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

Sprinter

Timestamp:	12:09, 27 April 2009 (BST) (By WarlockVI)
Type:	Skill.
Scope:	Zombies/Humans/both.
Description:	+10 to your AP max. (Basicaly allows you to store more AP, so you can do more things in a big sprint.) (you can do Exactly the same ammount as anyone else, in total, just more in one session (if you want to)).

Discussion (Sprint)

Not against it per say but it would lead to a rush of violence when all the office only players log in on a Monday morning--Honestmistake 12:11, 27 April 2009 (BST)

As with HM, I think it would be interesting to see this in action. I doubt that it would be game breaking, but it would cause all sorts of chaos. --Johnny Bass 20:44, 27 April 2009 (BST)

Not to mention that IP hits would need to possibly be re-calculated. The hit limit now is 160, and this is for 3 characters - about 53 apiece, so 50 AP and some login stuff. This would potentially require a 190 hit limit, or people with this skill are going to more frequently run into the current limit. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:53, 27 April 2009 (BST)

---

Contacts Management Page

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 15:22, 26 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	The contacts system is great, but can get unwieldy when you have many contacts. I suggest added a link to the Contacts Page leading to a Contacts Management page. This is basically an advanced control page - it doesn't change anything we have now, but if you choose to use it it'd provide several useful tools. Among those tools: Color A to Color B: Allows you to switch every contact of the color of your choice to another color of your choice. Handy for when you alter your internal labeling system, or combine two labels. Would also let you delete every contact of that color. Delete Inactive Contacts: Click and automatically deletes every contact you have with a line struck through their name. You'd also be able to select specific colors, for example if you only wanted to delete inactive green contacts. Add All To Contacts: Adds every single survivor (not zombies) in your current location as a default gray contact. Wouldn't let you save more profiles then you have room in your contact list for though. Delete All Present From Contacts: Removes every single survivor in the room from your contacts. This would be useful if you're moving to a new neighborhood and want to get rid of locals you probably won't see anymore. Auto-add: Would let you connect colors to specific actions, such as revives or heals, and automatically add strangers who do that to your contacts as that color. For example, you could make it so every time a stranger revives you they're instantly added as a blue contact. Or every time someone kills you they get added as red. While this by itself would quickly swamp your contact list, you'd have two subtools to prevent this. One would be the ability to set limits. For example, only allowing 10 green contacts so once you have 10 green no more would be added. Another would be a toggle to cycle new ones in and old ones out. So when a green contact is auto-added to your list of 10, one person already on the list is auto-deleted. So this would make the autoadded contacts a few small groups of the people that most recently interacted with you in those various ways. Whether technical issues prevent any of these, the remainder would still be worth implementing. I think each of these abilities would be very useful by itself.

Discussion (Contacts Management Page)

I know it sounds like I'm trying to find a reason to put this down, but it has to be expressed that I believe automation isn't a desired goal in Urban Dead features. I would find these convenient though. I do know that a one or two of these are already possible through extensions, but not most of your proposed additions. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:32, 26 April 2009 (BST)

I agree that automation has no place in the game, like autoattacks or pied piper skills. But I don't think contacts management is the game, just something you have to get out of the way in order to play the game effectively. Kinda like, a computer makes it easier to write than a typewriter because it's faster. But it doesn't ruin writing, or make writing unfair. Nobody misses ink ribbons. And everyone likes spellcheck. It's just getting rid of the obstacles that make life more inconvenient and waste everybody's time. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:15, 26 April 2009 (BST)

Those are all very good ideas. Enough so that I built a lot of those functions (as parts of more general functionality) into a GM script called massContacts. Color changing and "struck contact" deleting it handles just fine, by allowing you to clear the box and select contacts into the box via color or "striking", and then modify the color / status of the contacts in the box. The "add all" and "drop all" can be achieved by viewing the code for the page and pasting in any one of the drop down selections or that include character ID #'s into the box, and using the auto-format feature. It can't do auto adds, but that's about it, really.  Swiers 01:04, 28 April 2009 (BST)

---

Sanity

Timestamp:	Parakirby 22:32, 25 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Humans
Description:	There's only so much one man could take. People are social animals by nature, and the sight of their fellow man dying around them is bound to drive them closer towards the edge. A lack of stimulus, as well, can lend to the weakening of the spirit, as well as seeing contacts die. When a human goes mad, various things can happen: 1. They see players as zombies - Or zombies as players. With HILARIOUS results. 2. The player becomes a gibbering madman, whining in his corner. All actions cost +1 AP because he has trouble motivating himself. 3. Player believes he is a zombie, but is actually still human. Will talk like a zombie. Other players will be able to see him and will see him as a zombie (Although there could be a skill to see past this, as well as offer counseling to the insane). 4. Player becomes a kleptomaniac, and must search every other turn for items. 5. Player must go and hurt zombies. Otherwise, they take HP damage.

Discussion (Sanity)

This is a game - making it un-fun by crippling people is horrible. Forced Trenchcoating? Ahaha. You're going to be a world of hurt for even suggesting that here in developing. Not to mention you don't even remotely explain how these conditions could be cured mechanics-wise, if at all. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:02, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Cute... but this isn't Call of Cthulhu... or... wait what actually goes on down in Old Arkham??? --WanYao 23:26, 25 April 2009 (BST)

You see, death doesn't really exist in Malton. Seeing your buddies "die" is much easier to deal with when you know all you need to do is stick them with a needle and apply a couple of FAKs and they'll be as good as new. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 00:54, 26 April 2009 (BST)

Sorry, but I've always understood it that the 'characters' that couldn't handle the zombie apocalypse went idle as their creators just got off Mozilla and started playing their PS3 instead. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:50, 26 April 2009 (BST)

This sounds familiar. I know its not specifically a dupe, but the idea of making survivors "insane" has been suggested before. The idea, above, isn't exactly bad (at least not for a "hard" mode), it just has some significant flaws.. Primarily being how a character "cures" himself (I'd also imagine Zombie Hunters would be immune).--Pesatyel 05:12, 26 April 2009 (BST)

I'm sorry, I'm new to the game and I know it's -probably- been suggested before but I couldn't find a relevant topic in my searches. Generally, this is to stop human players from simply boarding up for all eternity and encourage them to get out of their bunker and go grab items or get in a fight, rather than hold off by barricading in a single building for all eternity. A way for it to be cured is a doctor's psychotherapy, attacking zombies, and/or acquiring items of the pleasing nature (Beer being a good example, as well as decoration). Nothing I suggest is 'this is how it should be done 100%', but rather 'I have an idea, what do you think'.--Parakirby 23:36, 26 April 2009 (BST)

The way to do that is by spreading all the "good stuff" (guns, ammo, generators, syringes, etc.) around to other locations.--Pesatyel 07:15, 27 April 2009 (BST)

The 1st and 3rd of your examples are already in game (to an extent anyway) I play a survivor who is convinced that all those "Non-Descript" guys are out to eat him and I used to see a lot of cultists who RP'd death rattle and general zombiness. The searching and hunting bits are pure SPAM and quaking in fear is not much better really as all it does is make the game less fun rather than more challenging. --Honestmistake 08:19, 27 April 2009 (BST)

Aaah, I guess you're right.--Parakirby 07:00, 27 April 2009 (BST)

---

Food and Water

Timestamp:	Parakirby 22:20, 25 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Balance change?
Scope:	Heavy fortifications with many humans
Description:	Every person needs oxygen, water, shelter, and food (In that order of importance). Why should survivors be the same? I propose the addition of food items that can be scavanged from Malls, Supermarkets (To be added?) and Farms, as well as rarely in suburb housing. I also propose that water items (Bottled water, canteens, etc.) be added to the same, as well as randomly finding bottled water in normal buildings such as suburbs. On top of that, although the water supply has been cut off, someone with a toolkit could access the building's pipes and let the water flow freely. A normal person can live one to three days without water, and one to four weeks without food. But because this is a game where you have fun, I suggest make it a week without water (Survivors will drink from sources of water automatically) and two weeks without food? Survivors who are starving/dehydrated have trouble fighting, moving quickly, and should take damage over time. This is a pretty big game changer. No longer will it be so easy for large groups to hole up in one extremely fortified building. Instead, they'll have to make occasional food runs. This means that buildings with no easy access to food feel more pressured when zombies attack.

