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

Manuals

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 00:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Item.
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Manuals are found in Libraries at a rate of 7% unpowered, 3% for ruined and 10% for powered, in Mall Bookstores for 8% unpowered, 2% ruined and 12% powered, and in Schools for 6% unpowered, 1% ruined and 9% powered. Once you have found a Manual, you must use it (by clicking the button) to find out what type of manual it is. There is an even chance of it being one of the following, with the following effects being enabled for as long as you carry the manual: Engineer's Manual - Building repair costs are reduced by 10% Medical Dictionary - Adds 2 HP to the effect of all FAKs Computer Technician's Manual - Manufacturing syringes costs 8 AP (Still cannot manufacture without the required skill) Martial Arts Manual - Adds 1 point of damage to Fists Each manual has 8% encumberance. The effect begins as soon as you find out what the manual is, and is in effect for as long as the manual is in your inventory. The effects do not stack with each other, so carrying 5 Medical Dictionaries will have the same effect as carrying one.

Discussion (Manuals)

The Martial Arts one doesn't quite make sense to me. I can understand using the other manuals while performing the respective actions, but asking a zombie to stand still while you check the manual for "how to punch" seems a little weird. Other than that I think this will get shot down because it's a buff to survivors with not so great a cost. - User:Whitehouse 00:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what Whitehouse said. It needs some cost associated with it, other then the searching. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The same, it needs to cost more for survivors...until that it's just a buff to make things easier for survivors. --LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 03:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Grenade Idea

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	There is this very old rejected grenade idea. The main flaw I see in the suggestion is that it does limitless damage, harming all zombies present. Unlimited AOE is a bad idea because it allows for infinity damage. A form with a limit on damage though might work. Stun grenades would be a one use item, like a flare, but with its own skill progression tree. Grenades would do 10 damage on a successful throw, but randomly divided up among the first 5 zombies in a stack. So a grenade might hurt a bunch of zombies as follows: 1, 1, 3, 0, 5 or 2,3,3,0,2 or 0,6,0,3,1 any of the many many other permutations. Should 5 or more damage hit one zombie it would be protected by a flak jacket. If there are fewer than five zombies present then even on a successful attack some of the damage might hit nobody because the 10 damage is always split 5 ways. If there was 1 zombie present then a 3, 2, 2, 0, 4 random split would deal 3 damage to the zombie. GRENADES SUCK AT KILLING ZOMBIES Grenades, as presented here, are BAD for killing zombies. Then why suggest them? They're good for softening them up. Other than leveling up, there's no reason to kill a zombie outside. They'll just stand right back up for 6AP, far less than you spent killing them. But softening up a crowd of zombies BEFORE they breach a building means they'll be slightly weaker when they make it inside. Instead of someone having to kill a 60HP zombie they might face a 58HP zombie, or 54HP, or a lower amount of health. That isn't much individually, but the benefit can add up when dumping multiple zombies that have been weakened with multiple grenades. How can zombie hordes counter grenades chipping at their health? Feed on bodies. Comments and advice appreciated. And I know some people will say we don't need a grenade, which may be true - we don't need a lot of things, but I think this is balanced as a weapon goes. Even if you dislike the idea and would never want a grenade I'd appreciate your advice on how to make a grenade you would dislike as little as possible.

Discussion (Grenade Idea)

Uhm, how about mentioning how these work against survivors? :) - User:Whitehouse 22:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. One possibility is that they can't be thrown inside. Too cramped, too close to the thrower, etc. Selecting a survivor when outdoors could target that person and the four people closest to them in the stack, but it wouldn't come up much since large groups of humans are rarely standing around outside. --A Big F'ing Dog 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the heading. And why do these only work on zombies? --Pestolence^(talk) 23:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How about it works on the top five of any players, zombie or human, or self. Otherwise, doesn't make any sense. This isn't trench warfare, the zombies are standing on one side of the line with all the survivors on the other side of the line. So as is, this is definitely spam. If you were to fix it and make it possible to harm zombies and survivors with it, then it wouldn't be spam... but I'd still vote kill. - tylerisfat 23:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And barricades, don't forget those. A grenade in a barricade is not going to help the structural integrity at all. But really, damaging 5 people for 1 AP seems like a significant bonus. It doesn't weaken as fast a shot, but it greatly increases your chances of catching the pre-wounded and scoring multiple kills on a single AP, which could potentially be a high garnering XP activity for little cost. And it seems that theoretically, you could get 60 XP for 1 AP and 1 grenade item. Even though that is so statistically unfathomable based on game play, it could happen, and that seems like too much. Faranya 00:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh...I mean, to kill multiple zombies with one hit you'd need to attack a crowd with several enemies with less than 10hp. How often do you find five zombies in one place with 2hp (give or take) each? --A Big F'ing Dog 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Random Events

