Developing Suggestions

NOTICE

The Suggestions system has been closed indefinitely and Developing Suggestions is no longer functions as a part of the suggestions process. However, you are welcome to use this page for general discussion on suggestions.

Shortcut:
DS

Developing Suggestions

This section is for general discussion of suggestions for the game Urban Dead.

It also includes the capacity to pitch suggestions for conversation and feedback.

Further Discussion

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

Resources

• The Frequently Suggested List
• Suggestions Dos and Do Nots

How To Make a Discussion

Adding a New Discussion

To add a general discussion topic, please add a Tier 3 Header (===Example===) below, with your idea or proposal.

Adding a New Suggestion

• To add a new suggestion proposal, 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.
• The process is illustrated in this image.

{{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.
• 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 month may be cycled without notice.

Please add new discussions and suggestions to the top of the list

---

Suggestions

Remove Decorative Objects

Timestamp: FT 18:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Type: Flavor, buildings.

Scope: Decorative objects in buildings.

Description: Survivors currently have the ability to place decorative objects in buildings, up to a limit of 13 objects. I enjoy this a lot, and appreciate the limit- which helps prevent building descriptions from becoming too cluttered. What I do not enjoy, is going on an art collecting expedition to gather up tapestries, European paintings, and fine glass-works, only to return to a safehouse which has been filled entirely with cubist sculptures in my absence. I would like the ability to remove these objects, one at a time, for a modest amount of AP (5). The objects could be removed entirely from the game, or added to the inventory of the survivor who snagged them (I would prefer the latter, but even though art objects are essentially just free xp for zombies I worry that people might react poorly to the idea of gaining them without confronting the mighty RNG- even at an AP cost of 5, which is fairly high for a flavor action). Just as there is a message when somebody adds a decoration, I would like to see a message when somebody removes one ("Character removed a cubist sculpture"). The main purpose of removal would be to make room for other art objects, however, if art objects could be added to the inventory of the person who removed them, and thus 'stolen' that could create an interesting RP dynamic for survivors (e.g. "an antique mirror! I would have to go far out of my way to find a museum that has these, and I want one... I'll steal it!" and "Did you see that? He just stole our antique mirror! HUNT HIM DOWN!"). The reason for the cost being five, instead of one, would be to reduce abuse by people whose only desire is to destroy fine art collections. The RP rationale, if one is necessary, is that it may be difficult to safely remove a delicate art piece from its display, or that it has to be protected before being added to the inventory (e.g. "you carefully remove the tapestry from the wall, and fold it for storage," "you gently remove the sculpture from its display, being careful not to damage it," or "you remove the antique mirror from the wall, covering its fragile glass surface"). If objects could be added to a survivor's inventory this way, they should obviously not be able to remove them if they are already fully encumbered. It would probably be best to exempt seasonal decorations, given their limited availability. Many survivors see keeping christmas trees up late into the year as a challenge, so they might not want just any random passers-by to be able to pilfer their seasonal goods- and since many zombies see destroying such objects as a prize once the season for finding them is over, they might not like the idea that survivors could abscond with the tree just before they break into a contested safehouse. As for precisely how this would work: a dropdown, reading "Take (or "remove") decoration (5 AP): (dropdown list of current decorative objects)," available only in buildings which currently contain decorative objects. Thanks in advance for reviewing this suggestion, and offering advice. --FT 18:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Syringe Woes

Timestamp: Gerald Studabaker 01:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Type: Considering combat revives or reviving people in ruined NTs helps overpower syringes as is, it doesn't really make sense that a zombie would hold perfectly still while someone tries to jab a needle in its neck. When it is possible for a zombie to miss an attack on a completely stationary makeshift generator, one would think it should be possible for there to be a possibility of missing a moving target that is trying to kill you with such an intimately accurate attack.

Scope: Considering that recent changes to humans make it a breeze to get resources more easily, syringes are practically given away now, so it is too easy to clear a ruined building with a couple of syringes and 20 AP. This way, even with a really high percentage like 70-75% success rates, humans would occasionally miss and it would keep the syringes from being so overpowered.

Description: Zombies are getting wise to being revived. In order to keep on a mission for brains, they are learning to dodge attempts to be revived. Using a syringe now has a 25% chance of missing its target outright and having it knocked out of your hand. You still lose the syringe and expend the 10 AP escaping the zombie's thirst for your brains.

