Developing Suggestions: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:04, 25 September 2008

Suggestion Navigation

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 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

Feeding Frenzy

Timestamp:	--Honestmistake 14:34, 25 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Combat Skill
Scope:	Zombies (and their meals)
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 feeding frenzy

Free Running Into/Out Of Dark Buildings

Timestamp:	Target Practice 02:38, 25 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Balance of Free Running
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Basically, adds a potential fall risk to survivors free running into/out of dark buildings. 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. 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. Be gentle, this is the first thing even approaching a suggestion I've made.

Discussion Free Running Into/Out Of Dark Buildings

Into? Sure. Out of? Not really. Essentially makes it the same as Ruins. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 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...--x o x o 05:31, 25 September 2008 (BST)

This would de-buff PKers... who won out big time with Dark buildings... Maybe... --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. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 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!--Honestmistake 10:01, 25 September 2008 (BST)

Adrenaline Mk. II

Timestamp:	Galaxy125 23:37, 24 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Survivor skill "Adrenaline"
Scope:	Survivors. Late-game players.
Description:	New survivor skill, confers no benefit to zombies who bought it as survivors. Placed under "Free running" with cost of 100 XP. Requires minimum level 10 to purchase. The minimum AP for survivors with this skill is reduced to -5 AP, although at 0 AP they lose awareness of their inventory, other players and location descriptions. Allows for survivors to take 5 additional movement actions (between buildings or into/out of buildings). Movement with 0 or negative AP incurs a 20% chance of damaging failure (10 HP) and a 5% chance of disastrous failure (death). The former - "In your haste, you trip and break your arm upon the ground." The latter - "In your haste, you trip and hit your head upon the cement." The latter phrasing would also be used for survivors who incur damaging failure with HP < 10. ...Because people do get an energy boost from their fear, but it hinders their interpersonal skills and their performance.

Discussion (Adrenaline Mk. II)

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.--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. -- Galaxy125 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. --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. -- Galaxy125 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. --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? -- Galaxy125 07:13, 25 September 2008 (BST)

It's not like we have a specific page to discourage crap like this or anything.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 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.-- Galaxy125 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! --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 12:17, 25 September 2008 (BST)

Doctor's Examination

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 22:28, 24 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Skill: Medical.
Scope:	Survivors.
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 (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.
How about some lame soufflé smothered in fail sauce for desert? Swiers 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. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 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.--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... --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 04:44, 25 September 2008 (BST)

Adrenaline

Timestamp:	Super Nweb 06:08, 24 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Humans
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. --Super Nweb 06:08, 24 September 2008 (BST)

Discussion (Adrenaline)

(These responses are comments on the suggestion below, which was enigmatically "cloned" up here, but has been "corrected" by being removed.) --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.... --WanYao 06:32, 24 September 2008 (BST)

Maybe the wiki has become self aware and is trying to rid itself of tumors like this? --

#99 ^DCC 08:12, 24 September 2008 (BST)

Any ideas to make it less-dupey?--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) --Tselita 14:20, 24 September 2008 (BST)

Anything that allows negative AP actions tends to be very unpopular... I should know, I suggested one :) --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. --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. Disreputable 20:30, 24 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. --

#4 - Haberdash

^TMG 23:17, 24 September 2008 (BST)

I wish! It's not a bad idea, but yes, it's a dupe. --JaredV 01:26, 24 September 2008 (BST)

Would be nice, but definitely a dupe --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.
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. Swiers 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' --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 22:32, 24 September 2008 (BST)

Keep talking people, and then put it up for voting where I shall dupe it to death. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:58, 24 September 2008 (BST)

New zombie speeches

Timestamp:	Kolechovski 19:37, 23 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Zombies
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 (New zombie speeches)

Epic dupe-age. But I CBA to hunt it down. --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.--Super Nweb 06:25, 24 September 2008 (BST)

I wish! It's not a bad idea, but yes, it's a dupe. --JaredV 01:26, 24 September 2008 (BST)

Sounds like a good idea.--Super Nweb 06:30, 24 September 2008 (BST)

Dammit, zombies need more speech options.-- #99 ^DCC 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. --Tselita 14:28, 24 September 2008 (BST)

Zombies don't speak at all in Romero films... --WanYao 20:02, 24 September 2008 (BST)

Creating “Speaking Points”

Timestamp:	Disreputable 08:24, 23 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	A small Point System allotment for encouraging in-game communication
Scope:	All
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 (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! --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. - :|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. --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. --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. --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? - |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! --

#99 ^DCC 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. -- Galaxy125 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. --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. - 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. --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 :)--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. - 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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by an unknown user (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

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. --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. --

#99 ^DCC 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. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 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. --Jen 07:00, 25 September 2008 (BST)

Link to profile for victims

Timestamp:	Kolechovski 20:01, 20 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Victims
Description:	I suggest that the profiles of victims (those slain or dragged out into the street, etc.) be linked to, just like those when zombies gesture to them, or when you DNA extract a zombie. I've had numerous cases where I've wanted to check the profile of a victim, but can only get the one of the attacker.

Discussion (Link to profile for victims)

Next new suggestion please. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:08, 20 September 2008 (BST)

Also... there is this ... not quite what you're looking for, i don't think it gives you dead people's profiles... but it rawks and i wanna hype it anyhoo ;P --WanYao 20:06, 21 September 2008 (BST)

While we're on the topic of irrelevant but awesome, did someone say 2 Cool? All for you Wan :P --x o x o 07:38, 22 September 2008 (BST)

In the words of the Two Mouseketeers, "All for Wan, and Wan for all!" :D --WanYao 19:36, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Greasemonkey saves the day! ...but it hasn't been well tested because PKs don't really happen that often. Should work, though. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 23:04, 23 September 2008 (BST)

I clicked that link, I saw no monkeys, covered in grease or not and no saving of the day. Your comic strip sucks. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 10:05, 25 September 2008 (BST)

Advanced Free Running

Timestamp:	Funt Solo ^QT 16:50, 19 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	new skill
Scope:	prerequisite of Free Running
Description:	Two effects: 50% chance of not suffering the 5HP damage inflicted (sometimes) when attempting Free Running into a ruin. 50% chance of being able to enter a pinata ruin from the street. If the attempt fails, the survivor suffers 5HP damage from a bad fall, and remains outside.

Discussion (Advanced Free Running)

Anyone? --Funt Solo ^QT 16:50, 19 September 2008 (BST)

I can see it now, a whole map of EHB's full of trenchcoaters gloating that they have pwn'd the noobs while all around them the few buildings that fall stay ruined cos trenchies don't carry tools and the rest of the survivors are dead or gone in disgust! --Honestmistake 17:27, 19 September 2008 (BST)

I've added the word "ruin" after "pinata" to make it clear this would only allow special entry to a ruined but over-'caded building. Does that make a difference to you? --Funt Solo ^QT

18:07, 19 September 2008 (BST)

It does make a difference but not enough. Ithe potential 5 damage is the only downside to free-running and lowering the chance of it even further is not something i could support --Honestmistake 18:53, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Whilst I see it as a minor buff, what do you think of the ruin/pinata entry part alone? --Funt Solo ^QT

19:14, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Not needed in any way, shape or form. --Papa Moloch 18:56, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Said the hard-core zombie. --Funt Solo ^QT

19:13, 19 September 2008 (BST)

You really are an utter hypocrite. I have a pro-survivor in the NW as it happens. Meanwhile, oh look! You have a list of characters on your user page, all of them survivors. Edited to add something that I forgot: Only one of my characters makes no use of Free Running and, guess what, it's not Moloch, who is a death cultist. --Papa Moloch 20:09, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Chill pills. Second shelf, on the left. Help yourself. (Pssst - all my characters are dual nature, but don't tell anyone.) --Funt Solo ^QT

23:32, 19 September 2008 (BST)

First effect: does this just mean the chance of getting injured would be further decreased by 50% from the current? Second effect: way, way too strong. Even if the chance for success was 10% instead of 50%, and searching for FAKs and healing the damage caused by the failed attempts was taken into account (25AP total for a maxed survivor), it would still be a lot cheaper on average than taking EH barricades down to VS (50AP). Not to mention that it would save you from having to re-build the barricades. Also, judging from the name of the skill, you probably don't mean this to be a "prerequisite of Free Running", but a subskill of Free Running. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 20:16, 19 September 2008 (BST)

I actually like the first effect. Having an advanced version of free running might mean that when you're about to 'fall' to the street' you manage to grab onto something to prevent yourself from falling out and getting injured. I think pinatas shouldn't be touched though - it takes quite a bit of effort to actually get them up, and so it should take a bit of work to take them down. --Tselita 20:45, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Good gawd, no!

