Developing Suggestions

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 here. Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general (including policies about it) takes place here.

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Please Read Before Posting

• Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the 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 Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.
• 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.

How To Make a Suggestion

Format for Suggestions under development

Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header "Suggestions", paste the copied text above the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in red with the details of your suggestion.

===Suggestion===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=~~~~
|suggest_type=Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.
|suggest_scope=Who or what it applies to.
|suggest_description=Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Suggestion Name)====
----

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 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 {{SNRV|X}} at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.

---

Suggestions

Body Bonfires

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 01:48, 3 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Perma-death option.
Scope:	Characters in citys with perma-death alternatives.
Description:	I've got a zombie character currently running around Monroeville looking for the precious few survivors there are in order to eat them. One of Monroeville's biggest problems, I think, is that there was no way for low-level survivors from killing zombies permanently. Zombies could take out survivors, no problem, but unless you had Headshot, you couldn't take down a zombie. I know that's in-genre, given that they're the freaking undead and all, but it sucks game-wise. Thus, I came up with 'Body Bonfires', after watching the movie Night of the Living Dead. Should this get implemented, survivors can now douse corpses in gasoline (from fuel cans) and set them alight with matches (find stats TBC), lighters (find stats TBC) or even a flare gun, if desperate. A burning corpse will degrade into a 'charred skeleton', after which time the character would be effectively 'perma-dead'. Note that this is meant to replace Headshot as the survivor perma-death, not co-incide with it.

Discussion (Body Bonfires)

No. Why? Monroeville is quarantined and dead. Adding more items that make things even more difficult to find and implement will not suddenly change the dynamics of the city, nor will it make monroeville more fair. the point, i daresay, of that city is to more realistically show a zombie infestation, and the only way to do that is by making the limited amount of zombies unlimited, with only a small amount of very good zombie killers who can do anything about it, which still amounts to not much. its fine, and the city is pointless, and just leave it. and don't add matches and lighters to do what flare guns already do. -tylerisfat 02:33, 3 September 2008 (BST)

I think you misread my suggestion. For one, this is NOT for Monroeville. Monroeville is dead (or will be soon), this is for any new cities that will also have perma-death mechanics, should one ever be introduced. For another, you can only burn a zombie once they're on the ground having been 'temp-killed' (HP to 0). --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 09:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)

Completely pointless because such a hypothetical perma-death city does not exist. You can't get more spamtastic than suggesting a mechanic for something that doesn't even exist. --WanYao 09:56, 3 September 2008 (BST)

---

Make graffiti readable in dark buildings

Timestamp:	Kolechovski 21:10, 2 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Logic Flaw Fix
Scope:	Graffiti in dark buildings
Description:	Graffiti disappears when the lights go out in dark buildings. Since it is unreasonable to assume that absolutely no light can get in any parts of dark buildings, why wouldn’t the graffiti just be sprayed in the areas that the little light can get in? Such places would be the front of cinemas (where the snack bar is, as there are usually windows out front), near the windows of the banks, and near the windows of standard buildings. I have never seen any buildings like these completely lacking windows in all areas, and windows would have to exist for Free Running to be possible, so even if the skylights haven’t been maintained, there’s no reason people wouldn’t be spraying the signs near the window areas where it’d be visible, even if the rest of the building is dark.

Discussion (Make graffiti readable in dark buildings)

It's dark. You can't see dead bodies. Combat abilities are nerfed for everyone. You can't repair a building in the dark. Barricading and reviving are also disadvangtaged. So there's no logic flaw here, not at all. It's bloody dark!!--WanYao 09:53, 3 September 2008 (BST)

The logic is fine as is - after years of the outbreak, the walls will be pocked, peeling and covered in grime and blood, not to mention layers of graffiti in different colours. You'd need fairly good light to make out the latest message.

I was thinking of suggesting an item, book of matches, the sole purpose of which would be to let the user (only) read graffiti in the dark. But I couldn't be arsed looking for dupes etc. Garum 10:52, 3 September 2008 (BST)

But..but.. what about all those blank rectangles I sprayed onto the walls to keep them clean and in one colour! In all seriousness, no to this suggestion. As Garum says, those walls are a mess, no matter how many blank rectangles you spray. :P - User:Whitehouse 12:03, 3 September 2008 (BST)

---

picking some one up

Timestamp:	Nequa 19:44, 1 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	helping others.
Scope:	humans.
Description:	Almost all of us can say that we have been killed while sleeping, or have been a zombie and killed all the humans becuase most of them were sleeping. So why not allow people to carry some one out of danger? Lets say that you and some of your buddys are fleeing a horde, and one of them is out of AP, so why not pick him/her up? It would cost one AP to pick the player up, and 2 AP to move around, and you would not be able to free run {you are carrying another person). You also cant attack since, it would be to diffuclt. You would rengenrate AP as you would normally would, and can be put down for one AP. If the person carrying you is killed, you fall down and be as vunerable as you would be normally. Now comes the PKer question. Being able to pick some one up and carry them of to some were else to kill them would become a PKers best tool. So I sujest there should be a check box in the settings, which you can check yes or no to being picked up. If you try to pick some one up how has checked the box no, this happens. you try to pick the person up, but they push you away: Italic text

Discussion (Picking some one up)

Pied Piper skills are a great no no. Specifically because of the griefing possibilities. Even with the block you suggested, I don't think it would be acceptable. A better way of determining who can pick you up would be to check for mutual contacts, and not ignored. Not that I think this would pass even with that, because I'm pretty sure this is a dupe. - User:Whitehouse 19:54, 1 September 2008 (BST)

Pied Piper? Whats that?Nequa 20:15, 1 September 2008 (BST)

A pied piper skill is one that involves one player moving another (like the pied piper of hamelin and rats/children) Within game the closest we have is Feeding Drag which has on it very specific limiting factors. This is too prone to abuse. New players especially may not know its a feature, and one griefer could pick up a huge number of people and carry them directly outside. Where they would get et. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)

Just as Ross said, here is a link to it on the frequently suggested page. I suggest reading that page, will give you an idea of suggestions to avoid. - User:Whitehouse 20:31, 1 September 2008 (BST)

Nequa please read Dos and Do Nots and Frequently Suggested pages. They are linked to above, at the top of this page. Zangz. --WanYao 20:28, 1 September 2008 (BST)

I see what you mean, but I still think that the check box would stop that. And if you are tricked, well thats just bad luck.Nequa 20:49, 1 September 2008 (BST)

Only way this would be prevented is if everyone had it set to "Do not allow me to be dragged away", and only switched back when they knew a rescue was on the way. It is simply to abusable in it's current form. And try telling the poor newbies, who weren't aware of the checkbox, that it was just bad luck and that they have to live with it after being dragged away from their VSB safehouse into an area full of EHB cades. - User:Whitehouse 21:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)

Nothings perfect, and anyway you could kill somebody quickly and no one could stop you.Nequa 21:17, 1 September 2008 (BST)

surely the default should be dont allow carrying. Stop a lot of griefing there? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)

Sure, you could have that checkbox turned off as a default. But then, how would people who have this skill know who they could pick up, and who they could not?
Moving other players is a bad idea to begin with, play wise, so picking at th details is turd polishing at best. If you want to "rescue" people from danger , give them fist aid, try to fix the barricades, and recruit others to help them survive until they log back in, but don't presume to play the game for them.  Swiers 21:30, 1 September 2008 (BST)

Wait, what? You think this is a skill? A skill you need to get by having enough XP? No, no, no, you dont need to purchase it. Also your other point about knowing if the person has the thing checked or not is a good point. You should probally put it on your describtion if you have it on or not, like the hydra defence.Nequa 21:47, 1 September 2008 (BST)

Right. Other issues. If I pick up a level 1 survivor, this seems to allow me to carry him inside, and then free run to another building whilst carrying him. Regardless of his skills. Besides Im pretty sure its also a partial dup of firemans carry. Anyone got the link. I just feel its unworkable. sorry. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:02, 1 September 2008 (BST)

Fireman's Carry, which is in Reviewed. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:55, 1 September 2008 (BST)

LOL, that guy pretty much says the same thing I do. It appears great minds think alike. Now do I seem like a idiot?Nequa 02:05, 2 September 2008 (BST

More so, now that you've said that. quit being unwilling to learn. everyones been very nice. now go actually FREAKING READ THE DO AND DO NOTS!

