and NT in the suburb. Think about it.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 11:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Taze! Taze Taze Taze! GKers are people too, it's a perfectly valid way to play the game. Billy Forks 12:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel your pain but no-one has managed to come up with a reasonable and measured way to make gking/pking etc.... carry a little more risk. Personaly I think allowing folk to spend 1 or 2 AP to defend a specific target would make sense. What you suggest though is just too easy to abuse and too strong anyway. --Honestmistake 12:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

D-D-D-DON'T TAZE ME BRO! Also, no. This suggestion is much too abusable.-- SA 15:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Open to too much abuse. All it would take is a few co-ordinated users (say, a group) and an entire mall could be off-limits for a whole shit-ton of people. Which I'd personally love, but we don't cater to death cultists. :( 16:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. Just what I was going to point out. If you multiply this by a billion, or even just a dozen, a group of people could effectively lock down a building or group of buildings. With a contact list holding up to 150 names on it, a dozen people in the same building could lock out 1800 people, with no way for those 1800 to get in, aside from breaking in. —Aichon— 16:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Good points everyone. I had never heard of auto-add scripts, and had not thought of nefarious abuses. It would have been horrible, with stronger instant pinatas everywhere! (This sort of thing is why I put the idea here, instead of the vote page.) Honestmistake's idea about defending a specific target seems like the better way to go. What if survivors in a building "move to block" someone attacking the generator (or other item), the same way zombies sometimes block barricade construction? --HellFreeze 19:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it actually be a dupe to suggest that players be able to defend against a (selected) action from anyone on his contact list only? Throw in a stipulation that it be a 1 time action (effectively a delayed action that may not be performed) and i don't remember anything that specific showing up in voting? --Honestmistake 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a god-awful suggestion that doesn't have even a bit of salvageable concept inside it. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

@Honestmistake, there was Protect v3 by Deyo, which sounds similar to what you said. It had some support but was unfortunately disqualified. Something like that would accomplish the same goal I had in mind, perhaps without so many horrors as my idea.--HellFreeze 08:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

---

vehicles

Timestamp: Hazmat Vlad 02:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: equipment/item

Scope: survivors

Description: Perhaps vehicles could be implemented into the game,but extremely rare and needing the construction skill to repair them,also having to often be refueled with fuel cans .you could find vehicles in mechanic shops that aren't in to bad of condition and use the construction skill to repair them,vehicles could then be used to get around with no ap cost but needing to be refueled every 5 times you move a space.also vhicles could be used as weapons?and perhaps if you have a gps you can get a map or maybe track your car?

Discussion (vehicles)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: November 18

I'm going to put the Welcome Newbie template on your talk page, someone else will move this to the top where it belongs and you will lurk more before you get flamed until you are extra crispy. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nein danke.-- SA 02:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Dunkoff. WHOOPS! THAT WAS NOT MEDICINE! Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Let's go it. Also let's add atom bombs. 02:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, atom bombs suck.-- SA 02:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

FINE THEN HYDROGEN BOMBS. ¬_¬ 02:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

They suck too.-- SA 02:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

FINE THEN YOUR MA. 02:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

TOO BAD I HATE MY MA OR YOU'D WIN YOU DICK!-- SA 02:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I win anyway. I'm me. 03:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Angel is teh bestest sysops evar and I wuv him and never want him to leave the wiki agains!-- SA 03:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You're new, so I'll be nice. This suggestion isn't going anywhere for a variety of reasons. Basically, none of the details are covered. For instance, do vehicles show up in your inventory? If not, do they just stay out on the street taking up space, kinda like how decorations show up in buildings? Can other people take vehicles that they see laying around? Can zombies destroy vehicles? Do they disappear after awhile if they're unused? What purpose are they supposed to serve? Isn't 5 spaces before refueling pretty much useless, since it'd cost far less AP to just walk that far, than it would to search for the fuel can? Have you done the math to show why you chose 5 spaces? Also, vehicles are frequently suggested, so you're fighting an uphill battle here. —Aichon— 02:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To add to that, you need to be much more concise with your suggestions. Where are they found? At what search rates? If you want them to be used as weapons, what kind of damage would they do? No, it won't help THIS suggestion, but if you want to post more susgestions, it would help. Take a look at Peer Review and Peer Rejected.--Pesatyel 03:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading Frequently Suggested and Suggestions Dos and Do Nots => +0.1% suggestion pass rate --Anotherpongo 19:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Ignore other zombies feeding on corpses

Timestamp: Catherine Athay 14:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: UI

Scope: Mostly zombies

Description: Just what it says on the tin really. Add a checkbox or drop-down field to the settings page to give the player the option of not seeing the "A zombie fed on a corpse" messages. If you're waiting in a revive queue, or in a horde waiting for strike time, you can get an awful lot of these messages. It would be nice to be able to turn them off.

Discussion (Ignore other zombies feeding on corpses)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: November 18

Sounds good as it's written. I like it, and I know that I've never really seen much need to have that information, so being able to turn off those messages would be nice. —Aichon— 16:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 18:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why waste time suggesting this as just ignoring feeding? Why not suggest an ignore option for every type of status message in the game? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the way you're thinking.-- SA 18:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

But surely that would be a multi suggestion and therefore against the holy "do and Don't" list :) --Honestmistake 18:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

'Option to expand ignore function'. Multi doesn't apply to shooting suggestions, even though you can use them against zombies, survivors, radios and generators.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now it exists for groans, flares, radio and barricades. Other than that, feeding is the only one I can think of that is both unimportant and frequent enough to be annoying. But yes there are already too many checkboxes cluttering the options page. Maybe I should have suggested removing the feeding message altogether (or make it visible only to the corpse that is nibbled.) --Catherine Athay 21:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Deaths, body dumps, art installations, refuelling, adding generators and radios, even people wounding you (but I personally wouldn't include kills). Some people will never use it, though some of us (at places like MCM which are conversation happy) will welcome the removal of extraneous messages. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would class installations, refuelling, GKing, RKing and TKing as "not frequent enough to be annoying". And do you really see bodies other than your own being dumped? I've never noticed it. --Catherine Athay 11:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I like Iscariot's idea. Perhaps a different settings page for toggling what you want to see, instead of cramming it all at the bottom of the current one.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point of an extra page. Having a checklist like the auto-discard one wouldn't take too much more space, and would be easily integrated. 23:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I was being facetious... Frankly I see no reason not to go with Izzy's suggestion of tick-boxing all random shite excpt that it would allow NooB's to unwittingly block valuable reminders of stuff that they could do with the right skills!--Honestmistake 00:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it could be setup that levels 1 can't change those settings?--Pesatyel 03:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not our job to look out for stupid people; if someone turns off Feeding then they'll just have to deal with the fact that they don't see any feeding. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not even newbies? It was actually interesting to invite some friends to play and see how the react to the game. Gave me an idea or two for suggestions.--Pesatyel 05:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Air strike

Timestamp: Kamikazie-Bunny 22:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Destruction

