Developing Suggestions: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Suggestion Navigation}}  
<noinclude>{{Developing Suggestions Intro}}</noinclude>
==Developing Suggestions==
''This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which '''have not yet been submitted''' and are still being worked on.''


===Further Discussion===
Discussion concerning this page takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Discussion_About_Talk:Suggestions|here]].
Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general (including policies about it) takes place [[:Category_talk:Suggestions#Suggestion_Discussion|here]].


Nothing on this page will be archived.
===Ignore based on Radio Broadcast===
 
{|
== Please Read Before Posting ==
|'''Timestamp:''' [[User:Khwud|Khwud]] ([[User talk:Khwud|talk]]) 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 
|-
*''Be sure to check [[Frequently Suggested#The List|The Frequently Suggested List]] and the [[Suggestions Dos and Do Nots | Suggestions Dos and Do Nots]] before you post your idea.'' There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a '''dupe''', or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. '''These include [[Suggestions/RejectedNovember2005#SMG.2FMachine_Pistol|Machine Guns]] and [[Suggestions/24th-Apr-2007#Rooftops.2C_Sniper_Rifle.2C_and_Sniper_Ammo|Sniper Rifles]]'''. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.
|'''Type:''' UI enhancement
*Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.
|-
*It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.
|'''Scope:''' Interface
 
|-
== How To Make a Suggestion ==
|'''Description:''' Allow 'ignore' from radio broadcasts; users are hiding behind their anonymity to allow them to broadcast things that would broadly trigger them to be ignored, if their user ID was visible. Adding their name, or an auto-generated call-sign (it is for a radio, after all) or something so that they could be blocked based on their broadcasts would help user experience. In addition, and broadcasts that get more than a threshold number could get tagged for review, and the user potentially having their (in-game) ham-license revoked.
 
|}
====Format for Suggestions under development====
====Discussion (Ignore based on Radio Broadcast)====
 
Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header
"'''[[Talk:Suggestions#Suggestions|Suggestions]]'''", paste the copied text '''above''' the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in <span style="color: red">red</span> with the details of your suggestion.
 
<nowiki>
===</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion</font><nowiki>===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=~~~~
|suggest_type=</nowiki><font color="red">Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.</font><nowiki>
|suggest_scope=</nowiki><font color="red">Who or what it applies to.</font><nowiki>
|suggest_description=</nowiki><font color="red">Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.</font><nowiki>
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (</nowiki><font color="red">Suggestion Name</font><nowiki>)====
----</nowiki>
 
====Cycling Suggestions====
Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit.
 
This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the [[Talk:Suggestions/Overflow1|Overflow]]-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.
 
If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the <nowiki>{{SNRV|X}}</nowiki> at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.
 
__TOC__
 
<span style="font-size:1.5em"><font color="red">'''Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.'''</font></span>
----
----
 
===Shrink the map===
 
{|
 
|'''Timestamp:''' --[[User:Uroguy|Uroguy]]<sup>[[Zookeepers|TMZ]]</sup> 16:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 
|-
 
|'''Type:''' Map change
==Suggestions==
|-
 
|'''Scope:''' Everyone
===Overkill===
|-
{{suggestionNew
|'''Description:''' There are just over 3000 active characters in the game currently likely counting a significant percentage of alts and zergs. Shrinking the map by eliminating the outer first two rings of suburbs would increase the amount of interactions between the remaining characters. This shrink could be increased or decreased depending on future changes to the playerbase.
|suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 21:28, 1 October 2008 (BST)
|}
|suggest_type=Zombie hunting...
====Discussion (Shrink the map)====
|suggest_scope=All Players
|suggest_description=
 
"''the term "overkill" refers to the wounds or mutilations inflicted by offenders (especially serial killers), which go beyond what is necessary to kill the victim. Such wounds are often inflicted post mortem.''"
 
Overkill allows a Survivor to attack a '''dead body''' (100% success), the dead body stands up with 10HP less than it would normally and grants the attacker 0XP.
 
Once a dead body has been overkilled, it will not suffer further HP reductions. The next attack will hit the next body down the stack. Once all the bodies have been attacked players will still be able to attack bodies but it will have no further effect. Attackers can also select a specific body if they are on their contacts list.
 
Attackers receive the message:
:"You attacked a dead body"
:or
:"You attack the dead body of ''xxxxxxx''" if the contacts name if known.
 
Dead bodies can see who attacked them.
 
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Overkill)====
This would be '''the''' most efficient attack in the game. 10 damage with a 100% chance with one AP. You're not even talking about shooting in there, so I'm going to assume this doesn't even use ammunition. '''Hell no'''. It doesn't matter that it's post mortem. And even if you fixed ''that'' somehow, consider the situation that a griefer does this to an infected, revivifying body. Whoops, you have only 15 AP to find a FAK! --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 21:55, 1 October 2008 (BST)
 
Highly concerned that after getting pk'd, when I stand up for revival im going to be more vulnerable to getting killed all over again. Likewise being griefed at revive points, by someone who doesnt want me to get revived. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 21:58, 1 October 2008 (BST)
 
Likely would only pass if it created no net gain in damage dealt per AP.  Possible implementations include increasing AP cost, reducing success rate, requiring loss of inventory item, and/or allowing use of the "overkill" button even when all corpses have already been overkilled.  Even those still allow for griefing.  Good luck on your rewrite.--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}00:48, 2 October 2008 (BST)
 
Another idea that would lessen the chances of spam (though not by much) would be to remove the effects of headshot on the corspe IF the Player pull off something like that. Losing 5 AP on top of losing 10 damage will make the zombie bloc very, VERY upset. They want to play the game too.--[[User:ShadowScope|ShadowScope]]<sup>[[User:Kevan|'the true enemy']]</sup> 01:14, 2 October 2008 (BST)
 
Change so the stand up health is lowered by the amount of damage caused by the last attack '''AND''' so this becomes an alternative to headshot. If you have both skills you need to toggle to the one you want before finishing the target off! Basically allow the player to choose between a precision kill that slows the zed down or a messy one that weakens it rather than let them stack! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:42, 2 October 2008 (BST)
----
----


===Animal Infection in Malton===
===Action Points===
{{suggestionNew
{|
|suggest_time=[[User:Master_Pirate|Master Pirate]] 20:52, 30 September 2008 (BST)
|'''Timestamp:''' [[User:Wolldog1]] 10:07, 26 July 26, 2022
|suggest_type=non-player characters
|-
|suggest_scope=non-playable characters
|'''Type:''' Action Points Increase Regeneration Rate
|suggest_description=Infected animals will attack undead and alive alike and can be tamed by both sides, they cannot be played as and come in a variety of different forms (cats, dogs, birds).  |discussion=|}}
|-
====Discussion Animal Infection in Malton====
|'''Scope:''' Everyone
LUL! I'd love to see a zombie trying to tame a pet....but seriously no, this is fucking stupid.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:06, 1 October 2008 (BST)
|-
 
|'''Description:''' Due to the passage of time with mobile games and other real time action games without restriction, I think that we should address the action points system of the game. This game can only realistically be played for 5 minutes a day. So it's not really a seller for new blood. If we want to see this game survive it needs to evolve into something more exciting than 5 minutes. My suggestion is double the regeneration rate to improve activity. I love this game. I want to play it more. And the die hard fans I'm sure feel the same. More will go on in a day, sure. But that's for both sides. We're ready for it. Let's get this game moving again. We need this.
Covered in "Frequently suggested" as [[Frequently_Suggested#NPCs|this]]. Your suggestion should reflect that you have read that, and that you understand it, and why you feel the standard rule shouldn't apply.  Oh, and timestamps are created with four consecutive tildes.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}04:08, 1 October 2008 (BST)
|}
 
====Discussion (Action Points)====
a zombie trying to tame a pet? that would be funny. anyway, no. the only thing i could see being in game relating to animals (other than the zoo of course) is in the discription. like, "You are standing outside ___, a four-storey yellow-stone building covered in abandoned scaffolding. The building's doors have been secured. Through the broken windows, you can see that the interior of the building has been ruined for some time. A skinny dog scampers through the rubble." or "You are inside ____, in the near-darkness of the main dancefloor. The building has fallen into ruin. A rat runs across the floor infront of you.--[[User:Themonkeyman11|Themonkeyman11]] 04:44, 1 October 2008 (BST)
:Or even, "You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.  A threatening little dwarf comes out of the shadows!  The dwarf throws a nasty little axe at you, misses, curses, and runs away."  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}05:01, 1 October 2008 (BST)
::xyzzy --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 14:45, 1 October 2008 (BST)
 
This is the most spam-o-rific idea of all spam-o-rific ideas, because in UD every character is a real person. It's integral to UD's whole design philosophy. '''No NPCs'''. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 05:09, 1 October 2008 (BST)
:I might quote you on that Wan...and he said there shall be no suggestions more spam-o-rific than thy.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:51, 1 October 2008 (BST)
::And Kevan said, "Behind every character there shall be a Player." And thus it was, and so it shall be, unto the End.
::But all seriousness aside, there is no other idea that voilates a basic and fundamental game precept more completely -- than NPCs. And, pets is a dupe, anyway: it's been suggestion a bunch. Just like all the ''worst'' ideas. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:44, 1 October 2008 (BST)
 
While I like the idea in general (NPC zombie creatures) the specifics fail me from a position of logic. As logical as a zombie pet idea can be, at least. Plus it doesn't really fit into the Urban Dead game model (given that it's been a quarantined city with no zombie animals for years).<br>Aside from I am Legend (arguably hard science fiction vampire or zombie depending on who you talk to) I've never seen 'zombie animals' tamed (by a zombie or human). I mean.... even the zombie animals in Resident evil weren't 'tamed'. I find it unlikely that a zombie could tame a zombie animal because... well... they're zombies. And I find it even more unlikely that a survivor could tame a zombie animal because...well... they're dinner.  Plus why wouldn't there have been zombie animals until now? I'm assuming until recently, animals were immune to the zombification process so were just dinner. When they all died out, no more came around. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 14:43, 1 October 2008 (BST)
:No. This is out of genre and as I've explained violates one of the most basic tenets of the game. Until Iggy Pop starts playing UD, no dogs in Malton. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:44, 1 October 2008 (BST)
::Iggy pop...? Is that some new slang you crazy kids are using when you're doing the rock and roll? --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 18:26, 1 October 2008 (BST)
 
I think the best thing to do is to create a new character and call yourself a wild animal. Therefore you can be a zombie and spread the so called 'Animal infection' for shear role-playing purposes. As said before by WanYao, there should be no NPC's.--[[User:Kez0|Kez0]] 16:00, 1 October 2008 (BST)
 
----
----


===Will To Live===
===Drone===
{{suggestionNew
{|
|suggest_time=[[User:siblybobsaloom|siblybobsaloom]] 18:55, 29 September 2008 (BST)
|'''Timestamp:''' [[User:Rosslessness|<span style="color: MidnightBlue ">R</span><span style="color: Navy">o</span><span style="color: DarkBlue">s</span><span style="color: MediumBlue">s</span><span style="color: RoyalBlue"></span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">l</span><span style="color: CornflowerBlue">e</span><span style="color: SkyBlue">s</span><span style="color: LightskyBlue">s</span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness/Quiz|<span style="color: LightBlue">n</span><span style="color: PowderBlue">e</span>]][[Monroeville Many|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]][[The Great Suburb Group Massacre|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]]<sup>[[Location Page Building Toolkit|<span style="color: DarkRed">Want a Location Image?]] </span> </sup>  19:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
|suggest_type=Skill
|-
|suggest_scope=Military
|'''Type:''' Survivor Item
|suggest_description=Allows the user to survive 2 more turns when reached 0 HP at the cost of 5 AP per move, First Aid Kits add 2 more turns to the mix, Beer adds one but uses 6 AP per move beacause causes drunkeness. Player can survive if surgery is done, player has raised attacks but lower accuracy. You must be in combat for this to work. When a player has the will to live, it will so a message "so and so is struggling to survive" to all the doctors or employees. |discussion=|}}
|-
====Discussion (Will To Live)====
|'''Scope:''' Survivors
 
|-
''Allows the user to survive 2 more turns when reached 0 HP at the cost of 5 AP per move'' .... Uhm.... No. 60 HP is 60 HP. And dead is dead. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:10, 30 September 2008 (BST)
|'''Description:''' Portable drone, found in mall tech stores, which are pointless as we all know. Encumbrance is 10%. When activated for 15ap they provide an image of a 10x10 grid centred on the survivor, showing the current outside status of all blocks including zombies, survivors and dead bodies. Like DNA scanners, Drones are multi use.
 
|}
Will zombies be gaining a 'Will to be dead' that allows them to remain dead for extra turns when some labcoating fuckwit combat revives them? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 07:31, 30 September 2008 (BST)
====Discussion (Drone)====
 
Would there be a message displayed to the players to the effect of "there's a drone buzzing overhead", similar to a flare? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 02:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
This suggestion makes no sense. As Wan said, 60hp is 60hp. No more, no less. [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 07:39, 30 September 2008 (BST)
 
I think that, perhaps, this user got the idea from Call of Duty 4's perk where you get to pull your pistol before you actually get offed. In any case, this is definately not suitable for UD. --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 08:37, 30 September 2008 (BST)
 
Suggestion has tenuous merit as a game mechanic. Possible implementations include adding action buttons alongside "Stand up" for corpses. An example might be a "Spasm (25 AP)" button, which would be reported as, "The corpse of (player) spasmed momentarily on the ground. (10 minutes ago)" Due to the nature of corpses, any actions thus created should be heavily priced in AP, and should not permit movement or directly interacting with other players. Please note that for these actions to be useful, they would have to provide the player with an option not currently given to zombies. Whatever your objective, I hope this helps with your rewrite, and good luck.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}08:49, 30 September 2008 (BST)
 