No one is pointing out the worst part of this. What if i create fifteen drones, and use them to carry a full army of survivors into zombie territory. you don't put it plainly, but you seem to infer that you can only be carried while sleeping (or at least, i'm hoping, because otherwise those zergs could carry armies of full ap'd characters) but either way, its a free trip for my sleeping characters, who spent their AP stocking on ammo. my zergs carry them in, dump them off in a zerg-repaired building, and let them sleep. now i have an army, 2 for one. thats what makes this bad. adding a penalty of 2 for one doesn't fix that.

and the griefing is absolutly grieftastic. what if i rescue someone with low HP out of a mall into a quiet factory where i show him my gun?... i mean... pk him. errm... or how about if i spend a whole 50 ap 'rescuing' any of the barricaders in a seige with a death culter. the check box doesn't solve this, because the only time that someone would want to be rescued is the same time where its worth abusing the feature. it fails because it will never work. if you can't free run with it, (can you enter/exit buildings?) then its worthless for doing anything but costing the zombie horde half the amount of AP to keep up with you.

This was long... sorry. but this suggestion is silly silly silly. NOW READ THE FAQ's and DO AND DO NOTS! Please. and don't read them and then try to come up with a better way to do what it tells you not to do... just DON'T suggest those things. - tylerisfat 03:15, 2 September 2008 (BST)

Also, wan yao... i think one of my alts was just combat revived by you. Ha. - tylerisfat 03:22, 2 September 2008 (BST)

Combat Reviving FTW!!! ;P .... Up Roftwoodish or something, right? I vaguely remember CRing some zambah somewhere for some old reason or another, heheh... --WanYao 18:40, 2 September 2008 (BST)

As for the suggestion... Yeah... you seem like an idiot at this moment, Nequa. This is a broken and unworkable idea. People are trying to explain that to you. But you're not listening, and you can't even be bothered to read the help pages for Suggestion development -- which are clearly linked to -- and which people have been providing you with links to, above... Smarten the fuck up, please, and quit wasting our time. Seriously. --WanYao 18:44, 2 September 2008 (BST)

---

Feeding Drag in Large Buildings

Timestamp:	Necrodeus T M! 02:46, 31 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	Zombies with feeding drag in large buildings
Description:	Hello team. The feeding drag skill allows zombies to drag survivors of less than 12HP outside through an open door at the cost of 1AP. Therefore, if a zombie enters a large building through an open door, then makes its way through the building unimpeded (ie, through more open doors or just empty space), beats a survivor down to 12HP or below, there should exist the option to feeding drag said survivor through the building. It makes sense, as you are inside a building and simply dragging the unfortunate survivor somewhere else in the building, presumably towards the horde that generally congregates in the opened block. Now I know that this is the same as suggesting that I could feeding drag a wounded survivor through open streets, but I do think that as it is limited to the insides of large buildings it is hardly useful as a griefing tool, neither would it be game breaking, and it fits in with the idea behind the feeding drag as well - if a zombie feels the need to drag someone outside, why should the fact that it's slightly longer distance than normal dissuade him?

Discussion (Feeding Drag in Large Buildings)

Kind of like a zombie equivalent for the fort body dump? I like it. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 04:02, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Seems out of genre, normally a zombie will feed for itself with absolutely NO consideration for a horde. Though this skill is a good idea, it would be a bit pointless because if you have a survivor at 12 HP and most of the time the only large building you are in would be a mall, it would mean you drag someone near dead to a horde, either way, the survivor was already HIGHLY LIKELY to die unless terribly low on AP this skill is just useless. I say just stick with infectious bite. Chaplain Drakon Macar 04:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)

No. Feeding Drag and zambahz helping babahz is totally part of the genre -- as in, it's in the game ... So it's part of the genre. Zombies in Urban Dead have intelligence, more like in Return of the Living Dead than in Romero's movies. Regarding the suggestion, I think this is a great idea! But it should cost at least 2 AP to so, perhaps more. You usually don't have to drag as far, or through as complicated a series of buildings as in a fort, so I'm not sure if the same AP costs is in order... but perhaps... Still, in siege situations where this matters, we tend to just tend to kill rather than worry about dragging... However, even then, this ability would be FAR from "useless". --WanYao 06:08, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Ok.. I'm out of it.. I understood this as the equivalent of dragging a body outside the Forts. Which would mean you click the ability and you drag your target outside -- and you go with him, just like you would a normal feeding drag. No "half drags" to another corner of the mall -- it's all or nothing, all the way outside, or not at all. And that would cost 2 AP. And of course you'd still have to spend AP getting back inside and to the action, if that's your desire. There are some tricks to overcome with this... but it's a cool idea, nonetheless. --WanYao 06:37, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Yeah, I like it as well. Some people might call it greifing though Linkthewindow 04:21, 31 August 2008 (BST).

I was 50/50 between making it just like a body dump costing 2AP and making it like it is now, but certainly a feeding drag all the way outside for 2AP - like the survivor body dump - is just as keeping in genre and could be considered less of a potential griefing tool.

What if it just acted the same as feeding drag, so I end up outside. It costs 2AP, and then if I want to get back inside it just costs me the same as normal movement rates - so at least 1AP to just re-enter the building, and 2 AP to get back to where I was originally? It's hardly a griefing tool, you're only ever going to end up outside the building you were in, and at most 1 block away from where you were Necrodeus ^{T M!} 12:38, 31 August 2008 (BST)

That's exactly what I just said, man... The only issue could be as follows: you're in mall, all corners are heavily barricaded except one, which is wide open... you're in another (non-open) corner killing some folk, and you want to use this ability. Now, do you drag the victim to the outside of your current corner, or do you end up moving to the open corner? What if there is more than one open corner? Or, if you drag to the outside of your current corner, then how do you justify bypassing barricades -- because even just a closed door negates feeding drag... See the problems? This is a very spiffy idea IMO, but these things need to be worked out... --WanYao 15:00, 31 August 2008 (BST)

I was agreeing with you! I was thinking that the feeding drag took them out of the open corner, rather than through the barricades. As for what would happen if more than one door was open, I would say go to the nearest one, except that in a four block square, every sqaure is as near as any of the others...I couldn't see it making too much of a difference which one you drag someone out of, so I would make it random; the zombie just heads towards the light, any light. That way, as long as there is a door open when the button is pressed, the feeding drag will be successful, rather than allowing the user a choice. --Necrodeus ^{T M!} 17:12, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Probably won't matter a lot now since this suggestion would likely get implemented (if ever) after Monroeville closes, but in that city there are non-standard large building shapes, like Monroeville Mall. You can like drag someone across four blocks. :O Also, how would a zombie know which building block is open from where he/she stands? --Aeon17x 17:22, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Malls, Mansions, Power Stations ... are large buildings which means they are functionally one building. With fours sets of barricades. And four zmargahzbargz, GRAAAAGH! The zombies knew how to get inside and move around when there was only one entry point, so why couldn't they know how to get back out? And, I mean, like he could just look around... Also, yeah, no-one cares about MV, it's over... --WanYao 17:48, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Well, you as the player know there's an entrance to the building, at least recently. In contrast, your zombie can only check within the block he's in -- even adjacent ruined blocks aren't guaranteed that there are no cades there. Unless the zombie is actually looking at every block in the building (something which implies free moves), then without metagaming he/she won't really know there is an exit should dragging be done. --Aeon17x 18:18, 31 August 2008 (BST)

