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

Free Running Lanes

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement.
Scope:	Free Running
Description:	1. Freerunning is no longer a Skill. Everybody loses it. 2. All Players CAN "Free Run" across buildings inherently, under the following circumstances: a.Free Running Lanes are Structures, makeshift bridges that span buildings. They must be built and maintained. Inside each Building (that is directly adjacent to another building) there is a new Option to Build Free Running Lanes. This requires a toolbox, 5 AP, and a new Item: Lumber Lumber. 20% Encumbrance. Found in Warehouses, Factories, Junkyards, and Mall Hardware Stores. Once built they can be destroyed the same as Generators, with the following Levels of damage: Undamaged, Lightly Damaged, Damaged, heavily Damaged, Destroyed. The Running Lanes level of damage is reported in the building the same as Generators so all can see how damaged it may be. Running Lanes that are damaged from Lightly Damaged to Heavily Damaged can be repaired by a Survivors with a Toolkit for 1 AP, which totally restores the Lanes to Undamaged status. Running Lanes inside Ruined buildings cannot be Built or Repaired. A building that has it's Free Running Lanes Destroyed cannot be Free Run into or out of. If you try to run into a building that has its Lanes destroyed you get a message: "That building has no Running Lanes" at 0 AP cost to you. A survivor who is encumbered at 75% or less can free run freely as long as the lanes are not Destroyed. A Survivor who is encumbered at 76% or above has a 25% chance to fall to the street, as long as the lanes are not Destroyed. A zombie has a 50% to fall to the street if they attempt to use a Running Lane, as long as the Lanes are not Destroyed. Destroying a Running Lane grants 5 XP to the destroyer, but only if they are a Zombie.

Discussion (Free Running Lanes)

Free Running. Since you appear to want the game to be completely different from what it currently is, why don't you make one yourself? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a stretch. The Free Running you link to allows people to fly I guess; or teleport. As far as I know Kevan has never explained what "Free Running" actually is in UD, so this is in no way an attempt to "change the game from what it currently is". Sorry, but "street acrobatics" does not allow one to span buildings like Spiderman.--Zombie Lord 19:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

First, notice that the skill is not called Bridges. It's called Free Running. The street-acrobatics-thingy is called Free Running. It's not like I'm assuming the pistol to actually be an evil monkey that spits miniature black holes. No, I'm "assuming" that Free Running is Free Running. Second, those two sentences weren't supposed to be connected, I meant the game mechanics (and your Death Penalty suggestion) with the second sentence. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 20:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're telling me that every person in Malton is a freakin Cirque du Soleil performer...Yeah, THATS more logical that bridges...Jesus FUCKING Christ.--Zombie Lord 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is also a surgeon, so fuck off with that reasoning. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 20:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hell no. That shit should be changed as well.--Zombie Lord 20:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion isn't even internally consistent, never mind the game-breaking ramifications. And as Mid said, Free Running ≠ Makeshift Bridges... --  RoosterDragon  19:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Not internally consistent". Explain. How is it not internally consistent?--Zombie Lord 19:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Building A has FR lanes built. Building B does not. Can you free run from A to B? Unclear, and the converse? Yet survivors in A would appear to have these lanes built that lead to buildings for whom the same lanes do not exist. And the fact these are supposed to be bridges? Some sort of special one-way variety? Even addressing this, still spam of inordinate magnitude. --  RoosterDragon  20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's simple. If a building has no lanes you can't run in or out of it. So, no you cant run from a building with lanes to one without. A building would need several actual bridges that lead to all possible buildings. So a building with lanes would have all it's bridges up that lead to other buildings with their lanes up, but not building that don't have their lanes up. Its a way of simplifying what would actually take several bridges leading from one building. So, a building that technically had it's own lanes up but no other building around it did would indeed be cut off, and yes that's not entirely logical, but it's just a way to avoid excessive over-complications.

It's still more reasonable than teleporting with magical FreeRunning acrobatics.--Zombie Lord 20:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You've over-simplified evidently. A building that has lanes up doesn't have them unless the other one does too, but only for that building? If you build some lanes you could still be trapped because the others don't? That is magic. Unlike free running which, in case you have heard, is possible in real life. You could try and close the hole in this odd explanation, but this isn't the major issue with the suggestion, the major issue is the game-breaking-ness of the whole thing. --  RoosterDragon  20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Free Running as described in that link does exist, but trying to use that as a reason for the ability that exists in UD is stretching the boundaries of that real life skill considerably. Again, whats more reasonable, that we make bridges or that everyone in Malton is a super acrobat? And saying "game-breaking" is not a magic talisman that explains everything. How is gods name would this break the game. It would just make it a bit harder.--Zombie Lord 20:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Game-breaking. Not to mention every failed free-run (no lanes) would result in an IP hit, and it would probably happen frequently. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Multiple Infection Strains

Timestamp:	Bob Boberton TF / DW 03:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Infection change
Scope:	Survivors, primarily
Description:	As of right now, Infection deals 1 damage per AP usage, except for speaking. With this change, Infections would work exactly the same way with one difference - if you are already infected and are bitten by a second unique zombie, you acquire a second infection strain, and take 2 damage per AP usage, except for speaking. I would suggest a limit of two strains maximum, as more would simply be too debilitating. I'm flip floppy on how many FAKs would be required to cure one or two unique strains of infection, though I'm leaning towards two. When you heal someone with two strains, you get a message to the tune of "You heal blabla for X HP - they still look sickly." or "You heal blabla for X HP but their infection persists." With zombie skills that allow you to see infected survivors, perhaps the color of their health could be black for two strains and the current green for one strain.

Discussion (Multiple Infection Strains)

You know, I like this idea. Something like, "You have been bitten by another zombie. You now have 2 separate infections. Each action will now cost 2 AP"? I'd get behind that. I think it should be 1 FAK to each separate infection, because each infection is caused by a separate bite. -CaptainVideo 04:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is one huge problem to this. I'm no doctor or anything that has to do with biology, but it seems to me that all of the zombies in Malton are infected with the exact same strain of the exact same virus. This would make sense because it would keep the game simple, plus it would explain how the reviving process always works when used on a zombie (excluding any zombies with Brian Rot, the reason they don't get revived has to do with a separate issue). I also think considering this is fully man made by NecroTech, I think they would only be creating one strain at a time. Therefore the most recent strain, which is the one responsible for the zombification process, is the sole strain capable of doing what is happening. They didn't have time to create any others, excluding possible the revival strain.

