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

Newbie Protection

Timestamp: Cookies and Cream 11:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Type: Mechanic

Scope: Newbies

Description: This is a suggestion to (surprise!) protect Newbs. My idea is that any Newbie character less than Level 2 or perhaps 3, when inevitably attacked, has a lower percentage Hit Rate than anyone else. Say a 20% percent decrease. That means, if a PKer using a Shotgun, instead of having a 65% hit rate, has a 45% Hit rate. This also applies to Zombie Newbs.

Discussion (Newbie Protection)

Wow, the amount of fail in this suggestion is exquisite. Nerfing zombie and helping zergs all at once, brilliant idea(!) -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Ruin permanently destroys locks

Timestamp: Honestmistake 15:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Type: mechanic

Scope: every door that currently defeats none MoL zombies

Description: Over the many years of quarantine just about every door in Malton has been kicked in, clawed at, gnawed on and probably been hit by hundreds of stray rounds and the time has finally come to admit that they are probably not as strong as they once where. If implemented all future ruins will remove the ability to close the door in that building forever! However the door may still be wedged shut with pipes (and no skill) and will count as a seperate level of barricade (closed door, loose, light etc...) that can be bashed by all and sundry! On a related note what would people think about letting players choose to use the various bats, clubs and sticks to similarly brace doors? I would think it would have to be an option that people actively choose but it does make sense. --Honestmistake 15:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion (Ruin permanently destroys locks)

I don't like it. Very much OPed.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It follows the same precedent set by wire fences and removes something that affects newbies only. Current players aren't bothered because they have the skill, can stockpile AP as a survivor or know enough zombie groups to be fed up in short order, the only thing the impenetrable door of doom hurts are newbies who are forced to sit and grind barricades until they get enough XP. Helping newbies is a good thing. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that helping newbies is a good thing, but I prefer the method proposed by this suggestion instead. Making it permanent would hurt human newbies. —Aichon— 16:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That version is perilously close to making this a Dupe. In essence the main difference is that I am taking MoL out of the equation entirely and offering a bit of logical narrative for the change. --Honestmistake 10:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't be duped with things from Talk:Suggestions. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the massive AP advantages the survivor side still has, combined with the fact that smart play means you'll never see a zombie in months if you want, the chance of harming survivor newbies is quite low. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Smart play on the newbzombie's side means seeking out the horde, the chance of encountering locked doors with more than 50 buddies gnawing on the cades beside you is quite low.--Thadeous Oakley 10:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The horde? What is it with you survivors and thinking there's only one? Of course a new zombie should seek out the horde, in the same way that new survivors should seek out resources and XP sources, the difference? One of these classes has to spend twice as many AP just to stay with its friends... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The only time i really see this screwing survivors is in any future new cities where those indestructible doors really do save survivors hoops... However as the building needs to be ruined before this happens it would probably add a lot of chaos and uncertainty to the situation and that can only be good! --Honestmistake 12:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Howabout Ruin destroys the ability to use the building doors, restoring it with a pipe reinstates the doors? --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 15:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really get around the key problem of doors being invincible but it would still be a step in the right direction. --Honestmistake 16:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Name Change

Timestamp: Gmmg 02:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Type: General Player Tweak

Scope: Both

Description: For 200 XP (or some other number) , a user can change his/her username.

Discussion (Name Change)

Open to too much abuse. Player X changes their name to something easily mistakable for Player B's name, kills a bunch of survivors, then changes back. Player B now has to deal with the aftermath. Or, Player A wants to hide from bounty hunters or PKers or whatever, changes their name to avoid detection, then back again later. Plenty of players have the xp stockpiled for this to be a regular occurence. 02:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly as Mis, plus you do realise that you still wouldn't be able to take an 'in use' name until that player changed theirs don't you? So if you can't create a character with that name already, you still won't be able to get the name you want. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Extra Anti-Zerg Measures

Timestamp: 19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: Changes to the in-game zerging countermeasures

Scope: Filthy cheats with nothing better to do than zerg-rush a browser game

Description: It's probably been suggested before, but I propose an extra tweak to the zerg flag that gets triggered in-game - the one which drastically decreases the accuracy of the zerger's attacks or the effectiveness of their search rates. In addition to these rates, I propose that any attacks made against, not by, the zerging characters are given a 20% accuracy boost (this number can be tweaked, but it should be relatively large). With the continual decrease in overall player numbers, any given zerg player is going to be more and more effective, and the ability to take out players the game has flagged as zerging with greater ease would help to counteract this. It'd be a welcome relief to put an end to the frustrated expletives the missus has to suffer, anyway. Another approach would be to rule out the all-over increase, and have any attacks use a flat rate of 75-85%, if that would be easier to implement (I don't understand coding games that well so someone might want to enlighten me as to which would be easier to introduce). As for why I haven't gone the whole hog and suggested automatically hitting, it's because this is still a game, and there should always be some element of achievement in doing these things, though they should be made increasingly easier to persuade more players into joining in with the public service that is zerg hunting.