But like Wan said, you're basically inside one large building. If you try and feeding drag inside a regular building, and the doors been closed, or whatever, you get a message and lose an AP, like for any failed attack. It's the same here. And the whole point of feeding drag is that zombies *do* know where the exit is --Necrodeus ^{T M!} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)

No. Its not needed. Once zombies get into a large building, they almost always take it down by keeping one corner ruined, or at least unbarricaded. The babah zombies can just come inside to feed, entering by spotting the ruined corner and then gorging themselves. Besides not being needed, its got a lot of potential complications. What if a large building has multiple open sections? Which one does the zombie drag them to? If zombies really wanted to use feeding drag in every section, they could just spend a few AP each to tear down the barricades, even getting a bonus for attacking from the inside in most cases.
I think its safe to say, if a zombie tries to drag a survivor across one or more blocks inside a large building, the survivor struggles and breaks free.  Swiers 18:36, 31 August 2008 (BST)

I'm afraid I disagree; you seem to have a fairly convincing argument against feeding drag itself; namely that if your baby zombah is standing outside any old building, he can see it's open and shamble on in. So why do we need feeding drag at all? I've already answered the point about which exit to be used as well. And yes, I could spend a whole load of AP tearing down the barricades to feeding drag a wounded survivor outside, or I could just spend 2AP and drag the human outside the exit that's already open.
And surely the point of feeding drag is that the survivor is wounded enough to not be able to stop it happening? And why should a human be able to drag a zombie across several squares of fort without it reviving? In both cases, if the player is online, they are better able to defend against this, with the difference being that all a survivor needs to do to 'break free' is simply walk back inside the building.
If I'm way off here, let me know, but it makes sense to me --Necrodeus ^{T M!} 20:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Not of base, but my point is, if zombies on a whole really cared about feeding drag, each of the ~20 or so in a large building could kick in 4 AP and blow away any barricades on that building quarter. That's really only enough AP to kill 2-3 survivors- not enough to slow down a siege once zombies are comping on a SECOND building corner. So it seems to me that zombies themselves do not put much importance on whether they can use feeding drag or not, as evidenced by their own actions in raids. Its not needed to make zombies vs large buidings work, nor would it really make it much better.
Truth told, feeding drag was originally used mostly to combat the "yo-yo barricade" syndrome by getting a building emptied (and ransacked) faster; now that zombies can block barricade building, its a bit of an atavism. Its main use is as a "visible" version of feeding groan. For a mall, if you want to let zombies know there is an active strike with some visible cue, just killing the generator is often good enough.  Swiers 00:16, 1 September 2008 (BST)

Fait enough for a horde sweeping through a building, but in my experience, I use eeding Drag for two reasons: Firstly, when I break into a building with one or two others, I know there is a chance that it will escalate into a horde swarming in, but more often that not, it won't. But by dragging a human outside, that's one less defender, and a drain on resources, because that person is outside regardless of whether I get headshot and evicted or not. Secondly, the FU tends to use it as a in game piece of flavour as much as a way of feeding the zedlings. So for a horde, I agree, Feeding Drag is unneccessary, and if you've got the resources to tear down the barricades with ease, then I'm all for that too, but for feral zombies, or smaller groups it's a slightly different ball game --Necrodeus ^{T M!} 00:39, 1 September 2008 (BST)

When playing a feral (and my death cultist, too, actually) I use and think of Feeding Drag the same way necrodeus describes. It helps small numbers of zombies get the ransack faster. Also, if the cades go up, that drag-meat is suddenly isolated. And drag-meat is fantastic feral bait. And, yup, I do it very much for flavour/RP effect as well. Although, it doesn't work thar well for feeding babahz, b/c usually some big zambah comes along and eats them :( ... This is all in very big contrast to striking with the MOB, where we only drag if we are very intent on getting that damn biulding cleared -- because we can always tag-team to finish someone off if we have to. And if we are feeding a babah, we bring the babah inside with us. This suggestion is more for the ferals than for highly organised hordes...

And a few other things: killing a gennie is not enough: GKing is too common... And swiers you know how annoying barricades are -- it really is asking a lot for a smaller number of ferals zombies to invest what it takes to open up EHB cades... But all that being said... Perhaps this isn't necessary, not really. And, it might in the end be a zombie buff that is just a tiny, tiny bit too much... Particularly with cade blocking... But... I still like it... ;) --WanYao 13:36, 1 September 2008 (BST)

Well, I'm going to put it up, and see what the people / merciless flamers have to say.. Necrodeus ^{T M!} 20:45, 1 September 2008 (BST)

I'm not gonna flame it; it can;t do enough harm to deserve that. My personal issue is that I'd like (as much as possible) to avoid moving other characters to different blocks (I even proposed [fort dumping mechanic that avoided this]), and that its benefit is so small for the coding effort involved. Mall raids are already a smorgashboard for ferals, so I don't see the point of arguing it helps feed them there.  Swiers 21:37, 1 September 2008 (BST)

---

The Zombie Survival Guide

Timestamp:	Nequa 18:59, 30 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Possible ideas.
Scope:	Humans and zombies.
Description:	The zombie survival guide by Max Brooks is probally one of the best zombie books ever. For those how dont know what I am talking about look it up, if you love zombies you will love this book. But now let me get to my point, before people think I am writing a book review. As you can tell by title of the book, it talks about survifing zombies, so why not add some of the ideas from the book to Urban dead? I know I am not really giving a idea, but hwo knows? Maybe we can find something to at to Urban Dead in the book?

Discussion (The Zombie Survival Guide)

I got this gut feeling that this idea will not go well, but might as well try, right?Nequa 19:01, 30 August 2008 (BST)

Stop suggesting. Right now.

You really need to lurk more and longer, at both the game and the wiki. Go off and create yourself two new characters, a zombie and a PKer. This will round out your view of the game rather than the one dimensional view you have now just playing your survivor.

Read the rules on zerging before you create these characters.

Read the Frequently Suggested Ideas page and the archives to get a view of what has gone before and what we hate here.

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:06, 30 August 2008 (BST)

Nequa, I'm guessing you want tips in books? Well. If that's the case, Dupe of one of my 2 100% keeps suggestions. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 19:14, 30 August 2008 (BST)

This is not a suggestion ... not really... Suggestions are supposed to be about game mechanics. However, vcery specifically in relation to this: Urban Dead is a stand alone game, and a stand alone "world"... It is based on various different zombie genre classics, certainly, but is its own thing... If you want to incorporate stuff from the ZSG, feel free, but do it as RP stuff.

And... Iscariot is correct in so far as you ought to be playing not just the survivor side of this game. It's more fun -- and leads to a deeper understanding of the mechanics etc. -- to play several "sides" and styles. However... to heck with PKing, that's boring, go for death culting instead... ;P --WanYao 20:40, 30 August 2008 (BST)

Definitely. Walk a mile in undead shoes (Its the equivalent of 2 normal miles) and you'll become a much better survivor. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:00, 30 August 2008 (BST)

And huddle in enough dark corners, listening to the groans and the battering on the barridaces... watch the uselessness of 90% of the survivor population, see it for yourself... learn their weakenesses... and how to exploit them... Long live the New Flesh!! :) --WanYao 21:15, 30 August 2008 (BST)

FWIW, probably half of the suggestions made (even the bad ones) are things that are in that book, though not necessarily taken from that book. There's unavoidable overlap. But as others said, UD is its own world, and also the mechanics don;t allow a lot of the details that book would suggest. For example, multi-floor buildings with retractable ladders? Great idea for Zombie Survival Guide, shitty idea for UD.  Swiers 22:19, 30 August 2008 (BST)

There's nothing to develop, critique, or review. Please actually suggest things when making suggestions.--Karek^maps?! 08:44, 31 August 2008 (BST)

---

Private homes

Timestamp:	Nequa 17:18, 30 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	new building.
Scope:	anybody how enters it.
Description:	Why does it appear that there are no private homes in Malton? I know its a city and your more likely to find a privat home in the subburbs, but I do know there are private homes in the city. We dont really need private homes but it would add realism to the game. There could also be another benafit. Since anybody could have lived in that house, from a NRA gun nut, to some tech loving nerd, you could find anything in thear. But there should be list of items you could not find in the house. List of items you could NOT find in a house: Necrotech syringe DNA scanner Flak vest (there could be one there, but it seems hard to belive) fire ax Also here is the describtion you would see if you went in the building. -With power: You enter a well lit home, you start to feel like you were before the out break. -With no power: You enter a dark house. -when ruined: You enter a house and notice how everything is thrown apart, which grimly reminds you of what has happend here.