Discussion (Food and Water)

It's only fair then that zombies have to eat too or permanently die of starvation. They have to get energy, somehow, or they simply can't expend any more. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:04, 25 April 2009 (BST)

This has been suggested about a zillion times before. More realism =/= more fun. --WanYao 23:27, 25 April 2009 (BST)

First of all, zombie is already assumed a part of the game. Characters have to use the bathroom and sleep too, but they are assumed to do that too. Such things are fundamentally part of the game, like the fact there is unlimited resources in every searchable building. While this won't pass, I DO want to help you with your work on suggestion ideas. All your giving us, here, is that you want food and water added. But you don't give us any "game stats". Where is "food/water" found and at what search percentage? What are their encumberance values? What happens if I don't eat/drink? What happens if a zombie doesn't eat/drink? I'm not saying all that to improve this idea. I"m saying that to point out that a suggestin is more than "I want this". You have to tell us HOW you want it.--Pesatyel 05:18, 26 April 2009 (BST)

What I'm trying to suggest is, like my sanity suggestion above, another reason for survivors to go out and search rather than barricade up in an office or a station. Water would be fairly easy to come by - Parks would have ponds to drink out of, most buildings would have pipelines that survivors can access with a toolkit, and almost everywhere there'd be bottled water to find (albiet at a low percentage rate, such as .5% in the street, but much higher in a mall/supermarket, somewhere like 10%). I'm not suggesting it be a major encumberance, but rather something to think about, especially during a major zombie attack. Food, on the other hand, would be a bit different. Since most buildings have been ransacked already, it comes down to fairly low percentages. Suburban homes, for example, should have somewhere between a 2% - 5% chance for food (Or higher, really, considering) whereas supermarkets and/or malls would have a 5% - 10% chance, and theaters have a 2% - 5% chance. If a person doesn't drink water for approximately a week real time (Which, considering all the available resources, would be difficult to do) would take 1 damage per action they perform. A starving person, on the other hand, would find it more difficult to defend himself and attack others, due to a lack of energy. Since it takes a while for a human to starve to death, perhaps the entire concept should be discarded for the game. To encourage zombies to go out hunting rather than grind barricades for XP or smash generators, perhaps an instant 10 damage for every 72 hour period without attacking a human? As far as encumberance is concerned, it varies. A bottle of water weighs very little at all, and 1% - 2% sounds decent enough, while a gallon of water is fairly heavy, and 5% or 10% sounds fair. Food varies more than water. Obviously, a small bag of chips would be much lighter than a whole turkey. The way food and water would be displayed would be percentages, with drinking and eating restoring a set percentage, based on the item imbiled. --Parakirby 23:50, 26 April 2009 (BST)

To me this sounds like simply penalizing them with no gains, possibly unbalancing the game. Therefore, i think if this would/should be implemented it needs to give a bonus as well, say +XHP For when ever you do drink/eat, as it refreshes you. WarlockVI 12:36, 27 April 2009 (BST)

That could work. It'd have to be a scale based on the food type, of course (A small bag of chips, while common, would require 1 AP to eat, but would restore 5% food and subtract 2% water, as well as restoring 1 HP. A large turkey, on the other hand, would restore 50% - 100% food, subtract 5% - 25% water (Turkey DOES make you thirsty. And tired, actually, there's a chemical in it!), 5 AP, and restore 10 health? It would be much more rarer compared to the bag of chips, after all. ...If it'll even exist. I don't want to start going into specifics with foods vs. numbers until I get a feeling that people generally like this idea.--Parakirby 07:03, 27 April 2009 (BST)

---

Dang, This Generator Is Heavy!

Timestamp:	Winton 06:01, 25 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors/Generators
Description:	This proposal is to make generator possession and transportation more realistic and consistent with actual human capabilities. A portable generator as depicted in the items page, Portable Generator, would be the approximately correct size and wattage capacity to accomplish what generators do in UD. A generator that size will typically weigh about 91 kg (200 lbs). They are very heavy and unwieldy, and a single man has difficulty maneuvering and transporting one. It is simply not possible for one person to have more than one of these under his control. A man cannot transport more than one of these, and certainly cannot run with one, let alone climb stairs or navigate wooden bridges constructed between buildings. I propose the following: Generator Encumbrance: 51% (renders possession of multiple generators nearly impossible, more closely approximates actual encumbrance of a generator) Movement cost with a generator in inventory: 2AP Free Running not allowed with a generator in inventory These proposed changes will make the time and effort required to repair and power buildings more realistic. The anticipated argument is that UD need not be 100% consistent with reality, which is true. However, one of the touchstones of suggestion evaluation is that a suggestion not grant players any superhuman capacities in the post-apocalyptic world that they would not have had in a pre-apocalyptic world. As the encumbrance and movement currently stand, that is exactly what we have. Survivors are being ascribed a strength and capability which simply does not exist in "the real world". A previous suggester has already acknowledged the currently unrealistic situation (he described it as an "absurdity") and suggested a fix: Rename Generator. His suggested fix is to change the name "Generator" to "Generator Parts." This would remove the problem of generator transport, as he is suggesting that survivors are simply finding and transporting parts which are then used to repair broken generators that remain in place. This suggestion just sidesteps the issue. If you are carrying enough parts to be able to repair any damage done to any generator, you are then essentially carrying a generator. In addition, current scripting describes the generator as broken "beyond repair."

Discussion (Dang, This Generator Is Heavy!)

You obviously ignored the days-old message on your talk page regarding the absurdity of this suggestion, you are fully nullifying the gameplay of any account with a generator in their inventory. You have made 3 major nerfs and stuck them all into one suggestion. I can't wait for more ultra-realistic suggestions so we can add realism to a zombie apocalypse. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:28, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Well, you probably wouldn't really be able to carry ANYTHING else if your actually carrying a generator that heavy.--Pesatyel 06:51, 25 April 2009 (BST)

I did not ignore your message, DDR. I chose to post my idea in Developing Suggestions for additional input from others. If I had thought the idea had no merit, I wouldn't have been working on it.--Winton 07:42, 25 April 2009 (BST)

I actually agree with this idea, in terms of accuracy, but I don't think I'd support it if it went to a vote. It would make it extremely hard to get power to the critical NecroTech buildings, which, in turn, would destabilize the city - perhaps catastrophically. -CaptainVideo 06:50, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Hey, I just had an idea. This would be really interesting if implemented at the same time as my power station suggestion below. Again, I doubt there'd be any support for that, but it would be different. -CaptainVideo 06:55, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Think about it this way. If it took this much effort to get a generator to the place you need, and it took about 5 pistol shots or 10 claws, then do you see where this in inbalanced? If you buffed generators to have 40HP, then maybe you are balancing this out. But then it totally changes the nature of Urban Dead. Just think about the situation in hand. Reclaiming ruined areas where you have to travel across a whole suburb, thats a huge amount of valuable AP already gone, and once your there, you have nearly no items to help you sustain yourself, nothing except a massive generator in your building which tells all zeds where you are, and which, once a break-in occurs, gets destroyed in 10 seconds. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:57, 25 April 2009 (BST)

It would be almost cool to watch the whole city fall apart in 48 hours, though. It'd be like the apocalypse AFTER the apocalypse. The afterpocalypse. -CaptainVideo 07:26, 25 April 2009 (BST)

That's what it felt like when The Dead surprised us all. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:57, 25 April 2009 (BST)

First, the 2AP movement and inability to free run shouldn't be directly tied to having a generator in your inventory. It doesn't make much sense that you'd get penalized at 51% from one generator, but could do just fine at 100% from any other stuff. Second, this doesn't make multiple generators impossible or even difficult. If you're below 100%, you can pick up any item you find. Increasing the weight to 50% (the 1% over that is absolutely pointless) only prevents you from carrying more than two. It'd have to weigh 100% if you wanted it to be limited to only one generator. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:29, 25 April 2009 (BST)

I would prefer it if Portable Generators were still only 20%, but you could still only carry two. Though that still detracts from the logic of this suggestion. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:02, 25 April 2009 (BST)

"A portable generator as depicted in the items page, Portable Generator, would be the approximately correct size and wattage capacity to accomplish what generators do in UD. A generator that size will typically weigh about 91 kg (200 lbs)." I would actually say that generators in UD are little tiny things that only need to power a single bright light since all buildings in UD are just one room. You can't hide in a closet or attic or anything, it's either "inside" or "outside," implying one chamber. From that, I would say a workable generator would be something like this, which is only 14 kg / 30 lbs, far lighter than your suggested 90 kg / 200 lbs. If you really want to get nitty-gritty, 5 gallons of gas - presumably what the fuel cans in UD hold - weighs about 30 lbs. If a fuel can at 30 lbs is 10% encumbrance, then a slightly larger generator than the one described above weighing 60 lbs is 20% encumbrance. Yay maths. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:30, 25 April 2009 (BST)

One gallon gas cans seem more likely. That's what you typically find for sale at a gas station / auto repair shop, or stored in a car boot. 10 gallons of gas is 60 lbs, and could be quite unwieldy if in 10 separate cans, so 1 gallon per can fits the 10% encumbrence figure decently.  Swiers 22:37, 25 April 2009 (BST)

You know, reading the specs for that thing reminded me that wall voltage is higher in Europe than it is here in the States. Does the European grid use lower amperage for equal wattage, or is Europe actually using more energy than the US to actually power stuff? -CaptainVideo 07:56, 26 April 2009 (BST)

They use lower amperage for the same watts; its simple physics that Volts*Amps=Watts. Higher voltage is MUCH more efficient for long range transmission, because there is less loss due to resistance in the wiring; for that reason EVERYBODY'S power grid is (very) high voltage, with step down transformers at the neighborhood / building level. I'm not sure there is actually any real difference in effeciency once you get down to the user-level circuits, as it would depend on just how house wiring interfaces with the grid. In the US, a house breakerbox typically has two incoming 120 volt lines that are 180 degrees out of phase; that means it actually has 240 volts coming in, but you typically only use one line to power any given circuit (barring heavy appliances and HAVAC). Not sure if they do the same England; it maybe the same, only with both lines carried through every circuit. In either case, its likely similar enough to wash. Mostly it boils down to safety; 120 means less danger of electrocution, 240 means less danger of fire.  Swiers 01:17, 28 April 2009 (BST)

What's more, you'll end up with zerge "generator toters". If these things are going to be that much trouble to have/use, I'll make a level 1 to do that work for me.--Pesatyel 20:12, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Precisely. If having a generator makes free-running impossible, there's no reason not to use a level 1 over a higher-level character. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:30, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Balance asside (is there really to many generators in use? Do survivors really need generators at all?) I see two problems with the basic suggestion mechanics. First is that without free-running, you can't get the generator into the buildings that you'd most want them in. Second is that 51% encumbrance still makes it pretty easy to carry two of them. Pick one up. Is your encumbrence still under 100%? Then you can pick up another. If you really want to be sure people can only carry one, make the encumbrence 100%; that way you can always pick one up (if not already at or past 100%) but after you do you can't pick up anything else.  Swiers 22:34, 25 April 2009 (BST)

