Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.

Further Discussion

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

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Please Read Before Posting

• Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe, or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.
• Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.
• It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.
• With the advent of new game updates, users are requested to allow some time for the game and community to adjust to these changes before suggesting alterations.

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.

The following suggestions are currently on the Overflow page: No suggestions are currently in overflow.

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

Flaming Zombies

Timestamp:	Urgggggggh 19:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Attack expansion.
Scope:	All players and barricades
Description:	Fire spreading from zombies attacked with Flare Gun/Fuel Can combo.

Zombies hit by the Flare Gun/Fuel Can attack combo and are not killed remain on fire (as 'flaming zombies') and are able to spread that fire to surrounding Survivors, Zombies and Barricades with a successful claw attack. Only 1 target can be ignited per successful attack. XP would be awarded at one payment of 2 per ignited survivor and 1 per zombie/barricade.

Flaming Zombies would take fire damage at 1HP per AP spent until dead, upon which they would burn out.

Ignited Survivors would take damage at 1HP per AP spent until dead or extinquished. Survivors would be extinguished by spending AP's rolling on the ground, being 'smothered' by other survivors or sprayed with a fire extinguisher (see below) or dying. The ignited target is unable to spread the fire further.

Ignited Zombies would take damage at 1HP per AP spent until dead and is able to spread the fire as above.

Ignited Barricades are 15% easier to smash down until rebuilt back to Heavy or higher level (non-flammable materials).

This would also require the introduction of Fire Extingishers as a item in most buildings; Fort, Hospital, Fire Station and Police Department 5%; Malls, Clubs, Hotel, Public Houses 3%; everywhere else 1%.

Discussion (Flaming Zombies)

That's actually pretty amusing. =p -- Cheese 23:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of work to implement... Faranya 23:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Read the FAQ's please. This is a multi-suggestion, and shouldn't be made. This is a suggestion that solves no problems, adds nothing to the game, and is over complicated with no gain. - tylerisfat 03:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I did read the FAQ, it has nothing that says this type of action/idea is illegal, but please explain 'multi suggestion'. If this is about the extinguishers then their inclusion here is common sense and part of the effect. And the gain is both flavour and pseudo-realism; a zombie set alight by petrol and wasn't killed by the explosion wouldn't just 'go out', it would continue to burn and everyone knows that fire spreads. Urgggggggh 10:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Tylerisfat means by this being a "multi-suggestion" but the main flaw is that zombies CANNOT put out the flames themselves.--Pesatyel 08:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would they? A zombie wouldn't even notice it was on fire :) I see your point though, would it work better if a survivor could extinguish a flaming zed? Urgggggggh 10:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's more for balance than realism - it seems rather annoying to have to force a zombie to die to put out the fire, especially without Ankle Grab. Regarding the multi-suggestion thing, it's because this tries to introduce too many things at once. Whether this is more than one suggestion lumped together is a bit debatable (I personally think that it is), but at the very least it's certainly too complicated. Plus, I'm pretty sure that fire is one of the things we're not supposed to suggest, especially fire that can spread - the potential for it going out of control is pretty high. -- User:Ashnazg 0452, 30 December 2008 (GMT)

I realized that it was a new event/skill/whatever AND a new item. But I think exceptions like this are a necessity. The only other thing I can think off off the top of my head would be that a flaming person would set off the sprinklers if inside, thereby partially negating the requirement of a fire extinguisher.--Pesatyel 05:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Headshot Text Change

Timestamp:	Pestolence(talk) 22:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Minor text change.
Scope:	All players.
Description:	It's pretty simple: Currently when a zombie is headshot, the text for other players in the same room is "Player 1 killed a zombie." I suggest that it be changed to "Player 1 headshot a zombie." Feedback?