Taking damage from FRing into a ruin is not automatic, anyway, no need to nerf that effect. especially since it helps keeps the otherwise very, very powerful FAK-in-a-mall monster a little less vicious.
you can free run into the street at no penalty.
falling can never kill you, in any event.
don't you dare nerf pinatas! They are the result of either completely idiotic survivor play (which deserves to be punished), or coordination by zombie players (which deserves to be rewarded). In both cases you need a big dose of good luck, to boot.
screws newbies, who often seek out injured parkour artists for first aid experience.

No... Not only is this uneeded, as Moloch said, it's just horrible... all round... sorry. --WanYao 20:43, 19 September 2008 (BST)

The fist effect is a dupe of in game; there is ALRADY a (unknown, like 50%) chance of not being injured when you "slip and fall to the streets". The second effect is probably a bad idea, because it makes ruins easier to enter than repaired buildings. Which maybe makes sense, for ruins with holes in the roof, but few Pinatas are that old. Anyhow, this would make pinata's a pure survivor advantage; the building could be reclaimed with full barricade levels in place, instead of just giving survivors VSB++ on a ruin for the cost of whatever it takes to pull it down to vsb++ (which is often much less than building UP to VSB++ would be). That makes it (even more) pointless for a zombie to ruin any heavily+ barricaded building the happen to be inside.
Pinaas are the result of the interaction of a few simple rules and are only a minor nuisance to survivors, and no help to zombies. The KISS principle says to leave them be. Swiers 22:30, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Okay, I understand why pinatas should be left alone. The first effect is meant as a reduction of the in-game chance, not as a dupe of the in-game chance. However, nerfing newbies on XP-harvesting was not something I'd considered, so thanks. --Funt Solo ^QT

23:32, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Summary: I think I'll let this one slide. Thanks (all who offered constructive criticism) for pointing out the things I hadn't thought of. --Funt Solo ^QT 23:32, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Zombie Incursion

Timestamp:	Funt Solo ^QT 16:43, 19 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	ruin Free Running for zombies
Scope:	zombies with MOL & Free Running
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 (Zombie Incursion)

Not sure about this one, and am wondering what veteran zombies make of it. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:43, 19 September 2008 (BST)

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! --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. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:36, 19 September 2008 (BST)

I hear ya. What about the ruin-to-ruin idea alone? Would that be appealing to zombie players? --Funt Solo ^QT

18:05, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Ruin to ruin has been done before. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 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!--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? --Funt Solo ^QT

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? --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 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. --Anotherpongo^Where? 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. --Tselita 20:37, 19 September 2008 (BST)

PS - about this idea. No. --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. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 18:44, 20 September 2008 (BST)

Actually, Funt appears to have previously suggested zombie catapults, albeit in a humourous suggestion. --Anotherpongo^Where? 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. --Funt Solo ^QT

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. --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". --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. Swiers 22:37, 19 September 2008 (BST)

The Force makes more sense. --Tselita 23:54, 22 September 2008 (BST)

Alter Stand-up Costs

Timestamp:	Funt Solo ^QT 15:56, 19 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	game mechanics
Scope:	stand-up costs, Headshot, Ankle Grab
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 ✘ Headshot ✘ : 10 AP Ankle Grab ✘ Headshot ✔ : 15 AP Ankle Grab ✔ Headshot ✘ : 1 AP Ankle Grab ✔ Headshot ✔ : 6 AP Suggested stand-up costs for zombies: Ankle Grab ✘ Headshot ✘ : 5 AP Ankle Grab ✘ Headshot ✔ : 10 AP & -10HP Ankle Grab ✔ Headshot ✘ : 1 AP Ankle Grab ✔ Headshot ✔ : 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: Reduce Stand-Up Cost Headshots remove HP, not AP

Discussion (Alter Stand-up Costs)

I'd welcome feedback on this one. --Funt Solo ^QT 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? --Tselita 20:41, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Yes, as it stands right now - that's stated in the suggestion. --Funt Solo ^QT

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!-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.) --Funt Solo ^QT

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.--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. --Funt Solo ^QT

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. --Jen 17:47, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Mmm, I dono about the trade off. More AP or more/quicker deaths? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 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.) --Funt Solo ^QT

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? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 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. --Funt Solo ^QT

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.... Swiers 22:41, 19 September 2008 (BST)

If you've got the time, could you explain that further, as I don't really follow. --Funt Solo ^QT

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. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 23:26, 19 September 2008 (BST)

Got it - thanks. --Funt Solo ^QT

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.

Swiers 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. -- #99 ^DCC 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. --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? --

#99 ^DCC 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. --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. --

#99 ^DCC 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!--Honestmistake 23:47, 21 September 2008 (BST)

I already got that idea into Peer Reviewed with Advanced Digestion (+10HP Temporary), but the big K never implemented it. --Funt Solo ^QT

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.--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. --Funt Solo ^QT

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".

Swiers 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?--Pesatyel 06:12, 23 September 2008 (BST)

Zombie Hunting

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 14:20, 16 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	All players
Description:	What I'm suggesting is a new zombie hunter skill and a slight tweak to headshot/ankle grab independent of each other, hopefully to make it slightly less effective against newbie Zeds but more effective against their seniors. Feel free to dupe either of these, I've looked but could not find, although I know someone had something similar to 'Overkill' in discussion some time ago (credits to them). If either of these reaches a point of potential voting I intend to put them up separately. 1st: The old (tweak) Headshot Change, Headshot now has a 50% chance to affect the killed zombie, all other mechanics remain the same. Ankle Grab Change, Ankle grab no longer reduces the AP to stand up to 1, instead it reduces it by 5! Results: Zombies without ankle grab will now have a chance to stand up without the extra AP loss. Zombies with ankle grab will not benefit from ZKills to prevent headshots as much as they normally do. Zombies, although still without fear of death will be affected more when they are killed if they recieve a headshot. 2nd: The new (skill) Overkill (100xp) Whenever a survivor kills a player (zombie or survivor) there is a 50% chance for any excess damage to carry over when the zombie rises. e.g. PKr shoots Bob(5hp) for 10 damage, PKr gets overkill bonus Bob rises with (45hp) (55hp w/body-building) Now this seems to be acceptable with most weapons (especially if they have a Flak and Body-building) however the Fuel/Flare combo on someone with 1 health does raise issues (rise with 21hp) but please discuss... There is also the possibility of making this cross-class but I don't think zombies enjoy hindering zombies!

Discussion (Zombie Hunting)

Seems quite good, the numbers of different situations would be good as it's late and i cbf figuring them out. I've defo seen the overkill thing elsewhere but it might just have been on this page. Do the numbers! --x o x o 14:29, 16 September 2008 (BST)

Will never pass because you have just suggested a permanent headshot-1AP. With the added possibility of 10AP to stand up for zombies with all the skills if I read this correctly. Just that means dead in the water to me. I would vote kill. - User:Whitehouse 14:55, 16 September 2008 (BST)

You haven't nerfed survivor AP reduction possibilities at all. You just increased it. Taking away a definite 5AP reduction from the zombie hunters abilities, and replacing it with a (on average) 2,5AP reduction is not a nerf if there is an innate 4AP reduction. You just increased headshots AP reductive ability from -5AP to -6,5AP (note: numbers here are without the 1AP required to stand without being headshoted). The only good thing about the suggestion is that newbies would benefit from -2,5AP rather than a -5AP from headshots. But the second they get ankle grab they are losing 4AP to regular survivors, and 6,5 to zombie hunters. Sound like an improvement to you?

And your overkill is a survivor buff. Because only survivors can get high enough damage to make the overkill effective. I can't vote keep for this. - User:Whitehouse 15:12, 16 September 2008 (BST)

So if I understand your views on the headshot change your ok with how it benefits new zombies but not how the more experienced zombies are in? It is actually intended to ease the effects of headshot on new zeds but not weaken it overall.

numbers for those who do not want to work out the new maths

With headshot

12.5AP avg without ankle grab (15/10)
7.5AP avg loss with ankle grab (10/5)

Without Headshot (ZKill)

10AP without ankle grab
5AP with ankle grab

I know the overkill is a survivor buff, if zombies could use it though it would not be a good thing, whatever a zombie kills becomes a zombie, in siege situations, why would they want a zombie to stand up with less than full health, that's something survivors benefit from? I've been trying to think of zombie equivalents of hunter skills, you can't have something that boosts a freshly killed zombies as ZKilling would run rampant, reviving is the only other place I can conceive and 1/2HP+Infection does that already. --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:14, 16 September 2008 (BST)

Well yes, I like the idea of helping newbies. I'm all for that, but the fact that those newbies become fully fledged zombies one day, and then find that life isn't that much easier is kind of a deal breaker from my point of view. Quite some time ago I thought that it would be wise to reduce overall standup costs (unaffected by headshot and ankle grab) to 5AP. That would help newbies, and would not affect the older zombies. Didn't work for some reason. Anyhow, point is I want to help the newbies, but not punish the older zombies (and the newbies that will one day become older zombies). - User:Whitehouse 16:36, 16 September 2008 (BST)

Barricade Creaking Effectiveness

Timestamp:	Tansiv 18:47, 15 September 2008 (BST)
Type:	Creaking Effectiveness
Scope:	Barricade attacking zombies
Description:	Over the past few days, while bashing on survivor defenses, I was thinking on this suggestion. Every now and then, when attacking a barricade, I get the useless creaks 3-4 times in a row, along with the usual "You smash at the barricade." My suggestion is that if an undead gets three creaks in a row, the barricades go down a level. But if it collapses before then, the number of creaks needed is reset to zero. Flavor would be easy, "Your glancing blow knocks down a loosened part of the barricade." Three creaks in a row is generally uncommon, so I hope the multiply by a billion shouldn't be too much of a factor.