A part of me is sympathetic, what with all those powered useless buildings everywhere. However, it already costs 20% plus 10% (for fuel) plus the fact that gennies are one of the most difficult common items to find in UD... WanYao 23:31, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, but those places with needless generators are places that have no zombie threat. Remember the seiges/attacks. Generators get destroyed on a rate of 4 a day in Haslock at the moment, and thats against just 30 zombies. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:37, 26 April 2009 (BST)

Not to mention GKers. The Whitlock Building in Dulston has it's generator replaced sometimes 3/4 times a minute. Also, if we're going by "logic", how amny shotguns can you carry? Because if you can carry 12 shotguns, you're awesome. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:11, 26 April 2009 (BST)

---

Organize Your Inventory

Timestamp:	Master Nicholas 04:03, 25 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Zombies and Survivors
Description:	A method that allows you to organize your inventory, so items can be found easier, and the inventory part of the screen does not look so cluttered. :D

Discussion (Organize Your Inventory)

You need to be a LOT more specific on what you want. Take a look at these.--Pesatyel 06:00, 25 April 2009 (BST)

I can't believe that wasn't implemented. -CaptainVideo 06:57, 25 April 2009 (BST)

There are many scripts that do this. And many previoous suggestions to this effect. --WanYao 23:32, 25 April 2009 (BST)

---

Burn bodies

Timestamp:	Supflidowg 22:03, 24 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Human
Description:	(this may have been put up multiple times but I wouldn't know since im new and anyway this is a version I created) This is a skill that allows someone to burn corpses like in a real zombie armagedon. It would require you to have a fuel can(duh) and a flare gun(since there are no matches) it would cost 4Ap for every 5 corpses and so on,(pouring fuel is 2 Ap and lighting is 2 Ap) the person doing the burning would have a 20% chance at burning the corpses(with the flare) and the action pour fuel on bodies button would be first -(name here) pours fuel over the bodies-(100% chance of this)then they would attempt to light the fuel soaked bodies with the button fire flare -(name here) sets fire to the bodies on the ground- and if you miss -(name here) misses with the flare-. If the bodies are alighted,(set on fire) whenever they stand up they would have the condition Burned on them (it would sap 1 Hp per move untill they reach 40 Hp) and a 25% reduction in accuracy -(name here) misses due to the 3rd degree burns on their body- it shows no mercy to any body, surviver or zombie and a first aid kit would heal the burned status and 5 Hp but the accuracy is still reduced untill 15 moves after being burned(not including standing up), death or an extra first aid kit use(the extra kit will have a healing reduction of 3 points). Bodies cannot be burned more than once or you recieve the message -you see there is nothing left to burn-(appears when you attempt to pour the fuel and wont cost Ap) and burned bodies do appear on the browser screen as -there are X burned bodies here-(I also had another idea but I would like anyones opinion on it, Burnig the body of a surviver would also prevent survivers from becoming infected since you burned the infection off)

Discussion (Burn bodies)

First of all, this has been suggested a lot. Secondly, this just hurts newbies (especially converts). Is that 25% reduction off the top or straight? Meaning, if my bite is 30%, does tat mean its reduced to 22% or to 5%? You say it "shows no mercy to any body", so does that man my burning zombie gets a "flame" bonus to his sttacks?--Pesatyel 05:59, 25 April 2009 (BST)

It's a dupe. Although after a quick look, I couldn't find said original suggestion, so maybe the suggestion I'm thinking of never made it off this page. Hmm. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:59, 25 April 2009 (BST)

the % value is relitive of your total accuracy percentage so if your bite is 30% it is reduced to 22% and no, you cant be a flaming zombie(because if the flame still lingered after the body was burned it would also happen to survivers who DO feel pain and it would cause damage penalty like infection to the surviver for being on fire making an advantage to burned zombies and a disadvantage to burned survivers making the Burn Bodies skill a total PKer skill and useless to pro surviver people. And the "no mercy to anybody" means that you can use it on any dead body not just zombies(like in the real post apocoliptic zombie infested world) Supflidowg 19:02, 25 April 2009 (BST)

So, in other words, this is still pro-PKer since I can use it on reviving corpses.--Pesatyel 20:26, 25 April 2009 (BST)

"accuracy is still reduced untill 30 moves after being burned(not including standing up) or death." I'm sorry, that's just comically bad. An infection doesn't damage you for 30 HP regardless of whether or not you cure it - curing burns should cure the thing, hands down. Not to mention the dupe-y-ness of this suggestion. I found this suggestion, panned for XP loss (which headshot was when this game first came out), but not exactly a dupe. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:22, 25 April 2009 (BST)

To anwser all your questions(in reverse order) How about an extra FAK fixes the accuracy reduction and I cut the affected moves in half?(I said it would be LIKE infection not the human equivelent of the infection skill, I was using a hypothetical meaning if it caused the reviving person/zombie to stand up on fire) Also this move will still help survivers(example you take a bulding back from some zombies then you burn them to hinder them in retaking the building) so it could work both ways as a PKer skill and a survival skill. Supflidowg 01:32, 27 April 2009 (BST)

---

Field Medic training

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 12:50, 24 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill, Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Yes, I know I put an idea similar to this up for discussion before, under Nurses Training, or something similar. Military base skill. With all the injuries happening as a direct result of the zombie uprising, the local hospitals are running low on medical supplies. Thus, the surviving Malton Military enlistees are now utilising their field medic training in order to help already-maxed hospitals. Using bandages (found in hospitals at a 7% base rate, and in malls for a 5% base rate), a survivor with field medic training can help increase the effectiveness of FAKs by applying basic treatment beforehand. Bandages are used in the same way as FAKs. When used, they increase the recipients "Bandaged HP" by 2 HP each time. A player can have up to 10 "Bandaged HP", or BHP at a time, but can never have the total of their regular HP and BHP be more than their max HP. (i.e. if they have 46/50 HP, they can only have up to 4 BHP.) Bandaged HP does not contribute to the total when working out Scent Fear or Scent Blood, as bandages have such a mild smell. BHP is listed after the player's regular HP if the observer has Diagnosis, like this: [player name] (XX + B HP), where XX is their health, and B is their BHP. When a FAK is used on a survivor with bandaged HP, both the FAK value and Bandaged HP values are added to their current health. If, however, the player doing the healing didn't have First Aid, only 5 BHP could be added at a time. For example, if Survivor 1 has 35 HP and 5 BHP, if Survivor 2 had First Aid and used a FAK on Survivor 1, they would go to 50 HP, as this is the 10 HP from the FAK, plus the 5 BHP. If a bandaged player is attacked before the wounds are treated, their bandages are 'ripped off' and they lose all their BHP.

Discussion (Field Medic training)

Too complex. Perhaps if "bandaging" gave a status marker (like infection) that automatically increased the effectiveness of the next FAK it would be easier to understand (and help zeds target the bandaged!) Over all though I am not really sure that FAKs need this kind of a boost. --Honestmistake 15:14, 24 April 2009 (BST)

From what I can discern this would only serve to dilute the search rates for FAKs and bandages are less effective that FAKs. There's already been a decrease to FAK search rates in malls, so I don't think another decrease is necessary. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 23:30, 24 April 2009 (BST)

First Aid and Surgery.--Pesatyel 05:49, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Giles got it right. And, yeah, it's just too complicated. --WanYao 23:34, 25 April 2009 (BST)

---

No Dark Faks

Timestamp:	Necrofeelinya 02:09, 24 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Balance Change
Scope:	Humans
Description:	It's really simple, and this time I guarantee it's not a dupe. No goddamn Faks in the dark. If you can't see shit, if you can't hit someone, you can't heal them either. If you need convincing, then just check my latest post in the news of the Indian/Pakistani Leftovers group. This darkness modifier is bullshit. This won't fix it, but it'll sure as hell make it a little better.--Necrofeelinya 02:09, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Discussion (No Dark Faks)

An interesting and unique idea, but I don't like it. You aren't factoring in the fact that healing can be done at a slower, more calculated pace than stabbing someone or trying to him him with a pistol shot from the other side of the room. -CaptainVideo 03:49, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Are you seriously arguing that healing someone is easier than hurting them? Seriously? Come the fuck on. What a joke.--Necrofeelinya 04:01, 24 April 2009 (BST)

And why do you think this isn't a dupe? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:40, 24 April 2009 (BST)

If it is, it's chronically overdue for implementation. But if you reference it, then to hell with it. It's as easy to quit bothering as it is to fight over it.--Necrofeelinya 04:48, 24 April 2009 (BST)

There was a similar rejected suggestion called Suggestion:20080730 Reduce FAK effectiveness in dark buildings. The only difference was that impeded healing in dark buildings; this restricts it entirely. This isn't a dupe, but that was a better suggestion and it still got shot down, even though the author used logic instead of bullying to make his argument. Your move, jerk. -CaptainVideo 05:10, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Fair enough, twat. Like I said, it's as easy to quit bothering as it is to fight over. You've seen the example of what a disaster the current system is, I've provided the link to a perfect illustration of it. Let the survivor masturbathon continue. Maybe even with Music! Music! Music!--Necrofeelinya 05:24, 24 April 2009 (BST)

I'm really only contesting the point because your counterpoint to a disagreeing voice is sarcastic derision. You're really pretty close to making valid counterpoints, but then you start swearing. The thing is that I don't think this is a bad idea - I just disagree with it and think you're presenting it badly. -CaptainVideo 05:56, 24 April 2009 (BST)