Discussion (Headshot Text Change)

Unneeded. The Player 1 text gives a profile link. Go check if they have Headshot. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe this could be achieved with GreaseMonkey. _■^■ 03:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"I believe this could be acheived with GreaseMonkey" is not a valid reason to reject asuggestion. However, there is no need that I can see to include this information in the game. --WanYao 05:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said I was rejecting it.. I was just saying it could likely be replicated in GreaseMonkey.. _■^■ 06:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why'd you change your sig?? Also I like what iscariot says.--xoxo 06:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I was bored yesterday and had nothing else to do. --Pestolence^(talk) 15:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it also say "they take a headshot and die"? And I hate the "do it with a script" bullshit.--Pesatyel 08:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's if you're the one who headshots the zombie. This suggestion would only be for other players in the block when the headshot takes place. --Pestolence^(talk) 03:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If my zombies deaths are at all typical, it would make more sense to describe the unusual situations in which the zombie is NOT headshot. "Player 1 kills a zombie, but he missed the head!"  Swiers 03:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I know that feeling. I once got headshot, stood up and got headshot again, and stood up a third time and got headshot yet again in the span of a few hours. --Pestolence^(talk) 03:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Handcuffing

Timestamp:	Faranya 03:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill/item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I am aware that handcuffs have in fact been suggested, however this suggestion is quite a bit different. Handcuffs, which would require finding in a police department, would be able to be used by anyone, with a 15-20% chance of handcuffing someone. Being handcuffed means that one would require an expendature of 10 AP to do anything with their hands, similar to death, except movement is in no way restricted. Free running would work the same way. Similarly, actions not requiring hands, such as speaking or biting (zombies), would be uneffected. However, if attempting to handcuff someone, and it fails, there is a small (5-10%) chance of losing your cuffs. Now, there would also be a skill (let's call it Take Down) to increase the effectivness of handcuffing (perhaps up to 40%), as well as a skill (let's call it Lock Pick) similar to Ankle Grab to allow 1 AP to free yourself. This would mean, effectivly, that one with handcuffs could in theory cuff someone, and then kill (or revive) them, which would mean that AP would need to be spent to stand up, and then again to uncuff your hands to use them. Worst case scenario, 15 AP to stand (headshot), 10 AP to free your hands, which I must admit would be very irritating. Best case scenario (Ankle Grab and Lock Pick) 2AP total. The only real thing survivors have on Zombies is to eat into their AP (hence headshot), so there should be some way to increase the capacity to do so. However, I think that having to take to time to find the cuffs, use them sucessfully, with the risk of losing them entirely while doing so helps maintain some balance for this.

Discussion (Handcuffing)

No, Unneeded, don't mess with people's AP. Also, not specific enough, and likely a dupe. _■^■ 04:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What Cory said. Messing with people's AP is bad, and this could be a spectacular greifing tool. Especially for zombies who don't have ankle grab-a 25AP stand-up cost could make 'em quit the game. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A very misguided idea. First, as everyone says: don't mess with my APes!! Second, eating into their AP via headshot is not the only thing survivors have versus the zombies... First of all, there are barricades. The point of shooting a zombie isn't to "kill" him, or to eat into his AP by headshooting him: it's to get him the hell out of the building and then to build the cades. Cades are the real AP eater... And then of course there's my favourite: the 100% to hit, 100% effective, mere 10 AP to "kill" -- the combat revive **bwahahahah**

Now... if handcuffs were purely accessories... eeerm... "role play".. erm... accessories..,, erm... clothing... ermm... uh... nevermind... :P --WanYao 06:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