Discussion (Private home)

If I may ask, how long have you been playing the game? --Aeon17x 17:36, 30 August 2008 (BST)

To answer your question, about a week, I have been running around rhodenbank. Let me guess? There are private homes and I have just not found them yet?Nequa 17:39, 30 August 2008 (BST)

There are mansions, and various buildings around the city can be thought of as offices/condominiums, where you can imaging living places in.
There are other reasons why private homes aren't found on the map.

• One is that they're too small, same reason why you don't put a single tree on the map (and for those that are large enough, see mansions).
• Another is that with most survivors just looting around the city and zombie hordes chasing after them, most houses are in such a state of ruin that they are essentially unrecognizable, turning residential districts into wasteland.
• Finally, they are quite insignificant in the grand scale of the survivor-zombie conflict that adding them now three years after the game has launched simply doesn't make the game any more enjoyable or fulfilling than it is before, and frankly it'll only be a waste of time and effort to put them in the game. --Aeon17x 17:51, 30 August 2008 (BST)

Then instead of adding homes how about updating the regular buildings to be more like apartments? Because most buildings have a RP (EX:pubs,police stations,forts) thing you can do with it, but the regular office buildings are boring. Maybe they could add my search idea without the need of a new building type?Nequa 18:19, 30 August 2008 (BST)

Your search idea is horrible. Normal buildings already do not have items; what you're doing here is the opposite in that you can find anything in them, and just for that it will be spammed. As for your roleplaying bit, that will take a much lower priority than improving UD gameplay, especially when you consider there is a suitable alternative (once again, mansions, and normal buildings aren't too shabby -- just add some decorations) and multiple other possible roleplaying locations. --Aeon17x 18:30, 30 August 2008 (BST)

There's no private homes because the private homes are usually at the outskirts of a city, and what we have in Malton...Is the big city. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 19:16, 30 August 2008 (BST)

I usually just think of the street blocks as containing such houses. - User:Whitehouse 19:52, 30 August 2008 (BST)

Private homes are not really appropriate to the game. They can be assumed to exist on many blocks... because it's generally accepted that the block description refers to the most prominent or most utilised building on the block...

But... yeah... Nequa... please play the game for a while before posting suggestion ideas. Hang out and read this page for a while. And start playing some zombies, PKers, death cultists, whatever, as well a survivors. And join a good group or three. Barhah.com is a great board, and though it's zombie-centric, everyone is welcome. Beerhah.com is a good place to go for survivor stuff. Anyhoooo... back to suggestions stuff... --WanYao 20:47, 30 August 2008 (BST)

---

Display player name with broadcasts

Timestamp:	Zhani 23:24, 29 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Radio
Description:	Currently radio broadcasts are made anonymously. I just logged in to see a broadcast of a referrer/affiliate link for another game (spam), with no idea who it was. Displaying the player name would not only help prevent abuse like this, but it would help players get to know each other and develop a sense of community in-game. In the RP context, it could be assumed that each broadcast includes the transmitter's callsign, as is fairly standard in radio. The appearance of broadcasts would be changed to: 27.00 MHz: PlayerName transmits: "Transmission content" (15 minutes ago) The player's name would link to their profile.

Discussion (Display player name with broadcasts)

No. Being able to spread propaganda/misinformation over the radio is a vital part of many PKer groups' armoury. Also, radio spamming can be a fine art as well as a nuisance - it's a matter of perception. This would make the game less fun by discouraging broadcasts due to fear of being hunted down and killed.. --Bob Fortune ^RR 23:49, 29 August 2008 (BST)

Shrug. I agree with Bob to an extent but i think if they are in your contacts you should recognise their voice and be able to recognise who it is, mutual contacts would be a possibility but i think just having them in your contacts (ignored excluded) should be fine.--xoxo 01:46, 30 August 2008 (BST)

I would go even further. Currently radio messages read as 'Frequency:"Message."' If the broadcaster is a contact, I would change that to 'Frequency:A familiar voice says, "Message."' No other clues, no other changes. That way, PK-hunters will be given a slight boost in knowing what disinformation is being spread, but casual survivors wouldn't be able to tell the difference. How often are you immediately able to place a voice you might not have heard for years? -- Galaxy125 05:06, 30 August 2008 (BST)

I'll vote keep if the above commenter's suggestions where implemented. Downright giving out names would make BH-ing too easy and people would not spread messages over the radio, in case it annoys someone and they get shot. Linkthewindow 07:44, 30 August 2008 (BST)

In this case, realism should take precident over convinence. --BoboTalkClown 02:44, 30 August 2008 (BST)

No. Just bad. Even if you know who the person is, it doesn't mean that you would recognize them. These are not commercial radio station transmitter. They are military style radio's, and that would make it very difficult, if not impossible to recognize who is talking. And it doesn't do anything. Its anonymous in the same way as spray paint. - tylerisfat 04:53, 30 August 2008 (BST)

It's a dupe, no? ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 11:44, 30 August 2008 (BST)

Actually, I think for realism's sake, you WOULD be able to recognise a familiar voice on the radio. However, any changes to the system are going to nerf PKers and death cultists and anyone else who uses radios for misinformation. To be honest, anyone who's paying attention can usually figure out the difference between spam/misinformation and a real broadcast. You can also identify yourself... post an iWitness to you broadcasting... there are ways to verify your identity if you're broadcasting, if it's really important for you to do so... Thus, this is totally unneeded as well as being unbalancing. --WanYao 20:53, 30 August 2008 (BST)

What about recognising mutal contacts and hearing a familiar voice for the others? Or if you've heard someone broadcast from the same building, And/Or since you last heard/saw that person. How long would you remember? _■^■ 22:57, 30 August 2008 (BST)

Well, no. Bob Fortune summed it up right at the outset. And I explained a way to ensure a broadcast's authenticity if it's really THAT important for you to do so. Radio is a mass commication media, it's intended to get a message out to lots of people, fast. And properly used it is a VERY powerful tool in-game. But it can also be sabotaged and usurped and misused for disinformation, propaganda and just plain blatant lies -- and if you don't believe me, go watch Fox News to how that works... --WanYao 23:08, 30 August 2008 (BST)

Ok, if anonymity is important to the game and must be preserved, shouldn't any character wearing a balaclava or other disguise (zombie mask!) simply be identified as "A survivor" rather than by their name? Presumably, if any person didn't want to be identified by other survivors, they could prevent it. For example, someone in a balaclava free-runs into your safehouse, knocks down your barricades, and leaves. How would you know who they were? --Zhani 01:57, 31 August 2008 (BST)

These are unrelated topics. You could start a new topic for discussion about masks, but don't use that as reasoning for why your voice is recognizable. - tylerisfat 08:42, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Found the dupe Linkthewindow 05:29, 31 August 2008 (BST)