Discussion (Barricade Creaking Effectiveness)

Don't kill the useless flavor. We've all learned to live with it. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 21:05, 15 September 2008 (BST)

I actually support this. It's a good way to help the newbie zombies gain that extra XP. Chaplain Drakon Macar 22:16, 15 September 2008 (BST)

How about if you hit a barricade and it creaks you get a 50% chance to gain 1XP, that would help the newbie zombies and not have an effect on higher level zombies? --Kamikazie-Bunny 13:30, 16 September 2008 (BST)

They're just flavour. If you'd rather have the creaks gone and replaced with the plain message then suggest that, don't fuck with cade probability without good reason.--x o x o 08:43, 16 September 2008 (BST)

A profile option to disable them, perhaps? It's not like anyone else can hear you creaking against the barricades. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 10:14, 16 September 2008 (BST)

The only possible alteration I could conceive of for barricade creaking is for it to be audible indoors. Otherwise... you hit the barricade, it creaks, and slides right back into place. Changing it to the "three in a row" would force the server to keep track of everyones' actions, whether or not they were actively attacking barricades - how would it know the difference? - which is impractical. And why would three creaks in a row imply some sort of damage? My door creaks sometimes when I open it, but nothing comes of it. Hearing it creak can be a tease, but it doesn't really matter. --Blackboard 10:39, 16 September 2008 (BST)

Talking should not cost an AP

Timestamp:	Mousey
Type:	AP Modification
Scope:	Mostly Survivors
Description:	Basically i don't think talking should cost an AP.Lets talk some sense, Reloading a gun, walking, searching for stuff, can be considered quite a task in a real life situation.But maybe its just me, but i think that talking isn't that tiring compared to others.Look at Al Gore or even Former President Clinton, they can speak for at LEAST 30 minutes, how many words is that?Some people i think would rather have an infinite time to talk, plus they have a limit of 160 clicks of the website.Removing the 160 click limit when chatting wouldn't really matter i guess, since talking doesn't really affect the flow of gameplay.Last but not least, sometimes its just plain rude that when a conversation is getting along, and suddenly the person you are speaking to, or you, suddenly can't finish because you ran out of AP.

Discussion (Talking should not cost an AP)

You do realise this can't be done unless we want to increase the traffic and server load? Maintaining this game costs Kevan money, this suggestion would probably increase said costs. - User:Whitehouse 11:51, 15 September 2008 (BST)

If this was introduced i'd use my ip free character to spam everyone into oblivion just to prove a point.--x o x o 12:17, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Donations don't make your character immune to IP hit lmits; thy just give you 300 IP hits for that character. Real spammers would just use proxies.

Swiers 19:55, 15 September 2008 (BST)

This is not DnD, Speaking is not a free action. Communication is one of the key survivor advantages over zombies, you shouold not get it for free. Also, massive server load issues. Some people, such as myself, can and have ranted for hours in game and are limited only by our ap. Do not remove that restriction, or i shall launch such a rant, and the only way to shut me up will be to PK me. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:22, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Server load issues and spam issues. Trenchcoaters will spam the server to hell. Linkthewindow 12:24, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Also, dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:33, 15 September 2008 (BST)

Nothing for free. Zombie communication take 2, 3, 4 times as much AP to get the message across. Stop whinging and enjoy the very powerful communications tools survivors have. --WanYao 06:29, 16 September 2008 (BST)

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TalkingIsAFreeAction --Tselita 21:24, 20 September 2008 (BST)

Suggestions up for voting

A Fairer Headshot

Moved to Suggestion talk:20080916 Headshots remove HP, not AP as suggestion is up for voting. Aeon17x 01:51, 16 September 2008 (BST)

Unstable Barricades

Moved to Suggestion_talk:20080925_Barricade_Instability as suggestion is up for voting. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 05:13, 25 September 2008 (BST)