I don't... quite understand this suggestion. If it's what Galaxy125 is saying, it might have merit if rewritten, but I'm currently with WanYao and Blake on this one... --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 14:22, 30 September 2008 (BST)
:The suggestion is basically extra HP - at the cost of AP or something. Spam. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 05:11, 1 October 2008 (BST)
::Then, at least as written, I don't like it. Will to be Dead, btw, is dumb. There's such a thing as a survival instinct, not such a thing as a 'death' instinct.  Even so, not a good idea to give more HP for AP. When you're out of HP, you should be dead - will or no will. Not to mention the negative side effects of this suggestion. Easy-to-make pinatas, removing easy XP for survivors who could dump bodies, allowing mrh cows to crawl to a cemetery after they've died without wasting AP... not good.--[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 14:51, 1 October 2008 (BST)
:::No Lust for Life in UD... Not until, as I said above, Iggy starts playing UD. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:45, 1 October 2008 (BST)
::::You do realize I was agreeing with you, right? --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 18:29, 1 October 2008 (BST)
 
What's the point of having 50-60 hp if, when your hp reaches 0, you don't die. "You ran out of hp, but you don't die." How does that make sense? If you are playing as a zombie, how would it feel if you spend all your AP to strike down the survivor in front of you, only to find that they don't die? It's like giving the survivors a '1up' like in arcade games.--[[User:Kez0|Kez0]] 16:07, 1 October 2008 (BST)
 
''You must be in combat for this to work.''  "In combat" is not a situation the game recognizes.  In fact, the server does not keep track of what your character is doing or hw you are interacting with other characters.  Each action you take is a 100% new and distinct event. Suggestions that assume otherwise are (at best) unlikely to be implemented, and are generally spam because they don't fit the nature of the game.  {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 17:32, 1 October 2008 (BST)  
----
----


===Interruptable Ruin Repair===
===Backpack===
{{suggestionNew
{|
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 19:50, 27 September 2008 (BST)
|'''Timestamp:''' [[User:Wild Crazy|Wild Crazy]] ([[User talk:Wild Crazy|talk]]) 20:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
|suggest_type=balance change
|-
|suggest_scope=The defense or fixing of extremely high repair cost ruins.
|'''Type:''' New item
|suggest_description=If the repair cost of a ruin is greater than the repairer's total AP, the ruin will be Under Construction; the repairer's AP will drain to 0, and all his drained AP will go to lower the level of decay on the building. Every 30 minutes thereafter until the ruin is completely repaired, instead of gaining 1 AP the repairer's AP will remain at 0 but the ruin's total repair cost will drop by 1 AP. (Basically, the repairer will still be repairing the ruin until it is completely fixed).
|-
While still under repairs, the building would still for all intents and purposes act as a fully-repaired (and cadable) building.
|'''Scope:''' Survivors
However if the repairer is killed off before finishing the repairs, the building will go back to ruined status until someone else begins repairs on the leftover decay cost the original repairer didn't have the AP to fix. So if you repair a 100ap building down to 10 decay cost and die, the repair cost will be 10ap, not the original 100ap
|-
For ruins with a repair cost of 40-ish and under, this will only make most people wait until they have full AP before repairing buildings.
|'''Description:''' This will be a new item found in schools with a 2% find rate and sports stores with a 4% find rate. The low numbers are because, like a flak jacket, once you find it you have it forever. It increases you encumbrance by 30%. However, you can't use an item that is in your backpack until you remove it from the backpack. It costs one AP to add an item to your backpack and one AP to remove an item. An item affects your regular encumbrance until added to the backpack. Items such as GPS, radios, cell phones, and flak jacket do not work when in your backpack. Items in your backpack will not be shown in your inventory, but the backpack itself will be shown in your inventory. There will be a drop box next to the word backpack that shows all the items inside. When you click on an item in that drop box, it removes it from your backpack (1 AP).
This will only be a significant change to 50+ AP repair cost ruins, and will give zombies a small window of opportunity to recapture a ruin they've spent countless weeks defending and maintaining. A 100 AP building would give zombies a window of less than 30 hours (if the repairer has 40 AP or more). Plus remember that as long as the building is "under repairs" it is considered a non-ruined, cadable building.
Only one person can repair a ruin at a time. There should be a text saying something like ''This building is under major repairs'' without naming the repairer (because of PKers, Death Cultists).
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Interruptable Ruin Repair)====
Even disregarding the ease with which two death cultists could turn a regular ruin into a piñata, the whole idea of a building becoming as if it was fully repaired while the actual repairing's still incomplete just doesn't make sense. Not to mention that killing the one repairing it would turn the building back into a ruin. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 20:44, 27 September 2008 (BST)
:It would be too unbalancing for survivors if they'd have to wait for the building to completely repair, and the whole point of it is to turn it back into a ruin if the repairer is killed --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 20:48, 28 September 2008 (BST)
::[[HIPS|It would actually help them if the building remained ruined until it's completely fixed]]. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 22:25, 28 September 2008 (BST)


I still massively dislike this spamtactular idea.  One of the reasons I'm against pinata nerfs is because making a pinata isn't exactly easy. This makes it way too easy. Plus it's a massive survivor nerf and survivors already pay for repairing long-ruined buildings by being defenseless for days, being put in massive negative AP. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 21:16, 27 September 2008 (BST)
:There is indeed an increased risk on the building turning into a pinata. And when killed survivors would not have negative AP they'd have 0 ap --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 20:48, 28 September 2008 (BST)


I think you are showing AP as a unit of time instead of an action in this suggestion. When a zombie is getting revived by a survivor who has less than 10 AP. Does the zombie have to wait for the survivor to get off his/her tired behind and inject the zombie with the syringe? I think if a survivor with too little AP repairs a building, the building would get repaired fully, but the survivor would be setback for a while. This would still give zombies time to attack the building and ruin it.--[[User:Kez0|Kez0]] 23:08, 27 September 2008 (BST)
Q: Wouldn't this buff survivors, since they can carry more bullets and kill more zombies?
:If it is re-taken others can get it back again and repair it again, only instead of costing a one-digit ap amount to repair it will cost whatever the other guy wasn't able to repair --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 20:48, 28 September 2008 (BST)


No. This blows. [[User:Ioncannon11|Ioncannon11]] 01:57, 28 September 2008 (BST)
A: Since it costs an AP to add and remove an item, it wastes a lot of AP to put bullet clips in your backpack if you are planning on using them right away.


This is just another version of the horrible "partial ruin repair" idea(s) -- with giant sized spam-holes, which have already pointed out. Give it up. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:55, 28 September 2008 (BST)
:This is the opposite of what partial ruin repair ideas are trying to accomplish. Go back and actually read my suggestion and you'll know why --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 20:48, 28 September 2008 (BST)
::That may have been your intent, but the actual effect is exactly as I explained: you've reinstated partial ruin repair. Go back and read your suggestion and you'll know why. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:26, 29 September 2008 (BST)
What WanYao said is right. This is perhaps even WORSE than the idea below.  {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 05:37, 28 September 2008 (BST)
----


===Ruin repair cost reset if repairer killed before waking up===
Q: If it wastes AP, what is the point?
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 00:20, 27 September 2008 (BST)
|suggest_type=balance change
|suggest_scope=The defense or fixing of extremely high repair cost ruins.
|suggest_description=If the person repairing a ruin is killed before their AP is spent repairing said ruin (i.e. before the moment they have at least 1 AP), the ruin does not get repaired. For ruins with a repair cost of 40-ish and under, this will only make most people wait until they have full AP before repairing buildings.
This will only be a significant change to 50+ AP repair cost ruins, and will give zombies a small window of opportunity to recapture a ruin they've spent countless weeks defending and maintaining.
While still under repairs, the building would still for all intents and purposes act as a fully-repaired building.
Survivors and zombies could see who is repairing the building with a text message like, ''xxxx has begun repairing the building'' ; ''xxxx has finished the repairs'' ; ''Tools are strewed everywhere, xxxx appears to be in the middle of repairing the building''
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Ruin repair cost reset if repairer killed before waking up)====
This is actually one I'm not immediately liking or disliking. Constructive thoughts by the community please. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 00:27, 27 September 2008 (BST)


Identifying the player who is doing the repairing makes it a little too easy for zombies to undo all that hard work.  Survivors (if that) should be the only ones able to identify the repairer. --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}00:38, 27 September 2008 (BST)
A: It will be useful if you want to carry around an extra stash of items, such as FAKs and Revivification Syringes, or if you are going far away from any resource buildings and need some extra supplies.