Discussion (Extra Anti-Zerg Measures)

Since existing zergs get around these countermeasures every day, why would beefing up their effects accomplish anything? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 20:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It reduces the AP/ammunition needed to keep one down, which makes a lot of difference if you're able to watch revive points - plenty of them in the centre-north tend to leach off public RPs. Plus even if they're of the kind who revive internally, you're still wasting the time and AP it takes them to do so, easier. If they can work around what's already in place, this just provides more to work around. There's no point being complacent about it, more pressure is more pressure. 20:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

But if they don't trigger the measures, this won't effect them. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing effects them. Might affect them, though. And I still fail to see how "don't try" helps the problem. 22:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your arguing out of a "it won't hurt if doesn't help" perspective. Sure, this suggestion is not going to have any negative effects, but it will very rarely help, let alone solve the actual problem of zerging. --Thadeous Oakley 22:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

My spell-check went haywire; I'm still getting this new browser worn in. Not trying won't help us against zergs, but neither will this. Any zerg that triggers this would all ready be triggering the other built-in flags that would make his characters useless. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps the method of triggering the flag needs to be looked at, in order to give it greater purpose. 02:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it does. If the flagging system was foolproof, we wouldn't have zergs; we'd just have people who pathetically attempted to do so and wound up screwing themselves over. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never thought about this, and it seems good, but I'd still prefer doubling AP usage for zergs, or something similar to what Shartak has.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, I like that too. 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You're only making the penalties of zerg detection harder. Almost all zergs know where it stings, and will usually avoid detection by the game by using proxies or just keeping em out of the same building. Lelouch pretty much nailed it, zergs have always gotten around this sort of measures. --Thadeous Oakley 22:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Does Kevan necessarily want it known who has been accused of zerging?--Pesatyel 02:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Kevan has never revealed the full extent of the zerg flag triggers or its effects on players caught by it. Proof that this doesn't already exist? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As others have said, the two questions that immediately came to my mind when reading the suggestion were "are you sure it's not already in-game?" and "if the only ones we need to use it against are ones that will never trip it, what good does it do?" Regarding the first question, I've heard various PKers remark off-handedly that they seem to have a more favorable RNG when hunting zergs, and though I don't know if they were being entirely serious, the thought wouldn't surprise me if Kevan had already implemented this. Regarding the second, well, it speaks for itself. —Aichon— 07:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Who gives a damn if it doesn't get used very often? Fuck zergers, they, and any who can't keep track of where there alts are, deserve to be killed, even if it's just a minor inconvenience for them.--Big Cat 21:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be hard to code? Frankly if its a minor implementation that has a minor effect it would still be wortwhile--Honestmistake 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Worthless. It's obvious that Kevan actually likes Zergs and people that simply change their IP address in order to run dozens of "non-zerg" alts. They all equal more ad revenue and that's all that matters. Which is why this "game" will always be a broken pile of shit.--

| T | BALLS! | 15:38 2 February 2010(UTC)

Troll much? Enigma179 10:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's a "broken pile of shit" then piss off and find something better to do. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 15:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I just thought i'd take the time to say I love Karl. Perhaps not for that statement, just in general. -- Rahrah wants you all to know that MOM is open now. 16:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Ladders

Timestamp: MikeLemmer 21:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: Item Addition

Scope: Getting into buildings

Description: Ladders give new survivors a way to enter heavily barricaded buildings, while keeping Free Running useful. If the survivor has a ladder & is outside a heavily-barricaded building, he can use the ladder to enter it via a window. The encumbrance and one-use-only nature of the ladder keeps it inferior to Free Running, but it can be a lifesaver for a novice survivor that needs to get into a building. Ladder: 40% Encumbrance, found in Factories, Warehouses, Fire Stations, and Junkyards, can be used by a survivor for 1 AP to enter a building regardless of barricade level. It is discarded after use. "You brace the ladder against a wall and climb in through a window, pushing the ladder away once you're in." Advantages: Lets a survivor get into any building, regardless of barricade level. Useful if survivor doesn't have Free Running or if all buildings in a cluster are Heavily Barricaded. Disadvantages: Extremely bulky, taking up almost half your encumbrance. This is a bigger disadvantage for veteran players; new players usually won't have enough inventory to care. The AP cost to find a ladder is more than it usually costs to use a Free Runner path. One use per ladder. Modifications (1/31/10): Further modifications based on feedback & thought: Ladders can't be used on ruined buildings, to preserve the pinata strategy. Search rates tweaked so other items aren't crowded out of important resource points so much: Junkyards, Warehouses: High Fire Department, Street, Wasteland: Medium Factory, Mall hardware store: Low Following the fir tree example, ladders can be used as melee weapons (10%, 2 damage)

Discussion (Ladders)