@@ Line 564: / Line 564: @@
 http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TalkingIsAFreeAction --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 21:24, 20 September 2008 (BST)
-----
-===Crutches (Or Crutch)===
-{{suggestionNew
-|suggest_time=[[User:Alex1guy|Alex1guy]] 20:04, 15th September 2008 (BST)
-|suggest_type=New Item
-|suggest_scope=Survivors (Maybe Zombies)
-|suggest_description=Just something simple. A crutch, would be found in hospitals and be a basic meele weapon, like a hockey stick or something. I mean come on, they're peiecs of metal, they are the same an iron pipe. They could also make cool Role Play items.
-|discussion=|}}
-====Discussion Crutches(Or Crutch)====
-{{SNRV|3}}
-Phale.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 09:16, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-The only problem I see with this is diluting search rates in hospitals. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:34, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-:Hi Iscariot :) The search rate dilution in hospitals could be fixed by having newspaper/scalpel search rates proportionally decreased at the same time as crutches are introduced so that it doesn't affect FAKs (if that's your only problem that you'd have with this) --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 20:48, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-::Search rate "dilution" is a myth... Turn crutches off on your settings and nothing will change. Leave it on, and you just get AP-wasting extra spam, it does ''nothing'' to anything else. In event even, I don't like this idea enough to support its inclusion, it's just not interesting enough. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:31, 16 September 2008 (BST)
-:::Turning items off on your settings doesn't take it out of the items searched. It just means you don't keep it when you find it. '''These are the items your character is currently in need of. If you untick a box, your character will automatically discard that item if they find one while searching a building.'''  Search rate dilution is very real. Think about it this way - you have a drawer of red, white and blue socks. If you add in green, purple, and black ones your odds of getting a blue sock go down.  But you are right that this is a damn dull idea.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:41, 16 September 2008 (BST)
-::::Search dilution ''is'' a myth... Assume: I have a 10% chance of finding Item A and a 15% chance of finding Item B. I add Item C, with a 10% find rate. Item C's find rate has ''no impact'' on the find rate of the other items: we now have the following find rates: A = 10%, B = 15%, C = 10%. The only thing that changes is that you find stuff, in general, more often. This is how I approach all new items and search rates... If a new item is added like the socks, sure, you're correct, obviously. But I never assume that's how it works; ergo, using my way it makes ''no difference'' to the old items' search rates. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:07, 18 September 2008 (BST)
-:::::Sorry, but how does [[Bargain_Hunting]]'s 25% search rate increase work with that, WanYao?  Is it distributed across the items available in that Mall store?  Or does it increase the overall likelihood of a successful search, with the subject of that search determined by the relative search likelihoods between items?  To work from DCC's example, is the search rate the likelihood of finding a sock in the sock drawer, or is it the likelihood of finding the sock drawer among all the other clothes drawers in the first place?
-:::::Another thing to note is that if Item C's find rate had ''no impact'' on the find rate of other items, it is conceivable that you would find multiple items in a single search.  There is a correlation between search rates.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}19:36, 18 September 2008 (BST)
-:::[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] – to the best information available, that is incorrect. According to the research at [[Search Odds#Summary|Search Odds]], the chance to find an item and what that item is are determined via  separate chances, i.e. when you hit {{udspan|1=<span style="color:#c00; background:#fff; padding:2px 0px; margin:0px; font-size:80%; border-width:2px">Search</span>}} in a lit PD, you have a 25% chance to find ''an item, any item available''; if you find ''an item'', you have '''k%''' chance to find a pistol clip, '''f%''' chance to find a flak jacket, and so on. Does nobody do even the most basic research any more? {{User:Revenant/Sig}} 01:42, 19 September 2008 (BST)
-::::Ok... then if that is case, Rev... the "myth" is confirmed... and I stand humbly (yeah right!) corrected. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:45, 19 September 2008 (BST)
-:::::Gah, edit conflict... anyways, actually the myth was the unsubstantiated story, and has been debunked once again. <tt>:P</tt> Now what was I adding again? Ah yes... <br/>'''TL;DR: search rate dilation is very real, [[Search Odds#Summary|these guys]] did the maths.'''{{User:Revenant/Sig}} 01:52, 19 September 2008 (BST)
-If/when the other weapons are made more useful, then maybe this would be something to consider.  But the game is already cluttered with useless clutter weapons nobody uses in the first place.-[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:00, 16 September 2008 (BST)
-Also, you seem to be new so I'll tell you this ISN'T a suggestion, it is a "lets add this!", which isn't the same thing.  A suggestion has stats we can dicuss.  What is the damage?  What is the encumberance?  What are the search rates?  Are they ONLY found in hospitals?  That sort of thing.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 07:00, 16 September 2008 (BST)
-:The crutch would probably serve the same function as the fencing foil, the cricket bat, and the pool cue, which is nothing at all, unless you're a level 1 consumer. --[[User:JaredV|JaredV]] 01:02, 17 September 2008 (BST)
-::The pool cue actually is slightly better than the other useless weapons, except it breaks after about 5 uses. If it was like the pool cue but -didn't- break, then the crutch would have a use... but then people would say no to it because it would nerf the pool cue :) --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 02:55, 17 September 2008 (BST)
-----
-===Recognize who broad casted the message on the Radio (Bad title, I know)===
-{{suggestionNew
-|suggest_time=[[User:Mianthadore|Mianthadore]] 02:48, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-|suggest_type=View
-|suggest_scope=Everybody with a radio (Human and Zombie alike)
-|suggest_description=Well, it's simple. When you hear a radio message broad casted by somebody in your contacts list, you will 'recognize' their voice.<br>
-It will look something like this...<br>
-.70 MHz: ''"Uh, Hiya?"''(0 seconds ago) You recognize PlayerX's voice <br>
-Why? First off, it helps groups who choose not to metagame get there messages around quickly without the risk of receiving Falsified information (eg. an enemy pretending to be a member of their group). <br>
-Secondly, It helps identify Radio Spammers. <br>
-I think I Spelled recognize wrong, so please disregard that error if I have.
-|discussion=|}}
-====Discussion (Recognize who broad casted the message on the Radio)====
-{{SNRV|1}}
-We already have it in [[PR_Equipment_Change#Recognize_Contacts_Over_Radio|Peer-Reviewed]]. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 03:11, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-Dupe? {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 06:59, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-Yeah, epic dupe. Been suggested many times before [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 07:15, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-I'd find you all the reasons this fails.. But Kevan purged the history.. I'm thinking this should make it to Frequently Suggested.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 00:05, 16 September 2008 (BST)
-----
-===Raise Ruin Initial Repair Cost to 5 AP===
-{{suggestionNew
-|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 23:53, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-|suggest_type=Skill upgrade
-|suggest_scope=Decaying buildings, zombies with Ransack, survivors with Construction and a Toolbox
-|suggest_description=It costs zombies 5 aps of Ransack to ruin a building, which means they performed five actions to ruin a building. But survivors only need one action to undo the zombie's five actions. When you think about it, it doesn't make sense; how can survivors perform in one action what it took zombies five actions to do? Zombies are slow, but not that slow.
-Besides, in a siege if the building that is ruined is taken back the same day it was ruined, the survivor side actually gains 4 action points, as it cost the Horde 5 action points to ruin the building, but the Survivor side only lost 1 little ap to repair it.
-When a building is captured (ruined) by a zombie, it should cost a few aps for survivors to take it back (just like it costs zombies aps to take a building they've lost in the form of having to destroy barricades), and 1 ap just seems too meager.
-I know you'll have to clear the zombies to retake a building, but zombies also have to clear the survivors as well to retake a building
-|discussion=|}}
-====Discussion (Raise Ruin Initial Repair Cost to 5 AP)====
-{{SNRV|1}}
-I agree (it always used to take shorter to make a mess of my room than to tidy it up again), but I'm sure this has been suggested. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 00:48, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-Good idea.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 02:54, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-Shrug. There was a time i would have agreed with this, considering ruin goes up so high it seems somewhat unneccessary. I mean the other day i spent 106ap repairing what took a zombie 5ap. If you want the survivors to have to spend 5ap or more to repair the building, hold it - simple.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 03:17, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:It did not just cost that zombie 5 AP to ruin it, fuckhead. It didn't instantly get to 106 AP. That zombie had to keep survivors out of it FOR OVER 3 MONTHS. Your little just "hold it" comment is insulting because you know it isn't that easy.  Unless the building fell into a worm hole and only re-appeared on the map the day you saved it that zombie had to actively protect that building and the ones around it, too. I can't speak for the Eastonwood Ferals, but I can certainly tell you that the Dead have spent a hell of a lot more than just 5 AP to keep DH ruined.  Even when the ruin update wasn't in play it wasn't fair that 1 AP could undo 5-6. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 06:26, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-::Yeah, i'm, aware of that and completely agree. Ruin should be able to go indefinitely high if the zombies involved put the work into holding it. On the other hand i don't think the price should automatically start at 5ap.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:56, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:::What's wrong with 5 AP? That is less than a syringe. It will take a week before the ruin gets over a CR amount of AP. So, what's wrong with starting it at 5? --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 11:15, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-::::Nothing's wrong with 5ap, but considering if i don't get onto the ruin quickly it will blow out to more than 5 in a matter of days, i have to be carrying a 16% toolbox to be able to repair in the first place AND any zombies have to be killed at a minimum cost of 10ap (as well as the 7ap i spent searching for that syringe and the 1 ap i spent scanning) it's a fairly ap intensive operation. IMO it's just not an aspect of the game that needs changing.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:54, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:::::I AM SO SICK OF SURVIVORS WHINING ABOUT THE FUCKING 16% TOOLBOX. You only need one.  That leaves you 84% encumbrance to do whatever the fuck you want with. 84  84  84   84   84   84   84   84 !!!!! Not to mention that you CAN GO OVER 100% AND STILL MOVE!  Once again - the weapons, FAKS, needles, dildos, cum rags, furry porn, and NAMBLA pamphlets that you survivors all carry only take up under 6% each (and that's just shotguns! - every thing else is around 2%)!  Oh and ''any zombies have to be killed'' you mean the ones that are actively keeping you out of that building spending '''their AP''' ? You think they should cut you a break on repairing? --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 06:34, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-:::::::No, i don't think repairing survivors should be cut a break on repairing, however i don't think it should be made any more difficult either.