You DO know the affects darkness has right? Darkness doesn't impede attacking, barricading, reviving and searching. It makes them harder to do. So I can see making healing harder to do too, but making impossible? No.--Pesatyel 04:54, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Because medical care, of all those things, is the easiest to do in the dark. Let's be honest, you can't do much more than put on a frickin' band-aid in the dark, and even that you can't do very well. The notion that you can offer proper medical care in a darkened room is stupid. Not just stupid, but asinine.--Necrofeelinya 05:05, 24 April 2009 (BST)

The 5HP heal essentially is just a band aid. You don't even need to know First Aid to do it. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 06:26, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Not to mention the probability that, despite it not being a part of the game mechanics, survivors would probably have falshlights of some sort. It's easier to patch someone up while using a flashlight to see than it is to shoot a specific someone in a mob while trying to see and get a decent sight on them with that little flashlight.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 11:30, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Because medical care, of all those things, is the easiest to do in the dark. LOL, yeah, right. Ever been to an ER? Lights EVERYWHERE. Surgeons don't operate in the dark, but murderers often do. Granted, you can't do "surgery" (the skill) in any dark building, but even simple first aid is gonna be tricky without some good light to examine the wound.  Swiers 22:49, 25 April 2009 (BST)

I like it. It's logical. There doesn't seem to be any question that darkness would make administering effective first aid difficult, if not impossible. Since there is no current way to modify % chance of healing, it leaves a simple question of heal/no heal; and it seems more likely to me to be unable to heal at all, as opposed to being able to heal exactly as in normal circumstances. --Winton 05:30, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Of course the percentages can be modified. Just like revives in the dark. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 06:26, 24 April 2009 (BST)

I didn't know revives were affected by darkness, makes sense but i didn't know. --Honestmistake 08:15, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Like I said in the discussion for the similar suggestion, just cap the healing at 5HP per FAK. If you want to make it even more difficult, give it only a 50% chance of success. There's no way in hell I'd support making healing impossible. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 06:26, 24 April 2009 (BST)

It's hard to say what is and isn't realistic when you're shooting for "normal" in a text-based video game with zombies. For instance, when you walk into a room full of people, you don't automatically know all their names. Nor do you ever see a whole city filled with buildings that have only one room each, or a whole city with no gas stations, etc., etc. Knowing that normality is a bent ruler, what is "reasonable" for handicapping medical aide in pitch darkness? -CaptainVideo 06:58, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Are you replying to the right comment? Because I said nothing about realism, "normal" or "reasonable" here. I just don't think healing should be made impossible. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 07:17, 24 April 2009 (BST)

I know. I'm just curious what your though process is. *I* never take reasonableness into account when I draw things up. It costs me sometimes, but the results are consistently interesting. -CaptainVideo 07:24, 24 April 2009 (BST)

I would support this but I doubt if it would get enough support to pass voting (hell a lot of surivors would probably yell SPAM), perhaps just reducing a Fak's effectiveness by 5 and removing its ability to cure infection? The reduced effect could be argued as the result of sloppy work and improperly sterilized wounds... --Honestmistake 08:15, 24 April 2009 (BST)

More difficult healing is fine with me. I believe a 50% success rate and a cap of 5 HP per heal have been suggested: both are pretty good ideas, although I wouldn't like to see them both used - one or the other, and preferably the 5 HP max one. For the sake of consistency, Diagnosis should also be blocked. --LaosOman 16:44, 24 April 2009 (BST)

I really don't care for this idea, although there is no doubt it would affect balance. I'm just not convinced game balance needs this much adjustment. Necro you seem to have a lot of anger over a game. Rocky Ford 20:01, 24 April 2009 (BST)

This might be worth trying with the 50% success rate and 5 HP cap. I like them both. The 50% success rate would be consistent with already established dark building modifiers, and the cap would reflect the lower efficacy of first aid in a dark building. The earlier suggestion actually got a lot of positive feedback, with quite a few Kill votes indicating support for a 50% success modifier.--Winton 05:23, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, there was a big debate over this subject when dark first came in. It's not new. It also got shot down, though I supported it. Hell, I might have even suggested it? --WanYao 23:36, 25 April 2009 (BST)

It was your suggestion, WanYao. --Winton 01:19, 26 April 2009 (BST)

Let me shake your hand. -CaptainVideo 07:58, 26 April 2009 (BST)

---

Limited Emote

Timestamp:	Necrofeelinya 14:47, 22 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Flava flave, baby.
Scope:	Characters
Description:	Players could opt to take actions which are not currently provided for in the game at a normal cost of 1 AP. Actions would interact with another player in the same room, and would include poking, shoving, slapping, hi-fiving, winking at, applauding, laughing at, and snickering at. The action would have a dropdown menu to choose the target, as well as one to choose the action taken. For example, if a person were to choose to target a player with slapping, the player they target would receive a message saying "(player) slaps you". Zombies would be limited in this ability to slaps and possibly shoves... they need a way to show anger and contempt, but not much else during their killing sprees.

Discussion (Limited Emote)

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

I think this is a dupe... I'm on my phone now so I can't check myself. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:00, 22 April 2009 (BST)

There's already the option to attack with a newspaper (base 100% accurate, 0 damage) which pretty much allows slapping (if you have a newspaper). Zombiews can gesture and everybody can talk (to variable degrees). Not saying I dislike the idea, just that its maybe a fidly bit of gilding the lily for something that would have zero game impact.
Actually, the one thing I could see that MIGHT be worth adding (since it would have game impact) is allowing survivors to gesture just like zombies do. When a zombie gestures at another zombie, all people present get a link to that zombies profile; if survivors could gesture at individual zombies, they could better co-ordinate attacks against them. Its already possible to just "say" the zombies profile link, so there's no anonymity nerf- it just allows the same thin in a more flavorful fashion.
If survivor gestures were being implemented, perhaps ALL "gesture" actions could be changed to allow not only a choosen target, but also a choice of adverb. For example, selecting "joe" and "kind" would result in "player makes a kind gesture towards joe". Obvious options would be rude gestures, kind gestures, welcoming gestures, pointing gesture, etc. Both survivors and zombies would be able to do this (zombies requiring the flailing gesture skill, but they would likely have different adverb selections.  Swiers 18:47, 22 April 2009 (BST)

Well, we have Emotes in Peer Review.--Pesatyel 03:51, 23 April 2009 (BST)

Oooh, nice. Didn't catch that one. That's pretty much it then, it's dupetastic.--Necrofeelinya 13:16, 23 April 2009 (BST)

---

Whisper

Timestamp:	Necrofeelinya 10:53, 22 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	Humans
Description:	Would allow for limited in-game stealth communications by survivors in the same room. Basically, survivors would be able to target the person they speak to, and only that individual would be able to hear what they say distinctly. Other players in the room would get a message saying "(player) whispers something to (player)" instead of being able to hear the comment as usual. This way they'd know something was said, they just wouldn't know what. The person being targeted with the message would hear "(player) whispers (normal message)", so they know that the message was whispered to them directly and that nobody else heard it. To target the message, you'd use a dropdown box just like the attack targeting box, but it would be attached to the speech text box or have its own text box. The hope is that by promoting in-game communications this way, metagaming could be reduced. Players wouldn't have to go to other forums to spread messages among their fellow players discreetly and selectively, though some would obviously still choose to do so for convenience's sake, to save on AP and organize from separate locations.

Discussion (Whisper)

I'll say right now it's similar to Different Speech Types, but without the "shout" option, and many of the votes on that one, which went to undecided, suggested reposting just as whisper anyway. I didn't see the repost if it occurred.--Necrofeelinya 11:17, 22 April 2009 (BST)

Well there is Communication in Peer Review. There is also Texting in Peer Review which is similar (but requires a phone which isn't that bad).--Pesatyel 04:01, 23 April 2009 (BST)

Dupe numba 2! That's two dupes in a row for me!--Necrofeelinya 13:18, 23 April 2009 (BST)

Don't think of it that way. They are good ideas, hence being in Peer Review. That makes me think of a new wiki idea. What if we had a "Peer Reviewed Suggestion of the Week". Maybe we could vote on one or two suggestions currently in Peer Review that would be highlighted on the front page (or some place more likely to get Kevan's attention). Kinda like a reminder to him.--Pesatyel 04:58, 24 April 2009 (BST)

I don't think Kevan needs the hassle unless it's been sitting for more than a year with maybe a 5/6ths majority and people really, desperately want it. There's a reason Kevan ignores Peer Reviewed suggestions.--Necrofeelinya 05:12, 24 April 2009 (BST)

more importantly how would we decide which suggestions to review? Perhaps a new page for such a procedure where any one would be free to bring up a maximum of 1 suggestion per week from those more than 12 months old, any that pass there could then be moved to the normal suggestion page. --Honestmistake 08:20, 24 April 2009 (BST)

We could just...vote for it.--Pesatyel 07:25, 25 April 2009 (BST)

---

Shrieking Demise

Timestamp:	Necrofeelinya 23:30, 21 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	improvement, flavor
Scope:	Characters
Description:	"Shrieking Demise" would cause players to emit an audible death cry heard for a 6 block radius (like feeding groan) upon their deaths. The ability would have a toggle to allow the player to turn it on or off. A list of random messages which could emerge upon a character's demise follows: "A piercing wail shatters the silence from _ blocks to the _ and _ blocks to the _, then is abruptly cut short." "You hear an agonized cry from _ blocks to the _ and _ blocks to the _, then silence." "An ear splitting shriek is heard from _ blocks to the _ and _ blocks to the _." "A desperate cry of anguish emerges from _ blocks to the _ and _ blocks to the _ before fading in choking gasps." "The tortured cries of a hapless survivor rise from _ blocks to the _ and _ blocks to the _ before being brutally silenced." "Screaming pleas for mercy emerge from _ blocks to the _ and _ blocks to the _, quickly trailing off in agonized sobs." The message heard in the same room or square as the victim dies in would also be variable, something like "Your victim emits a horrified wail as you sink your teeth into their flesh" for zombies, or "(player) emits an agonized cry as a zombie drags them down". Zombies with this skill toggled on would emit a low moan or similar sound audible within their immediate square whenever they get beaten down by a survivor.