I can't immediately think of something bad about this suggestion. Seems like an interesting idea but I'm sure someone is going to find a flaw here. --Thadeous Oakley 21:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I think it's because this might actually be... balanced? But I swear that can't be right. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless a new player starts with one, the effort of finding it is going to be extremely tiresome - it's a good idea in theory, though I'd consider having it be a starting item for one of the classes. Firefighter makes the most sense, but doesn't need any kind of a boost. Maybe all of them, save scout? 21:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it'd probably be more of a "hey, I found a ladder...this might be useful" type of thing, rather than a "I must go out and search for a ladder now" type of thing. And I have to say, I can't think of anything wrong with it either, and rather like the idea. —Aichon— 22:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe Consumers could use it the most. With current barricade policies, malls are either EHB, under attack by zombies, or ruined. One of my characters is a Consumer; it has dawned on me I probably can't use his initial Shopping skill until I get Free Running. Not only doesn't he have have any initial skills that help him earn XP, but he can't put his initial skill to use until Level 2! The ladder is my answer to the question "How can I let Consumers use Shopping at Level 1?" --MikeLemmer 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As a death-cultist, I must point out that this takes a lot of the sting from overcading and especially pinatas. Why bother to hack down those cades from the outside if you can just go in? And it's going to happen, just as the high encumbrance of gennys and fuel doesn't keep smarter groups from keeping spare ones for key TRPs at hand. If ruins would be excluded from laddering (too crumbly to lean a ladder on or whatever), I might change my mind. --Spiderzed 22:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't really feel that sorry if Death Cultists suddenly can't overcade properly anymore. As for Ruins, yeah that would make sense leaving it out. --Thadeous Oakley 22:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And I really don't feel sorry that people can't enter EHB buildings without free running, but they play the game too and I respect their desires. 22:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean we should never attempt to change things, now would we? --Thadeous Oakley 23:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not what I said. Just saw you being quite dismissive of a whole play style. I'd say restricting a ladder to Heavily or Very Heavily Barricaded buildings still gives it use, and allows pinatas to still function. 23:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that my main point have been pinatas. They take quite some planning, skill and luck to create (unless you happen to roll with a well-organized group as a Gore Corps), and you neglect other opportunities as parachuting or GKing on such a gamble. Therefore, it should yet take some effort to undo, rather than letting everyone with a toolbox and a ladder to spare undo everything for 2AP. I'm fine with regular buildings, and with them, ladders might even become an useful item for cultists. They don't need much inventory but ammo anyway, and it could take away the headache of finding an entry point in time. --Spiderzed 23:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that restricting a ladder to non-ruined buildings would work better for pinatas. If a building isn't VSB, it's probably EHB, and restricting ladders from working on EHB buildings would defeat their whole purpose. I also thought it might make it easier for new death cultists to get into barricaded buildings. Also, zombies could start carrying a ladder around with them and, if accidently revived, use it to get into an EHB building and wreck havoc until they're killed again. --MikeLemmer 23:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I must disagree that this wouldn't help veteran survivors. I'm currently encumbered at 98% or so. Say I go out now and grab a ladder. Because of the way the game works, I can keep all of my useless junk, and STILL carry the ladder. Too big a buff, at the moment.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh, it would basically function as free entry card once per veteran survivor. It would take a considerable effort to get your inventory set up like that. I don't think it would be that much of a buff, especially considering survivors have implied the same overemcumberence strategy with gennies for God knows how long.--Thadeous Oakley 22:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I also chose most of the ladder-spawning buildings to either be A)poor resource points, B)good resource points for permanent items, or C)good resource points for other bulky items. From my current viewpoint, a novice is more likely to search in any building they can find, or hit a Fire Department for the all-important Fire Axe, and find a ladder in the process. The only veterans I expect to find ladders on the side are those searching for generators, fuel, or toolboxes, two of which are also bulky as hell. Can I get an opinion on that from a veteran? --MikeLemmer 22:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My veteran opinion is listed above. If this ladder existed, I would take one.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this right, you want an item that negates the no entry clause on HB or higher cades? You want this to help newbies get into malls?

This item is unneeded, newbies can walk up to the mall and click enter to get in.... unless of course some idiot's caded the entire mall up. Who's fault is that? That's right, it's the fault of the survivors. You don't get a new item to bypass the downsides in your own fucking policies. Why should there be a possibility of a street treat escaping from a feral due to an item you got put into the game because the entire pro-survivor side are stupid?

Overcading is a valid tactic because none of you have barricade plans with enough entry points. Want to stop getting locked out? Talk to each other and create and maintain more entry points. Don't come here and expect to get a free pass for your own idiocy. It's your side of the game, the onus is on you to let the newbies into the mall, not for us to change the game because you can't be bothered.