grieftastic like nothing else. other people are players in this game, and this, used on anybody for any reason, gives way to high a penalty for no risk whatsoever. its basically, for all intents and purposes, BETTER then a one shot kill. it gives a no-penalty way for only survivors to give someone else a 10 ap penalty for next to nothing, and sets that person up to be killed, which could over-double that penalty. so as far as numbers, way out of whack and griefy. but even the idea of it is pure grief. multiply it by a thousand. see 30 griefers load full inventories of handcuffs and enter a mall and handcuff everyone, repeatedly. it would totally kill the mall for way less AP then zombies having a seige. or imagine a super group of survivors handcuffing a bunch of newb zeds repeatedly. it would kill the game because they would quit. straight up. ap is too valuable to screw around with like this. - tylerisfat 09:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I will have this cycled in minutes if it goes to voting. Let me guess? Lockpick is a survivor skill? Shocking(!) Way to try and reinstitute headshot amongst rotten career zombies. Also, how badly do you want to fuck over newbies? Because you will see the emergence of PKer groups using this on newbies to grief them out of the game for fun. I know you'll see it, because I'll start it!

At least you brought it here first.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Try playing as a zombie before suggesting this kind of griefing shit. --Papa Moloch 05:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As Moloch. Way overpowered and griefers can do enough as it is. -- Cheese 23:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much what other people said. But I have to add this, why wouldn't Free Running be affected? Whatever the argument that Free Running entails (and most players, I believe, use the idea it is jumping from one building to the next) most interpretations require the use of hands, be it for balance or grabbing onto things as you land.--Pesatyel 09:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Feral Hearing

Timestamp:	RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 12:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill found under feeding groan. (Yes level 3 skill).
Scope:	Zombies, Humans
Description:	Over the last three years zombies have gotten better at recognising those telltale feeding groans. As such. If your zombie is Inside a building and another zombie feeding groans in an adjacent block you receive the message You hear a groaning from inside Titus General Hospital This is a crossover skill, so if alive you get an inferior message. You hear a groaning from somewhere not too far away. We all know zombies can hear sounds up to 6 blocks away, and as zombies are increasingly salting the land I thought this would be an interesting addition.

Discussion (Feral Hearing)

Savage. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't get specific instructions as to the name of the building at the moment and i don't think that should change. For me it's part to make people ahve to actually think, part so people don't have to metagame to find out where to go and partly because, well, zombies shouldn't know the names of buildings (yes the map says them, but the game would suck if they didn't). So you should fix that part of it imho. Aside from that, I think it's good. Allows zombies to salt buildings and get groan messages :) --xoxo 13:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You hear a groaning from the northeast. Something like that? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

atm survivors have all the advantage telling each other where to go to deal with a zombie incursion. meanwhile, zombies can't do squat except metagame to communicate new targets. this helps and would be a very welcome addition. the only reservation i have is that atm barricade blocking is a little to strong: if you add this, it's a big boost. but maybe the only change needed is to cut back on blocking rates somewhat.... --WanYao 18:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

yes to the version with no building names. an interesting thought might be memories of life having some sort of impact on this... - tylerisfat 09:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think survivors should be able to hear it. It'd be impossible to breach a building next to a crowded building. As for zombies, I think to balance this out they should only hear it if it's very loud, caused by a high number of survivors. --A Big F'ing Dog 02:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What do others think about the crossover ability? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the below skill for the same reason. Directions, not names. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No building names it is then, as that seems to be the feeling. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it with or without the names, but doesn't the game already tell you what direction a groan is coming from? --William Told and Co. ^{ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ} 04:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Useful Flare Idea

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 19:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Flare guns
Description:	Here's a modest change that provides a real use for flare guns. Allow them to be launched inside buildings. The message others receive would look like "A flare gun was fired 5w2n from the roof of Henley Hospital", while one fired outside would be the same old "A flare gun was fired 5w2n." But, only allow a flare gun to be fired indoors if the building is not ransacked or ruined, since ruined buildings have limited roof stairway access. This makes flare guns a way of announcing the repair of a building, or to advertise intact resource points/safehouses to wandering people.