Scope: Suburb

Description: The 24th August, a day that passes like any other for most ordinary people, however for those citizens of Malton who remember 2007 it was the first day the external military forces began transmitting data vital for survior. Some saw it as hope, others as information to barter and use, others believed they were faked from death cultists inside the city setting traps. In truth the military were researching the city in preperation, the surviors inside mearly fortunate to hear it. The military have been preparing for 'Operation:Cold Start' and now they are in the final stages... Operation:Cold Start In an effort to destroy the zombie menace the military will conduct a co-ordinated airstrike on the suburb with the highest zombie population regardless of survior presence (The 'survivors' of malton are to be considered expendable). Date: 24th August, 2010 This aerial bombardment has one ultimate goal, complete and permanent destruction of the zombie, nothing short of complete destruction of the targetted suburb is to be expected, all buildings, surviors and most importantly zombies will be ruined and killed. At 23:30hrs on the the 23th of August 2010 two bomber wings will be launched with a fighter squadron escort, at 24:00hrs the bomber wing will drop their payload on the targetted suburb and return to base. The HE payload will contain traditonal explosives and a classfied VX22-f additive developed by a NMO, it is expected and predicted that the modified explosives will prevent the targets from re-animating, permanently. Should this fail further development on the VX22 additive will ne neccessary and bombing will be repeated one calender year later every year until the desired effects are acheived. If VX22-f is succesful 12 further bomber wings will be lauched with objective of the complete destruction of Malton for the purpose of reclamation by non-infected personel. Commander K.Davis

Discussion (Air strike)

It's a good thing this will never actually happen, seeing as how "24:00hrs" doesn't actually exist. Also, humourous suggestions is over here. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:07, 8 November 2009 (BST)

24:00 does exist:

• 00:00 = midnight, start of day
• 24:00 = midnight, end of day

You can't display both at the same time as they overlap so most people are only familiar with one version. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

24:00 in military time is technically incorrect, and does not exist. There's 23:59, and then 00:00, but no 24:00. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:24, 8 November 2009 (BST)

The Internet's Big Book of Things That Might Not Be True says that airstrikes don't use 24:00. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a tie, it does exist, but not in the military, I suppose you win though as this is in military context. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Lawl. I know the RRF is frightening, but you can't expect Kevan to nuke Ridleybank and perma-kill a large chunk of the RRF for you, repeatedly. --Mold 22:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be permakill, "Should this fail... bombing will be repeated one calender year later!" The military wouldn't waste the resources if it would fail, they expect to succeed (but it won't) so this becomes an annual event. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a fighter escort, a brilliant tactic to counter our own interceptors.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, when did we get interceptors?-- SA 22:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you not buy the Airspace Battle Manager skill? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait! Who's team are you on, the E.M. just want to clear Malton, they don't discriminate between Surviors and Zombies they're all infected... are we looking at the beginning of the first Zombie/Survior alliance? --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, because now I'm going to get the ABM skill and learn to pilot a Titan so I can rain down fiery death upon the harmans. >:) -- SA 22:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

40K references lose you bonus points. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think "Airspace Battle Manager" and "Titan" would combine to be more of an EVE reference than 40k. 'Course, you could multi-task and pilot a Titan... in a Titan. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:43, 8 November 2009 (BST)

It was actually a Battlefield 2142 reference. :( -- SA 22:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Also good! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:54, 8 November 2009 (BST)

I just hate the amount of vehicle spam that goes on in that game. :/ -- SA 22:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So everyone dies, the zombies stand up again 5 seconds later and get busy ruining every building in the suburb with no interference from pesky survivors? Brilliant! --Explodey 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

All the buildings are ruined as well so they can just move on (need to mention that everyone receives an instant headshot as well, whoops).--Kamikazie-Bunny 22:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Rediculously OP in favor of zombies; this page isn't for Humorous Suggestions. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed this isn't. It's only funny because he so serious about it.--Thadeous Oakley 10:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Lawl.--Thadeous Oakley 08:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

	LOOK GUYS, ANOTHER ONE

--DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Center it on the NT that shows the most scans in the proceeding 72 hours and you got my vote.... of course it means the area with the most active scientists is the one that gets nuked rather than the one with the most zeds but you gotta love "military intelligence" :) --Honestmistake 00:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And make all the bodies stand up as survivors. After all, it's a chemical based on the Necrotech syringes. Now that's interesting: All zombies in an area suddenly revived, but the entire area ruined. --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Pffft...Call of Duty 4, much? No offense, but I sure hope this isn't a serious suggestion. --Chekken 04:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Items Wear Out

Timestamp: Chase1993 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Change of all items

Scope: Items

Description: Alright, so here's my idea. Doesn't it seem funny that you can use an item for an unlimited amount of time and it never breaks? Obviously, this would never happen in real life. In alot of other games they have a system where items wear out as you use them. I propose the same thing for UD. Basically, the mechanics would be as follows. 1. Any item used for melee combat would have a 1% chance to break when used (so it would break after 100 uses on average). 2. Any item used for ranged combat would have a 0.5% chance to break (200 uses on average). 3. Any item not used for combat (DNA extractors, binoculars, etc) would have a 0.25% chance to break when used (400 uses on average). I think this would add a more realistic element to the game, and would make survivors have to search for things more often, and not just be able to keep something forever. CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is appreciated, and of course, the numbers are subject to change. --Chase1993 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (Items Wear Out)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 16th November

Dupe. Next. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I searched for it but didn't find anything. Tell me what's wrong with the suggestion. --Chase1993 21:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WTF? You said that the first time dude. I told you I couldn't find anything on the subject. If you supply the link so I can see why people thought it wasn't a good idea, so be it. Until then, why don't you tell me what you yourself think of the idea. --Chase1993 21:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He has the tendency to do that now. Your just supposed to "accept it" as "fact" when he says its a dupe I guess.--Pesatyel 00:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You damn fucking right you accept it as fact when I say that. Feel free to go ahead and put it up if you're sure that I'm full of shit. I don't expect you will, because you may not like my manner but you've no option than to acknowledge my ability. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Constructive criticism is constructive. --Haliman - Talk 21:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Useless one-sided nerf; all this does is hurt survivors. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 21:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate to bring up other MMORPGS, I really do, but did you know that ALL other big MMORPGS (WOW, City of Heroes, LOTR Online, Warchammer Online, etc) have this system. I mean, they must be doing something right. If you think the numbers are too harsh they could be lowered. --Chase1993 21:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

All you've done on this wiki is bring up other MMORPGS. UD is not WoW. This suggestion is a big nuisance to add to the existing difficult choices and item juggling of inventory management, with no other purpose than to make UD more like the others.--Mold 21:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying UD is WOW. But for you to tell me that you know better than the world's best game developers is so funny it makes me shit myself. Also, its purpose is not just to make UD more like other games. My suggestion would make the game more realistic. When have you ever had an axe that you could hack at something forever with? --Chase1993 22:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Do I think I know better than people who cave to their own players' virtual terrorism? Do I know better than the people that unleashed a massive and debilitating virus on their player base? Do I know better than people who ship their game with illegal monitoring software? Yeah, I fucking do. Very simple question, why does death decay exist in WoW and not in UD? Does it have something to do with an ingame economy and making people spend time maintaining what they've got? It's about money, WoW needs you to spend money every month, UD doesn't. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If people wanted WoW, they'd play it. UD is UD, not all games need to be the same or there'd be no point playing one over another. Also you can maintain items in real life, such as sharpening blades, cleaning guns, replacing broken parts, etc, so you're "realistic" point is null and void. Go play Shintoin if you're that concerned about items lasting. 22:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Being a developer of a good game doesn't make you better than everyone else. They may know whats good for their game, but that doesn't mean anything they do for their 'game is going to be good for our game simply because they thought of it.k?-- SA 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