No, I don't like this at all. Three days is not a "small window." Especially not in zombie-dense territory. Would the survivor be able to "wake up" after they were killed, or would they just have knocked themselves into a coma for three days for nothing?  Would the building be "reset" to whatever the repair cost was before they started, or would one subtract the number of half-hours that the repair-er had managed to spend inside the building alive? This cuts down on things that players can do, without TONS of metagaming, to help other survivors. Don't penalize the people willing to knock themselves out for three days to repair a place. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 00:42, 27 September 2008 (BST)
:Jen dang you, you edit  conflicted me. I don't like this at all Makes it way too impossible to ever repair buildings. Survivors already pay the cost of repairing long-term ruin buildings by being incapable of defending themselves for a day, two, three... to then say if they are killed beforehand then nothing happens is a total "screw you" to survivors who make the sacrifice in exchange for reviving a ruined burb. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 00:45, 27 September 2008 (BST)
::Repairing a 100 ap building won't leave you vulnerable for 3 days. Only for <30 hours. And other people can cade up the building to EHB and defend it --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]]
:::Trying to figure out where you are getting your math.... 48 AP can be gained in an day (24 hours). If you repair a 100+ AP building (or higher, I've seen 117, you're out for 3 days. 2 days, (50 hours). The two hours is part of the third day. And it can be more than 2 hours on the third day if it's above -100 AP. You think it's fair to have someone's work for 3 days straight of being helpless be negated?  At least when the zombies spend time to ruin the building, they get to still -play- during the days/months/etc.  Ask Jen, she's apparently a bigtime suicide repairer.  Your suggestion would allow zombies to permanently ruin suburbs with a minimal amount of zombies to enforce it. Zombie strength is in numbers. Not to mention you've ignored that death cultists and PKers can help to keep the burb ruined as well, meaning you might not even need zombies to keep the burb ruined. It's not like you can barracade a ruined building to protect yourself, and in a dark ruined building, you also need a lit generator before you can even repair, let alone barracade. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 14:44, 28 September 2008 (BST)
::::Enter 100 AP ruin-cost building from adjacent building, starting with 50 AP.  Time spent repairing it is (.5 hours/AP) x (100 AP - (50 AP - 1 AP)) = 25.5 hours.  You lose 0 AP blindness 26 hours (1 day, 1.5 hours) after you click "repair building."  At this point you have 1 AP and you may be considered no longer vulnerable.  The discrepancy in Tselita's and Silisquish's math is either how much initially held AP was applied to repair the ruin, or how much AP you need to no longer be vulnerable.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}19:34, 28 September 2008 (BST)
Yeah, I'd be pretty unhappy about that as well if I'd spent 100AP to repair a building then was killed 30 mins before it was due to be completed, basically meaning I've lost 2 days of play for nothing at all. --[[User:Target Practice|Target Practice]] 00:53, 27 September 2008 (BST)
No! While it is fair that a survivor repairing 3 months work for a single AP should be vulnerable it is unfair that a zombie can kill him 2 minutes after he starts and then get to watch while his corpse carries on fixing stuff!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 02:56, 27 September 2008 (BST)
Terrible idea. You obviously have no idea how much effort is required to execute triple digit repairs and while yes, i appreciate zombies don't like having all their work undone - this suggestion would allow under 10 zombies to protect an entire suburb from being repaired...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 03:29, 27 September 2008 (BST)
This could only work if paired with a "partial repair" mechanic. Otherwise, the person has already paid the (sometimes exorbitant) AP cost to repair the building — don't negate their actions! {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 06:17, 27 September 2008 (BST)
:I was considering having a AP-drain mechanic, I guess I'll have to suggest that --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]]
''"If the person repairing a ruin is killed before their AP is spent repairing said ruin (i.e. before the moment they have at least 1 AP), the ruin does not get repaired."'' Fuck no. This is an absurdly overpowered survivor nerf. When someone makes the sacrifice to do a "suicide repair", they go into negative AP... and are very vulnerable... as in they can't do SHIT to defend themselves... Zombies call it "swaying"... and extreme suicide repairers usually sway for ''days''. But, they paid the price -- in AP and in risk -- to get the job done. So it's fair. What this will also do is effectively make big repairs virtually impossible to complete successfully. Ergo it's one of the most spam-fucking-tastic suggestions in ... at least in a few days. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:59, 27 September 2008 (BST)
:I heard they have these things that can protect you from zombie attacks when you're in a building by creating a barrier of junk... what was it called again? --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]]
:: *cough* you can't freaking barricade a ruined building! You have to count on the good graces of some survivor who MIGHT stop by the building to cade you in, after you do the repair.  And then the zombies come and kill you anyway, within the hour, because you're standing in the only repaired and caded building in the whole suburb. Unless you're in a slightly more populated suburb, and a PKer comes and kills you first. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 19:42, 27 September 2008 (BST)
Aside from the sheer un-balance-osity, the mechanics resulting from this would be HILARIOUS.  Survivor A suicide repairs fot 100+ AP.  Survivors B-O come in and barricade, set up generators, etc.  PKer P comes in and kills survivor A, and the building becomes a 100+ AP pinata full of survivors.  One of whom repairs, only to get killed.<br>I'll assume this brilliant idea was suggested by a member of RedRum.  My hat is off to you, good sir!  {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 07:34, 27 September 2008 (BST)
:Oh right, I completely forgot about PKers. --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]]
'''Okay, I'm going to remake this suggestion because I completely forgot about PKers and I'll use my gradual AP drain/repair idea instead''' --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]]
:Please use four tildes to appropriately timestamp your replies.  Three just leaves your name, four leaves both name and timestamp, and five leaves just the timestamp.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}19:38, 28 September 2008 (BST)
::Oups! --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 20:51, 28 September 2008 (BST)
----
===Feeding Frenzy===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:34, 25 September 2008 (BST)
|suggest_type=Combat Skill
|suggest_scope=Zombies (and their meals)
|suggest_description=Driven by instinct, hunger and pure spite for the living a zombie with this skill may enter a frenzy and become so focussed on eating that they may even enter negative AP! However in order to do this they must meet the following conditions: The zombie must have an unbroken hold on their target (tangling grasp)'''AND''' they must have succesfully attacked using "Feeding Frenzy" (see bullet points below)
*"Feeding Frenzy" will appear in the attack drop down and will follow feeding drag on the skill tree. In order to use frenzy the victim must be below 13HP '''and''' subject to a tangling grasp. Unlike feeding drag the victim is not moved, instead flavour text will be something like "You drag your screaming victim into a corner and begin to feast!" others would see "A zombie dragged survivor bob into a corner and began to gnaw on his entrails" Zombies in feeding frenzy do not count as present for the purpose of barricade building and will be noted as such (perhaps in the way that some bodies smell strange ie... "one is feasting in the corner"?)
*A frenzied zombie may continue to '''Bite''' his current target until such time as his victim breaks free (grasp is lost for whatever reason) or dies! Because the zombie is exceeding his normal capabilities a heavy cost is paid for these attacks and each will cost 3AP. This cost represents the strain and damage a zombie is doing to itself by ignoring the limits that nature (kevan) put upon its body.
*Any attack other than a bite will still go ahead but will cause the frenzy to end.
*For the duration of the frenzy the normal bonus provided by tangling grasp is doubled!
*The screen still fogs over at 0AP but an attack box with suitable flavour text replaces the normal description. For example: "The days exertions fog your mind and you can focus on nothing but the manbag struggling in your grasp"|discussion=|}}
====Discussion feeding frenzy====
This is a reworking of my earlier suggestion Feral Frenzy. Link to save people looking for a dupe (you know who you are!) http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestion:20080221_Feral_Frenzy
As you can (hopefully) see it has changed quite a bit.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 15:59, 25 September 2008 (BST)
Not until Kevan fixes [[Bug#Some_anomalies_with_Tangling_Grasp|the bug that means Tangling Grasp doesn't work for me]] :( --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:51, 26 September 2008 (BST)
Not all that keen on this, as a) it allows zombies to potentially go to upwards of -10AP, giving large hordes quite a big advantage in a siege (survivors are operating with 50AP, whereas Zombies are able to make the decision to go to 60AP - multiply that by a billion, and it doesn't really matter about the 5 hours the zombies have to wait to get to 0AP, because all the survivors are in kibbles on the floor... and b) because it's a form of auto-attacking, which I don't really like in any shape or form. It's a good idea, and one of the better variations of an auto-attack I've seen, but I just don't like it, sorry. --[[User:Target Practice|Target Practice]] 16:51, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:This would indeed let zombies get to a max of -12AP (if their bite only causes 3 damage) however bear in mind that they are only getting 4 actions for those 12AP and those are under very limited circumstances and you will see that it is not as bad as saying "zombies get an extra 10AP!" In comparison I will stress that a harman in a powered NT can search their heart out and then use their last action to go to -19AP by manufacturing a syringe. As for 100+ repair costs.... that really is a different matter, at best this would allow a zombie to turn a feeding drag into a lucky kill (drag almost always = death anyway) repairs of 100+AP counter weeks of actions done by a whole horde of zeds. That said, I do understand why you are apprehensive about this :)--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 19:33, 26 September 2008 (BST) PS... I still do not understand why some people consider this is considered an auto attack when the player has to be on line to use it???
::Where the fuck does it say in the suggestion what the max negative AP amount is? That might have been important enough to put in there.  Feeding Drag /= death since that action does no damage to the survivor at all. That's like saying loading a shot gun = death for a zombie. The idea of increasing the cost of a common action (to allow it after 0 AP) just because the player can't be bothered to either wait for the AP to recharge or to plan their attacks better is just like what I bitch at the survivors for. It's changing the mechanics of the game rather than the way you play it. With the exception of high repairs (and I don't even think that should be allowed) there is no reason to allow a player to go into the negative AP. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 07:26, 27 September 2008 (BST)
Top 5 reasons why this idea sucks:
:5 - The issues with Tangling Grasp as explained above.
:4 - Why spend 3 AP to make an attack that does 4 pts of damage when you can spend 1 AP and do oh, 4 pts. of damage?
:3 - Buttafuco
:2 - TG is doubled?! 0 x2 is still 0! Not to mention that even doubled that brings it up to 50% (potentially) to do 4 pts of damage at the cost of 3 AP. WTF?
:1 reason this idea sucks: You used the word "manbags".
Increasing the amount of AP needed for any zombie attack without increasing the damage is retarded! Why would any zombie attack a survivor at all under those circumstances? ''Yay! I spent most of my AP to get through the barricades and now my attacks can cost 3 AP on the survivors inside '''and''' I don't stop the recading!! Sign me up, Buttercup!''
If it made an attack do 8 pts (like it hit an artery) it might be worth more AP, but that is probably a dupe. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 20:31, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:Did you read the suggestion? The point was that you can go continue attacking even after 0 AP, but at a cost of using 3 AP per attack for that option. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 21:08, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:::Yes. I believe I said ''4 - Why spend 3 AP to make an attack that does 4 pts of damage when you can spend 1 AP and do oh, 4 pts. of damage? ''  I would like to know why people think it is a good idea to allow a player that can't manage their AP properly to get '''more''' AP. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 07:26, 27 September 2008 (BST)
::::Well, so you don't miss out on a kill bonus. Say you've got someone down to 6 HP and really want that kill bonus. Would be useful in such a situation. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 14:14, 27 September 2008 (BST)
:::::No, not really. Look at it this way. He needs 2 claw attacks to kill him (6 HP). Now you can go in the negative using 6 AP (at a recharge cost of 3 hours) or wait 1 hour to make the 2 attacks.  You are still dealing with the same RNG, doing the same damage, and still getting hit by the same glitches with TG. Chances are if you got a survivor down to 6 HP (not in a siege) and he isn't active waiting the 1 hour won't hurt anything.  It sure sounds better than going negative and logging back on 3 hours later to find him gone and scent trail too old to use. Not to mention the negative actions are in the 0 AP fog. You won't even know if you hit him! --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:18, 27 September 2008 (BST)
::::::Can't argue with that. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 01:01, 28 September 2008 (BST)
::To address your 2 points (disguised as 5): This is indeed a pretty poor skill choice for a horde zed, it is expensive and has no certainty of success. However, for a lone zed who has just blown 30+ of his AP on taking down the cades and is pretty certain to be dead before his next login the chance to spend some AP trying to finish off at least 1 survivor instead of saving it to pound cade's could be pretty attractive! Tangling grasp does offer a bonus... without checking i am pretty sure its 10%. Why spend 3 AP to do the same damage? well you are spending Virtual AP and may get to spend 6 to do 8damage or even 9 to do 12... the chances are at best 50% of 50% of 50% (about 1 in 10?) that you would get 3 successive hits but if you are going away for the weekendhave a survivor down to 5HP or just feel lucky it might be worth a risk. Its a choice thing really... no one would be forced to use it, just like no one is forced to take brain rot! Oh and I like the term "manbags" its insulting, descriptive and easily pronounced.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 21:12, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:::Did you read the links where there are known bugs with TG?  Why should a zombie spend hard earned XP on your skill to have a chance at maybe getting 3 "extra" hits in when they can buy Feeding Groan and get "back up" or Feeding Drag and get seen by passing ferals?  It just sounds like a skill that isn't worth it and would be a waste.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 07:26, 27 September 2008 (BST)
This is useless.  According to the suggestion (as I read it), the zombie must have a grasp on the target and the target must be at 13 HP or less.  So assuming the zombie manages to get a grasp right AT 13, the zombie will do a MAXIMUM of 16 HP damage at a cost of 12 AP, for a net gain of '''THREE XP''' (since the frenzy ends when the survivor dies).  Normally, the zombe can do the SAME thing for a minimum of 4 ap (with bite) or 5 ap (with claws).  So, WHY would a zombie want to do this when they can do with 5 claws/5 AP what would take 12 AP with the bites?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 05:10, 29 September 2008 (BST)
Why would anyone want to use this? Well how about this... This morning I logged onto my feral zed to find (surprise!) that i had been headshot over the weekend. Standing up followed the most recent groad only to find that the cade's were back up to QS and the only zeds present were lying down on the job. I proceeded to bash down the cades and get inside... I now have 11AP and am faced with 1 slightly wounded survivor. I managed to claw him down to less than 10HP before using my last action to drag him outside in the hope that another zed can finish him b4 he wakes up. With this skill I could have risked trying to finish him off myself. I don't need the XP (i have maxed out and banked 10k) so i would have been doing it for a bit of gory flavour text and to be mean. The thing is no one would be making me do it and i would balance for myself whether i thought it worthwhile... I think there are a lot of pointless skills in the game, "tagging" and radio use spring to mind, I never use them but that doesn't mean it is useless to everyone...--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 11:49, 29 September 2008 (BST)
:Tagging gives survivors XP. The radio is extremely useful to survivor groups that know how to properly use them. In your example above DCC's "wait 1 hour" still works out better. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 07:47, 30 September 2008 (BST)
:Actually, no, you WOULDN'T be able to do it "for a bit of gory flavor text".  By the time you could activate this skill, based on what you said, you would have had '''TWO AP''' (you said you got him down to "less than 10 HP" and used your last AP to drag him out).  Meaning that you would have been able to bite ONCE (going to -1 AP), dropping the survivor to 5 HP (presuming 9 is less than 10) and knocking you out of the game.  Your also thinking in terms of a maxed player.  The primary motivation for most zombie players is acquiring XP to make the game easier/more fun (survivor players don't need XP the same way zombies do).  So if the net result is ONLY "kill flavor text" there are already a few such suggestions in Peer Review and an overall "kill flavor text" suggestion would be a lot better than this.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:59, 30 September 2008 (BST)
----
===Free Running Into/Out Of Dark Buildings===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=[[User:Target Practice|Target Practice]] 02:38, 25 September 2008 (BST)
|suggest_type=Balance of Free Running
|suggest_scope=Survivors
|suggest_description=Basically, adds a potential fall risk to survivors free running into/out of dark buildings.<br>
How is it that inside Banks, Cinemas and Museums, the place is so dark that you can't see bodies or hit something several feet away from you with any accuracy, yet you can do something that requires considerable agility and precision without penalty? I understand that plenty of survivors like to sleep in dark buildings, as it makes it more difficult for zombies breaking in to hit them, and that's perfectly fair tactics, as it obviously works both ways when they're trying to clear zombies out.<br>
However, when survivors are using a dark building to launch attacks on an adjacent Mall in Zombie hands or similar, it becomes slightly unfair - the survivors are able to use 1AP to Free Run in, make their attacks at normal accuracy, and then dart back to the relative safety of their building, confident in the knowledge that any retaliatory attacks will be at -50%. Whilst this could certainly be called intelligent play, and making the most of your surroundings, I can't help feeling this is a little unfair. I propose adding the risk of falling when Free Running to or from a 'dark' building. The fall would be pretty much the same as the falling risk for Free Running into a ruined building - if you fall, you lose 5hp and end up outside. This then leaves survivors with the decision of whether to install a generator in their 'dark' building to avoid the falling risk and therefore opening themselves to being attacked at normal percentages.<br>
Be gentle, this is the first thing even approaching a suggestion I've made.
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion Free Running Into/Out Of Dark Buildings====
Into? Sure. Out of? Not really. Essentially makes it the same as Ruins. --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 05:17, 25 September 2008 (BST)
This would make pinatas even easier to do. I don't fully get if you mean into or out of dark buildings though so that might not be relevant...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:31, 25 September 2008 (BST)
:How the fuck would this make pinatas easier? Dark has nothing to do with ruin.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 07:31, 27 September 2008 (BST)
This would de-buff PKers... who won out big time with Dark buildings... Maybe... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:56, 25 September 2008 (BST)
