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

New Revive Rules

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 12:50 30 December 2009(UTC)

Type: Improvment

Scope: Revives

Description: Now it only costs 1 AP to use a Syringe. However, now a Revived Zombie automatically spends 100 XP in order to Stand as a Survivor. If the character does not have 100 XP, they Stand as a Zombie and get the message: “The Revivification Serum seems to have failed.” Some players will cry because they want to keep their extra XP in order to grow their E-penis. So, now there will be a new section on your profile that shows all XP you have ever earned underneath the XP you have available to spend.

Discussion (New Revive Rules)

Why do you hate new players so much :( --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it would force people to play as zombies, primarily the newbies, which I have a feeling would be a bad idea. It is better to encourage, than force. Also it would slightly harm zombies saving up XP for when they get revived. - User:Whitehouse 13:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Even worse than the original Headshot, which was changed because it was hideously punitive. --Papa Moloch 14:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

---

---

Travel Light, Stab Fast

Timestamp: A Big F'ing Dog 17:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Knives

Description: The Knife Combat skill has little purpose, since maxed out knives are suboptimal compared to maxed out axes. This suggests an idea to improve them slightly, and add flavor to the game. ROLEPLAY REASONING: When a survivor is lightly encumbered they are able to move swiftly, and use a light weapon like a knife more effectively. Swinging a big heavy axe is always a good idea. Lunging with a knife is harder when carrying a bunch of generators. EFFECT: When a survivor is at 30% encumbrance or lower, the Knife Combat skill's benefit is increased from +15% to +25% to knife accuracy, bringing maximum accuracy to 60%. This is actually equivalent to the axe in average damage but has less variance. An axe's greater damage and lower accuracy means it could potentially deal far more or far less damage with the same AP, making the knife a safer bet if not necessarily a better or worse choice. I like this idea because it would give the knife and the knife skill a purpose, rather than leaving it on the skill tree like a vestigial tail. More importantly, I like anything that provides players with a choice of tactical trade offs. People could decide whether they prefer having a more predictable output of damage, or whether having a stockpile of ammo, faks, and generators is preferable. Your thoughts about the skill, and whether the numbers are appropriate (+10% at 30 encumbrance) are welcome. I picked +10% to match, not surpass the axe's average damage, and 30% seemed low enough to require some sacrifice but not low enough to be a terrible constraint either.

Discussion (Travel Light, Stab Fast)

I like the idea of situational accuracy, but I'd make it +5% accuracy. Knives are best for property destruction, so overall damage doesn't matter when you can take out generators, radio transmitters, etc, so much easier. 55% accuracy for successful attacks on objects is pretty damn funky. 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I too like the idea, but it is rather overpowered. I have a character who hunts down injured survivors, and all he has is a knife. I pick up about a kill a day with it. This would only overpower him and make it easier for him to work. The 50% as is, is very decent all things considered, so I suggest you accept that it is 50% chance of striking and leave it at that. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

17:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting idea, but don't see much point. As Mis said, Knives are already best for property damage, due to their high accuracy. Further increasing it would buff GKers/RKers (whether that's a good or a bad thing is a matter of opinion). And the only ones who will likely reap the benefits are PKers and trenchies, since normal survivors would restock on ammo before getting that low or would be carrying a Toolbox, either of which would bump them over 30% easily. Just don't see the point. —Aichon— 04:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaking encumbrance for weight and bulk carried, and thus ease of combat. Encumbrance =/= realism. For example, you take two generators strapped to your back and a knife (42% encumbrance IIRC) and I'll take 49 syringes in a backpack and a knife (100% encumbrance) and we'll have ourselves a duel. Who'll win? Me. By a long way. Encumbrance exists to limit certain in game items, not to represent reality and therefore combat potential. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot makes a valid point of the logical fallacy that people make in many games, mistaking encumbrance for bulk. I will add the point that of all players, I think the ones that will benefit the most from this will actually be PKers (as The Colonel hinted at). Once a PKer uses up all his/her ammo (and a large amount of encumbrance), they usually just have either an axe or a knife left. If they drop any excess empty weapons *coughSHOTGUNScough* they can easily hit below that 30% and get a nice bonus giving them a reliable way to finish a kill. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Maverick is on the money. I have a dedicated PK're character, and the knife is my best friend for finishing kills. not only when i'm out of ammo, but also to save it for the next poor bastard i pick out of a crowd. Give me 55% to hit, and my axe pretty much becomes dead weight. I think for the sake of balance, the accuracy is fine. But I see the fundimental point of the idea, it's maybe just not applicable to Urban Dead. At least not in this way. ---Jack ^{S13 T! PC} 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Even at 55% hit the knife is still slightly worse than the axe in terms of damage/AP. I'm not keeping my encumberance below 30% just so I can have a weapon that is as good as or slightly worse (or even slightly better) than the best melee weapon in the vast majority of cases. As a PKer I would keep my axe for emergencies and try to keep enough ammo in reserve that I rarely ever had to use it. Who does this help? GKers? Even if it gave the knife 65% hit rate it would still be unused by most players. An easy way around the problem of uber property destruction would be to cap all melee hit rates against generators and transmitters at 50%; though as I mentioned above, while not flawed as such, this suggestion has a very limited scope. --Anotherpongo 09:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