Timestamp:	Kooks 17:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Type:	New Game Dynamic
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	I suggest that with every action in Urban Dead, or with only certain actions, a random event has a chance of occuring. The event would be determined by the previous action you took. The events would not give a major advantage or disadvantage to players, they would more often than not be pure flavor, however occasionly they would effect the game such as; "Your pistol has jammed." And then a "Clear Stoppage" button would appear fixing the pistol and costing 1AP. A Random Event would on average occur once per 50AP. This would introduce a new uncertainaty factor into the game, as well as create a more immersive atmosphere. Feel free to suggest Random Events that could occur for zombies, survivors or pkers.

Discussion (Random Events)

So there is a random event that might annoy me every day? No thanks! If something like my AP was wasted on cleaning out a pistol blockage or whatever every day I would get fed up with the game pretty quickly. --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ ^{MCM MOB DB} 17:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, what is 1AP in the grand scheme of things? --Kooks 18:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)]

Well if your on only a few AP and need to FAK or fire a gun and the random events thing kicks in and you miss fire/miss FAK that 1AP means alot! --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ ^{MCM MOB DB} 19:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

So, is this going to be beneficial in some instances? Or is it just going to be things to screw you up? Faranya 18:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this to be a dupe, but it may differ from what I'm thinking of. There was April fools day one, but there was another, a suggestion.. Iscariot? Anyone? _■^■ 00:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You could try and dupe this under that broad event/ending/reboot scenario category, but I wouldn't bother. I'd spam it to death as it's incomplete, it says many events and give a single vague example. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Given a much slimmer chance of happening and a pretty even bias for positive and negative outcomes for both zeds and harmanz then i would fully endorse a bit of variety and randomness for the game. a slight chance of finding 2 enough ammo to fill 2 clips rather than just a single 1 would be cool if balanced against the chance to find an empty clip. Likewise a zombie collapsing 2 levels of barricade instead of 1 or indeed accidentally re-inforcing the cade due to an awkward collapse would also add variety... However i think random events such as double damage or hitting the wrong target, while easily justified by the right flavour text, would harm the game and should not be included on any potential list. --Honestmistake 01:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the key is to MAKE a list, both good and bad.--Pesatyel 03:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; just thought I would add some encouragement so this might stay here long enough for the author to get some ideas ;) --Honestmistake 07:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, couldn't this just be given as flavor for failed actions instead of adding additional randomness? Like, instead of just "You search and find nothing" when searching, say, the gun store or police department it could say "You find a clip, but it is empty" on a semi-random basis. Although this works out for possible flavor for most failed searches, very few seem to lend themselves to positive messages. "Hey, you found a book! Good for you." Faranya 18:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well there are three ways to do it: 1) something that is beneficial, 2) something that is harmful, and 3) flavor text. This is the list of actions:

• Movement: Block to block
• Movement: Free Running
• Movement: Into a building
• Movement: OUt of a building
• Jumping from a building
• Attack: Gun
• Attack: Melee
• Attack: Claw
• Attack: Headbutt
• Attack: Bite
• Speak
• DNA Extraction
• Use Binoculars
• Search
• Tag
• Use Item
• Revive
• Stand
• Close Doors
• Dump Body
• Access Necronet
• Barricade
• Repair Ransack
• Open Radio for Tuning
• Tune Radio
• Flail
• Use Scent Death
• Ransack
• Groan
• Manufacture Syringe

