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
Zombies can bash down doors
| Timestamp: Enigma179 09:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
| Type: Gameplay change |
| Scope: Zombies |
| Description: My last suggestion was shot down quickly, and that was probably my fault, but hear me out. I've heard that being a low level zombie isn't extremely fun; You don't get to attack survivors except for the lucky finds in the street, unless you go through the trouble of travelling with a horde you can't get into safehouses, and even if you find a loosely barricaded place with the lights on inside, you bash down the barricade and can't get in, because of one thing. The door. I propose that zombies without Memories of Life can bash down doors as if they were another barricade level, as I can assume the survivors lock the doors. Those with memories of life of course, can waltz right in without going through the trouble of taking down another barricade level. This would allow lower level zombies to get xp in the standard way without Zking and Memories of Life still saves you some AP. |
Discussion (Zombies can bash down doors)
Something like this was proposed very recently by Zombie Lord, I believe, and I seem to recall that this aspect of his suggestion was well-regarded. I think it'd be a good idea. Zombies without a horde are weaker than survivors without a group, and this helps the newbies specifically without overpowering them. Sounds good all around. The only concern I'd have would be for lowbie survivors without Construction, but unbarricaded buildings that have their doors closed but are also unruined are uncommon as it is, and sleeping in ruined buildings has always been dangerous. It'd change very little for lowbie survivors. —Aichon— 10:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I like it. When I Z, I'd like to know that if I wanted to, I could rip off the doors and feed on the meat. My one problem is that, where do the smashed doors go when your recade? Cookies and Cream 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Assuming they haven't been ripped to shreds, you could just repair them using a toolbox. Chief Seagull (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Building Population Cap
Removed for further thought. Those still wishing to discuss it can find discussion here. --Maverick Talk - OBR 
404 21:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Adding PUMP Shotguns Read Before Killing
| Timestamp: --Supercohboy 05:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Type: Add New Weapon, Balancing with others | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Scope: Survivors and zombies, inventory(?) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description: The concept is adding a pump shotgun that does less damage than the double barrel, but has six (or five realistically) shells instead of two that you can load. Im thinking in the range of 7-8 damage, with the same default possibility to hit(%5)or a little more (%6-7), which would be added on to with training(firarms training, shotgun prof). This would also mean changing the text of Shotgun to Double Barrel Shotgun, which may prove a pain to change, but I thought it would be worth it. Now as you see this is different from other weapon suggestions, I'm not suggesting a military-grade shotgun I mean like ones you see in *a certain game where you are left to die* where it's pump action but doesn't look military grade. If I'm wrong about that than they could just be civilian pump shotguns, like hunting ones.
Tell me what you think, and I'm sure it needs tweaking somewhere;) UPDATE: Changed the way the accuracy part of the reading looks for easier reading, and look at that, my shotty here ends up being a combo of 2 that were scrapped. Does that decrease my odds then? lol...I may also tweak the damage-to shell ratio in this version or a future version if I try this again. Discussion (Adding PUMP Shotguns Read Before Killing)
Okay, I fixed your formatting so there was a barrier between suggestions. One sec and I'll pull out a set of dupes. Okay done. Dupe 1 Combat shotgun, and it seems to be combined with this one. -Devorac 06:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Alright, so you want a weapon which deals 8 damage, has a 70% hit rate, and has six shells. Well then, looks like the pistol, shotgun, fire axe, and all other weapons ever conceieved are now useless.