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

Further Axe Experience

Timestamp:	Roorgh 12:10, 10 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Another axe skill that survivors can get that comes after Axe Proficiency in the skill tree. It simply gives +10% with fire axe.

Discussion (Further Axe Experience)

I'm not wed to the particular name I've chosen, just what it represents. All this does is bring the axe up to par with the zombie claw in terms of chances to hit for both people (excluding the effect of Tangling Grasp) and barricades. I find it odd that survivors are at a disadvantge for all current melee weapons. As it stands a survivor needs on average of 50AP to kill a person with 60HP. I couldn't see anything with fire or axe in the title for previous suggestions for something like this which I found odd. If it's a dupe I apologise. --Roorgh 12:10, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Axes are useful because they don't require the survivor to waste AP on searches, they may be below par when compared with zombie claws, however the attack rates balance out when the higher firearm skills are bought, and a survivor can invest search AP by searching for lots of ammo and being able to kill multiple zombies (or survivors) in a sitting when fully stocked. Not all weapons should do equal damage -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:57 10 April 2009 (BST)

Yeh survivors can stockpile shotguns and pistols and have a 65% chance to hit and do 10 or 6 damage. Making axes more powerful would unbalance the game. 40% to hit is the trade-off for not having to find ammo, like the rules said. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 16:26, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Zombies should be more proficient in mêlée combat than survivors. This goes for barricade-breaking too. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:14, 10 April 2009 (BST)

---

Mornington Crescent

Timestamp:	--User:Fighting Irises 01:13, 10 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	etc.
Scope:	Who or what it applies to.
Description:	Okay this is kinda just of idea. If it is impossible to do just remove it. I think that the street in Morington that is Tanner Crescent, should be renamed to Mornignton Crescent. It is just a thought it could be impossible. I also I think it would be funny, thats all.--User:Fighting Irises 01:13, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Discussion (Mornington Crescent)

Could you clarify that? -CaptainVideo 02:23, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Er, yeah... you want to rename it because "it's impossible?" How's it impossible? Also, there's a place for humourous suggestions, haha. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:43, 10 April 2009 (BST)

This isn't humorous. At least I don't think so. He just wants a street renamed. Why? I have no idea. But it isn't a suggestion that hurts the game or anything. Its just...pointless.--Pesatyel 03:26, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Just to Clarify. I was wondering if it would be okay to rename that street as a suggestion. IF it is impossible then I just remove my post and we go on and forget about this. If it wouldn't terribly destroy the game, I was wondering if I could try suggesting it. The joke is that in the UK there was a radio programme that you won by being the first person to say Mornington Crescent. I know it is quite possibly a stupid idea I just enjoy the irony of it. The message could read. "You are on Mornington Crescent. Good Job you won." something like that. If this isn't a good idea. I will just remove this.--Fighting Irises 06:39, 10 April 2009 (BST)

I would whole heartedly support this if it was a station and you could only reach it via random journeys from another station as that would be far more in keeping with the radio show =D --Honestmistake 13:20, 10 April 2009 (BST)

You know I didn't really thing about the rail station. Although if this was made and implemented. It would have to be a crazy suicide action. Maybe 150Ap it try to get to Mornington Crescent. This would of course have to be something high like that in order to not over balance survivors with rapid transport around the city.--Fighting Irises 15:03, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Well a far more reasonable situation might be to announce the competition and have the 1st player to tag (or groan) in every station in the game (starting and finishing with Mornington) win the prize.... Of course I will call upon the '2009 U.D. rules addenda to the international (Commonwealth edition) rule set of 1984' to ensure that anyone coming close to completion must divert via Caiger and not leave until its ransacked! =D --Honestmistake 19:46, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Understandable why you chose 1984' rule set., but wouldn't 1972 be more appropriate? All players must start at Mornington and end in Mornington, while have to die in each rail station along the way? Maybe that would be to difficult though seeing is how player groups could spread out and kill their people and revive them as the arrive.=D, XD. (we should probably get back on focus) --Fighting Irises 23:12, 10 April 2009 (BST)

---

Deep Bite

Timestamp:	CaptainVideo 23:36, 9 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	It's been said that the dead aren't having as much fun as they used to. Maybe we can fix that.

Deep Bite would be a zombie skill the undead can buy after Bite, and would have the same stats as Bite (see the list at "Unarmed Attacks"). Deep Bite would, however, be incurable. You could patch yourself up with a FAK, but that would only forestall the inevitable as you lose AP inexorably. The only way to be cured is to die and then come back.

Verbage: "A zombie bites you deeply." "You are [NAME] and you are infected." "You heal yourself with a FAK, but are unable to cure the infection." And so on, as you limp toward death. -CaptainVideo 23:36, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Discussion (Deep Bite)

This is a perverse joke, right? Survivors would pretty much be extinct be week's end. --  RoosterDragon  23:41, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Definitely. At least he didn't go straight to voting and get his head blown clear off. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:02, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Believe it or not, I'm serious. The zombie lobby has been complaining so loudly of late that I'd like to help them (even though I'm a survivalist, myself). Which doesn't guarantee that this is a horribly bad idea, but I AM trying. -CaptainVideo 00:21, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Change the name to Deep Throat and you'll have my vote. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 00:22, 10 April 2009 (BST)

If you had given it a sensible name and made it curable only in hospitals I might have taken it seriously.... however now that I have read Giles' comment I can only think "Boom chacka lala"--Honestmistake 00:38, 10 April 2009 (BST)

I like a few of the ideas I'm seeing here... renaming it "Deep Throat" (who can resist?), perhaps making curable only in powered hospitals by players with the Diagnosis skill, and, to add my own, how about making it a low percentage chance, maybe 5-10% per successful bite? I mean, at first I thought I'd die laughing when I saw he proposed it, and was getting ready to duck to avoid the flack, but with some serious modification, this might be workable.--Necrofeelinya 04:43, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Oh, and it's also nice that it encourages zombahs to use their mouthy bits more often. Wouldn't the harmanz love to get a little more oral?--Necrofeelinya 04:47, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Bow chicka wow-wow. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 05:15, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Simply....wow.--Pesatyel 03:28, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Wow... How ridiculous. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 04:11, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Petition to move to Humourous Suggestions? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:12, 10 April 2009 (BST)

I wouldn't be offended - I'd just be surprised that I was so far off the mark. Sure, go for it. -CaptainVideo 07:22, 10 April 2009 (BST)

It's not that ridiculous, as long as it didn't require death for a cure, like others said, forcing the deeply bitten survivor to seek out a powered hospital. Also, FAKs should still heal HP, but not the slow loss of HP caused by the bite, making this like an infection that isn't cured (but perhaps that would make this suggestion dupish of other upgrades to infectious bite?) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:47 10 April 2009 (BST)

I actually tried to say that - you can restore HP with a FAK, but the drain will continue. -CaptainVideo 18:04, 10 April 2009 (BST)

But seriously, change the name to something like "Ravenous Lunge", "Blood Poisoning", or anything better than "Deep Bite", make it curable in a powered hospital by any player w/Diagnosis, and make it just a portion of successful bites that affect survivors this way, not all of them, maybe 5-10% like I mentioned, and I'll vote for it. Or propose any similar changes that make it not an irreparable instakill skill. I like the idea, and don't think it unbalances the game if it happens infrequently and unreliably. With so many revive needles available deadly bites just aren't that big of a deal. You might also make it a special attack that costs extra AP or just has a very low hit % to attempt, or something like that, so that zombies have to choose whether to attempt it or not in a given situation. If they stumble across a human at the tail end of their AP, it would be worth a shot, but otherwise they'd be better off just clawing him down. I suggest just rewriting this one, if you think you can get anyone else to go with it besides me.--Necrofeelinya 23:43, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Not worth it. This doesn't even benefit me. I was doing it for the zombies. -CaptainVideo 01:40, 11 April 2009 (BST)

---

SEAL THE ROOM!!!

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 16:31, 9 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.
Scope:	Who or what it applies to.
Description:	Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.

Survivors inside forts have began repairing the destroyed equipment in an attempt to protect themselves. The blast doors of the armoury can now be closed by survivors!

Closing the blast doors

In order to close the doors the armoury MUST:

• Be powered by an active generator.

and

• Un-Barricaded.

When these conditions are fulfilled a survivor who is inside the armoury may choose to seal the room at the cost of 15AP. All occupants will receive the message "Player X closed the blast doors."

Opening the blast doors

The armoury will automatically become unsealed if:

• The armoury loses power (the locks will automatically release), occupants receive the message "The blast doors automatically released."

or

• A survivor inside the armoury unseals the room at the cost of 15AP, occupants receive the message "Player X opened the blast doors."

Effects

• When the blast doors are sealed no player may enter or exit the armoury, this includes zombies and body dumping cannot be performed.
• The only way to contact players outside/inside the armoury will be via radio.
• Any players may bang on the armoury door for 1AP, players on the 'other side' receive the message You hear something banging on the blast doors.

If the armoury is un-barricaded the area description includes the text "The blast doors are open/closed."

Discussion (SEAL THE ROOM!!!)

Hopefully this will lead to situations where groups are sealed in during sieges and end up arguing with/killing each other about if they should go out or stay in! I know this is very rough around the edges so please help me improve in additon to saying yay/nay. --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:31, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Don't do this with forts. Do it with banks. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 17:55, 9 April 2009 (BST)

For the love of god, don't do this with any building. No building should be completely impossible to enter as zombies without the aid of cultists. This is a trenchie's wet dream. --Johnny Bass 18:03, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I kind of thought that too at first glance, but I've got to give him credit... it's got a default that unlocks the doors and leaves the place fully open if the genny loses power. I don't know if that's enough to make it passable, since it just means that people will crowd in there with fuel cans and flee as soon as they run out, but it does mean they have to come out eventually, if only for a moment. And not being able to use free running to get in or out is a plus, though I'd take away their ability to use radios on the premise that the walls would be too thick. If they're going to be this isolated, they shouldn't be able to communicate at all. But that wouldn't stop metagamers from keeping a zombie scout outside to let them know when the coast is clear to open up and grab more fuel cans, so I still think it has major flaws. In fact, you're probably right, it's a disaster waiting to happen. Unless you give zombies the option of somehow 'cading them in with outside junk, so that they all eventually expire after a certain number of hours when they run out of air. But zombies don't think that way. So maybe they all get poisoned from the carbon monoxide fumes of the genny, which they have no way of venting, and which they can't sense the effect of until it's too late and have no way of predicting how long it'll take for them to all die. That'd be kind of cool. Or we put a button on the outside of the building which zombies can use that turns the whole thing in to a giant duck press when pushed, but only works when there's a genny inside powering it. I dunno, there might be options.--Necrofeelinya 18:48, 9 April 2009 (BST)

So this would allow trenchies to seal themselves off from the rest of the game with nothing to do but congratulate themselves on how KEWL they are and butt-fuck each other in text? So exactly what is the downside except that you are making this an armoury only action instead of a bank...--Honestmistake 19:29, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Let's say some well organized survivors decide they don't fancy playing the game for a while. A group of ten takes over the armoury with plans for the long haul. Let's say on average each player has 8 fuel cans (80% encumberance) with the other 20%+ for whatever misc items they might want. (Some guy has a genny, another a radio, whatever). Between these 10 players, that's 80 fuel cans. Each can lasts 120 hours (5 days), so let's say the genny gets refueled reasonably efficiently, on average every 108 hours (4 and a half days). That's 8,640 hours of protection, or 360 days, basically they could hole up for a YEAR. Whew. Kinda defeats the point of playing the game there. --  RoosterDragon  19:50, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Yup, a very organised group of survivors could take an entire building out of the game for ages which means the armoury really shouldn't be considered. A bank on the other hand... well i doubt the zombies would care! One thing though that does occur... sealed rooms don't have ventilation so those inside should all die after a set time!!!--Honestmistake 23:10, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Oh, I LIKE that. But how would the zombies get out? They'd have to wait for the power to run out and the locks to pop. -CaptainVideo 23:24, 9 April 2009 (BST)

or they simply destroy the generator... --Roorgh 00:38, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Its a pretty original idea, if I dare say so. However there needs to be a way for zombies to get in on their own. Which would kinda defeat the purpose of blast doors since we already have barricades. Meh...--Thadeous Oakley 20:14, 9 April 2009 (BST)

I can't even begin to imagine how frustrating it would be as a zombie to know that my only hope for entering a building would be to wait months or years for the occupants to get bored or run out of fuel. Good lord if people manage to stock x-mas trees year round they could certainly load up on fuel. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 00:26, 10 April 2009 (BST)

I have to wonder if it's really so bad. The room trenchies could only attack when they come outside, just as they could only be attacked when they're outside. It sort of balances itself out. And since there aren't all that many banks, only a finite number of jerks could do this anyway. -CaptainVideo 00:32, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, it would be a week, presuming nobody refuels.--Pesatyel 03:35, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Actually if combined with my (sarcastic) air shortage idea this might work. Obviously Banks not armouries and make it apply only to a "vault" within that building. It should require separate power and if the outside gets ruined the air con cuts out and the air starts to run out thus forcing the idiots within to either open the door and run for it or die a slow horrible death! Just think of the joy zeds could have suffocating moron trenchies who happened to log off 10 mins before the attack and die before they next log in =D --Honestmistake 00:45, 10 April 2009 (BST)

That's the ONLY way this suggestion would remotely work. I'm not even sure WHY he suggested it....--Pesatyel 03:35, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Actually to make it even more funny it should be barricadable from the outside thus allowing the rest of us to trap people inside :D --Honestmistake 13:23, 10 April 2009 (BST)

An iron pipe through the opening wheel of the vault should do it >:) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:40 10 April 2009 (BST)

Seriously, no, no impenetrable barriers to pure zombie play, even in banks -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:40 10 April 2009 (BST)

If a player or players wanted to completely insulate himself from zombies and/or gameplay, wouldn't it be easier to just not log-in? --Winton 07:01, 11 April 2009 (BST)

---

Joint

Timestamp:	Necrofeelinya 08:46, 9 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Locations: Warehouses; Auto Repair Shops; Pubs; Barracks; Outside of Malls; Cinemas; Hotels; Junkyards; Police Departments; Stadiums; Clubs; Schools. Encumbrance: 2% When used, the player gets the message "You light up a fat, juicy spliff, and the aroma wafts through the room." Other players in the room get the message "(player) busts out a joint and gets his mellow on." The player that lit up is then at -20% attack, attackers get a +20% attack modifier against him, and every movement costs +1 AP, except for moves which don't take him out of the room, like drinking beers or talking, which still only cost 1 AP. The effect lasts for 6 hours. Doing this to yourself is fully voluntary, and would be something that characters basically do just for shits and giggles. Players entering a room where a joint has been lit up in the last hour will get a message as part of the room description that says "You detect a faint smell of marijuana", "The smell of weed hangs heavily in the air here", or "This place absolutely reeks of pot.", depending on how many joints have been lit up there in the last hour. If 1 has been smoked, the first message is seen, and appears to new entrants for one hour. If 2 have been smoked, the second message appears to new entrants for one hour, then the first message appears for another hour. 3 or more and the third message appears for one hour, then the second, then the third, for a maximum total of 3 hours after its use that it can be detected. Should the player smoke more than 1, the effects on attack are cumulative, until the player reaches 0% to hit with any weapon and a +100% to be hit by any attacker, but the AP cost increases significantly for movement, with an additional +2 for the second, +3 for the third, etc., cumulative. So if you smoke two joints you end up with a +3 AP cost to move, if you smoke 3 joints you're at +6, etc. The effects of duration overlap, so that if a player smokes a joint, then smokes another joint 3 hours later, they're only doubly impaired for three hours, and the 3 hours on either side of those they're singly impaired. This suggestion is semi-humorous, because I realize Kevan almost certainly wouldn't implement it since it involves introducing illegal drugs as a game feature, but in all honesty, I'd love to see it actually added. I'm all for it. Jah, mon.

Discussion (Joint)

BIG PROBLEM... How are we going to light them, we don't have matches... You also forgot about food, for when we get the munchies. --Kamikazie-Bunny 14:13, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Penalties should only be relieved by becoming a zombie and feeding on corpses or digesting someone ;) --Honestmistake 14:18, 9 April 2009 (BST)

But we still can't light the stuff, I suppose we could eat it... but then we wouldn't get the smell in the buildings. --Kamikazie-Bunny 14:26, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Shoot a flare past your face. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 17:57, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Excellent suggestion! Think we can get anyone to try it in real life?--Necrofeelinya 18:24, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Please don't spam this page up with stupid shit. If you don't mean it to be entirely serious, don't put it here.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:20, 9 April 2009 (BST)

So, should I take that as a confirmation of my suspicion that Kevan would not consider adding illegal drugs to the game? Because otherwise, it's a perfect pairing with my very serious suggestion on intoxication, and I'd gladly put it to a vote. And I'd bet a lot of people would go for it.--Necrofeelinya 18:22, 9 April 2009 (BST)

No, he won't. Peer Reviewed or not, it not only doesn't fit into the genre it's also just a big waste of time to code in. The intoxication one is valid, although it's been suggested before. This one is just a waste of time so druggies can have fun in the game because they're too broke to buy their weed in real life.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:55, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Behold everyone! We have now come to the end of this page's usefulness. Now that SA has revealed his ability to psychically tap into Kevan's mind we can do away with this whole system of peer review. Simply go to SA's talk page and submit your suggestions directly, SA will then channel Kevan as he has done here and categorically tell you whether your suggestion will be accepted or not.

He makes shit up on the admin pages, why should I expect any different here.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:03, 10 April 2009 (BST)

I make up this shit on the admin pages? Please do tell where I explicitly state Kevan's will like that anywhere on those pages. I use logic and understanding in my views. Kevan has never shown any pro-pot ideals as far as I know, and were he to it'd hurt his public image quite a bit. Not to mention how many users he'd lose if he were to implement something like this into the game. Though please, do go on about how we make shit up all the time. Especially seeing as how the shit I make up has saved your ass quite a few times, or I've tried to when I feel you haven't done anything wrong. No, really. Go on. Tell me how I make shit up. Tell me how I have two sets of rules, one for one group of people, one for another. Tell me how I'm such a bad sysop and I'm going against the communities wishes. Tell me how I fuck up constantly and I'm not punished because of my sysops buddies. Go ahead and tell me all the mistakes that all of us sysops supposedly make.

Whats that? You're not going to? You're just going to ignore my post again aren't you? Just like last time where I asked you nicely to help me learn where I have shown to have two different sets of rules. Sure, you could have possibly missed it, but with you being you, I doubt it.

You have nothing to show that I'm as "Bad as the rest of the sysops", admit it. You have no consistent and substantial proof showing how "We're oppressive", how we're "Going against the wishes of the community who gave us our power", how we're "Constantly breaking the rules for the sake of our sysops buddies".