Discussion (Useful Flare Idea)

How does shooting a flare from a rooftop make the location any more visible to people far away than shooting it from street-level? --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 20:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You can see rooftops for potentially several miles. Unless all of Malton is shrouded in eternal mist it would be illogcal to think that people can't see more than the 3x3 map view. The map view just represents what your immediate area is, and where you can move, not what characters can see from a roleplaying/logic perspective. Also, this doesn't necessarily mean that the rooftop is visible. Just that you know it was fired from a roof, and that your character knows what building is there. --A Big F'ing Dog 21:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to see the actual firing of the flare for that, which is quite unlikely as the majority of observers would be inside, unable to see most of the cityscape, most likely looking in a direction other than where the flare was shot from. No, when you get a notification of a flare, you're seeing the flare in the sky, not the firing, which makes it irrelevant whether it was fired from the roof or from the street. And if you actually do know what's 3e7n of here, the game doesn't need to tell you what's there. If you don't know, then the game definitely shouldn't tell you what's there. Either memorize your surroundings or use a map. This isn't something the game should be telling you. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 22:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A flare fired from a roof would go higher. So you could at least distinguish whether it was fired from the street or the ground that way. --A Big F'ing Dog 00:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of distingusing between the flare "Looking" like it was fired from a roof or the ground, and the ability to fire from inside a fully repaired building only, but the exact locations name is a bit much.--G-Man 06:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you paying attention? Because this is yet another stupid suggestion you've decided to waste everyone's time with on this page. The flare gun is a weapon. It has high damage, but with a low accuracy rating to balance this. You see how this game works, a benefit is offset by a cost. Another benefit of the flare gun is that it may be used for signalling. To offset this benefit the cost you have to pay is going the fuck outside the building you want to signal from. Benefit, cost, how hard is it for you to grasp this basic concept? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

When did you last pay attention to a fired flare with the intent to help, not kill? Or bothered using one as a weapon? Currently its pretty damn useless except as a last ditch effort or position giveaway. Not only does this provide the specified use, but a flare desinated as being fired from a roof has the potential to draw more zombie players to that location as well, so theres your cost. Its a damn good idea, as an aid in green/moderate, and diversion in red, yet it still has a downside.--G-Man 03:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't pay attention to them for the same reason I don't pay attention to property ownership tags. They don't mean anything. That's your fault as survivors, not mine. Institute a policy as with Sacred Ground regarding flare use. Make them mean something like cemeteries do, don't ask the game engine to do the work because you are too lazy/moronic. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Flares are quite good as starter weapons, especially if your main weapon is an axe. When you find a zombie, start by shooting flares. If all of them miss, go back and leave the zombie there, it won't get a trail. If you hit, you've got a great start to killing the zombie. Just because you don't use them doesn't mean they're useless. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 13:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There are always exceptions and I mentioned two, and that may be so, but that lasts a min. of one level, max of say 3? Not to mention killing zombies is far from the only way, and using flares to do so is argueably not the best way to level up as a newbie. Its also better for survivors as a whole to have quicker leveled players that can hit easily, instead of newbies struggling to kill one zombie with a couple flares that aren't even that easy to find in my experience. It currently loses any real use after that third lvl. and isn't even really much use there. Better it finally gains some all around use, so it gains some of the original point back to it.--G-Man 06:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether the cost is too high or too low is always open to debate. This suggestion does not remove all costs from the flare gun - it still has to be searched for, takes up inventory space, is a one-use item, etc (if you think these don't count as costs, then please take a look at the Flak Jacket on a survivor and tell me what other costs it has). I think that giving the ability to fire flare guns from inside isn't too much of a buff, and increases its usefulness without making it overpowered. Although I do agree that the function of showing the location name should be removed because it doesn't really make sense. -- Ashnazg 1021, 24 December 2008 (GMT)