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Adding new firearms only makes all the other firearms weaker, by diluting the search odds and making stockpiling more difficult. That's before you get to this weapon being a super-pistol which renders the pistol almost obsolete. *Sigh*You guys don't understand what I was saying. Its just a shotgun with a little less damage, SAME ODDS TO HIT as the other (maybe a little better by a few percent), but can carry more shells. That's it. Sorry if It was hard to understand that way. Thanks for fixing the formatting Devorac. Looking at the dupes after I write this. Thanks you for the output, but you guys misunderstood what I was saying. I'm editing it to be more clear now. Is this where I should put down replies to suggestions? --Supercohboy 18:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Alright then. Since this suggestion has been kicked in the faced and KOed....do I delete it or does it get archived by a moderator or something? I will clean up my own mess of course but what do I do with it throw it in the trash or put it on a shelf?--Supercohboy 20:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
How about making it use 2 AP to fire (one to "fire" one to "pump")?--Pesatyel 04:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Zombies can start fire
Discussion (Zombies can start fire)
I'll point out a few issues I have:
Honestly, I just don't see the point in the suggestion, and think it introduces major changes to gameplay for no discernible reason. —Aichon— 07:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of this skill, it's out of genre and slightly broken. Area of effect is always a bad idea. --Papa Johnny 15:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Only one word properly describes this suggestion... "What?" -Devorac 21:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Aside from this being an overly complex move for a brain-eater; I'm a little confused as to why survivors can't also use matches. There are death cults you know. --YoEleven 00:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC) How about we just no! -- 00:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This suggestion just sucks all over. Also: Quit stealing my font, Colonel. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
How about for Survivors to start a fireplace or fireworks in 4th of july, and even then that's REALLY pushin it. Also I remember zombies fearing fire, not a bad suggestion, just not quite right. --Supercohboy 05:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Encumbrance Effects II
Discussion (Encumbrance Effects II)
No. Most of us will continue to be over 70% rendering melee weapons useless. The encumbrance rules dramatically effect survivor life, if you're going to include nerfs then you may need to rework the whole system. -- I have no problem with some sort of system like this as long as it was balanced. Right now it is a severe penalty to survivors. Maybe if you significantly raised the % increase in skills for low encumbered players that might help. However figuring out what that increase might be to balance things would be a tricky subject in itself. PLUS, why no penalty to firearms attacks? So you are saying that PKers full of shotties and shells should have no penalty like the rest of us would? Cmon man, there are two sides to this game. --YoEleven 00:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Good idea in principle but those numbers seem wrong to me. I would put the +5% on anything upto 50% (leave the +10 as is) Penalties should only be in place for those getting real close to the full load so I would say -10 at 100% load and lower it on a 1 for 1 basis (ie: 95% load = -5%) As for enc. over 100% simply preventing (or restricting ) free running seems a lot more realistic and reasonable to me as you would probably be dropping most of your gear to actually fight but can't if you are trying to flee! --Honestmistake 12:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC) How about we add one suggestion you make, and in exchange you stop posting them? Sound good, if so I would vote for this, it's the first thing you wrote that makes any sort of sense. -- 22:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hit percentages are fine the way they are. --Papa Johnny 15:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Festering Wound v.2.1
Discussion (Festering Wound)
it's an idea i had a long, long time ago, and completely forgot about. I've lowerd the success rates substantially, and altered the discriptive text to be more to the point. please discuss. Why is it red? and why is it just 5%? also, if someone isn't carrying a FAK they deserve to be infected. Cookies and Cream 16:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I do like the idea of increased infection. Here's a thought, though - have the % chance be equal to the character's level. 1% means newbies don't worry as much about it, but 40+% makes it a real tactic against established players.