---

New Encumbrance/Search Rates (or: Zombie Lord’s Next Amazing Idea)

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 03:56 22 December 2009(BST)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Encumbrance/Search Rates

Description: Ok, now the Encumbrance of all Items is doubled. But, now all search rates are doubled as well. (or tripled, whatever works better) This way you can carry less Items and it’s less retarded with the whole carrying 5 Portables Generators at once BS, but at the same time you can cycle through Items quicker so basically you have to use em up a lot faster. In a siege this could help Survivors in special areas (getting more FAKs out in Hospitals making them much cooler, same with PD’s etc.) But you would no longer be a walking fuckin Warehouse.

Discussion (New Encumbrance/Search Rates (or: Zombie Lord’s Next Amazing Idea))

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: January 2 at 17:12 (UTC)

What if I like carrying 20 or so shotguns underneath my trenchcoat? Now I won't be able to carry them and be hardcore zombie killer who shoots people outside buildings. I will have to rely on overcading like I normally do to keep zombies out because you nerfed my encumberance. Truthfully...I don't like it, as a Death cultist, I like to take a day or two to stock up on ammo, and once I'm out, I jump and eat people. This would limit the number of kills I can make my limiting my guns and ammo that I can carry, I understand I can find more, but carry less. Without the ability to carry, I don't like it. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

04:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Just double the max AP possible while you're at it. I mean, if we double/triple everything, it won't fuck with the intended way the game is supposed to be played, right? It'll just make things more epic? --

 

 

 

 

04:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but I think we're way past "intended way the game is supposed to be played". Do you honestly take that seriously? Besides, doubling the AP would just be stupid.--

| T | BALLS! | 04:43 22 December 2009(BST)

Yeah, doubling AP is stupid, it's not like Nexus War did it for years.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Better to just make the 50 AP we have more effective. It would increase the "fun factor" if half your actions (or more) didn't turn out to be completely wasted and would not double the server load.--

| T | BALLS! | 16:42 22 December 2009(BST)

As is simply doubling other random aspects of the game. If you actually thought the game was as broken as you claim it is; you'd go to further lengths when suggesting balance/gameplay improvements, methinks. --

 

 

 

 

04:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously just a basic idea, open for discussion. The core being making things easier to find, but being able to carry less of them. The rest is open to development.--

| T | BALLS! | 04:59 22 December 2009(BST)

Well, I think it would make short-term seige gameplay much more engaging for survivors, but at the same time, well, seiges aren't what they used to be (ie. decent or long-term) since Kevan introduced Cadeblocking, so I dunno. At first I thought it would also make it a lot more difficult for survivors to pick back up after a big trouncing, but doubling search rates would also mean that the search rates would be so good that lighting buildings wouldn't be necessary so they could recover without needing a fuel and genny. Hmm. Interesting proposal. --

 

 

 

 

05:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm yes, depending on how high the search rates went it could make PG's less needed for rebuilding, which I had not really considered. It makes sense though, a ruined building should not be THAT large an impediment to searches. I'd think the presence of Zombies probably should, but that's for another suggestion. I was more thinking that if PG's weighed 40% or so then you'd want to set them up somewhere ASAP instead of lugging them all over, and I like the idea of empowering the special qualities of specific buildings (Hospitals, PD's etc.) Malls search rates might need to be lowered slightly to keep them form being the Fortress of Doom and make their bonus the luxury of variety vs amazing search rates, which might lead to less Mall-centric play.--

| T | BALLS! | 05:20 22 December 2009(BST)

Not a fan. However, to note something, what happens to the people who are already over the encumbrance rate if this gets implemented? E.g. My Encumbrance is 87%. This happens. Effectively, I could now only hold < 50%. Do I keep all of the junk I had before? But, as I said, still not a fan. Doubling/Halving is way too much to even consider.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You probably get to keep your junk until you use it up.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:08 23 December 2009(UTC)