Iscariot, I've tried to be as fair as I possibly could when it comes to you, despite the bullshit you say to me and about the way I do my job, but someday my patience is going to run out. So I'd cool it with the baseless accusations and bullshit you say, because someday there won't be people here who will treat you fairly. When that time comes, you're probably going to be banned for an honest mistake because for the longest time you've treated the rest of admin team like shit. Sometimes it's deserved, but not as often as you make it out to be.

Good luck with your time here Iscariot. You're probably going to need it.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:18, 11 April 2009 (BST)

I feel a more appropriate response would have been "Thank you for your contribution." At least his first bit was humourous. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:39, 11 April 2009 (BST)

Thank you for your input only works when you don't want to hear from them anymore. I'm more than willing to speak with Iscariot about this, I'd love nothing more than for him to finally show proof that we're fucking up as bad as he says. But you deal with him long enough (Hell, I haven't even been an 'op that long) and he tires you out.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:46, 11 April 2009 (BST)

So, does that mean you like the idea?--Necrofeelinya 05:44, 10 April 2009 (BST)

No he doesn't (oh look, I'm psychic too!), try putting this suggestion up for voting and watch how fast Iscariot gets you onto A/VB. He knows that SA is almost certainly right, he just doesn't like the fact that a user is still allowed to have an opinion once promoted to sysop -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:04 10 April 2009 (BST)

Well isn't that just typical of our admin team? A passive aggressive threat of "put this up for voting and I'll escalate you for vandalism", fucking typical. Coupled with the fact they now think they can speak for me as to my thoughts on something with absolutely no basis, must be why they rule on 'intent' so often and get it wrong. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:52, 10 April 2009 (BST)

You're so wrong it's hilarious. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:34, 10 April 2009 (BST)

*Opens the Wiki, all at once* My God! It's full of dicks! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:28, 11 April 2009 (BST)

I must say, I'm beginning to understand "doesn't fit into the genre" to be simply a catch-all phrase meaning "I don't like it", unless by genre your meaning is "family-friendly MMORPGs" that just happen to include unlimited alcohol abuse without repercussions, Penis spammers, and easy workarounds to allow use of profanity in-game. Drug-addled survivors seem very in-genre to me, and the suggestion doesn't glorify drug abuse, it punishes it, though it adds enough flavor to lure people into that mistake. But I get your point... if Kevan wouldn't consider implementing it, it's a waste of time. Regarding the Intoxication suggestion, you mentioned it's a dupe... would you say its effects are similar enough to previous suggestions that it would be pointless putting it up for a vote, or is it sufficiently different to make it worth a shot? Got any links so I might compare?--Necrofeelinya 20:32, 9 April 2009 (BST)

It's used like that by a lot of users here, but I try not to use it like that. I can't remember many Zombie movies/books/games where the survivors were lighting up a joint. I've seen abusing medications in a last ditch effort to stop bleeding, but no mary-j. That's why I say it's not in-genre. On intoxication, just search for alchohol. It's not exactly the same, but then again, once one person votes dupe and a link is given, people tend to sheep that vote. It may not even be similar enough to dupe it, but it's a totally possible outcome. I'd personally just vote kill, maybe spam.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:18, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Well, there was a bit of partying going on in the remake of Dawn of the Dead, though not specifically pot, and I thought Caitlin Kiernan might have written a short story or two where survivors were holed up in an apartment after a party where some debauchery had been going on, though I don't think that focused on actual use either, and though I've never read it, I understand the character in the book I Am Legend is a complete wastoid, though that technically involves vampires, not zombies. But I've always felt that when locked in tiny rooms with no forms of recreation, terrified out of your wits, unable to safely venture outside and without any hope for the future, drugs would be a popular option whenever available. And in a zombie infested city, pot could be one of many weeds that makes inroads into civilization as infrastructure crumbles, especially if interested survivors are Johnny Appleseeding the place, which wouldn't be such a bad idea since they could also use it as a renewable fabric resource, minor source of protein, and if they really tried hard, oil, as well as the fact that it's both a proven painkiller (more effective in some ways than the more prevalent hydrocodone/acetominophen blends and their related opiates) and antidepressant, both of which they'd have quite a call for and which it would supply to them absolutely free of charge with minimal if any care. But it would give them the munchies, and Fritos are scarce in Malton.--Necrofeelinya 05:10, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Geez, how could I forget Return of the Living Dead???? Of course they smoke pot in that! And that's one of the greatest and most famous zombie flicks of all time!!!--Necrofeelinya 09:20, 10 April 2009 (BST)

YUP LETS TOTALLY GO WITH IT AND WHILE WE ARE AT IT LETS ADD COKE! AND HEROINE! AND METH! Meth You gain 1103485% chance to kill your opponent outright and you can fly! I LOVE IT! --Alex1guy 10:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Um... are you sure you're not already on it?--Necrofeelinya 05:10, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Somebody had to test it. -CaptainVideo 07:34, 10 April 2009 (BST)

---

Intoxication

Timestamp:	Necrofeelinya 01:40, 9 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Item effect
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	When a player drinks a beer, that player is then at -5% to attack, and attackers get a +5% attack modifier against him for 1 hour. Drinking multiple beers has a cumulative effect on the attack modifiers. Drinking multiple beers also extends the duration of the effect... duration in hours = # of beers drunk minus hours passed since drinking. That is to say, if you drink a beer, the effect lasts for an hour, but if you drink another, the hour it takes for that one to disappear doesn't start to count down until the first one loses its effect. As each beer's effect dissipates, hour after hour, the modifiers to attack will successively decrease. If a player drinks 3 beers, they get a +1 AP modifier for all movements other than those that don't cause him to change position. Movements that would be immune to this would be actions such as talking or drinking more beer. Attacking would be the only action he takes while immobile that would be subject to this modifier. Every beer after the third increases the AP modifier by +1. All this could be the same for wine, unless you envision characters chugging an entire bottle of wine when they use that item, in which case it would merit different, bigger modifiers. After the player has had 6 beers, their speech begins to slur. Each successive beer makes their speech more slurred, and by the tenth they're incomprehensible. A notification on the players profile will show them as "refreshingly satisfied", "mildly inebriated", "lightly buzzed", "getting tipsy", "drunk", "seriously drunk", "about to hurl", "staggeringly wasted", "in need of a transfusion", "in need of an organ transplant", or "legally dead", depending on their degree of intoxication. For every beer after the 10th, the player gets a +5% cumulative chance to actually die. This is meant to represent inebriation in the game. Players will continue to drink, at least when they feel secure in their safehouse, but it will have an in-game effect for a change. This suggestion is so blatantly obvious it's got to be a dupe, but I didn't see it on the frequently suggested list, so here it is. If you're gonna sit in a club and party, then sit in a club and party. Just don't expect to be fully functional if someone comes a knockin'.

Discussion (Intoxication)

I'm not as think as you drunk I am! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:56, 9 April 2009 (BST)

NO! Drinking beer is one of the few things us non-meta-gamers bond over, many a time I've been in a suburb where I've known no one and made friends by making toasts, drinking contests and just general shenanigans based around a good beer... I'm all for players getting drunk but this complete destroys any purpose to drinking what so ever, it's just too damn harsh. --Kamikazie-Bunny 02:21, 9 April 2009 (BST)

The penalties for light drinking are minor. The penalties for binge drinking are severe. Just like life. And since you're presumably not drinking outside with the hordes, and are hiding in a 'caded building, all you've got to fear is PKers, who can whack you whenever they want anyway. It realistically makes it harder for you to travel when heavily drunk, and decreases your endurance if you imbibe too much. And since it's not smart to drink during a zombie apocalypse if the horde is nearby, it provides zombies with a reasonable advantage over drunks should they manage to bust your 'cades. People will continue to drink just to play with the slurred speech feature, and on dares.--Necrofeelinya 04:00, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Drinking alcohol actually increases your endurance (well, mine at least), when you drink your pain tolerance increases and so does physical strength (fear is reduced (countering the flinch effect and doubt) and so is physical strength). So how about including a +5 HP per hour and a +1 to punch and bottle damage, actually make that all melee weapons as anything goes in a pub brawl. THEN might say yes. --Kamikazie-Bunny 14:24, 9 April 2009 (BST)

You have a unique interpretation of the effects of drinking alcohol. I suspect it's rooted more in your perceptions of its effect upon you than its actual effects. Otherwise I want some of what you're drinking. My perception, cultivated over many years, is that the effect upon pain tolerance is negligible, physical strength is unaffected, but you forget to pace yourself and expend your energy quickly, exhausting yourself rapidly, which is complicated by the fact that alcohol naturally and severely limits endurance. And drunks are generally lousy fighters, having compromised their balance, dexterity, reaction time, alertness, and all other faculties required to make them effective. All they gain is a lack of inhibition, so they can sometimes lunge in and swarm someone, but that doesn't usually mean that much unless the opponent isn't prepared to fight at all. As for adding health, making it equivalent to a FAK per hour is ridiculous. Alcohol actually diminishes your health and ability to heal. As for the melee damage modifier you suggest, that might be workable.--Necrofeelinya 19:44, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Being drunk should have benefits. Just like irl.--xoxo 03:49, 9 April 2009 (BST)

• Buy "Alcoholism" for 100XP. "You stagger up to a zombie and throw your arms around it." -CaptainVideo 06:40, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Yes on alcoholism ^^^. Yes on intoxication granting you the freedom to say what you really think, reducing motor coordination and deadening the pain of living. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 06:53, 9 April 2009 (BST)

That would be rather profound, wouldn't it? The zombies seek to liven death, the living seek to deaden life. It's not all that far-fetched, really. -CaptainVideo 06:56, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Add a notification on each players profile page of how drunk they are and I'm in! Drinking contests here we come! - User:Whitehouse 00:38, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Good idea. Drinking game added. All sorts of wagers possible with this, and you pay if you lose. Like it?--Necrofeelinya 05:32, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Ditch all the percentage to hit and AP modifiers and go this route: survivor randomly drops one item from inventory with each consumption of an alcoholic beverage. Random drop is not accompanied by an in-game notification. It's just that when the player next reaches for his shotgun, he suddenly realizes he must have left it in the bar. Oops. --Winton 05:25, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Okay people let's compromise and get this implemented. Wintons idea of losing a random item and Whitehouse's idea of drunkeness notification. Engage! --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 01:48, 11 April 2009 (BST)

---

Rage

Timestamp:	Sorakairi 23:25, 8 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Increase
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	This is a new skill for zombies. Obviously. When they have this skill, if they have 15 or less HP, their attack strength increases by 2, but accuracy decreases 20%, and it only works on humans, to make up for it. It is a Memories of Life skill, as Zombies are remembering being angry while they were human. It could also be a Human skill, but instead it works on Zombies.

Discussion (Rage)

Firstly, i don't know if this has been suggested, so if it is , please leave me a link to see it. Sorakairi 23:25, 8 April 2009 (BST)

Not clear on this. Do you mean their damage increases by 2 points on both hand and bite attacks? Pretty drastic, I doubt the pro-survivor types will go for it, even though the accuracy offset is arguably reasonable. By "only works on humans", you mean it only applies to attacks by zombies against humans? Also, making it part of the Memories of Life branch seems a little odd to me... maybe better somewhere on the Vigour Mortis branch. And as a human skill? I can't imagine you mean that rage allows them to get extra damage to shotty and pistol attacks. Maybe to fire axe attacks, knives and the like, but I don't think those need enhancing given the many ways humans already can gain XP. Plus, making hand weapons more dangerous would make them far preferable to firearms, and I think there's a certain balance to the way the damage levels for those are set up now.--Necrofeelinya 23:47, 8 April 2009 (BST)

---

Super-cade upgrade that gives zombies more XP!!!

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 16:51, 8 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Anti-whine
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	"And lo down from upon high did he upon the denziens of the once great city, the shamblers and the runners, the light and the dark. 'Behold' said he, 'for one hast delivered upon me a sugg of mine divine approval, " upon these words he raised the great board up high, the board from which all creation was wrote, and upon which he re-wrote the world..." from The book of Kevan, 8:5 Construction 'Cades can now be built twice as fast by survivors. 'Cades now have twice as many levels per strength. If a survivor has a toolbox & construction they will raise barricades by 2 levels as opposed to 1. Destruction Barricades can now be attacked at 100% accuracy (as opposed to 50%) with the normal variety of weapons. The crowbar now attacks at 200% accuracy against 'cades (as opposed to 100% ) boosting it's accuracy to 50% against 'cades. Results Zombies will now feel more effective at attacking 'cades as they will receive more 'success' messages boosting their egos. Zombies will get twice as much experience when attacking 'cades reducing the amount of "Zombies don't get enough XP" complaints. Survivors with out a toolbox will spend more AP constructing barricades. Survivors with a toolbox will spend the normal amount of AP constructing barricades but at the cost of space. Everything else should balance out.

Discussion (Super-cade upgrade that gives zombies more XP!!!)

People are gonna give you flak about newbies. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:43, 8 April 2009 (BST)

Zombie newbies? If so, how so... They'll be able to get more experience because they'll be twice as accurate against 'cades as they are now.--Kamikazie-Bunny 17:47, 8 April 2009 (BST)

It punishes people for not having toolboxes. Because of that, you're telling people that they have to have toolboxes in their inventory. Overall, it just isn't a good idea. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:37, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Let me see if I have this straight? You want to increase all accuracy against 'cades so folk hit twice as often thus gaining twice as many XP but in return you want survivors to be able to build 2 levels for 1 AP and double the current number of barricade levels meaning that the zombie will have to chew through upto 40+ levels to get in. That doesn't sound too attractive to me! --Honestmistake 18:11, 8 April 2009 (BST)

Thats the magic of it, zombies have twice as many barricade levels to destroy, but they are twice as accurate as they are now. The doubled levels and accuracy cancel out, this means zombies get more AP for the same amount of effort. --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:22, 8 April 2009 (BST)

Currently though I could get lucky and get inside with a few AP, having twice as many cade levels would mean the run of luck would have to last a lot longer. I have not done the math but something about this this doesn't feel right--Honestmistake 19:37, 8 April 2009 (BST)

See my response to Swiers. Basically Zombies - More XP/Same average attacks/Higher Absolute Minimum attacks. Survivors Normal 'cading&more Enc./Worse Cading&less Enc. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:04, 8 April 2009 (BST)

There's tons of wrongness about this suggestion. 100% accuracy as opposed to 50%? I think the base for zombies is 25%, not 50%; doubling it would make it 50%. Cades can be built twice as fast? As in, what, it takes half an AP? Or do you mean just with the toolbox they can be built faster? This suggestion really comes out to "let's double everything, so people feel better and zombies get more XP." It's unnecessary, is what. Why not ... you know, use Occam's Razor and just suggest 2 XP for each time a zombie tears down cades? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:30, 8 April 2009 (BST)

Thats the effect I'm trying to get, but, upping the XP has no merit and it would still leave people complaining "My zombie can't hit 'cades", this way they get the equivalent of 2xp and simultaneously feel more effective attacking the barricades. As with the atk% players attack cades with half accuracy (thats 50% of their normal attack) by 100% I mean their full (normal) attack rate--Kamikazie-Bunny 19:28, 8 April 2009 (BST)

OK, so instead of attacking 80 times to take down 20 levels, zombies will attack 80 times to bring down 40 levels. That sounds OK. However, it does have its problems:

1. Its unclear if ALL survivors build 2 levels per build attempt, or if only those who have toolboxes do. If folks with toolboxes can build 4 levels per AP, then its a HELL NO, because lets face it, that's a straight up cade building buff. Only folks with toolboxes will build cades, effectively doubling build rates. And even if nobody uses toolboxes- well, build rates remain effectively what they were before. The only way this could fly is if a toolbox is required to build 2 levels (comparable to current build rates) and otherwise you built just 1. But that boils down to an encumbrance nerf, which probably would also not fly.
2. Even if you sort that out, this would allow a survivor can take an "open" building up to having 2 levels with just 1 action. While the AVERAGE required to destroy those 2 levels would be the same as needed to destroy 1 level currently, the MINIMUM would go up from 1 AP to 2 AP. What I'm getting at is it fucks with "real time" efforts to keep buildings open (which admittedly, cade blocking does rather well).
3. Similar to above, you have to consider variance. Its currently possible to tear down just about any barricade with 20 lucky hits in a row. That would become impossible under this system. At low cade levels, when a zombie is hoping for a lucky break, this is a really major factor. Hordes, who can pool enouhg AP to play the odds and accept average (or worse) performance, would likely not be affected. However, ferals often wander around looking for QSB's, and then hoping to get in a string of lucky hits that leaves them enough AP to move inside and score a kill, or at least some more XP. That would be basically impossible under this system. Granted, huge runs of BAD luck would also be less common, but again, that really only matters to groups that have enough AP pooled to play the averages.

Anyhow, that's my take...  Swiers 18:45, 8 April 2009 (BST)

1 - By appropriate equipment I did mean the toolbox, I didn't mention any other way to up construction rates, and thought it was made cleared when I said "If a survivor has a toolbox & construction they will raise barricades by 2 levels as opposed to 1." I'll clarify that in a second.

2/3 - Whilst the Minimum amount of AP does increase (in a 100% of attacks succeed scenario), Ferals will be getting more XP to offset this for newbies, this would help reduce the reliance of getting to a survivor for the XP. for the other side it also means survivors have a choice, they either stockpile other resources or 'cade to the currently normal effect. A survivor who 'cades without a tool box is going to be less likely to be safe from zombies than one who has. This will probably allow some more isolated buildings easier access.

Both sides have Pros&Cons, Zombies - More XP/Same average attacks/Higher Absolute Minimum attacks. Survivors Normal 'cading&more Enc./Worse Cading&less Enc.