Of course there are more, if you want to get more specific. Such as Flaing Gesture (pointing at self, pointing at others, etc.) or Attacking with melee (axe, bat, crowbar, etc.).--Pesatyel 05:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the sheer size of that list I would think that opening a page similar to the clothing suggestions would be in order with the actual suggestion made using perhaps a dozen examples of potential text with the clear statement that more would and should be developed if the suggestion were ever implemented. Would it be reasonable to have a page created for that very purpose while this is under development because putting suggestions here could easily get out of hand but without them this will just get spammed as incomplete. --Honestmistake 14:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. I realized that would probably be needed, given the length of the list (especially if you include individual items). I just don't know how to do it exactly.--Pesatyel 02:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Crippling Blow

Timestamp:	Faranya 02:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Zombie Hunter Skill
Scope:	Survivors above level 10
Description:	Along the same lines as Headshot, Crippling blow would be a zombie hunter skill available only to players above level 10. Essentially, Crippling blow would passivly give the character with that skill the chance (somewhere like 5% or lower) to 'cripple' the target. Crippling would result in the cost of 2 AP to move between blocks until either: A) 5 blocks have been traversed (10 AP) B) Death This would give the zombie hunter a chance to keep a zombie that was attacked but not quite killed at a distance. As they would be able to be tracked by Scent Trail unless they escape 10 blocks, this would mean that there might be a chance that chasing them down is slightly less likely from the attacked zombie. The target would recieve a message along the lines of "<name> attacked you for <damage>, and crippled one of your legs", while the attacker would recieve no confirmation of a cripple, and cannot be certain that they had actually crippled the target, as it would on average only occur once every 20 (or possibly more) successful attacks. This effect is not necessarily detrimental to a zombie, if they are part of a siege then it is likely to be of little consequence. Additionally, low level zombie without Lurching Gait would not be effected by this, they would jsut proceed as normal. The percentage of effect is open to suggestions, but I think 5% is the highest this can possibly go without becoming ridiculous.

Discussion (Crippling Blow)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  02:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't this work on humans? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it could, but I figured Zombie hunter would be the category to fit it into, so there was a pre-requisate level to obtain it. Faranya 02:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

98% of the people here are going to be against this becuase it "cancels" a skill. 5% might be insignificant.--Pesatyel 04:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind it that much, although it is rather annoying for zombies...as in, it seems like a vaguely griefy skill. I wouldn't really mind it being implemented though. -- User:Ashnazg 0743, 3 January 2009 (GMT)

This makes the game more fun for trenchcoaters, but more annoying for zombies. Not a good idea.--Jiangyingzi 09:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what the guys above me are saying. It could be used to grief newbies (or anyone,) and it should ether be made a crossover skill (or better,) have a zombie version (as in, a new zombie skill, too.) Better make sure Pkers can use it too, ;). Linkthewindow  Talk  12:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Won't pass without extreme editing, the percentage is to low to make a difference for most zombies as there has been a sharp decilne in trenchcoater populations, therefore less idiots running and gunning around the streets(Or at least in my characters area of residence).--Diablor 21:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't fuck with my AP. Because that's what this does: costs me 10 AP of pointless movement to "shrug off". Also, it's pathetically one-sided -- why does it only apply to zombies? Zombies are players too and this is just grieftastic. Add this effect to headshot and... uhm... No thanks. --WanYao 01:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Furthermore this makes newbie zombies -- who have the roughest time of ANYONE in UD -- have to spend 4 ap to move. An awful, utterly trenchtacular idea. Please no. --WanYao 01:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it would not cost them 4 AP. It would make the cost 2 AP to move, not 2 additional AP. And it wouldn't be added to headshot because death would end the effect, so you would not suffer the effects of both unless you ran yourself into a headshot. Finally, it does not necessarily have to only apply to zombies. If people would prefer it apply to all, then it can. Faranya 01:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I know it can't be cumulative with headshot... It's additive to headshot, or in other words it basically you a 5% chance of getting a headshot-like effect without doing anything for it. And whether you allow PKers to use this, even if you allow zombies to cripple harmanz, too -- it's still grieftastic. And even if it weren't, it doesn't really make the game more fun or interesting, not for me anyway. Sorry, but I don't think the idea can really be saved. --WanYao 12:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Show exhausted survivors

Timestamp:	Turtleboy412 06:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Helpfull flavor
Scope:	Urban Dead players
Description:	If you are in a room or outside block with someone who has 5 or less AP they are shown as exhausted. If they have 0 AP they are shown as asleep. [Example: You are inside A Factory. The building has been very strongly barricaded. Also here are ZombieSlayer007 (51HP)(Exhausted) and Dr.Trenchie (17HP)(Asleep) and RedbullWings (50HP).There are 2 zombies here.There are 3 dead bodies here.] In the example it shows everyone's HP as if the player had diagnosis. You wouldn't see anyone's HP if you didn't have diagnosis (Duh). You would not see if zombies where asleep or exhausted. Zombies would know if survivors where exhausted or asleep but the flavor may be changed to somthing along the lines of slowed and lying rather than exhausted and asleep.