Discussion (Shrieking Demise)

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

Sounds like free feeding groans (free is bad, m'kay) and will probably spam up everywhere. A lot. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:33, 21 April 2009 (BST)

It would only happen when someone (human) dies, so I doubt the spam factor would be a serious issue, and it would be a toggle which players could turn on or off at will, though I see your point about free feeding groans. Still, the only ones who would deliberately use it that way would be pro-zombie humans, who probably prefer playing as zombies anyway. I can see how it might be used in coordination with parachuting, but that wouldn't serve any more purpose than letting zombies outside know you'd parachuted in. Could conceivably be used to coordinate an assault in-game now that I think about it, but assaults can be coordinated a lot of ways.--Necrofeelinya 23:42, 21 April 2009 (BST)

Free is not always bad but i think this is too much. Perhaps the screams radius could be based on the number who die in the location? for instance 1 death = current block only while 3 since your last loggin would echo for 3 blocks, obviously a maximum range should apply.--Honestmistake 00:33, 22 April 2009 (BST)

Why would a zombie be able to groan louder than a human can scream? And do you mean a single scream message for every person who died within a certain distance, regardless of direction, or one for every person who died in a particular location within earshot since you last logged in? That seems awkward. Besides, how would you toggle it off then? Just a toggle for whether you hear other people's screams rather than to shut off your own?--Necrofeelinya 00:47, 22 April 2009 (BST)

The zombie is throwing their head back and yelling in exultation at the coming meal while the survivor has a few stone of stinking dead flesh tearing its throat out and trying to eat its brain! --Honestmistake 00:54, 22 April 2009 (BST)

I'm trying to replicate more of a Jamie Lee Curtis "Oh shit, I'm doomed" kind of scream here, not a weak, expiring gasp. Besides, what about the other questions?--Necrofeelinya 13:31, 22 April 2009 (BST)

I mean that at best it should be based upon location and a message should read something like "over the last several hours you have heard dying screams echoing from.... (list of directions/locations)" with the screams you have heard being listed from oldest to newest. It would really only be for flavour anyway as most breakins with a large enough body count for this to be heard are signaled by groans anyway. As for toggling... I would suggest only allowing it to be toggled by the hearer (like groan, radios and flares) --Honestmistake 13:48, 22 April 2009 (BST)

This is a dupe. I'll see if I can find it. Plus the "examples" are a little confusing.--Pesatyel 05:23, 22 April 2009 (BST)

If it's a dupe, it's a dupe, but I don't know what's confusing about the examples. Just replace the underscores with either a number or a direction, thus "An ear splitting shriek is heard from _ blocks to the _ and _ blocks to the _." would become something like "An ear splitting shriek is heard from 6 blocks to the east and 2 blocks to the north.", just like feeding groan. I figured the format would be recognizable.--Necrofeelinya 10:35, 22 April 2009 (BST)

Oh, and I did take it directly from my own humorous suggestion, Harman, after thinking it might have actual merit on its own.--Necrofeelinya 11:40, 22 April 2009 (BST)

I don't see the point of this. Who would care about these shrieks? Survivors won't hear them- they are inside. Zombies won't care because they do NOT indicate a source of food. In fact, they indicate a decrease in available food. Groans are good for zombies to follow (especially if loud) because they mean zombies and survivors present in the same place, which (especially with zombie cade blocking) means there are likely no barricades. These shreiks could mean anything- a PKer in a mall, somebody dying of infection all alone, a zombie killing a lonely bit of street meat or suicide reviver, etc. They mean nothing, and so would just be ambient noise that would SEEM meaningful to newbie zombie players, but waste their AP to investigate. Any source that IS worth investigating would have feeding groans coming from it.
If anything, this would at least need an option for people to ignore all the shrieks to pass. And most people (zombies in particular) would activate that option, I suspect.  Swiers 19:02, 22 April 2009 (BST)

I for one would not ignore them... first I like the idea of hearing harmans die. Second if done in a way similar to my suggestion it could help decide which of several feeding groans to follow as the one with the latest screams also has a greater chance of still being open (recent kill = recently active zombie) Of course this should not effect survivor on survivor kills unless the flavour text changed to indicate dies screaming in a hail of bullets! --Honestmistake 19:25, 22 April 2009 (BST)

I did find a very similar suggestion in Peer Reviewed: Grisly Demise. You might check it out for similarities and/or differences. I do like this idea or some other direction or development of it. --Winton 01:31, 23 April 2009 (BST)

That's dupe numba 3!!! Three dupes in a row and I am outta here! Time to quit suggesting until I can come up with something actually original. This may take a while.--Necrofeelinya 13:22, 23 April 2009 (BST)

---

Uberly Heavily Barricaded

Timestamp:	ShadowScope'the true enemy' 18:05, 21 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	A new skill is introduced: "Improved Construction" under "Construction". Improved Construction allows humans a new level of barricading: UHB, which is a rank above that of EHB+3. You seal the building totally. However, by sealing the building, you prevent anybody from coming in...and anybody from coming out. You can't free-run in, you can't free-run out, you can't exit the building through the doors, you can't walk out. You're sealed in the building until you destroy the UHB barricade, allowing you to go inside. To me, this is a fair trade-off. You barricade a building heavily, but you are stuck in said building, being a sitting duck.

Discussion (Uberly Heavily Barricaded)

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

Barricades are already almost impossible for a lone zombie to get past and you want to add another level? I'd sooner see EHB levels to be made to function like this TBH. --Johnny Bass 18:21, 21 April 2009 (BST)

I don't think there's really a fair trade off for UHB. Survivors would just raise it to UHB in a siege and force the zombies to eat through that additional level of barricade. Also the cades seem generally balanced right now. No reason to screw that up --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 18:25, 21 April 2009 (BST)

Easily usable by griefers to disrupt free-running lanes and deny access to buildings. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:12, 21 April 2009 (BST)

Isn't the primary effect remarkably similar to SEAL THE ROOM!!!? In all the worst ways, I mean.--Necrofeelinya 21:58, 21 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah I'm going with Necrofeelinya, this is way too similar. Sorakairi 23:08, 21 April 2009 (BST)

I have the same comment as I did to "Seal The Room." Why log-in at all? If a player wants to completely insulate or separate himself from zombies and gameplay in a zombie apocalyse, why would he be playing the game? --Winton 06:32, 22 April 2009 (BST)

EHB+3 may already be possible, and isn't really any more meaningful protection against zombies than EHB+2. EHB+2 stops wandering feral zombies and maybe smaller strike teams, but not larger organized zombie groups, and EHB+3 would do nothing new there.
So, the main use of this would be greifing (trapping people in buildings, resource denial by death cultists, blocking freerun lanes by death cultists) and keeping "bad guys" from getting into your building. Both of those purely feed the survivor vs survivor conflict, which (while an allowed and designed in part of the game) is not something the game should cater to with special features usable ONLY for that purpose, I think.
Look at it this way- its basically a ransack skill usable by survivors to create many of the same effects as a ruin would have. Is that a GOOD idea???  Swiers

Well, I thought the use by griefers would also serve to make the skill more 'balanced'. But yeah, this skill isn't going to get sent to the Suggestions page, even to get Peer-Rejected.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 21:50, 22 April 2009 (BST)

---

More zombie XP gain for smashing barricades

Timestamp:	ScaredPlayer 22:49, 19 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Balance change
Scope:	Zambahs
Description:	We all know that zombies get 1 XP every time they break down a barricade level. I think it's safe to say that this change was made to give zombies an incentive to smash barricades, as well as simply giving zombie players more ways to gain XP (compared to survivors, who have several more ways to gain XP than zombies). However, I feel that the 1 XP gain for each level destroyed is simply too little. Let's take an example; a zombie with upgraded hand attacks will have 50% accuracy for 3 damage when attacking a survivor. When we take a days worth of AP spent attacking a survivor, we get 25 AP x 3 damage = 75 XP gained. Combined with tangling grasp and the XP bonus for killing a survivor, the incentive to attack survivors rather than barricades is very high. Now if that zombie spent the day smashing a barricade instead, they would earn, what, 12 or 13 XP, assuming 25% chance to break a barricade. Now that simply sucks. I just feel that it should be increased so zombies have more incentive to ruin the city. Therefore I propose that every time you destroy a barricade level you get 2 XP instead of 1. I don't think this is too much, really. Even spending a days worth of AP attacking barricades, you would still get only 25 or 26 XP, a far cry from the XP you could have gained from attacking a survivor.