If you can help me solve any of these possible problems or have an alternate way I'm all ears.--Kamikazie-Bunny 19:53, 8 April 2009 (BST)

I don't like the fact that it increases the minimum number of successful hits required. - User:Whitehouse 19:18, 8 April 2009 (BST)

Wouldn't it be simpler to just double the XP a zombie gets and not change anything else?--Pesatyel 02:16, 9 April 2009 (BST)

That's not the issue that motivated this suggestion, and the suggestion itself is a misinterpretation of the problem. Zombie players complain about 'cades, but that doesn't mean they want tons of XP for taking them down. Their complaint is that they can't get to survivors to earn XP properly, for KILLING THEM. That's what zombies want to do. It's their sole function in the game. But survivor defense has been so beefed that zombies feel ineffective, particularly at low levels, where there's pretty much no point in being a zombie, which is why young zombie players frequently drop out and just set up a new survivor character instead, or seek an instant revive. The issue isn't "how do we make busting 'cades more rewarding", but "how do we allow for young zombies to make an occasional kill so they're not totally frustrated, leading to dropout". We could speed the rate of XP gain, or for that matter just start them out as maxxed out zombies, since if you speed XP gain you end up at that point quickly enough as it is, but then a zombie has no progression to look forward to. That suits me, at least for a while, but others want the reward of being able to spend their XP so their character seems to grow. This suggestion just offers token XP while further beefing survivor defense, since increasing the # of 'cades would necessitate using more AP to break through them and would probably end up frustrating even maxxed zombies. It's not a solution, it's a fiasco. The solution, no way around it, involves somehow facilitating young zombies getting kills more frequently while not boosting the effectiveness of maxxed zombies. That means it likely shouldn't be based in an acquired skill (not that this suggestion is), since that still would leave newborn zombies out in the cold until they get the XP needed to buy that skill. It preferably shouldn't overly hasten XP gain for all zombies, since that would just make it pointless to have a skill tree at all... you'd max out in no time. It's a difficult question that's led to some out of place things in Urban Dead, such as players creating dummy characters just to leave them outside for young zombies to level by eating. It's rooted in the strength of 'cades and the weakness of new zombies, and the proper method of approaching it has thus far eluded everyone, but this suggestion definitely isn't it.--Necrofeelinya 19:21, 9 April 2009 (BST)

How about allowing new(ish) zombies to use a limited form of free run as a crossover skill to bypass light cades from the street? Lets just imagine them as being a bit more spry than the older zeds and thus able to wriggle past cades. Not ideal and hard to think of a sensible boundary to lose the ability that isn't totally arbitrary but it would let new zeds eat a few folk early on.--Honestmistake 00:54, 10 April 2009 (BST)

So, after another of your long winded posts, WHAT do YOU suggest?--Pesatyel 03:43, 10 April 2009 (BST)

^^^^^ "Reading is hard! : ( " ^^^^^

Actually, my suggestion was modifying darkness to provide an advantage to loner and newbie players, but it kind of got shot down. : ) --Necrofeelinya 12:49, 10 April 2009 (BST)

No, this is a GAME and a simple one at that. The more crap you put into your "suggestion" the less people will want to even read it let alone vote positively for it. You have to get to the point not try to get around it with hyperbole and blather. No offense. And I actually LIKED the other idea but YOU let it drop because you were to busy arguing for this one.--Pesatyel 03:56, 11 April 2009 (BST)

"And lo did he peruse Talk:Suggestions and he did come across yet another shit suggestion made by someone with delusions of adequacy. The wiki wept, for such stupidity was still legal."

from The Book of Iscariot, 22:19

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:06, 10 April 2009 (BST)

---

Music! Music! Music!

This is now up for voting: Suggestion:20090411 Music! Music! Music!. Thanks to everyone who helped me with this. -CaptainVideo 01:30, 11 April 2009 (BST)

---

NT Ruins Ruin Rotter Revives

Moved to individual suggestion talk page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:18 10 April 2009 (BST)

---

Health Problems

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 19:03, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Penalty...
Scope:	The sick and dying.
Description:	The inhabitants of Malton are now becoming weaker as the extent of their injures increase.- When wounded players suffer movement penalties, when dying they suffer even more. Original Version: When Wounded (HP < 25) Survivors Unable to Free-run - Attempting to do so places your character outside as if they had walked. Message - "Your injuries prevent you from free-running." Zombies Movement cost increases by 1AP When Dying (HP < 13) Survivors Bleed-out - Survivor loses 1AP per turn (excluding speaking) until they are no longer wounded (Death/FAKd). Message - "You are bleeding heavily and need immediate medical attention." All attacks reduced by 10% (of current value). Zombies All attacks reduced by 20% (of current value). NOTE: Originally Bleed-out was meant to be one HP not AP. Sorry for the mistake. Revised Version: When Wounded (HP < 25) All attacks reduced by 10% (of current value). When Dying (HP < 13) Survivors Unable to Free-run - Attempting to do so places your character outside as if they had walked. Message - "Your injuries prevent you from free-running." Zombies Movement cost increases by 1AP

Discussion (Health Problems)

Original Version I'm trying to balance the effects for survivors and zombies, but zombies don't seem to care if they are injured. --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:03, 6 April 2009 (BST)

You are going to face the argument that zombies don't feel pain and thus don't care about their injuries. I can't imagine this passing as long as you have negative modifiers for zombies based on their health. It might be possible without the extra AP for movement, but even then it'll be an annoyance more than anything. The only thing I support here is the "no freerunning while injured". - User:Whitehouse 19:35, 6 April 2009 (BST)

The zombie movement penalty could be seen as the traditional leg damage with it trailing behind but supporting the zombies weight. Just because a zombie does not feel pain does not mean damage won't have an effect, true it would have a lesser effect than it would on a human who would have to deal with the pain in addition but a broken femur would affect their movement no matter how you look at it. --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:41, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I don't like the bleed-out thing. What if you're infected too? "Oop, you have 8 HP, no FAKs (possibly), and have four moves to get to safety! Oh, and no free running. Good luck!" --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I wasn't sure about having it stack with infection or not so I left that out so people would say what they prefer. --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:41, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Just seems too punishing. --A Big F'ing Dog 20:57, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Too harsh. I'd say just drop the bleeding and attack-penalties, and move the free run and movement costs to "When Dying". --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 23:10, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I did consider doing that but wanted a 2 stage system based on Dying being REALLY bad and wounded being an awkward inconvenience, it looks like it will change to that if people support it though.--Kamikazie-Bunny 00:54, 7 April 2009 (BST)

The thing is that death is only an awkward inconvenience, so being dying shouldn't really be worse. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 07:49, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Death (as in being dead) is not as bad as dying, when dying the character is actually suffering as they approach death. Once they die they are no longer suffering. Although wound has a wide range (from a paper cut to a gun shot) I tend to class it as something that inconveniences the player in the game. Dying on the other hand normally means that the person will die, unless they get medical attention in some cases. --Kamikazie-Bunny 15:52, 7 April 2009 (BST)

I whole heartedly support the nerf to free running... the rest is pretty much spam!--Honestmistake 01:01, 7 April 2009 (BST)

This seems more like the type of thing that you should be allowed to toggle to make the game harder at your choice.--Pesatyel 04:22, 7 April 2009 (BST)

I think you're definitely on to something there. A hard mode that doesn't include rot? I think that that would be pretty damn nifty provided it was strictly optional. If not in malton, perhaps in a different city for flavor? --Johnny Bass 05:28, 7 April 2009 (BST)

I agree with some other people in that it just seems too harsh. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:44, 7 April 2009 (BST)

No. No. No. NO. I'm sleeping in my lovely safe house. A zombie knocks down the door. Instead of having to kill everyone, he now only has to lower them to 25hp. We are all defenceless, and have to kill the zombie. If we don't, we have the option to run. Instead of being able to just run next door, we are now forced to go outside, and find another building to get inside. Should we have been infected, we are now very unlikely to find a building. Congratulations, you've discovered the 25 damage kill. And, better still, if more zombies get in, and lower us to 12hp, we now lose our action points too. If I used them in the morning, and checked on in the evening, only to find I was in the middle of a zombie seige, which is not rare, I have 10 AP to escape. Now, I have 5. And, that means 5 to leave, find another building to enter, and get in. This building is likely to be weak enough to be attacked by more zombies. Unfortunately, unless it's a hospital, the survivors will still be weak and infected. So they'll be easily killed. As I said. NO. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:57, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Yes, the second half is shit (and i wrote it wrong), I've changed it now. But, if I understand your problem for the wounded part (which is less than 25, not 25 or less), your complaining that if a zombie breaks in and seriously wounds you that you should be able to just run and jump to the next building! Thats just messed up, even people who professionally practice Free-running and Parkour wouldn't do such things because of the risks. If anything having wounded survivors unable to free run would encourage people to have more buildings at VSB (also of benefit to newbies) and make live fights more interesting with a wounded survivor being chased down the streets by a zombie until he finds somewhere safe (or runs out of AP and gets caught). The defenseless part makes no sense, a zombie breaks in and you can kill, dump, 'cade or run. If anything this would make mall sieges more interesting, with survivors running down the streets screaming once the zombies have broke in as opposed to jumping back and forth from next door in relative safety. --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:14, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Or maybe you're just nerfing survivors. There is nothing you can do to make this a good idea. The entire premise is horrific. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:42, 9 April 2009 (BST)

I think this is a great idea. Makes the zombie ability to gain health actually worth something and increases the value of FAKs.--xoxo 13:13, 7 April 2009 (BST)

How about changing it so that an injured survivor suffers attack penalties rather than movement penalties. That way they can still run, but it makes fighting back harder. At wounded there would be 10% penalty on melee attacks. When dying the penalty applies to all attacks.

How about a wounded zombie flies into a feeding rage instead, and so can only make bite attacks against people. They could still use hands attacks against barricades, of course. Unfortunately, that option makes less sense if the zombie lacks digestion. The Mad Axeman 14:38, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Revised Version

---

Fast Attacks

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 16:43, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	There are two types of zombie attacks in fiction - slow lurching inevitability and the fast running pounce. I suggest adding the latter this way: Fast Attack would be a skill (but with a better name). A zombie with the skill would gain a new attack option, Fast Attack. This attack is exactly the same as your hand attack but with two differences: It has +10% accuracy and it causes 3HP of damage to the zombie with each attempt. Basically, moving fast gives the zombie a greater chance of success, but quick motion damages rotting joints and muscles. A zombie would lose the ability to Fast Attack at 25HP and lower, they'd be just to injured to male extra effort at that point. Using Fast Attack would be a tactical choice. Often zombies don't care about their health, so Fast Attack would be a way of maximizing damage. But sometimes a zombie wants to prevent barricading or maintain a ruin, and sacrificing health would be counterproductive in those cases. Now that zombies can feed to restore health, giving up health can be a temporary and strategic decision. I think Lurching Gait is the logical prerequisite. First walking quickly, then attacking quickly.

Discussion (Fast Attacks)

I've read this six times. I see the downside, but what's the upside? Why would I click this instead of claw? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:09, 6 April 2009 (BST)

For the 10% extra accuracy it seems.--Thadeous Oakley 17:39, 6 April 2009 (BST)

TG gives me that for free. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:46, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Good point. Suggest that it gets a boost of 20% instead (orso) to create an actual upside for the skill.--Thadeous Oakley 18:35, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I think that I'd like this if either the damage the zombie takes were lower or the accuracy boost was another 5 -10% higher. --Johnny Bass 17:44, 6 April 2009 (BST)

This adds 10% to whatever your current hand accuracy is. So you could combine this with tangling grasp for 20% over base accuracy. So yes, the 10% from TG is free, adding to it further causes damage. --A Big F'ing Dog 20:49, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Fast zombies are a corruption of the genre perpetrated by Hollywood and the video game industry. The Halo generation simply can't sit still long enough to comprehend why zombies have to be slow. UD is one of the few games in which the metaphor is not lost. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 17:53, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Yup. Zombies have two speeds: Slow and Lurching Gait. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:07, 6 April 2009 (BST)

The only time a 'fast zombie' was good was 28 Days Later, and even then they weren't zombies, they were rage infected "Survivors", and even then they deteriorated to the state of a traditional zombie before they died (which zombies don't). --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Ah, the good 'ole Resident Evil 1-3 days!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:25, 7 April 2009 (BST)

If the idea of it being "fast" is what bothers you, this could easily be seen in terms of strength or health as Pesatyel suggests below. Mechanically it's just trading health for higher accuracy. Whether it's because the zombie is fast, or strong, or enraged, or anything else is just flavor. What if instead of fast attack it was "frenzied attack"?--A Big F'ing Dog 16:03, 7 April 2009 (BST)

I didn't read it as "fast" in the "running" kind. I read it more as "healthy". A recently deceased person turned into a zombie would still be physically "healthy" and be able to perform a powerful first attack until the body starts to break down due to over stressing the body (overexertion) or damage and decomposition (the "all powerful first attack" according to the Zombie Survival Guide). What I'm seeing, here, is a zombie at full health (or, say missing no more than like 6 HP) would be able to use this ability. It isn't that they are fast its that they are fresh. As for the suggestion itself, what about a bonus to hit and damage, say +15% and +2 to damage (-1 for flak, of course). But, as I said, this would only "work" so long as the zombie is at full health.--Pesatyel 04:30, 7 April 2009 (BST)

And then we can add grenades to keep an entire horde from using that all powerful first attack! ;) --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:23, 7 April 2009 (BST)

It's worth remembering that zombies don't care much about damage or dying. Running down your own health to inflict more damage on the enenmy is a bargain, especially if you kill yourself and then use ankle grab to heal it all for 1 Ap. The Mad Axeman 14:42, 7 April 2009 (BST)

There is a downside though if the zombies want to stop barricading. Reducing their health makes it easier for survivors to boot them out. So it's ideal for killing survivors and gaining xp, but a poor idea for coordinated assaults on a key building. Also, the skill wouldn't enable zombie suicide. Below 30hp the ability wouldn't function. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:00, 7 April 2009 (BST)

---

Bolt Action Rifle

Timestamp:	William Retallick 01:37, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Weapon.
Scope:	Survivors.
Description:

Bolt Action Rifle

- Location: PD, Armory

- Search Rate: 2%

- Damage: 12

- Capacity: 4 Rounds

- Hit Rate: Base 5%. Basic Firearms Training 30%. Rifle Training: 55%. Advanced Sniper Training: 65%

- Encumbrance: 6%

- Misc: Takes 1 action point to reload rifle with 1 round. Takes one action to cock 1 round; must be done after every shot. Can shoot targets 2 blocks away.

- Comments: Reloading and cocking will take a lot of AP. The only advantage will be the high amount of damage and range.

.308 Ammo

- Location: PD(4%), Armory(5%)

- Contents: 1 Bullet

- Encumberance: 2%/0% when loaded

Discussion (Bolt Action Rifle)

These may seem like silly questions, but without answers to them this would be shot down in less time than you think.

• Where do you find them?
• What is the encumberance of the ammo?
• Where do you find the ammo?
• At what rate do you find the ammo?

These are things you gotta think about, y'know. Oh, and this is one of the ideas no-one around here will like. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 02:06, 6 April 2009 (BST)

No! No killing people 2 blocks away! =[ D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 02:22, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Definitely. It only empowers trenchies, unless you can shoot into buildings - which is even worse! "Hey guys, let's clear that NT from the next building over!" --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:38, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Spupe. Please try again never.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:45, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Sniper rifles, or other ranged weapons that allow attacks outside of the block you are in, have always been considered a bad idea for this game. You will find links at the top of this page that will take you to the arguments against such weapons. --Winton 05:22, 6 April 2009 (BST)

what possible point is there in firing 2 blocks away (not to mention the fact that you can normally only see 1 block anyway!) just walk over and use a shotgun then walk back. About the only way I can see a 'ranged' weapon working would be to allow it to shoot immediately outside from a tall building... and thats still a waste of time/ap. --Honestmistake 07:52, 6 April 2009 (BST)

The point is pretty obvious, I think. Retaliation. Under the normal rules, in order to perform combat, you must be in the square with the target and that invites the possiblity of being attacked yourself. This would negate that possibility, to an extent.--Pesatyel 08:44, 6 April 2009 (BST)

that point is one of the most pointless things about this though.... All it does is eliminate an already tiny risk at the cost of avoiding live combat (the best part of the game) and for about 2 to 3 times the AP drain. --Honestmistake 10:47, 6 April 2009 (BST)

To be honest, I don't see the big deal about allowing someone to shoot into another square, given what you just said. But beyond that I was explaining the point.--Pesatyel 04:32, 7 April 2009 (BST)

One more gun suggestion and I'm creating a template. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:06, 6 April 2009 (BST)

What would the template say? -CaptainVideo 04:08, 8 April 2009 (BST)

And lo the trenchcoaters came to the wiki, and there were gun suggestions, and they looked upon the suggestions, and they decided that it was good. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:43, 9 April 2009 (BST)

1. Being able to fire from a block a way(or even 2) is a PKers dream. That would eliminate the possibility of retaliation from their target. In fact, that goes for everyone in the game. Being able to attack from one or more blocks from the target is a game altering thing. And I say that as an avid survivor.
2. The shotgun already does 10 damage, and with flesh rot or body armor, it does 8. It seems that you are not taking into account the FR and BA. If the rifle does 12 damage, than would the reduce rate of damage be 10 or even 9? that isn't too far off from the shotgun. However, if you were to increase the damage to 15 the reduced damage would be 12. Now. I am not advocating this! I am simply saying you should think about it. You will probably get into trouble in the voting with spam and kill votes for being too over powered. You might get spam votes simply because of this: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Frequently_Suggested#Military_Weaponry.
-- That being said, if you work those out you've got my vote. Conner Martel 20:48, 9 April 2009 (BST)

your suggestion dies now, this is far to overpowered and is a huge dupe, and Iscariot, if you need help with that template I'm more than willing. Alex1guy 09:40, 10 April 2009 (BST)

Well, there is this:

	Billy Mays
	Hi! Billy Mays here with an amazing product! But wait, there's more! Here's how to order!

OK, you have all presented good arguments, but I would still very much like to see this in UD. So basically, the main complaint is that firing into another block is unbalanced, so what If I made these changes.