That would mean that if a zombie bites you after you are already infected, it would only be adding more of the same strain to your body. That would also mean that when you cure the first infection, you cure both because they are the same thing.

I guess if you really wanted to implement this, you could put in some blurb about how the strain has mutated on it's own or something, but I think that would create other issues with what is different about this strain and the original one and require the new one to be expanded upon more.--SirArgo ^Talk 07:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What about a second infectious bite type skill that has brain rot as a prerequisite? It's easier to justify a "mutation" in the virus in an infected zombie that's been infected for so long (ie, a zombie with Rot). That might make more sense. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 07:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[Damn Edit conflicts!]Maybe, but Brain Rot is only caused by the degredation of the brain from the sole strain in existence. I don't think that the infecteds bodies mutate a new strain after acquiring this skill. Don't get me wrong, I like the direction in which this idea goes. It's an interesting change, but I just don't think it makes a lot of sense. I could be very wrong though.--SirArgo ^Talk 07:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Infection ≠ the thing that causes zombification. Infection = just plain infection. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 07:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My idea about it was that a zombie is a breeding ground for all sorts of nasty bacteria and whatnot - and one zombie might be packed full of necrotizing fasciitis (flesh-eating disease, whoo) and another might have some nasty kind of flu, mold, ebola, e-coli, lots of different things. When a survivor gets bitten by two of these differing zombies, it makes sense that Ebola + Necrotizing Fasciitis is worse than either one of them alone. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this (as with most of the previous "make infection do 2 damage" suggestions) is that 2 HP is too much. The 1 HP increase might seem small, but it doubles the damage. Infection isn't very powerful except on the recently revived, and 2HP is simply too much for them. With no Body Building, you'd only have 11 AP to find a FAK instead of the 23 AP with normal infection ^{(you stand up with half of your full health, except infection takes the first nibble when you stand up. the last AP kills you)}. That's a radical decrease, and many, many newbies don't carry a FAK for these occasions. There are very few things more frustrating than being revived only to die of infection. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 17:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, however, 1 HP per AP damage with a newly revived person isn't much of a concern - 23 AP (or 28) to find a FAK or a safe place with people who presumably have spare FAKs isn't too difficult. This would make infections more effective and more threatening. I would definitely still agree that any more than 2 strains (2 HP per AP of damage) is far too debilitating. This suggestion certainly puts more emphasis on hospitals, and would probably encourage always having an emergency FAK or two among new players. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Death Penalty

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 22:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement.
Scope:	All Players.
Description:	When a Survivor dies, they lose one random Skill. When a Zombie is Headshot, they lose one random Skill. Skills can be lost from either tree, regardless of if you were a Zombie or a Survivor when you lose it. Level 1 Players cannot lose their last skill. Losing a Skill through Headshot, replaces the old +5 AP to Stand effect. Now, with something to lose when you die, you would see a lot less Meatshielding Survivors and Zombies willing to stand in a building just to hold a Ruin. You'd have actual fear back in this game. Without fear, there can be no Bravery. Let's bring actual Bravery back, and dispense with all the false posturing. Let's have an actual ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE!

Discussion (Death Penalty)

Some other possible ideas to add:

Survivors can no longer distinguish Zombies in their contacts list.

Profiles only show Level and Skill sets for the owner of the player, for all others it shows everything but Level and Skill Set.

DNA Scanners now only report if a Zombie has Brain Rot or not, it won't give a Profile unless that Zombie is their Contact list. OR Profiles only show up in DNA Scans if the Player being scanned has submitted their DNA at a Necrotech while alive, which could be a new option in NT's for 1 AP cost. --Zombie Lord 23:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I expect howls of protest over this one. I joined after Headshot was changed to its current form, but I've seen the complaints to the XP hit it originally had. This just seems extreme compared to that (although equally fair to both sides). It would also seem to favour PKers at first glance. They could literally harass somebody until they were back to a level 1 player by free running in, blasting a couple of people and running off. Lastly, it would seem to remove all the fun from playing a zombie due to the distinct possibility of losing all of your combat skills. Imagine being a level 1 zombie left with Brain Rot. --Roorgh 23:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It would give PKers and actual reason to exist I guess, instead of just being AP inefficient assholes, they would be actually accomplishing something. They wouldn't get the a lot of XP out of it to replace their own losses in Skills though. If the PKers are harassing someone, people could always make groups to harass them back. An actual REASON for Survivors to fight each other...think of the possibilities! :)

As for the low level zombies. I think zombies would start to naturally congregate a lot more. Safety in numbers. Zombies moving in packs without metagaming...whoa...

But your last point is why I suggested all those "possible extras". Zombies are a lot more vulnerable so I was thinking some more anonymity might be in order --Zombie Lord 00:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The old headshot meant i didn't actually play a zombie for months as it was just no fun. Headshot taking AP is bad enough but losing xp on a daily basis will only result in driving players away. --Honestmistake 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Under this change, Survivors would be losing it too. So it would be a little different than just Zombies always getting the loss.--Zombie Lord 00:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Right- then it would just be no fun to play on EITHER side. :P  Swiers 02:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is everyone who plays this "game" so afraid of risk? competition? Some people might quit but maybe we'd just get a better class of players in the long run. Some with BALLS for a change.--Zombie Lord 02:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