Everyone is right. Showing the location names is overpowered and nonsensical. I don't really think going outside is an intended cost, just a nod to realism. I mean, there's a roof there. Of course you can't fire it from inside the building. If you're on the roof though, or even launching from a high window or fire escape, a flare could be launched. And if it's launched from one or two stories off the street then it would travel that much higher, distinguishing it from ones fired at street level. Here's what I'm thinking for the final version of this suggestion - 1. Distinguish flares from indoors by this "A flare was launched from a building 5w2n." No building name, just noting that it was from a building. 2. Flares can't be launched indoors if a building is ransacked/ruined. This lets you signal that a building is functional, if survivors know where resource points are relative to their current position. --A Big F'ing Dog 18:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'ed stick with "fired from a roof", as from a building would include from a window or fire escape, however if one or the other was present then woulden't it negate the part where you can't fire from a ransacked/ruined building? Better to leave it as it was, or you'ed have to include large buildings that are ruined/ransacked.--G-Man 04:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I can see people shooting off flares demonstrates that they are more than just high variance weapons: they're for communication. Howevever, this fact that I can see them means they're already doing what this suggestion wants. The suggestion just wants to make spammishly easier to do so.... --19:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Few, if any survivors pay attention to fired flares anymore because they're generally a waste of time as a signal, and are saved as a last ditch weapon or trophy kill. The only players that currently stand to benefit from a flare fired to bring someone to your position are zombies, its a better idea to just stand there and wait it out. However with feeding groan even they don't pay as much attention as they used to. This stands to bring a use back to using flares as an actual signal in green suburbs, and a diversion in red/ruined suburbs.--G-Man 03:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll make it easy. Firing flares from buildings is overpowered for two reasons.

1. It implies meaning, you see it's from a building and you know that building is repaired. That's a hefty bonus for no fucking downside.
2. The current downside to signalling is the chance of being attacked by an active zombie, you want/need to remove this because?

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It may lower the chance for being attacked by one active zombie (VSB buildings can be bypassed by one), however with the current system in place it greatly increases the risk that your whole building will be overtaken by a small/medium horde of zombies, possibily putting several survivors at risk. You seem to be ignoring the fact that this would attract the attention of zombie players, much more then flares do now,yet still sligtly less then feeding groan. Unless i've been living under a rock and knowing where food is, is useless information to them? As for knowing a building is repaired for no downside, I can achieve the same with one radio call, 1 wiki update or 1 "safe" passby. However all three of those won't attract zombie attention, two know no bounds on how far they will reach in the community, one takes no extra AP. However not everyone checks the wiki, a radio call might not reach anyone who gives a damn and a passby only personally tells myself. With this its possible to actually reach someone who gives a damn, and with increased zombie attention on that building it could very well just be leading them to there demise. As well what building is important enough that knowing its repaired through use of a flare, that most likly had been fired at least an hour ago (In my experience, I've never had one closer, as it has 24hours out of my two minutes of gameplay to hide in), in a game where it takes two minutes for a building to fall or cade status to change, would somehow help or hurt you in an overpowered way? Any important and VSB building gets advertised to both sides, and any unimportant building gets ignored regardless. Unless im mistaken the info ain't free, can be useless to both sides, and can easily lead to your demise, yet can still come above all that to be helpful if its used in a smart way, and you just know its not always going to be. Hell it could even be used by pkers just to raise a little hell.--G-Man 11:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Iron Sights

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 10:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	A new Zombie Hunter skill. Iron Sights allows you to use the iron sights on any firearm (Pistol, Shotgun and any that are implemented later) for a 10% accuracy boost. Purchasing Iron Sights adds a new drop-down menu, called Aim. There are two options in this menu, Pistol and Shotgun. Clicking Aim will increase the accuracy of the selected gun by 10%, and deducts 1AP. The percentage is lowered again following the player's next action, meaning that the accuracy boost is only available for one shot.