Why the fuck don't you make sure that malls in green suburbs are lowered to VSB to let newbies in? Why should Kevan rush to cover you lot again? Barricades work on a trade, more protection from an attack for no entry. Want entry points? Have less protection. This is the fundamental principle of barricades that is the basis of all zombie/survivor conflict. Do not negate them just because you don't like the inherent and deliberate downside. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I believe this is a dupe. Maybe someone could search for it. And I'd like everyone to imagine what the areas outside malls would look like after 1 month of this. There'd be no need for 'cades, the zombes wouldn't be able to get in because of the piles of ladders. Cookies and Cream 10:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless of course they are wooden ladders that break when they fall down from standing at such heights, yet can hold a single survivors weight long enough for them to get in, or they're biodegradable.--Big Cat 12:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's a dupe, could you please provide a link to the duped suggestion? I've done a quick cursory scan of previous suggestions & saw nothing that seemed to cover this. MikeLemmer 08:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a looksee. Such as this or this? Is that good? Cookies and Cream 11:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This suggestion strikes me as different. Mike's suggestion sticks with the usual and accepted item rules, while those two suggestions add unnecessary frills (2AP move cost, ladder creation based on Construction which helps new characters not at all etc.) --Spiderzed 12:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose. Better you get the dupeness cleared here, than when you take it to Suggestions, anyway. Cookies and Cream 07:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was ready to shoot this idea down based on the name, but I think the encumbrance level and 1 use balances it out nicely. My only real problems are with the justification of why a ladder could only be used once, and adding them to hardware store searches. But for me right now that would be enough to vote no. If you can think of a more plausible explanation for why a ladder is only used 1 time, and if you remove them from hardware stores, I'd be in favor.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What about grappling guns or grappling hooks? They are more outlandish than ladders (and Hollywood brought us lots of misconceptions about their usage), but are better to rationalize as one-shot items. --Spiderzed 14:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's one use because you can't take it with you? I dunno, but trying to maneuver a ladder through a window you just climbed through seems a bit impossible. --Thadeous Oakley 20:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Perhaps having that reflected in the flavour text would be a good idea. 20:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Gameplay-wise, ladders would either be too powerful (if they were unlimited use) or too much extra coding (if they were like generators and could be set and then taken down / destroyed). The "you climb up the ladder and leave it behind since it's too bulky to drag up with you" would be enough of a handwave to justify it, just like how people accept you can't unhook a used portable generator and take it with you. MikeLemmer 08:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerning hardware stores: I would like to keep them out of hardware stores, but honestly... why wouldn't a hardware store have ladders? I'm having trouble figuring out an explanation to that besides "I said so". MikeLemmer 08:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would streets and wastelands?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Because ladders might've been stored in garages, or left unattended outside when the plague hit, or they're looting other abandoned ladders... that's the handwave. Gameplay-wise, because newbies might be crazy enough to search in those areas. MikeLemmer 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Make it impossible to freerun whole carrying a ladder and you might just squeak this through....--Honestmistake 00:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable, but that would require some new code on Kevan's part. It might get past the public, but it'd probably get shot down by the programmer. --MikeLemmer 05:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Could've sworn there was a guideline around here saying that you shouldn't worry about how difficult a thing is to code, since all of the suggestions require new coding anyway and it's up to Kevan in the end regardless, but I can't find it. That said, as someone with a little experience programming, it seems to me that checking for a ladder when Free Running wouldn't take more than a few lines and a few minutes to code up. It's pretty trivial, I should think. —Aichon— 07:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You just know someone is going to come over here, read that, and say "Well, then let's do the same thing for Generators." And yeah, I believe there was something about only thinking about the merit of the suggestion. It is at the bottom of the Suggestion Template thingy. You know the one. The Subst:Suggestion Voting thing, in Invalid Votes. Cookies and Cream 07:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Infect 'em while they're down

Timestamp: Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 13:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: Gemeral Gameplay Change

Scope: Zombies with Infectious Bite

Description: When biting corpses, you infect them.

Discussion (Infect 'em while they're down)

Could one bite revivifying bodies to infect them? Or would that be limited to fully dead bodies as per Digestion?
On one hand, it's useful for death-cultists like me to get easier re-infected if one gets FAKed... On the other hand, being a body is the sole status in the game where you are 100% safe (except for dumping), so changing that would change existing fundamental assumptions. I'd be undecided as of now. --Spiderzed 13:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

When they're down, they have no circulation, so being able to be infected makes little sense, I think. —Aichon— 20:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't mean the infection isn't living in the body in a dormant state or summin'-- Big Cat 20:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Twice now that I mistook you for Cyberbob in the edit summary. --Thadeous Oakley 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Better?--Big Cat 20:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that helps, thanks. My brain kept concluding it's was Cyberbob because it read that first. --Thadeous Oakley 20:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Overpowered. Camping rotters could easily infect whole lines of dead bodies, not mention this allows you to harm bodies. It just increases the annoyance factor of infection. --Thadeous Oakley 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeh this would be pretty devastating.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Heavily Injured First

Timestamp: Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 13:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: General Gameplay Change

Scope: Players with Diagnosis

Description: If you have Diagnosis, the list of survivors in the same block will be organised by health/last logged in (i.e. survivors with the same health are organised by who was online last), with the least amount of health listed first. This applies to Zombies too.

Discussion (Heavily Injured First)

No, I like them organised as they are. Use a script.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Tactically, the current ordering system is far more useful. With diagnosis, it's not a huge task to pick out the injured manually. 15:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I already have a script that effectively does this, which was, itself, a modified script. Look for chud. —Aichon— 20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You want to do less work reading the game page and want the entire game to change for you? No. Go read the game screen properly or get yourself a personal script. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Dump Stinky Last

Timestamp: Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 13:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: General Gameplay Change

Scope: Survivors with Scent Death

Description: Simply put, when a survivor with Scent Death dumps a body out of a building/fort which contains one or more bodies which are reviving, they will dump non-reviving bodies first (if there are any). Dumping a body without Scent Death will be handled the same as it is now.

Discussion (Dump Stinky Last)

The game doesn't tell you which bodies exactly are revivifying and which aren't, even if you've contact-listed folks, so this change wouldn't make sense with the current output.
Also, riding on this line of thinking opens the door for other changes along these lines (like choosing not to dump contacts), all of which would improve the survivor side without helping the zombie side. Why bother to kill folks to force them to dump every body into the cold if they can surgically choose who to dump and who not? --Spiderzed 13:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Nerfs zombie anonymity, this is a bad thing. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Separate XP for Separate Skills

Timestamp: Enigma179 03:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: Rules Change

Scope: Survivors and Zombies

Description: I figured that someone gets experience in gun combat NOT by healing people or becoming a zombie and beating the snot out of people, but by y'know... using their guns. I propose that there be four kinds of experience (yes, those who play fable may start to see a resemblance). There could be combat experience, general experience, science experience and zombie experience. You would get general experience with any experience-gaining action we have now, and it would be the only experience you get from tagging/reading. Now, replace around 1/4 of the experience you get from combat (fighting zombies or humans, as a human) with combat experience, replace 1/4 of the experience you get from science (DNA scanning, revivification, healing) with science experience, and replace 1/4 of the experience you get as a zombie (all of the zombie experience-gaining actions) with zombie experience. General experience works just like how all XP works now; you can spend it on any skill you like. Combat experience can only be spent on military skills. Science experience can only be spent on science skills, and zombie experience can only be spent on zombie skills. When buying skills, it will automatically deduct the skillset-specific XP first, then general. In this way, players could be more specialized, but I don't think it will break game mechanics in any unacceptable way. I don't know if this has been done before, as it would be extremely hard to search through both sections, and I know that the Dos and Do Nots say that you shouldn't mess with XP, but I don't think that this will affect it so brokenly, and after all, this is what the developing sections is for, right?