This isn't a dupe, but Jon's suggestion IS better than this.--Pesatyel 06:01, 2 September 2008 (BST)

How is it not a dupe? They're exactly the same in pretty much every way.--Karek^maps?! 08:19, 2 September 2008 (BST)

One uses ANYONE who broadcasts, the other uses CONTACTS ONLY. How is that "exactly the same in pretty much every way"?--Pesatyel 02:50, 3 September 2008 (BST)

---

Dump dead bodies from dark buildings

Timestamp:	Kolechovski 20:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Restoring normal ability
Scope:	Dead bodies and dark buildings
Description:	Under current game mechanics, you can’t dump dead bodies from dark buildings. How does this make any sense? You can get in and out of the building, even through Free Running, yet somehow you can no longer remove dead bodies? Or do the exits magically close somehow when you try to remove someone? Currently, you can see anyone hiding in the shadows of very dark buildings, but you can’t see/dump dead bodies. Even if you just killed the thing, you somehow can’t find its body, even though you’d be tripping all over it!? Once again, it doesn’t make sense. Only once you light up the place does it become possible to dump the dead. Since I see no reason for it to be physically impossible to find or dump dead bodies, they should always be recognizable and dumpable.

Discussion (Dump dead bodies from dark buildings)

A possible explanation is that people in dark buildings are found and attacked because they're breathing so loudly and their hearts are thumping. Similarly, standing zombies are wheezing. However, dead bodies emit no noise, and if you're tromping through a building hoping to step through a ribcage, you should be spending AP to do so. -- Galaxy125 21:48, 28 August 2008 (BST)

Or because they are fumbling with heavy furniture in the dark to barricade the building, or shooting guns, or...  Swiers 04:48, 29 August 2008 (BST)

Well, how about another take on it. Anyone who dies in the building...if their body is still inside when someone who witnessed the death takes a turn, they notice the body (since it wasn't cleared). The body wouldn't have moved from its original spot that fast.--Kolechovski 20:06, 2 September 2008 (BST)

---

Group Bonus

Timestamp:	Squid Boy 16:22, 28 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Balance change
Scope:	All denizens of Malton who belong to groups
Description:	OK, so while I used the template, I’ve brought this to the discussion page in a fairly informal manner because I don’t pretend to be a programmer and I don’t pretend to know what is possible. I like this idea, but I can see my own problems with it from a technical standpoint – and I’m hoping that others here might be able to help with the solutions on that front. Here’s the basic idea – in the real world groups are much stronger than individuals. People en masse accomplish much more, whether it be construction projects, armies, or lobbying government. Organization has an additive effect to efficacy - pretty much every time. Also – there is a benefit to being part of an organization for humanity. There is community, the transfer of knowledge, the advancement of the overall ends of society. With that in mind, I think there should be an in-game bonus for group activity. This will encourage folks to join groups, which in turn will raise the overall level of gameplay across Malton. This bonus would apply to ANY group working in concert – be in human, PK’er, death cultist, or zombie – so there are no powering issues between warring factions – only a power difference between the grouped and the ungrouped. Given there are few restrictions to joining or forming groups, the ungrouped would hardly become a put-upon constituency. So how to do it? Originally, I thought a simple tiered bonus for group size measured by the number of folks who have a common group name in their profiles. Say a 5% to-hit/search/cading bonus for folks part of groups from 25-49 members, and maybe 7.5% for 50-74 members, and 10% for over 75 members. The problem there would be that it encourages a new form of zerging. Folks would make “Group Scarecrows” that they would park far away from active group activity, but who have the group name in their profile. They’d technically not be in violation of alt abuse, and it would be very hard for group leaders to prevent, and of course the incentive would be to do it. So, I am wondering if the UD engine would be able to detect proximity effects and award bonuses that way? In this case, I’d lower the numbers required for the bonuses a lot – say 10-24 for the 5% bonus, 25-39 for the 7.5% bonus, and 40+ for the 10% bonus – and say that if you’ve got that many folks operating in one XX block radius, you get the bonus. Is such possible? If so, I think it would reward all the right behaviors in this game, and be pretty darn cool. My parameters are suggestions - they could be lowered, raised, modified. I am really interested first and foremost what folks think of the concept, THEN hammering out rational details that might actually be taken to voting. So, first "Is there a reasonable way this could work?" then "Would we want it if it could?" then "How exactly should it work?" What do you think?

Discussion Group Bonus

I'd vote kill, simply because you are not given a hidden bonus in real life from being in a group. Moral boost, maybe. But the rest you accomplish by working closely with your group. - User:Whitehouse 16:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)

Impossible. proximity detection would kill the server. Assume a 5 block radius, the game would have to, on every action, harvest information on userlists for 81 blocks (inside and out), run zerg detection routines on that information, and it would have to then count the number in the group. Now, imagine this happening to the server 30,000+ times a day. You would basically increasing server load more than a hundredfold all up (Quite probably by a factor of well over a thousand). As for the rest, without proximity detection, it collapses under the obvious zerg abuse you mentioned. Proximity detection is a myth, despite claiims to the contrary. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 16:41, 28 August 2008 (BST)

I think Grim_s is right - without some radical reorg of the account system it's just not possible. I was hoping some genius might have a work-around, but I bet he's right that there isn't one. Whitehouse - thanks for the comment - but I disagree with you. In real life you DO get the bonus - the door opens for the AARP in Washington that would never open for the unaligned individual. The group can clear a forest while the individual could spend a lifetime chopping a grove. I think it's moot though. --Squid Boy 16:59, 28 August 2008 (BST)

Even if possible, the advantage to being in a group should come from coordinating with other group members to do difficult tasks that an individual couldn't do. You get a big advantage from being in a well-organised group. You don't deserve an advantage from a bunch of people all spelling the group name correctly. This suggestion is a reward for crap metagaming, which we don't need. Garum 17:24, 28 August 2008 (BST)

You misunderstood my point. And Garum probably phrased it better than me. You get those advantages from working together, not from simply being in a group (at least not the type of advantages you were thinking of). Being in a group is a moral boost, working together with it creates results far better than that of individuals. - User:Whitehouse 17:34, 28 August 2008 (BST)

Oh I see, you're saying that giving an incentive for group behavior beyond already existing benefits doesn't have merit. OK, thanks. Fair enough.--Squid Boy 17:45, 28 August 2008 (BST)

If you want to encourage group work, then find ways for groups to work better together instead of just giving people buffs for having the same group tag. Zombie hordes have scent death, recently someone suggested a way for zombies to sniff out their buddies. Such suggestions, which strengthen the ties of a group, will give good results, the good results are the incentive. - User:Whitehouse 18:50, 28 August 2008 (BST)

Technical details aside, this simply isn't appropriate. This is an RPG, and in RPGs the benefits of groups are simply those of multiple players co-operating. When members of a group communicate and co-operate, they are more effective. If they don't, then they aren't- just like real life.  Swiers 20:07, 28 August 2008 (BST)

i haveno clue about all the technical aspects, but this just isnt a good suggestion. kinda sucks to be on of those people who likes to stay unaffiliated, cause they get screwed on the deal.--Themonkeyman11 17:19, 29 August 2008 (BST)

If this was implemented, it would be possible for a user, for example, to put the name of a large group into their profile, and get all the benefits, without being a member of the group. --Jared^{Talk W! P!} 21:45, 29 August 2008 (BST)

This is illogical. The only bonus people should recive from being in a group is having someone to cover their back. No magic bonuses. No special abilities. Just that. --BoboTalkClown 02:48, 30 August 2008 (BST)

Take a look at Nexus War for group mechanics. The main problem is that ANYONE can be in ANY group at ANY time.-Pesatyel 06:04, 2 September 2008 (BST)