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:33, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-It hasn't been suggested to my knowledge, Indeed, And Yes, Hold it. Still, In a siege.. Maybe it should see voting? {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 05:07, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-This has been suggested before the update. Before I'd have agreed with you, however it's not a pure AP deficit, as most survivors aren't carrying toolboxes when clearing buildings, it doesn't matter that trenchie A eliminates all the zombies in a building if he can't repair it himself. That allows the ruin cost to increase through stupidity. If the survivors ever got their act together, then maybe this would need resuggesting. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 11:28, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:While I don't want to take credit away from the zombies for their accomplishments, fact is that the super-high ruin costs are mainly the result of mass survivor laziness and stupidity. ''Survivors abandoned the NW'', and with no good reason -- not after June or July... And, while toolboxes are not ''that'' bad, they are the penalty survivors pay for making repairs. And that 16% does matter... And, fact is, this suggestion is already in effect, to some degree -- because many ruins ''do'' last several days, there are very few 1 AP repairs anymore, not where there is a large zombie presence. Thus, this is unneeded.  --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:32, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:Yes, Iscariot is right. This has been suggested various times. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 21:34, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-::I repeat: ''I AM SO SICK OF SURVIVORS WHINING ABOUT THE FUCKING 16% TOOLBOX. You only need one.  That leaves you 84% encumbrance to do whatever the fuck you want with. 84  84  84   84   84   84   84   84 !!!!! Not to mention that you CAN GO OVER 100% AND STILL MOVE!''  That 16% is nothing. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 06:34, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-:::Who was "whining"? What I said was it makes a difference. That's all. Sheeeeeeeeeesh, have a beer, man. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:57, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-:::16% equals 240 (potential) points of damage in pistol clips. On average that's enough to kill two flakked 60 HP zombies. That's hardly nothing. No, it's not crippling either, all my survivors carry one around, but it reduces one of the biggest advantages survivors have; being able to stock up. --[[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> 10:28, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-::::Wan, that was just a C&P. I wasn't saying you were whining. '''Midianian''', you don't hear zombies bitching about the encumbrance rate of the ... the...  you know ... that thing... that thing that makes them have an attack that does 5 points of damage. Oh WAIT! THERE ISN'T ANYTHING! There's not a damn thing a zombie can do that will make its' attack do 5 points of damage. Damage to characters, I might add, that can easily get body building and a flak jacket.  So don't expect me to cry about your fucking 16%. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:49, 16 September 2008 (BST)
-:::::It's really quite simple; 16% &ne; 0%. 16% = 16%. It's nothing to cry about, but it '''is''' an inconvenience. --[[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> 18:36, 16 September 2008 (BST)
-::::::Simple is: you don't want to be inconvenienced by the 16%?  - play a zombie. :D--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:39, 17 September 2008 (BST)
-Before the ruin update, I'd have backed this 100%.  But I'm with the folks saying it's unneeded at this point.  I hardly ever see 1AP ruins either. --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 22:08, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:Aye, agreed. Any building which has just been ruined is likely to have a stack of zombies inside for long enough to increase the effective repair AP cost, if not the cost to click the "Repair Building" button. IMO, the mechanic of escalating repair costs makes the status quo balanced. Not ''exactly the same'', as some people seem to think balance requires, but '''balanced''' nonetheless.{{User:Revenant/Sig}} 07:01, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-It IS an alright idea, but its just not necessary. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 08:28, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-----
-===Breakable, Repairable Door Handles===
-{{suggestionNew
-|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 23:53, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-|suggest_type=Environment interaction, barricade
-|suggest_scope=All, especially low-level zombies
-|suggest_description=This is a suggestion to essentially allow zombies without Memories of Life to spend Action Points to attempt to break open doors by smashing at the door until the door handle breaks. (If they can smash generators, why not door handles?).
-Door handles will take 3 hits to smash (as they're not as strongly built as generators).
-When the door handle is broken/destroyed, another door handle must be used, along with a toolbox and the construction skill, to fix the door. Search rate: it shouldn't be too hard to find door handles in mall hardware stores, warehouses (it just so happens one of the things they were warehousing was door handles for hardware stores), and factories could have a decent search rate, junkyards might also yield some door handles. They'd have a 2% encumberance. But why do this? Because it adds to the realism and variety, and not being able to open doors to get at your food is frustrating. It would cost maybe 6-12 aps to break a door but at least it would give you a chance to feast. And it would not be much of a threat to survivors who would either sleep in barricaded buildings or be Hiding In Plain Sight if the whole 'burb is ruined, in which case leaving the door open is a wise choice.
-|discussion=|}}
-====Discussion (Breakable, Repairable Door Handles)====
-{{SNRV|1}}
-Bad idea.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 02:54, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:Suggestions that try to bypass MoL have been made many many times. Iscariot will rail at you about the duping later I'm sure. And making the mall a source for another damn item is what we are trying to avoid. The cost of the AP to break a door seems to be the same as taking down 2 levels of barricades at least. How is that fair? --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 02:58, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-::As DCC says, this is a fairly massive dupe, also adding this new item is going to serious dilute search rates for the actual items survivors do need. If we dilute them the idiots will just go and get more clips and the stupidity will continue. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 11:23, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-Just allow babah zombies to smash through a door as if it were a regular barricade. Simple. Everything else is not KISS-y. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:35, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-I would probably support zombies being able to bust through doors at 10% of normal barricade attack chance but frankly i think the whole mechanic needs a re-evaluation which is beyond the scope of acceptable changes to the game at this point!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 20:48, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-Truthfully, does not make sense. The door frame is much more likely to break then the knob. and i doubt that people would be able to fix the knob that easily. impractical. stop posting 5 ideas a day, and just wait and work on the basic logic of these things. - [[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 21:55, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-----
-===New Zombie Skill: Eviscerate===
-{{suggestionNew
-|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 23:53, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-|suggest_type=Skill
-|suggest_scope=Zombies and their victims
-|suggest_description=A special clawing attack with a 10% accuracy penalty (40% with maxed claws) where the zombie attempts to claw at the victim's insides to get a taste of those delicious, nutritious innards. Can only be used on survivors with less than 25 health and deals 3 damage, but also lowers the amount of healing that survivor will get from First Aid Kits down to 5, even with First Aid Training, until the survivor gets healed in a powered hospital by someone with the "Surgery" skill. This is because first aid kits are not very effective for treating injuries to internal organs. So someone healing the victim would get a message indicating they heal some of the damage but can't heal the internal bleeding without surgical instruments.
-And zombies would get a message saying something like: ''You claw at xxxx's insides for 3 damage, causing internal injuries.'' or just ''You claw at xxxx's insides for 3 damage'' if the victim has already gotten its guts clawed up. Zombies with Scent Blood will  see an asterisk along side either the victim's name or the victim's displayed hps to show he's already been gutted. Victims will see ''A zombie gutted you for 3 damage! You've sustained serious internal injuries.''
-This would make the Surgery skill, and powerd-up hospitals more useful. And it is realistic, as zombies don't always wait for their food to die before digging in.
-The effects of evisceration would continue even after death. But I should also point out that FAKs would still be able to cure eviscerated survivors of their infections, and this skill would not really harm low-level survivors who don't have First Aid Training and can already heal for only 5hp anyways.
-|discussion=|}}
-====Discussion (Eviscerate)====
-{{SNRV|1}}
-Crappy Idea--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 02:56, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:The main problem is that powered up resource buildings tend to be overcaded by scared stupid survivors.  This would hurt the new players that don't have free running. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:03, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:Yeah, what the user above me said. Also very few players have surgery (it's a crappy skill for medics (limits XP growth) I don't completly hate the suggestion, just needs quite a bit of work first. [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 07:06, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-This is overpowered.  Its cool you tried to make Surgery and hospitals more important, but beyond what DCC said, it completely negates a skill and that is rarely a good idea.  Going from XP view, few players would want to get First Aid as it is, let along Surgery since BOTH limit XP growth (and I'd say First Aid does more than Surgery).--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 08:33, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:This is a myth. This First Aid slows down growth thing... Without First Aid you burn through FAKs twice as fast and have to go searching for them again. With search rates just under 50% in a mall, and if you're searching from a Hospital way less.... you're shooting yourself in the foot by doing twice the searches without First Aid. Unless you ''like'' running back for FAK scrounges every day and a half. No, First Aid is full of win from an AP efficiency POV -- and even babah harmanz need to conserve their AP. And, trust me, I learned this the hard way -- in practice with a new alt... not based on some abstract and oversimplified and decontextualised math formula that doesn't really work in the real world. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:04, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-::Wan, you were actually healing to you know, heal and RP. These people are talking about grinding out levels. In which case, the only good skill is Bargain Hunting or whatever it is called.  That way you can find more FAKs.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:54, 16 September 2008 (BST)