Discussion (Separate XP for Separate Skills)

It's realistic, I don't know a single doctor that has spent hours in surgery and come out with an ability to perform tai otoshi better. Unfortunately this game contains zombies, which are as unrealistic as you're ever likely to get.

All this suggestion does is force a player into more grinding, it's a standard 'feature' in things like Warcraft because you have to pay to play, making you play longer means more money. UD doesn't need you to grind to make money, so all this does is reduce player fun by making them perform tedious actions before getting back to doing what they want. Case in point is the current young pretender Shintolin, after a week or two of grinding you can be an absolute badass with a spear and kill anything with ease, but if you want to then gain different skills you need to stop having fun and cut down trees non-stop for a week.... SNORE *Click close button on window*

To be fair, I'll probably institute the same system in my game when it's made, but for UD all it'll do is make the game less fun for new players, not affect older ones in the slightest and hasten game death. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

In practice, isn't this already basically accomplished by making characters pay 75/100/150 XP for the various skills, depending on their starting class? People who start off as a character "specializing" in science have a harder time learning military skills, for example, as well they should, yet can learn them eventually. Your system would do the same, but complicate it a bit more. Seems unnecessary at this point. —Aichon— 04:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Against it. New players have already a hard time to gather XP at all and very limited opportunities, and this change would even take their freedom away to use these early XP as they want. Especially as the three most vital skills for survivors come from all the three different proposed areas (Diagnosis, Freerunning, Construction).
As a death-cultist and Dual Nature player, I'd also wish to point out that you especially nerf trans-mortal characters, as they can't use XP gained on one side to quickly improve their other side (like getting the vital Freerunning to parachute). You'd send them back to square one as soon as they change sides.
The only good thing I see in it is that all those pro-survivors would be forced to do zombie things to gain their sooo beloved Lurching Gait and Ankle Grab... At least good and funny for me as a pro-zed and cowtipper. But I'd guess it would be just one more reason to shoot this suggestion down. --Spiderzed 12:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Special Infected

Timestamp: Ike Merodach 05:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: New Skill/Class

Scope: zombies

Description: I thought that this would be something interesting to add to the pretty homogenous zombie hordes out there. I propose that a zombie, after acquiring the maximum amount of zombie skills, be able to pick a unique skill that would allow him to evolve into a "Special Infected". These special infected would have enhanced powers such as beefed up attack, more HP, AP, or AP recharge rate. But here are the catches. First of all, you must only have ZOMBIE skills in your skill set. Any survivor skill would dilute the level of infected blood in the zombie's body, rendering that type of evolution almost impossible. Secondly, you have to have all the ZOMBIE skills for it to work. Finally, you can only choose one type, and it is irreversible. I think that having various types of special infected would keep those survivors on their toes, and it could even produce new strategies and methods for playing the game. Here are some of the types that I've thought of: Gnasher Special power: Choose between 30% increase in bite hit or double bite damage. Description: A zombie whose protuding teeth drip with black oil. He is rumored to be able to bite through anything. Ripper Special power: Choose between 20% claw hit or double claw damage. Description: A zombie with long bloody claws. His attacking force is lethal to all but the strongest survivors. Tank Special Power: Choose between 20 extra HP or double defense from guns or melee. Description: A looming behemoth. His body can withstand heavy bombardment. These are the classes that I've thought up so far. I really think this could work, if it was implemented right. I'll now leave this up for discussion.

Discussion (Special Infected)

More HP, AP, or regeneration invariably leads to imbalance.

• Faster AP regen? You can get more done, faster, than other players. Too much of an advantage.
• 2x attack? Extremely powerful. Do you mean double to-hit, or to-damage?
• Increased Defense? How so? Takes less damage from firearms, or all weapons, and if so, how much of a reduction is there?
• Traps humans? How do they get free? Can the zombie do anything while they're trapping a human?
• Healing other zombies? They don't need healing. They can die and get up again cheaply (at high level), and they can eat flesh if they have Digestion.

Also, you basically stole ideas from Left 4 Dead, didn't you? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. No L4D interpretations please. L4D is one game, UD is another. They play in totally different ways and don't need to lend off of each other for gameplay ideas. --

 

 

 

 

05:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I do believe there is a template for this kinda suggestion. Further more, fuck and no. This is the worst suggestion I have seen since the last one Zombie Lord posted. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

05:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead

This is not fucking Left 4 Dead.