Discussion (Syringe Woes)

Well, I agree that combat revives are pretty op. I think this might work better as a skill zombies can pick up. Something down the chain of skills which make it more difficult to get reved anyway. I have been playing a zombie for years now, and combat revives are the biggest thorn in the side of attacks. They are way too game changing, and players who want to stay as zombies should have more skills to make it so. --Zarak Goldleaf 02:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to get revived, get rotted. Simples. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 14:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What recent changes to humans? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's called brainrot. Next. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tie something like this to a sub-skill of brain rot. That way it still has practical zombie use for NT sieges whilst appeasing the "dur brain rot stop combat revives" crowd at the same time. 16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

10AP for missing? Seems too high. - User:Whitehouse 18:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

New skill. Under Brain Rot. If you are in a powered NT, and someone tries to revive you, there is a 50% chance of failure. That way, one guy with a genny and fuel can't clear out five zombies in one go. --VVV ^RPGMBCWS 18:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It is true that the Syringe is the most cost effective, efficient, and powerful weapon in the game. Stupidly so. As such it should be treated as a weapon. I support making it a 1 AP cost to use, but 10% chance to hit weapon. Agreed, Zombies would not passively accept this procedure. I don't expect Kevan to stop pampering the Survivors anytime soon though.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:27 8 March 2011(UTC)

Uh, no. They're tools. Not under Brain Rot, either. People who have Brain Rot hardly get needled anyway. Perhaps a prerequisite of BR, not sure if that's work. But there's still more about this skill to be hammered out: how much AP would it cost if you miss? and would it waste a needle? --Espemon333 00:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

10%? Too low. After all, it's a medical procedure done by trained professionals. BTW, what about these guys? ----Anarchomutualist _says: ^{The state is war, ⓐnarchy is order.} 01:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

They don't count. 01:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

10%. So 1 in 10. So 10 AP average. So, same as now minus the automatic hit and insane speed. As for the Mrh Cows, the revive cycle is already too cheap and easy. I'd go farther, it should cost the reviving body extra AP to stand. 6 to 10 AP at least. Spread the cost around. Makes it so those revive alt zergs that Survivors love so much don't get to absorb all the cost.--

| T | BALLS! | 02:26 9 March 2011(UTC)

Well 10% would be too low if we're making it an attack. They do have to search for syringes just like ammo and they at least get 65% with ammo, so if we're making a syringe a stock attack, I would say 5 ap instead of 10, and you get a 65-70% chance. I actually like the idea of it being a sub-skill of someone that already has brain rot. The idea is you despise resurrection so much that you are adept at dodging even in a powered NT. As per the other person's question, the recent changes are that humans can just hang out in a building and get additional searches so long as they don't die, so finding these automatic-success syringes is easier, whereas a brain rot zombie trying to hold an NT is just as prone as a level 1 zed is. This severely interferes with my ability to eat brains.--Gerald Studabaker 04:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Read this. Scout Safehouse is a worthless skill. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

less than worthless ~ it's total shit ~ easy to hide tho --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 10:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're hanging out in a powered NT and get combat revived, that's your fault for not destroying the generator. Kevan's not "catering to survivors" by allowing Combat Revives. Zombies seem to forget that they can kill a survivor in a much more AP efficient manner than any other player in the game. Now, back too the skill, howsabout we try this: Survivors with NT Employment have a 50% chance of hitting with a revive. Lab Experience upgrades you to a 75%, then another skill, like, 'Advanced Lab Experience' or something allows you a 90% chance to hit with a revive. --Espemon333 23:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC) EDIT: If you miss, it wasted 1 AP and a needle.

I think the point of this isn't that zombies are hanging out in powered NT's, but more that a group of Zombies who have captured an NT and smashed the genny and ruined it, can easily be destroyed by a few guys with some fuel, a generator, and a few of syringes. This skill might be unnecessary if you just remove generators in a ruined building providing power for revives.--Zarak Goldleaf 03:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What's with the hate on combat revives? I find them to be a crucial part of practicing Dual Nature. ----Anarchomutualist _says: ^{The state is war, ⓐnarchy is order.} 01:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Zarak is exactly right. It isn't that zombies just leave generators around, but even if they did, the building is entirely ruined and ransacked. You shouldn't be able to just pop in a genny and easy-peasy revive zombies while it is still ruined. I mean, why bother ruining any building at all if you can just ignore the supposed drawbacks of them? --Gerald Studabaker 05:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm undecided whether I like this suggestion. In it's current for I'll say no. Maybe if developed I'll have a better opionion. I guess the only feedback I have right now is to point out that there currently exists a mechanic that affects the to-hit percentage of needles. Revivification inside a Dark building has a 50% success rate. Failed attempts cost 1AP but the needle is not lost. You can build off that, I suppose. ~ _{05:47, 11 March 2011}

Rotter revives during NT attacks are fairly rare but only because there is only a small chance that anyone inside is awake and active when you break in. More frequently what happens is that you only get in with enough AP to groan and some smart ass jabs you before help can arrive.The bigger problem is indeed that, even ruined, a powered NT means my poor rotter can be dragged back to the land of the mouth breathers while resting up after the brawl--Honestmistake 17:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Rage in Malton