1.Range shortened to that of the pistol and shotgun

2.Damage increased to 15

3.Cocking is an AP free process, the only AP expenditure would be reloading the rifle like with the shotgun

Do you think that would be better?--William Retallick 17:05, 10 April 2009 (BST)

I like it. However, you still have to answer the four questions above, like where this item will be found. -CaptainVideo 18:09, 10 April 2009 (BST) Seems you've done that, sorry. However, will you still need "Advanced Sniper Training" now that this is no longer a sniping weapon? -CaptainVideo 18:11, 10 April 2009 (BST)

---

Hide in Darkness 3

Timestamp:	--Necrofeelinya 01:15, 6 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Zombies and Humans
Description:	Not a skill, just a normal feature, always in effect. Survivors entering darkened buildings have a 25% chance per resident zombie of seeing a zombie in that building, otherwise the resident zombies are invisible like corpses currently are. For example: If there's 1 zombie in the building they might miss him on entering, so might want to search, let's say 2 times to have a total of 3 separate 25% chances of seeing a lone zombie in the dark, and those odds are pretty good at a cost of 2 extra AP. If there are 2 zombies in the building, they get a 25% chance for each zombie when they enter, then if they search they get an additional 25% for each zombie, so that by using 1 AP to search in addition to their chances upon entering, they've got 4 separate 25% chances to see at least 1 zombie. If there are 3 zombies in the building, they get 3 separate 25% chances to spot at least one upon entering, and if they use 1 AP to search, they get 3 separate additional 25% chances to spot at least 1 zombie, for a total of 6 whopping 25% chances to see that something's not right. Those are damn fine odds, and nothing to complain about. If two survivors enter a building with 1 zombie, each survivor gets a 25% chance to spot him, and can spend an additional AP for an additional chance. If one spots him, he can alert the other for 1 AP. If two survivors enter a building with 2 zombies, they each get 2 separate 25% chances to spot at least one, and can spend an additional XP for two additional 25% chances at a cost of 1 AP each, and either one can alert the other for the standard 1 AP. That's two separate 25% chances each, or a total of 8 separate 25% chances between the two of them of spotting at least one of the zombies. When survivor groups number 3 or more, or the number of zombies in the building number 3 or more, the number of chances to spot at least one start to get ridiculously high... it's a given that they'll be spotted. They might not see them all, but spotting even one lets them know there's a problem and that they need to either install a genny, get the hell out or get rid of the one or more they've spotted and just hope there aren't more in there. If the survivor installs a fueled genny, the zombies appear as usual, same as corpses would. Every day the survivor stays in the darkened building he gets another 25% chance to notice each resident zombie (noncumulative). Additionally, as a function of the search button the survivor can spend 1 AP for an additional 25% chance per resident zombie of spotting at least one zombie, and can do this as often as he likes. If a survivor enters a building where there are other survivors and notices a zombie they've missed, an "alert" button appears on his screen which, when pressed, makes the zombies he's seen appear to everyone in the room. Zombies he didn't notice remain hidden. Pressing the "alert" button costs 1 AP, just like talking, would be accompanied by a text window that would allow him to customize his alert, and others in the room would hear his alert as normal speech. Should a hidden zombie attack or groan, of course he appears to everyone in the room. Zombies entering a darkened building have a 25% chance per zombie to see each other in the room, as well as the 24 hour additional chance just like humans, but can't search for each other because they're too stupid. They could reveal themselves to one another by groans or attacking one they already see, but who doesn't see them. Yes, I know, skills that allow for hiding are generally instakills, but in this case I think the scope of it is so small as to make it acceptable, being restricted to just darkened buildings, of which there are few enough. Plus, it adds wicked badass mood to the game and promotes feral, new zombie and small zombie group play while not aiding megahordes at all. It doesn't really promote ambushes since zombies can already hide in darkened buildings as corpses under current rules, so it doesn't strike me as a gamebreaker. Basically, I believe this change does little more than encourage survivors to be a little cautious when exploring darkened buildings at minimal AP cost and adds to the overall mood of the game. Oh, and obviously Kevan would tweak the percentages to suit whatever effect he wanted it to have in the game. If he wanted it to have more effect, he'd give a lower percentage chance of spotting zombies. If he wanted it to have less, he'd give a higher percentage chance. That's all his call, though.

Discussion (Hunt in Darkness 3)

Specifically I'm looking this time for input on the way zombies percieve zombies in the dark, so I'd like to lump responses about that together here at the top. ----

Additionally, the question has been raised of whether survivors should also have the ability to hide this way. I think that, on top of the defensive asset of 'cading, the defensive bonus of darkness, and the fact that survivors always have the option of relocating and healing if they wake up before a zombie's managed to accumulate the AP to finalize his kill, any further enhancement of their already significant defensive capacity would just have a negative impact on playability. I could see it applied equally to humans if the defensive bonus of darkness is eliminated, though. If so inclined, please give an opinion on that in this section. ---

And for other input, whether it's just "this idea sucks" or "I'm likin' it", or actual constructive comments, please add it in this section.---

Complicated. It seems like it would make more sense that you have a base chance to see a zombie and then +% for each additional zombie. In other words, eventually, there will be so many zombies you CAN'T miss them. Right now, if there are 50 zombies in the room, then the computer has to roll 50 25% chance to spot. So, what happens? From a realism standpoint, this makes NO sense whatsover, this suggestion I mean. What makes more sense would be to offset the darkness penalties for zombies rather than allow them a feature that is out of genre.--Pesatyel 04:09, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I can see the merits of a +% chance for each additional zombie, but that means that when one zombie is discovered they all are, and I don't think that's quite the best idea either. I like the feature of knowing zombies are present, but not being sure you've spotted them all, particularly because it's dark... you shouldn't suddenly be able to account for everything. You have an excellent point about the computer needing to roll a lot of 25% chances to spot, but I'm not as computer savvy as some and so I'm not aware if this would cause excessive server load or something given the scarcity of darkened buildings in the game - perhaps a cap WOULD be in order, a limit that said that all zombies after the 5th are instantly visible, but if a player enters a building with 10 zombies, how does the computer decide which 5 are the potentially hidden ones? As for offsetting the darkness penalties for zombies, I'll say this - having darkness is a nice feature. It just doesn't work right in my view. Darkness needs to have some effect, but I see its current effect as being basically absurd. But just getting rid of the penalty without replacing it with something else seems to me to be a waste. I'd rather find an alternative, a way of making darkness more effective and realistic.--Necrofeelinya 02:39, 8 April 2009 (BST)

That's just it, it doesn't HAVE to find "all" of them. The percentage to find zombies is just that, to "find zombies" not a specific number, just that there are some present. You could then make a more conserted effort to actually locate them (and it should cost more to do than a normal search). But your still using the wrong logic for realism. Your arging that a zombie should get to "hide" because the player is inactive when, as I was trying to explain, the ZOMBIE isn't "inactive". Hiding in the darkness would either apply to ALL characters in the room because of the nature of the darkness OR would imply a conscientious effort to use the darkness to hide which "zombie genre" does not allow (but survivors would most assuredly do). Or, simply put, darkness is fine how it is, relatively speaking (relative to this suggestion) becuase it takes those factors into account.--Pesatyel 03:40, 8 April 2009 (BST)

I skimmed through the other suggestions and this one seems so much more complicated than the other ones. I also cannot see myself ever vouching for a suggestion of this kind at all. People have the right to know their immediate threats. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 09:20, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I don't really think it's complicated, I just tried to illustrate all the ways in which it would affect the game. The whole thing would involve the adding of 1 "alert" button, which would appear only when entering a darkened building where you see a zombie and another survivor, adding a single function to the existing search button, and adding a percentage chance for zombies to be visible during encounters in darkened buildings. Other than that, there are no changes. I'm no coder, but I think that sounds like it isn't the most difficult thing ever proposed, and I think at this point it's pretty clearly defined as suggestions go. As an added benefit, since it depends on a percentage to determine whether zombies are spotted or not, it gives Kevan an additional way to tweak the game balance if he so chooses by adjusting the percentage. But I can understand your opinion regarding not wanting to vote for this, if you're just opposed to having people surprised in the dark at all. All I can say to that is I disagree, but to each his own.--Necrofeelinya 02:39, 8 April 2009 (BST)

---

Blood Scrawl

Timestamp:	Winton 08:37, 4 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Zombie Skill
Scope:	Advanced Zombies
Description:	An advanced skill that will allow zombies to tag in blood. Cost: 1AP, No XP gain. 1.A subset of the Memories of Life skill tree, requiring all other Memories of Life skills as a prerequisite. 2.Requires a dead body at the location as a source of blood. 3.Scrawls are written in Zambese, as Rattle. Game play and game balance should be minimally affected. It could be used as an organization or information tool, but should be no more effective than Rattle or Gesture. Effective in-game zombie communication is virtually impossible, and this should not change that. I see it used primarily as Rattle is used, as a taunt or horde announcement. It would also allow zombies to scrawl over human tags in areas or buildings they control. However, the more dangerous the area to humans, the fewer opportunities will arise to use the skill. It could script as: A zombie has scrawled in blood "--------" on a wall. Follow up note: Very similar ideas have been suggested before. The primary criticism or feedback has been: A. Zombies can't write. The game has been set up, through the Memories of Life skill tree, to allow leveling-up zombies the ability to slowly accrue vague remembrances and use of prior human abilities. Are we absolutely set on the fact that zombies can never write? If so, then this will never fly. Or, can this skill be seen as a natural outgrowth and combination of the slightly increased mental capacity represented by Rattle and the slightly increased physical coordination represented by Gesture and Open Door? There are zombies singing and dancing in nightclubs; is it too far a stretch to imagine that same zombie scrawling something unintelligible on a wall? B. Good idea, but incomplete. This criticism resulted in weak kills, but the idea has never been overwhelmingly thrashed. If this is a good idea, can it be tweaked in such way as to make it more palatable? What I like about this idea is that it enhances zombie game play without increasing zombie power. Anything that can make the zombie character more appealing, yet no more powerful, is probably helpful, and more likely to gain player acceptance. Many zombie actions consist of trying to undo what humans have done, and this maintains and extends that slightly, while offering the zombie character one more frustratingly difficult way to attempt to express itself.

Discussion (Blood Scrawl)

I am almost certain that this is a dupe... its a good idea but I would suggest a search through previous suggestions before taking this further. --Honestmistake 11:54, 4 April 2009 (BST)

It really is. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:07, 4 April 2009 (BST)

I acknowledge dupe status on this suggestion, Honestmistake and Iscariot. I have attached a follow-up note to the suggestion.--Winton 19:32, 4 April 2009 (BST)

The problem with zombies writing is that it's hardly a staple of the genre, which is why it won't fly. Also, most of the people that will be complaining for 'balance' reasons will be whining trenchies who rightly know that zombie players are cleverer and funnier. The thing that will get is killed is the aforementioned lack of genre. This does give me an idea about the evolution of a previous PR suggestion that I may stick in for voting if I can be bothered. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:04, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Please be bothered then. The suggestions page needs something good on it for once.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:27, 4 April 2009 (BST)

When you get bothered to stop having one set of rules for certain people and other rules for certain other people and stop other sysops doing the same, then I will fix the suggestions system. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:21, 4 April 2009 (BST)

O_O. I wasn't even aware of having two sets of rules. You seemed fine with me before I was a sysop, then you suddenly went psyops jihad against me. To be frank, I try to adhere to the same standards I've always had, sometimes I deviate from them, but that's a rare occurrence. Other system operators though, I have no control over. I can prevent people from gaining the position, but I do it by the communities decision, not by some hidden idea on how the wiki should be run. If you can show me how I've treated some people differently than I do others, please do. This isn't the usual "I'mma sysops, show me I'm wrong or shut up!" scream you hear, I honestly want to know.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 00:30, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Also, yes, this is a good idea by the way. Just dupetastic.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 20:28, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Well, there is Blood Marks in Peer Review which could be argued is a dupe. The difference being this one allows you to "write in zombies" while the other leaves symbols (which would quickly be given meaning the way "Mrh?" has become "revive me"). Blood Smears makes more sense and, effectively, does the same thing since (and, I'd imagine, is easier to figure out with out a dictionary).--Pesatyel 20:39, 4 April 2009 (BST)

I'm not at all comfortable with zombies writing, even if it's in Zombese. I considered the idea of zombie grafitti as blood smears myself for a while, and could maybe see a system where zombies can place a few simple shapes and lines on a wall, maybe a half-dozen to a dozen, in the form of horizontal smears, vertical smears, diagonal smears, circular smears, etc., to which players would naturally end up ascribing their own meanings. I'd go along with that, but actual writing is a bit much for my tastes.--Necrofeelinya 00:50, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Gee, didn't even read Pesatyel's comment above... maybe I should go familiarize myself with Blood Marks. Might be interesting...--Necrofeelinya 02:22, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Personally, I like the suggestion, but I think that (as Iscariot noted) you'll probably get shot down for being out-of-genre (and dupe, but that's besides the point). --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 13:56, 5 April 2009 (BST)

I don't care if it's out of genre. It would be awesome as a survivor to come across some zombie graffiti and it would be awesome as a zombie to write - "HARHAR HARMANZ!" --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 18:10, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Thing is, zombies having any sense of intelligence at all is "out-of-genre." UD Zeds are PCs, though, so that doesn't fly. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:53, 5 April 2009 (BST)

It actually depends on which interpretation of the genre you go by. The "classic" interpretation would most likely be the Romero movies. And, in NOTLD, the first zombie Barbara and Johnny meet uses a rock, which is characteristically "un-zombie" like. Then in the later ones you have them using guns. Or other movies having them operate vehicles, think and run.--Pesatyel 08:47, 6 April 2009 (BST)

We have running (LG), we have rocks (blunt weapons), no-one in the game has vehicles, we have thinking (meta and superior tactics) and we had guns (actions via URLs, representing the intelligence needed to use the guns) but the trenchies whined, cried and threw tantrums until Kevan stopped the action. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:04, 6 April 2009 (BST)

That's my point. What specific "genre" are we talking about here? If you go by the Zombie Survival Guide, zombies are completely mindless and I think THAT is what people tend to think, but I was citing examples from the media (here too, by comparison) that counter that.--Pesatyel 04:36, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Even the smartest of zombies - like Bub from "Day of the Dead" - are only at the cusp of language. Anyone who's ever watched kids try and learn to write (or been a child, for that matter) will remember that it's a big leap from speech to writing. -CaptainVideo 06:52, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Clarification: Again, we're talking Romero here. Perhaps the smartest zombies are those of "Return of the Living Dead," who have a well-enunciated hankering for brains. -CaptainVideo 06:54, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Again, that's my point, there are a LOT of different "styles" within zombie genre. On one hand, that means it IS allowable to have zombies able to write. But I think most people would agree that zombies just aren't coordinated or intelligent enough to do it, even in "zombiese"--Pesatyel 03:51, 10 April 2009 (BST)

---

Feeding Crawl

Timestamp:	Sir Topaz DR ♣ GR 19:39, 3 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Zombie Skill
Scope:	Who or what it applies to.
Description:	100 XP. Comes after Feeding Groan. Zombies with this skill can toggle it on/ off at any time. When toggled on, the zombie will automatically move towards the next feeding groan it hears and stand outside the building, costing the normal AP for the distance travelled. The skill then toggles off. Exceedingly easy way for casual players to group up for feeding. OM NOM NOM.

Discussion (Feeding Crawl)

It's the epitome of Pied Piper, plus the fact that it's open to serious abuse from coordinated survivors attempting to sap feral AP. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:01, 3 April 2009 (BST)

"Hey GuyA, now that you're dead, wanna go randomly groan to lead these zombies away?"

"Sure GuyB, can do! Just give me a needle tomorrow and we'll be set!"

--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 21:05, 3 April 2009 (BST)

OH GOD NO! Zombie tactics would go completely out the window when it's on and if thats the case there is little point in having it at all! --Ricci Bobby 09:41, 4 April 2009 (BST)

If this applied only to groans from a zombies own group it might have some merit but applying it to any other groans makes it very rubbish! --Honestmistake 01:08, 4 April 2009 (BST)

I don't like automatic actions. The player should have to perform the action themselves. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 18:11, 5 April 2009 (BST)

"Hey GuyA, now that you're dead, wanna go Change your group name to RRF and randomly groan to lead these zombies away?" --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:56, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Chaps, it toggles off after one use. The worst you'll ever get is 6AP (or whatever it is) down. It's more aimed at the casual players who don't necessarily coordinate with groups. But, hell, go ahead! This game is only for hardcore players who spend their AP to the max, no? --Sir Topaz ^{DR ♣ GR} 00:15, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I congratulate you Mr. Vois. You have successfully made me realize I missed that last little bit. After reading your statement, I did not remember seeing it toggling off after one move set, and re-read your suggestion. I have been CNR!!!!!11!!!

No, really, I have, and I feel stupid. ^^. With it being toggled off after one use, it's a much more likable suggestion. But hey, you have to admit, if it was as I perceived it at first, my little hand puppet demonstration would be entirely true, no? And I actually save at least 5 ap no matter what. Rainy day fund when I periodically check in. :P --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:14, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, the most it could cost is 27 AP: A non-lurching zombie (12 AP) who's then headshot (15 AP) in the intervening time between the auto-move and the player's next login. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:16, 6 April 2009 (BST)

If there is even one zombie in this game with feeding groan and 100 spare xp for this who doesn't have lurching gait and ankle grab i would love to meet them so I could laugh at their stupidity!--Honestmistake 10:52, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Lurching Gait was actually like the second to last skill I got. I liked the challenge.--Pesatyel 03:53, 10 April 2009 (BST)

---

Hide In Darkness 2

Timestamp:	--01:46, 3 April 2009 (BST)Necrofeelinya
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Zombies, Survivors
Description:	Not a skill, just a normal feature, always in effect. Survivors entering darkened buildings have a 25% chance per resident zombie of seeing a zombie in that building, otherwise the resident zombies are invisible like corpses currently are. If the survivor installs a fueled genny, the zombies appear as usual, same as corpses would. Every day the survivor stays in the darkened building he gets another 25% chance to notice each resident zombie (noncumulative). If a survivor enters a building where there are other survivors and notices a zombie they've missed, an "alert" button appears on his screen which, when pressed, makes the zombies he's seen appear to everyone in the room. Zombies he didn't notice remain hidden. Pressing the "alert" button costs 1 AP, just like talking would. The alert button would be accompanied by a text window that would allow him to customize his alert, and others in the room would hear his alert as normal speech. Should a hidden zombie attack or groan, of course he appears to everyone in the room. Yes, I know, skills that allow for hiding are generally instakills, but in this case I think the scope of it is so small as to make it acceptable, being restricted to just darkened buildings, of which there are few enough. Plus, it adds wicked badass mood to the game and promotes feral, new zombie and small zombie group play while not aiding megahordes at all. It doesn't really promote ambushes since zombies can already hide in darkened buildings as corpses under current rules, so it doesn't strike me as a gamebreaker.