People who want realism don't play zombie apocalypse games. Verisimilitude is good, up to and not including the point where it makes the game less fun to play for the bulk of the players. And seriously, you have got to come up with better reasons to suggest things than just making the game more like other MMORPGs. Those players that want to be playing other MMORPGs would be playing them, not UD. --Mold 22:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"WOW... world's best game developers" so funny it makes me shit myself! --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The "world's best game developers" may know a lot about the games they make, but this is a different game. You should pay attention to players who have played this game for months, even years, who come here to help you with their knowledge of what this game needs. --Orange Talk 22:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the guys that made StarCraft were fucking boss-- SA 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Misanthropy, I don't know how old you are, or how many possessions you've been accountable for, but if you use something for a long amount of time, especially if you're using it to hack something to pieces, it will break no matter how much you clean or service it. Fact of life. THINGS GET OLD. Live with it. Secondly, to everyone else, will people please stop bitching about me trying to make UD like other games? I've said before that I like UD better than WOW, but to say that Kevan, or god forbid anyone on this forum, knows more about making a good game than the WOW developers is simply a stupid thing to say. There's a REASON that WOW has 50 times more active players than UD. People didn't wake up and just decide to play WOW. WOW had to earn it. One of the ways they earned it was by giving it good features. I'm not trying to turn UD into WOW, I'm just borrowing some of its tried and proven features. If EVERY other game has it, and it's a normal realistic feature, why couldn't UD have it as well? Also, instead of saying "omg too much likez WOW" and "UD iz different we like UD likez itt iz", please tell me WHY you feel that even though it's a good feature on most other games, it would be a bad feature on UD. --Chase1993 22:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You did not just question my fucking common sense with the age card. Go choke. Fact is, no one wants this suggestion, it's not as realistic as you think, and you're a cunt. 22:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. Fact is, I DID just question your common sense with the age card. As it turns out, the way you retaliate pretty much proofs your adolescense. "Go choke." Dork. --Chase1993 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You might not want to make childish spelling mistakes when you play the 'I'm older so know better card', particularly when the 'child' you're berating catches on to the basic principles that you can't grasp. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

My friend, if the childish spelling mistakes you are referring to are "omg too much likez WOW" and "UD iz different we like UD likez itt iz", I'll let you in on a secret. THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE WRITTEN LIKE THAT. Moron. --Chase1993 23:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"I've said before that I like UD better than WOW, but to say that Kevan... knows more about making a good game than the WOW developers is simply a stupid thing to say"... WAIT! You think UD is better than WOW, but Kevan (who made UD) can't make a game better than the people who make WOW... --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

RE to Kamikazie-Bunny: Sorry about that, you're absolutely right. I meant to say that I think UD is funner personally for me. --Chase1993 22:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You've already been told why. It's an unneeded additional nuisance for an already trying item management situation. Now why don't you tell us WHY the suggestion is actually worthwhile. And no, the games you're talking about didn't earn their player bases by being especially great. They acquired them by having gigantic budgets and spending a fortune on advertising. Plenty of features in those games are only there to keep that money flowing, as Iscariot points out. --Mold 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Activating cruise control... CRUISE CONTROL ACTIVATED.

MAYBE WE DON'T KNOW AS MUCH AS GAME DEVELOPERS, BUT WE KNOW WHAT IS FUN AND WHAT IS NOT. IF YOU THINK THAT GAME DEVELOPERS ARE SO AWESOME, WHY DON'T YOU SUBMIT IT TO THE SUGGESTION SYSTEM? I DARE YOU >=(--Orange Talk 22:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Needless addition. It doesn't actually add anything, though crying "onoz nerfing survivors" is a bit useless, since nerfing survivors is needed. 21:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. We need more buffs not more nerfs. Just buff the other side more. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 22:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Let's bring realism into this game. First we'll impliment this, and then we'll get rid of zombies. What? Zombies aren't real. Chase wants a realistic game. It's basic logic. We'll then change the name of the game to Urban RPG. Goribus 22:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, very clever. So if I came up with a suggestion that doctors could shoot laser beams out of their asses, and people shot it down for being unrealistic, I could technically say that since their are zombies, there could conceivably be laser beam-firing asses. Don't be so incredibly fucking stupid Goribus. Yes, zombies are not realistic, but we need to stick to some general laws of reality. --Chase1993 22:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself manchild. It's not my fault your idea is blatantly retarded and therefore open to both scorn and being mocked. You also misspelled the word "beam". I suggest you read a fucking book (any book) before you make another dumb ass suggestion on wiki. Goribus 22:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Go fuck yourself manchild"??? Jesus fucking christ, is every user on this wiki under 14 years of age? I'm certain about you, Goribus, but I hope some others have managed to hit puberty. --Chase1993 22:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, excessive cursing and vitriol doesn't make you look hard and everyone else look like a kid. The tantrum-throwing and rampant egomania make you look very much like a child, however. --Mold 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it. It's like you're made for irony, Mold. There you go again, more complete nonsense. I have NOT used excessive cursing. In fact, I've said fuck 3 times in this discussion. That is NOT excessive cursing. --Chase1993 22:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Come on, kid. I can tell from your posting that you're poorly educated, but it's not that hard. I even posted the link to the dictionary file for you. Here, I'll even do it again. Verisimilitude. Click it, read it, and try real hard not to continue making an ass of yourself. We're getting edit conflicts from trying to count the myriad ways you do so. --Mold 22:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, Sherlock, how the fuck do you deduce from my posts that I'm uneducated? Again, just as with the Abundant APs discussion, you're throwing out COMPLETELY unfounded accusations. --Chase1993 22:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't spell, you can't grasp simple concepts, you cannot debate salient points that have been made to counter your argument. That's how I deduce, that and putting a year after a user name is indicative of a birth year. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Chase1993" has been my computer name for about the past seven years, ever since my email address couldn't come up with any combiantion of numbers after one_dead_angel than 1993, if you follow. Secondly, I can spell. Saying I can't is just another completely unfounded accusation that people in this wiki seem to have fun throwing around. If I make mistakes it's because I'm typing fast and I don't look at the screen. My bad, I just never was a whiz at typing. That does NOT mean I'm uneducated. PLEASE, I BEG YOU, stop throwing unfounded accusations, and let us insult each other on things we know are true. --Chase1993 23:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

How convenient, "I'm typing too fast", I still notice that you've yet to engage with the points that have been made and are instead wasting time on pointless minutiae. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not convenient, as because I make mistakes typing, I get people like you telling me I don't know how to spell. Secondly, which points would you like me to engage? --Chase1993 23:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I shall repeat myself: Do I think I know better than people who cave to their own players' virtual terrorism? Do I know better than the people that unleashed a massive and debilitating virus on their player base? Do I know better than people who ship their game with illegal monitoring software? Yeah, I fucking do. Very simple question, why does death decay exist in WoW and not in UD? Does it have something to do with an ingame economy and making people spend time maintaining what they've got? It's about money, WoW needs you to spend money every month, UD doesn't.-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is hilarious coming from you. 23:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you're a faggot and your suggestion sucks.-- SA 23:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Clever. --Chase1993 23:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I know. ^^ -- SA 23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly simple. Your grasp of the english language is even weaker than mine, which is quite frankly pathetic, and you don't have the slightest clue of what an argument consists of, but you throw around terms often used in arguments like buzzwords that you seem to think make you correct. You have no clue about game design or economics, yet you make broad assumptions about these things and attack people for not immediately agreeing with them. You clearly don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, but believe aggression and posturing will make up for your deficiencies of knowledge and understanding. You're a poorly educated little thug, and probably a sissy at that, given you do your lashing out on the internet rather than in the real world. --Mold 23:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