---

Restaurants

Timestamp:	Anotherpongo 15:12, 26 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	New building
Scope:	People who take notice of buildings
Description:	If Malton has pubs, it really should have at least a few fancy restaurants, which could potentially replace a few of the pubs in the richer areas of town. The Maltonians can't all have only ever eaten/drunk beer, peanuts and crisps outside of their homes. Mechanics Restaurant Dark building Can be barricaded, ransacked, ruined and have equipment installed normally. Internal description Unpowered You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The once-busy dining area lies in darkness. Powered You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. Ransacked You are standing inside an abandoned restaurant. The chairs and tables are overturned, and cutlery and napkins litter the floor. Search rates (normal, if dark condition were not applied) Knife (3%) (kitchen knives) Wine (6%) (the finest in town) Mobile Phone (1%) (some careless people...) Menu (6%) (Flavour item, when used displays "The menu reads: <random fancy dishes>", and flavour text "You think about them hungrily" (currency not specified).) Clothing a chef's hat (white) (obviously) an apron (white/black) (waiters) standard generic formalwear (maitre d'hôtel, sommelier, general higher-ranking service staff)

Discussion (Restaurants)

Can we have one at the corner of the map? We shall call it, "The Restaurant at the End of Malton"... :3 --Aeon17x 16:44, 26 August 2008 (BST)

I don't see why not --Diablor 01:53, 27 August 2008 (BST)

*Whines* Pubs (Arms) aren't fancy enough for you?
Mah Pubs not fancy enough for you, foo? Only if there is a Pub at the end of the world.. Already.. _■^■ 02:51, 27 August 2008 (BST)

I like it, but I think the menu should be just like a newspaper with different flavour text. For that matter, would newspapers be suitable to be found here? I Am Sabbo 03:07, 27 August 2008 (BST)

A dark restaurant? Dunno about where you're from but around here people put big ass windows on restaurants coz ppl like to see outside...also a stupid idea. Pointless and you would have to think up some ridiculous way to explain why everyone in malton thought it was a pub but it turned out to be a restaurant.--xoxo 04:54, 27 August 2008 (BST)

It was always a restaurant and nobody ever thought it was a pub. And 2+2 has always equalled 5. And we have always been at war with Eurasia. And darkness really depends on the restaurant, but good point. --Anotherpongo^Where? 11:45, 27 August 2008 (BST)

Not pointless. Knives are the best weapons for newbies, yet malls are the only places with > 1% chance of finding them. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:02, 27 August 2008 (BST)

As much as I hate suggestions that don't seem to solve any problems, we do need a TRB for knives, and this seems like a great way to do it. Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 16:33, 27 August 2008 (BST)

Absolutely! TRP for knives, and logical and fun flavor. --UCFSD 17:17, 27 August 2008 (BST)

a suggestion so simple that it makes sence lol i say yea bring on the restaurants!--Fanglord2 02:37, 28 August 2008 (BST)

I Always vote for building suggestions-always love a change Linkthewindow 09:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)

Vote all you like, I'm pretty sure a building change suggestion has never been implemented. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:04, 29 August 2008 (BST)

Kevan has talked about doing it before_{(it's in his talk page archives for those curious few)}, it's not entirely out of the question.--Karek^maps?! 08:51, 31 August 2008 (BST)

Building changes not implemented? Dark? Ruin? Fixing the fort walls? Its not without precedent.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:46, 31 August 2008 (BST)

He meant changing one building (type) into another building (type). The first significant building change was to make large buildings into "1" building, but they were ALL still the same building to begin with.--Pesatyel 06:05, 2 September 2008 (BST)

I like this suggestion.--Themonkeyman11 17:16, 29 August 2008 (BST)

Asum(awesome)!!! Lol! --BoboTalkClown

---

Brain Rush, aka Insomnia, Final Draft

Timestamp:	User: Not completely terrible 21:12, 25 August 2008 (EST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies, humans if they buy it as a zombie.
Description:	Similar to the body building skill but in reverse. Zombies who have the skill brain rush will get a rush of adrenaline, something zombies did not have before, as zombies are constantly developing. If revived, the player can still use this skill, as they will have even more adrenaline as a human. This skill adds 3 action points on to the maximum limit, giving you 53 action points when fully charged. The skill is in the zombie skill tree for 100 exp. Edited: deleted 75 exp for starting zombies, added ip limit solution, 3 action points.

Discussion (Brain Rush)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 3 days.

1. people might think its a bad idea, because of the "balanced" everything, but i would love having a bit more AP The only problem is - IP hit limit.--Piskus99 02:15, 26 August 2008 (BST)
2. I'd vote for this Shooty08 02:24, 26 August 2008 (BST)

None of the zombie skills ever cost 75XP, neither should this. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 02:25, 26 August 2008 (BST)

how are dead organisms making use of adrenal rushes? - tylerisfat 05:42, 26 August 2008 (BST)

I doubt the point as to whether zombies have functioning adrenergic receptors has been discussed, possibly because of the nonexistance of zombies. --Anotherpongo 15:38, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Should be 100xp like all Zombie skills, and should have 55 not 53xp (rounding up.) Other then that, it's fine. Some survivors might kill because they have to turn into a zombie to get it. Linkthewindow 07:10, 26 August 2008 (BST)

isn't there a rule that says dont mess with AP? i may be mistaken, but i thought there was.--Themonkeyman11 14:39, 26 August 2008 (BST)

According to the FAQ: There may eventually be character skills which modify the maximum AP and its recharge rate, but the basic starting-character settings will remain the same. Linkthewindow 09:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)

According to a paper I found in a NecroTech facility, This is untrue. Dead, Decaying Organisms, Their Bodies, Muscles, Nueral Pathways and Receptors. Humans with more Adrenaline, Couldn't that kill you? Zombies are constantly developing? Still 3 AP is fairly irrelevant, Leave the game be. _■^■ 02:34, 27 August 2008 (BST)

---

Add encumbrance section to the FAQs

Timestamp:	Kolechovski 01:41, 26 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	The FAQs.
Description:	The FAQs does not include any information about encumbrance, and it is a common question among newbs as to what it means and how it works. So, I recommend adding the following paragraph to the game’s FAQs. What is encumbrance, and how does it work? Encumbrance is based on what items you’re carrying, and how much. Each item has a set encumbrance, based on its weight and bulkiness. As you accumulate more items, your encumbrance increases. When it hits or exceeds 100%, you will be unable to pick up any more items until you use or drop some of the ones you’re carrying. Dropping items doesn’t cost any AP. If your encumbrance is 98%, and you pick up a generator (20%), your encumbrance will equal 118%. You will always be able to pick up any item before reaching 100%, no matter how far over the limit the final item takes you.

Discussion (Add encumbrance section to the FAQs)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 4 days.

1. Good idea. But there are always people who are negative .--Piskus99 02:17, 26 August 2008 (BST)

This doesn't go here. Go harass kevan on his talk page.--xoxo 06:39, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Well...It's still gonna be a suggestion, none-the-less. And since it is, here's a Reviewed dupe. Now I wouldn't know about this dupe if it wasn't one of my 100% keeps suggestions. :P --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:06, 28 August 2008 (BST)

I see. I'll harass Kevan some more; thanks for the link.--Kolechovski 20:29, 28 August 2008 (BST)

---

Insomnia

Timestamp:	User:Not completely terrible 13:43, 25 August 2008 (EST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors, and zombies if they buy it as a human.
Description:	This is similar to the body building skill. This skill adds 10 action points on to any person's AP, giving them a maximum of 60 action points. Though it will take longer for a person to be fully charged, I don't see much of a downside in that. Also being similar to body building, a zombie that wants to have insomnia can go get themselves revived and buy this skill as a human, then kill themselves from a window and go back to being a zombie. Since this will be a major skill, it will be expensive, at the cost of 300 experience points for any class.