-We should not be penalising survivors for moving into dead zones. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 11:29, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-Pointless over-complication that solves no "problem" and doesn't add much to the fun... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:36, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-Ewww....i can barely understand this stupid idea. All these other people are right, especially wan ;) --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:57, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-Way too complicated and does nothing good. -[[User:Tylerisfat|tylerisfat]] 21:52, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-----
-===Permanent Ruin===
-{{suggestionNew
-|suggest_time=[[User:Janine|Janine]] 17:18, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-|suggest_type=Ruin Change
-|suggest_scope=Survivors who repair and Zombies who ruin.
-|suggest_description=After decaying for months on end, ruined buildings have become unrepairable. Buildings that have reached over 100 ap to repair are ruined completely. The buildings can still be barricaded as normal buildings would, but search rates and the inability to free run would remain the same.
-Hopefully this would spur survivors into repairing deserts and zombies into actively protecting and defending ruins.
-|discussion=|}}
-====Discussion (Permanent Ruin)====
-{{SNRV|1}}
-I don't think permanent ruin is a good ides, all it takes is an organised group of zombies to perma-ruin the Necrotechs one at a time until it ends up like monroeville is. There's is also no balance for this zombie bonus, imagine you could perma-barricade a building, zombies would be unable to get to survivors and probably go [[On_Strike|on strike]] (again). --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:31, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-:Unfortunately, Kamikazie is right. A big horde could travel round the city, perma ruining buildings.UPDATE: Harmanz already spend too much time moaning about ruin, this won't pass, and the brainless harmanz would have  shit fit.--[[User:drawde|<span style="cursor:crosshair;color:Black">'''Drawde'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:drawde| <span style="cursor:crosshair;color: Blue">'''Talk To Me!'''</span>]] [[DORIS| <span style="cursor:crosshair;color: Black">'''DORIS'''</span>]] [[Red Rum|<span style="cursor:crosshair;color: Red">Red Rum</span>]] [[Ridleybank Resistance Front|<span style="cursor:crosshair;color: Green">Defend Ridleybonk!</span>]] [[The Know Nothings|<span style="cursor:crosshair;color: Brown">I know Nothing!</span>]]</sup> 17:36, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-::I must admit as a survivor I do dislike the new ruin mechanics, requiring more effort with time is fine but expecting me to not play for two days and risk death for one building is too much. I play one d/n character per city and I don't meta-game, as a survivor I try to survive so dying for a building goes against that. If there was a +100AP zombie action I'd only use it when I knew I wouldn't be back for the next few days. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:54, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-A [[Eastonwood|suburb full of 100AP ruins]] is enough of a perma-ruin in itself. --[[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> 17:57, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-:It's thinking like yours and Kamikiaze that makes those 100 ap ruined buildings in the first place. Either fix it or stop whining about it. And buildings could never be "permanently barricaded" as buildings would need to be cleared of zombies to have barricades built and those barricades couldn't be above VSB or survivors couldn't use said building.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 17:59, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-::Not whining, and I '''am''' fixing them. Just woke up today from a two day hibernation period. So, kindly shut up and fuck off. --[[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> 18:07, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-:::Not repairing +100AP buildings and not repairing buildings at all are completely different scenarios, I don't tend to repair buildings that cost 50AP or more, but I do repair everything else where practical. Also, a little update for you, you can access VSB+ buildings with a little known skill called [[Free_running#List_of_Military_skills|Free Running]] --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:23, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-::::YOU CAN'T FREE RUN INTO RUINED BUILDINGS. DUR. Secondly, I just assume that everyone who replies on a Ruin suggestion is either whining about the mechanics, which you did by suggesting that 100 ap is already permanent, or somebody who is tired of the people whining about the mechanics.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 18:37, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-:::::I'm sorry if I misunderstood you when you said ''"buildings would need to be cleared of zombies to have barricades built and those barricades couldn't be above VSB or survivors couldn't use said building"'' I was thinking of perma-ruin Or Perma-cade not perma-ruin AND perma-cade. I think the new mechanic has a bit of a Marmite effect on people, they either love it or hate it. --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 18:58, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-:::::You should pay more attention. I didn't say that a 100 AP ruin is permanent, I said that '''a suburb full of 100 AP ruins''' is pretty much equivalent to having perma-ruined buildings. This wouldn't ecourage survivors to repair buildings, this would only encourage them to '''permanently abandon suburbs''' that have a number of perma-ruined buildings, which is already quite superbly achieved with the current ruin mechanics. This would only make the situation worse. --[[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> 19:33, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-::::::A suburb full of 100 AP ruins is not the equivalent to having permenantly ruined buildings. Sheesh. It's just not -- '''because they can be fixed'''. Daker is no longer in 90+ range all round because '''people have been there fixing the ruins'''. Which they should have been doing before.... but they weren't, because they pretty much decided to '''permenantly abandon those suburbs'''. But that was a player choice, not a game mechanic choice.
-::::::In any event, this suggestion is a bad idea because it's the polar opposite of those ruin nerfs, therefore it's grossly unbalanced. The game should never force away a dynamic environment. Ever. You should have as much control over the environmment as your actions, your coordination with others -- in conjuction with that of your opponents -- creates. Anything else is very, very unfun. This suggestion is unbalanced, ''and'' anti-fun. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 21:25, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-NOOOOO! Don't take away my ability to repair lovely 100+ ruins!! It wouldn't spur survivors to repair anything -- there's too many lazy people out there.  All it would do is frustrate the handful of us who find it fun to go into areas that no one else seems to care about, and fix the place.  Why would you ever WANT there to be an area of the map that's stuck permanently one way or another?  That's like saying...oh...I dunno.  That if survivors manage to keep a building unruined for three months, zombies should never be able to ruin it.  NO! --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 22:31, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-Permanent effects are way too radical and will never work. When a building or suburb is ruined for good, survivors will compeltely ignore it as there would be no hope in recovering the area and thus it would have no use for them. Zombies would then ignore it as well, since there are no brains there. So you would effectiveley be destroying sections of the Malton map. You could just as well have said "after 100 ap a building/a suburb of buildings gets deleted off of the map" it would have done the same thing as no one will play in those perma-ruined areas. ---[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 00:02, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:Oh wait, I read your suggestion wrong (or more accurately, barely read it at all); perma-ruined buildings could still be cadable, etc. so it wouldn't be that bad. But still, as it's permanent, eventually we'll end up with all/most of Malton perma-ruined. And if you can cade perma-ruined buildings, it seems quite illogical that you can't cade non-perma ruins --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 01:24, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:Will be too unbalancing for survivors. Even though a 100ap ruin is (pretty much) permanent-making that official will just piss off survivors. [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 07:08, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-::100+ AP ruins are NOT fucking permanent. Get off your ass and fix some. Sheesh. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 13:38, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:::I meant permament in that way-no-one is ever going to get off their ass and fix them. It's not worth it.[[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 22:33, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:::Oh i'm sorry...did i just hear someone say J3D's awesome? Coz he totes is eleven.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:45, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-::::And not like the age 11, like the number.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:46, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:::::Simple logic fails to register with this linkthewindow person. Therefore, I'm done with this suggestion. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 08:07, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-Even as a hardcore zombie, I am not for this. I don't think we need anything that will effectively make the map smaller by taking buildings out of play for one side. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:56, 16 September 2008 (BST)
-----
-===Circus===
-{{suggestionNew
-|suggest_time=[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 16:58, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-|suggest_type=Building
-|suggest_scope=New addition to Malton/any new city!
-|suggest_description=
-The circus is a new building that the residents of Malton (or any city it gets put in) can visit, visitors can except to see the finest gathering of clowns, jugglers and sword swallower's this side of quarantine, in addition to these magnificent acts are terrifying new additions that transcend the very boundaries of life and death. If the show happens to unsettle you feel free to purchase one of our cuddly toys to keep you company as the night draws in! (New additions to Urban Dead have been bulleted).
-'''Circus'''
-:Large Building (2x1)
-:No doors: but can be barricaded.
-:Internal descriptions:
-::* Unpowered: "The big top lies in darkness, "
-::* Powered: "Coloured spotlights highlight the empty ring."
-'''Items'''
-:Fencing Foil
-:Mobile Phone
-:Tool box
-:Stuffed Animals
-:*Juggling Balls (novelty/unique item) (Survivors can either give their balls to another survivor or zombie, or if none are present, juggle them themselves (doesn't remove it from their inventory). Despite having 0% encumbrance, only one set of balls can be held at a time.)
-'''Clothes'''
-:Face
-::*A big red nose
-:Head
-::*a bright <red/green> wig
-::a <black> top hat
-:Neck
-::*a <polka dot> tie
-:Shirt
-::a <white/red/orange/yellow/green/blue/pink> T-shirt
-:jacket
-::a dark red waistcoat
-:Trousers
-::*a pair of baggy trousers
-::a pair of <black/white> trousers
-:Boots
-::*a pair of oversized shoes
-::a pair of <black> boots
-|discussion=|}}
-====Discussion (Circus)====
-{{SNRV|1}}