No thank you. I think the risky part of Free Running takes place entirely outside of buildings, where it isn't dark. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 09:42, 25 September 2008 (BST)
I agree with Midianian, if you fell while still inside you wouldn't fall far enough to hurt. I might be convinced by increasing the "move" cost to 2AP for those buildings tho!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 10:01, 25 September 2008 (BST)
Suggestion doesn't make sense. Midianian explained why perfectly. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 14:45, 26 September 2008 (BST)
::RE: those saying that the dangerous part of free running takes place outside - I disagree... let's make the fairly sensible presumption that most free running takes place either from rooftop to rooftop, or at least at a height that is out of reach for someone standing at floor level. Now, most fatal falls in the workplace (sorry, it was the only data I could find on the subject) occur from heights of 10 feet or less. The difficult part of Free Running in a dark building is going to be the very act of getting onto the roof - Nightclubs, Museums and Banks as a rule tend to be fairly high-ceilinged buildings, usually with plenty of things dotted around for you to hit your head on should you fall.<br>
Now, if people still don't like the idea of a falling risk (I understand it does make dark buildings very similar to ruins), perhaps an AP penalty to move from Dark to lit or vice versa - I want the penalty to be enough to make survivors genuinely consider setting up a generator to save their AP, but obviously not so much it 'nerfs' dark buildings as HQs. What do you guys think about 3AP? --[[User:Target Practice|Target Practice]] 17:02, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:3AP is way too much, and I don't like the idea of a penalty for moving. Basically when you free run out of any building, it is normally seen as light outside, so you can see where you're going to dive to, regardless of whether it is dark inside or not.  {{User:Acoustic_Pie/Sig}} 23:10, 26 September 2008 (BST)
::You've missed my point - it's not the movement from building to building that's the problem - it's the act of getting from the dark innards of the building to the roof that's the dangerous part. See my post directly above yours. --[[User:Target Practice|Target Practice]] 23:24, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:::Oh I see, sorry about that. I assumed that you meant a dark to lit building. Not to a specific part of the building. Still, I think that 3AP is a bit too much for moving inside a building. Instead, possibly a fractional HP loss of 1-3 HP would be better, possibly fumbling in the dark while leaving a building, but still having the momentum to make the jump? Also, I wouldn't mind having a possible 1-2HP loss when making barricades after VSB in the dark. Given that there would be little light from around the barricades, the chances of something falling over and hurting someone (such as a cabinet breaking a foot while it was being moved onto the barricade) would be higher I think. How do you view something like that?  {{User:Acoustic_Pie/Sig}} 23:34, 26 September 2008 (BST)
::::Yeah, I think that bearing in mind this is aimed to penalise players who are running from dark to lit, attacking in the lit building and then retreating to the dark building, 3AP is a bit much, as they'd be getting penalised twice, and 6AP is three hours playing time, which is too much. 2AP is a bit more realistic, methinks. As for the HP penalties for barricading, that's a bit harsh, as if someone's just survived a zed break-in, the last thing they need is a penalty to rebuild the barricades, when they're probably struggling for health already and have used most of their FAKs just staying alive. However, perhaps a higher barricade failure rate due to an inability to find suitable items, or even double AP to reflect the extra effort in searching? --[[User:Target Practice|Target Practice]] 00:38, 27 September 2008 (BST)
:::::There's [[Dark|already]] a higher barricade failure rate in dark buildings. Are you suggesting nerfing it further, once it passes VSB?  --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 12:42, 27 September 2008 (BST)
::::::I said this with the idea that there is a small % of being hurt while getting barricades in dark buildings past VSB. That is all. I don't think people would be too fond of losing more AP to it. But it makes sense to think that in a dark building you can't see a lot after the majority of the light is covered by a barricade, no? Still, I can see what you mean, I suppose nerfing barricades in dark buildings wouldn't benefit the game too much.  {{User:Acoustic_Pie/Sig}} 13:19, 27 September 2008 (BST)
::::: Good spot Jen, somehow I managed to completely miss that the first time I read that page. Yeah, my intention was not to make dark buildings useless, simply to redress the balance and perhaps nerf their power for launching attacks on neighbouring buildings (be it survivors attempting to re-take a mall from zeds, or PKers launching attacks on sleeping survivors) with no real fear of repercussion. Unfortunately, adding a 'falling' risk makes it too much like ruins, and there is already a higher barricade failure rate in unpowered dark buildings. Therefore, I'll modify this suggestion so that the act of entering or exiting an unpowered dark building via free running is doubled to 2AP to reflect the extra care that must be taken in getting up onto the roof or other position from which to free run.
'''Cheers for the input on this guys, I'm going to tidy this one up and resubmit it.'''  --[[User:Target Practice|Target Practice]] 21:23, 27 September 2008 (BST)
----
===Adrenaline Mk. II===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time={{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:37, 24 September 2008 (BST)
|suggest_type=Survivor skill "Adrenaline"
|suggest_scope=Survivors.  Experienced players.
|suggest_description=New survivor skill, confers no benefit to zombies who bought it as survivors.<br>
*Placed under "Free running" with cost of 100 XP.  Requires minimum level 10 to purchase.<br>
*The minimum AP for survivors with this skill is reduced to -5 AP.<br>
*For -5AP to 0AP, current 0AP blindness is in effect with some caveats:<br>
:*3x3 movement grid is still available, with location names replaced by directions (north, northwest, etc.)<br>
:*An "Enter building" button is consistently present, even if you are currently in a building.<br>
:*Current 0AP flavor text is seen at -5AP, with appropriate flavor text replacing it for -4 AP to 0 AP.<br>
*Clicking on "Enter building" or on any directional button is considered an action.<br>
:*Actions initiated with  0 or negative AP incur a 40% chance of losing 5 HP ("In your haste, you trip and break your arm upon the ground.")<br>
:*Actions initiated with 0 or negative AP incur a 10% chance of dying ("In your haste, you trip and hit your head upon the cement.").<br>
:*The latter phrasing would also be used for survivors who incur die through the former loss of 5 HP.<br>
...Because IRL people do get an energy boost from their fear, but it hinders their interpersonal skills and their performance.<br>
Edited 06:35, 29 September 2008 (BST)
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Adrenaline Mk. II)====
'''THIS IS THE IDIOT DOUCHEBAG THAT SUGGESTED HORSES. MOVE ALONG NOTHING TO SEE HERE.''' He won't listen to anyone's comment and will just keep making the same suggestions even though he knows you can't change player's AP and that this is a dupe.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:14, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:The above edits illustrate that I am paying attention to the criticisms of my peers.  Do you have anything constructive to offer this go-around?  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:50, 26 September 2008 (BST)
::You may take this the wrong way, but I don't care much. You are not a peer of the regulars on this page. If you think you are you have delusions of adequacy. ''Every'' user that continues to frequent this page is above you in stature in my eyes. Each plays their part, Swiers and J3D offer constructive advice, Karek, when he was around assisted in helping process and with advice, Grim provided perspective to new users, DCC points out the inconsistencies and I do what small part I can. All of this is to stop crap clogging up the system, because every time that something stressful happens is one more opportunity for Kevan to realise there is no point to devoting time, money and resources to this free game that you play and deciding to pull the plug. For an example, look at Funt Solo's suggestions below. He was flamed ''once'', not by one user, but once (and by someone he has history with as I understand it). Total. Why? Because he has put time into the community, he has demonstrated understanding of the system and has used this page for its intended purpose. It's not because he wields the banhammer, hell, look at any admin page to see my disdain for sysops, it's because he shows the same consideration to the game and the suggestions process that we do, he refines his suggestions ''before'' posting them based on his experience and then takes onboard what we post. He doesn't post every other "cool" thought that pops into his head. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:07, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:::"Delusions of adequacy" is a nice phrase.  DCC's above flaming is because he thinks I offended him sometime in the past, and I'm pleased that you don't consider '''him''' to be a peer of mine.  But all that aside, "peer" doesn't and never has referred to adequacy.  It refers to rights - a person's peer has the same rights as said person.  And I have the same rights as anybody else to put forth my thoughts here.  You refer to the "regulars" of the page, but if these are the selfsame thinkers who created the current suggestion system, then I doubt they have much to offer me.  The current suggestion system favors the status quo, self-congratulation and voting from personal popularity rather than merit.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:32, 26 September 2008 (BST)
::::This^^^  This is the smug asshole fucktastic tone we are talking about. Let me fill you in on a few things. My above "flaming" just shows what your experience and comprehension level of UD is. The fact that you didn't consider a horse a "vehicle" and all those fun points we argued about in that "suggestion" shows your skill level and how much thought you put into your "suggestions" for want of a better word. Your raging against the "selfsame thinkers" just shows how much of an internet rebel you are and that you don't fucking bother to read the guidelines that seem to have been working for the last 2 years. But I guess by your logic that means that the "current system that favors the status quo" has never let a new or original idea pass. I would link the Peer Reviewed suggestions to prove you wrong, but I know you don't bother to read links, so I won't. However, if you are going to be a pissy cry baby because people didn't fawn all over your idea and you are too good for this page but not "popular" enough then fuck off. 
::::Just so you don't think it is "personal" and believe me it isn't - I had to look up your past contributions before I realized you were the horse guy - I hate Funt. He just fucking annoys the shit out of me the way I am sure I annoy most others, HOWEVER his ideas were decent so I didn't comment on them. (the only one I would have commented on he "closed" the discussion himself when he realized it needed more work) And that's what a mature intelligent poster does. But you keep on with this belief that you know better than all of us and let me know how that works out for you. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 07:51, 27 September 2008 (BST)
:::::It's going pretty well so far, because you lot haven't given me cause to think otherwise.  Your objections (if they're arguments at all) are self-inconsistent, invalid and generally illustrate your misunderstanding of most aspects of the game.  The best you've got on me is that I have a "smug asshole fucktastic tone," a tone I adopt online because condescension comes naturally when dealing with infantile minds.  Oh, and fundamentally, vehicles are ''defined'' as non-living modes of transport.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}10:55, 27 September 2008 (BST)
No, it gives five extra AP, end of story. 20% means jack shite, and all things considered, the possible benefits long outweigh -10Hp (death would be so rare that the occurance would be negible). Get caught out in the street and are leveled enough to have this skill, you f**ked up. On the other side with no location descriptions you woulden't know if the building your trying to enter was EHB, or VSB. So ethier this skill would be too benefical, or useless. Depends on whether your willing to take a chance. Ethier way it does allow survivors to take a few extra shots at zombies if they know a VSB in advance.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 00:18, 25 September 2008 (BST)
:Five extra AP that can only be spent on movement, and it doesn't change recharge rates (using this ability means that at the same time the following day you would only have 43 normal AP to spend).  What failure percentages would make more sense to you?  And thanks for your constructive criticism.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}00:44, 25 September 2008 (BST) 
No. There are already ways for survivors to go into negative AP and even though this only allows for movement it still frees up AP for things such as combat, barricading, repairs and searching, because otherwise the AP used on those would be used for the movement instead. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 00:58, 25 September 2008 (BST)
:Would it make a difference if the expected AP cost of healing/reviving the expected damage were equal to the AP gained?  That is, increasing it to 15 damage at a 30% likelihood rate (disregarding death for the moment), so that for every ~3 AP spent "running on empty" you would later have to spend ~3 AP in a lit drugstore and a lit hospital healing oneself?  This is meant as a "last resort" option intended only for "mature" players.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}01:12, 25 September 2008 (BST)
''Allows for survivors to take 5 additional movement actions (between buildings or into/out of buildings).'' = spam. 'Nuff said. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:57, 25 September 2008 (BST)
:Would your opinion change if the movement was totally blind (0 AP blindness was complete, without even giving the name of your current location, the name of a destination location, and allowing people to waste AP "entering" nonexistent buildings?  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}07:13, 25 September 2008 (BST)
::Why would anyone want to make blind movements if they were using the extra AP to save themselves?  That seems pretty fucking stupid.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:14, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:::Under the idea that "anywhere is better than here" and/or that you won't be able to access your computer again for a few hours?  I can't justify their actions to you without understanding your frame of reference.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:50, 26 September 2008 (BST)
::::As one of your fellows pointed out, survivors would abuse this to get in an extra 3 gunshots or whatnot if they knew beforehand where a VSB building was.  That's one of the interesting facets of this suggestion, because if someone overbarricades it in the interim, the overconfident zombie-hunter gets mauled.  Just like in the movies.--{{user:Galaxy125/Sig}}08:03, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:::::::Whoa, what the fuck? I hereby retract my below reasonable tone. ''"What if someone overbarricades it?"'' Why aren't you freerunning out of the building back to your safehouse? You're not killing zombies on the street are you? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:50, 26 September 2008 (BST)
::::::::That's a very good point.  No, I haven't killed a zombie in the street at all within the past year, possibly longer.  Change that to "If some zombie ruins your route back in the interim."  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}21:13, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:::::I just said below: leave my goddamn camel out of this. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:12, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:::::There are no "interesting facets" to this survivor buff. Don't lie to yourself. It's just a fucking way to add AP to a class that doesn't need more AP. Your comment above just shows that. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 20:43, 26 September 2008 (BST)
It's not like we have a [[Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#AP.2C_Inventory.2C_Skills.2C_and_Barricades|specific page to discourage crap like this]] or anything.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 10:25, 25 September 2008 (BST)
:AP limits states "should be enough for now."  If the current AP treatment was fine then people wouldn't constantly be suggesting stuff like the lower "Adrenaline."  As it is, this suggestion does not change the max AP, allow trading or change the AP increase rate, so, strictly speaking: no, you don't have a specific page to discourage suggestions like this or anything.  When you're through reciting dogma, please take a second to consider if your post will actually address any of the suggestion's points before hitting "Save page."  And yes, I read the S/DDN before posting.--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}11:57, 25 September 2008 (BST)
::The "dogma" as you put it there for a reason, it's to stop stupid fucking suggestions, like this one. Yes, let's buff survivor AP while leaving zombies where they are, it's not like they're loosing the AP war or anything? Dick.
::You read the S/DDN? Did you also read the cycling suggestions page, specifically the section where I'll dupe this to death if you actually put it up for voting? Just a question...
::Just because lots of people suggest it doesn't make it a good idea, or else we'd all be using our extra adrenaline induced AP to sheath our katanas, walk to our mechs and fire the fucking shoulder mounted rail guns! Just because morons go on abut it doesn't make it good, anymore than American Idol's better than Led Zeppelin! -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 12:17, 25 September 2008 (BST)
:::Unbalanced suggestions still pass with the assumption that Kevan will implement them at an opportune time (for instance, when the survivors are losing the AP war).  Or perhaps they can be combined with other suggestions such as the above "Feeding Frenzy."  And yes, I also read the cycling suggestions page.
:::But let me ask you something.  It costs me very little to suggest this as-is, and then you would be forced to find a dupe if you wanted to follow up on your threat.  After I revise my suggestion to make it clear how it differs, I would suggest it again, and you could possibly dupe it again.
:::So why would you insist on creating the red tape of putting this through the suggestion system when you can point out its unoriginality right here and now?  Threatening to "dupe something to death" is ultimately a pointless bluff, because it costs me nothing to call it.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:50, 25 September 2008 (BST)
::::Why do you keep suggesting things that are dupes?  How fucking hard is it to actually look before you post?  He seems to find them right away. How functionally retarded are you that you can't?  --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:14, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:::::<s>The duplicates he finds are only tangentially related.</s>(Statement retracted)  My suggestion is not identical to previous suggestions, and disregarding it by saying that it looks close enough is tantamount to saying you don't like to ride horses for no other reason than because they ''look'' like camels.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}06:50, 26 September 2008 (BST)
::::::Leave my camel out of this, you bastard! ---[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:10, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:::::::Your humps?  Your humps?  Your lovely lady lumps?  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}08:17, 26 September 2008 (BST)
::::::::Something to remember, [[Suggestions/27th-Dec-2005|I am the Patron Saint of Dupes]]. Let's look that that suggestion from 2005 shall we? Skill? Check. 5 AP? Check. Negative AP? Check. All you're adding is a bit of blindness, and the objections to the original version still stand. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 09:28, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:::::::::To start, thank you for finding that, and it is indeed very close to my suggestion.  The primary objection to that "Adrenaline" was that players should budget their actions.  I argue that mine is clearer (more detailed) than the initial suggestion, and both the blindness and the possibility of damage/death are used to punish people who failed to appropriately budget their actions.  Such would make this suggestion one which is used rarely, but still offers a buffer to experienced survivors who find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.  I just woke up...does that make any sense?--{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}19:51, 26 September 2008 (BST)