Discussion (Show exhausted Survivors)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  02:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think something like this has been proposed before and was shot down due to the griefing potential – this would make it too easy to kill people who can't run/fight back. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That and if you're a nice person looking to heal, then you'd get the skill needed. This makes it much to easy for those looking to kill to narrow it down to the easiest to kill. So i guess it is balanced, in that everyone gets an advantage...-tylerisfat 13:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No bloody way. My AP is my business. Why? Because if this information were available, then attackers would know exactly whom to neutralise and who's harmless and can be ignored. This information would be invaluable in sieges and totally shafts any group that coordinates to defend a building. Totally unbalanced. --WanYao 13:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What WanYao said. This is essentially a way to negate someone's AP by killing anyone able to barricade or heal. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the worst suggestions I have seen in a while, give survivors a fucking break already god damn --Diablor 04:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Game Stats. On the topic at hand, this isn't a good suggestion for the reasons outlined above. Zombies could kill all the survivors with AP to cade, making taking a building a lot easier. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't judge suggestion based on the fact that one side happens to be doing better than the other... And, in this case, even though would be a giant boost to zombies, death cultists and PKers... No bloody way. A bad idea is a bad idea. --WanYao 01:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Scope

Timestamp:	Angusburger 21:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Item/flavour
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	You can get different kinds of knife (kitchen knife, large scapel etc), so I suggest a new 'type' of binoculars. You would have the same search percentages of finding binoculars, except only in an armoury. The flavour text would read You find a military sniper rifle, although the gun is damaged beyond repair, the scope is still servicable or simply You find a sniper scope. Help me with this one.

Discussion (Scope)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  11:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The "scope" of it is too limited. Armory only? You can already find binoculars there as it is. Or are you suggesting that the description be changed there?--Pesatyel 03:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't help you with this because I don't know what you want... --WanYao 13:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere between "Meh" and "Isn't needed." I'll be assuming that scopes work like binoculars? Also, this will spawn a heap of "Attach scope to teh_pistol" suggestions, although that isn't a valid kill reason. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a bad idea if it's just like Knife, which seems to be the intent. Just be wary that the name alone will put people off for fear of people wanting to make it more than just flavor.--Karek^maps?! 02:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The flavour idea is all right, I suppose, but IMO binoculars are already sufficiently military in flavour. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the flavour text :) - I kinda want to see trenchies elite zombie hunters spending tons of AP in armories hoping to find a repairable sniper rifle. -- 

•  Nevin McAvoy 

•  (talk) 

19:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! I thnk it would be good flavour, but if you can find binoculars in armouries (I didn't know :0) it is useless. --Angusburger 22:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Setting Christmas trees on fire

Timestamp:	WanYao 13:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Survivor "flavour" action
Scope:	Grinches and pyromaniacs
Description:	Game change allows you to douse a Christmas tree with fuel, then shoot a flare fun at it and set on fire. All attacks would use normal to-hit %ages, via the attack drop-down. That's how it works to smash christmas lights already... Realistically, there should be a chance of this causing a fire which would wreck some barricade levels, etc. -- preferably all of them, leaving the building auto-ruined, bwaaaaaaaaahahahah!! However, I know... that's too much. :( Therefore, there would be no in-game effect, just a nifty message something like, "(player/you) fires a flare gun at the Christmas tree. It burns, filling the room with a thick smoke". Plastic trees would melt, leaving a smouldering black lump on the floor.