-Too long. And silly, anyway. There are so many other new kinds of buildings that would make more sense than this. And, circuses are mobile, by definition. And, all the animals are dead. At least, in theory. And, Malton PETA would not approve of the exploitation of the animals. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 21:27, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-:Dude, I swear, the horses are still alive.  And the WTFCentaurs.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}22:00, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-No. Different buildings are needed before this [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 07:10, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:Different buildings?  Like what?  What is needed is to make the CURRENT buildings more useful. 70% of the buildings in Malton are, effectively, useless (and jumps to 82% once you get the unexpendable items).--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 08:40, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-::That what makes many of the current buildings useful. Paradoxically, they are useless-so they make good safehouseses. What I meant is that other buildings should be implemented first for flavor (airports, etc) [[User:Linkthewindow|Linkthewindow]] 22:35, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:::I know that is what you meant.  But the inherent problem with incorporating new buildings is that ALL updates follow linear progression.  What I mean by that is how would a building suddenly become an airport and nobody noticed?  One bulding can't suddenly just become an entirely different building.  I understand the "useless" buildings make good safehouses and the like, but even with all the recent changes, I don't think the game has changed enough from the mall-centered gameplay that has pervaded the game since the introduction of the two mall skills.  Most survivors, unless I'm mistaken, STILL hang out in the (non-overrun) malls on a relatively permanent basis.  So if we can make the other buildings more useful then "just a safehouse", we wouldn't really need NEW buildings (even if we could incorporate them).  At least not for awhile.--[[User:Pesatyel|Pesatyel]] 03:27, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-Best. suggestion. <big><big>EVAR!</big></big>--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:46, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-::::Whilst some buildings would probably be better to put in first; although I actually want the river. I believe your meant to keep suggestions independent, saying X should be before Y isn't appropriate; even if it is logical. As for how it got there, as WanYao mentioned, MOST circuses are mobile, I hope it's not too much of a stretch for the circus to travel into malton, set up and get eaten leaving behind their equipment. Or if Kevin really wanted he could make it a timed event, the circus arrives for two weeks then leaves again! --[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 13:40, 16 September 2008 (BST)
-: I was sure this was a dupe. Its all fine though, apart from people handing me their balls (shivers). --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:41, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-Not sure how to barracade a tent... plus where would it go (unless Malton's quarantine zone expanded) - I do like the clothes though - especially the clown nose. But - I like the airport idea even better if we're suggesting adding new large buildings, especially since airports would have places to get all sorts of stuff in them (guns at security, first aid, fuel cans, newspapers, all sorts of stuff in Lost and Found, etc., and can be barracaded a lot easier than a tent. Zombies outside a tent? Or a single person with a knife outside an EHB-entrance tent? Rip! Barracade ignored. --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 23:12, 16 September 2008 (BST)
-:Huh.  Has anybody ever suggested varying possible barricade levels for different buildings?  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}03:23, 17 September 2008 (BST)
-::What do you mean? --[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 13:42, 17 September 2008 (BST)
-:Airports would have to have a metal detector barricade that all characters must spend AP removing their shoes and all items from their pockets. (hope you don't get stuck behind a trenchcoater!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 13:49, 17 September 2008 (BST)
-::Yeah, but they're great places to search for grenade launchers and wide variety of Japanese swords. --[[User:Blackboard|Blackboard]] 15:40, 17 September 2008 (BST)
-----
-===Zombie Plant===
-{{suggestionNew
-|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 19:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-|suggest_type=balance change
-|suggest_scope=Survivors, Italian plumbers
-|suggest_description=I propose that after 7 days of a building being ruined, a zombified plant will grow in it and guard it against those pesky survivors. This plant will inhabit and occasionally peek out of the building's plumbing systems to chew at their meals. At higher levels of decay the plant will grow big enough to be able to spit fireballs at survivors. Their bites and fireballs will do 50 damage, so than small, meek little survivors with no body building will die in one hit, but big and muscular survivors will need two hits to die - the first one greatly weakening them, and oddly enough, reducing their height by half.
-|discussion=|}}
-====Discussion (Zombie Plant)====
-{{SNRV|1}}
-Not unless we can find flowers which gives us fireballs to shoot at those plants. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 21:24, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-:I 2nd that!--[[User:Kamikazie-Bunny|Kamikazie-Bunny]] 17:01, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-This is a great idea!  (Shhhhhh! zombies come with Kuribo's Shoe as a drop down clothing item but most of us pick combat boots to be fair.)--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 21:55, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-Do want. *'''Starts drooling over the plant, thus it suddenly grows larger..'''* {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 03:41, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-I'd like to have some of those mushrooms you're on. --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 07:35, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-There must now be a template made! "This user supports the addition of Triffids to the game!". Someone go make it, now! -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 08:51, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-: I can't find a good photo.. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 19:36, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-::[http://www.lazydork.com/movies/littleshop.jpg Try this]. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 11:33, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:::If you want a rationale, it isn't very hard to see (no, no, no).  Stop and think it over, pal.  The pic sure looks like Triffids to me.  The pic sure looks like Triffids to me.  The pic suuuuuuure looks like Triiiiiiiffids to meeeeeeeeeeeeee.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}16:00, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:::: I was searching for something a tad more.. Retro, Like Mario? {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 23:49, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:::::Oh my god, don't stop now!  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}01:53, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-::::::lol trolling. Shoo. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 03:01, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-:::::::My first post in this thread paraphrased the musical 'Little Shop of Horrors.'  My second quoted the film 'The Little Shop of Horrors' upon which the musical was based.  The latter, I assure you, is far more retro than Mario.  Incidentally, the second line was delivered by a very young Jack Nicholson.  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}03:12, 15 September 2008 (BST)
-::::::::I always thought the line was "the guy sure looks like plant food to me"? --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 08:58, 16 September 2008 (BST)
-:::::::::Hence "paraphrased."  --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}19:24, 16 September 2008 (BST)
-::::::::::I'm temporarily coming out of haitus to do this... Here.
-::::::::::{{triffids}}
-::::::::::--[[User:Tselita|Tselita]] 23:26, 16 September 2008 (BST)
-Perfect! Just what the game needed to counteract all these demands for ruin nerfs. --{{User:drawde/Sig}} 12:34, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-----
-===No Reading in the Dark===
-{{suggestionNew
-|suggest_time=--[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 00:25, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-|suggest_type=Ruin Change...thing
-|suggest_scope=Poetry loving Survivors
-|suggest_description= This is a pretty small idea, so I'll get this over with. How is it we Can't see dead bodies, see graffiti, or be able to aim as good, yet we can read fine? In Dark buildings, We should not be able to read books/poetry books. It would just fit in with it better.
-First Suggestion, Spam me gently.
-(Also, If someone could get rid of the Keep/Kill thing, thanks. :p)
-|discussion=|}}
-====Discussion (No Reading in the Dark)====
-{{SNRV|4}}
-.....wow...I have nothing snarky to say so I am going to wait for Wan..[[User:DrakonMacar|Chaplain Drakon Macar]] 00:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-Sure, why not --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 02:04, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-Good for both flavour, and a loss of the ability to gain xp in that certain way while more "protected" in a dark building. I'ed keep it.--[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 02:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-This is not a dry run for voting it is for discussion. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 02:59, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-# '''Keep''' - Makes sense to me --{{User:Galaxy125/Sig}}03:27, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-#: {{s|'''Wow''' - are you a mucking foron?  Did you miss the big text that said where the votes "go"? --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:42, 12 September 2008 (BST)}} Non-Author Reply.  {{unsigned|DCC|03:42, 12 September 2008 (BST)}}
-You expect me to flame a good idea like this? Wow, get with the program, mate. See, this is not spam. You therefore have NOTHING to worry about from us alleged "trolls"... It's the suggestion spammers who are the REAL trolls...
-Anywaaaaay... this is a fantastic idea. It's minor, sure, but it addresses an illogic in the game pefectly. Practically an automatic keep. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-:I'm curious. Does anyone still waste AP to read? I stopped after the first few months of playing. Once I realized it wasn't like Moria and the scrolls. I wanted books to summon monsters or something.  --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 15:29, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-::I'll read every once in a while when I don't have anything vitally important to do with my APs. --[[User:JaredV|Jared]]<sup>[[User_talk:JaredV|Talk]] [[Project Welcome|W!]] [[Project Wiki Patrol|P!]]</sup> 17:43, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-:::it used to be advocated as a bona fide "safe" way to level up. sometime pre-dead, i remember a couple of people on Brainstock still seriously advocating reading as a way to level up! insanity. i tried it at first, and realied really quickly how utterly useless it was. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:46, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-[[User:Iscariot/Damon_Young/Culture_Tour|Some of us like reading]]. Also, you want to stop people reading because they can't find dead bodies, but you can accept that they can find a nice and sturdy piece of furniture and add it to the pile in such as way that it structurally strengthens the barricade in the same amount of darkness? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 11:38, 14 September 2008 (BST)
-:Indeed. If there isn't something gnawing on my extremities. "Waste"? Also, I'll look into the remaining Library and Museum. {{User:Dr Cory Bjornson/Sig}} 05:15, 21 September 2008 (BST)
-----
-===Rethinking Ruined Building Decay and Repair===
-{{suggestionNew
-|suggest_time=[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 00:05, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-|suggest_type=Change Skill Effect
-|suggest_scope=Ruinous Zombies, Constructive Survivors
-|suggest_description=Reading the discussion on [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Suggestions#Repair_One_Day.27s_Decay_for_3AP Repair One Day's Decay for 3AP] by Deyo, I thought about an alternative way ruined buildings could work that might leave both breathing and breathing-impaired sides happy: Instead of having ruined buildings require 1 AP extra to repair every day, indefinately, I propose making it cost 1 AP to repair per hour (or 0.5 per 30 min.), to a maximum of 45 AP.
-Now Survivor players, you're thinking, ''1 AP per hour? How unfair is this?!'' but with a limit of 45 AP the final bill would never reach astronomical heights and one lone survivor could be able to fully repair it and escape (but you couldn't really barricade it).
-Now Zombie players, you're thinking ''So you're basically debuffing Ransack? '' Yes and No. You read the debuff, here's the buff: because buildings will accumulate repair costs 24x quicker, you'll be able to do a lot more damage by ruining multiple buildings quickly and repeatedly. Survivors will have to work together and retake, cade and repair buildings faster to make sure they don't get overwhelmed with 45 AP ruined buildings (so, it would still take some teamwork to achieve, as only one person repairing leaves the building vulnerable to further ransackings). This will force survivors to keep an even more watchful eye out on their neighbourhoods for ruined buildings.