::::::::::I don't tend to put the dupes up until people stick them up for voting as the possibility of me doing it makes for an effective deterrent for most suggestions. I get what you're trying to achieve, but the method you are using is fundamentally the wrong one for this game. Everyone, zombie and survivor, gets 48AP per day. No more, no less. People can argue for days over who has the advantage in AP spending but the simple constant is the availability of those APs. Changing this for either side is game breaking. You'll notice the Frenzy skill up the page, if that goes to vote I'll kill that, I disagree with either side getting free AP. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:36, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:::::::::::Allowing for an extra 5 AP to be spent in a single login does not change the 48AP per day ''regeneration'' limit.  As these negative AP are restrictive in how they're spent and the damage they do, their regular use would imply that survivors are giving up control over ~9.1% (5/55) of the 48 AP (4.4 AP) they get per day.  Which means that regular-use survivors lose, on average, 8.7 HP (4.4 * .4 * 5 HP) and have a 36.8% (1 - .9 ^ 4.4) probability of dying daily.  Death or damage is even more prevalent if they only login every 24 hours.  Therefore, this would not be used often enough to be game-breaking, but would provide a security blanket for extreme situations.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}21:02, 26 September 2008 (BST)
::::::::::::You'll notice I didn't say ''regeneration'', I said ''availability''. Two very different things. Let's say you set a precedent by allowing people access to APs you don't have access to, imagine then a zombie that's only played once a week but allowed ''access'' to his weekly pool before he's ''regenerated''. You have there an uber zed that will crack a mall and eat seven people in one session. Give him five friends in a strike team and he'll empty and ruin a mall corner in an hour, that's before the ferals even show up. Now you immediate counter point is ''"It's not a week's worth, it's only 5AP."'', that's 10%, a massive buff. If you'd instituted this at Giddings it could have damaged the Bash as every 10 active caders effectively creates ''an extra player'' between them. These extra cades give time for reinforcements to arrive and offset the AP sink. Also, feel free to comment of the fairness of handing the survivors a 10% buff whilst giving zombies ''nothing''. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:25, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:::::::::::::If this becomes suggested, and if Kevan chooses to implement it, he would be sure to implement it either to offset a zombie buff or to counteract a huge zombie majority in the stats.  I'm not invoking "Kevan can decide," I'm just saying that one-sided suggestions are totally legitimate and in fact necessary for the progression of the game.
:::::::::::::Six of your active caders lose 8.7 HP, four of them die.  Is that a worthwhile price for a single "extra player?"
:::::::::::::AP availability isn't 48, it's 50.
:::::::::::::If the proposed "weekend warrior" wanted to die every other week (.1 x 10AP) from blind movement, I think it would offset the 10 extra AP he was able to spend.  But I hope that you take me seriously when I say that your feedback on this suggestion has been the most helpful feedback I've gotten so far on any suggestion.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}21:39, 26 September 2008 (BST)
::::::::::::::Again, read what I wrote, AP availabilty, that it becomes available to each player in a day is 48, ''banked'' AP is 50.
::::::::::::::Why do six of my caders die? Why are they my caders?
::::::::::::::Suicide tactics are not only one of the most effective things survivors can do in the game, it's also ''needed'' due to the ruin costs in some suburbs.
::::::::::::::Your point about Kevan buffing each side equally is incorrect, each update favours one side, for example, the January update favoured Zombies (a much needed update to redress some of the balance) whereas the darkness update was a survivor buff. Between these updates we have to get on with living through a potentially biased system. Kevan has been known to get things catastrophically wrong, see the original headshot.
::::::::::::::What you are up against, as with every suggestion, is not the game, but the suggestions system. And in cases like this, it's a good thing. There's a reason we have advice about not suggesting things based on linked suggestions. Your comment on a counter update is an example. If you want this to stand a chance of passing without me duping it or others spamming it ''you'' have to balance it within itself, don't wait for others to do it. Your sort out the potential furture of the game, or don't suggest things. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:40, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:::::::::::::::"Becomes available" is synonymous with "regeneration."  Are you referring to the potential 50 (55 with this suggestion) AP a fully charged survivor has access to, or the 48 AP all players receive over the course of 24 hours?  I've made arguments so far which say that neither is unbalanced by this suggestion.
:::::::::::::::Four die, because all ten had a (1 - .9 ^ 5)= 41% chance of dying.  And technically the six remaining each lose an average of 10 HP, because we're concerned with a single siege rather than a gameplay choice.  "Your caders" because you suggested them with "...as every 10 active caders effectively creates..."
:::::::::::::::Suicide tactics means getting into a building and barricading it without thought to survival, yes?  This suggestion doesn't change how many additional barricades would be put up under such a technique, it just allows survivors to run away once they've done so.  Which could possibly help zombies re-ruin the building.
:::::::::::::::I never said Kevan beefs each side equally.  Kevan needs suggestion ammunition to alter the board to assist the underdog whomever that may be.  This suggestion helps survivors, but not in a game-shaking way, and is therefore sufficiently balanced (at least in light of the criticisms that have been made so far).  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:02, 26 September 2008 (BST)
I like this one - In respect to dupe-sayers, it's different enough that it's not a dupe. Just because something has certain aspects of previous suggestions which are the same doesn't mean it's a dupe. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 14:48, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:Incorrect, the base mechanics are the same. They were previously rejected. To use an analogy, someone suggested a turd, it was rejected. Now someone's gone ''"Look! A BLUE turd! I've changed this, it's BLUE!"''. Don't care what colour it is, it's still a turd. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 14:51, 26 September 2008 (BST)
::It's not horse shit, it's fertilizer.  Get that straight.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}19:58, 26 September 2008 (BST)
<nowiki>*Points at the Rules.*</nowiki> Don't screw with AP. Plain and simple...survivors are strong enough as it is. If you want to make a better survivor go start finding ways to lessen syringe production costs....[[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 21:22, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:Lessening syringe production costs would upset the already skewed zombie/survivor balance to even greater survivor power.  My suggestion doesn't for reasons I've given above.  And, not to be cliche, but rules are made to be broken (the S/DDN is not written in stone).  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}21:28, 26 September 2008 (BST)
Reading everything above, I am severly inclined to say no to this. The reason being that for the vast part of it, it is pointless. The blindness means nothing when you can easily look at the wiki map, thus voiding the main nerf of this skills.  {{User:Acoustic_Pie/Sig}} 23:05, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:Which assumes you know where you are, where you're going, the barricade and/or ruin levels of the buildings on your route, and if your final destination is safe.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:17, 26 September 2008 (BST)
::Anyone who actively plays the game would know all of those. Those who only play a bit would still be able to use the wiki and be able to reach a pretty reasonable conclusion about the other parts. 5 extra AP would give people something they don't really need. The regenerate rate is fine as it is. Smart people don't produce syringes, they search for them and going into negative AP isn't needed to be honest. As if this were to make it into the game, then people would want more negative AP things, which brings us to the point of 'why not extend the amount of AP?'. For this question I direct you to [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions_Dos_and_Do_Nots#AP.2C_Inventory.2C_Skills.2C_and_Barricades this]. I'm not sure what you've posted in the past as I haven't looked through the page, nor been around since about March, but make sure you've factored in as much as possible when it comes to the do's and do nots in the future.  {{User:Acoustic_Pie/Sig}} 23:28, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:::Thank you.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}23:35, 26 September 2008 (BST)
::::You're welcome. Also, have a look through Peer-Reviewed/Rejected before putting things up as well. I don't mean to sound demeaning by saying this, but sometimes people can look through the PR/R sections and find something very similar within 5 minutes of starting. It also gives a chance to possibly get other ideas about what to suggest in the future.  {{User:Acoustic_Pie/Sig}} 23:44, 26 September 2008 (BST)
I don't know why you're wasting disk space on this awful suggestion... However, I'd like to inform you all that syringe rates have been atrocious for a while while... and many people have confirmed the same experience... To the point where manufacturing is actually becoming a smart option in some situations... Just, like, mentioning. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:29, 29 September 2008 (BST)
----
===Doctor's Examination===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time={{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 22:28, 24 September 2008 (BST)
|suggest_type=Skill: Medical.
|suggest_scope=Survivors.
|suggest_description=Sub-skill of Diagnosis.
By spending 3AP, you can perform an examination on another player. This will allow you to see their current HP, max HP and (possibly) if they are infected or not.
Detecting an infection on another player has a 5% chance of succeeding for every hour that has passed since the targeted player was first infected. Otherwise, you will receive the same result as if they were not infected. If you perform the examination in a powered hospital, it has a 10% chance per hour of infection.
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Doctor's Examination)====
Diagnoses already tells you the current HPs of every survivor in the room for 0 AP.  Common sense tells you the max HPs of any survivor in the room for 0 AP (open their profile, look for bodybuilding).  So really,this is just 3 AP for a crappy chance to tell if somebody is infected.<br>How about some lame soufflé smothered in fail sauce for desert?  {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 22:47, 24 September 2008 (BST)
''Everyone'' in the ''entire'' city has the zombie virus. Pay 3AP to learn this simple fact? Stupid people only need apply. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:57, 24 September 2008 (BST)
:Viruses can't be killed using just any shelf drug, bacterial "infections" can. We had this discussion awhile ago, and this statement is based in current fact.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 00:21, 25 September 2008 (BST)
Yeah, I see what you're saying. I'll leave this idea be for now, but I might bring it back if I can find more things that it could help detect. Either that, or I could buff the infection-detecting chance... --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 04:44, 25 September 2008 (BST)
I don't spend much time as a human, I'll admit, but I thought that as a survivor with all zombie skills I could already tell if someone was infected? But that can't be the case surely?? --{{User:necrodeus/sig}} 15:40, 25 September 2008 (BST)
I dunno hearing someone say "help infected" is usually a good clue that they are you know, infected. I don't think I want to waste 3 of my AP when they can use 1 of theirs and ask for a FAK. "sorry, buddy, I'd heal ya but I just spent 3 AP seeing if you needed it then this last AP to tell you I can't help you."  Yeah, useful.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:18, 26 September 2008 (BST)
<i>'''What did my camel ever do to you people!??!??'''</i> --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:13, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:That camel... killed my family. I swore I would get my revenge on that fateful day. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 14:50, 26 September 2008 (BST)
Does anyone else find this suggestion's title slightly kinky? Or camels for that matter...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:16, 26 September 2008 (BST)
There ''already is'' a way to determine someone's HP and infection status (with 100% certainty, BTW) with 3AP:
#Search in a the drugstore of a powered mall with [[Shopping]] and [[Bargain Hunting]].
#Repeat step 1.
#:At this stage, you should (on average) have a FAK.
#Apply FAK on target.
This will tell you their HP and that they no longer have infection if they ever did. Plus, they'll get healed at least 5HP. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 10:23, 26 September 2008 (BST)
----
===Adrenaline===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=[[User:Super Nweb|Super Nweb]] 06:08, 24 September 2008 (BST)
|suggest_type=Improvement
|suggest_scope=Humans
|suggest_description=Epinephrine also known as adrenaline is a "fight or flight" hormone, and plays a central role in the short-term stress reaction. It is released from the adrenal glands when danger threatens or in an emergency. Such triggers may be threatening, exciting, or environmental stressor conditions. My idea is that you can trade (The eact amount I need help on) 15hp for an extra 5AP. This may seem like a big advantage, and most people will try and heal themselves after so look at these stats.
With First Aid, and bargain hunting: 7AP to reheal
With First Aid, without bargain hunting in a mall: 11Ap to reheal
Without first aid, with bargain hunting: 12AP to reheal
Without first aid or bargain hunting, in a mall: 18Ap to reheal
Hospitals and churches are even worse.
This shows that int he end this would be a negative skill in the end. But if you really need those extra barricade lvls you can sacrafice that AP later. No zombies could NOT use this since theyre body systems really don't work. It would be usefull in a dire situation (Just like real adrenaline). But like real adrenaline would harm you later, because of the strain on your body. This is not a skill, you start with a button called "Adrenaline". It would be very balenced and would add soem strategy to the game.
--[[User:Super Nweb|Super Nweb]] 06:08, 24 September 2008 (BST)
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Adrenaline)====
''(These responses are comments on the suggestion below, which was enigmatically "cloned" up here, but has been "corrected" by being removed.)'' --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:57, 24 September 2008 (BST)
::Actually... someone or something somehow fucked this page up... That comment was posted for the suggestion below, then somehow duplicated. This suggestion didn't even exist at the time I wrote that... However... it ''is'' epic dupe-age.... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:32, 24 September 2008 (BST)
::::Maybe the wiki has become self aware and is trying to rid itself of tumors like this? --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:12, 24 September 2008 (BST)
:::Any ideas to make it less-dupey?--[[User:Super Nweb|Super Nweb]] 06:36, 24 September 2008 (BST)
::::How to make adrenaline rush less dupey... hrm. Okay here's an idea:
::::After you run out of AP, if you have the skill Adrenaline Rush, you get to spend 10 AP to do one more move, giving you -10 AP. This can not be repeated again until you have 50 AP remaining, at which time the adrenaline counter resets and you again have one 'adrenaline move' that you can do once you hit 0 AP. If you are below 0 AP you don't get to do the adrenaline move (ie, if you are at 3 AP and use a syringe, bringing you to -7AP, or if you are at 1 AP and fix a 100 AP ruin, bringing you to -99 AP, etc). That's the only idea I can think of that would be a non dupey adrenaline rush, though it might still be (Iscariot would probably know) --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 14:20, 24 September 2008 (BST)
:::::Anything that allows negative AP actions tends to be very unpopular... I should know, I suggested one :) --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:28, 24 September 2008 (BST)
::::::Yeah, but he was asking for a way to make the idea of adrenaline rush less dupey, so that's what I thought up. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be a dupe then, even if it might be unpopular. Then again, ever since long term Ruins allowed survivors go go into double (triple?) digit negative deficits, perhaps the idea of a negative AP inducing skill which provides a small benefit to survivors might be less unpopular than it would have been... say... 4 or 5 months ago. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 14:35, 24 September 2008 (BST)
:::::::The mechanic is there, and you can't get something for nothing ... Tselita's idea is as viable a solution as any I've read for this type of thing.  But if you do this for humans, then won't the zombies want an equal ability?  And if so, what's the point?  You might as well just play your dude with more discipline and try to always leave 10 APs at the end of every game play.  [[User:Disreputable|Disreputable]] 20:30, 24 September 2008 (BST)
::::::::You can 'arguably' say that zombies, being dead, no don't have active adrenaline coursing through their veins, since their blood isn't 'coursing'. No heart beat, no blood pumping. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 14:53, 26 September 2008 (BST)
:::::If you're to perform a final action at 0 AP, you'd certainly need to see who/what is around you to interact with. This is too easily abused to get around the 'You are exhausted' blindness that occurs normally at 0 AP. --{{User:Haberdash/Sig}} 23:17, 24 September 2008 (BST)
I wish! It's not a bad idea, but yes, it's a dupe. --[[User:JaredV|JaredV]] 01:26, 24 September 2008 (BST)
Would be nice, but definitely a dupe --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 14:16, 24 September 2008 (BST)
I think its assumed that survivors ALREADY have adrenaline coursing through their veins.  If facing off against a horde of zombies doesn't trigger your fight or flight reflexes (without the use of a skill) then there's something very wrong with you.  As such, this suggestion is kind of like giving survivors a "wear clothing" skill that confers extra protection from zombies, or an "take a pee" skill that heals them.<br>BTW, the math is hogwash.  Search up 40 faks in a mall (3 AP each at most, more likely 2.5 each, for a total 100 AP) and then move to the powered hospital next door (1 AP) and use this skill a bunch of time, healing yourself for 15 HP per FAK using surgery.... yeah, I think you'd get a (large) net gain in AP.  Then you could go back and do it again, and again.  A PKer with a knife and a proxy (to allow unlimited IP hits) could clear out a whole mall. {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:07, 24 September 2008 (BST)
I was thinking about something like this. Perhaps, you could use this adrenaline once a day, and it gave you 5 AP (even taking you above the normal 50AP limit). However, after 2 or so hours, you'd lose 10AP from the eventual 'adrenaline crash' --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 22:32, 24 September 2008 (BST)
Keep talking people, and then put it up for voting where I shall dupe it to death. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:58, 24 September 2008 (BST)
----
===New zombie speeches===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=[[User:Kolechovski|Kolechovski]] 19:37, 23 September 2008 (BST)
|suggest_type=Improvement
|suggest_scope=Zombies
|suggest_description=Zombies without Death Rattle have very few things they can say.  Basically just several different versions of “graah”, and a revival request.  Their current words available:
Graagh.
Graaaagh!
Grrrh.
Grh.
Mrh?
Brnhr.
I think a couple more would be sufficient.  First, a likely taunt, “Brahnz”.  Second, a way to point out food sources, especially useful to those with flailing gesture, “Harmanz”.  Those both should be in demand and would likely be very useful to any zombie player talking with others.
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (New zombie speeches)====
Epic dupe-age. But I CBA to hunt it down. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:46, 23 September 2008 (BST)
:Ehh dang. Still might be better if we could revise it instead of just duping it. I think I suggested this once before, so it might be my own dupe.--[[User:Super Nweb|Super Nweb]] 06:25, 24 September 2008 (BST)
I wish! It's not a bad idea, but yes, it's a dupe. --[[User:JaredV|JaredV]] 01:26, 24 September 2008 (BST)
Sounds like a good idea.--[[User:Super Nweb|Super Nweb]] 06:30, 24 September 2008 (BST)
Dammit, zombies need more speech options.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:14, 24 September 2008 (BST)
I '''partially''' agree. I think zombies without death rattle should be able to say 'Braaiiiiiins' (or, yknow, the UD equivalent of 'Brahnz'). All zombies say that.... in all the Romero films, and probably in the some of the Russo ones - they don't even need to think about it. It's practically the first thing they say when they crawl back to their feet. Not Harmanz though. That's more complicated - get death rattle for anything more. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 14:28, 24 September 2008 (BST)