You're welcome. 14:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I can actually see some appeal in differentiating maxed zombies beyond the distinction between rotters and the death-culting non-rotters, but these concrete skills are either plainly broken, fuck deeply into the mechanics, or both. See Bob Boberton's break-down of the points, he's absolutely right about it. I'd recommend that you check the Do's and Don'ts and come back with skill ideas that aren't straight from that list. --Spiderzed 06:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even going to say much here because this suggestion needs more detail, specifically on the classes? Your one-sentence descriptions do nothing to tackle the actual mechanics of implementing these classes, and that needs to be addressed before any criticism (constructive or otherwise) can really be brought forth. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, first off, thanks for bringing your suggestion here. I think that players should be encouraged to play zombies vs survivors and specialization in one category should provide some benefit against the other side. The particular skills you've suggested are too strong, as others have noted here, but don't let that stop you from trying to think of a more balanced suggestion that would accomplish the variety and specialization you had in mind.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 08:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Goast? As in, zombie goasts? Are they in front of a house? --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 08:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw goatse. Thats what I saw.Cookies and Cream 10:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's nothing to boast about mate. Chief Seagull talk 11:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I know. i was afraid.Cookies and Cream 11:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As always, Maybe in a new city.Cookies and Cream 10:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Since I'm an admitted fan of a certain game with four survivors in it, it managed to have some influence in my initial thinking about Special Infected. The main idea is to have an incentive for people with pure zombies, that requires effort and resisting temptation to get survivor skills when revived. I've edited the classes up there now to something, hopefully, more balanced but still worth the effort of being pure zombie. Ike Merodach 16:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, let's begin.

First, don't edit your suggestion after people have already commented on it, or at least add obvious tags and strikes to show the changes, otherwise when I show up late due to computer problems I have no idea what everyone above was on about.

Secondly, have you run the numbers through this? Specifically the average damage per attack when contrasted to current numbers and de-cading percentages? Have you run that 'tank' of yours through the average survivor damage when you have that additional HP bonus? (As an aside, the fire axe, best melee weapon versus zombies in the game, average damage per AP is 1.2 IMS. When put up against an 80HP zombie with no deductions, FR and FJ don't apply to axes, you have 67AP needed to take out one of these. Kiss goodbye to Axes High as a territorial group... I wouldn't weep.) You need to be understanding that this entire game is about maths, AP expended compared to effectiveness.

Thirdly, mixing your specifics even from in genre gets frowned on in this game (particularly if it buffs the zombie side), the trenchies whined and cried when the zombies started using shotguns against them even though multiple examples from the genre show them using them (notably both Day of the Deads, I saw the remake last night, what a turgid bowl of vomit it was, watch American Beauty instead, Kevin Spacey being awesome and at least Mena takes her top off in that one), if we can't have guns achievable only through the intelligence of url codes with 10% accuracy, your chances of getting this through if fort radio gets a sniff are minimal.

Finally, I'm not a fan of the game you've taken this from (some would say stolen from), so I ask you, why do we need to go plundering the specifics of another game when we have our own to explore that are pretty much unique to us? Death cultists for example. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

EPIC FAIL This idea or suggestion is based around a concept or worldview so fundamentally flawed that it is completely beyond any redemption or improvement whatsoever, excluding complete obliteration and reconstruction from scratch, which doesn't count.

Also, get my font the fuck out of your sig, General; it's well past a month. Wub you!

Lelouch vi Britannia 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

_

I find it interesting that some people are allowed to attack a suggestion as "worst ever" (among other derogatory points) without actually saying what is wrong it with it. The point of Developing Suggestions is to discuss the suggestion. Work on it if it needs work or say why it wouldn't work. Not just attack. But I digress. I like the idea of class differentiation. But these ideas are way overpowered. Limiting the player to only zombie skills is irrelevant as an offset penalty since the only survivor skill that would be "lost" is NecroTech Employment. You don't want to go higher than, say +10% to any combat bonus and +2 to any damage bonuses. Probably not even THAT high. But 60%/70% to bite or 8 damage to bite is too much. As is 70%/80% to hit or 6 damage with claws. The problem with giving a zombie 80 HP is that you can't differentiate because of zombie anonymity. And what does "double defense against guns and melee" mean?--Pesatyel 05:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming he means just that. So a shotgun against that particular breed of zombie would do 6 damage instead of 10. I also like the concept, but I would make 2 suggestions:

• (1) BALANCE. All of these are horribly overpowered, as has been explained by both Iscariot and Pesatyel. The numbers need some serious work, and you can fine tune those if you start small and play the game some more.
• (2) EVEN-UP. Survivors should get some similar kind of bonus option based on the initial class they chose, and should be equally balanced with the zombie options.