AGAIN. It seems impossible, but it's not. You have made an unfounded accusation for the fourth post in a row. How is my grasp of the English language poor? And secondly, HOW do you know that I don't lash out in real life? --Chase1993 23:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you throwing out internet challenges now? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you, Iscariot. --Chase1993 23:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless your very next edit accurately and completely addresses the points I've repeated at your own request, I'm claiming victory and letting the vultures finish you off. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'll be around ripping into him much more. I'm still pretty bored, but this is going in circles so much that it's not substantially better than staring at the wall. --Mold 23:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's because your choice of wordage and sentence structure/grammar suck.-- SA 23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The word you're looking for is "wording", not "wordage". That's the most ironic post I've seen in a long time. Please, don't embarrass yourself any further. --Chase1993 23:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wordage is correct, but what do I know, my honours degree minor was only in Professional Writing... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The word SA was looking for was "wordage". Try to be correct when you're correcting others. ;) --Mold 23:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong or not, if you knew me, you'd know I couldn't give a rats ass about how you spell or talk. I was telling you why everyone else said you were uneducated and shit. Dick fais. >:| Also, I thought I was making up a word. Huh, cool that I'm not!-- SA 23:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you ought to learn what "unfounded" means before you use the word any more. You don't know how words work... seems like a reasonable foundation for a statement of poor education to me. As for how I know that you don't lash out in real life, the answer I could give - while true - would sound like BS, and you're already spewing enough of that, so there's no point adding to it. --Mold 23:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Unfounded" means: without foundation; not based on fact, realistic considerations, or the like: unfounded suspicions. Taken from the link you gave. Therefore, in case you're too dumb to realize, an unfounded accusation would be an accusation not based on fact. That does it. I'm officially keeping a tally now. That post was unfounded accusation number five. --Chase1993 23:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As I and some others have pointed out to you, there is a strong and ever-increasing body of evidence for you being poorly educated. Any accusation in that direction is not only not unfounded, it's more justified with every post you make. --Mold 23:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Aha, but you were not correcting me for being uneducated. You were correcting me for misuse of the word "unfounded", which I proved by your own link that I DO know how to use. Therefore, it WAS unfounded post number 5. And I believe your last post brings it up to 6. --Chase1993 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Except you used the word referring to my accusation that you're poorly educated. You have gone far out of your way to prove that your education has been rudimentary at best. You can quote a webpage if I link it for you, great, but you clearly don't know what the word means, else you wouldn't have used it, and you'd understand by now that my accusation was never unfounded. --Mold 23:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Look my friend, I KNOW I have had a good education. You continually reiterating that I have not will not change the fact. So just shut up already, OK? --Chase1993 23:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

DICK BUTT-- SA 23:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not, never have been, and never will be your friend. If you've had such a great education, start showing it. Do your research and argue cogently, rather than ranting like some mouth-breathing mongoloid. You'll probably get a better reception here, but not from me. To me, you're not worth the smear of chemicals that makes up your body, and the very idea that you consider a suggestion a good one makes it suspect. I'm done here. --Mold 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone stop feeding the troll until he responds to the salient points that have been made in the same manner. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually on a team thats in the process of making a Medieval themed FPS with a hint of RTS in it. 20 bucks says it will be better than WoW.

Does it have an automatic signature adder? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

^^WIN!--Orange Talk 22:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the poster was trying to confuse the op and keep out of anymore of the discussion while also being a troll.-- SA 23:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Given he did not engage the points that I so kindly repeated for him, I hereby claim victory. He is scared to engage in rational debate as he knows he would lose. One of you sycophants should now make me a template displaying how awesome I am and place it below. The rest of you can feel free to spam his every response with lines from 4chan. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you cannot claim victory. You cannot expect me to spend all of my time checking responses on this wiki. It may surprise you to know that I have other things to do with my time, unlike many of you who seem to spend most of your waking hours on this wiki. I would recommend masturbation as a secondary activity, as it is almost certain you will not get a girlfriend in your current state. Secondly, what points would you like me to engage? These "I shall repeat myself: Do I think I know better than people who cave to their own players' virtual terrorism? Do I know better than the people that unleashed a massive and debilitating virus on their player base? Do I know better than people who ship their game with illegal monitoring software? Yeah, I fucking do. Very simple question, why does death decay exist in WoW and not in UD? Does it have something to do with an ingame economy and making people spend time maintaining what they've got? It's about money, WoW needs you to spend money every month, UD doesn't" are not points. Please tell me what you would like to engage in debate about, and I will readily do so. --Chase1993 00:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

	VICTORY!!!
	Iscariot has declared victory! How awesome is that...

--Kamikazie-Bunny 16:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I'm actually engaged. Again insulting EVERYONE and failing at it. Also, those are good points to debate about, but put in a less than debateful form. :trollface: -- SA 00:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Because I can: "WOW had to earn it. One of the ways they earned it was by giving it good features. I'm not trying to turn UD into WOW, I'm just borrowing some of its tried and proven features." I FUCKING LOVE PLAYING WOW JUST TO FIX MY WEAPONS. --Ezekial Riddle 23:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What I think we need is a new category similar to clothing suggestions. We can call it "hardcore" suggestions. I think the game could stand to have a few more "realistic" factors involved and items wearing out fits into that category. However, I do NOT believe they should be forced on everyone. Instead a toggle on the character's profile could allow INDIVIDUAL players, if they so choose, to turn on these "hardcore" ideas to make the game harder for themselves and not force it on everyone. Thus, if I want my own personal gear to wear out, cool. It would only affect me, not anyone else. That would be the ONLY way a suggestion like this would have any merit whatsoever.--Pesatyel 00:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea Pesatyel. A heartfelt THANK YOU for actually thinking about the suggestion instead of just blurting out "omg UD isn't realistic this suggestion sucks". I salute you. --Chase1993 00:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's my one post for this suggestion. I feel that something we've told you before bears repeating, Chase1993. Your suggestion needs to get through a voting process. The voters are the people you're currently making angry. Whether or not you're wrong, they think you're wrong, and this suggestion simply will never pass. Further arguing merely exasperates them and damages your credibility. Additional points:

• This is a duplicate suggestion, though I'm sure the wear-out rates are different.
• Your comments represent you. If you're producing typos because you're typing too quickly, you should slow down and preview or reread your comments before posting them. Doing anything less is lazy, and claiming you're typing too quickly is no excuse. Your comments will exist on this wiki for months or years. Take a few seconds to proofread, because you will be judged by the comments you make.
• Making ad hominem attacks, even in retaliation to ones aimed at you, is not a good idea. Regardless of who might have started it, it makes you look petty. Girlfriend, masturbation, and age-based attacks are particularly poor behavior.
• And, most importantly, in WoW, repair costs (note that the items never permanently break) are used to ensure that the economy remains stable. Since players are constantly bringing new money into the economy through various activities, money needs to exit the economy as well in order to curb inflation. Repair costs are one of the primary means for accomplishing this goal. It was indeed a smart move by the Blizzard developers, but it's entirely inapplicable here, since it has nothing to do with realism. Blizzard developers have acknowledged that it's a necessary evil, and admit that it's not fun for players.

So, basically, there's no reason why we should add a fix for a problem that doesn't exist in UD, just for the sake of realism at the expense of fun. That is all. I won't be replying. —Aichon— 00:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a good idea Chase. The real problem is that 90% of UD players don't want a game. They want a social network were they get to decide what they what to do, when they want to do it, and never be challenged or face any real threat or change that means anything. They don't ever want to be truly effected in any way. Just the same old status quo forever and ever amen.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:34 9 November 2009(BST)

You forgot to mention the lack of Balls! --Kamikazie-Bunny 12:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Revivification time limit

Timestamp: Explodey 13:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Mechanic

Scope: Revivifying bodies

Description: After a zombie is injected with a NecroTech syringe and slumps to the floor, it has 4 days to stand up. Once that time runs out, it de-revivifies and reverts to being an ordinary dead zombie. Why? It's unfair that survivors are able to be revivified and lie on the floor, invincible for as long as they want and be able to stand up a month later after the suburb has become a ghost town, still with 50AP. Active survivors cannot do this, because they would have used some of their AP to reach the revive point. Remember - you got killed, went to a revive point and then did not log in again for a month. This should not be rewarded with invincibility. It's not the same as a standing survivor idling out. They can become invisible and survive while others in the building were eaten and the building ruined, but this player earned it by finding a good place to hide, making friends who healed them in the meantime etc. Why 4 days? Because that's the same as the idling out time, hence just long enough to negate the advantage of idling out. However de-revivification is not tied to idling. To avoid idling out you only have to log in. To avoid de-revivification you must actually stand up. Otherwise the timer keeps ticking (even if the idle timer doesn't.) Not to be confused with ZL's suggested change to idling. This one would not directly affect idling.