Discussion (More zombie XP gain for smashing barricades)

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

The big thing that I see in this: It's also rather newbie helping. I'm leaning towards an Insta-Keep here. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 23:34, 19 April 2009 (BST)

What's an Insta-Keep... and I didn't make this with helping newbs in mind, specifically. But as of now, the 1 XP reward for smashing a barricade is truly pitiful; you could hardly call it an incentive at all. --ScaredPlayer 00:17, 20 April 2009 (BST)

In all fairness the incentive is the tasty brains on the other side of the barricade... that said though, the poor feral who spends his/her days rattling cades on the off chance that they will get inside with a few AP left to attack someone does get screwed by the current system. --Honestmistake 00:59, 20 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I spent 72 AP total today pounding on a set of 'cades (that were empty on the other side I migth add, so no one raised them up while I was waiting), and I didn't even get them down to loose. I'm a non-rot maxed player, so I don't need the XP, but I know how it feels to be stuck on the outside of buildings pounding away, and never making it in. :'( --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:36, 20 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, unless I'm reading the barricading wrong, you can earn up to 21 XP. So with this suggestion, you'd be able to earn up to 42 XP. That seems like a lot considering that destroying the barricade XP is both incentive and a bonus to getting to the REAL prize...the meat inside.--Pesatyel 06:42, 20 April 2009 (BST)

In a day the maximum average AP you can earn is 12 or 13, regardless of the building your attacking. I calculated that using a 25% chance to break a barricade with 50 AP. The odds are against you gaining more than 13 XP attacking barricades as it is now.

That's why I said UP TO. It is VERY possible for a zombie to breakdown a full barricade on his own. I've done it more than once. Now being probable isn't the same. I haven't done it very often. But its not impossible and that was the point. Even if you "average" 12 or 13, your STILL doubling that to 24 to 26 and your STILL allowing for the possibility of 42.--Pesatyel 07:32, 22 April 2009 (BST)

No — barricade XP is a joke, a booby prize. IMO its only real use is easily keeping track of exactly many collapses you have achieved while pounding on the barricades use, although I suppose it is some slight consolation for busting open an empty (strafed) building. Breaking barricades shouldn't be a goal in and of itself — EATING HARMANZ is the goal. Barricades are just an impediment to that goal. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:52, 20 April 2009 (BST)

Ok, so the two sides (humans and zombies) earn XP for attacking the other side. Why do humans have so many other ways to earn XP (scanning zombies? wtf?) and healing other people? Yeah, sure it's because there's more classes but that still doesn't solve the problem of zombies having a much harder time leveling. Plus, as I said before, even if this change were implemented, the potential increase in XP gain wouldn't be significant to unbalance gameplay - that is, zombies now looking for buildings to attack rather than harmanz as their first priority targets. --ScaredPlayer 23:06, 20 April 2009 (BST)

Scanning is very important when reviving - they go hand-in-hand. Survivors are radically different from zombies. Zombies = "Eat brains! Graagh!" Survivors = Survive, as a human being (which is far more complex than "Eat Brains!") --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:15, 20 April 2009 (BST)

It's never going to happen but its worth pointing out that the logic of xp for useful behaviour means that survivors should not get XP for attacking zombies outside, after all it does so little to aid their cause. Its the easy availability of targets that causes the imbalance in survivor/zombie XP race. --Honestmistake 18:14, 21 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, "survival" means little more than NOT dying. Not very complex at all. But that still moot when it comes to the fact that zmbies are players too.--Pesatyel 07:04, 23 April 2009 (BST)

What might actually be better than a flat "doubling", would be a kind of "bonus" for changing levels. Say you have a 10 point (Very Strong) barricade. You get 3 successful hits earning you 3 XP and dropping it to a 7 point (Quite Strong) barricade. Knocking it to QS would earn you a bonus of, say 2 XP, so for 3 successful hits you would earn 5 XP. If you knocked that barricade down to 0, you would earn 16 XP instead of 10 (3 XP for the change to QS, 3 for the change to lightly and 3 for the change to loosely). So a fully EHB barricade would earn you, normally, 21 XP but with the bonus, it could be 33.--Pesatyel 07:32, 22 April 2009 (BST)

---

XP gain depends on Starting Class

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 07:44, 19 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	All players
Description:	Players who play as their class now receive extra bonuses to their XP dependant on what their starting class was. Military-based characters will get 1.5x the regular XP for attacking, killing and dumping zombies. Scientific-based characters will get 1.5x the regular XP for DNA scans, revives and healing survivors Civilian-based characters will get 1.5x the regular XP for repairing things, tagging and reading. Characters that started as Zombies get 1.5x the regular XP for killing survivors, attacking barricades and ransacking (while as a zombie)

Discussion (XP gain depends on Starting Class)

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

They already do get better XP than others as they have better skills in those areas. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:30, 19 April 2009 (BST)

And cheaper skills, to. Military characters level faster if they uy military skills, and leveling lets you earn XP faster, so... Military characters earn XP faster for killing zombies. Feature exists in game already. The only change this would introduce is making low level survivors earn XP faster (bad because they already outpace low level zombies) and making high level survivors earn XP faster (which just puffs up a meaningless number).
This is also bad because it penalizes dual natured play; characters who started as survivors (or at least as Military) would obviously prefer to stay that way, at least until they don;t need more XP. Same as those who start as zombies would be incentived to stay zombies.  Swiers 16:19, 19 April 2009 (BST)

Unbalanced, horribly. So Military classes get 15 XP for kills (and more XP for damage, which is a lot of XP to begin with) and Civilians get... 1.5 XP for a repair? We don't need decimals around here. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:42, 19 April 2009 (BST)

• Military: 3 to 15 XP (22 for flare) for attacks, 18 to 30 for kills (37 for flare), 1 for dumping (no bonus).
• Science: 6 XP for DNA scanning, 15 for reviving and 7/15/22 for healing (FAK/First Aid/Surgery).
• Civilian: 1 xp for repairs (no bonus), 1 for tagging (3 if the special cases), 1 for reading (no bonus)
• Zombie: 18 to 21 XP for killing survivors, 1 for damaging a barricade (no bonus) and 1 for ransack (no bonus).

So yeah, pretty unbalanced. And I rounded down. Rounding up make all those 1's into 2's.--Pesatyel 08:36, 20 April 2009 (BST)

This isn't good as it forces players to make a major gameplay choice before they've even touched the game. Also, as Mid. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:39, 20 April 2009 (BST)

Not necessarily. Players could "switch classes" later in the game (as this would apply to veterans and max outs). They would just have to decide which class to stick with.--Pesatyel 07:52, 22 April 2009 (BST)

---

Morse Code

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 07:44, 19 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill (Civilian)
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Sub-skill of Radio Operator, with it you can use Morse Code to prevent people who do not know Morse Code from understanding it. A drop-down box next to the field where you enter in your message will enable you to send the message either as "Normal" or as "Morse". No change to the character limit, however. With a Morse message, only those who also have the skill Morse Code will be able to interpret your message. Other players will get the message "You heard an encoded message on (Frequency)"

Discussion (Morse Code)

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

I think you should actually print out the Morse transmission, so that people can still choose to translate it manually. -CaptainVideo 12:34, 19 April 2009 (BST)

I would, but since each character of regular text would become 4-5 characters of Morse Code, even a small spam message would become 4-5x as annoying. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 12:59, 19 April 2009 (BST)

Not a terrible idea, but the spam would be annoying for people hearing encrypted messages. Technically nothing prevents someone from typing in dashes and dots and actually using morse code, except not knowing it. --A Big F'ing Dog 15:28, 19 April 2009 (BST)

(.... . .-. . .----. ... / .- -. --- - .... . .-. / .-- .- -.-- ---... / .--- ..- ... - / - -.-- .--. . / - .... . / -.. .- -- / - .... .. -. --. .-.-.-) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 23:40, 19 April 2009 (BST)

(-....- -....- -....- / .-.-.- -....- .-.-.- / -..-. / -....- .-.-.- .-.-.- / -....- -....- -....- / .-.-.- .-.-.- -....- / -....- .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.- / .-.-.- -....- .-.-.- .-.-.- / .-.-.- / -..-. / .-.-.- / -....- .-.-.- / -....- .-.-.- -....- .-.-.- / -....- -....- -....- / -....- .-.-.- .-.-.- / .-.-.- / -..-. / .-.-.- .-.-.- / -....- / -..-. / -....- / -....- -....- -....- / -..-. / -....- -....- / .-.-.- -....- / -....- .-.-.- -....- / .-.-.- / -..-. / .-.-.- -....- -....- .-.-.- / .-.-.- / -....- -....- -....- / .-.-.- -....- -....- .-.-.- / .-.-.- -....- .-.-.- .-.-.- / .-.-.- / .-.-.- -....- -....- -....- -....- .-.-.- / .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.- / -..-. / .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.- / .-.-.- / .-.-.- -....- / -....- .-.-.- .-.-.- / .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.- / -..-. / .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.- / .-.-.- .-.-.- -....- / .-.-.- -....- .-.-.- / -....- / .-.-.- -....- .-.-.- -....- .-.-.- -....-) --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:46, 20 April 2009 (BST)

Why don't you just organize the people you want to talk to one your own frequency? This seems pointless and potentially irritating.--Necrofeelinya 02:35, 20 April 2009 (BST)

1: There's not enough frequencies. 2: People in the same area, or with radios on your frequency could listen in (they still could if they had Morse Code themselves, but it could cut this occurence down somewhat) --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:02, 20 April 2009 (BST)

There are 300 frequencies. Wouldn't it be easier to simply come up with a meta-game "code" to use? I'm all for lessening the metagame, but this just seems unnecessarily complicated. And, ultimately, this just hurts newbies since EVERYONE will have the skill eventually (especially the shear number of maxed outs) rendering the whole process moot.--Pesatyel 08:43, 20 April 2009 (BST)

You can already use whatever code you like over the radio, including the likes of ENIGMA or even stronger ciphers. If you don't use metagame communication, this might even be worthwhile! :) The suggestion itself is a bust, I'm sorry. :( ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:06, 21 April 2009 (BST)