Discussion (Hide In Darkness 2)

So if I just go in and out of the building a few times, I can just spot every zombie (theoretically, cursed RNG notwithstanding)? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:08, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Yep, if you want to waste the AP. After all, that indicates you're being exceptionally cautious, which takes time, so should cost AP. That lost AP for extreme caution should come with repeated chances to spot hidden zombies.--Necrofeelinya 03:21, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Come to think of it, the idea of a "check for zombies" button that appears when you're in darkened buildings and costs 1 AP for a 25% chance of spotting a hidden zombie isn't a bad idea, either. If you push it and find one, the zombie appears, but if you push it and don't find one, you get a message like "You check your surroundings to ensure your safety, but find nothing unusual". That doesn't mean there aren't zombies there, just that you haven't found them, so survivors might want to check more than once, costing them AP for extreme caution. Nobody's likely to check much more than 4 times, so it wouldn't be an extraordinary AP burden. And that way you wouldn't have to run inside and outside repeatedly at 1 AP each way to check the building in an effort to guarantee your safety.--Necrofeelinya 03:30, 3 April 2009 (BST)

I don't understand the "alert button".--Pesatyel 03:53, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Okay, here's how it would work: A human enters a darkened building where there are already one or more humans and notices a zombie hiding. He pushes the "alert" button on his screen, having personalized the text if he wishes as per normal speaking, and the zombie suddenly appears to everyone in the room. Any zombie he didn't see, he can't alert others to, so they remain hidden until someone notices them. It's a way for characters to alert one another to the existence of hidden zombies, and a trigger to make zombies become visible. If it's possible for Kevan to code a means for different characters to have different perceptions of the contents of a room based on a percentage chance when they enter, which is what I'm basing the notion of hidden zombies on, then the trigger to bring all the occupants' perceptions together is the "alert" button, which tells them all when something they've missed is there.--Necrofeelinya 04:21, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Why not ditch the alert button and let survivors warn each other verbally of the zombie? I mean you said it's the same as talking anyway...--xoxo 04:25, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Because it'd require a trigger to make the zombies visible to those who hadn't spotted them. When you hit the "alert" button, the zombies appear to everyone and the option appears on their list of possible attack targets to target the zombie. Otherwise, it's not possible to see or target them.--Necrofeelinya 05:31, 3 April 2009 (BST)

I think an extra 25% a day is just ridiculous. I think 25% an hour, if that. Its crazy to think that potentially you will be resting in a place that has 3 times more zombies than you realise. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:31, 3 April 2009 (BST)

If you're resting in a place with ANY zombies, chances are you're in trouble. But I don't think 25% a day is too little. I think 25% per hour makes the change barely worth coding, if at all. Considering that the majority of U.D. users just log on, use their AP and log off, it might not make that much difference, but I think the option of adding a "search for zombies" button, or for that matter (and even better!) making searching for zombies in the dark a function of the current search button at the usual cost of 1 AP which gives another 25% chance for discovering hidden zombies more than adequately addresses your concern and engages the player more, making him potentially pay for carelessness while providing an inexpensive option for being cautious.--Necrofeelinya 05:31, 3 April 2009 (BST)

What I don't get is why you are biasing the suggested skill towards the zombies when you are missing the key thing about zombies - Zombies are rotting corpses that feed on flesh either dead or freshly killed. They don't bathe nor wash and the stench of death lingers heavily upon them. A survivor walks into a buiulding and smells the zombie just as easily as a zombie with scent death could, but then scent death is scenting the dead not the living. Currently there is a percentage chance to miss ina darkened building for both sides because regardless of the fact you can detect your target, there are other things inside a building that block lines of attack, eg, that crate you are standing behind - the attacking claw scratches against that - the over head piping catches your axe in itself as yous wing towards headshotting the zombie. The darkness balances boths ides of the equation. I get where you are coming from and am not going to bias the arguments saying you just want to screw those of us still alive in borehamwood or monroeville because those of us there know that the balance of the game has survivors either ina dark or a junkyard most of the time as extra protection or non ruinable. Both features balance the game for survivors when they have nowhere else to run but then survivors can't summon help like a feeding groan can. Zombies can statistically get more help then a survivor can ingame with a single feeding groan because the survivors have no way to summon help from random survivors around them. This appears to be going off track but hear me out. When looking at a game mechanic, you can't just examine one aspect, you have to examine the mechanic in the context of the WHOLE game. Darkness is good for both sides because it makes them harder to hit so survivors last longer and zombies don't have to waste precious AP standing up. Humans can negate these effects by finding both a generator and a fuel can but these both take alot of AP to find and makes both sides equally attackable. Pinata'ed darks is 1 zed cracking it stepping inside and groaning and the ferals move in enmass and it is all down to the survivor logging in first to survive the incoming hoards. Liek i said, I understand why youa re suggesting it but in the overall mechanics of the game I see no reason for it as you take away one of the few natural defenses the survivors get to make it harder for them to survive. Every buildinga round them in ruins except junkyards means if they don't have a toolbox they have nowhere safe to hide, a dark building increases the chances slightly but a single feeding groan destroys that safety net instantly and the the fact there is darkness is negated by the ferals nearby. As constructive feedbac towards the alert idea, you don't need a special button. ll you'd need do is make it a search mechanic: Search the building - did you find a zombie? No, try again to make sure. 1 AP per search, can search as much as you want not a walk in and have 1 chance at it walk out walk in walk out walk in, makes no sense. Walk in search, search again till you feel safe. Except that you can sense where the zombie is because you can smell that overwhelming stench of decay just as easily as the zombie can sense where its' next meal is standing. The suggested mechanic is not needed. It doesn't make sense as only one side of the arguemnet is examined from the story side NOT both as I've just highlighted. Apologies for the length of the response, this is why I tend not to post, lol. --Ram Rock Ed First 12:55, 4 April 2009 (AEST)

Crazy wall of text! So its a skill aimed at players hiding in dark buildings yes? As otherwise people would just add a genny and "Bingo" see zombies? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:38, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Okay, that's a pretty big comment, so I'm going to try to take it piece by piece to try to clarify things.

1. "Zombies are rotting corpses that feed on flesh either dead or freshly killed. They don't bathe nor wash and the stench of death lingers heavily upon them. A survivor walks into a buiulding and smells the zombie just as easily as a zombie with scent death could, but then scent death is scenting the dead not the living."

Nothing in Malton, Monroeville or Borehamwood bathes. There aren't any facilities to accomodate that. The whole of each town would stink to high heaven, in every street, building, wherever. The reek from zombies crowding the streets might well be so immense as to make the reek from a nearby zombie indistinguishable, if only by effectively shutting down survivors' sense of smell as a merciful natural reaction to such overpowering odors. But I see your point, that rotting zombies would stink up the place. There are two problems with that.

First, Malton's full of fresh zombies that wouldn't stink any more than the survivors. A zombie doesn't necessarily have to stink. If he's fresh he wouldn't. Sure, if he's a rotter, he'd probably reek a bit, but even decay has its limitations and eventually he'd either leather up and stop stinking or rot away completely. But in Malton, with its ridiculous prevalence of revive needles, characters go from living to zombie and back again overnight, so there's no guarantee that many of them would get much chance to rot.

Second, the buildings in which characters hide are just that... buildings. Not single rooms, as they appear in game. Each building theoretically has innumerable hiding places where zombies could be lurking, whether by design or accident. They needn't even be in line of sight or scent range, perhaps being in another room or on another floor entirely. If we're going to take the concept of smell as a contributing factor to game realism, we should also take the concept of scenery that way.

2."Currently there is a percentage chance to miss ina darkened building for both sides because regardless of the fact you can detect your target, there are other things inside a building that block lines of attack, eg, that crate you are standing behind - the attacking claw scratches against that - the over head piping catches your axe in itself as yous wing towards headshotting the zombie. The darkness balances boths ides of the equation."

The darkness at present applies equal penalties, it does not balance both sides of the equation. Zombies in Urban Dead are effectively pursuers, survivors are pursued. Limiting the abilities of zombies to do damage in any scenario is highly detrimental to them, while for survivors fighting zombies is little more than XP farming, since the nature of the game allows zombies to immediately rise afterward while survivors must seek out a revive needle after death. To restrict the ability of zombies to inflict damage is to restrict their ability to fulfill their already limited purpose in the game. Survivors have many activities they can perform besides hunting. Zombies don't. But since this change doesn't take away your defensive bonus or provide greatly expanded opportunities for zombies to ambush, it seems to me that your concerns about unbalancing the game are unfounded. Please see the clarification at the bottom of my response for a better illustration of how it would work than I've perhaps previously given.

3."Zombies can statistically get more help then a survivor can ingame with a single feeding groan because the survivors have no way to summon help from random survivors around them."

As a zombie player, I can say that feeding groan is sometimes great, sometimes useless, sometimes even detrimental. First, unless the rules have changed since last I looked or used it (long ago), it only extends to about one square for every human encountered in the building, up to a limit of 6 or thereabouts. Second, it can be heard by humans as well, which means that as often as not what we're summoning isn't our fellow zombies but humans to come to the rescue, killing us, dumping the bodies and barricading the building again. It works great if there's nobody to come to the rescue, but if there is, we're sometimes better off using that 1 AP to take an extra swipe at a human instead. It all depends on who there's more of in the area, and who's checking their account more often. But let's also set that aside as not all that relevant to the present proposed change.

4. "Darkness is good for both sides because it makes them harder to hit so survivors last longer and zombies don't have to waste precious AP standing up."

As a zombie player, even as a new character, I could care less about the AP loss of standing up. The biggest frustration new zombies face isn't AP loss from standing, even if they're headshotted (though that's a biggie in its own right), it's the inability to inflict any damage. Until a zombie gets Vigour Mortis he's screwed, and even then he's barely a zombie. He needs Ankle Grab, Lurching Gait, Vigour Mortis and Memories of Life before he can be taken even a little seriously, and when starting a new zombie character I'll even skip Lurching Gait and Ankle Grab to focus on damage dealing skills instead, just to get past the useless stage. Again though, kind of an aside since it doesn't address the effects of the present change, but useful to illustrate that most of the benefits of darkness accrue to survivors.

5. "Liek i said, I understand why youa re suggesting it but in the overall mechanics of the game I see no reason for it as you take away one of the few natural defenses the survivors get to make it harder for them to survive."

I think you're referring to the other skill I proposed, which I've now largely changed my mind about... Hunt In Darkness. This skill, Hide In Darkness 2, doesn't change the way darkness affects attack percentages. It just changes the way zombies are perceived in the dark, and whether they're perceived in the dark. And it isn't a big deal, since under current rules I can already pack 500 zombies into a darkened room, have them all attack each other until they drop, and upon entering you won't be able to see jack until you install a genny and dump the bodies, while they'll all most decidedly be able to see YOU. So you don't lose your defensive bonus, and you're not really much more susceptible to ambush, because you're ALREADY susceptible to that kind of ambush, which hasn't brought a single complaint. It just encourages a little caution when entering a darkened building at a minimal AP cost.

6."As constructive feedbac towards the alert idea, you don't need a special button. ll you'd need do is make it a search mechanic: Search the building - did you find a zombie?"

Sorry, but the "alert" button would still be necessary. Using the current search button to hunt for zombies is a great idea, and I think that survivors should have the ability to use it at the usual 1 AP cost with each use providing a noncumulative 25% chance of discovering an undiscovered zombie along with the usual items. But merely searching for a zombie oneself doesn't alert others to its presence.

The "alert" button would be a means of triggering the appearance of unseen zombies to others in the room who may have missed them. Thus if anyone in the room discovers a zombie, the others don't have to if he chooses to alert them. But here's the issue... that player may not WANT to alert them. He may see a zombie and decide to exit the building himself while leaving others to their fate, especially if he's a PKer or Zombie Spy. The alert button serves not just as a trigger to alert everyone else in the room, making the zombies appear on their screens and as an available attack option, but it also provides the option of NOT alerting everyone else in the room. It would use 1 AP, same as talking, and would be accompanied by the text box normally used for speech, but on the other side, with the speech button still in its usual place to provide the option of speaking without alerting others. If you want to speak without revealing the hidden zombie or zombies, use the normal speech button. If you want to shout a warning to everyone in the room, use the "alert" button.

===The overall game effects I see from this proposed change are the following:===

1. Survivors have reason to be mildly cautious entering a darkened building. Not highly cautious, just mildly. This is because:

If there's 1 zombie in the building they might miss him on entering, so might want to search, let's say 2 times to have a total of 3 separate 25% chances of seeing a lone zombie in the dark, and those odds are pretty good at a cost of 2 extra AP.

If there are 2 zombies in the building, they get a 25% chance for each zombie when they enter, then if they search they get an additional 25% for each zombie, so that by using 1 AP to search in addition to their chances upon entering, they've got 4 separate 25% chances to see at least 1 zombie.

If there are 3 zombies in the building, they get 3 separate 25% chances to spot at least one upon entering, and if they use 1 AP to search, they get 3 separate additional 25% chances to spot at least 1 zombie, for a total of 6 whopping 25% chances to see that something's not right. Those are damn fine odds, and nothing to complain about.

If two survivors enter a building with 1 zombie, each survivor gets a 25% chance to spot him, and can spend an additional AP for an additional chance. If one spots him, he can alert the other for 1 AP.

If two survivors enter a building with 2 zombies, they each get 2 separate 25% chances to spot at least one, and can spend an additional XP for two additional 25% chances at a cost of 1 AP each, and each can alert the other for the standard 1 AP. That's two separate 25% chances each, or a total of 8 separate 25% chances between the two of them of spotting at least one of the zombies.

When survivor groups number 3 or more, or the number of zombies in the building number 3 or more, the number of chances to spot at least one start to get ridiculously high... it's a given that they'll be spotted. They might not see them all, but spotting even one lets them know there's a problem and that they need to either install a genny, get the hell out or get rid of the one or more they've spotted and just hope there aren't more in there. In this regard it encourages lone survivors to save at least one or two AP to search a darkened building before taking refuge in it, which isn't much to ask and makes perfect sense, and it provides mood to the game, and it provides an encouraging option for ferals, new zombies and very small zombie groups to do something besides follow a megahorde around. And I contend it does it without shifting game balance, certainly not in Malton anyway, in any considerable fashion. I will concede that it could be problematic for Borehamwood or Monroeville, but not in any majorly inconveniencing way, since the remaining zombies in those towns aren't putting up much of a concerted effort anyway. After all, at this point in Borehamwood I can't keep up with the number of buildings being reconstructed. I just ran into at least 5 more today. So I think survivors in those towns'll be just fine.

2. Individual zombies would be able to somewhat more stealthily approach, though not breach, survivor strongholds, and even this is a minimal impact since by throwing an extra AP or two into nearby darkened buildings, survivors will have a good chance of finding anyone there.

===SUMMARY===

Basically, I believe this change does little more than encourage survivors to be a little cautious when exploring darkened buildings at minimal AP cost and adds to the overall mood of the game.

Oh, and a crazy wall of text deserves a crazy wall of text response. I do try to be thorough, and I hope I addressed all of your concerns.--Necrofeelinya 02:36, 4 April 2009 (BST)

If I may place my 2 cents on this...AUTO SPAM and AUTO DUPE. Hiding is a big no no. ANd it was proven by many suggestions in the past. I'll find 'em for you, but this is only my, what? 3rd day back on this wiki after running AWOL? I don't even know where anything is now... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:00, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Perhaps you might reconsider, given that the hiding aspect is already part of the current rules, since corpses are already invisible in darkness and can already ambush. Or perhaps you'd like to have the darkness feature removed from the game. And please... and I don't mean to imply that you didn't read the suggestion, but please read it carefully before deciding. With all these notes and responses things may seem a bit garbled, but I assure you I've thought this one out pretty well. It seems to be communicating its actual effect on gameplay that's the biggest challenge.--Necrofeelinya 03:08, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Holy cow, Kevan implemented hiding? What else did I miss in the past, like, 4 months I've been AWOL??!? Damn kids...Why can't they keep it "old school"? So much better... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:12, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, the ability to hide as a corpse in a darkened building pretty much creates ambush possibilities, but as far as I'm aware it's not used much, if at all. I think it was meant to counter the defensive bonuses that humans get from hiding in darkened buildings, but it really hasn't in my opinion, mainly perhaps because zombies can't lie down and aren't patient about sitting still when they suspect there's prey to be had. And usually, from my experience anyway, survivors clear, install and fuel a genny, 'cade and let the genny run out of fuel. Then they've got a 'caded, darkened building to hide in for solid defense. Either that or they spend the extra AP to 'cade it as is, and if a corpse pops up they hope the defensive bonus saves them. Not too many people sit in those buildings at a time, but they're great if a siege is coming and you can't log in often, because they can buy you time during an assault. I've seen and used that strategy in both Borehamwood and Monroeville to good effect as a survivor, which is something I haven't played in a while.--Necrofeelinya 03:33, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Your countering your own argument. Your saying that survivors gain the most benefit by the dark when zombies can ACTUALLY hide. Yes, it requires being a corpse, but that's not that difficult to achieve. Also, I like how you ignore my genre arguments.--Pesatyel 20:26, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Yes, zombies can hide as corpses. But zombies can't lie down, and due to the nature of the game (played for 5 to 10 minutes per day, as you noted below), zombie players don't really want to be bothered arranging to be knocked down, then sitting in a darkened building for days, possibly weeks or longer not using their AP, waiting for survivors to enter and hoping they're careless enough to not install a genny and dump the body, just so they can spring up and get a single day's worth of AP to attack a survivor who's got a significant defensive bonus just for being in the dark. It's not even the fact that they have to arrange to be knocked down in the right place, it's that zombies don't want to waste AP just checking in each day to see if anyone's stepped into their trap. They want to go knock down 'cades and break into buildings. That's why ambushes don't happen this way often. Yes, the change I'm proposing would make it easier for lone zombies to stage such ambushes because they wouldn't have to arrange to be knocked down (not that difficult already, as you said), but it wouldn't make zombie players want to stand around waiting any more than usual, so there still wouldn't be a surge in ambushes in my opinion. Plus, the system of discovery gives good enough odds that when there's more than 1 zombie in a building or more than 1 survivor enters it they're highly likely to see something and know something's wrong. Even if it's just 1 zombie and one survivor entering, using 1 or 2 AP, which is negligible, would give great odds of finding anyone there. As far as your genre argument, I didn't respond to it because I don't entirely understand your objection. You said "SURVIVORS actively attempt to hide, not zombies. Zombies don't have the cognitive reasoning to do so, especially if survivors are present. The immediately attack, not hide. If a zombie is 'hidden' its because of chance cirucmstance or becuase something the living did. But THAT is standard zombie genre and Urban Dead is NOT 'standard' zombie genre", but that doesn't really make sense in the context of the game, where zombies use a rough form of speech, organize, coordinate attacks, form groups, stake out territories, and sometimes even decide to go vegetarian and side with humans! Zombies definitely have the cognition in Urban Dead to hide, and the entire argument that darkness helps zombies at all is largely based on the notion that they "hide" in darkened buildings for the defensive bonus, to avoid being knocked down at low level (a fairly bogus argument if ever I've heard one). You also said (in the discussion in Hide In Darkness 1 after I decided to reword it and resubmit it in a clearer, modified form, which may be why I didn't notice until now) "WHY would a zombie hide in a building with a survivor when LUNCH is standing right there. Zombies ATTACK survivors. They DON'T hide. They exist for one reason, to eat the living. Survivors are more likely to hide so they don't get eaten. But, of course, UD zombies aren't 'standard' zombies. But, from what I read in the suggestion coupled with zombie genre, I don't understand the logic or realism element of this. And why can't SURVIVORS do the same thing?" The reason a zombie would hide instead of attack is because the zombie player isn't logged on, obviously. Unless, of course, you'd like to add an auto-attack feature so that any time a human enters a building all the zombies get to take a swipe at him, but that's a bit ridiculous and takes gameplay out of the hands of zombie players, don't you think? As to the second part of your question, "Why can't survivors do this?", you have a valid point, but there's also a problem with that. First, you'd need to add a search button to allow zombies to hunt in the dark. Second, it's yet another defensive advantage for survivors, on top of 'cades (which many argue is too strong in itself) and the darkness defensive bonus (which is definitely too strongly in their favor), and that really WOULD skew the game. Zombies are immortal, yes (which is arguably compromised by the one-shot "kill" ability of a revive needle), but apart from that have absolutely no defense. All other defensive features of the game apply exclusively to survivors. But I can see a solution to it. Implement this for both zombies and survivors, but totally eliminate the defensive bonus accrued by darkness. Then I could see it applying equally to humans as well, and not unduly affecting game balance.--Necrofeelinya 02:07, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Oh, and as regards zombies ability to see zombies in darkness, I don't see why this same effect wouldn't apply to them, though they can't search the room for one another. Maybe Scent Death could allow them to see one another in a room without penalty, maybe not, depending on how accomodating you want to be to pro-human zombie scouts.--Necrofeelinya 03:22, 4 April 2009 (BST)