Discussion (Revivification time limit)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 17th November

Sorry if this is a dupe. I would be surprised if no-one had thought of this before, but I did search for "de-revifify", "devifify" etc. and nothing came up. --Explodey 13:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No way. One way ticket to nerfing survivors is a one way ticket to peer-rejected. --Thadeous Oakley 14:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Survivors do need a nerfing but this isn't the way to go about it. I don't really see what good this does. 15:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this suggestion would get into Peer Reviewed. If you are revived, you become a survivor. Not "If you're revived you turn into a survivor unless you don't stand up for 5 days." It will be seen as "greifing the already helpless human population"; something to that tune anyway.--Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}17:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Way too OP; suggestions should generally benefit both sides equally in terms of gameplay. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 17:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yeah. But there are a LOT of suggestions that do not.--Pesatyel 23:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. How is a survivor, in a ghost town with 30hp and probably infected a massive bonus, especially if he's been lying down for 4 days? he's already lost at least 150 potential AP's for the survivor side. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping me on IRC some time and I'll show you the correct way to use this loophole. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I can think of a worse abuse (that I don't want to mention here.) I wonder if we're thinking of the same thing. --Explodey 20:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

For your own mental sanity, I hope that you don't.--Thadeous Oakley 21:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm more worried about my idled characters in borehamwood being screwed over. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Each side gets balanced out in different ways. Zombies can generally stand up for 1 or 6 net AP loss after being killed, which is chump change compared to the net AP loss that the survivor side loses with each death. All I mean to say is, it's not exactly as black-and-white as it was explained, and there's really no need for this change from what I've seen. —Aichon— 23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is this different from a zombie dying and waiting till AP is maxed before standing again? At best I could see some kind of penalty for standing after being revived (like Lurching Gait not working, for example), but even then I doubt something like THAT would pass. Simply put your seeing a "problem" where there isn't one.--Pesatyel 00:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

URBAN DEAD IPHONE APP

Timestamp: Meanoldrunk 02:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: iphone app

Scope: iphone users

Description: an iphone app for ud cause playing on the phone stinks

Discussion (URBAN DEAD IPHONE APP)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 19th November

No--Orange Talk 02:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"cause playing on the phone stinks " This game was designed for playing on a PC, an iPHONE is designed for making phone calls and text messages, yes it has a browser but it's going to suck for 99% of website that haven't been designed for it. If that's your only justification then I want an App for my K550i as well and my phones been around longer so it should have priority --Kamikazie-Bunny 02:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

People with iphones are useless posers who need to understand that the whole fucking world doesn't revolve around them and that everyone isn't going to jump to code something at their whim. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so harsh they're not useless, they are good for a laugh at! --Kamikazie-Bunny 03:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As a useless poser who owns an iPhone, I've thought about coding something like this up as a way to learn the iPhone SDK, but, to be frank, it'd be more effort than it's worth. It's also outside the scope of what we should expect from Kevan. Definitely a no. —Aichon— 03:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

NO AND I'M SICK AND TIRED OF YOU GOD DAMN LAZY ASS iFUCKERS NOT DOING YOUR OWN SHIT. You want a fucking app for your 300 dollar piece of shit? Make it your god damned self. For now, I'm just going to take my Sansa View and, you know, use it for music. Because everything else I've got a FUCKING COMPUTER FOR. YOU KNOW? THE THING YOU TYPED THIS PILE OF GOD DAMNED GARBAGE ON?!?-- SA 03:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I like SA pissed off. He makes me laugh ^_^ --Haliman - Talk 05:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

>:| -- SA 05:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

>:D --Haliman - Talk 05:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like someone's jealous they didn't get an iPhone for their birthday. ;) —Aichon— 07:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I had one for about a week, took it back and got my View instead. It was cheeper (For more storage too) and, well, in my opinion had better functionality.-- SA 14:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, see, an informed decision. Just be aware that some of us also made informed decisions (or at least like to think we did), and don't think that the world is there to serve our every whim. But I do agree that many folks in the demographic that the iPhone is targeted towards seem to have a sense of entitlement that is rather annoying. —Aichon— 06:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I know people who play UD on their phones with no problems. If iPhones suck, maybe someone who uses one will write a compatible stylesheet or whatever's needed... or maybe they'll, yeah, use a real browser. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there's really no need to. It displays the exact same on an iPhone as it does in a modern (non-IE) desktop browser, and I've used it plenty of times that way. The only problem is the slight loss of accuracy (as compared to using a mouse) if you don't zoom in far enough...which of course could be a bad thing if you accidentally click on the attack button instead of the FAK button, for instance. But really, the only thing a stylesheet might do is space the buttons out a bit more, while a native app would basically just be an uncluttered interface and nothing more. Other sites (eBay, banking sites, Facebook, etc.) have done similar things, but there's little point since the UD user base is so small and the iPhone owners amongst that group are even less. I mean, at best, we're talking about an app that maybe a few hundred people in the world would use. More likely just a few dozen, if even. —Aichon— 07:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I defer to your expertise, and suggest to the suggester: "Don't do that, then!" ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly expertise, but thanks for the vote of confidence! ;) —Aichon— 06:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

first it was only an idea and as for them being 300 they are only 100 dollars and what am i posing as? i did in fact type this on my phone not my comp MAYBE i should have asked for a mobile friendly option urban dead was ok on my old razor but unplayable on my wifes zte

Please to be signing posts. Also mobile versions of the game would take extra coding which could instead be funnelled into adding new features, not making the same ones available to someone who doesn't want to sit down for 10 minutes in the day. 23:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, this suggestion got shot down in Epic Fail Flames about a month or two ago for the reason that people didn't want to hear someone sit around and bitch about how they didn't have an app that they wanted. This page is for improving Urban Dead; if you want greasemonkey or iPhone apps then you're in the wrong place. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dupe (almost) --Catherine Athay 11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been on DS so much it makes me fucking cry. Requesting another addition to suggestion do's and dont's. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't really get away with putting stuff on the Do or Do Nots just because I don't like it. Otherwise it'd read "Anything you can think of" and be a protected page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

But if enough of us support it, it's okay right? RIGHT?-- SA 13:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Get 9 users to support you and I'll add it, after you cut down the largest tree in the forest with.... A HERRING!!! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is why I have a PDA with a stylus. You should complain to Steve Jobs for ripping you off, not to people here. --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 12:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Double wield