---

Narrow the Quarantine

Timestamp:	Murray Jay Suskind 18:33, 17 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Everybody
Description:	I know this is going to rain hell-fire upon me as I'll be suggesting that somebody's favorite suburb disappears, but Malton is far too big right now. We have 10,000 square blocks for 28,000 players (and about 15,000 of them are active daily). At a given moment there are about 12-15k standing survivors. This means that there is an average of 150 standing survivors (being generous) in a suburb. Obviously the distribution is unequal. However, this means that there's a large number of suburbs that are functionally abandoned. Additionally, the average suburb has absolutely no hope of standing up to a zombie horde like the Ridleybank Resistance Front, Mall Tour, or Militant Order of Barhah. Even if the average suburb crammed every single survivor into one building, that would only even out the numbers, which still isn't a winning proposition with coordinated zombies and barricade obstruction. Even in relatively well-populated areas of Malton, there still aren't enough survivors to defend against well-coordinated zombies. For instance, almost every single mall in the game will have a population distribution of roughly 75, 25, 30, 15. Even if survivors ran a proper distributed defense, this generic mall doesn't stand a prayer against a well-coordinated zombie horde. Then there's the impact upon the game being too spread out upon the feral zombie. There are roughly 9,000 standing zombies. About 1,000 of them are active metagamers (ie. members of an organized horde that's on the stats page). Let's say another 3,000 aren't active everyday or are level 1's about to idle out. That leaves about 5,000 true feral zombie players (and that's being generous). That's only 50 feral zombies per suburb. It may sound like a lot, but if they're not coordinating then there's not going to be the same kind of specific targeting you get with the organized hordes, with only one (maybe two) ferals active in an area at a given time, they aren't going to break into an EHB building and if they do, it's going to be small enough that they can't obstruct the barricades to any effect. Essentially the feral zombie is completely alone and powerless unless they happen to be in the same suburb that a large horde is targeting, and even then they're going to have a hard time following them because of how quickly the organized hordes are gobbling up suburbs. All of this is a long way of saying that the quarantine zone in Malton needs to close in somewhat. I personally feel that the game would greatly benefit if Malton were reduced from a 10x10 suburb map into a 6x6 suburb map. Simply make the corner suburbs Darvall Heights, Santlerville, Gulsonside, and South Blythville. I know, I know... but I'm tearing up Creedy!?! I'm cutting Caiger in Half!?! I'm getting rid of Giddings and Perryn!?! I'm daring to completely do away with (insert your group's suburb here)!?! Yes. That is exactly what I'm proposing. If we get rid of 9 malls, all of a sudden we'll see the density of the population surge in the rest. If we get rid of 64 suburbs, the density of players in the rest of Malton suddenly increases three-fold. Survivors would suddenly be able to meatsheild again. Ferals would suddenly be in groaning distance of other ferals and create more organic break-ins. Large zombie hordes would have to chew their way through some suburbs building by building again. Survivors would be close enough to one another to, you know, help each other in case of zombie attack. This game needs a kick-start. I know it's asking a lot to abandon the sentimental attachments to certain places, but things are more fun if you have more people you're playing with. If we share a smaller area, then suddenly we've got a lot more neighbors to play with. Anyway, discuss.

Discussion (Narrow the Quarantine)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 2 days.

Less distribution of survivor forces that comes with fewer buildings makes it easier for the "bad" endgame to happen. I say "bad" because in zombie canon the zombies are the bad guys, and them winning is "bad." Fewer overall NTs makes it easier for groups of zombies to coordinate and stack up inside and it becomes exponentially easier to cut off survivors from revives. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:52, 17 April 2009 (BST)

What makes you think any single given building (especially a mall) must be defensible against a well co-ordinated zombie horde? Large, organized zombie groups SHOULD smash all that stands in their way. Theres only maybe 4 groups in a game that consistently approach that level, and even they can only take out a few buildings at a time. That leaves 96% of the suburbs and 99% of all buildings safe from major zombie attacks.
Suvivors don't need to cluster up and stage a static defense; in fact, they should do exactly the opposite. By spreading out and focusing on rapid recovery (IE, lots of revies, repairs, and cading) they ensure there is always someplace safe to move to. Shrink the city down, and you just make it so there's fewer places to run to once the area you are in gets wrecked.  Swiers 18:56, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Dang, BobBoberton got the ninja post. Basically the same idea.  Swiers 18:56, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Its also worth noting that the games population has at times been almost 3 times what is is now. It didn't make the game notably better, and lower populations don't make it worse.  Swiers 18:58, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Whoop whoop! Not to mention it's good to have room to grow if another invasion of the Dead or such happens or the game naturally gets more players. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:05, 17 April 2009 (BST)

I don't think it should be easy to defend against a well coordinated horde. I think it should be in the realm of a realistic possibility. Right now it's really not. Zombies have been running over malls on auto-pilot that we would have been forced to really try on in the past. Also, the game was much better when the population was higher (see: Blackmore, Caiger III, Shacknews at Stickling, Mall Tour II at Stickling, RRF at Santlerville). Finally, if the Dead invade again, Kevan will take care of it the way he always does, nerfing / buffing the game mechanics. Nothing prevents survivors from playing the game they're currently playing, it just gives them another option. Also the game is pretty horrible for ferals (moreso than usual) right now. -- Murray Jay Suskind 20:59, 17 April 2009 (BST)

I think you're vastly underrating the attachment some of these emotional retards have for "their" Suburbs. I was thinking of something along these lines (but only the outer 36 boundary burbs to start with and then shrink further if needed) but decided that getting such a thing passed would be a herculean effort, plus I wouldn't want all those suicides on my hands.--Zombie Lord 19:50, 17 April 2009 (BST)

It's not bad because of the act of eliminating "their" suburbs - there are other issues with this as well. See above. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:11, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I read it. I'm still not convinced it would be bad to shrink the City. It's just NEVER gonna happen because of the attachment people have for their burbs, even if it would improve the game.--Zombie Lord 20:37, 17 April 2009 (BST)

I'm not trying to get this past a peer review. Peer review doesn't remotely matter in getting a change implemented. I'm arguing this on the off chance that Kevan is actually reading this. -- Murray Jay Suskind 20:59, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, thats usually what I try to do...I don't even want to imagine the On Strike campaign someone like Mobius would try to organize if he though Dulston might go down though. Good luck at any rate. I think shrinking the city would be great for the game myself. Or better yet, a total redesign with less malls, less NTs, and an actual street plan that organized buildings into blocks cut off from each other as far as running lanes went.--Zombie Lord 21:14, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Again, this'd be something nice to do with a test city or a new city... in fact, I feel a suggestion coming on... --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:03, 17 April 2009 (BST)

This sounds like a "multiply it by a billion" kind of thing. A feral zombie CAN get through even the tougher barricades on their own. a "horde" of 3 can do quite a bit of damage even through that.--Pesatyel 04:12, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Call this a place holder for comments later. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:28, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Leave my Butt alone. >=( -- Cheese 12:10, 18 April 2009 (BST)

There could be problems with people's alts (ie: zerging, and keeping them outside of 10 squares with less squares) and as above, attachment to locations. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:02, 18 April 2009 (BST)

What you want is a new Monroeville or Borhamwood. Your idea has too many problems to be taken seriously. What happens to characters in the suburbs you are eliminating? Density might end up higher, but then you also eliminate a core idea of zombie canon--survivors SHOULDN'T clump up. They spread out and avoid the zombie hordes. Add in the problems that everyone else has already brought up and I tell you to quit whining. If the population bothers you, get more people to play the game! --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 13:10, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Exactly. IMO an organised zombie horde should tear down everything they come across. And even then, they still don't always win. And when they do, you should MOVE. Do the old "clean up behind them" tricks, etc. Sadly, your suggestion would just cluster fark MORE survivors and have the opposite effect of what you intended: more mallrats, etc. No, what K needs to do is make non-life for ferals easier somehow. --WanYao 19:44, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, a zombie horde is SUPPOSED to come through every now and then. Hordes are good, as they leave ferals. But if there's less room, then hordes have less room to move, meaning more time in 1 place and more frequent visits, which becomes bad, as you might fix your whole 'burb, only to have the horde come back and wreck it. Time and AP wasted. to conclude, I don't like it. Sorakairi 03:14, 21 April 2009 (BST)

Just a note: you could keep all the suburbs and accomplish the overall map diminution by reducing the size of each suburb. Instead of getting rid of x% of suburbs, you get rid of x% of each suburb. 36 suburbs @ 100 squares = 100 suburbs @ 36 squares. I don't know that this particularly helps or hinders any arguments for or against this idea, its just another way to look at it.--Winton 16:24, 19 April 2009 (BST)

I thought about this at one point, but there comes a problem with the smaller the space the more likely alts are to run into each other. If you take away half of Malton you really start having a problem with keeping alts 2 burbs a part. Now I know with a game like this the whole alt separation thing is dependent on the person. But it would make it easier for zergs and griefers to do what they do, because there would be less space to hide from them. --Jelly Otter 05:29, 20 April 2009 (BST)

This requires game resetting. How do you get the people out of the areas before they're removed? --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:28, 27 April 2009 (BST)

---

The Happy Clown

Timestamp:	Sorakairi 14:04, 16 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Just Fun
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	Somehow, by some form of Happy Clownery, a clown has managed to get into Malton. He now wanders the streets, handing out balloons to those who speak to him. He is impervious to attacks, as Humans attacking him get the message, "His happiness radiates off, and makes you wonder why you attacked him, stopping you." Zombies get the message "As you attack, the Clown does a trick. You stop, amazed, and forget to attack." When you speak to him, he gives you a balloon. This balloon is useless, except that you can pop it in someone's face doing no damage at 100% accuracy, like a newspaper. You can only have 1 balloon at a time. Also, The Happy Clown is mute, as in he can laugh etc. but not speak. The Happy Clown will leave, as he moves from one end of Malton to the other, entering through one border and exiting through the opposite border.