or the better class of player gets really sick of zerging when it happens, and decides to just stop bothering. --Roorgh 07:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well that's really on Kevan. This game has easily the weakest anti-zerg measures I've ever seen in an online game. Secretly, I think he likes Zergs. Ad revenue being the bottom line here; lets face it: zergs = Ad revenue. I wouldn't be surprised to find out over 50% of the "characters" in this game are zergs.--Zombie Lord 18:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree the game needs to be "tougher" but this is laughably ridiculous. You want this to be more of a zombie apocalypse? So why the hell would you promote PKing? This would SERIOUSLY hurt new players. Sure level 1s are immune, but level 2s would NEVER get anywhere. Imagine you just got your XP to purchase a second skill and get headshot. Guess what! The old XP losing Headshot was removed for a reason. It SUCKED. Remember, people are dicks and they WILL abuse this.--Pesatyel 03:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said. BALLS. You'd just have to plan your moves instead of just wander anywhere cause you know you're freakin invincible anyway. I can run a level 1 zombie and keep it from dying. Sure, its a challenge, but its fuckin doable. Maybe this is too extreme for most players, but there's got to be a middle ground between INVINCIBILITY and too extreme. Survivors should never decide "I'll just let this zombie EAT ME ALIVE for the team". THAT'S fuckin ridiculous, and its what we got now. Oh yeah, and I'd LOVE to see the PKer/Bounty Hunter wars that would erupt.--Zombie Lord 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"its what we got now" - I deg to biffer, good sir! I doubt any true blue pro-survivor player would willingly get eaten. Also, an eye for an eye (or a level for a level) leaves everyone blind - Cops, with their good shootin' skills at level 1, would become zerg favorites and shoot everyone to death and Malton would become a land of retards. Unless you had 50,000 XP stocked up like that one Experiment zed. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What game are YOU playin? Survivors allow themselves to be eaten...constantly. Its a tactic of using up a zombies AP for the "greater good". "Become a land of retards"? Too late, in most cases.--Zombie Lord 04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Urban Dead. And a more effective way to defeat zed AP is Barricade Strafing, and I'd still say survivors don't willingly die "to use up zed AP." Whenever I'm eaten, I'm offline. Which is 99% of the time. I've never and would never allow myself to be eaten willingly, and I'd bet most other survivors would say the same. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well of course they are offline. But they sleep there knowing they are going to absorb hits and likely die. If there was an real risk to dying, they would be less inclined to do this. They would sleep in safe places, not "this resource building we want with 25 Zombies outside, so if enough meatshields pile in we can probably hold it once the zombie AP runs out. And even if we lose it and die we'll just get reved for no real loss." Happens all the time. Maybe you're an exception, but it's rampant.--Zombie Lord 05:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sleep in safe places? There is no such thing in Malton, and that's the problem. Even EHB cades can be torn down by two or three high-level zeds in a hurry. And of course there's a loss for revives - the AP to get a syringe, the 10 AP use of the syringe, the cost of both players to move around to perform and get up from the revive, etc. I do concede that meatshields exist, but some of the time they're just normal players that turn into shields when zombies bust the doors down.

Take the "Multiply it by a million" policy on this - imagine a Malton full of level 1 characters only. It would be awful - low search and hit rates for everyone, zeds always taking 2 AP to move and ten to stand up, it would just make the game un-fun. That's what UD is - a game. UD with this suggestion implemented would cease to be a game and would be tortuous. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, safe places. Like an EHB building with no zombies outside, vs the EHB building with 25 zombies outside. How about a Suburb with very few zombies. You'd have to scout more, but as long as you kept moving, yes it would be safer than, say, a RED suburb that's 90% Ruined. Also, Zombie players might want to think twice about sleeping in the ruined Mall or NT's. Hordes would become a lot safer as zombies huddled together.

I don't think "everyone" would be level 1. It would make people think more. PKers, for instance. A lot of time they just kill someone and SLEEP RIGHT WHERE THEY KILLED THE GUY. Even though they KNOW the local cops are going to kill them. Why not? No loss really. But if there was a FEAR OF DYING, they would need to kill, and then HIDE SOMEWHERE. Survivors would think about...surviving..., not endlessly sacrifice attacking some zombie occupied building that they have a hard on for. Right now UD is like a chess game where all the pieces are Kings. Players just shuffle their Kings around until one or the other gets bored and concedes.--Zombie Lord 06:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact you aren't thinking is the current problem with this - it would ruin the game. All the new players who joined would find it incredibly hard to level up. Experienced survivors would never leave green suburbs because of fear, and the game would die. Your point about PKers "staying where they are" after killing is horrendous. Most intelligent PKers move away a bit if they can. Just try actually thinking how you would like it if you woke up every day to find a skill gone. If this is submitted, it will get spammed mercilessly.-- Adward  17:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The fear that we would lose players is a bit misleading. A game attracts players based on what they like. I'm saying, sure we'd lose players that like the Pussinton Pillow Fight version we have now, but we'd draw players with BALLS. Fair trade, IMO.--Zombie Lord 18:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You just skipped right over a certain section of the Dos and Do Nots, didn't you? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I do that often. Cause I'm not a sheep.--Zombie Lord 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not about being, or not being a sheep. It's about the part that says Make it More Fun, Not Less Fun. If the curve is too steep all you're going to do is put off a lot of people, and this is meant to be a little bit of fun, a distraction for a few minutes a day. --Roorgh 07:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I wipe my ass with the dos and do not list. If your idea of fun is being an invincible pussy, that's your problem. It's not everyones idea of fun though. --Zombie Lord 18:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this. It would shake up the game too much. I worked hard to get where I am. I'm simply not going to agree to a setup that would make my life harder. -CaptainVideo 04:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Like I said. BALLS. Worked hard? You're talking about a "game" were any RETARDED MONKEY can hit level 40+ if they just bang senselessly on the buttons long enough. --Zombie Lord 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could just suggest this in a new city, a "Hardcore" city, and have people who are interested join in. Leave those that don't want it (I would say a large majority) the way they are. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing is flawed! You admitted your self that you don't give a damn if it ruins the game for people! And as for your "BALLS" explination, how about you consider this whole thing in the long run. A TON of people will quit and we will see people to scared to fight or leave their heavily barricaded hovels. PK'ers will grief to no end and new comers to the game will leave in a snap. All of this is stated above but you ignore it. You just don't understand that in the long term, the game will be fucked by this. This will set things back, not advance the game.--SirArgo ^Talk 07:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I think we'd see the pop drop sure. Probably a lot of zergers actually and wed see the numbers drop dramatically. Making it HARD to maintain a character would make it especially hard on the zerger trying to maintain dozens of zergs. They'd get sick of it and drop most of them. The honest player focusing on a few legal Alts would have a much easier time of it.--Zombie Lord 18:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it might have the opposite effect you're looking for; instead of encouraging "courage" in survivors, it could easily lead low-to-mid level survivors to never leave the EHB green suburbs until they "built up" enough skills and extra XP to feel safe. Most of my deaths happened in the level 3-6 range, when I was still learning about the game and tactics, so this game change would have kept me at those levels for a while. The possibility of trapping a player at low level is very dangerous. Also, this inadvertently screws Scientists, who usually pay 150 XP to purchase Free Running at level 2 or 3. That makes for a very real chance of losing that expensive yet necessary skill over and over in the early levels. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 08:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we'd see REAL bravery and courage at least. Sure, most players would probably cower in their Green burbs, but so what. Survivors would have to organize areas where low level players could train and level up, BEFORE heading out to the dangerous areas. They'd have to organize police forces to keep the PKers away. An actual society. As for being trapped at low levels, the strong survive, the weak get culled from the herd. Simple enough.--Zombie Lord 18:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "real" bravery/courage in a game. And we have actual societies now. As for setting up specific training areas, those already exist too, but they still fall to zombie hordes every so often when they rampage through. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How about a new Skill cost base. Instead of 100, make it 60. So:

Military: 40 for Military Skills, 90 for Science, 60 for all others.

Science: 40 for Science Skills, 90 for Military, 60 for all others.

Civilian: 40 for all Civilian Skills, 60 for Military/Zombie skills, 90 for Science.

Zombie: 40 for all Zombie Skills. 90 for all Survivor Skills.

This would have the added benefit of players "sticking to their class" a lot more as players would naturally be inclined to replace their cheaper class skills before others.--Zombie Lord 18:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The single biggest flaw here (aside from the fact that this sucks) is that zombies already get headshot at least ten times more often than the average survivor dies. It's something to do with these things called "barricades". The way this would make XP invaluable (instead of just valuable), and killing zombies have an effect other than a cost of 6AP, we'd have a shitload more people killing zombies outside, meaning a shitload of more zombie deaths (and headshots). I dare say this would turn the game into a zombie apocalypse with very few actual zombies. Also, zombies are not supposed to fear anything. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I was actually thinking along these lines myself, the part about Zombies not fearing anything I mean. So only Survivors lose levels for dying then. Zombies could lose their levels in some other fashion.--Zombie Lord 20:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Advanced Diagnosis

Timestamp:	--Giles Sednik CAPDSWA 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill, balance change
Scope:	Survivors and Zombies
Description:	This skill would allow survivors to distinguish infected survivors from the uninfected. Infected survivors' HP would be shown in light green with this skill. Conversely, zombies could use this skill, in the same way that they can currently use diagnosis. Because undead physiology is different from the living, this skill could not be used to diagnose an infection in a zombie. Realism - It makes sense that survivors with a background in medicine (diagnosis) could pick out a survivor suffering from a zombie infection. In movies and literature infected survivors show signs of their impending demise in the form of cold sweats, palid complexion, shaking, etc. Even laypeople can spot a cold in a total stranger. If survivors and zombies can detect a 5HP loss in someone who slipped and fell in a ruined building they should also be able to spot the signature zombie bite and symptoms of an infection with the added experience of having basic diagnosis skills and witnessing their comrades die of infections. Game Balance - Just as Flesh Rot provided zombies with 2 advantages long enjoyed by survivors (Flak Jacket and Body Building), Advanced Diagnosis would provide survivors with the zombie advantage of being able to identify an infectection. Also it's a crossover skill so zombie players can make use of it. Furthermore, it would even out the number of survivor and zombie skills without having to introduce a new gameplay element. Implementation - This would go in the Scientific Skill tree as a 2nd level skill of diagnosis. However since Advanced Diagnosis would make it easier for survivors to heal infections, I could see introducing this new skill coupled with a boost to Infectious Bite, causing a 2HP loss for every 1AP spent.

Discussion (Advanced Diagnosis)

Make it a skill that is REQUIRED to cure infections, and make infections 2HP per AP, and you might get some traction. Sure, its "genre appropriate" that skilled doctors can detect infections, but its similarly appropriate that ONLY skilled doctors can cure them (not any shmoe with a first aid kit) and that they kill yah pretty quick.  Swiers 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I second Swiers. These are two ideas that have been offered up separately a couple (dozen) times, maybe together they would work. --Zombie Lord 03:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Prognosis.--Pesatyel 03:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How about the Swiers combo idea. That a dupe too?--Zombie Lord 04:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey I kinda like the idea of advanced diagnosis being required to treat infections. Anyone with a FAK could still heal damage, but the infection itself could only be cured by someone with advanced diagnosis. With advanced diagnosis you would get the message - You restore 10HP to JoeJoe, using your medical training to cure the infection. Though maybe the name would have to change if it was used for treating and not just diagnosing. Like Advanced Medicine , dunno --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 15:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

By the time you locate somebody who can cure you, you'll have perished... Whether the zombie ran out of AP or you just got revivified, you'll probably have 25 HP or less, meaning that you can take only 13 steps before dying of infection. I think survivors should still be able to recognise and cure their own infections: it's really not difficult. --LaosOman 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Bulk SMS Messaging

Timestamp:	User:J.W. 03:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	improvement, flavor
Scope:	Characters with mobile phones
Description:	Right now you can only send text messages to one person at a time. This change would allow players to send the same text message to multiple recipients at a cost of 1 AP. The obvious benefit is that it saves survivors AP when they want to send the same text message to multiple survivors at the same time. However, I don't think this changes AP dynamics at all since the same thing can already be accomplished via a radio transmission (albeit publicly instead of privately), and almost every mobile phone can already do this in real life. Therefore, this is really just a minor way to improve in game communication for survivors (and zombies who carry mobiles), hopefully making the game more fun all around. (And this is my first suggestion ever...so please be gentle)

Discussion (Bulk SMS Messaging)

You've pretty much nailed why this can't be passed in your own explanation, mate. SMS works because it's private and so more useful for coordination than the radio. Making it so easy to mass-message people would be an enormous communication buff. It's a balance thing: Radio is AP-efficient but public, SMS is AP-inefficient but private. Edit: You mention that in real life mass-messaging is easy and that is correct, but it also costs money per message sent. In-game the cost is AP. --Papa Moloch 16:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the only way I could see this working in game would be to put an increased ap cost to use it and limit the number of recipients (like 5 ap to message 10 people or something of the sort). Good first suggestion though. Keep them up! --Johnny Bass 16:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of being able to send the same message to multiple people. Right now this is a pain. I agree, though, that it would have to cost 1 AP for each recipient. --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 17:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm you guys are right, it is probably more of a survivor buff than I thought, so an added AP cost seems warranted, though I don't think it should be too high...The reason being, if a player or group of players wanted, they could set up a twitter feed, or an irc channel, or a password protected forum, or whatever else, to easily get to this level of communication. Wouldn't this change simply reduce the need for meta-gaming that already occurs and bring more of the game play inside the game? Otoh, i guess metagaming does have its place in UD.