Timestamp: Spiderzed▋ 15:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Type: "New" Mechanic

Scope: Newbs outside of Borehamwood (whether corpses or zombiefied)

Description: The recent wave of whining about the game being dying and cycling some "current" suggestions got me thinking about ways to make the game more newb-friendly. Borehamwood had a neat little mechanic called Rage, which allows a zombie who a.) hasn't Lurching Gait and b.) is in the presence of a harman to gain that skill instantly without any XP cost. Applying it to Malton would make it a good bit easier for newbs (for who being a zombie is hard, whether voluntarily or by being killed), and it would also give some incentive to new dyed-in-the-wool pro-survivor types to follow feeding groans who otherwise would never consider to play a zombie. As that mechanic already exists for another map, it should be easy-peasy to implement.

Discussion (Rage in Malton)

Could probably even be beefed up by adding Ankle Grab and/or Vigour Mortis to the Rage grab bag, but that might be a bit extreme. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Note to the dupe faction on DS: There were also two other suggestions about softening the effect of dying, but I think they are sufficiently different from this one, especially as this idea is built around an existing mechanic from another map. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

To play devils advocate; Helps zergers. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So does everything useful. 17:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

i just like saying the word "poop" it makes me smile.--

bitch 19:28 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything that benefits newbs benefits zergers too. That being said, I see relatively little abuse potential for zergers. Lurching Gait only saves APs, which is irrelevant for zergers (who can always make more alts to gain more AP). Getting to the grab bag, Ankle Grab is also solely an AP saver, while Vigour Mortis is useless for zergers: Either they have it already (zombie zergers), or it is of little use for them (harman zergers). -- Spiderzed▋ 22:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Lurching Gait does not save APs. Lurching Gait saves AP. --VVV ^RPGMBCWS 02:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

But still, street treats are pretty rare. ----Anarchomutualist _says: ^{The state is war, ⓐnarchy is order.} 21:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't have to be street treats (although they are certainly the easiest for MoL-impaired newbs). New zombies spawn close to a unmuffled feeding groan and can immediately put this to good use, while dead harmanz can follow feeding groans while they are zombiefied and outside. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You know what? I actually like this idea! However, if we do add Ankle Grab and VM, let's make it more of a 'pick one' than a 'here, take 'em all!' or a 'ya get a random one!' kinda thing. Maybe, instead of Ankle Grab, we put in MoL. Just a thought. --Espemon333 00:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I'd limit it to just Lurching Gait without the other two skills. Not because I don't think that it be worth it for the sake of the newbs (I think so), but rather to cut down on potential "ZOMG Zmobies are so overpowered" Against votes by trenchies. Plus, it increases the chances of this getting implemented, since Kevan just needs to swipe the code from Boredomwood. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Starting tips and tips at first change harman => zambahshould probably also be expanded when this gets implemented. Starting tip should probably be put between bullet 2 and 3, since it is tied to feeding groans, and to increase the chance of newbs actually reading it. As for tips at first class change, I'm clueless for positioning. Proposals by anyone good at wording? -- Spiderzed▋ 18:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

See Suggestions Dos and Do Nots#Balance: "Don't Give it Away." A free skill is equal to 100 free xp, and just being in the same square as a survivor is pretty close to a zero-risk situation.--FT 21:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Defiled Graffiti Change

Timestamp: Smyg 18:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Survivor

Description: I'm not entirely sure if this is just a bug or an overlooked point and belongs elsewhere, or if it has been brought up before, but when you clean up a piece of defiled graffiti and then spray something new over it, the flavour text reads You improve your work. Given that you've just cleaned off gore from the original piece, and seeing has how cleaning it doesn't require a spraycan, you haven't actually added anything of your own, no? Therefore, it's not your work at all and shouldn't be claimed to be so. And yes, I'm aware I'm probably not making much sense.

Discussion (Defiled Graffiti Change)

---

Sounds like a bug to me. Try reproducing it, and filing a bug report.--FT 21:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

ATHLETICS

Timestamp: Superhero827 17:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Type: MISCELLANEOUS

Scope: SURVIVOR

Description: PLAYER GETS AN EXTRA 15% WHEN ATTACKING WITH SPORTS EQUIPMENT

Discussion (ATHLETICS)

First of all - all caps? Yeesh. Secondly - this is a way too limited skill, not much use to it. Plus, I'd say it's rather excessive to have both a bodybuilding skill and an atheltics skill. Smyg 17:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No. There's zero need for it. You want fancy weapon kills, you work for them. 19:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Make it 10%. I don't want hockey sticks to be better than fire axes. --VVV ^RPGMBCWS 05:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Something very similar was rejected just a few months ago. Not exactly the same suggestion, but close enough to incite Dupe votes. And sadly so, as I think it would be perfectly in-genre to bash someone with a hockey stick or a cricket bat :( OTOH, it makes attacks with such oddball weapons all the more stick out, which is good for PKers going to kill with style and exclusiveness. -- Spiderzed▋ 13:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