There's something similar out there in PR, though the mechanic is slightly different; it involves multiple infectious zombies biting the same target. --Bob Boberton TF / DW I like the general idea. Infection is anyway more a psychological warfare thing than a real threat (at least with half-way organized and prepared survivors), and making it less predictable aids the idea behind it. I'd even go as far and make it a save-or-die check each turn with a low chance as 1% or 2% - not a real threat if you always carry at least one FAK with you at all times and step back a minute to calculate (which you should _always_ do if you want to breath), but something that makes you think twice before you do anything but taking care of your wound - or doing reckless things as cading or shooting with zeds present without waiting for the game's output. --Spiderzed 21:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 5% does seem rather under-powered considering you're only adding 1 extra damage. I would say something along the lines of 15-25% seems about right. Aside from that, I like this. Simple and to the point; a no-nonsense suggestion that I can get behind. --Maverick Talk - OBR
Devorac's idea is really amazing, but for UD adds complication where it's not needed. This kind of mechanic would be great though in a consol game. ok. well, I think there's been enough said. I'll put up the suggestion at 25% for the extra damage, and if it flops, I'll lower it by 5 and try again. thanks folks. Jack S13 T! PC 17:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC) XP system change
Discussion (XP system change)
Points for trying, but I don't think this will ever pass. Particularly because I do not think that the server keeps a record of the order in which a player obtained skills, making the skill loss thing kind of difficult to implement. Also, this seems to punish players with low XP (say you just bought a skill) and who might not do anything to earn XP for a day. What if you are walking across the city, or you are maintaining barricades during a siege? --Maverick Talk - OBR
And in this example you'll be seeing two of my characters, DY and Cloister. Let's make clear that neither has been idled for prolonged periods of time causing the other to have an advantage on XP gain/retention under this suggestion. DY has 40 levels and 999XP, amounting to 5299XP earned in the game (if my tired brain can add up correctly), compared to Cloister and his 21 levels and 6700XP, amounting to 8800XP earned in the game. Now Cloister has three and a half thousand more XP than DY, quite acceptable if you want to point out that Cloister participate for most of the Mall Tour, quite unacceptable if you realise that Cloister was created in October 2008 and DY was created in December 2007. DY has nearly a full year game time on his clock and is still down by so much. Why? Their activities. Cloister ferals his way, most of his action involve cracking weak buildings (for XP), killing (for XP) and ransacking (for XP), DY barricades (not for XP) and repairs (not for XP). Asking for more skills is old news? So instead you want to make valid and altruistic play styles obsolete by punishing survivors that don't kill zombies on the street and zombies that block RPs and hold doors open? --
Wow! This is the best idea ever - If you are into trenching outdoor Zombies. Let me put it this way, I have 2 alts who do nothing but barricade their AP each day. If I'm lucky I get to repair a building for 2 or 3 AP, but otherwise I havent gained any real XP with them in months. Are you saying they arent useful? If you play a survivor you are benefiting from mine and other peoples cade work. I fail to see why I should be penalized for not shooting a zombie outdoors with a shotgun every day. Pfft. I'm down for new skills if they make sense. Penalties for not continuing to farm xp, no thank you. --YoEleven 10:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This inordinately punishes people that just earned skills. Some poor guy gets his 101XP together, buys his skill, and logs back on the next day to find that he has 39 XP and no skill. If you think about it, he could be losing XP at 2-4x the rate that a veteran player would, because he'd lose 50XP each time that happened, vs. the 12 that a vet would lose over 24 hours. That's hardly right. In general though, it doesn't matter what rate you choose for the loss, since this idea simply makes the game less fun for players by punishing them unnecessarily. You punish players if you want to discourage certain behaviors. In this case, the behavior you're punishing is playing the game itself, and you're especially punishing certain play styles that are enjoyable, productive, and conducive to good gameplay. Again, that's hardly right. —Aichon— 11:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This would seriously kill new players. WHYYY? I get that you want to make xp mean something after level 43, but stomping all over new chaps' progression (particularly new zombies; the zombie XP path is painfully slow) is something that the whole game dislikes. See: the old Headshot, which took away XP. --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
This is retarded. You want to make XP "mean something" then WHY would you do the opposite? As Karloth said, all this does is hurt players that haven't maxed out. The end result is to "force" players to "earn xp" every 2 hours or lose it. MOST players play at the same time every day. It would suck ass to log in at the same time I play every day and learn I've lost 12 XP and, quite possibly a skill. You must not have been around when Headshot took away XP.--Pesatyel 05:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
New Encumbrance/Search Rates (or: Zombie Lord’s Next Amazing Idea)
Discussion (New Encumbrance/Search Rates (or: Zombie Lord’s Next Amazing Idea))
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)
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)
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)
K.I.S.S. It seems to me you tend to complicate things too much. If your argument is realism, as in, it isn't realistic for an individual to carry multiple generators (to use one example), why not just make a suggestion saying you can only carry one or something?--Pesatyel 05:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Suggestions up for votingNew Candy Each YearDiscussion moved to Suggestion talk:20100108 New Candy Each Year.-- | T | BALLS! | 09:26 9 January 2010(UTC)Killing Blow Flavour TextDiscussion moved to Suggestion talk:20100107 Killing Blow Flavour Text.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 20:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC) |