My advice would be to move this suggestion to your userspace somewhere, do some fine-tuning and adjusting and then bring it back here in a couple of weeks for more input. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, if this goes ahead and we beef up some survivor skills to even things up a bit, before long more suggestions would be made to enhance one side, then that'll be evened up with extra skills for the other side, and so on and so on. Before long, we'll have a city populated by indestructible zombies and superheroes. Chief Seagull talk 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Shockingly all the usual Pro-Zombies here don't like this suggestion. Well you guys got one right - What the #*(@ does this idea have to do with zombies? They are undead, not superheros. --YoEleven 00:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Supers are just awesome like that, but I can see how somebody would feel if he logged in and found out that an old hag stabbed his character for 9,001 damage late in the night. And no one really wants to be abandoned and deceased in his sleep! But still, supers are awesome. Maybe if someone concocts some supers for survivor use, we can have a little arms race. Ike Merodach 20:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe we can keep some shred of game balance?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This "arms race" of yours can only have one end. Allow me to give you an example of what would happen... Hotgirrl99 the Cybernetic/Ninja/Sniper/Witch/Goddess/Mechanist/Tank/Bomber/The One fires her unstoppable orbital plasma cannon at BiggusDickuslol the Undying/Warlock/Pirate/Emperor/Maggot Lord/Spawn of Shoggoth/Son of Satan/Defeater of the saxons/Nuclear Behemoth/Cellular Anomaly/Antichrist for infinity damage. BiggusDickuslol The Undying/Etc... etc... counters with an unbreakable force field that blocks infinity damage. The internet locks up for eternity due to the fact that it is still trying to calculate exactly what infinity damage is against infinity defense. You see the problem? -Devorac 21:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, infinity/infinty is exactly the same as 3/3, 7/7, or X/X. That would make infinite damage versus infinite defense the same as any value of damage versus any value of defense. It's very simple maths, which means it's a terrible point for a scholar such as a Knight to raise. Secondly, Shoggoths were enginerred for their brute strength, not their durability, much like the Death Star. That would make another poor point for a scholar to be raising. For shame. For shame. 01:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In standard math yes, however trying to talk a computer into a limitless number is stunningly difficult which is the point. (usually you just use a really big number like a googleplex simulating infinity) Trying to have a computer run a program using infinity as one of your variables would be like asking it to calculate pi down to its last decimal place. I'm not sure how shoggoths technical aspects enter into this one though. -Devorac 02:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to comment on this suggestion since it's beyond hope and doesn't need me piling on more criticism, but I just had to respond to the math comments since they're bothering me. Infinity/infinity = Undefined in every mathematical system I've ever seen, since not all infinities are created equal, so to speak. 3/3=1, 7/7=1, but infinity/infinity might actually be infinity/(infinity+1) or infinity/(infinity*100)...they're all still infinity, but some are a "bigger" infinity, which is a common concept you work with in pretty much everything from calculus on up. —Aichon— 07:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

They, however, are simulating a scenario in which two infinities of equal magnitude are being pitted against each other, these infinities being the highest possible amount of damage conceivable, as this would be the eventual result of the growth. Something like an (a+(n-1)d) with Infinite terms. (The Arithmetic series would not have an n, just a never-ending series of terms). The scenario also suggests that a number exists which can be modelled as a highest number. We'll call it x. A more apt way for them to put it would be x attack / x defence, where x is equal to the highest number possible. The use of the term "infinity" was incorrect, but was merely used as a hyperbolic colloquialism common in modern society.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A "hyperbolic colloquialism" has no place in factual math, which is what it sounded like they were discussing. You are correct though, in that x would've been appropriate, with x being a large number. —Aichon— 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just one of those annoying things. I actually failed my maths exam today, so that was very fun.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Or of course this could just be re-worked into a sensible buff for dedicated zombies to make them a bit more of a threat to the bullet bouncing; weight lifting; teleporting (sorry free-running) super dood's that are survivors? I mean having a "SPECIAL" power that only works occasionally and gives a target survivor a hard time rather than instant death can't be all bad can it? --Honestmistake 23:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This suggestion however BLOWS!!!! --Honestmistake 23:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thing which may have already been stated; At leased think up a new name. Special Infected has a totally different connotation in Urban Dead, and you should have realised that when so blatantly plagiarising L4D's term for Zombies. Infected is a term for a poisoned survivor in UD. --

 

 

 

 

23:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmmm.... *shrugs shoulders* by the looks of where this is going, I don't really think I can get this off the ground at all. I mean, I want it to be balanced, but I also want it to be appealing and worth the effort, and it looks like everything that's appealing is turning out to be unbalanced. And I'll go ahead and admit that I also wanted to see a little Left 4 Dead sprinked in too. We'll, at least when I play Left 4 Dead, I can pretend that the zombies are out to get me because they need some XP to get Brain Rot. All that's left to do now is to find out the best way to crown a Witch with a Necrotech syringe.... Ike Merodach 06:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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)

Obviously Your toolbox is much better than mine. Cookies and Cream 09:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

When playing a Z you're supposed to travel in a group - of any level low or high. The whole balance of this game is based on low numbers of Survivors and Zombies the Survivors have the advantage; High numbers of each the Zombies have the advantage. All of our favorite zombie movies would have been pretty dull if there was only one zombie knocking on the door... Yawn of the Dead --YoEleven 00:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Closed doors are really important in sieges, and this harms newbie survivors as much as it helps lone zombies. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

s mentioned above these would need to be repairable otherwise NO building would have doors pretty quick. How would pipes factor in?--Pesatyel 05:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I honest thought this has been proposed like, 50 times. But I'm not going back to check :P. Either way, that's basically the way I'd imagine it should work, so no objections here. Locked doors will still act as an insta-barricade (as per pipes) for survivors without construction, but won't be completely invincible to new zombies. The argument is that low level survivors have any number of things they can do to get XP, several of which (ie healing) don't require any skills to do, and only requires one to do effectively for XP gain. Whereas zombies only have one source of XP and need to max out at least one combat tree in addition to MoL to max efficiency for their XP gain. RinKou 06:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I was thinking that (I didn't put much detail in the OP anyway) when a door is bashed open, you can close it at the cost of one AP, no skills required. This means that there won't be a whole crapload of buildings out there with no doors, and people won't have to start door-repair plans to keep a suburb somewhat safe. And to YoEleven, when I started Urban Dead I had no idea about this wiki, revive points, hordes or anything, I thought that the closest thing to organization was feeding groan. If I ever did get to a horde bashing down a barricade, I wouldn't be able to get more then one or two punches out of the survivors before they were all devoured. And it makes perfect sense from a flavour point of view, zombies would try to break a locked door just as much as one with a couch behind it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enigma179 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

The closed door thing is just ridiculous. So lets do this. I would propose that the door be it's own level of barricade, so it would require 3 successful hits to gain entry. The door would be instantly closed again whenever a survivor added barricades, exactly how it works now. The door would essentially be 1 last level of barricades to protect survivors, that zombies with memories of life could simply bypass by opening the door. The door never breaks or needs repair, it is either closed or opened, and it can be opened by MoL, or by "forcing" the door open with 3 successful hits. The hit rate would be the same as to barricades.