Discussion (Iron Sights)

Dude that is actually a good idea... but in order to put ironsights on you should need to get some item in like mall gun stores and Fort Armories... or you could just have it be that ironsights are already on the guns... i dont know just my 2 cents... oh you could also have it relate to Aimed Shot..Link ^_^--Swordy 18:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Iron sights are built into the gun from the get-go, you don't need to put them on. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Simply, Iron sights are already in use. _■^■ 01:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

One could assume, however it could now be reasoned that they weren't before, the suvivors just pointed and fired in what would be a tight situation, and after years of combat aren't as afraid of the zombies and are now slowing down to aim. I've just effectivly countered your arguement. How? Theres nothing that truly saids the iron sights are currently used and thats based on speculation, based solely on the way people are taught to fire when not faced with an enemy trying to eat there brains in close quaters. your reason is no reason for that system to not be changed.--G-Man 06:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, however, see Wan's comment. _■^■ 21:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, maybe we could speculate that also, no one has used their left hands! but after years of living in an apocalypse, they decided they should, so now double ap! - tylerisfat 15:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said I supported the sugestion, I said your arguement was useless. Why isn't it a good idea? Because ethier two things would happen, it would be ammo and AP saving, or AP wasting. To figure out which you would have to look at the actual numbers, however one you don't want to do, the other isn't needed. Thats a bit more indepth as to why it would be a buff to guns (or just a stupid idea), which are already powerful enough as is. Thats an example of the arguement to use Dr Cory Bjornson. Speculation alone is no reason to kill a susgestion. Common sense, I.E. the use of the left hand comment above me, however is. Of course we would be using our left hands, otherwise the whole Malton population would be Right handed, that just doesn't make a lick of sense.--G-Man 03:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the Left hand one was meant in the context of using your left hand to help steady the gun.... not that we are all Right handed...--Swordy 03:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

From the way it read, I'ed say it was a joke at my expense, and meant actually having 100AP. I was joking, as well as using it as an example in my response as to when such an arguement could be used. Solid reasoning based on most likly senerio has to be able to be used to back an arguement, however theres no need to be serious 100% of the time. In a CQB with an enemy hell-bent on trying to eat you, chances are higher that your not stopping to aim, then stopping to aim as taught when shooting targets, or a normal person. Why aim at point blank range when you can't miss? However when it comes to zombies a more well aimed shot has a better capitity to do meaningful damage to zombies. As things stand it seems you just have a better idea of where to generally aim the weapon with a steader hand, not actually stopping to aim while the zombie lurches for your neck. Thats based on both how the system currently works, and how people would react in that situation, not people firing in a calm or distanced senerio.--G-Man 04:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Guns don't need buffing. SPAM! --WanYao 19:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Will be spaminated by trolls, sorry, also this lowers the DPA for guns anyways. --Diablor 23:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Useful for when you have low ammo and really need to hit though. - User:Whitehouse 23:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note: trolls means people who have an idea of game balance and therefore disagree with me according to Diablor. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically this increases the damage per ammo at the cost of significantly reducing the damage per AP. I like this idea, it gives a different way of using the gun that becomes useful when you have plenty of AP but low ammo, as Whitehouse said. Alternatively, you could use this all the time, which would mean that you have to spend less AP searching for ammo in the long run; so it helps if you don't live near a source of ammo. Overall, I really like this idea - it is not really a buff to guns, it gives a different option that you can use if you want to save ammo but reduces your damage per AP. -- User:Ashnazg 0724, 25 December 2008 (GMT)

My bad for not reading properly... However, I seem to recall seeing about a bazillion "aim gun" suggestions. How is this different? In any event, I'm not sure that +10% to hit for +100% AP cost is really worth it... 'Sides, guns are already reliable, and if you plan your AP and ammo use properly, you really shouldn't need to do this. Or else, get a little organised: even two coordinated survivors can kick some serious zombie butt. Hit IRC or MSN and try it sometime!