:Zombies don't speak at all in Romero films... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:02, 24 September 2008 (BST)
::And in NOLD they didn't eat brains. One even ate a bug and the little girl seemed to be eating a liver. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 20:50, 26 September 2008 (BST)
----
===Creating “Speaking Points”===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=[[User:Disreputable|Disreputable]] 08:24, 23 September 2008 (BST)
|suggest_type=A small Point System allotment for encouraging in-game communication
|suggest_scope=All
|suggest_description= This is something about the game that I feel has hindered a lot of the social interaction, both practical and roleplaying, that could really make the game more enjoyable.  I’d like to say things like “Hey, Insert-Your-Name-Here, thanks for healing me”, or “Nice description, What’s-Your-Name”, or “Some peeps might want to get to that building over there, there are a few noobs who could use help reinforcing the barricades again” … But I can’t (especially if it isn’t a super critical issue) because my action points are just too dang precious (and I usually run out by the time I manage to find safety again). 
General flavor communication/interaction is a waste of time when it’s so heavily tied to the actual actions that you need to undertake that are the real hard-core mechanics of the game.  Basically: it feels like people who really want to try to “play in character” are penalized.  After all, roleplaying isn’t about shooting something, it’s about interacting with others in a way that perpetuates the actual game environment.
I understand that “Free Talking” would just flood the screen every time you login, and I don’t want that either, but maybe some Speech/Speaking/Social Points (or whatever) to allow for roleplaying, simple communication, and whatnot, would be nice.  Just a few, like 3 or 5 points max, and after that you have to actually spend APs (like it’s set up now).  They could be gained at a rate of 1 an hour (or 1 every half hour, like Action Points, if that would be simpler).  The points could be used for stuff other than speech, too, but at this moment I have no idea what else someone would want to tie them to (and I am specifically not including Radio use in this).
Being able to just chat a little with the other players (the random collection of survivors that I spend so much time holed up with) would be kind of cool, but as things are it’s EXTREMELY impractical when you need every AP to keep yourself (and others around you) alive.  I really think it would help foster a stronger community and create a more socially active environment.  And possibly create more in-game friendship-like situations where small groups can co-operate more effectively. 
Plenty of people are already talking freely outside of the game and carrying on lengthy discussions.  I would like to see some of that social communication actually taking place in the game, in the characters’ actual locations, like it should be. 
And Zeds can go about and make their random noises and sounds freely, just because they can and because it’s what zombies do. 
Hell, if you implement this, then it’d be cool to have players outside of buildings be able to “hear faint conversation” from the inside of buildings - and players inside of buildings be able to hear the sounds of Zeds who want to make noises on their doorsteps.  But that maybe going too far.  Then again, it would be a fair price for using Speech Points too frivolously. 
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Adding Speaking Points (SPs) to foster a better game environment)====
This is too vague, that said; I would be all for allowing everyone to make 1 or 2 free speak actions per day or even just allowing every third to be free (like it is/was in Nexuswars) I do like the idea of being able to hear "faint" sounds if the chatter got too much... say more than 5 in an hour? Probably a bit complex though, especially for a bit of flavour text! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 10:02, 23 September 2008 (BST)
:I think the concept of a few points solely to be used for speaking is simple enough, and that giving a separate pool of APs just for that wouldn’t be too complicated (it would be listed right after your real Action Points).  And I like the idea that these Speech Points regenerate like APs (but slower, like .5 or .25 every 1/2 hour, and they have a very low max, like 3).
:The extra flavor of having people get messages if such actions happen in their vicinity (sounds through buildings) is debatable.  I would just have it as simple as a message (such as the specific zombie groan overheard, or a generic “muffled conversation” message) appearing every time Speech Points are used to create conversation.  Zombies, which aren’t like normal functioning humans, are attracted to movement, light, sounds, vibrations, etc, and they should be able to pick up on hiding survivors who are making too much noise. 
:This would make it “profitable” for zombies to loiter outside of buildings to find out if they can hear conversation inside.  But this conversation would also be very helpful to survivors.  APs used for communication would work as they do now, but Speech Points used for communication would create messages for others in the vicinity (they use a different action/point system, and therefore trigger the generic message to other qualified presences).  I think there is a fair and balanced trade off (nothing is “free”, right?).  Speak freely when you think it is safe, use APs when you need to be extra quiet, Zombie groans freely drifting across the city (and it getting crazy if mobs of zeds are outside your building!) … I think that’d be great flavor.  Perhaps only zombies will get messages for survivors speaking from inside buildings and only survivors will get messages of zombie groans from outside buildings.  That might cut down on a lot of excess postings of info.
:This speaking ability would still be limited to 50 people max, and (IMHO) be a lot less annoying than the endless blather that floods your login because of radios.  Seriously, 50%-75% of the stuff coming in over radios is garbage.  Actual communication with the people immediately around you would be far more worthwhile.  -  :|[[User:Disreputable|Disreputable]] 19:25, 23 September 2008 (BST)
--
IMO there is just no need for this. First of all, nothing for free. Second of all, survivors have immensely powerful tools for communication at their disposal... 1) un-garbled speech, and enough space to say a LOT in one tick 2) radios 3) spray tags 4) cell phones (not really super efficient, but safe and confidential). There is no need for any kind of free communication... But, if these powerful in-game tools are not enough for you, then I recommend getting your metagame on. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:42, 23 September 2008 (BST)
:Oh... ''"And Zeds can go about and make their random noises and sounds freely, just because they can and because it’s what zombies do."'' ... Try playing a zombie, and get your facts straight. They don't get spit for free. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:44, 23 September 2008 (BST)
:''"I would like to see some of that social communication actually taking place in the game, in the characters’ actual locations, like it should be."''... Uhhm... Dunno what game you're playing... But it does. Or, it used to... but it does seem like the overall level of survivor play has plummeted dramatically in recent months, so, yeah I guess people are just silently shooting zombies in the street solo these days... But that's not the game-engine's fault... The game engine is already hugely supportive of effective in-game survivor communications. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:50, 23 September 2008 (BST)
::Wow, don’t get all knee-jerk defensive on me! 
::First off – I really DON'T want to metagame.  I'd like to see more real in-game interaction.  That’s the whole point here.  I’ve only been playing for about a month and, like you so keenly observed, I’ve noticed that the player interaction does suck.  Maybe that is what I am trying to address and remedy?  The “powerful in-game tools” you mention (radios, spray tags, cell phones) are completely useless from everything I have seen so far.  As a new player, I have enough problems staying alive, not getting PKed, and scavenging for supplies … making real connections with other players isn’t happening, and that seems like a big blackhole in the game play.  I think it can obviously be connected to the fact that talking interferes/hinders with the basic survival mechanics (searching, hiding, killing) of the game, and I’d like to see more quality player interaction on a roleplaying/in-game level.  I can't afford to make fruitless attempts at connecting with other players, and other players can't afford the same luxury either. 
::And secondly, if you had bothered to read it, it applies to “ALL”; I want the zombies to have the Speech Points too.  Living or dead, you still have them and the rules are pretty much universal/uniform according to what you are playing.  They’ll be able to make their 3 FREE grunts or groans whenever they like, and spook any hiding survivors all they want if that’s their bag.
::Thirdly, it’s not free.  Giving away your hiding spot just to use a “free” speak ability, and giving zombies another tactic/tool for searching for survivors, is hardly free.  Zombies would actually be the only ones getting something for pretty much nothing in this case, because they receive something without any negative trade-off.  And why should zombies need to spend their APs to use a largely worthless speech ability?  -  |[[User:Disreputable|Disreputable]] 20:31, 23 September 2008 (BST)
:::''First off – I really DON'T want to metagame.''' Then get the fuck off the wiki. It serves no purpose other than metagaming. If you don't want to spend your precious AP talking then you need to decide if RPing is really a priority. If making yourself a walking medicine cabinet or gun shop is what you are using your AP on then what the fuck kind of RPing are you going to do?  ''My, the glint from my 20 shotguns brings out your blue eyes.'' You want to communicate with people?  Put something useful in your profile other than "I look like bad ass mcbaddy."  There are a few ways to communicate that don't involve talking. Oh and how big of you to toss zombies free grunts and groans!  --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:58, 24 September 2008 (BST)
I dislike separate speech points, but I would enjoy seeing useful in-game communication increase.  Your suggestion is good in that it accepts that a non-linear progression of AP costs is able to combat spam.  However, you offer something free, which goes against the idea of the game.  Find a way to motivate speech without it being free or as convoluted as separate speech points, and I will gladly support you.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}22:16, 23 September 2008 (BST)
:Well, certain things are free in game, like dropping stuff, Galaxy. No AP spent there. I like this idea, as long as zombies get the same benefit as survivors for the 2 or 3 'free speaking points' (though if being fair, maybe give zombies 4 'free speaking points' and survivors 3, since zombies have a much tougher time getting communication across in a non-metagame fashion.  I can see how this idea might be used to encourage people to spam more, but it's nothing which doesn't already happen with throwaway characters. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 23:18, 23 September 2008 (BST)
::Well, Galaxy125, if you don’t want to somehow encourage real communication attempts in the game by preventing them from hindering your characters progress, then you have to start rewarding people who make such efforts and sacrifices.  And something like awarding EXP for just uselessly running your mouth in the game sounds like an AWFUL idea.  So … how would YOU suggest motivating more communication?  How could you make allowances for people who really want to do a little roleplaying and make the game more fun and rewarding? 
::I really can’t think of another way.  If using your Speech Points helps forge allies, helps people to start networking, and creates friendships in the game, that will lead to more productive uses of cell phones and other communication means.  And it would lead to using your actual APs to continue worthwhile conversations.
::And I honestly believe that creating a downside will be really interesting, creating messages for players to overhear.  Zombies can make their presences known, can overhear players being too casual with conversation, zombies can now listen for chatty survivors by just standing outside of buildings (which is great for us starting players who don’t have all of those cool skills to fall back on). 
::Tselita, if the zombie noises are really that important to them, then I don’t see why zombies can’t receive more Speech Points (like a max of 9 SPs, 3 times more than survivors).  After all, they can’t create long complicated and verbose sentences, so it would only be fair to allow them more basic grunts and stuff.  And if the suggestion after mine has any merit, then perhaps a few more “words” in their scroll down menu to use as well.  It’s all about getting people to try to communicate more in-game and create a more interesting and enjoyable game experience.  -  [[User:Disreputable|Disreputable]] 00:46, 24 September 2008 (BST)
There's a strong case to be made that you probably don't want to hear what an awful lot of players are saying. Try switching your radio to 28.01 sometime soon. These idiots don't need any encouragement to start babbling away and making everyone's pages 50 lines long. I may be fairly lucky in that the guys I currently hang around with are a talkative bunch, and there's something new to read every time I log on. The simple fact is, a lot of UD players simply don't want to talk in-game when they can metagame with the other members of their group (pretty much the only people they talk to) without the risk of being overheard by zombie spies/PKers or others they may not want hearing what you've got to say. That said, I'm in the same boat as you - I wish people were a bit more talkative in-game, but whilst you can take a zed to brainz, you can't make it eat. --[[User:Target Practice|Target Practice]] 01:57, 24 September 2008 (BST)
After some consideration I think that allowing survivors 1 free speak action per cycle would be a good thing. These free speaks and any affects should reset at a set time (say noon and midnight) but more importantly make the game keep a tally of how many are made in each cycle... If the count equals the levels (loose,light,QS,Vs etc...) it should begin carring through to the outside. Flavour text might range from "you heard faint sounds from inside (3) hours ago" for just 1 or 2 Speaks over the cade level upto "the din from inside grew steadily, it started (x) hours ago and tailed of (y time) ago" with x and y being the time of the 1st and last noises. Such conversation would represent careless (thus noisy) chatter rather than the paranoid whispers that cost AP and while it is an AP free action the consequences could be serious! Griefing potential is cut down by the fact that each character can only do it once and in an EHB building would need the co-operation of at least 7 others to be heard outside! One last point.... Zombies should recieve a similar mechanism representing groans and barricade rattling, it should work exactly the same but be usable 3 times per refresh rather than just once! Anyone think of any refinemens, particularly Disreputable" as its his basic idea i have run wild with :)--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:47, 24 September 2008 (BST)
:I think dealing with barricade levels over complicates things too much, barricades shouldn't figure into it at all, either you're careless when speaking or you're cautious when speaking.  Otherwise, your take on it would work too.  I don't think it would foster as much conversation as I'd like to see, but it would be a start and hopefully lead to more in-game interactions.  And I really think the mechanics should work in benefits for zeds, giving them a tool to listen for survivors and allowing them to add to the atmosphere by allowing them to make zombie noises that pervade an area.  That would be totally ideal.  -  [[User:Disreputable|Disreputable]] 19:58, 24 September 2008 (BST) 
::And why is DCC even allowed to keep making comments?  Does he think he's funny?  Is he trying to be Dennis Leary, or is he just the local douche? {{unsigned|an unknown user}}
:::You know what? DCC is most certainly a dick... But DCC also (usually) makes excellent points which you really ought to listen to more. 'Nuff said. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:04, 24 September 2008 (BST)
::::DCC is also man enough and smart enough to know how to fucking sign posts. Wan, I'm surprised neither of us harped on the "hearing people talking inside a building" part. No X-Ray vision. No bionic ears.  But I guess when the majority of an idea is shit you don't really need to point out the chunk of corn sitting on top. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 20:44, 24 September 2008 (BST)
DCC has pretty much said what I'd say about this, so just go ahead and read his posts twice. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:01, 24 September 2008 (BST)
Nothing is keeping you from saying, "Hey, Insert-Your-Name-Here, thanks for healing me" or "Nice description, What's-Your-Name" or "the building next door needs more cades!"  I say stuff like this all the time! Heck, if someone's healed me, and they're still in the same building, I can't think of a time when I've NOT thanked them.  Spending 2-3 of my 50 AP to say stuff to people doesn't strike me as a waste of AP at all.  And you know what? People tend to respond!  I can't think of a time when I've said something, and the room has remained silent as the grave in response.  I've ended up having discussions about the camaraderie fostered by dark buildings, about Irish drinking songs, about magical elixers of healing, about favorite poets, and about characters named after famous people, to name a few.  Stop worrying so much about your previous AP!  Life is more than FAKs and cading! Passing on strategic information like, "the place next door needs cades" can save multiple lives, and is worth it.  And if someone has written a creative profile, I think it's worth spending an AP to give them a tip of the hat and a compliment for it.  The only thing that the speech-limit has hindered is a lot of useless spam.  When it COSTS something to speak, people tend to make that sure their words count.
Plus there's things that are even more of a waste of AP than talking.  Like spending 40AP to shoot zombies in the street.  If you're playing wisely, you should feel free to use some of your AP for talking.  You'll still be making better average use of your AP than most players.  The survivor side won't perish because you didn't find that last FAK.  And you'll have a much more interesting gaming experience all around.
If you don't care so much for metagaming, go hang out with a group like the Malton Medical Staff, which makes a POINT of talking ingame.  Or hang out at the Malton College of Medicine.  Or the Quartly Library. Or run around bars with the Lesbian Pirates. Or talk to members of a group ingame, and tag along with them and help them out, without officially joining them and their forums. The last thing is something I've done quite a few times myself, and it works wonderfully.  --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 07:00, 25 September 2008 (BST)
----
===Zombie Incursion===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 16:43, 19 September 2008 (BST)
|suggest_type=ruin Free Running for zombies
|suggest_scope=zombies with MOL &amp; Free Running
|suggest_description=As survivors are killed to become zombies and latterly revivified, the cycle of death and rebirth is causing a sort of evolutionary tactical osmosis. Zombies are learning more about the Free Running network which survivors maintain in an attempt to stay off the dangerous streets.  Now, when zombies ruin a building, they pile debris up in order to attempt to create a Free Running route to neighboring blocks.
When moving from inside a ruin to another block, a zombie (with Free Running and Memories of Life) has a 50% chance to enter the neighboring block, rather than exit to the street outside said block.  They have a 25% chance of falling to the street, and a 25% chance of falling to the street and suffering 5HP damage.
This allows a 50% chance of the following types of movement:
*Inside ruin to inside neighboring ruin.
*Inside ruin to inside neighboring block that is not ruined and has any level of 'cades.
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Zombie Incursion)====
{{SNRV|1|}}
--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 01:27, 29 September 2008 (BST)
Not sure about this one, and am wondering what veteran zombies make of it. --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 16:43, 19 September 2008 (BST)
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 17:29, 19 September 2008 (BST)
As a zombie player, I love this, we can now crack a mall by just breaking open the easy entry point next door, kill the weakest corner and score the important ruin. And all with no down side, because losing HP doesn't fuss us at all.
As a player of the game however, no, for the above reasons. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:36, 19 September 2008 (BST)
:I hear ya.  What about the ruin-to-ruin idea alone?  Would that be appealing to zombie players?  --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 18:05, 19 September 2008 (BST)
::::[[Suggestion:20070824_Zombies_can_freerun_through_ruined_buildings|Ruin to ruin]] has been done before. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:57, 20 September 2008 (BST)