How about this for flavor text?

• You smash at the door (this is a miss)
• You smash at the door, it creaks. (this is an unsuccessful hit)
• You smash at the door, weakening it. (this is a successful hit)
• You smash at the door, forcing it open. (this happens after 3 successful hits)--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 20:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the three-hit idea. That'd handle my concerns about lowbies by making this more reasonable, while still giving solo, lowbie ferals a chance to get into buildings. —Aichon— 21:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that a problem with the three-hit idea is that survivors could potentially use doors as a somewhat effective barricade. 3 successful hits, plus perhaps one more if the survivor inside happened to have a pipe... that means that the zombie has to work through 4 levels of barricades, the equivalent of a lightly +2 barricade. It may seem low, but to a newbie zombie, even if it does have vigour mortis, it won't be able to get that barricade down in one sitting (I'm pretty sure). Survivors shouldn't rely on closed doors and pipes to defend themselves against zombies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enigma179 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Well, keep in mind it's an improvement over the current situation, where newbie zombies can't enter at all. I also don't know of any survivors who rely on pipes frequently. I've seen that cited quite a bit, but I've yet to hear of anyone actually putting it into practice on a regular basis. And this change wouldn't have any impact at all on veteran zombies, so all-in-all, it seems like an improvement. The number of hits necessary can always be reduced later as well. —Aichon— 14:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I say cut it down to one level of barricade, but have each zombie forcing it open have to open it separately. The flavour text for successfully opening it could read:

• You smash at the door, forcing it open. It swings closed heavily behind you.

This would cause it to be less of a nuisance for low-level zombies, while still maintaining a level of protection against them - each zombie would be its own separate threat, until one with memories opens it properly for them. 20:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As mis. One level, normal memories of life means you can just open it, otherwise to open it is half hand attack percentage. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Same. I like it this way. Cookies and Cream 09:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So, you guys think I should actually put this one up to voting, perhaps some more detail in it? Template:Enigma179 10:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How does the pipe affect this?--Pesatyel 18:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The pipe is just a barricade... I propose making the closed door another barricade level and zombies with MoL can open it as normal. Template:Enigma179 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. It just didn't appear to be part of the discussion is all. I'm inclined to agree with Giles. Make it 2 (3 at most) attacks to break through. This is a special circumstance and 1 level just seemed a little to weak.--Pesatyel 04:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody want to put this up for a vote?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 08:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, I just figured out that it's a dupe... I saw like 3 suggestions that are pretty much the same. Enigma179 03:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Righty ho, first post on any Wiki but this disscussion is important to me. I do play mainly survivor but even then, I believe this to be excellent. First of all, it helps prevent the feeling I almost always have as a survivor of being 'safe' as there are no hordes near by and Feral's just can't touch me in my uber-caded, closed door building, and this suggestion helps deal with at least one of those, allowing it to be more in genre with horror zombies.

Also, in terms of my alt (Rose Mort) who is a Zack, I would have to say it is crucial from a newbies point of view. Just because the doors being closed denies so much of the (ultra violent) fun of munching on survivors. As a balance issue as well its not tragic as having spent large amounts of AP breaking down the 'cade I'm not exactly as a newbie going to slaughter thousands single handedly.

As for actual mechanics, I don't think the extra 'cade level is neccassarily the right way to go about it, I'd much prefer it to feel like GK'ing where you have a low chance to succed but it still seems to be a hit, the flavour text could be.

'you claw at the door to no affect' for failure

'your sleeve catches on the handle for just a second, turning it slightly before it slips off' for hitting but not succeding and

'by chance your flailing limb catches the door handle and the door flings open' for success

I would also like to think that this could be a perma open for the door, rather than 'slamming shut' behind you (except maybe hospitals and certain other resource buildings, where doors have those auto close thingies in RL). The counter balance to this to prevent MoL becoming useless is obvious even to someone as poor at maths as me.

35% chance to hit put it at 20% chance that will work results in about 7%ish (I think, like I say, poor at maths in the extreme) chance that it would work, needing a large dose of precious AP for it to succed where is MoL is (to my limited knowledge) a 100% chance to get in instantly.

So ya my, rather lengthy, two cents on the matter --Tabbitha Duo 16:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, generally speaking, the chance to hit is based on the accuracy of your "weapon." In the case of zombies, their claws are used for hitting barricades, and claws scale up in accuracy as they gain certain skills, so it doesn't make sense to take that away from them by fixing the accuracy at a level that is lower than what they currently have. Also, for barricades, the chance to hit is halved from your usual accuracy (except for the Crowbar), hence why Fire Axes that are skilled up are popular for de-cading. But your general ideas sound good and the flavor text is interesting as well. —Aichon— 16:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... sorry I wasn't specific/thinking there, the 35% was from the prospective of newbie zombies like me, I was talking in those terms mostly because anyone much higher probably has brough MoL in the first place --Tabbitha Duo 10:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---