I think you also ignore the fact that the game is played for roughly 5 to 10 minutes EVERY 24 HOURS. That is a LOT of time between sessions and is a significant factor to many suggestions, like this one.--Pesatyel 20:49, 4 April 2009 (BST)

I presume your concern relates to survivors' ability to use HIPS tactics? Not really certain what you mean. If a zombie's hiding, he's almost certainly logged off, so survivors will come and go and nothing will happen unless he wakes up (the player logs on) while they're in the room with him. The only concern I can imagine is that a survivor hiding in a ruined building wakes up with a zombie having discovered him and hidden inside with him while he regenerates AP to attack. That's easily dealt with by spending between 2 and 4 AP to search the place, giving between 2 and 4 25% chances to spot any zombie there. Plus, there's already a zombie tactic of spotting a survivor and hiding in a nearby building (but far enough to escape detection by a perimeter patrol) to regenerate AP. It was used to kill Tedd E Bear in Borehamwood. If the darkened building's 'caded, you have little to worry about unless the 'cades are breached, which you'll notice when you log in, then you can search. Unless you're worried about low-HP humans parachuting into 'caded darkened buildings, then getting an assist from a PKer so they can rise as a zombie and attack, but they can do that now as is, and you still won't be able to dump the body unless you install a genny. Under any circumstances, time spent playing in a 24 hour period isn't really that relevant, because your AP remains the same, and your ability to log in multiple times if you so choose remains the same, for both the zombie and the human players. A concern that you just weren't careful enough while hanging out in the dark is just the type of effect this change is meant to have, while costing very little AP to exhibit a proper sense of caution for humans. Not everyone's going to feel like searching fully all the time, and when they get lazy while alone they may pay for it, but when in groups of more than 3 or 4 the odds of discovery should make the revealing of zombies pretty much automatic.--Necrofeelinya 02:07, 5 April 2009 (BST)

What I mean is there is no "inactive" status for a character unless the 5 day time out is applied. All characters are considered "active" at all times. Your suggestion says nothing about searching. Finding a zombie in the room is an automatic thing. So, theoretically, I can go in and out to to get an automatic "search" and then alert everyone. And then everyone kills the "hidden" zombie and all this happens while the zombie's player isn't even there, thinking his character is "hidden". And your response, just now, pretty much says "why bother with this?"--Pesatyel 09:56, 5 April 2009 (BST)

We're not understanding one another. I'll clearly need to rewrite the suggestion to include making searching the room part of the normal search button function, which we discussed previously above. But that's why we're on the development page... I just want to flesh the idea out before submitting a final form, and I hope the next rewrite is the last before that happens. I know characters are "active" at all times, and zombies expect to be found and killed in the game, and will be when hidden as well, but what I mean when I say that the reason a zombie would hide instead of attack is that the reason he CAN'T attack is because the user is logged off. That's the same whether or not he's hidden. And with this change, it's actually very difficult to hide successfully. Any survivor who shows any degree of caution can find you easily. It's the lazy loner who takes for granted that he's safe in the dark that can get stung by it, and who deserves to for having an unrealistic sense of comfort in a darkened building with zombies rampaging through the town. That's what I mean when I say it isn't a game breaker, isn't going to rob survivors of the benefits of darkness, and doesn't shift the balance of the game in favor of zombies. It may sound complicated at the moment, but it's actually a subtle change that should add some realism to the game while giving loner zombies a little more playability in the game.--Necrofeelinya 00:22, 6 April 2009 (BST)

First of all, no, the suggestion said nothing about searching, so yeah, good thing its here. Secondly, what "realism" are you talking about? It looks to me like your confusing UD genre with zombie genre.--Pesatyel 03:51, 6 April 2009 (BST)

TL;DR the massive novel of text, but I like the idea. Maybe flesh it out a little more to answer the specific questions and concerns that I'm sure I glossed over. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 13:46, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Okay, thanks for the input, I'm rewriting it and putting it up for just a few specifics and input from anyone who might want to add anything else at the top as Hide In Darkness 3. Closing this one out.--Necrofeelinya 01:22, 6 April 2009 (BST)

---

Artwork Recognition

We are having some technical difficulties, this program has been retracted to be remade.

Head Shot And Brain Rot

Timestamp:	James bodkin10:32,29 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill effects change and possibly new ones
Scope:	Zombies and Survivors
Description:	My idea is to make it so zombies with brain rot would have a 50% chance of avoiding the effect of head shot but zombies without brain rot would still suffer its effects 100% of the time. This could be justified by the brain being hit with a bullet in the rotted area would not have an effect if the brain was already damaged, however zombies without a rotted brain would still be damaged by the bullet.This could lead to a new zombie hunter skill that increases the chance of a successful head shot.

Discussion (Head Shot And Brain Rot)

Nice and all, but zombies with Brain Rot have accepted being headshot every day. The pain of headshot isn't against those with BR, it's against those at level one who lose a third of their AP per day. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:11, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Well, it DOES promote buying Brain Rot. I don't understand your argument. Are you against this idea?--Pesatyel 03:51, 3 April 2009 (BST)

I agree with Iscariot after creating my first zombie character I cant wait to get the 1AP stand up skill. Rogueboy 22:40, 2 April 2009 (BST)

5AP to stand up ain't all that bad. If anything, headshot should be buffed.--3R 00:09, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Have you ever actually PLAYED a zombie? Especially one without Ankle Grab....--Pesatyel 03:51, 3 April 2009 (BST)

I like this. Makes brainrot a more viable second skill for zombies, 'ey iscariot. --xoxo 04:27, 3 April 2009 (BST)

I'm with Iscariot. This suggestion isn't that necessary, maxed Zeds laugh at headshot. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:43, 3 April 2009 (BST)

For horde zombies this would make a pretty small difference but for Ferals like me those extra 5AP can result in a significant improvement in my fun! --Honestmistake 16:03, 3 April 2009 (BST) For horde zombies this would make a pretty small difference but for Ferals like me those extra 5AP can result in a significant improvement in my fun! --Honestmistake 16:03, 3 April 2009 (BST)

My feral agrees. And I think it would also make a difference to a horde: if you've got coordinated zombies trying to crack an NT, and 20 of them stand up with only 1 AP each, that's an extra 100 AP. Also, what J3D said. How about making rotters impervious to headshot 100% of the time? I'd vote for that. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 21:25, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Ditto Iscariot and similar sentiments. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 13:43, 5 April 2009 (BST)

---

Hunt in Darkness

Timestamp:	--01:45, 2 April 2009 (BST)Necrofeelinya
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Addressing the issue of darkness, when a zombie has Scent Fear it can smell its victims and tell what the state of their health is. Yet it can't find them in the dark? Darkness should be an asset to zombies. I suggest Hunt in Darkness as a zombie skill, costing 100 XP with a prerequisite of Scent Fear, which negates defensive bonuses from darkness for humans. It just means you can track 'em by scent in the dark, and it just makes sense.

Discussion (Hunt In Darkness)

I really like the idea of this, and it makes perfect sense, but it seems a little unbalancing. How about this: a darkened building doesn't impede a zombie's attack %, but if the building is ruined, the mildew etc. interferes with their sense of smell and they suffer the same penalty as survivors.--Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 02:53, 2 April 2009 (BST)

I don't know about negating the darkness penalty against zombies. What about, instead, just -25% instead of -50%. Something like that.--Pesatyel 04:15, 2 April 2009 (BST)

I think darkness already unbalances the game in favor of humans. They crowd into darkened buildings for the defensive benefit piled on top of the benefits of 'cading, which is a LOT of defense. For high-level zombies it's annoying, for low-level zombies it kills their interest in the game. They already have it hard enough, they don't need to deal with any more obstacles. Also, I think that since this only affects darkened buildings, its effect is minimal. While it would force a change in survivor defense tactics, that doesn't necessarily unbalance the game. For purposes of game mechanics, let's remember who's chasing and who's being chased, here. Realistically, humans get almost all the benefits of darkness, which isn't how it should be. Ideally, I'd like to come up with skills that ease the path for young zombies without overly benefitting higher level zombies, but that's a tough challenge. And while I think it's reasonable to suggest lessening the darkness penalty against zombies, I wonder if that would be enough of an effect for people to bother buying it as a skill; sure, they would eventually, after everything else and when they were glutted with XP, but by then if you made head lice a zombie skill everyone would buy it. If it's just a reduction in penalty, which I could see, then I'd say change it from a skill to a standard and make it apply to all zombies from birth, with it constantly in effect. That would benefit the new zombies as well, which would be good.--Necrofeelinya 05:02, 2 April 2009 (BST)

I'm aware of all that. I'm saying you'll have an easier time "selling" the idea in a weaker form. The majority of wiki patrons are militantly pro-survivor (or at least used to be, it may have changed) and, ultimately, its up to Kevan to decide just how much of a percentage to allow. I'm not saying I don't like the idea, I do, I'm saying its going to be hard sell.--Pesatyel 05:05, 2 April 2009 (BST)

What if I were to suggest the idea in two forms, one as a skill as I suggested pretty much as is, and the other with the lesser percentage modification you suggested, which makes it milder, but changing it from an acquired skill to a zombie norm from birth, which is more helpful to new zombies than making it just something else they need to buy before they can start having fun? I could treat it as two separate suggestions, and people could choose which, if either, they prefer. Or is that frowned upon, with it being better to put up one suggestion and then resubmit its modified form later if it's rejected?--Necrofeelinya 05:39, 2 April 2009 (BST)

You never give options. When you post a suggestion for voting, it must be strictly constructed. If you suggest and it fails, if you make siginficant enough changes, you can resubmit it.--Pesatyel 03:43, 3 April 2009 (BST)

I'm sure we've heard a zombie scent skill to negate darkness, did it ever go to voting? Anyone? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:12, 2 April 2009 (BST)

I think the trenchies whined so much that it didn't get past discussion... Oh and the "hide in plain sight" lot were not happy either. --Honestmistake 12:22, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Suggestion:20080530 Life Sight Seems similar enough. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:31, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Not really. That was rejected for being supernatural, too soon after implementation of darkness, and just plain weird.--Necrofeelinya 20:21, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Suggestion:20081205 In The Dark Maybe? Both similar in a way. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:35, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, okay. You're right about this one.--Necrofeelinya 20:21, 2 April 2009 (BST)

I think the hiding one has more real merit. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:22, 2 April 2009 (BST)

I was initially in favor of this idea, but you're kind of talking me out of it. As to survivors crowding into heavily caded darkened buildings I don't think that really happens. Remember darkness gives a penalty to barricading. Zombies laying siege to a bank should hold off on killing the generator until they've eaten the occupants. I like the tactical consideration of that so now I disagree with this suggestion. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 20:29, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Well frankly if we're going to go with a zombie skill that negates darkness why not create a human skill or item that would negate the darkness for them as well? This way no one could call it unbalanced and would make the playing field seem slightly more even for zombies. I would suggest a flashlight or something but I can see how easy it would be shot down if it doesn't boost search rates. Mind you must've spent over 100AP looking for a fuel can haven't found it, I tend to skip over dark spaced with my low level zed however you can drag survivors out of dark spaced with the other skill (don't remember any skill names if someone hasn't caught that yet) Rogueboy 22:44, 2 April 2009 (BST)

"shot down if it doesn't boost search rates?" What are you on about? Dark buildings aren't for searching in - there are always better places. Flashlights are shot down for other reasons, too - complex and unbalancing. And where the heck are you looking for fuel cans, unlit clubs? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:10, 2 April 2009 (BST)

I look in lit factories, I'm pointing out that it would be stupid for zombies to get to see in the dark and survivors to not have a skill to balance it. Flashlights get repeatedly shot down because of the ability to toggle between lit and unlit would be an issue for zeds looking for food, additionally it would completely nerf gennys. Rogueboy 18:40, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Survivors can smell you're dead/feeding blood drenched wounded zombie selves already, hence why they know you are in a building. A Zombie smells a survivor and knows he is there, hence why they know where you are already. Darkness acts to represent all the stuff in the way inside of a darkened building that a survivor or zombie can't see nor detect that gets in the way when you make an attack - Hunt in Darkness implies night vision, but you've already got the equivalent in knowing a survivor is there. Crack a feeding groan and you have several zombie friends swarm the place. Survivors don't have the ability to summon help ingame in a darkened building and no, flares don't help at all. The zombies actually have more of an advantage in darkened buildings then survivors. Why change a mechanic that already covers what you are suggesting needs changing? Ram Rock Ed First 01:19, 4 April 2009 (AEST)

Okay, dropping this suggestion, but not for most of the reasons mentioned. I'm becoming convinced that the two suggestions I've made, this and Hunt In Darkness 2, would be overkill if applied simultaneously. Also, this one seems to diminish the darkness modification, lessening its value while the other in my opinion just enhances it. And Ross is right that it's similar to In The Dark, and the fact that 'cading is more difficult in darkened buildings was something I hadn't considered. I disagree that it would "nerf" gennies (if I'm interpreting that term right), since the main purpose of those has always been to facilitate searches, aid in surgery, and power NT buildings and the argument that "Hunt in Darkness implies night vision, but you've already got the equivalent in knowing a survivor is there" simply highlights the value of my other suggestion, since the current ability of survivors to automatically see zombies in a darkened building similarly equates to having night vision. I also feel that "Crack a feeding groan and you have several zombie friends swarm the place" doesn't really work, particularly if the zombie doesn't have feeding groan or other survivors hear the groan first and come to aid the survivors by clearing and barricading. And I certainly disagree with the notion that "The zombies actually have more of an advantage in darkened buildings then survivors", since I've never seen zombies relying on darkened buildings for anything, but I've seen and played as a survivor who relied on them to provide extra security from approaching hordes with good success. Basically, dropping this to pursue what I believe is the better suggestion and not too drastically affect game play, but could resurrect a similar suggestion at a later date depending on whether the other suggestion is implemented and if so, the degree to which it affects game play.--Necrofeelinya 04:38, 4 April 2009 (BST)

---

Hide in Darkness

Timestamp:	--01:45, 2 April 2009 (BST)Necrofeelinya
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Zombies naturally hide in darkness. It's one of their chief assets, but it doesn't work in the game unless they're a prone corpse in a darkened building. At the moment, humans get as much advantage from darkness, in fact more, than zombies, despite the Scent Fear and Scent Death skills available to zombies. This makes no sense. Zombies should be nearly invisible in darkness, with humans having perhaps a 25% or less chance of seeing a zombie in a darkened building, corpse or not. I just think this should be a given, not a skill. Yes, I know, skills that allow for hiding are generally instakills, but in this case I think the scope of it is so small as to make it acceptable, being restricted to just darkened buildings, of which there are few enough.

Discussion (Hide In Darkness)

I agree that zombies tend to hide in darkness, but that's usually against survivor noobs who are trying to negotiate a fresh outbreak. In urban dead everyone is a hardened badass who knows to look in the shadows for danger. Also this would be unbalancing, those banks, clubs, etc. occupy some critical free running spots. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 02:56, 2 April 2009 (BST)

I wouldn't really characterize everyone in Urban Dead as a hardened badass. Newbies just don't fit the image, and they usually know it. And even hardened badasses are at extreme risk when exploring a darkened building. My suggestion is, if you want to explore a building safely, install a genny. It's much safer than groping around in the dark. And it doesn't affect free running that much, except if you free run into a darkened building to sleep. The nature of the game doesn't allow much interference from zombies if you're just passing through, unless they ruin the building, and that's something else entirely which is already implemented. If you sleep in a darkened building without fully exploring it first, you deserve what you get, and the game already allows for corpses to be invisible in the dark, so zombies can already ambush that way... it's just an impractical and implausible scenario so it doesn't happen often.--Necrofeelinya 05:26, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, I think it is the reverse. SURVIVORS actively attempt to hide, not zombies. Zombies don't have the cognitive reasoning to do so, especially if survivors are present. The immediately attack, not hide. If a zombie is "hidden" its because of chance cirucmstance or becuase something the living did. But THAT is standard zombie genre and Urban Dead is NOT "standard" zombie genre. Nobody must be on otherwise you would have gotten a LOT of, shall we say, negative feedback about "hiding". Suffice to say, its not a good idea. Urban Dead is overly simplistic and it wouldn't, really, be fair for one group to not be able to deal with the other, especially if your at "half chance" to hit.--Pesatyel 04:21, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Again, I think the impact is actually minimal. The odds of humans being locked in a 'caded and darkened building with a zombie are slight. If it happens, it's because the human didn't install a genny and clear the place properly. And it can already happen that way if the zombie is just a corpse, having not gotten up after being killed by a human or fellow zombie. In fact, I'd argue that there's more chance of a zombie timing out and then logging back on in a building survivors had reclaimed than of humans getting locked in with zombies who "hide" in the dark. Plus, the way I've suggested it, humans get a 25% chance of spotting the zombie in the dark, meaning that odds are if there are 4 zombies or 4 humans in the building, someone is likely to see him. 2 zombies and 2 humans in there? Each human has a 50% chance of spotting a zombie. There's nothing this change accomplishes that can't be done already, except for one thing... active zombies can approach survivor strongholds more stealthily by hiding in darkened buildings to gain an element of surprise. That's minor, but useful for zombies and doesn't unbalance the game. And even with that, it accords humans a good enough chance of spotting them coming as long as they explore their area. No horde could approach this way undetected, so don't worry about the Mall Tours appearing out of nowhere. This change is not a game breaker by any stretch of the imagination.--Necrofeelinya 05:26, 2 April 2009 (BST)

As far as I know, zombies that idle out inside a building will appear outside it when starting to play again. However, it's quite easy to end up with a zombie in a caded dark building if a zombie breaks in and the surivors don't see him (though there can't be many of them) and then cade back up. That simple. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:11, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Or if someone enters a darkened building, 'cades it up and doesn't install a genny to search for corpses, which are already invisible in the darkness. That kind of ambush is already possible in the game and hasn't broken anything; that's why I don't understand this fear that it'll create massive loads of ambushes... those ambushes are already possible and nobody's complaining.--Necrofeelinya 19:18, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, that's NOT what your suggestion says. It says a survivor has a 25% chance of seeing a zombie. I read that as irrespective of how many zombies are actually in the room. And you completely, IMO, ignored what I said. WHY would a zombie hide in a building with a survivor when LUNCH is standing right there. Zombies ATTACK survivors. They DON'T hide. They exist for one reason, to eat the living. Survivors are more likely to hide so they don't get eaten. But, of course, UD zombies aren't "standard" zombies. But, from what I read in the suggestion coupled with zombie genre, I don't understand the logic or realism element of this. And why can't SURVIVORS do the same thing?--Pesatyel 03:33, 3 April 2009 (BST)

What exactly do you mean with 25% chance? How often is it? Is it every time you refresh the page? Every time you enter the building? Once a day? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:11, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Now that's a reasonable question. In honesty, I hadn't thought about that angle, but I'd suggest every time you enter the building. Every time you refresh would seem like overkill, if it were a 25% chance with every refresh it would pretty much negate its influence almost immediately. I could see an automatic once a day as well, though. That would make sense.--Necrofeelinya 19:14, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Let's not turn clubs in trenchie ranches. Also if you don't think a horde could use this to approach undetected, you've never seen the discipline of some of the MOB teams. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:15, 2 April 2009 (BST)

CNR. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:21, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Clubs = dark. Check. Suggestor said in commentary "No horde could approach this way undetected, so don't worry about the Mall Tours appearing out of nowhere." Check. Which bit have you caught me not reading again? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:25, 2 April 2009 (BST)

"Zombies should be nearly invisible in darkness, with humans having perhaps a 25% or less chance of seeing a zombie in a darkened building, corpse or not."