And thanks for the feedback! --J.W. 19:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, that's an excellent point. Why should we tack on a prohibitive AP cost, when all that does is reinforce the notion that players must participate in the meta to be effective? Look at the suggestions recently about changing or adding aspects to feeding groans and such-- all of them pushed the idea of less meta. Obviously we feel that zombies should not be forced to the meta to horde up and be effective. Maybe we should think more about this suggestion before assigning a high AP cost to it. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 21:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a meta concern. I can carry a radio and tune it to a particular frequency that those on my contact list can tune to as well. Then someone with a radio can broadcast to all said people simultaneously. The radio is for mass broadcasts, the phone for individual. In other words, there is already a tool in game that does what this suggestion is, well, suggesting: The radio.--Pesatyel 03:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Spec Ops training

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 01:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors mostly
Description:	After spending so much time in the military, you have learnt how to use gestures as a form of silent communication. Unfortunately, though, regular folk don't understand a lot of it. New military skill, survivor-equivalent of Flailing Gesture. In additioned to the gestures available to zombies, a user with Spec Ops training can use specialist gestures (which appear in a second drop-down box to the left of the direction one) to indicate 'hostiles', 'friendlies' and 'assistance needed'. However, unless the other users have Spec Ops training, they will not understand the connotations of such gestures, instead seeing [Name] made a complicated gesture towards [direction/building/person] A Spec. Ops gesture can be made with a direction but no connotation, or with a connotation without a direction, i.e. [Name] made the gesture for [friendlies/hostiles/assist], or [Name] gestured to [direction/building/person] When compared to speaking, this can designate less information, but to more people (everyone). A zombie with Spec Ops training and Memories of Life can also translate Spec Ops gestures.

Discussion (Spec Ops training)

Hey, not a bad idea, but i'm a little concerned about whether its actually necessary... Zombies cant talk so its a useful skill but humans can talk. I understand that only those with the skill will be able to understand it but that won.'t leave much control over who can see it in the long term. Will zombies with the skill be able to see the gestures? Sorry if it was answered above, im wiking via my phone so stuff is limited. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

just read the end. I actually think zombies with the skill shouldnt understand the gestures, otherwise i dont think this suggestion would be to useful :( D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Survivors already have 4 different manners of direct communication within the confines of the game and they barely use them properly. Personally, I don't see a need for yet another form of communication on the survivor side. Nifty idea though. --Johnny Bass 14:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree.--Pesatyel 03:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Internal Rot

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 00:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill.
Scope:	Zombies/Buildings
Description:	Sub-skill of Brain Rot. Costs 100 XP. A zombie with Internal Rot is now so rotted that they can never be Revived again under any circumstances. Furthermore, they are so diseased that their mere presense has a ruinious effect on buildings. They have a new button when inside a ruined building called Infectious Presence. Costs 25 AP and raises the cost to repair the building by 1 AP.

Discussion (Internal Rot)

So that alt zombie characters who don't do anything but keep ruined buildings ruined have something to do with their AP? ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 01:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be one use.--Zombie Lord 02:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what other uses do you envision? Myself, I see two uses for this. The first is to give greater power to the well-established zombie tactic of keeping a number of zombies inside a ruined building and not moving them, to keep the building ruined and to drive up the AP repair costs to a prohibitive level. The "price" a zombie player pays for using this tactic is that the zombie in question sacrifices their utility to do other things: since they cannot afford to leave the building to help attack the rest of the suburb (lest it be repaired while they're gone), they sacrifice their own playtime in order to keep the building ruined. This skill would allow these zombies to additionally use their AP to expedite the ruining process by a magnitude of 2 repair AP a day, per zombie. The other use I see for this skill is to make it impossible for survivors to reclaim an NT using Combat Revives. And while I agree that CRs are annoying, the risk of getting CRed is the risk a zombie runs by standing around in an NT, trying to keep it ruined. I think this suggestion removes the "downsides" to these tactics, and I'm not convinced that any tactic should be without a downside. To sum up, I believe this idea fails the "multiply it by a million" rule: if 10 zombies staked out a ruined building, they could collectively add 20AP of repairs to it per day. If a group the size of the Mall Tour was willing to spend one extra day in a ruined mall before moving on, they could leave that mall with 200AP+ worth of repairs. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 05:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I envision Survivors spending all that excess AP they waste when cades are at EHB by just sitting around being used up, yeah. I mean, it would be pretty kick ass to see areas really and truly devastated after a big horde moves on requiring some actual sweat from Survivors to clean it all up.--Zombie Lord 08:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This would make taking Necrotech buildings back a fair bit harder, and totally nerf combat revives. Secondly, it would be a boon for zergers holding buildings - a single person could level up a few alts and give a building with 100AP+ costs in a reasonably short period of time.

Extropymine makes a good point about multiplying it by a billion, too. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So what if we just dropped the whole Ruin aspect. It wouldn't totally nerf CR. Some zombies don't ever get Brain Rot. According to the arguments below zerg arguments "don't count" as you'd have unlimited AP. Can't win here :P--Zombie Lord 09:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Most zombies that have brain rot won't hesitate in getting this - thus making combat reviving a lot harder when retaking a NT. And, for many survivor groups, that's the only way they can re-take a NT (try searching for guns when the nearby mall is ruined, and PD's aren't that great search-rate wise.)