Timestamp: ==Characters== [Favalli]Survivor [BransBrans]Zombie I have one PK character but I wont say his name so that he doesnt get hunted down. Templates Template Whore This User includes as many templates as possible on his or her User Page. I mean, come on! Tusken Raider?!? Sacred Ground Policy Supporter This user or group supports the Sacred Ground Policy and acknowledges that all Cemeteries in the city of Malton are considered Revivification Points. River Tactics Supporter This User or Group supports River Tactics. A.L.I.C.E. Is Watching... This survivor is NOT paranoid. He knows his every action is being closely monitored by A.L.I.C.E. and that she is manipulating everything and everyone to her own ends. It's all just one big test... ending with cake. Ban Stupidity Kralion does not tolerate stupid people. BEWARE: Roundhouse Kick Master! This user has mastered Chuck Norris' signature only move. It's deadly! RickRolled! This user has been RickRolled and wouldn't get this from any other guy. STFU N00B Kralion recognizes the difference between a Newbie and a Noob. Du Nu Nu Nu... Kralion can touch this. No EH-bitching This user/group does not support barricading over Extremely Heavy without a good reason. Remember: overbarricading kills. Literally. It's a Joke, OK? This user supports the use of humor, even when other people don't get it. Firefox User Kralion uses Firefox. Alt user This user has alts but DOESN'T Zerg. Prevent the up?rising This user believes that playing Whack-A-Mole with zombies is plain retarded. I don't even know that guy! This User has one or more PKing characters, but the rest of his or her characters think those guys are crazy, so please don't shoot them. Big Bash 3! This user or group was with Big Bash 3. They were last seen heading home after the party. Please have your brains ready for later. Characters Backstory FAVALLI- Favalli was a succesful university student with a 15 year old sister called Lilah.They had moved to Malton with their parents but they were on vacation in scotland and they stayed with their Granfather Joe. Joe was a really good Grandfather and he owned a gun store in Malton. He had secretely teached Favalli how to use firearms and sometimes they went hunting togheter. But one day,Things changed. Favalli had just returned from university and had passed about 3 riots by now. They where getting crazier and crazier in Malton for some strange reason. When he saw home the front door was open and there was blood in the doorknob. Inside there where 3 dead bodies and Grandpa bleeding and with a 2 barrel shotgun in his hands¨Whats going on? are you all right?¨ Favalli asked. Grandpa didnt even answer. He gave him a pistol,a radio and an extra magazine and told Him ¨Boy,Get out of here now.These things will get up and bite you like they bit me¨ ¨But¨ ¨There is no time for this Favalli. Now go find your sister and look for a same place.Remember when we went hunting and I always gave your objectives? well,now the objective is to find Lilah,get to a safe place and SURVIVE¨. Favalli didnt even argue,he understand him perfectly well.He Jumped from the window and ran away as he heard blast after blast to come from the house. Its been 4 years since that day,and He is still looking for her sister and more importantly SURVIVE. 18:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Zombie hunter skill tree

Scope: Survivor

Description:

Basically,dual wielding weapons would apply only for pistol and knife since they dont weight so much. If you are dual wielding a revolver,there is chance of making dmg x 2 since you hit with both guns, but the bad thing is that the accuracy is downed by 10%. Same goes for knife,chance of damage x 2, but 10% less accuracy. To dual wield weapons,click both of them and to stop dual wielding them click the weapon (that will become one) and they will appear in the inventory.

Discussion (Double wield)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 15th November

Okay: 1) you screwed up your formatting; follow the directions next time. 2) Your grammar and spelling aren't great; your suggestion won't go far if it's hard to read, let alone support. 3) This is just a really crappy and overpowered idea that will never ever work; you do realize that zombies are player too, and don't appreciate survivors being allowed to run around with godlike weapons? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 20:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You haven't even mentioned my favourite part. Pistol starting accuracy = 5%. Pistol accuracy is reduced by 10%. Pistol accuracy = -5%. So... It definitely won't work, and there's a 5% chance of healing the zombie for 10 damage? --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

How would this affect the ammo count of the gun(s)? Also, having a chance of double damage for pistols means it is the same as a shotgun(when the double damage happens) but with 15% more accuracy. Too overpowered. Younna: It wouldn't heal, it would just never hit. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}20:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the accuracy comment. I can't military skills. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}20:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was jokign about the healing, because -5% is worse than never hitting.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely needs a more drastic accuracy hit. Make it 0% flat and disable reloading, and I'll vote keep. RinKou 21:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Come on guys. You should have found this Suggestions/24th-Aug-2006#Dual_Wield --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If it halved accuracy, was a zombie hunter skill and used a round from each gun i would be tempted to say yes. otherwise you can shove it back in your trenchcoat :) --Honestmistake 22:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As Ross and Honest, except with more "Die in a fire". -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Leave my d20s out of your religious sermonising. --WanYao 03:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So, I can have a fire axe with 6% encumbrance and 3 damage, or 2 knives with 4% encumbrance and 4 damage? Both with a 40% chance to hit.--Pesatyel 05:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Dropping junk out of buildings

Timestamp: Winman1 21:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: attacking

Scope: survivors

Description: when you are inside a barricaded building you can drop things out the window for 1 AP to damage zombies standing outside the building (if any are present). You cant target a specific zombie or person, its just a random target. Once you drop an item from the building, it is removed from your inventory. Without any skills, dropping an item out of a building has 5% accuracy. With hand to hand combat, the accuracy is 20%. A person with knife combat or axe proficientcy will have a 25% chance of damaging a zombie with the item for that particular skill. Light items such as newspapers, beer, wine,books, and crucifixes will always hit a zombie (if one is there) with 0 damage. normal items such as Hockey Sticks, pool cues, ski poles knives and golf clubs will cause 1 damage if they sucessfully hit a zombie standing outside. Heavy items such as fire axes cricket bats, baseball bats, lengths of pipe, and toolboxes can cause 2 damage. If you drop an item out of a building and have noone standing outside you just lose the item with no damage to anyone.

Discussion (Dropping junk out of buildings)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 16th November

Although the accuracy and damage is low, this is still just a way for survivors to attack the underpowered zombie side without even leaving the confines of their safehouse. I don't dig it, jack. 21:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As above. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Read this. Should make it clear. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As both Misanthropy and Ross have said. —Aichon— 21:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Its also a dupe of several other suggestions. Personally i have no problem with the concept as long as accuracy is terrible, you don't get XP for doing it and it can't cause headshots! --Honestmistake 22:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you get the chance to target a specific character? I hope not (because you would need X-ray vision for that.) If not then who is targeted? The zombie at the top of the stack? A random zombie? A passing survivor? --Explodey 22:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, not only are you proposing all of what's already been torn out of this, but you also want HTH to improve its accuracy? What? How? Why? In what way does your ability to perform tai otoshi help you drop things accurately? You have to actuall be 'hand to hand' for HTH to work, the clue's in the title. Or have you learnt The Art of Dropping Anvils by Grandmaster W. E. Coyote? Not even Hatsumi would make something so dumb up, and he's invented some right crap in his time. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You know who used to spamflood DS? Blake Firedancer. I miss those days; his suggestions almost always sucked, but at least they were experienced and plausible... Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Tselita was funnier. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel simultaneously honoured and insulted. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I kind of miss the Tranny now that you mention it.-- SA 02:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you been reading up on BlueSpurt's failed Ideas? 'Cause this one reminds me powerfully of one of his that died in writhing agony...-Devorac 23:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, but the details are a bit lacking. Here's my take:

• Given that it's impossible to see outside your own building and thus you can't aim (as indicated by the random targeting), I think that it's unrealistic to have the accuracy be increased by aiming skills.
  • Instead, why not have a flat 5% chance of hitting each target outside, starting with the most idle and working down the list until one is hit? This gives decent odds of hitting *something* if there's a large crowd, but very little if there are only a few people outside – which, again, is commensurate with how dropping objects into an unseen crowd would realistically work.
• Finally, I would have the damage done be weight/3, rounded down… so all the 2 encumbrance items would do 0 damage, common items such as pistols and shotguns (4%/6%) would do 1 and 2 damage, respectively, going up to heavy rare objects such as generators, paintings and Christmas trees (20%), which would do a whole 6 damage… *if* they hit.

Thoughts? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Alphabetization of Items

Timestamp: KainYusanagi 21:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Type: Ease of "what do I have in my inventory?" play.