That, or I'm completely misunderstanding what you mean with "trenchie ranches". --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:36, 2 April 2009 (BST)

I feel compelled to quote Karek from the talk page of the pejorative term you attempted to ascribe to me: "Should probably be mentioned that when people use this they usually are the ones not reading, it's essentially self proclaimed stupidity. At least that's how I've always seen it, no way to lose an argument faster than accusing the other person of being CNR.--Karekmaps?! 21:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)" -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:49, 2 April 2009 (BST)

So, care to explain what you actually mean with the term instead of just going "ha, you lose!"? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:55, 2 April 2009 (BST)

You pretty much summed it up there, Midianian. --Thadeous Oakley 12:19, 2 April 2009 (BST)

I have no idea what a "trenchie" is, so I find it hard to respond, but It seems like St Iscariot is under the impression that mere discipline would allow hordes to approach this way... not a chance. The 25% chance to see a zombie in darkness when applied to the number of zombies in a horde would automatically reveal to survivors that a large group is approaching. They wouldn't see them all, but they'd see enough to know that something is up. That's why I like this suggestion, it helps ferals, tiny groups and new zombies while doing nothing for large groups and megahordes. Just the kind of changes the game needs.--Necrofeelinya 19:25, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Hiding in any form has pretty much been ruled out by voters in the past for many, many reasons (some of them even quite good!) However I do think there is some potential for not seeing corpses in dark rooms. zombies and survivors both move about and thus could be heard... corpses don't do much of anything so it would be reasonable fair to say they are not visable in a dark room unless you search for them (1 search reveals all?) Not particularly useful but it would add a new twist to hiding in plain sight etc... --Honestmistake 12:28, 2 April 2009 (BST)

This appears silly. Surely the fact that zombies are biting you lets you know they are there? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:27, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Not sure I understand, Ross, but yes, once zombies attack they would obviously be revealed. Until then, they'd be invisible like corpses are under the current rules, but with a 25% chance of being spotted by humans upon entering and a 25% chance every 24 hours of being spotted by those residing in the building. I don't see that ambushes are a big concern, since corpses can already do everything that standing zombies can under these conditions, but it would make stealth approaches mildly easier for ferals, new zombies and small groups. Honestly, not how I envisioned it when I proposed it, but after thinking about it that seems to be how it would work, and I like it even more after consideration.--Necrofeelinya 20:00, 2 April 2009 (BST)

Oh, and no, I didn't propose this to screw survivors in Borehamwood and Monroeville, though I realize after some consideration that it would potentially be highly detrimental for your character there. I don't think that's enough of a reason to reject it, given the overall benefit for promoting feral, new zombie and small group play. I'm sure you and the rest of the survivors there will find ways to adapt, you always do.--Necrofeelinya 20:07, 2 April 2009 (BST)

OOPSIE! Just thought of a major improvement to this suggestion that may make it more palatable for human players. Thanks to everyone for the suggestions, but I'm dropping this one and resubmitting it at the top as Hide In Darkness 2. Please take a gander at that puppy and see what you think of the new, sleeker, sexier Hide In Darkness.--Necrofeelinya 01:40, 3 April 2009 (BST)

---

Major Repairs Unlock Part of Building Description

Timestamp:	Saburai 02:10, 1 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Flavor
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Hello, all. I don't edit Wikis much, so pardon any formatting errors. Also, there's no need for hostility; if you think this is a bad idea, just say so and I'll take my medicine without regret. There's been a lot of discussion about how it's unfair that a 3 AP repair and a 40 AP repair have the same XP reward. I don't think those complaints have much merit; I've done dozens of suicide repairs, in Borehamwood no less, and I'm not complaining. But I do think it would be fun if, after completing a sufficiently mammoth repair job, you could edit part of the building description. It would work like a graffiti window. The minimum unlocking job could be, say, 50 AP (a true suicide repair), which frankly seems to represent a complete remodeling of the structure. The basic text descriptions we all know and love would remain (i.e. "You are standing outside Ruggevale Walk Police Dept, a large concrete building with arched windows") followed by "Someone has constructed... " The subsequent text could be anything from "a skylight shaped like a pentagram" to "an additional wing south of the hospital with Spanish Tile and working fountains." Make it around the same length limit as a graffiti message. Let me extend this idea to one more level of complexity: 50 AP repairs buy you the chance to add flavor text to the inside. 70 AP and higher repairs let you add a description to the inside and a different one for the outside. When the building is ruined, the new flavor text disappears forever. I think that would encourage more suicide repairs, shut up some of the whining about them, and lead to more colorful interiors and exteriors for everyone. Has this been proposed before? Is there a reason it will never work? I considered the possibility of spammers typing in things like "Someone has constructed a giant statue of your mom" or "Someone has constructed ____/\____\o/___" and other silliness. Yes, that will happen, but this isn't a 1 AP spray-can action. Given how rarely a player will have the opportunity to do this, and how much it will cost (often it will be the last thing they do before getting killed), I think most players will put some effort into their descriptions. To be clear, this change would have no effect on game mechanics whatsoever. It's just an opportunity to let user-generated content add flavor through a realistic application of the current game model. Cheers.

Discussion (Major Repairs Unlock Part of Building Description)

I'm going to resubmit this for further discussion with some tweaks provoked by your suggestions. The discussions are archived here [1]. I removed them to keep the clutter down.

---

Direction With Most Group Groans (revised)

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 21:58, 31 March 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Feral zombies
Description:	This is an idea to help zombies follow their group better without using metagaming. Could be introduced either by a new skill or a feeding groan improvement. Upon logging in zombies would get a message telling them which adjacent suburb (the entire 10x10 area) had the most groans overall from members of their group in the past 24 hours. This includes groans out of the normal 6 block feeding groan hearing range, ones that are too far to pinpoint the origin of, but close enough to faintly detect. It might look like this: You heard multiple groans from your group to the west.

Discussion (Suggestion Name)

"This is an idea to help feral zombies follow their group better" - Basic logic, please learn it before suggesting anything again. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:22, 31 March 2009 (BST)

Correction, non-metagaming zombies. You read the last version, you know what I meant. --A Big F'ing Dog 05:22, 1 April 2009 (BST)

Revised means something has changed. You pick, I can either comment on the first change I saw or I'll just paste over my commentary on the last one? Because according to you, reading the last one means I know what this one's supposed to be... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:38, 1 April 2009 (BST)

Once again, you limited it to your group. And once again, it's not useful. Feral zombies are unaffliated, so this wouldn't affect them anyway. Secondly, listening on where the most groans from your group came from is very misleading. The biggest feral group would be the Feral Undead, and they have 158 members. Out of those, perhaps 20 would groan in the time you're logged off. Many of them are in different areas. What this means is that if 4 zombies groan from NE, 3 from W, 1 from E and the other six directions have 2 groans each, you'll go NE. You have no idea what suburb those groans even came from, and the chances of coming across your group members are rather slim. If you were to make it so that you could pick up on the most groans from anyone, you'd have a general idea of which direction has the most brains for you to munch on. But even then, it has its problems: if a groan comes from 2 suburbs to the west and 1 to the north, is that NW or just W? If you answer W, then the span of west is far too wide for this system to be a good guide to brains. --LaosOman 11:13, 1 April 2009 (BST)

---

Contagious Bite

Moved to suggestions proper!--Honestmistake 09:55, 8 April 2009 (BST)

---

Freerunning: 2AP, toggle

Timestamp:	Swiers 16:50, 29 March 2009 (BST)
Type:	revision
Scope:	freerunning skill
Description:	As title says. Freerunning could be toggled on and off, say via radio buttons immediately below the minimap. Moving with Freerunning would cost 2AP. Moving without would cost 1AP, as it does now. Obviously this addresses both complaints that free-running is overpowered, and that it forces survivors to risk falling from ruins.

Discussion (Freerunning: 2AP, toggle)

Probably one of those duptastic ideas that is to controversial / major a change to ever pass voting, eh?  Swiers 16:50, 29 March 2009 (BST)

Meh. Toggling would be annoying. Especially if you forget it on/off in the wrong situation. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 18:20, 29 March 2009 (BST)

True. How about when you are inside, neighboring buildings have TWO buttons on the mini-map, one for free-run movement and one for normal ("unskilled") movement? Ruins would not have the free-run movement button, because you can't free-run into them.  Swiers 21:38, 29 March 2009 (BST)

In a manner of speaking, that is already part of the game. You have the "leave" button.--Pesatyel 01:02, 30 March 2009 (BST)

Not even vaugely similar, given its limits and mechanics. The "leave" button would still have the same use (or lack there-of) as it does now.  Swiers 04:37, 30 March 2009 (BST)

Sure, the leave button puts you outside the current building while free running moves you inside another. This suggestion, free running moves you inside another building and the "toggle" would put you outside the other building. But the mechanics are, basically, in place already, just that the "toggle" puts you outside your current building instead of the next one over.--Pesatyel 08:41, 30 March 2009 (BST)

You can't leave from a building that's over VSB (at least not if you have free running). --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:30, 30 March 2009 (BST)

What he said. The "leave" button only allows you to leave your building if it is VSB or less, regardless of what skills you have, and costs 1 AP. Moving without free running (either because you lack the skill or because there is a toggle) puts you outside an adjacent location for 1 AP. Moving with free-running puts you inside an adjacent location. So if your goal is to end up outside, having free running currently both limits your options, and costs more AP. The "leave" button does NOT solve this problem; it typically either costs more AP (1 to leave, 1-move), or is totally useless (if you are not in a sub-vsb building).  Swiers 20:02, 1 April 2009 (BST)

I would vote for this... Freerunning is way too cheap as it stands but increasing its cost without allowing it to be turned off would be too much. --Honestmistake 23:27, 29 March 2009 (BST)

This is a dupe, however since this stipulates a toggle button, that gives it an inherent disadvantage, namely a player could forget or hit it accidentally and be trapped outside. I would probably neglect to find the dupe link if this went to voting in its current form. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:18, 2 April 2009 (BST)

---

Plague (revised)

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 06:42, 29 March 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Infectious bite subskill
Description:	There are several good comments about my current suggestion Plague (too overpowered and KISS among others) and this is my stab at a better version. Comments are welcome. Plague would be an infectious bite subskill, a more severe form of the zombie disease that can linger in weak immune systems. If a zombie with the skill bites an already infected survivor with less than 25HP the survivor would become plagued. You can be plagued and infected simultaneously, but even with both a person only loses 1HP per turn with no other ill effect. It does not stack with infection. An FAK will always cure infection, but not so with plague. If you have plague and infection and cure your infection, you can still be plagued. Plague will only drain health if you are below 25hp though. A plagued survivor with 25+HP will keep the plagued condition but have no ill effect. If they are ever reduced to 24HP or lower though, the health drain will resume. If they healed back to 25HP the drain will stop, etc. You can theoretically play forever with untreated plague, it just makes you more vulnerable to health drain if you're ever injured. There would be three ways to be cured of plague: Revivification syringe injection while living. This would spend the syringe but only cost 1AP, used on yourself or other survivors. Being treated with a FAK in a powered hospital, utilizing the superior environment for healing. The surgery skill would not be necessary. You could still use a FAK to cure plague even when people are at full health. If infected and plagued, getting healed in a powered hospital would cure both simultaneously. Dying. Unlike infection plague would not continue after being revived.

Discussion (Plague revision)

The previous version, when put up for voting, just wasn't clear. You might want to allow those with Surgery to do it in an unpowered (but undamaged) hospital maybe. I don't think Surgery is a skill most people REALLY use. A lot of players heal for the XP and its more economical to NOT take First Aid and Surgery (especially because of all the latter's restrictions), so this might make the skill more useful. The whole idea of using a syringe to heal it kinda bugs me. It seems like it would make NT buildings even MORE a focal point then they already are, and I don't think that is a good idea.--Pesatyel 09:24, 29 March 2009 (BST)

I want new survivors without necrotech skills or surgery to be able to heal their plague somehow though. --A Big F'ing Dog 15:00, 29 March 2009 (BST)

Of course, hence the being able to do it in hospitals without skills but with power. But what if the hospital doesn't HAVE power? At least if the character has Surgery, they can still do it.--Pesatyel 20:46, 29 March 2009 (BST)

This won't make the game more fun for zombies because of the indirect nature. It will just end up as a additional annoyance for survivors.--Thadeous Oakley 13:35, 29 March 2009 (BST)

It gives zombies a way of prying survivors from defended structures like a mall or fort by forcing them to either leave to the nearest powered hospital or use up a syringe. And it gives zombies additional strategies. Right now its either infect as many as possible, or focus on killing one. --A Big F'ing Dog 13:54, 29 March 2009 (BST)

It cuts down on the "mall/nt-centric" gameplay. Survivors hang out in those two locations cause that is where all the good stuff is. Sure it makes it easier for zombies to "know" where the survivors are, but it also means theres like a couple of hundred survivors there too, which doesn't exactly make it easy either.--Pesatyel 01:06, 30 March 2009 (BST)

---

Reading Improvements

Timestamp:	Kite 12:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	The book's usefulness needs to be improved, plain and simple. It's very hard for a survivor to gain XP by reading book since it only gives you 1 XP for any other class than a Scientist which gives you 2 XP, Scientists who, unlike Civilians, more specifically, Consumers don't have, and that reading a book usually DOESN'T give you XP, since, for some reason, the chance of you learning from a book is roughly 10%. This is bad for classes such as Consumers who have very few other ways of gaining XP. Some may argue that people with most weapons without training you'll get about the same ammount of XP out of roughly the same ammount of hits/readings. while this is true to an extant, it's also misleading, since most people don't need to be trained to read a book. It is obvious that books need to be improved, but how? Well, the most obvious choice is to improve the likely hood of earning XP from a book, maybe to 20% that you'll gain XP. Will this be unbalancing to the game? No, contrary to the idea that libraries then would become more important to survivors would be true, but the idea that they would make all other forms of XP gathering obsolete would be a great assumption, since, as XP is learned and other opportunities would be openned up, using books for XP would be the thing becoming obsolete. Really, in every sense books are for newbies who have no other ways of earning XP, a back up plan, and should be made much more useful for their purpose. A few other ways of balancing book reading is by making the likely hood of earning XP much higher and the likely hood of the book being used to be thrown away after use, this would more realistic and less of a lottery ticket for one XP and more of an exchange of one AP to one, possible XP, it still wouldn't be an absolute sure fire way of earning XP but would make reading more rewarding and less frustrating for beginners.