-As a side-effect, during a siege this will slow Survivor's advancement even more when regaining grounds than the old Ransack skill.
-|discussion=|}}
-====Discussion (Rethinking Ruined Building Mechanics)====
-{{SNRV|1}}
-Another Ruin nerf? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO! Stop suggesting nerfs to ruin. If survivors cared they would go and fix it instead of whining about it and trying to change it through suggestions.'''STOP SUGGESTING RUIN NERFS!'''--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 01:07, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-:Please explain to me how one-AP decay per hour is a nerf? Especially during sieges. --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 01:50, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-::Maybe the fact it only goes to 45? --[[User:H The Person|Nny The Person]] 01:53, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-:::It goes to 45 in '''less than 2 days''', as opposed to '''6 weeks''' with the current system. How many ruined buildings outside of ghost towns do you see with a 45 ap repair bill? I'm surprised, I was actually expecting the harmanz to be against this --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 02:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-::::First of all - '''THIS IS A 5 MINUTE A DAY GAME'''.  Forcing players to have to log in obsessively like you do just to keep a building from reaching your ungodly 45 AP in less than 2 days is stupid. Second, the ghost towns have such high repair costs because the zombies there ACTIVELY keep survivors out, but your idea punishes them by capping the repair cost. Third, nothing in this game (except AP recharging) is BASED IN REAL TIME! The survivors can't even organize when they have DAYS to fix up a repair you expect them to be able to whip up a plan in hours? And fourth, just to be DCC you're a FAG!--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-:::::1)Who said you have to log on more than once a day? 2)Yeah and once someone repairs a building, poof! there goes months of work keeping humans out. With this suggestion, survivors might make more attempts at recovering ghost towns, but it would be almost infinitely easier for zombies to re-ruin restored buildings 3)Decay is already based in real time. My decay system could tick along with the AP system doing 0.5 AP per tick. And yeah, some buildings might get maxed AP but someone can still repair them and AP out safely. Maybe tweak it to 40 AP max if people really can't. 4)what's your point? --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 04:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-:::::Strange, in the other suggestion, you said: ''So for 1 day's worth of AP a survivor can undo a month's worth of damage and still be able to get away. '' Seems you agree with me --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 04:13, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-::::::Seems you can't fucking comprehend.  I was bitching about a suggestion that made repairing severely ruined buildings something that could be done in less than the daily 50 AP. Exactly like this suggestion does!!!  Except this one tries to be "balanced".
-:::::::It says, ''"Hey look, the repair costs are up to 45 AP!!! I mean 45!! That's a lot! That's almost higher than we can count!"''
-:::::::And the smart zombie players are saying, '' "Wow! that's still under your daily 50 AP and still less than a lot of the buildings in the NW. Go fuck yourself"''
-::::::This suggestion is about rushing to a reasonable cap that won't really hurt the survivors at all. Why not say the cap is 75 AP? Why does it have to be under 50? Oh wait, here's why:
-::::::''And yeah, some buildings might get maxed AP but '''someone can still repair them and AP out safely.''' Maybe tweak it to '''40 AP max''' if people really can't.''  (my bold)  That's the part where you admit your suggestion is worthless and are just trying to make it seem like it should appeal to zombies. And if you can't see my point then take your head out of your ass and read it again slowly.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 14:00, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-:::::::Dumb survivor repairs building alone and escapes. Zombie comes back, and ruins uncaded building again. And I said 45 ap, but it could be 40ap, or 50ap. The point is one survivor can't repair and cade at the same time--[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:15, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-:::::::I just pointed out that zombies could "win" the game by going suburb to suburb destroying every NT building, killing people with toolboxes and ruining buildings with toolboxes (unless junkyards have toolboxes) as it would quickly take a large amount of aps to repair everything. And you think this is... a debuff? Over the long term it's a debuff (if the building is ruined for more than 45 days) but we'll be able to mass-ruin everything. And I'll ask once again: how many ruined buildings in populated areas do you see with a 45+ ap repair bill? --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:22, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-::::::::: HAHAHAHAHAHA!  Wow are you new to this game!! The closest anyone has come to "winning" is when The Dead (led and) inspired all the other hordes to kick the shit out of humans and get the population of survivors down to 39% (by mostly killing every mall almost simultaneously ironically) and if this ruin update had been in play then survivors would be an endangered species now. You can ask your question all you want - it doesn't mean anything. I could ask how many repaired buildings do you see in the NW. What's your point?  Oh, when humans are around buildings they can fix them. Brilliant! There are buildings over 45 AP because of the dedication of zombies to keep it that way. Stop trying to change that. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-ANY LIMIT TO RUIN IS EFFECTIVELY A NERF! Keep this in mind. Also this isn't a survivor vs. zombie type of thing. Suggestions should be based on a perceived unbalanced game condition and a remedy. The only thing you suggested is nerfing ruin completely and making deserts impossible for zombies to maintain. I'll leave the rest of this argument about how lazy survivors are and why buildings get 85+ ap repair cost to Wan Yao.--[[User:Janine|Janine]] 02:38, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-:Any limits to ruins cost is effectively a nerf, but any increase in speed of decay is also a nerf against survivors. What I'm basically proposing is changing the way Ransack works, making it a more effective short-term tactic, but less effective long-term tactic. (It seems unfair that you have to wait weeks/months to get a good amount of decay and then in a day with just a few survivors you have to start all over again, why not speed up the process) As for lazy survivors, I don't know honestly... that's why I'm asking, how many ruined buildings in populated suburbs have you seen that has a repair bill of over 45ap? --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 02:57, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-Don't try to fix what ain't broken.  Your super-rapid decay would create far more problems than it attempts to remedy -- and it would eliminate those awesome triple-digit ruins that a lot of us have a blast finding and repairing. NO NO NO. The whole map would start to look the same again. :( --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 05:08, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-::Perhaps Kevan could find a way to make those buildings with repair bills above 45ap unaffected by the change, or at least have their costs stay put--[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:22, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-Oh noes! I just realized there's a huge flaw to this that could lead to the extinction of the harman race: Rampaging mega-hordes could ruin whole suburbs in their path and survivors would have a hard time restoring whole suburbs with factories, NT buildings down. Eventually, everything except junkyards would be ruined.
-But I just thought of something else: Make zombies able to ransack ruined buildings for 1 extra AP per day (max 2 AP decay/day if a zombies perform 1 ransack on the building every day). Because ransack as it is now seems underpowerd to me. Before I post yet another suggestion, anyone got any other ideas for improving ransack? I think I'll wait a little bit in case if I think of something better. Another alternative would be for the starting AP cost to repair ruined buildings to be something like 5 AP --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 05:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-:Holy shit! you finally said something smart! Of course, it was statistically bound to happen (1,00 monkeys typing on typewriters and all that...) ''Another alternative would be for the starting AP cost to repair ruined buildings to be something like 5 AP''  This is a good idea that would balance with the cost of ransack/ruin and doesn't have a shot in hell of passing. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-'''fuck the decay nerfs, already! ALL OF THEM''' and get off your ass and earn yourself one of these funky templates, you lazy whinging wankers... {{Template:ExtremeRepair}} --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:10, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-:And afterwards... '''DON'T LET IT GET THAT BAD!''' Ever again.... It's your own fucking fault the NW is in such bad shape. Up the level of your game, already. Getting out of Creedy or Dowdney might be start in seeing how the game is played by the rest of us. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 15:12, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-::Who are you talking to? Anyways, 100 ap repair bills look sweet, but they take 100 days to accumulate. As soon as the humans take repairing buildings seriously, we'll probably never see 100 ap repair bills again. Not that it matters much as I now think this might be too powerful for zeds --[[User:silisquish|silisquish]] 19:30, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-:::I'm talking to you, and ''everyone'' who keeps suggesting Decay nerfs. Also, considering that still, in spite of all this, only a handful of people are up there dealing with the problem... once we get bored, i am sure it'll be another 4 months before it's done again... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 19:48, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-::::It's not really a nerf as much as it is a modification. Both sides are going to see it as a nerf if they think that way. And how well ruined is the NW anyways? I've been playing only for a few months, never visited those places. The reason why I suggested this in the first place is because I don't think most ruined buildings will be able to decay long enough to seriously deter survivors but I could be totally wrong--[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 20:00, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-:::::The median repair for the NW (until these assholes started suicide runs) was 45 AP with the non resource buildings easily in the high 80s.  Basically, the entire NW started decaying the moment the update was applied. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]'''  <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 22:54, 12 September 2008 (BST)
-::::::The NW was abandoned even more fully than usual post-March of the Dead. As survivors huddled in the East, moaning for zombie nerfs. The update simply reflected in concrete #s what was already happening for a long time. And, DCC's numbers are pretty accurate, I can attest to them from experience. Although, many TRPs were ruined from day one of the update and never repaired, i.e. at 80+ when the "assholes" showed up... '';)'' Showing how utterly ABANDONED the region was. And, thing is, zombie #s have been fairly low -- low enough that there was no need for it to get this bad -- for a long time. Which is why I have no sympathy for ruin whinger. None. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 14:29, 13 September 2008 (BST)
-:::::::Sounds like, despite being able to undo weeks/months of defending a decaying building from humans in a day with a small team of suicide repairers, Ruin is still working the way it's supposed to. So my suggestion is n00bish and redundant --[[User:Silisquish|Silisquish]] 16:36, 13 September 2008 (BST)
 ----