Scope: All Items

Description: Simple... Items get alphabetized. i don't know how many times I've lost track of my ammo while it's mixed into with FAKs or other things.... the buttons get really messy. Could we just get a little order to the things we pick up?-KainYusanagi 21:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (Alphabetization of Items)

This doesn't effect the merits of your suggestion, but there are Firefox plugins like UDtool and Greasemonkey extensions that organize your inventory for you, in case you wanted this, you know, actually fixed. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 21:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, if you use Firefox and have Greasemonkey (or use Safari and GreaseKit or Chrome and GreaseMetal), Midianian has a great script called UDICOS that does what you're looking for and more. Regardless, heck yes. The interface is a mess and needs major reorganization (*cough*). Alphabetization definitely helps. Even just grouping similar items. —Aichon— 22:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't run Greassmonkeys or any of those other plugins, partially due to having issues with them having caused infections in the past and partially because I'm what I'd call an "originalist"... I play games with their original UIs because that's what's provided. I'd rather the source issue get fixed over just trying to cover it up. >.>;-KainYusanagi 06:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest here, even if this suggestion gets passed, which it well may not, it's not likely the issue will be resolved, and certainly not quickly. Greasemonkey is virus-free, and if you're worried about infections, get NoScript for your browser and lock up your Javascript. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 13:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it pass? Granted there are better things already in Peer Review, this isn't bad nor is it going to break anything. Using "you can use scripts" isn't a reason to kill.--Pesatyel 22:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Because not that many suggestions pass these days, and because passing in no way means, implies, or even gives reason to hope that your idea will be implemented; it's just a pool Kevin might someday reach into if he runs low on think-juice. Granted, he's implemented suggestions before, but that was ages ago... Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That has more to do with the general apathy of us wiki patrons then it does the suggestions. Why do you think the really bad ones get so much "discussion"?--Pesatyel 01:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want my items alphabetised. I want to be able to find them in the order they entered my inventory. Why should my basic user interface be changed for your sense of OCD? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would consider someone who wanted items to be displayed in the order that they were procured to have a stronger sense of OCD than the person that wanted to alphabetize items that are essentially jumbled together. It's one thing to accuse someone of having a sense of OCD if they're alphabetizing food in the pantry or some such nonsense, but it's entirely different when we're talking about buttons whose only representation is text on the screen. Alphabetization/lexicographical order makes sense here. Also, the order in the current system only functions if the user memorizes the order that they gathered the items. Since most people are not sufficiently skilled at memorization, nor have the desire to memorize such mundane details, the sensible thing to do is to put the items in an order that more players can use effectively. This can also be used to improve muscle memory to an extent, which is a desirable trait of user interfaces. —Aichon— 22:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that you want to change my interface from what I prefer to what you prefer for no other reason than you'd prefer it that way. Give me a good reason why this change should be made when people have been coping fine for four years. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree that he didn't provide reasons in the description. As for me, I gave you at least three in my last comment: it makes sense, more players can use it effectively, and muscle memory can be applied. If you want a few additional ones:

• People are used to dealing with alphabetical order, so it should be easier for newbies to learn how to use the interface (i.e. more intuitive to learn), which is good, since we all like newbies,
• It's easier to pick up where you left off when you come back on following days, since most people would have forgotten the order in which they picked up their items (i.e. no need for memory),
• It's more intimidating to an end user when they can't make sense of the things in front of them, and grouping like objects with each other reduces the complexity (i.e. it helps to eliminate the choice paradox),
• I could also cite Fitts's Law and the fact that the current system increases mouse travel distance by not having similar objects grouped (i.e. it takes longer to use),
• If a user doesn't have the order memorized, they have to go searching for the next item after the one that they clicked on disappears from their inventory (e.g. if you need to FAK someone multiple times), whereas alphabetization lets people have an intuition for where it should appear.

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons as well, and if I had my old computer-human interaction textbook, I'm sure I could cite a few case studies and whatnot. I'll grant that none of the reasons I gave are "slam dunk" reasons in and of themselves, but when an advocate for the current system is using terms like "cope" to refer to how users deal with the it, a slam dunk answer shouldn't even be necessary.

Besides, I've seen you around the wiki, and I've observed that you like to make decisions based on evidence and reason (at least, that's my opinion, though I may be mistaken, of course). While your personal experience may color your reasoning, as it does with all of us, I don't think you are honestly trying to suggest that this is a mere case of opinion vs. opinion and that there is no argument to be made for alphabetization as a superior arrangement over a seemingly-random one. I'm sure you're making the argument for some reason, but what it is, I can't fathom. —Aichon— 03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the newest item you picked up put at the bottom when you get it?--Pesatyel 04:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep. That's what we've been talking about. —Aichon— 04:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Then the above points are all...relatively pointless. The game doesn't magically rearrange your stuff when you stop playing.--Pesatyel 07:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

But unless you memorized the order in which you picked up your items, you'll have no basis for understanding the arrangement of the items when you come back the next day. That's one of the major problems with the current system. —Aichon— 14:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So, it is REALLY that hard to figure out the order? That the object at the bottom is the last one you picked up? And the one the one at the top is the first one you picked up? I can see where there might be some confusion to those unfamilar with the way English is displayed (left to right and down to the next line) but it really seems like all the "points" are just nitpick justifications. 1) Its not like objects "go bad" so what does it matter the order you picked stuff up? 2) Alphabetizing isn't necessarily going to alleviate the problem of "having to move the mouse too much" when you have to just click on the object. Its not like you have to drag and drop the shotgun shell to the shotgun. Not to mention there are better ideas then simple alphabetizing. I'm not saying the idea is a bad one, just that there are better ones and that the above points seem, to me, to be overdoing it a bit.--Pesatyel 02:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel like we're on different wavelengths here. Figuring out the order is not the issue. Being able to find items in your inventory is, and an ordering based on when items were picked up is not conducive to finding them later since it relies on memorization or else just visually searching. I'm afraid I don't quite understand or see the relevance of your #1 point, your #2 one seems to miss the obvious (best example: if using FAKs repeatedly, you wouldn't have to move the mouse at all since the next FAK in the inventory would take up the exact same pixels as the previous one if they were grouped next to each other, which would be guaranteed with alphabetization, but is not guaranteed now), and the third point (that there are better ideas) should not have an impact on determining the worth of this suggestion. I'll admit that I was making a big argument over small details, but reasons were requested, so I simply enumerated a few. —Aichon— 04:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we probably are. I don't suppose it matters. I'd probably vote keep even though there are better suggestions already in PR.--Pesatyel 02:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The advantage of the current system, IMHO, is that disposables (ammo, FAKs, needles), get listed at the end, while the multi-use items slowly go to the top of your pile, and will always be in the same place. (Of course, for the real OCD people, empty your inventory and search for items in the right order :-) ) --Itsacon ^{(Talk | Grungni | Ikhnaton)} 12:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

luhlwhut? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If that was aimed at me, allow me to paraphrase and simplify my earlier point: "no u. my way is better." —Aichon— 03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

o i c wut u did thur. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So... Can we get this moved to voting, or is it gonna slumber here for awhile?-KainYusanagi 14:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

---

No Freerunning from Ruins

Timestamp: RinKou 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Type: Ruin tweak

Scope: Survivors with freerunning, zombies with ruin.