::very useful for scouting in heavily ruined areas but I am not sure if I would like it if I was a survivor trying to hide in there!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 18:58, 19 September 2008 (BST)
:::Well, exactly.  The idea is that ruined areas are dominated by zombies, as non-ruined areas are dominated by survivors. Why should zombies have to pay through the nose, AP-wise, to scout their hard-won territory? --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 19:12, 19 September 2008 (BST)
::::It'll nerf legitimate tactics like HIPS, if you remove survivor aids to retaking territory then you'll be faced with a situation where no-one bothers and the Ghost Towns increase to the point where Kevan initiates a half arsed change to try and restore balance that'll completely fuck the game up. Also what flavour are you going to use to justify this? If zombies can ruin to ruin, why can't harmans? If zombies can do ruin to ruin, especially when it's so difficult for harmans to go repaired to ruin, why can't they go repaired to repaired? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:01, 19 September 2008 (BST)
Free running is not a network of bridges. Free running involves athletic leaps between buildings. More importantly, this is a massive buff to an already reasonably powerful weapon, and the idea of zombies building what are effectively siege ramps is unbelievable. Why not a zombie catapult as well? Corpses were flung over fortifications in medieval times as an early form of biological warfare. --{{User:Anotherpongo/sig}} 19:15, 19 September 2008 (BST)
:Free running involves use of The Force to float themselves into high up windows. Zombies, being dead, can not use the Force since their midichlorians are in stasis until they are revived. So they can not free run. End of story. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 20:37, 19 September 2008 (BST)
::PS - about this idea. No. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 20:38, 19 September 2008 (BST)
:::You mentioned midichlorians, you lose all respect until you send me more pictures of you in that Princess Leia slave outfit. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 18:44, 20 September 2008 (BST)
:Actually, Funt appears to have previously suggested [[20070412_Zombie_Catapults|zombie catapults]], albeit in a humourous suggestion. --{{User:Anotherpongo/sig}} 17:01, 22 September 2008 (BST)
::I still not-so-secretly wish that was in the game.  For shits 'n' giggles.  I mean, those forts are always such a letdown. --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 17:57, 22 September 2008 (BST)
I'm not buying this at all. Regardless of effect on gameplay, it makes no sense from any angle. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 20:24, 19 September 2008 (BST)
I'm opposed to this, as everyone above. It's also been suggested a nmuber of times, "zombie free running". --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 20:56, 19 September 2008 (BST)
Has several problems.  First, zombies are (with the exception of those dumb resident evil mutants) noted for the LACK of ability to jump and climb.  Heck, they aren't even that good with doorknobs, so it makes sense they would have to find a normal entry point, not some tricky one that requires climbing / jumping.  Second, this would result in unpredictable effects from movement (you would not know when moving run to ruin if you would end up inside or outside), which is probably a bad thing.  Third, its a survivor skill benefiting zombies,which, while it happens, should generally be minimized.  {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 22:37, 19 September 2008 (BST)
:The Force makes more sense. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 23:54, 22 September 2008 (BST)
----
===Alter Stand-up Costs===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 15:56, 19 September 2008 (BST)
|suggest_type=game mechanics
|suggest_scope=stand-up costs, Headshot, Ankle Grab
|suggest_description=New zombie players losing 30% of their daily AP allowance through being Headshot sucks large chunks, and yet nerfing Headshot altogether is never a popular solution.  This suggestion proposes a compromise that I hope is seen as a step in the right direction, if not a complete solution to the problem.
Current stand-up costs for zombies:
*Ankle Grab &#10008; Headshot &#10008; : 10 AP
*Ankle Grab &#10008; Headshot &#10004; : 15 AP
*Ankle Grab &#10004; Headshot &#10008; : 1 AP
*Ankle Grab &#10004; Headshot &#10004; : 6 AP
Suggested stand-up costs for zombies:
*Ankle Grab &#10008; Headshot &#10008; : 5 AP
*Ankle Grab &#10008; Headshot &#10004; : 10 AP &amp; -10HP
*Ankle Grab &#10004; Headshot &#10008; : 1 AP
*Ankle Grab &#10004; Headshot &#10004; : 6 AP
In other words, the effect on current mechanics is twofold:
#Reduce the basic stand-up cost for everyone (zombies and survivors; without Ankle Grab) from 10AP to 5AP. 
#Headshot still causes an additional 5AP to stand-up costs (as it does now) but also causes a zombie without Ankle Grab to stand up with 10HP less than their normal total (which will be either 40HP or 50HP, dependent on whether or not they have Body Building).
Notes:
*Ankle Grab may be considered a sort of zombie stamina skill, that allows it to recover or regenerate (however you want to think of it) faster than a zombie without the skill.
*This would not effect veteran zombies, but new players would no longer suffer the galling 15AP stand-up costs associated with Headshot.
*Survivors with the Headshot skill should not feel hard-done by, as they get to reduce the HP of the newer zombies, thus reducing their effectiveness via another avenue of game-play.
References:
*[[Suggestions/13th-Nov-2006#Reduce_Stand-Up_Cost|Reduce Stand-Up Cost]]
*[[Suggestion:20080916_Headshots_remove_HP%2C_not_AP|Headshots remove HP, not AP]]
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Alter Stand-up Costs)====
{{SNRV|2|}}--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 01:26, 29 September 2008 (BST)
I'd welcome feedback on this one. --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 15:56, 19 September 2008 (BST)
:"''Ankle Grab ✘ Headshot ✘ : 5 AP''" - Would it also be 5AP for zombies without ankle grab who are revived to stand up again as humans? --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 20:41, 19 September 2008 (BST)
::Yes, as it stands right now - that's stated in the suggestion. --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 23:22, 19 September 2008 (BST)
I will always vote kill on any suggestion which takes another players AP without something in return... in this case you are condemning new zombies to an almost permanent -10HP but giving then 5 of their AP back in return... If they don't have ankle grab they sure as hell are not going to have digestion so no way!-[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 17:36, 19 September 2008 (BST)
:But given that the current situation is already a loss of 15AP ("without something in return"), you don't see this even as a step in the right direction? (Especially given the point about HP not mattering as much as AP.) --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 18:03, 19 September 2008 (BST)
::I think its a myth that zombies don't care about their HP... 60 HP means it takes a survivor at least 2 more shots to kill me (ignoring flares) that's 2AP of extra effort everyday. More importantly though this would actually be a big survivor buff because it will make it easier for them to claim the kill XP's without giving an equal benefit to zombies. While the version up for voting is not perfect it is a much better balance than this. Personally I think a better mechanic might be to allow zombies to accrue "phantom" AP at a rate of 1 per hour which could only be spent on the stand up cost, that would also answer the concerns about meat shielding that get raised whenever this is discussed.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 19:13, 19 September 2008 (BST)
:::I agree about the HP myth, but note that I didn't say "zombies don't care", I said that HP weren't as important as AP.  What would you think to the penalty being 5HP as opposed to 10HP, for the sake of argument?  I'll mull over your phantom AP idea. --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 23:19, 19 September 2008 (BST)
I approve. I hate the 15AP standup cost as a babah zombie.  I dunno about the rest of the players, but I don't care about my HP one bit when I'm a zombie...I'd much rather lose 10 HP than 5 AP.  --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 17:47, 19 September 2008 (BST)
Mmm, I dono about the trade off. More AP or more/quicker deaths? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 18:43, 19 September 2008 (BST)
:The way I figure it, it's partially psychological - the player is less annoyed because at least they get to spend their AP.  Also, the 10HP punishment is negotiable.  What if it was 5HP?  What if it was a slightly reduced attack %?  The latter would allow the given zombie to do something constructive with their AP, even if it wasn't to attack survivors. (I'm wary of punishing baby zombies on their attack %, though, as they already have it tough.) --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 19:10, 19 September 2008 (BST)
Avoiding the health penalty just because you have Ankle Grab doesn't really make sense. I mean, how does grabbing an ankle heal you? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 19:48, 19 September 2008 (BST)
:How does grabbing an ankle save you AP?  I think it's a question of "ankle grab" sounding good, and the game mechanics coming later. Or, in the case of what I'm proposing, Ankle Grab being the skill that's already there. --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 23:15, 19 September 2008 (BST)
Reduces the "death tax" for a non-AG mrh cow from 20AP to 10 AP.  Survivors already bounce back crazy fast, and this would just make low-level meatshields more worth using / reviving....  {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 22:41, 19 September 2008 (BST)
:If you've got the time, could you explain that further, as I don't really follow. --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 23:15, 19 September 2008 (BST)
::Death tax = the price paid by a survivor orientated character to return to survivor status. A zombie expends AP to bring down the cades and eat a survivor. That survivor, if he chooses to immediately return to survivor play must pay a certain minimum amount of AP to return to being a breather. This amount for someone without Ankle Grab is 20, 10 to stand as a zombie (so that they can be stuck with a needle) and 10 to stand again as a survivor.
::I believe this is what Swiers means. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:26, 19 September 2008 (BST)
:::Got it - thanks. --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 23:35, 19 September 2008 (BST)
::::Yeah, that's just what I meant.  But thinking over that twice, it may not be such a bad thing.  Theoretical meatshield alts don't really use APs, so saving them 10 APs per death doesn't make them any more effective.  The survivor "bounce back" rate really depends on how much energy survivors put into revives (and in the long run, on the "floating" needle find rates) which would not be much if at all effected.  So all this would really do is make Ankle Grab less of a "must have" skill for both newby zombies and newby survivors.  And THAT seems like a good thing.  {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 00:57, 20 September 2008 (BST)
I know everyone believes that zombies don't care about health, but AP regenerates HP doesn't.  Zombies have such limited ways to recover HP that anything that takes it away without costing survivors AP annoys me. There is nothing that zombies can do to survivors to reduce survivor AP at all. Why should survivors be able to take away AP AND HP from a zombie?  Just that basic situation doesn't seem fair at all. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:27, 20 September 2008 (BST)
:DCC is right, by taking away the zombies HP you are just giving the survivors more AP which can then again be used to reduce more zombie AP by using it for cades or other actions that undo zombie AP. I would vote keep for this because I simply do want the zombie to get more AP, but I'd rather see it without the HP reduction. It is after all reducing the survivors need for ankle grab, so it buffs them too. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 13:53, 20 September 2008 (BST)
::Nothing that zombies can do to survivors to reduce survivor AP at all.... except, y'know.... kill them? They get up with half the HP and have to do the whole -10 AP thing as well (unless they have ankle grab, which many don't have until significantly later in their development).
::As for zombies having limited ways to recover HP - they have the biggest advantage I know of... They can die and get up with full HP. In addition to the less frequently useful Digestion (while at the same time lowering survivor's XP). And of course they can get healed by an FAK (from someone else healing them). The first way is the big zombie advantage.
::Zombies have ways of reducing a survivor's HP continuously, via infection, which survives the survivor's death so when they do get revived they start losing HP immediately (particularly harmful when the survivor is revived and all the surrounding buildings are overcaded, and the survivor doesn't have an FAK). Not that I'm agreeing with this suggestion (I'm on the fence about it), but just because one side has one advantage doesn't mean both sides need to, otherwise there would  be an equivalent 'infection' and 'digestion' power for survivors. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 14:46, 20 September 2008 (BST)
:::Holy shit. Your 3 month vacation didn't make you any smarter. The death mechanics aren't the problem.
''They get up with half the HP and have to do the whole -10 AP thing as well (unless they have ankle grab, which many don't have until significantly later in their development).''  So do new zombies. That wasn't what I was complaining about.
:::''As for zombies having limited ways to recover HP - they have the biggest advantage I know of... They can die and get up with full HP.''  Did you read the fucking suggestion or are you just posting because you HAVE to post on Talk suggestions?  This idea would TAKE AWAY HP from zombies when they stand up. They wouldn't be standing up with full HP. They wouldn't have what you describe as "their biggest advantage".
:::Once again DIGESTION as a means to recover HP for a zombie is fucking useless! It has a 20% base hit rate. FAKs never miss. Advantage: Survivor. Also, you can use FAKs at any level. '''Digestion costs at least 100 XP not to mention TG and NL. 300 XP to for a 30% to heal 4 fucking HP when survivors can heal 5 HP 100% of the time. Or even up to 10 HP with 100 XP'''. Survivors can use FAKs on themselves. Zombies can't bite themselves to heal. And seriously, who the fuck heals zombies unless they are in the south and looking for easy XP? Oh and you can't see how many HP a zombie has so you would never know if you could use a FAK on a zombie like you do with survivors and zombies can't say FAK me please in any meaningful way. So, that means they are left with standing up or wasting AP trying to bite.
:::''infection ...(particularly harmful when the survivor is revived and all the surrounding buildings are overcaded, and the survivor doesn't have an FAK)'''  Not our fault you survivors are fucking retarded. How many times on this page alone do people post FAK then REZ is the way to do it? --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:52, 21 September 2008 (BST)
::::Boy I missed the third grade mentality you bring to the wiki.
::::Standing up with -10 HP is not the same as standing up with HALF the HP. That -is- an advantage still. Which was the point of my post which you missed. And in exchange for taking away 10 HP when standing up, it would let them have 5 additional AP which, under current rules, they wouldn't have. Zombies get a lot more usefulness out of AP than HP. It's called a balance. Not even one I necessarily agree with, but it's better than the idea of someone whining "Boo hoo, zombies have to spend 15 AP to stand up when they don't have ankle grab after being headshotted! It should be lowered! Whine!" Whine, whine, whine. You want headshot nerfed more without giving anything in return.
::::Instead, Funt makes the '''compromise''' (a foreign word, I know) to make the AP damage from headshot a little LESS severe, in '''exchange''' (see: compromise) for 10 HP from the zombie's health.
::::''Survivors can use FAKs on themselves. Zombies can't bite themselves to heal.'' - And if zombies had to search for their teeth I might agree with you on the inherent unfairness of that.
::::''And seriously, who the fuck heals zombies unless they are in the south and looking for easy XP?'' - ever since I was told you get XP for healing zombies? Me. Yep it -is- easy XP. Everyone should do it. Plus it helps keep the infection level down.
::::''Oh and you can't see how many HP a zombie has so you would never know if you could use a FAK on a zombie like you do with survivors and zombies can't say FAK me please in any meaningful way.'' -  Point being? I didn't say FAKing zombies is common. I just said it's a method that zombies can get healed... for example, by death cultists (if they're attacking a building) or by revivers (if they're mrh cows/dual naturists/etc).
::::''How many times on this page alone do people post FAK then REZ is the way to do it?'' - I'm a big fan now of the 'fak then rez method' nowadays. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 23:42, 22 September 2008 (BST)
:::::Once again, the main point is missed and you are arguing over a trivial point. So consistent.  I never complained about the 15 AP to stand up. '''AP REGENERATES'''.  I've said that many times. That's my point - AP comes back HP doesn't. Don't take away something that doesn't come back.
:::::Survivors do stand up with half their hit points (which can be 25 or '''30'''). Then they can get inside a barricaded and lit building (zombies can go in open ruins), other survivors can see how many hit points they have (can't see that on a zombie), other survivors can heal them (zombies can't heal zombies - survivors don't heal zombies), and let's compare the search rate for FAKs (Lit mall with Bargain Hunting) vs % to Bite. But wait, there are players dedicated to earning all their XP by healing survivors and will SPEND THEIR AP looking for FAKS to use on freshly rezzed survivors. So in theory, a survivor can be completely healed from half HP without spending a single AP of their own.  WAH WAH Survivors have it so rough!!
::::::''I didn't say FAKing zombies is common. I just said it's a method that zombies can get healed.''  And buying lottery tickets is a method to get rich. Both have about the same odds of happening.
::::::''How many times on this page alone do people post FAK then REZ is the way to do it? - I'm a big fan now of the 'fak then rez method' nowadays.'' Agreeing with this detracts from your survivors have it so rough and infection is so powerful argument. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:45, 24 September 2008 (BST)
::::not once in all the time i have been playing has anyone ever used a FAK on one of my zombies and that includes doing so just before reviving. It simply does not happen with any frequency outside of this wiki's anal discussions regardless of how desirable it would be! As for digestion not being useful? WTF it may rank somewhere just below the attack skills but it is the single most in genre zombie skill and virtually every zombie that has it also has infection and is thus biting folk anyway. Very few zeds use it just to gain health at the moment but only because they so rarely get the chance... personally I would advocate giving all zeds with "vigor" an extra 10 on their max health that could only be built upto by digesting!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 23:47, 21 September 2008 (BST)
:::::I already got that idea into Peer Reviewed with [[PR_Skill_New:_Zombie:_Digestion_Tree#Advanced_Digestion_.28.2B10HP_Temporary.29|Advanced Digestion (+10HP Temporary)]], but the big K never implemented it. --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 00:32, 22 September 2008 (BST)
I don't understand Sweirs' "death tax" comment above, but if it is about affecting revived survivor stand ups, why not just make it NOT affect reviving survivors?  In other words, they stand up at the "normal" (before this suggestion) rate.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:11, 22 September 2008 (BST)
:Because that would be unfair. If it's balanced at the moment, then reducing it for everyone would also be balanced. This suggestion is about removing the annoyance of losing 15AP to a headshot. Nothing more, nothing less. --<span style="font-size:90%">[[User:Funt Solo|Funt Solo]]</span> <sup style="font-size:70%">[[Mod_Conspiracy|QT]]</sup> [[Image:Scotland flag.JPG|18px]] 17:59, 22 September 2008 (BST)
::"Death Tax" and headshot costs are not equaly aplicable.  Mrh cows almost never get headshot, so they pay the minimal stand up cost x 2 (once when dying as a survivor, no headshot, once when being revived, again no headhsot).  So reducing the stand up cost for no AG to 5 does help newbysurvivors who lack AG more than newbie zombies (who tend to suffer from headshots rather often).  The benefit for newby zombies who get headshot is (IMO) good, but not directly balanced in the sense of "whats good for one, is good for both".  {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 21:02, 22 September 2008 (BST)
:::I don't think that is an accurate example.  When the survivor dies and stand up to act as a Mrh?-Cow, AP is, for the most part, irrelevant.  They don't effectively DO anything (hence being a Mrh?-Cow).  And few Mrh?-Cows get revived same day (unless part of a group and that is different).  And who says that cows "almost never" get headshot?--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 06:12, 23 September 2008 (BST)
----