This also encourages "fundamentalism" - "forcing" players to play for a particular side with no return. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You say that like it's a bad thing. :P In a so called Zombie Apocalypse were the Survivors consistently outnumber the Zombies 2 to 1, I think we could use a little Zombie Fundamentalism. And of course no one could force anyone to take the Skill.--Zombie Lord 21:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hows this sound?

• Advanced Decomposition:
• flavour The body is now so far gone with rot that even in a powered NT it often takes more than a single syringe to revive, not only that but prolonged contact with this walking cadaver risks infection!
• Effects powered NT revives fail 50% of the time. Scans, Revive Attempts and Body Dumps have a 50% chance to spread infection (as a bite)

Pre req is fleshrot so its only going to be the most dedicated zeds that run with this.--Honestmistake 11:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Very no. With no warning, you try to dump a body (or scan a zed), and you get an infection. Maybe I'd consider voting "yes" on this if Malls still had high FAK search rates, but right now infection is a pain. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 14:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well everyone with the sense to read the game updates would have had some sort of warning but I think perhaps a 50% chance would be a bit too harsh; perhaps 10% would be more reasonable. As for infection being a pain... its supposed to be a bit more than that; its supposed to be life threateningly nasty! Remember too that search rates are constantly tweaked meaning that this could very well result in search rates going up slightly to counter it--Honestmistake 16:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

50% probably is a bit high, since bites only have a 35% chance to land normally. Maybe 25%. With the way the RNG works, 10% would almost never happen.--Zombie Lord 21:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Having had time to think it through a bit more I am convinced that something like this would work but only if the infection chance was pretty damn low. 10% might even be too high... --Honestmistake 00:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm really against the infectious presence aspect of this. It'd encourage players to do nothing but stay in one room and click one button twice a day. Additions should encourage players to become more active and make more choices, not streamline their strategy into two clicks. --A Big F'ing Dog 14:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The only people likely to do that are the ones running alts to block repairers while they actually play another character. They are doing it anyway so this wouldn't change their behavior. For everyone else it would be a case of play as normal but try (harder) to end the turn somewhere tactically valuable. Without the infectious aspect in some form it would just be a 100xp charge on hardcore rotters to give them more chance to play as they want but without any actual real benefit to them--Honestmistake 16:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the point? A Rotter can ONLY be revived if inside a POWERED NT building by someone with Necronet Access. That is NOT easy to do and if your rotter is REALLY worried about it it only takes 1 AP to keep it from happening.--Pesatyel 03:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Zerged Barricade Obstruction

Timestamp:	--Johnny Bass 07:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	more zerg protection in game
Scope:	Zombie
Description:	Currently, zerged zombie characters can all contribute to barricade blocking rates if they are from the same IP address. Characters tripping the flag should not contribute to this rate in the same fashion that characters from the same IP address cannot heal each other.

Discussion (Zerged Barricade Obstruction)

Sounds very reasonable. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Is their rate of barricading affected like their healing, etc? If not then it should be as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Hierophant (talk • contribs) 07:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

It is believed that success rates for all things affected by chance are dramatically reduced, to 0% in some cases. I agree that the presence of a zerg flag should disable blocking for that character – it's only fair to harmanz.
Now, how about making zerging harmanz not block ransack? :D ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not very useful in an active fight (to preventing zerging) because survivors won't know the zombies in question can't stop them from building. If its ground holding that concerns you, well, survivors still have to kill and dump the zergs at normal rates before repairing a ruined building so they can cade in the first place.
In fact, the main purpose of cade blocking is to allow non-metagame zombie co-operation, by giving zombies who do not co-ordinate actions a chance to keep cades down long enough to do something. Zergers don't NEED cade blocking, and gain little from it.  Swiers 17:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically, it would just be another way of removing any benefits that COULD be reaped from having zerg accounts. They may not need it, but it certainly helps them when up against active resistance. --Johnny Bass 14:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it DOES help overall. Instead, what it does is encourage paranoid zerg-cryers to try barricading buildings that are under attack by legit zombies, and wasting APs. The typical survivor player can't tell a zerg from a normal zombie horde, so this helps them not one bit, because they wouldn;t know when the cade odds were normal, and when they were gonna get blocked. If people can't make consistent predictions of game behavior, then they are likely to use sub-optimal tactics- so much so that this suggestion might actually HELP zombie zergs, by wasting survivor AP on a wide (if shallow) scale.  Swiers 02:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

They might realise when when they try to barricade and real zombies lurch in their way. You actually get a special message to tell you that zombies obstructed you.--Ryvyoli ^{Y R} 08:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Minimap Class Emphasis

Timestamp:	Vince with Shamwow 05:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	Humans
Description:	The background colors for other survivors are very pale and extremely difficult to tell which class they are at first glance. I think they should be made to contrast with each other a little more.

Discussion (Minimap Class Emphasis)

The colors are quite easily distinguishable on my display, so it could be you just need to calibrate yours. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I've tried adjusting it but I can't seem to get it to work. Oh well, if it's just me I guess it's not a big deal.--Vince with Shamwow 14:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware you could see the class of others...(well without looking at their profile).--Pesatyel 00:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not alone. I recently discovered this, and I've been here over 2 years. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

news to me. Strikes me as somewhat useless at any rate...--xoxo 00:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Trail Blood

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 17:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	I suggest adding a skill to let zombies allow other zombies to know where they are. The Trail Blood skill would put a new button on a zombie's interface: [Trail Blood]. Clicking it causes your zombie to ooze and drip blood and bile as they move. This doesn't have any effect on the room description because the amount is relatively small, but it makes a zombie far more fragrant. If you draw attention to yourself by speaking it allows zombies with Scent Trail to track you. Here's how it works. A zombie has Trail Blood activated. They speak, doesn't matter if they have death rattle or not. Zombies with Scent Death that hear the message see this: A zombie said "Hrmmmm harman" (now 3n1w) A useful way of gathering fellow zombies to you. If you ever want to not be trackable you'd be able to press [Stop Trailing Blood] to switch back. Switching either way would cost 1AP. Each time a zombie speaks when Trail Blood is active there would be a 10% chance of losing the ability to leave a trail (they don't lose the skill, just the button). They've just run out of gore to drip. Killing a survivor replenishes this gruesome supply and restores the button. This ensures that only effectively muderous zombies would be able to keep calling allies. This skill would be useful in areas with limited feeding groans, or where survivors heavily outnumber zombies. Experienced players could call others to follow them - if a high level zombie or one in a reputable group is trailing blood, they may have a smart target in mind. Even more useful would be the ability zombies would gain to follow their contacts and stick together.