I don't like this. Makes it too difficult for zombies that don't spend much time alive to go off like bombs when they get combat revived. Before the "Get Brain Rot and STFU!" types chime in, I should point out I mainly mean rotters. They do get CRed (in fact my last two CRs were suffered by this guy, and unlike death cultists or the less committed, if they want to punish the CR with gunplay they've got to stock up a lot in advance because while it happens, it's not very often, and they need to move quick before they get PKed just for having the rot. --Mold 05:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

But what if I WANT to be a walking Warehouse? Some of us enjoy the hilarity of holding what could be tons of stuff and still being able to even move. Cookies and Cream 11:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, some of you are complete pussies.--

| T | BALLS! | 17:12 26 December 2009(UTC)

---

Morphine

Timestamp: Captdrett 18:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Type: Drug

Scope: Survivor

Description: Morphine can be used by a survivor on another survivor or on themselves temporarily making all movements cost double. This would not effect other actions and no XP would be awarded. The effects of morphine would last 12 hours of real time, regardless of AP used during that time. Morphine can not be used on zombies. Morphine can only be found at hospitals. Cost to use: 1 AP Encumbrance: 2% (for needle) Requires: Lab Experience Optional Effect: Morphine causes all attempted speech to be jumbled. Players type as normal; however, letters are randomly replaced when the character speaks making it difficult to understand what was said. This does not effect what the character hears.

Discussion

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: Dec 31 at 02:04 (UTC)

And the point of this is? - User:Whitehouse 18:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Griefing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that is what I thought it sounded like. :P - User:Whitehouse 18:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, it would be used defensively; but, yes it certainly could be used as griefing, although a player could avoid any negative effects by waiting it out. Captdrett 19:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Defensively? What benefit to defense does this give? Also, "wait it out?" I guess you can just "wait out" those zombie break-ins too... no, nobody ever needs to flee and people just love having their movement speed halved for no reason. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Defensively. To escape a PKer or to escape as a PKer and increase your odds of getting away. And waiting wouldn't be required, just a way to avoid any negative effects. If you got 1 AP you can run out of the building whether you spend 1 or 2 AP. Captdrett 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you even read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots, or do you just decide that your idea was too awesome to possibly have mistakes? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 18:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I did actually. Care to be more specific? Captdrett 18:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't Reward Players for Playing Out of Character, Multiply it by a Billion, Put Yourself in the Other Person's Shoes, Make it More Fun, Not Less Fun, Make it Fun!. Are those enough? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 19:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the whole "this has absolutely no benefit yet allows survivors to jab each other and grief to no end." --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

How is that out of character? As for the fun, yes you are right, it doesn't perticularly add fun but I don't feel it takes it away either. I could see an issue with maintaining the timer on all players, so I'll agree that could be a problem. And, as for putting yourself in others shoes, this would be no different than moving zombie without lurching gait. Captdrett 19:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

...Are you stupid or something? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure am, but I put this under developing suggestions for a reason. I appreciate your comments on why it wouldn't work. Captdrett 19:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine.

1. Don't Reward Players for Playing Out of Character: That means you should avoid helping PKers, ZKers, Life Cultists, and Death Cultists. This suggestion only allows survivors to hurt other survivors, and is out of character.
2. Multiply it by a Billion: If every griefer spent all their AP finding and using these things, assuming they have little trouble finding their targets, they would probably be able to permanently suppress just about every active survivor's movement indefinitely. That's bad.
3. Put Yourself in the Other Person's Shoes: It wouldn't be like playing as a zombie without lurching gait, because zombies don't have to find entry points, gather supplies, run from falling buildings, scout the area, or go through a lengthy process of receiving a revive every time they die. It would in fact be like playing as a survivor with x2 movement costs.
4. Make it More Fun, Not Less Fun: Who is going to enjoy this? Griefers? They don't count. This clause and the next one are in the D&DN almost specifically to kill realism-over-fun and pro-griefing suggestions.
5. Make it Fun!: See above
6. Overall, this suggestion would add nothing of any value to the game, and would only serve as useless nerf to allow griefers to take away fun from other survivors. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 19:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