In any event, this would not really help dedicated survivors, and it's irrelevant to zombies. Ultimately it'd just buff trenchcoaters and PKers IMO. --WanYao 22:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't spending any time on it, it's a dupe. However, a buff to PKers I wouldn't mind. _■^■ 21:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is spammy and a dupe. Also, almost all shotguns and pistols have iron sights, rendering the flavor aspect redundant.--William Told and Co. ^{ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ} 04:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

---

multi target shotgun impact

Timestamp:	Johnny wings 02:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	Survivors with shotgun.
Description:	if zombie hordes (+10) are inside a building and a survivor fires a shotgun chances are it will do damage to more then one zombie. So when a survivor fires are a horde the first zombie target is hit as normal (e.g10% without training) then then next 9 in queue are skipped the the 10th has 5%hit chance, 11th has 2.5% 12th has 1.5% and at 20 or more zombies everyone else has 0.5% chance of getting hit. This will dissuade huge masses of zombies gathering and attacking together giving survivors no chance. Of course exact figures might need to be modified by experiment but that's why I'm putting it here.what say you?

Discussion (shotgun multi zombie damage)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  10:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It can't just cascade exponentially like you are suggesting. There are only so many pieces of shot that could hit. However, based on the significant damage the shotgun deals, one could assume that it utilizes a slug, not shot, and as such there would not be this spread you are suggesting. I don't think it is a good idea, although I would appreciate more balance for survivors. Faranya 03:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Too complicated (I mean WHAT? I don't get it at all) and I think it's been suggested before.--Pesatyel 03:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. It's also covered here, as it is very similar to an area-of effect ability (assuming I understood it right.) Thanks for posting it here first, and not taking it straight to voting, however. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I was composing a whole rant in my head about the idiots who post this kind of thing without taking it to developing suggestions first, but then I noticed that this was developing suggestions! :) Yeah, anyway, this is unrealistic because one shotgun blast isn't going to have a chance of hitting every zombie in a huge horde. Besides, splitting HPs opens a whole new can of worms that I really don't want to get into. --Pestolence^(talk) 04:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Firearms are already very powerful -- they don't need a buff. Also, how come this only shafts zombies? Why wouldn't it apply to PKers strafing others? And it's realistic (within the genre conventions) for zombies to all mass together -- and then when they do, you're screwed! How many times in the movies have you seen some idiot shooting wildly and uselessly into a hoard with his shotgun or AR or whatever... only to get chewed to nifty little bits... Part of the zombie genre's schtick is delighting in watching those idiots getting munched...

Or... the short version: Just say no to trenchy gun buffs. --WanYao

This comes up so often I should make a template. Suggestion assumes those 10 zombies are standing around on the opposite side of the room from survivors, like shy schoolboys at a dance. Truth is, they would most likely be in INTIMATE contact, and so shotgun spread as likely hit other survivors as other zombies. Also, this suggestion totally ignores survivor on survivor combat; why is it assumed people would be shooting zombies?  Swiers 01:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As Swiers, why are these bullets so smart that they only target zombies? The question you need to ask yourself is: Do you want my death cultist coming over the barricades and blasting you and your trenchie rent boys at the same time because of this suggestion? Because I would, and will. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Bloody Scene has an Effect

Timestamp:	G-Man 00:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Effect Change
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Survivors would be taken back by a bloodly scene created in the areas of battles and murders, and have a -5% chance at attacking or building barricades while the blood is evident in such an area. All other actions are unaffected.

Discussion (Bloodly Scene has an Effect)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  10:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a random thought I had, thinking of how someone might react coming across a massacure, even when in a daily violent atmosphere.--G-Man 00:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Don't frack wit ma rates. Blood is pretty much everywhere and it was introduced as pure flavour. I enjoy the blood and my survivors never clean it, don't make them have to.--xoxo 01:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine enough, although I think blood should be more of a sign of zombies and pkers, not an everyday "Yeah, its just there" kind of thing. However the simulation of the effect of a slaugther such as this would make it grab your attention.--G-Man 01:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Aww, I'm kinda with J3D on this...I like seeing blood everywhere, and like that it's just pure flavor. Don't make me clean it! Realize that what this will really end up doing is giving zombies an marked advantage once they manage to establish a beachhead...you can't clean levels 4 and 5 (and possibly 3) of blood if there's zombies standing in the room. Meaning perpetual -5% hit rates, until they zombies are kicked out. Either that, or it'll mean that we never get to see those awesome-high blood levels, because survivors will clean up the blood as soon as the first spatter falls, to prevent the negative hit rates from happening. :( --Jen 17:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