Discussion (Insomnia)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 3 days.

Oddly enough I put this exact same thing in a few months ago but with different justification (AP buffer (+10 max AP, no change to regen)) and people started with the don't mess with AP argument. I'd still say yes to this although 300XP does seem a little high. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:58, 25 August 2008 (BST)

There are players out there with >10000XP. To them it doesn't matter. High XP cost is not going to make it balanced. --Anotherpongo 15:40, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Simply no, ap is the way it is to prevent one-man armies. Someone could go from Dulston all the way to Yagoton (I think) if they had 60 ap. --Diablor 21:03, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Its an interesting idea, though for people who have played forever, they have more than enough XP for this skill, and new people will have trouble fighting against others who get more actions per day and have more HP. Not to mention people who have honest multiple accounts (e.g. three roommates with separate accounts) will have problems with the IP hits. I assume this is going to get shot down. Shooty08 21:08, 25 August 2008 (BST)

This would be very powerful in situation where people can safely regen to 60 AP. I essentially makes a well-played zombie 20% stronger; 60 AP is enough to tear down 15 levels of barricades, which is most buildings under EHB. 60SP uded n conjuntion with DIRTNAP makes that tactic more powerful, too. And it clearly makes scouting and building repair more effective / less risky.
My guess as to the ultimate impact is that people would double the number of characters they play, playing them on alternate days, using 60 AP each day, or something along those lines. And I think that is a bad thing.  Swiers 21:46, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Make it a zombie skill that crosses over to survivors, and I'll consider. Maybe cap it at 55 AP instead of 60. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 22:03, 25 August 2008 (BST)

As Midi. --BoboTalkClown 00:19, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Perhaps, if the 'extra' 10AP came at a reduced rate, e.g. 1 hour for 1 AP? --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 02:01, 26 August 2008 (BST)

For FAQ sake, already!! --WanYao 06:40, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Exactly! From the FAQ: There may eventually be character skills which modify the maximum AP and its recharge rate, but the basic starting-character settings will remain the same. -Pesatyel 07:39, 26 August 2008 (BST)

wan you is pun-ny.--xoxo 09:25, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Will have problems with IP hits and balance. I like the idea about slower recharge that an above editor placed, though. Linkthewindow 07:10, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Yeah, that is kinda nifty. It might work to allow characters that idle out to re-join the game with 70 AP or some such IF they are not corpses. Simulates them doing something with their time.  Swiers 05:10, 27 August 2008 (BST)

No! Make this a zed skill and I'll consider. --UCFSD 17:23, 27 August 2008 (BST)

---

Doors on the outside

Timestamp:	User:Whitehouse 12:23, 25 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Building change.
Scope:	All buildings in the city, everyone.
Description:	Currently it would seem that barricades are constructed on the outside of the buildings. This is evident because barricades are destroyed first, then the doors can be opened once the barricades are gone. This suggestion simply proposes to make it so that the barricades are on the inside and can only be attacked after the doors have been opened. This change would have to be accompanied by "open door" button being added to the zombie interface for those who have memories of life. Another thing that would change with this is that doors are no longer automatically closed upon the addition of a barricade level, it is an action that must be done first, or else the cades are open to attack from newbies. Pros: Easier to spot which buildings newbie zombie will be able to successfully attack and enter. Higher level zombies can move around suburbs opening the doors of all buildings making them "attackable" for lower level zombies. Makes sense, although that might not be a pro if it comes in the way of game mechanics. Cons: AP cost for attacking buildings and entering goes up by one AP, because the action of opening the door is no longer automatic upon entering, but an action taken previously. Newbie feral zombies can't help an uncoordinated attack on a building with doors untill someone opens the doors (a horde of newbies would be at a disadvantage, but they are today too unless someone has memories of life). AP cost for barricaders is up by one AP, because they have to secure the doors to be safe from newbie attacks (no longer automated). Not sure if this is pro or con considering barricade to deconstruction rate. I checked Peer Reviewed and had a quick search but didn't find any similar ones, anyone know of any dupes? If not, is this suggestion a possibility or should I just toss it out? Criticism please. User:Whitehouse 12:23, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Discussion (Doors on the outside)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 4 days.

• "Currently it would seem that barricades are constructed on the outside of the buildings. This is evident because barricades are destroyed first, then the doors can be opened once the barricades are gone." - Actually, all the in-game text points to the fact that barricades are constructed on the inside... But that actually does point out a logical inconsistency, because they why ARE doors the last thing to open? Unless you assume, as I often do, that you're not just dealing with outer walls and one room... Instead, think of all the zombie movies where the survivors are getting overwhelmed and move further back inside, closing doors behind them...
• "Newbie feral zombies can't help an uncoordinated attack on a building with doors untill someone opens the doors" -- This is unfortunately simply horrible. Sure, newbies can't get past doors atm, but they can tear down cades and wait around for someone to notice and go inside... In any event they can still contribute to "the cause"... With this change, you's take all that away... it's a HUGE newbie nerf, ultimately.

Nice try... and the whole doors mechanic is messed up, IMO, all round... But I don't think this is the way to fix it. --WanYao 12:44, 25 August 2008 (BST)

While I do agree that at first this might seem extremely cruel to newbies, it also does point out to them where they should and should not attack. A building without doors (churches, junkyards) are good choices, because newbies normally can't get the cades down in the first place and once they do the doors are always waiting. And we know that levelling on cade destruction takes too long anyway. So if you think about it, survivors going outside to close the doors is highly unlikely, meaning that once the doors have been opened they'd be likely to stay open longer anyway. But I see your point about the benefit to the overall cause. Also, interesting point about outer walls and inner doors, never thought of that. - User:Whitehouse 12:55, 25 August 2008 (BST)

So, you couldn't close doors from the inside after the building has been barricaded? That would probably result in most EHB buildings having open doors, because closing them would be a lot of work. More than the 3 AP to close doors on a VSB building (exit, close, enter). I think I like this. Would the status of doors be visible inside? There would be the barricades in front so you couldn't see them properly... --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 13:06, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Yes, the idea was that you couldn't tell if the doors were open or not from the inside (thus resulting in a cost to check and fix it if they were open), but from the outside it would be made very clear. Although it seems that I missed a few things when I began to think about this suggestions.. now I don't know if you would be able to see barricade level. That would require glass doors.. and that would be a huge problem. - User:Whitehouse 13:09, 25 August 2008 (BST)

The way I see it, the barricades get built just inside the building entrance(s), and when those fall, survivors take shelter in rooms that have secured doors. Churches typically have only one interior room of any significant size...  Swiers 18:47, 25 August 2008 (BST)

Yeah, I'm beginning to see it that. And this suggestion got more complicated that I had expected because of obstruction view of barricades.. and the fact that it adds one more AP to both sides in the eternal AP struggle.. I'm not really seeing a way of fixing this. - User:Whitehouse 18:56, 25 August 2008 (BST)

The only hope of truly fixing it would be a dual layer system, where lightly and below is counted as whats done on the inside, and done first, while above is counted as outside (things dropped out of windows, etc.), and newbies can attack down to lightly, but from there the door must be opened first. Unfortunly this has questionable methods to it, as well as the inconsistancy pointed out with survivours retreating further inside, but then again this could be countered with the fact only one door must be opened...--G-Man 05:13, 26 August 2008 (BST)

I really don't think your using logic well if you think things dropped from windows would equal strong barricades, while things built strongly are light. i think swiers has it right, the cades and doors are not nearly as flawed as most people think. the front doors might not even be there any more, but rather, the street front of the building is caded as a whole, and when that is broken through, the survivors are holed up behind a door. thus, you can't cade while zombies are inside, because its more then just dragging something in front of the door. - tylerisfat 05:35, 26 August 2008 (BST)