Description: I'm sure the general consensus is ruin is a very powerful skill. Maintained ruin in TRPs can and will shut down a suburb unless supplies can come in from outside, or the buildings are retaken. This still only applies to TRPs, though. As far as any other building goes, zombies not only have few reasons to ruin them, but they're at a severe disadvantage to even put out the effort to do so. A zombie will ruin a non-TRP building for only three reasons: 1. Reduce places survivors can hide safely. 2. Morale boost for zombies/hit for survivors. 3. Disrupt freerunning lanes. Seeing as if repaired within the first week of being ruined, survivors still have a net AP gain over the zombie who ruined the building. That, plus how easily an unmaintained ruin (bound to be the non-TRPs) can be barricade strafed, we have each of these ruins costing zombies significant amounts of AP, both for tearing down the barricades in the first place as well as ruining it. Secondly, the morale boost works both ways. If anything, it's stacked against the zombies much more. At current ratess, a survivor can repair six ruins for every one ruin a zombie can make, assuming it's unmaintained. And as noted, no real zombie is going to maintain a non-TRP ruin. Not only does that put zombies at the AP disadvantage as noted above, but it also allows survivors to claim, "Look how efficiently we're reclaiming the suburb from the horde," boosting their morale theoretically 6:1. So that leaves the only real tactical reason for ruining non-TRP buildings: disrupting freerunning lanes. You can't freerun in to a ruin, forcing survivors to spend 3 extra AP to go around each one. One to jump onto the street next to the ruin, one to move to the ruined square, and one to enter the ruin and be reconnected to the freerunning lane. The only problem with this strategy is, though, ruins, if anything, help feral survivors to be so much more easily connected to a freerunning lane. A survivor unfamiliar with a suburb who doesn't metagame no longer has to check every building for an entry point. They can spot ruins easily on their 3x3 map and just get in one to hop into the lane. All that being said then, let's say we disallow freerunning from ruined buildings. Attempting to do so would result in the flavor text: "The ledges and outcrops on this building are too dilapidated to free run from." and an AP is spent for the attempt, but the character will not be moved a space. Because really, zombies should be ruining every building they can. They really shouldn't be at a disadvantage for doing exactly what they were meant to do.

Discussion (No Freerunning from Ruins)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 16th November

Dupe.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of if it’s a dupe, I'm definitely not a fan. The whole 6:1 AP argument doesn't take into account the fact that only survivors with Toolboxes and Construction can fix ruins, or the fact that the net AP loss for survivors is generally much larger than six since they're sacrificing AP every time they try to move through that block. And while it does generally help feral survivors, I think that's a good thing, since it balances out the act of destruction that would otherwise entirely disrupt things for them. Plus, pinatas REALLY put a damper on a person's day already. —Aichon— 00:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Also against this idea. You are essentially penalizing survivors who do not metagame, and that's a big no-no. Those who metagame should not have such a significant advantage over those who do not.--Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 05:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I definetly like this idea. I mean, how many players past level 3 or 4 don't have construction? And toolboxes are a dime a dozen nowadays. -- User:Leoofvgcats 08:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, a startlingly large number of trenchies. —Aichon— 07:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I also know a large number of people who do not carry a toolbox because of the weight. They can carry more needles/FAKs and prefer it that way. Generally these are people in well-organized groups, but still. Not everyone has a toolbox.--Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention it depends on how a character chooses to play. An 8th level zombie primary probably wouldn't have it. Or somebody going for science or military skills. So anyone that doesn't take Construction right away is a trenchie?--Pesatyel 19:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you're partially responding to me, but "if A then B" does not imply "if B then A". I was giving an example of trenchies as a case where people tend to not carry toolboxes, but that doesn't mean that people who don't carry toolboxes are automatically trenchies. —Aichon— 20:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It was more of a comment on people telling others "how to play", no offense intended. It comes up in suggestions and/or in discussions once in awhile.--Pesatyel 22:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary. I've been playing a death cultist again recently... consequently I don't give a damn if I do get caught outside and eaten, and I spend a lot of time in zombie-infested areas. Even so, once about 1/3 of the buildings in a suburb get ruined, getting around is a giant pain in the ass for me, I'm sure it's worse for people that don't like group hagz and gh!zzaz. Besides, I think ruins functioning as entry points to the free running network is a good thing. It provides more opportunities for people who don't metagame much, and serves as a useful counter to idiots trying to turn an entire suburb into EHB Barricade Fortresses of DOOM. Especially when a whole burb is in defense mode and every building is either ruined or EHB, it'd be pretty lame for there to be no practical way for breathers, death cultists and PKs to get back inside once they're ejected. --Mold 08:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That was my reasoning, actually. To stop the EHBing of EVERYTHING. I've been trying to play a character without freerunning, and it's about next to impossible to get into a TRP unless it's wide open. If you have no way to get back into buildings, you're going to have to open up more entry points for revived survivors to get back in. RinKou 16:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it would lead to a cascading failure. With this suggestion, if the zombies ruin one building, survivors are forced to knock others down to VSB to compensate. That makes the buildings easier for zombies to take and ruin, which leads to more needing to be VSB, and so on. A single generic ruin shouldn't have that much impact on a suburb. Alternatively, they don't knock buildings down to VSB, and everyone gets trapped outside. I might be okay with it if it only happened to ruins that were older than, say, 50 days, but not for every ruin. —Aichon— 17:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good change. Survivors do not need to be anymore nerfed than they already have been. At most, let there only be a CHANCE that Free Running doesn't work, ie, 40% chance that a survivor cannot Free Run out of a ruin. --Chase1993 11:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Survivors do not need to be anymore nerfed than they already have been." Did I miss a major survivor nerfing update? Because I don't really see how survivors have been nerfed any lately. RinKou 16:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

They haven't; he's an idiot. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What scares me a little is that the quote is often used when talking derogatorily about trenchies. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}21:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Which one? I'm a little slow this morning, mind filling me in? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 13:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

First, this isn't a Ruin tweak. It is a Free Running tweak. Secondly, I don't see how survivors can repair ruins 6 times faster than zombies can make them. Assuming an empty building, the survivor would have to repair it the SAME DAY it is ransacked to get that. If that were to happen, we wouldn't be hearing stories (and it wouldn't come up as suggestions a lot) of 100+ AP repairs. The only thing I can say is I could see upping the cost of Free Running out of a ruined building to, say, 2 or 3. But making it impossible? That's a bit much.--Pesatyel 19:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As presented this is just waay too much. A 1% per day of ruin chance of failing to freerun on the other hand seems a lot more fair? --Honestmistake 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I rather like the idea of making it a 1% chance per day that the building has been ruined. It provides an incentive for repairing those buildings. —Aichon— 20:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this a dupe, but I like it, so they better find the right link. It's patently broken when zombies spend time, effort and AP breaking into a building, killing everyone and then ruining for the survivors to be able to cade everything up to SHB (Stupidly Highly Barricaded) because they've got a free entrance to the free running network provided by zombies doing what they should. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Broken it may be, but do you really expect it'll change much? I think if this is implemented, you'll still wind up with everything either SHB or Ruined, you'll just have a lot more dead people because of it. Sure that's how it should be, but you've got to be at least a little willing to forgive abject idiocy if you don't want one of the sides to effectively disappear. --Mold 04:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I never forced the survivors to cade above VSB. That's their problem if they don't make enough entry points for themselves, precisely the same as if they sleep in resource buildings and die when they're attacked, not my problem, I didn't make them sleep there. The culture of barricade to infinity is meta-principle, like the Rogues Gallery, and therefore completely separate to game mechanics and balance. Initially I think there will be more deaths due to people being locked out, soon enough there'll be a lot more entry points and common sense will prevail. It doesn't change the fact that this is the only occurrence of an encouraged in-game and in-character act giving a massive benefit to your opposition. It needs fixing. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a dupe. Peer-reviewed too. If Kevan was going to implement it he would have done so by now. --Catherine Athay 16:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Meatshielding Skills

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091111 Meatshielding Skills

Arcade Machine

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091111_Arcade_Machine

Pumpkin Count

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091104 Pumpkin Count

Show Encumbrance At Top Of Inventory

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091106 Show Encumbrance At Top Of Inventory

School lunches

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091108 School lunches