Discussion (Trail Blood)

What do you think? I'm trying to make something gross but plausible. Just a little dribble of blood from the zombie's mouth, or oozing from bullet holes in their side. That tiny residue is enough for zombies with enhanced scent to track them. And as a game function, I think it would prove fantastically useful. I think it remains balanced since you can't tell other zombies about targets, nor send them elsewhere, but merely convince them to follow you. --A Big F'ing Dog 17:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the range on this? 15 squares, I presume? And do we need another zed-gathering skill since we already have feeding groans? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

15 spaces does seem like a decent range. Feeding Groan is useful if you don't know anyone. But it'll quickly disperse a gathering of zombies as they log in at different times and go after the most recent groan. This would be useful for zombies that know each other, or want to keep working together based on past success. Zombie groups could even operate without metagaming mostly. The leader just groans, and the pack follows them to the new location. --A Big F'ing Dog 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I think 15 spaces to be too large. You can hear a loud groan from a ways away, but your nose won't be that good. I would suggest a range of 10 squares. Because this is more versatile than groan (they can find you at block without survivors present), it should have a shorter range. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 02:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well just make it 10 squares like Scent Trail. As for "replenishing" the gore, it would make sense that if the zombie is damaged they would get replenished also.--Pesatyel 03:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"They speak, doesn't matter if they have death rattle or not." I'm unclear why this skill should allow a zombie without death rattle to talk. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 06:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombies without Death Rattle can talk, it's just limited to the pre-defined choices. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oho, I misunderstood what was written. I guess using the "Hmmmm Harmanz" example mistakenly got me thinking that having this skill would allow zombies to talk, circumventing death rattle. So it might be Hmmm Harmanz (1w2n) or it might be Mrh? (1w2n). I understand now. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 00:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Either type of zombie speech would work. --A Big F'ing Dog 03:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Range of 10 seems better to me but i also think the mechanic needs work. If this was called something more like "Rotting Flesh" and allowed you to show up in some noticable form on a scent map as a contact i think it would have a lot more merit. Say on a scent death use you had an indication of where any of your rotting contacts are?--Honestmistake 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to keep it voluntary though, don't want to let people track enemy group leaders just by having them in their contacts. Also, requiring the leader to speak signals that they want people to track them. Maybe a zombie doesn't have a good target in mind. It would be a waste of people's time to seek them out. This way, when a zombie has a plan, that's when they can speak before a crowd of zombies and get them to follow. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Lay To Rest

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 10:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill.
Scope:	Zombie survival
Description:	Zombies can now purchase the skill "Lay To Rest" for 100XP with the following properties: A zombie can now "Lie Down" for a cost of 1AP A zombie that is lying down cannot perform any action except standing up in the normal manner and at the cost of 1AP (regardless of ankle grab). When a zombie is lying down it cannot be seen from adjacent squares (from a distance it appears as a dead body), it can however be seen/attacked/pricked by any player occupying the same square as if it was a normal (standing) zombie. A zombie that is lying down cannot be seen through Binoculars and is not included in External Military Reports. If a zombie lies down in a building it cannot be dumped (if your in the building you are in the same block (large buildings they must be in the same block to be seen) so it acts as a normal zombie). Effects: Helps to increase zombie survivability, Gives more of a purpose to walking the streets as opposed to free running everywhere, Practically useless to zombies in hordes because the sheer amount of activity means they are likely to be discovered by people going to and from the scene, Useful to feral/lone zombies in quiet areas because they are only likely to be discovered by chance/people searching for zombies outside.

Discussion (Lay To Rest)

Pointless. At the moment it has no advantage other than costing 1AP more (to lie down and get up) as it does currently to simply die, and THEN get up. Also, it could be manipulated to prohibit survivor xp, by lying down to stop a survivor from getting the xp-gaining last hit. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The advantage is it reduces the chance for a zombie to be spotted, potentially saving them from the AP they would lose from a headshot and I don't see how it would stop a survivor gaining XP because the zombie can still "be seen/attacked/pricked by any player occupying the same square" this would actually be more useful to lower level players because they could lay down and reduce the chance of being spotted then get up later for a total of 2AP as opposed to the 10/15AP they would have without ankle grab. --Kamikazie-Bunny 10:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No. Zombies are predators, not prey. And no ninja zombies! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombies are predators, but how often (in the genre) do you see a zombie playing dead/still alive amongst the bodies that only attacks when a victim gets within range. This allows zombies a better chance at survival which is crucial for newbies, it also means I can't pop my head out and get a reading for 9 blocks as accurately, if a scout wants accurate data they'll have to check each block. This hopefully makes it easier for low-level zombies and more interesting for high level survivors. --Kamikazie-Bunny 11:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Newbies won't have this skill though. It's absolutely useless for gaining XP, and would only serve as a red herring. As for rising from a pile of bodies, we have this handy little skill you may have heard of called Ankle Grab.
The mere fact that people are proposing a skill that lets zombies hide from survivors speaks volumes as to the sad state of the game's current population balance, or more to the point, im-balance. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean that all the rocket launcher suggestions speak volumes to how hard it is to kill zombies? :) ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 02:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure this would be duped many times over if brought to vote. This is not new or original. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the idea... Just a few questions. If this were used inside a building, would the survivors be able to dump the zombie outside like with a corpse? How does this affect binoculars? Is accuracy increased when attacking a dead body (since, you know, they don't move...)? Will this influence the External Military Reports? It's a good idea, but it needs some work. More details, mostly. --LaosOman 19:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The idea of the suggestion is it stops zombies being seen from a distance, up close they function just the same as any other zombie. So... No to dumping, Binoculars can't see them, and they are not included in radio reports. Attacking the zombie would have the standard attack % as well. Update to description to include these details. --Kamikazie-Bunny 01:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the utility of this... if it is to hide zombie numbers in an area, then it hurts zombies just as much as it helps, because they would not see one another at range and that makes it tougher to horde up. If it's to prevent being "hunted," then... why? Since this is a skill, you are asking a zombie to buy THIS rather than, say, Ankle Grab. If they had Ankle Grab, it is easier to just get killed and hop back up again. So... how do you envision this being used? ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 02:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been suggested a lot before and this is probably the WORST itteration I have ever seen. You cannot use "normal" zombie genre logic in this context because the game is much too simple for that to work. Do you have ANY idea how this could be abused? Obviously not. This is not about "zombie survivability". That is already factored into the game by the ability of a zombie to stand at full health. Your argument, first of all, is confusing. Either the zombie is "lying down" OR it is standing. With this suggestion, you have them doing both at the same time. I have several other issues, but you have to clear THAT one up first.--Pesatyel 05:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see this being implemented. It doesn't matter if the zombie dies it only costs 1 AP to stand up (6 if you include Headshot) Apart from nerfing headshot, this serves the zombie very little. .--Ricci Bobby 12:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Vomit