Very interesting. I like the idea...helpful for new zombies. Just to clarify though, can you close a door from inside if the building is barricaded? Because it wouldn't make sense if you could, but would mean almost all doors would end up being opened by older zombies if you couldn't... -- Ashnazg 1017, 26 August 2008 (GMT)

Instead, think of all the zombie movies where the survivors are getting overwhelmed and move further back inside, closing doors behind them... Well if the were several rooms in the building (wich makes sence) couldent the survivor just barricade each room?????? that would be unfair but it would just be common sence or the survivors could just try to hold the door closed.....--Fanglord2 13:01, 26 August 2008 (BST)

yes, it makes sense. but you can't do that for the same reason you can't have multi level buildings. Maybe survivors are hiding in those buildings that have 2 doors to go through before you get inside, and cade the space inbetween.--Themonkeyman11 14:50, 26 August 2008 (BST)

It aso makes sense just to assume that multiple levels of barricades add up to EHB. Plus, you only find so much stuff to pile up. Barricade strength really depends on the total mass used, and it won't matter much if its in one thick layer or multiple thin ones.  Swiers 15:20, 27 August 2008 (BST)

May as well make a door attackable to begin with, don't you think? I'll bet that no matter how many hinges and locks you put on that thing, it's got to be more flimsy than an extremely heavily barricaded hallway. ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 16:39, 26 August 2008 (BST)

yes, it makes sense. but you can't do that for the same reason you can't have multi level buildings. i thought there was multiple levles seeing that you can jump out of a building window and get hurt or fall out of a building that is ransaked and get hurt, so there is multiple lvls because the most you cna get from jumping out of a 1 story buildings i like i dont know a twisted anckle... just thought id say that....Fanglord2 02:32, 28 August 2008 (BST)

---

Clear!

Timestamp:	RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 14:31, 24 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Faintly Ridiculous Item.
Scope:	People.
Description:	Right. Its a defibrillator. Encumbrance 8% Found only in powered hospitals, replacing newspapers in the search rates. Can only be used by people with diagnosis. (Doctors know how they work) Relies on hand to hand accuracy. Does 5 damage regardless of flak (not designed to stop electrocution) Same chance of running out after each use as spray can, at which point automatically discarded.

Discussion (Clear!)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 2 days.

Defibrillators are incredibly bulky, and most have to be pushed around on carts or in ambulances. 8% doesn't do this justice. What's more, 5 damage doesn't really seem like it'd be all that worth it (especially if you increase the incumberance). Up the encumbrance to around 30%, the damage to 10 and add a max accuracy rate of 40% with HTH (only loses a charge when it hits of course) and I'm sold. Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 16:08, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Yeah, kind of made the figures up entirely. Also, has no effects on barricades or decorations. As for radios and gennies, Im sure I can think of something crazy. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:15, 24 August 2008 (BST)

i like it, but what exactly are you aiming the defibrilator to do? being used as a ombat weapon? i was think more along the lines of medical things, as an alternative to using a syringe but the dead body can only be 2 hours old at the most, or it can be used to revivify dead bodies on a fixed success rate. its a good idea, and yes it would be reusable, unlike a syringe. i really like the idea, add a little more to it! 13:15 24 August 2008 (EST)

Too difficult to implement. What if they stand up after one minute?, it would also be ridiculously cheap compared to the cost of revives. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:20, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Techerizer is wrong about defibs being bulky. The old school ones are, but modern portable ones are about the size of a 12 pack of soda cans. Unfortunately, they also are designed in such a way that they need to be held against the skin long enoughto monitor the heartbeat, and then will only trigger if the heartbeat is abnormal, in order to prevent accidental triggering on people who show the symptoms of cardiac arrest, but have some other problem. Of course, that means they might work OK against zombies....
But as the suggesstor says, this is largely rediculous, and mostly makes sense as a homage to the recent Romero film. I'd expect to see glass jars of acid (1 shot weapon, HTH / melee skill, 10 points damage, no flak) as well, if this were deployed.  Swiers 19:55, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Perhaps a defib could be used to bring a corpse (read: killed survivor, not killed zombie or revivifying zombie) back for just long enough to FAK 'em? --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 02:41, 25 August 2008 (BST)

No, because that would force the person you defibbed and FAKed to stand up. There's reasons they may not want to do so, a primary one of which is they may WANT to play as a zombie. It also would HUGELY buff the "FAK packer" defense tactic; currently the only way zombies can outpace an active healer is to put survivors down for good (although zombie cade blocking makes such defense slightly less relevant these days).  Swiers 23:50, 27 August 2008 (BST)

---

Face Rot

Timestamp:	RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)
Type:	Zombie Skill, subskill of brain rot.
Scope:	Zombies with Brain Rot.
Description:	The rot has spread, now it shrivels and distorts the facial features. The person underneath is hard to recognise. In game terms, its a buff for zombie anonymity. Unless the zombie is in your contacts you cannot recognise him if. He stands up Destroys barricades/equipment Kills or injures. His profile can still be gained through a successful scan, or if you recognise them via your contacts. (You could be familiar with his limp, a watch or other item, his groaning etc.)

Discussion (Face Rot)

Go on. Savage it, like my horribly ruined features. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:21, 23 August 2008 (BST)

I like it, what better way to implement Zombie Anonymity than through a skill? Plus. it promotes the Brain Rot! :D --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 18:54, 23 August 2008 (BST)

How would this work when they're alive? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 19:38, 23 August 2008 (BST)

Then their profile just states they look like Gary Busey --{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}20:52, 23 August 2008 (BST)

Bloody Brilliant!!! --BoboTalkClown 22:27, 23 August 2008 (BST)

Good, apart from one thing. How do you explain not being able to recognise a corpse you just saw die when it stands up. This case would only be when you are in the same location for the period of time in which a character dies and rises (in the case of first being a survivor which is recognisable to all anyway). Explanation could be that the face rot while cleared up by the revivification effect while alive, takes hold again almost instantaneous. But that still wouldn't change the fact that you saw that body die and rise, thereby knowing exactly who it was. - User:Whitehouse 23:36, 23 August 2008 (BST)

A good idea, except that Whitehouse's point might need addressing. How do looks change so quickly? ~Ariedartin • Talk • A KS J abt all 06:22, 24 August 2008 (BST)

I don't like this idea. It's balanced and innovative but it disregards the true zombie mentality. Yes, I love zombie anonymity. But I am always in the belief that true zombie characters should be willing to do the *above* three actions and have their anonymity threatened to whoever wants to use it, in order to succeed their goal. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:04, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Interesting points. I'm off to make a ridiculous suggestion, and I'll think about this. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:24, 24 August 2008 (BST)

In relation to Whitehouses point. How about an extra piece of text like. "Blah killed Example, their face decomposes before your eyes. "--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:37, 25 August 2008 (BST)

I saw no one pointed it out and I have a feeling you'll actually check before suggesting this. This isn't actually a buff to zombies, this is removing the one way in which zombie groups generally recruit. I like the idea of starting to get zombie anonymity back, it never should have left but, this hurts them, especially because survivors still get all the workarounds they want/use while zombies now have absolutely no way of knowing who to go to for help/advice/etc.--Karek^maps?! 09:07, 31 August 2008 (BST)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark

Moved to Suggestion talk:20080831 Body Dumping Paranoia in the Dark as suggestion is up for voting. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 15:17, 31 August 2008 (BST)

---

Nurse

Moved to voting, under the new name of Doctor's Clinic

---

Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth

Moved to Suggestion talk:20080827 Cellphone Auto-Response & GPS Bluetooth as suggestion is up for voting.  Swiers 00:03, 28 August 2008 (BST)

---

Dead Reckoning

Moved to Suggestion_talk:20080826_Dead_Reckoning as suggestion is up for voting.  Swiers 09:46, 26 August 2008 (BST)

---