>PKers and Death Cultists are pretty in-genre. Human on human conflict, as well as mad religious cults are pretty staple to the zombie genre when it started. But besides that, all other points hold. Some people only play at a certain time each day, like say, right before they go to bed. If you jab them within twelve hours before that time, you've more or less forced them not to play that day. Or at the very least, not play as effectively. Not everybody spends all day watching their UD accounts for the morphine timer to run out. RinKou 20:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree with all assertations. I do agree, this was a poor suggestion. I will without sarcasm now agree with the stupid comment. Thank you, Lelouch. Captdrett 20:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Bah, no one who is even capable of considering themselves unintelligent actually is. It was a dumb idea, but everyone, no matter what, does some god-awful stupid things, worse than this, every now and again [thinks of last A/VB Talk comment about Iscariot]. The fact that you're willing to see your own idea's flaws means you're better at it than most of the people who put things up on this page. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 21:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Don't Reward Players for Playing Out of Character: This guideline is stupid and bullshit. Pking and culting is perfectly in character at any given time. please bawwwww some more about it.
2. Multiply it by a Billion: "If every griefer spent all their AP finding and using these things, assuming they have little trouble finding their targets, they would probably be able to permanently suppress just about every active survivor's movement indefinitely. That's bad." the only valid and good point you've made with your "i'mma be smarrt!" liste.
3. Put Yourself in the Other Person's Shoes: "It wouldn't be like playing as a zombie without lurching gait, because zombies don't have to find entry points, gather supplies, run from falling buildings, scout the area, or go through a lengthy process of receiving a revive every time they die. It would in fact be like playing as a survivor with x2 movement costs." Which would be a lot more fairer to newbie zombies who deal with worse shit all the time. Try limiting yourself to 35 ap AND 2x movement costs for a hell of a long time because you can't get the xp to get skills to give you a little bit more ap in the long run. Shut up.
4. Make it More Fun, Not Less Fun: Pkers and cultist would enjoy this quite a bit. They DO fucking count, because, you know what? It's a playing style in the game. It's been here just as long as the other ways of playing too.
5. Make it Fun!: It would definitely be fun as a pker/cultist to go in a safehouse and mass stick people, and then have the horde come in and wreck everything.

In short, you're a dumbass. Pkers and Cultists have become a fairly influential part of the game at this point, it's time you all grow up and stop thinking of them as a random anomaly (hint: they're not). Also. "huurrr r u stupid? hurrr". Get over yourself.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

u dun? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I love that the one you didn't provide a counter argument for is the one that severely breaks the game.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That's because he made a valid point there (and why I said so in the list). I just had to clear up the rest of his bullshit. :/ -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but arguably, it's enough to render this suggestion pretty much void. Hilarious way of deposing his comments, by the way. :D--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, the suggestion is overall shit, not very fun for anyone but one style of playing. And while I'd enjoy it, I'm sure Haliman wouldn't when I grief him to death. >:) -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 09:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My last note got removed :\ But anyway, it was basically what DM said. Human on human conflict, and to a lesser extent, mad cults, are pretty in genre. At least when everything started, that is. As far as Romero's films went, the central conflicts were human on human, with zombies in the background. In any case, some people only log on around one time a day. Some times that happens to be right before they go to bed. At worst, you've kept this person from playing one day. At best, you're still costing them at least 25 AP. Not everybody has the time to sit around and watch their morphine clocks. RinKou 01:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

lmao the real-life properties of heroin are the opposite of what this suggestion is suggesting. How about; Morphine revives 15HP, thats it..simple, none of that comedown bullshit and it does what its supposed to do. JUST LIKE A F.A.K. GasCandle 06:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This is dumb because people generally only play once a day at the same time, work out when someone's online and this can be used to grief that character out of the game. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How about...meth; you DONT LOSE ACTION POINTS AT ALL!! GasCandle 12:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but the only things you can do are talk, pick at your face, and clean obsessively, and each action that would normally cost an AP costs you a HP instead as you waste away from never eating. --Mold 12:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

you never eat in the game anyway. good point though, if you take alot of meth - u start to pick your skin (like IRL, after alot). if you can fight zombies you can handle your pipe. unless youre a little feen. SO ITS DECIDED THEN, meth is the new FIRST AID KIT GasCandle 13:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Add AIDS while you're at it. The new infection! --

 

 

 

 

04:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is completely pointless, it only helps griefers (which is not a valid playing style, thank you very much). It is not the same as playing a zombie without lurching gait because zombies can buy lurching gate to avoid spending 2x AP on movement whereas this allows someone to have their movement effectvely stalled indefinitely by greifers. Quite simply, no.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 02:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Alt Proximity Warning

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091219 Alt Proximity Warning