Discussion (Setting Christmas trees on fire)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  02:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You know you want to! --WanYao 13:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I kind of do.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I kinda wish it didn't destroy the tree, just changed it's description to "it is on fire".--Karek^maps?! 13:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You scratch your head, pondering this idea. --WanYao 13:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This I would do over and over again! Can you then pick up the black lump and hit folk with it? or am I going to far with this! :-P --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ ^{MCM MOB DB} 19:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well... no. It's just flavour. If it were more than just flavour, I'd make a 20% chance of setting the bulding on fire, causing all barricades to be destroyed and the building to become ruined. No one would take damage, which I know is not very realistic... but we have to keep game balance in mind!

But, all fun and games aside, this is a serious suggestion. I wanna be able to set Xmas trees in fire. So let's deal with finalising a good mechanic and ram it throught voting! ;) --WanYao 22:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Xmas trees? Or any decoration in the building? You are lighting it with a fuel can. Faranya 20:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually.... Yeah.... Artwork should burnable too.... Hmmmmmn.... --WanYao 12:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

---

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)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  02:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Err, I'm not sure why i said it that way. I get on here late at night. What i meant is, you are not adding anything good, or addressing a current problem, but instead creating a problem and a not very good solution that involves new items. These suggestions are regularly spammed. - tylerisfat 13:00, 2 January 2009 (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)

Ashnazg; If we cant have fire in the game, why do we even have the 'Fireman' class? Fire that spreads once should be considered, after all, what zombie film doesn't have a fire in it somewhere? Also, this cant be any more annoying than being infected as a beginning survivor can it?, at least this will go away after you die. Urgggggggh 11:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it IS more annoying then an infected newbie survivor. Newbie survivors can HEAL THEMSELVES or GET HEALED BY OTHERS.--Pesatyel 03:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Setting a zombie on fire is definitely more annoying for the zombie than for a newbie survivor. Regarding firemen in the game, this suggestion does nothing to make them any more useful either (and no, please don't start allowing only firemen to extinguish fires). They are there mostly to have someone that can start by using a fire axe. And yeah, of course zombie films have fire. But trying to introduce something into the game for flavour without taking balance into account is a no-no. Want to introduce fire? Sure, go ahead. But make sure it is a balanced, controllable, non-griefy type of fire rather than something like this, which is not only difficult to implement but also has great potential for griefing people and growing out of control. See the case of the World of Warcraft plague a few years back for why status effects that spread uncontrollably from person to person should not be introduced into games. I mean, fire like this could allow the whole of Malton to be swarmed by flaming zombies setting each other aflame left and right in order to break down barricades more easily and burn survivors. Basically the whole city would go down in flames. Which actually sounds pretty awesome, but would screw up the game completely. -- User:Ashnazg 0422, 31 December 2008 (GMT)

A flaming zombie is a very dangerous thing... And a fun idea. However, as others have pointed out it's very difficult to implement something like that in a way that isn't over the top and griefy. Multiply it by a million, eh? --WanYao 12:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool and all but probably not the best idea. Yeah infection sucks but I don't think we need a second form of it that only survivors can trigger, that would be a way for Survivors to temporarily buff zombies and runs into the problem of encouraging cross-play of the two sides. It should be survivors vs zombies not survivors vs survivors and zombies(no this is not what Death Culting is).--Karek^maps?! 12:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Points taken on board. Ill have a rethink and see if I can re-submit so it makes more sense. thanks.--Urgggggggh 11:57, 4 January 2009 (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)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  02:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Ah ok. I'm of a mind it should occur for ALL weapons. "Bob killed a zombie with [insert weapon here]". Since headshot is automatic, it can say "Bob hit a zombie in the head with a [insert weapon here]".--Pesatyel 05:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like that. One thing I wouldn't mind yoinking from NW. Also, my foil still doesn't have first-person flavour text, only You attack Worthy Enemy for 2 damage. They die. which makes me sad. The recipients at least get Classy Bastard jabbed you with a foil for 2 damage. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:50, 5 January 2009 (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)

I did that once in a few minutes during a live combat.--Pesatyel 20:55, 1 January 2009 (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)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  11:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

As per WanYao, you'd have to reduce blocking rates. At the moment, a zed has the choice of blocking a building or being outside to hear the groans - being able to do both would be too large a boost unless you were to cut down on the effectiveness of squatting a ruined resource building. Personally, I prefer my zed having to make the choice Sanpedro 06:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Cade blocking you mean? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

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)

---