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 10:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Zombie Attack
Scope:	Zeds&Victims
Description:	"It has been observed that some zombies have become so bloated from consuming the living that they have began regurgitating on their victims prior to consumption... whether this is to aid digestion, create room for fresh meat or if the zombie gains some form of pleasure from this torture remains unknown. Survivors of attacks describe the vomit as 'an intense burning sensation' however the real threat is if the fluid gets on the victims face and in their eyes, the fluid effectively blinds the survivor for an extended period of time or until they can rinse it out." Zombies will now gain the following: A new attack "Vomit" which causes 1 HP damage and has a base accuracy of 15% Upon a successful hit vomit has a 50% chance of causing 1AP damage. Vomit receives the bonuses of Vigor Mortis and Tangling Grasp (Acc. not Grasp) Gastric Acid (Subskill of digestion) - Doubles the HP and MP damage of vomit.

Discussion (Vomit)

dont.mess.mit.meine.AP! >=[ D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Vas vaiting for dat.... Anything useful to say rather than just quoting the wiki? --Kamikazie-Bunny 10:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't fucking touch my fucking AP, you fucking fuck. Also, we don't have Mana Points. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not mana, it's MAGIC points, mana is the stuff it is made from. --Kamikazie-Bunny 10:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We still don't have magic points. And don't mess with our AP. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add some things wrong with the suggestion. Firstly, in AP efficiency, this is sorta useless, because the small chance to deal 1 ap is not sufficient compared to the zombies, current damage potential. Also, all that with just an AP destroyer, and even then, 50% chance, isn't sufficient enough to use it as a tactic. Of course, with the bonuses, these chances become a bit better, but even then, theres no logic to hand-melee-related skills giving bonuses to mouth-related attacks, else it would affect the bite also. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

AP efficiency is meant to be low, if it was higher players could completely destroy survivor AP stocks by metagaming and dedicated tactics. This way a full supply of Z-AP is only more effective than headshot when maxed out (nearly all attacks are useless at low levels). I did not want it to be so that a lone zombie could demolish a players AP supply, only that they could hinder it in a similar fashion to headshot. I'm not sure why your complaining about the bonuses though V.M effects all non-weapon Zattacks that includes the bite and so does tangling grasp (effectively by grabbing the survivor for better aim). Whoops, forgot to sign! --Kamikazie-Bunny 11:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

When a new feature is introduced, people tend to expect it to be a buff or a nerf, else it is useless. If a new skill is introduced, it is expected to be useful in some way. If it isn't AP efficient like this skill, I'm afraid people just see a potential skill that they won't wanna use. And Blake has got a good idea down there. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, we need more requisition before we can implement such an unbelievably good skill.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 10:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

no. gb2 l4d. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps this suggestion could work well if it 'doubled' the scent value of a survivor in terms of Scent Death? Zombie puke would smell rank, and as such would be picked up by nearby zeds. Plus, a marker to same-area zeds to show who's been coated.--Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the AP loss would doom this suggestion as it stands. I could see vomiting being used to infect survivors, though. Make this a skill that requires infectious bite. Vomiting would hit at 40%, do 1 damage and cause infections. There would be no hp gain from vomiting, and also less damage caused or experience acquired. The Mad Axeman 11:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Blake has something of an idea. Under normal "tracking" rules, a zombie can only track a survivor if the survivor interacts with the zombie (ie attacks or whatever). With this, the zombie can puke on the survivor and thus intiate the same tracking ability (maybe even for OTHER zombies too).--Pesatyel 05:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing feels to much like the boomers from Left 4 Dead. -CaptainVideo 05:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not the only one to think that… *points at his comment further up* ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Rubble Usage

Timestamp:	=Col Noonan 11:38, 6 March 2009 (EST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Humans
Description:	I had the idea for a quick and easily available weapon for humans that I read was used in a four hour long skirmish in Stalingrad. Add a brick to the weapons list. It would have to have a low accuracy rate and damage dealt, so that it isn't too cheap. It would be available in EVERY square, and would deal one more damage than a punch, with a little less accuracy rate. It's just for those that, say, run out of ammo and absolutely need a weapon.

Discussion (Rubble Usage)

I'm not arguing against your suggestion exactly, but your logic. When you "run out of ammo" that is what tennis rackets, baseball bats, pipes, knives, axes, hockey sticks, fencing foils, cricket bats, crowbars, golf clubs, and ski poles are for. As for the suggestion itself you really need to be specific with your game mechanics. "A little less accurate than a punch" is too vague.--Pesatyel 04:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Either way, it's a dupe. _Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 07:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And humans, by definition, means zombies too. Man, I'm such a perfectionist, I even make myself proud. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I created the entry being cited above, you have my endorsement if this makes it to Peer Reviewed. Bear in mind, however, that you'd have to satisfy the critics when I couldn't. -CaptainVideo 04:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

• Suggestion:20090301 Skyscrapers as Navigation Landmarks is up for voting. Discussion moved to here. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion:20090302 Basic Character Visuals is up for voting. Discussion moved to here. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 18:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Suggestion:20090310 Direction With Most Group Groans is up for voting. Discussion moved to here. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

---