---

City overrun

Timestamp: Zarak Goldleaf 17:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Type: Map change

Scope: Malton Map

Description: This might be a bit of an unpopular suggestion, but here it is anyway. The map should be reduced in size by 1000-2000 rooms or so. At present, population trends show the population at a low, as a result density of players is at roughly 1.6 players per room. At times the density has been as high as 5 players per room. As the game continues to lose players, it causes the density to continue to decrease, resulting in less interesting action, and more time spent wandering around looking for someone to fight. My suggestion is that 10-20 suburbs be termed 'overrun' and closed down for awhile, in hopes of bringing the density back up and reviving more interesting play from suburb to suburb.--Zarak Goldleaf 17:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion (City overrun)

I like the idea of this, and indeed the game could use a density boost to keep things interesting. However my concern is that at current levels of survivors, shrinking the map might force an endgame situation where zombies just steamroll the city and survivors have nowhere to scatter. I'm not sure if that would necessarily happen, but it does seem possible. What do you think?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 17:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it at all. People are rather fond of their city as it is. I'd say it would be better to create a separate map (á la Monroeville and Borehamwood) that is smaller. Smyg 17:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggested something similar a while ago. People just couldn't work out what to cut. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Restructure the suburbs individually. Remove a lot of the open space (streets, parks, etc), keep the buildings more clustered. Bringing all the burbs down to 9x9 cuts 19 blocks off of each one, and that's 1900 less blocks overall, isn't it? That seems to be a fifth of the overall map but that can't be right, can it? Still, it doesn't actually sound as difficult as the results would suggest. 19:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring the suburbs sounds like a solid idea. The main idea is just to increase the density of players in the world to increase activity and encourage players to stay playing. It has become increasingly annoying wandering around looking for action and just finding empty streets and buildings.--Zarak Goldleaf 03:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

My spin-off version: With the density of hungry undead and resistant survivors decreasing, the external military is now beginning to reclaim Malton, one block at a time. Every day, at server midnight, one of the blocks adjacent to the border is deleted, becoming part of the border. Complete destruction of the city would take 10,000 days, which means it would finish in late 2038 if it started today. Kevan could speed up, slow down, pause, or even reverse (the border becomes overrun, and a previously deleted building returns (repaired, but without cades, machinery, etc.)) the trend to fit with population change. All characters, active or otherwise, who are at a block when it is reclaimed would receive the message Military forces killed you in a hail of automatic fire. Your body has been moved away. They would become a dead body in one of the adjacent squares. If there are no adjacent squares (if all those around them have been reclaimed, and they were trapped in what would essentially be a separate city) they are moved outside a random strongly barricaded building, much like a newly spawned character.

This is better than hacking off chunks of city because it would be much more gradual, and we could see the effects before committing to a potentially game-destroying change. It would slowly herd fearful players ('If I sleep on the border, I could die!') into a smaller area, rather than suddenly uprooting entire regions. --VVV ^RPGMBCWS 05:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I really like this suggestion.--Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 12:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds OK. However, Instead of killing people (whcih sounds like a really bad idea) just make it so the military always reclaims an EMPTY building / street. If all the border blocks are occupied, then nothing happens (and chances are density is pretty good already). This really could just amount to a new sort of decay that makes the block entirely un-enterable to all citizens, and only happens to empty blocks on the edges of the map (and maybe blocks further in that are in contact with existing re-captured blocks).  Swiers 02:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

YES! to what Swiers^ and Tripz^ said. Permanant, unenterable ruins sound just right. Or perhaps everyone should feverently spam UD-links everywhere online and try to increase Malton's poplace --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 08:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This will be a remarkably popular suggestion, especially amongst members of the groups and hordes which are either built around a specific building or buildings, and those which have territories they routinely return to. I predict that this idea will go far, inspire no ragequits, and not be detrimental to the game's health at all. --DT^PK 23:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Spending 10 ap just running around looking for something to do can be rather lame. Dwindling player density is especially rough for new zombies, as they move slow, have low hit chances and do terrible damage. compacting the city while a low player density just makes sense. These would not have to be irreversible changes and could be undone as density increases. It could be structured so that zones that get tossed are zones with the lowers player densities.--Zarak Goldleaf 03:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Also there's the point that certain skills (Feeding Groan, Scent Death) are coded to trigger useful effects only at certain minimum densities; they simply don't work as intended with low populations.  Swiers 01:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

The following are suggestions that were developed here but have since gone to voting. The discussions that were taking place here have been moved to the pages linked below.

No suggestions from here are currently up for voting.