==Suggestions up for voting==
Please give your thoughts.
===A Fairer Headshot===
Moved to [[Suggestion talk:20080916 Headshots remove HP, not AP]] as suggestion is up for voting.
[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 01:51, 16 September 2008 (BST)


===Unstable Barricades===
|}
Moved to [[Suggestion_talk:20080925_Barricade_Instability]] as suggestion is up for voting. --{{User:Blake Firedancer/sig}} 05:13, 25 September 2008 (BST)
====Discussion (Backpack)====
----
----

Latest revision as of 17:27, 8 July 2024

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.

Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current Suggestions • Suggestions up for Voting • Clothes Suggestions
Cycling Suggestions • Peer Reviewed • Undecided • Peer Rejected • Humorous
Suggestion Advice • Topics to Avoid and Why • Help, Developing and Editing

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

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

  • 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


Ignore based on Radio Broadcast

Timestamp: Khwud (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Type: UI enhancement
Scope: Interface
Description: Allow 'ignore' from radio broadcasts; users are hiding behind their anonymity to allow them to broadcast things that would broadly trigger them to be ignored, if their user ID was visible. Adding their name, or an auto-generated call-sign (it is for a radio, after all) or something so that they could be blocked based on their broadcasts would help user experience. In addition, and broadcasts that get more than a threshold number could get tagged for review, and the user potentially having their (in-game) ham-license revoked.

Discussion (Ignore based on Radio Broadcast)

Shrink the map

Timestamp: --UroguyTMZ 16:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Type: Map change
Scope: Everyone
Description: There are just over 3000 active characters in the game currently likely counting a significant percentage of alts and zergs. Shrinking the map by eliminating the outer first two rings of suburbs would increase the amount of interactions between the remaining characters. This shrink could be increased or decreased depending on future changes to the playerbase.

Discussion (Shrink the map)

Action Points

Timestamp: User:Wolldog1 10:07, 26 July 26, 2022
Type: Action Points Increase Regeneration Rate
Scope: Everyone
Description: Due to the passage of time with mobile games and other real time action games without restriction, I think that we should address the action points system of the game. This game can only realistically be played for 5 minutes a day. So it's not really a seller for new blood. If we want to see this game survive it needs to evolve into something more exciting than 5 minutes. My suggestion is double the regeneration rate to improve activity. I love this game. I want to play it more. And the die hard fans I'm sure feel the same. More will go on in a day, sure. But that's for both sides. We're ready for it. Let's get this game moving again. We need this.

Discussion (Action Points)

Drone

Timestamp: RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Type: Survivor Item
Scope: Survivors
Description: Portable drone, found in mall tech stores, which are pointless as we all know. Encumbrance is 10%. When activated for 15ap they provide an image of a 10x10 grid centred on the survivor, showing the current outside status of all blocks including zombies, survivors and dead bodies. Like DNA scanners, Drones are multi use.

Discussion (Drone)

Would there be a message displayed to the players to the effect of "there's a drone buzzing overhead", similar to a flare? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Backpack

Timestamp: Wild Crazy (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Type: New item
Scope: Survivors
Description: This will be a new item found in schools with a 2% find rate and sports stores with a 4% find rate. The low numbers are because, like a flak jacket, once you find it you have it forever. It increases you encumbrance by 30%. However, you can't use an item that is in your backpack until you remove it from the backpack. It costs one AP to add an item to your backpack and one AP to remove an item. An item affects your regular encumbrance until added to the backpack. Items such as GPS, radios, cell phones, and flak jacket do not work when in your backpack. Items in your backpack will not be shown in your inventory, but the backpack itself will be shown in your inventory. There will be a drop box next to the word backpack that shows all the items inside. When you click on an item in that drop box, it removes it from your backpack (1 AP).


Q: Wouldn't this buff survivors, since they can carry more bullets and kill more zombies?

A: Since it costs an AP to add and remove an item, it wastes a lot of AP to put bullet clips in your backpack if you are planning on using them right away.


Q: If it wastes AP, what is the point?

A: It will be useful if you want to carry around an extra stash of items, such as FAKs and Revivification Syringes, or if you are going far away from any resource buildings and need some extra supplies.


Please give your thoughts.

Discussion (Backpack)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=Developing_Suggestions&oldid=2433158"