Discussion (Reading Improvements)

This is a logical idea, and my only complaint is how long you take to explain it. Tell me if I've done your concept an injustice by condensing it to: "In my mind, books aren't useful enough. How about we up the odds - just a little, say to 20%, from 10 - that you actually learn something from reading?" -CaptainVideo 06:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't be using books as any kind of serious source of XP. This is a zombie apocalypse, not a librarian apocalypse. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Which would be quieter.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

So much quieter... Anyway I like this idea, I'm all for it.--Super Nweb 21:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Crucifix Uses

Timestamp:	Super Nweb 03:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Humans
Description:	Crucifixes as we know have no uses. When I immagine this I am thinking of a large crucifix, something about a foot long by 6in wide, like this. Not one you wear on a necklace. You could attack with a crucifix with these accuracies. Without Hand To Hand Combat - 10% Chance to hit, 1dmg Hand To Hand Combat - 25% Chance to hit, 1dmg When you hit someone with the crucifix it would say one of these "You hit -Player Name- on the head with a crucifix dealing 1dmg" "You randomly swing a crucifix at -Player Name- with little result" If you are hit it would say "-Player Name- whacked you on the head with their crucifix doing 1dmg"

Discussion (Crucifix Uses)

... So, exactly like punches, except it takes an item. Naw. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's mostly for the flavor, the only useful melee weapons are Fire Axes, and Knifes. The others could all be compiled into one, since they (Excluding the crowbar and the pool cue), are the same.--Super Nweb 03:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The game already has baseball bats, tennis rackets, hockey sticks, pool cues, cricket bats, fencing foils, crowbars, golf clubs and ski poles. What do they have in common? Nobody uses them. The game doesn't need more melee weapons.--Pesatyel 03:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok how does another melee weapon hurt the game? It just adds flavor for users, it is in no way going to harm your gameplay so why strike it down?--Super Nweb 04:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Spam, primarily. Flavour's nice, but not more of the same flavour. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't really IMPROVE the game in anyway.--Pesatyel 05:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Crucifixes should be useless in the game, just like they are in real life. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes they serve no magical purpose against the undead, but getting hit with a 1 foot long block of wood would still hurt.--Super Nweb 21:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As would it hurt getting hit with a generator, yet you still can't attack with one. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 21:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit harder to swing, I mean you can attack with a toolbox!--Super Nweb 20:20, 30 March 2009 (BST)

Crucifixes aren't weapons for a reason: they fail too much. --3R 19:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a dupe. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:08, 2 April 2009 (BST)

---

More ways for zombies to gain XP

This one is up for voting now. Thanks for the input. --LaosOman 23:17, 4 April 2009 (BST)

---

NecroTech Training

Having taken your suggestions into account, "NecroTech Training" is now up for review at Suggestions (please check the modifications I've made before voting). The other two ideas I had - Facility Access and Memories of Employment - have been allowed to die, since people considered them too unbalanced. -CaptainVideo 06:04, 29 March 2009 (BST)

---

True Dual Nature

Timestamp:	--Vissarion Belinski 00:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Balance, roleplay, maybe for next Monroeville
Scope:	Everyione
Description:	I'm not a good writer in English, but I'll try to describe the idea. Maybe it's just my naive phantasy. But please say whad do you think, and how it may affect the game. It's developing suggestons page anyway You know what Dual Nature is about. It's roleplaying, which also makes the game more difficult for the rest of survivors, who do not follow the Dual Nature Idea. Survivors usually go straight to revive point after death. But Dual Nature, Roleplaying and Realism (if there is any=) vote for random revive, and true flesh eating zombies - you die, you rise, you bite your own ex-friends, making them your friends again. I'd like to share with you some thoughts how to make the game more interesting, funny and difficult, especially for survivors. And maybe use ideas for the next Monroeville, Borehamwood or Manchester (with some NT infrastucture), as they change the game very strong. Or maybe this can be used in Malton. So they are: 1. Zombies can't see survivor names. They can see only HPs, and they can't see if an attacked survivor is their friend/ group member. 2. Zombies can't see Building name. It's just Building/ Park/ Street. 3. No GPS, wiki, map and other navigation for zombies. And no suburb name. 4. Zombie, if there is no meat nearby, makes one random movement once in, say, 6 hours, for no AP cost. Numbers 2,3,4 makes it impossible to organize revive points. Only combat revive - survivor sees his friends and tries to revive them. And this will not harm zombies. 5. Make feeding groans louder. Or add some kind of "gather the horde" groans. To make zombies easier to find each other. There is one problem. It makes zombie life absolutely stupid, and I don't know if it'll be interesing being "somewhere in Malton". The general idea is to make revive difficult and random.

Discussion (True Dual Nature)

Problem is, the mechanics that prevent organizing revive points would also prevent organizing strike teams. Plus, you can always make the revive point "outside the building you were defending". The proposals are also un-implmentable. How do you prevent metagmaing? Location co-ordinates are (and pretty much need to be) coded into the game pages, so how do you block extension that allow players to know where they are?
Anyhow, forcing all zombies to play as ferals isn't "enforce dual nature" (as players could still choose not to attack survivors / barricades", its "make zombies stupid" and "prevent zombie players from co-operating". Yuck.  Swiers 02:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about making zeds just stalk pointlessly? Every few hours a zombie moves in a random direction if there is no feedeing groans and no fresh meet in current location. Or maybe move to nearest groaning. That should prevent waiting in the revive point --Vissarion Belinski 02:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that making survivors anonymous to zombies is interesting (maybe give the ability back when Memories of Life is purchased?), but I agree with Swiers, it's really not workable in UD. In a whole new city, maybe, and you pointed that out yourself. It might also be neat to connect one or more of these "stupidities" to Brain Rot-- like failing to recognize survivors, or losing the ability to read graffiti, something like that. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 02:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I kind alike the first idea about just seeing hit points (I'd suggest being able to see the full name if the person is a contact). I just think the author is a little flawed in his reasoning about "dual natures". It sounds, as I read it, like he is arguing the only way a "true" dual nature would be revived is if it was a combat revive. But I digress. How about a TOGGLE for some of the these? For example, you can toggle off and on your ability to see building names. Volunatarily make it "harder" on yourself.--Pesatyel 02:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The others may be interested in debating with you, but I am not. It is beneath me even to acknowledge the 'thinking' which lurks behind these kinds of suggestions. I'm only going to say this: Fuck you.

• Fuck you on behalf of every new zombie player who has ever stood up with almost half their playing time gone because some arsehole got bored and went outside to masturbate with their guns.
• Fuck you on behalf of every new zombie player who has had to spend two action points per step in probably the worst example of game unbalancing 'realism' ever conceived and which means that every day there are new zombies who are making just seventeen moves whilst new survivors make forty-eight.
• Fuck you on behalf of every zombie player who ever went days, sometimes weeks, without attacking a survivor because the barricades have just a 12.5% chance of success.
• Fuck you on behalf of every zombie player who earned their claw skills only to find that the barricades still only go down at a rate of one-in-four, and that only if they are lucky with the truly abominable RNG.
• Fuck you on behalf of every zombie player who has taken on the barricades alone, broken them open and been unable to get in more than a few swipes at a survivor before being headshot, dumped and all their work undone by just a single survivor.
• Fuck you on behalf of every zombie player who has discovered the metagame and learned that the only way to actually make a difference in this game as a zombie is to coordinate with other zombie players.
• Fuck you on behalf of every zombie player who works hard to help other players by arranging hordes, group activities, massed attacks, mini-games and tours.
• Fuck you on behalf of the ferals.
• Fuck you on behalf of the strike teams.
• Fuck you on behalf of the hordes.
• Fuck you to everyone who ever suggests game ruining, zombie nerfing shit in the name of 'realism', 'believability or 'balance'.
• Fuck you to every player who takes the easy way out and does not have a zombie character because they'd rather spend every IP hit they have searching for ammunition.
• Fuck you to every player who treats zombies as though they are non-player characters, with no human being behind them trying to have fun.
• Just fuck you.

TL;DR? Fuck you. --Papa Moloch 03:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to back that up with a Fuck you¹² (I don't agree with the RNG ones and am generally against meta-gaming). --Kamikazie-Bunny 13:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As Moloch said. Oh, and pass me some of whatever you smoked before writing this. --Johnny Bass 04:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

and i would like to add a "steaming cup of shut the fuck up" with your retarded suggestions. how long have been playing this game anyway?----Sexualharrison 13:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombies are not NPCs. If they were, maybe in another city, your stuff would already be implemented. Also Moloch is my hero. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As an unassociated bystander wandering through the area, I'm going to say this has veered from the path of productivity, and perhaps contains excessive use of bold. Just throwing that in there. Carry on. -CaptainVideo 02:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It was entirely needed. --Johnny Bass 15:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion sucks, but the person making it is clearly new. This aggression will not stand, dude. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 16:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Watch out Moloch, here comes the A/VB "pattern of abuse" case!--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 01:38, 3 April 2009 (BST)

That carpet really tied the room together, man. --Johnny Bass 16:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, Johnny. At least it's an ethos! --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 16:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

God damn you Paddy! You fuckin' asshole! Everything's a fuckin' travesty with you, man! And what was all that shit about Vietnam? What the FUCK, has anything got to do with Vietnam? What the fuck are you talking about? --Johnny Bass 16:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up, Johnny. (The name even rhymes!) --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 17:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Paddy, you're out of your element! Dude, the Chinaman is not the issue here! --Johnny Bass 17:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a more succinct answer to this than even Papa Moloch: No. --Private Mark 07:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Limited Give

Suggestion up for voting, discussion moved to here.--Kamikazie-Bunny 19:28, 6 April 2009 (BST)

---

Let's make some difference between classes

I know it's too complex, but I think it is interesting. I'd like to develop skill and make classes differ from each other. The following skill suggestion is just a try. And excuse me for my bad English.

Timestamp:	--Vissarion Belinski 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skills
Scope:	All players
Description:	UD has 4 starting classes. There are three survivor classes (Civilian, Military, Scientist) and Zombie class, which you recieve after death. Starting as a Zombie and getting revived makes you Civilian. So there are three classes. Civilian<->Zed; Military<->Zed and Scientist<->. And VERY slight difference between them. So slight, that we feel it only two starting months (if we really feel). That slight difference makes me say that there is only one class for 30000 active players. We need some difference! Every class should have one (or few maybe) unique skill, and if you take Zombie unique skill, you can't take survivor unique skill. That would make the game much more interesting. Let's discuss and develop it. Military Skill or skills may be: Improved Headshot, making zombies spend 10, not 5 AP to stand up. Professional [firearm] training, which adds further +10% to hit chance. That's more balanced, as it can be used by PKers and Z-spies, not only by Hunters. Science NecroTech put smart english word here. You need to spend just 5 AP to revive zombie and just 10 to manufacture syringe. Civilian Treasure Hunting, adds +10% bonus to find something when searching any building. Zombie And to balance all that survivor skills let's make zombies more powerfull with special zombie skill. I don't know how to call it, but I know how it should work, not making zeds too powerfull. When zombie attacks a survivor and if the survivor HP drop to 25 or lower (wounded), zombie starts to feel hunger and rage, making all attacks stronger. That's just like feedeng drag, but adding +1 bite attack. Getting skills To take special survivor skill you must have all other survivor skills of your class. All Science skills -> NT something skill etc. Zombies must complete Vigour Mortis tree.

Discussion (Let's make difference between classes)

It's very clear to me you have no understanding about balance in this game at all. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Second. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

ya i agree with iscariot. --User:Ricci Bobby 16:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And do you think that all balance is about 50 APs? I really don't know about the numbers, chances, rates and calculations in UD. Or do you say that whole idea is shit? --Vissarion Belinski 01:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What these ideas do is cripple the zombie side by overpowering survivors. Survivors are already winning the AP race due to their superior ability to bank AP and the soak of barricades. The best rule of thumb in buffing everything is to use the 'Times by a million' rule. Compare the damage that your suggestion could do with the current status quo and the overkill of this should be startlingly apparent. Just a guess, but I'm thinking you've never played a pure zombie. Go create one and try and level it on your own and see how crippling headshot is in its current form and then try and imagine how nasty it would be to just implement your headshot section. In short, yes, the whole thing is shit. However, start to look through the numbers and try to see why we're saying this rather than get offended and disappear. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest you move this suggestion to the Humorous section? No one's going to take this seriously. It's severely unbalancing. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest you be quiet? The notion of the rules against humour in the suggestions system do not, have not, and will never apply to Talk:Suggestions. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the move because it is genuinely funny (to a vet, at least... the ignorance is astounding) and because my trollsense is tingling. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"In short, yes, the whole thing is shit." And what about the whole idea of making them different? Also I played (and play) pure zombie, and I really do not think headshot so crippling as you say. Maybe others have different opninion.--Vissarion Belinski 01:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should they be different? I like the fact that there are no practical differences between the classes after reaching a certain level. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 07:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. What Midinian says also factorises in realism. After months in a zombie apocalypse, all survivors would be acting the same way. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't reckon that would be true, people react differently to the same situation, the length of time people have been in Malton will yield some variance even if the overall mentality is the same (survive)... Take a look at the game at the moment, we have long term players Killing survivors, zombies and mechanical equipment, people obsessed with certain 'strongholds' and people touring the city, running to and running from the fight... does that sound like they're all acting the same? Back to the suggestion though, you (Midianian) make like every character being the same when they've maxed out and I can see the appeal, but personally I would like to see at least a little variance nothing game breaking but something which allows people to play to their strengths rather than being another Mr Generic. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I want everyone to be the same. I want everyone to be capable of doing the same things. Your inventory and how you use it is what makes you different from anyone else. Class specific skills are a bad way of differentiating anyway, since they force you to make a choice in the beginning of the game when you don't yet know what's useful. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why bother having "classes" at all? Why not just have "Survivors" and "Zombies". Survivors can start with whatever skill they want and, in their profiles, can put whatever the hell they want for "class"?--Pesatyel 01:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Because class also effects what you start with, and the ability to pick ANY skill would be far too dangerous for multi-abuse. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

With certain limitations of course. And starting equipment is minimal when one can easily search.--Pesatyel 02:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got to disagree about starting equipment. Newbies starting survivor characters need to be performing some survivor actions the VERY FIRST MOMENT they start playing the game, lest they get "over it" and leave. Thus, we have characters start with guns'n'ammo, axe, DNA extractor, etc. Personally, when I first tried this game a couple years ago, I left after I ran out of ammo because I didn't know how to search for more pistol clips. It wasn't until I got bored and read the wiki about two years later that I found out I could search for ammo in PD's. I might be running the less bright side of the newbie gamut, but given new players' lack of commitment when trying any new game, I believe that having to spend even a few minutes searching for equipment would be too taxing on newbies' attention spans. --Idly Hummingbird 08:34, 29 March 2009 (BST)

So all "survivors" start with a knife, a FAK and a GPS or something.--Pesatyel 10:11, 29 March 2009 (BST)

---

Shotgun Shells Stacking

Timestamp:	=ScaredPlayer 23:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I'm pretty new to UD, and I looked in the frequently suggested area for something that might be similar to this, and I didn't really find anything. As we all know, pistol ammo comes in the form of a clip - a cartridge that holds six bullets. Shotgun ammunition comes in the form of shells, single shots that are found individually. I think that changing the interface to stack shotgun shells would be a great improvement to UD. My reasoning for this is that if you are carrying a lot of shotgun shells, your inventory area will be filled up with buttons that say "shotgun shell". I propose, to fix this problem of filling up that space with repeat names for the same item, it be changed to "Shotgun shells (x)", where x is the number of shells currently in your inventory. Reloading would be the same - clicking on the button would reduce x by 1, and fill up your next empty shotgun, just as it is now. I can anticipate some arguments against this, such as "If this is implemented, how will you drop individual shotgun shells?" As it is now, you must drop items one at a time from the dropdown menu. If this change were implemented, the same thing would still apply; you would see simply "Drop: Shotgun shell". When you do that, the number of shells is decreased by one at no AP cost, exactly the same as it is now. As well, some people might find this to be "useless", as I can see from other suggestions that have been deemed "useless" as well (which is many). I would argue that this isn't in fact useless - it solves the problem of having an inventory full of white boxes labelled "shotgun shells", and rather consolidates all of those annoying buttons into one button; thus simplifying the task of looking through your potentially huge inventory for that next shotgun shell.

Discussion (Shotgun Shells Stacking)

This is a good idea but there is already something close to that but you would have to download mozilla firefox and one of the add-ons for UD has that User:Close to death 4:43pm 24 March 2009 (EPT)

http://www.adzone.org/UDTool/ --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 13:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

not everyone can use Firefox or add-ons so as an improvement to the basic interface this would certainly merit a keep from me, especially if it were to includes FAKs and Syringes too. --Honestmistake 14:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It'd be nice if at least ammo and items that don't get a target drop down box got stacked. I'd imagine that those would be the easiest to set up. I'd love to see a udtool type inventory organization be readily available to everyone that didn't want the add ons or firefox. --Johnny Bass 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, something like this has been suggested at least as early as 2005 (and fairly regularly after that). If Kevan was going to implement it, it would've been implemented already. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah whoops. Spam it is then... --Johnny Bass 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not Spam. Spam is for LaZoRs, chainsaw nunchucks and other ridiculous ideas, this actually a sensible suggestion, the fact that it's been suggested before would class it as a DUPE. Having said that if it went to voting I'd vote keep, I want it... --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If done, there should also be FAK stacking, Needle stacking, clip staking, newspaper stacking, gps stacking, DNA scanner... basically stacking for anything that doesn't have an ammo capacity, frequency setting, or other character that makes it potentially different from similar items. Which seems easy enough, given that so many extensions / scripts do this for yah. The extra server work would likely be offset by the work the server does NOT do; currently each FAK, needle, and weapon has / is a potentially HUGE form with a long drop list of who to use it on. Condensing FAKS and Needles (and scanners) would reduce the numbers of forms a fair bit, and thus the amount of HTML the server needs to send out.  Swiers 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah thanks for bringing that up - the drop down list of things to drop is HUGE and ANNOYING to look through. Having just one of each item in that list would make things soooo much easier and neater for the rest of us. --ScaredPlayer 23:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't care if this is a dupe, I'd vote keep.--Idly Hummingbird 08:36, 29 March 2009 (BST)

---

Advanced Rot

Suugestion now up for voting (May Grud have mercy!)--Honestmistake 10:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sign Up Bonus

Suggestion up for voting, discussion moved to here.--Kamikazie-Bunny 19:51, 30 March 2009 (BST)

---

Bellow

Suggestion up for voting, comments moved to suggestion talk page.  Swiers 18:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC) (sorry about that accidentally replaced it) --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:55, 30 March 2009 (BST)

---

Multiple Infection Strains

This suggestion has been moved to voting. The suggestion itself is located here and the discussion is located on the suggestion's talk page. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:48, 21 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)

Since when could you NOT cure your own infection? That is the primary reason Infectious Bite is considered "underpowered".--Pesatyel 03:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Requiring an additional skill in order to cure infection wouldn't really do much I don't think. It would just make it harder on newbies. If I can't cure myself, I'm screwed until I can find someone who can cure me.--Pesatyel 03:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So let's set aside the notion of a boost to infectious bite (either by doubling the damage or requiring a new skill to treat it). Lets take the suggestion 1 proposition at a time. How do you feel about a new skill called Advanced Diagnosis that would allow survivors to see who is infected? --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 20:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Prognosis.--Pesatyel 03:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)--Pesatyel 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Advanced Diagnosis sounds good. Just don't make it a requirement for curing infection. --LaosOman 17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You did a good job outlining this skill. I'm surprised Prognosis wasn't implemented. Admittedly I've enjoyed the guessing game survivors have of predicting which survivors need infections cured, but this skill makes sense. I also like how you suggest it being paired with an update of a more intense infection. --Fiffy 03:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So it seems there is no real objection to the idea of advanced diagnosis as stated? Or perhaps this suggestion has been lost in the clutter? --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 22:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As stated, this is exactly like Prognosis.--Pesatyel 02:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this is exactly like prognosis. For instance, prognosis has the following stipulation, "The maximum HP level of the survivor is also displayed next to their name." Advanced diagnosis does not. Also I've stated that it could not be used to diagnose an infection in a zombie, whereas the prognosis proposal doesn't appear to specify. Furthermore, this skill would be a cross over that zombies could also use, and I see nothing to that effect in the prognosis link you've sited. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 23:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, go for it, but the basic idea is the same and zombies don't NEED another cross over skill when they can already sense infection (and HP) with Scent Blood. And a dupe doesn't have to be EXACTLY like to be a dupe.--Pesatyel 10:02, 29 March 2009 (BST)

---

---