So my Gore Corper walks into a room of fresh faced newbies, slaughters them indiscriminately until it's nap time and then the moronic bounty hunters get minuses to hit? Fucking awesome! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically you'ed only get away with ~one kill, then you'ed hit minuses as well, and the bounty Hunter can clean it up for 1AP leaving them ~49AP to attack you. So if your going for 2 kills your on an even playing field, and if your going for 3, your the one outta luck.--G-Man 01:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point for me, an anti-pk/pro-bounty hunter suggestion will not make it through the system whilst I still have the ability to log on. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It would still aid you to kill one person..., you only hit negatives at three.--G-Man 02:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't anti-PeePeeKayR/Boontang Huntar: it's anti-trenchcoater. In theory I effen love the idea of nerfing guns. However, in practicality.... No. It doesn't make sense: it's been 3 years or someting, we're quite used to blood and guts now... --WanYao 03:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion is retarded. 3 years in a city with the walking dead, where death is a daily occurrence, and pretty much everyone has died many times, and the survivors are so fainthearted that the sight of blood affects their ability to shoot their weapons (which, by the way, they've had three years to practice shooting)? --Pestolence^(talk) 01:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Were not talking just a little blood here (Yes certain situations in the game would only cause a small amount, but to be truly even noticable in this situation it would have to be more). You walk into a room, theres body parts strewn about, blood covering the walls, and you just suck it up? This isn't the same as a couple bite wounds or a gun-shot wound, and is in effect, a person with there inards strewn about. In reality its not something you shrug off, and woulden't truly be a daily occurance at this point in the outbreak. Post-Tramatic Stress Disorder x5. Your going to break down sometime.--G-Man 02:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

So we're just talking level 5 or 6 bloodstains here, not 1 or 2? Ok, that makes more sense, but still, this penalizes every survivor, and not every survivor would break down (in fact, some would thrive). --Pestolence^(talk) 02:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Realisticly Yes, but urban dead isn't all about realism. Some things have to be generized for the effect that would be recieved by most, not nessicarly all. Fire-arms are a prime example where some people would learn to be marksmen, others would suck no matter how much practice, yet we all shoot at the same %rate as long as we have the skills purchased.--G-Man 02:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This would make sense affecting newbies. Problem with that is, all things considered, you don't really wanna do that. What might make things interesting is if players could toggle things like this. When they first create a character, they have the option to toggle this on (but if they do, it remains "on" until they reach a certain level).--Pesatyel 03:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Kind of a challenge thing eh? I like your style, although it should still be optional after that level is reached, as the game would still only get less challenging, and its the older folks who would be looking for some spice.--G-Man 04:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Just my Two cents but what if instead of the gore aspect of it freakin people out what if you hade the Blood and Gore and body parts like trip people or make them slip? --Swordy 00:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the in-game effect should be that there's a 1% chance that you'll slip on fresh blood and get a concussion, making the screen blurry for the next 50 turns and putting your character into a coma if you AP out. --William Told 01:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Or it could give you AIDS. --William Told 01:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

And the Aids make Infections do more damage like say...3 Hp per action maybe? --Swordy 18:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that you'll have to drop everything in your inventory, because no one can use a shotgun if its all covered in blood, far too messy for the average survivor--Brian Eetar ^DTD|CFT|GMG 19:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Show Item Encumbrance

Show item Encumbrance is up for voting. Discussion moved to here.

Walkie Talkie

This suggestion is up for voting, and the discussion has been moved to the talk page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:21 27 December 2008 (BST)

---