Discussion(The Happy Clown)

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

Hooray for clowns! Sorakairi 14:04, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Humorous Suggestions is <-- that way. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:08, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I know that, this wasn't meant to be humourous. It was meant to be fun. Which is the same thing, I guess. But anyway, I just thought that people might like a change from constant killing. I mean, clowns are awesome. Everyone likes clowns, right? Sorakairi 14:24, 16 April 2009 (BST)

How about clown biker ninja nuns riding in horse drawn zeplins instead???  Swiers 15:05, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I'm torn. I like this idea - it feels like an Elvis sighting - but it's out of step with a game populated entirely by human-driven characters. -CaptainVideo 23:57, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, most people I know hate clowns. You'd have a lot of people just trying to kill his ass (whether they could or not0.--Pesatyel 02:47, 17 April 2009 (BST)

/me hates clowns --WanYao 12:19, 17 April 2009 (BST)

well, then i guess its no good. Ohs wells. I will type my Zombie MoL skill now. Sorakairi 13:26, 17 April 2009 (BST)

You bite The Happy Clown for 4 damage. They become infected. They die.--Winton 22:38, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, if you've ever done it, they die before they become infected. >:3 (I love that message.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:51, 21 April 2009 (BST)

---

Oops!

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 13:11, 14 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	'Improvement'
Scope:	Greedy survivors
Description:	Whenever a survivor who has a total encumberance rating of over 100% dies, they have a X% chance to lose their biggest item (read: item with the most encumberance), where X is the number by which you have exceeded the 100% encumberance marker.

Discussion (Oops!)

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

This will create an uproar. Might I suggest an extra AP to stand up? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:31, 14 April 2009 (BST)

I don't think the fifth generator really makes that much of a difference to the four I can stand up with and carry without any trouble. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:07, 14 April 2009 (BST)

I'm not sure which way your leaning with your comment. If your saying its ok to lose the "fifth generator" maybe, but what about your ONLY generator? Or are you saying that encumberance is irrelevant to your ability to stand.--Pesatyel 03:17, 15 April 2009 (BST)

No, it's neither of those. Am I really that unclear or is it just you? What I'm saying here is that why would the fifth be a problem, when four wouldn't? Though strictly speaking, even five generators wouldn't be a problem, you'd have to have some other stuff in addition to those five for it to be a problem. The inventory system is really unrealistic, this wouldn't fix that. This would just annoy people. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:55, 15 April 2009 (BST)

No, I think you clarified things. I agree, this wouldn't really help the inventory system.--Pesatyel 04:19, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I agree with gnome.--xoxo 06:49, 15 April 2009 (BST)

I like this, it seems altogether reasonable that a zombie is not going to struggle about hauling the extra weight that making it such a small chance even seems nice! It would cause uproar though. --Honestmistake 08:14, 15 April 2009 (BST)

At best, I'd say the character would would get to CHOSE which item(s) to lose to get under 100%.--Pesatyel 04:19, 16 April 2009 (BST)

While it does make sense, anything that serves to create a hindrance for survivors that wasn't previously present won't make it past voting. Think about trying to explain that rationale in the update. "Survivors across the map suddenly got weaker and...." I can't really think of a good way of explaining it via the update screen. --Johnny Bass 16:50, 16 April 2009 (BST)

I generally think the punishment for breaching the 100% encumbrance limit is merely that you can't get any more items, but despite my basic and boring opinion of the encumbrance system, I would probably vouch for either Blake or AHLG's ideas towards this. However, it might just be more basic and logical if you propose that people simply can't breach 100%. Although I am certain thats a dupe. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 13:39, 17 April 2009 (BST)

NO U ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:00, 21 April 2009 (BST)

---

Over Emcumbered Slows You down

Timestamp:	Alex1guy 10:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	What I am suggesting is inspired from Fallout 3. When you are over encumbered (101% and up) it should cost 2 AP to perform an action as all the stuff on your back makes it difficult to move, shoot, hit etc.This would encourage survivors to take more care about what they carry and would stop people who are 99% encumbered, to suddenly be able carry an extra generator at virtually no cost.

Over Emcumbered Slows You down

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

Dupish -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:11 14 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, it ISN'T a dupe. Working Load applied only to movement. This applies to ALL actions. That having been said, neither is a good idea, of course. The former got into Peer Rejected. NO way in HELL this will pass.--Pesatyel 02:50, 14 April 2009 (BST)

How is this an "improvement"? Suggestions are to strive to make the game more fun. I actually think we should introduce a NEW category of suggestions. Said category would be ideas in which players could VOLUNTARILY make the game harder on themselves without affecting or forcing others to do the same. This idea would qualify. I could have a toggle on my profile that would "activate" this idea for my character.--Pesatyel 02:50, 14 April 2009 (BST)

Makes total sense, adds somewhat to realism, and isn't worth bothering with. The ability to exceed encumbrance isn't a big deal, especially considering how unrealistic the ability to carry all the crap within the encumbrance limit is. But unlike Pesatyel, I don't think things have to be helpful to be improvements, and like seeing suggestions like this.--Necrofeelinya 08:30, 14 April 2009 (BST)

That DOESN'T say how this is an improvement. Realism should help a suggestion make sense, not be the sole reason for it. Also, WHERE did I say it had to be helpful? I said "suggestions should stive to make the game more FUN". DON'T put words in people's mouths. And, as a matter of fact if you actually read my post, I said suggestions like this COULD be a part of the game.--Pesatyel 03:22, 15 April 2009 (BST)

It isn't much of an improvement, or I wouldn't have said "isn't worth bothering with", though the notion that realism isn't sufficient reason for a suggestion is an opinion I don't necessarily share with you, particularly if added realism makes the game more fun for others. Maybe that difference in our perceptions of what might be "fun" is what gives me the impression that you prefer your suggestions to be beneficial. And sorry I overlooked your rant about how this "COULD be a part of the game" as long as players are given the option to "VOLUNTARILY make the game harder on themselves without affecting or forcing others to do the same" as part of "a NEW category of suggestions". I took it for sarcasm. Apparently you were serious. Nice use of caps, btw. --Necrofeelinya 04:52, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Overreacted a little perhaps. Thing is that this IS just a game, one that most people only play for, what, 5 minutes a day? Why make it harder on others, unnecessarily? I'm all for the game being more realistic, but realism only goes so far before it infringes on the the fun/enjoyability of others. And thats where the limited play time comes in. I said realism shouldn't be only reason for a suggestion, not that it shouldn't be included (or that it wasn't necessary). You say "realism will make the game more fun for others" In what way, given this suggestion? Shouldn't it make it fun for YOU too? How does this particular suggestion make it fun for others? And, as you said you took my idea as "sarcasm" am I to take it you dislike the idea?--Pesatyel 06:57, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Like I said, I don't share the view that realism alone isn't enough reason for a suggestion. I think it can be reason enough, if it doesn't complicate game play. I just don't want to discourage suggestions which, like this, are mainly based upon added realism. But no, I don't support this since the amount of crap players can carry well within encumbrance w/o movement penalties is unrealistic to begin with, so this doesn't really add realism. The AP penalty doesn't make sense because of that, and would just be an annoyance that people would have to deal with, since it'd just lead to people wasting time trying to max out their inventories without penalty. But I like that he tried, and I think maybe there might at some point be a place for something like this, if it were radically different, fit the game better, and people actually wanted it, which nobody does.--Necrofeelinya 09:32, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, I meant my idea about a new group of suggestions where a player can voluntarily make the game "harder" for themselves without forcing other players to take the same limitations/quirks.--Pesatyel 04:25, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Like Diablo's Hardcore mode or a Hardcore city! I'd actually be interested in such a thing. Harder for both sides, that is. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:31, 16 April 2009 (BST)

Might not be a bad idea. The best time I've had in Urban Dead has been in the early stages of Borehamwood or Monroeville, and I've wanted to see that kind of hardcore map made a more permanent, workable feature anyway, but there might be a way to introduce a hardcore element to Malton. Check my suggestion for the "Harman" class in Humorous Suggestions to get one notion of how it might work, for humans anyway. : ) --Necrofeelinya 07:40, 16 April 2009 (BST)

what i get in a search is random. i could be over-encumbered against my will. --WanYao 19:43, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Then throw some stuff out. Don't be greedy now. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) OFFLINE 13:40, 17 April 2009 (BST)

NO U ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:00, 21 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!!!)

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

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)

Yeah, but then you're liable to wake up dead. -CaptainVideo 07:52, 11 April 2009 (BST)

But if you wanted to isolate yourself, then you defeat the purpose of the game, and so you don't want to play. so you don't come back on.Sorakairi 03:42, 21 April 2009 (BST)

The reason why this wouldn't work is because there will be that one guy who seals himself in, idles out, and locks off the armoury to everyone else forever. --Haliman - Talk 01:28, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Maybe it would be a self-eliminating problem, like the need for wire cutters. -CaptainVideo 04:21, 17 April 2009 (BST)

If not destroyed, generators run out of fuel in 120 hours, or 5 days, which would cause the door to release due to lack of power. Having said that, I'd prefer this as a suggestion for banks, perhaps a random 1-2% of them. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:05, 21 April 2009 (BST)

i like this, but not in the armory. as Haliman said, there will be the one idiot. Banks work though. In the vault. and the air shortage thing.

With a coordinated group this could end up as "hey, let's raid today" and have characters come and go as they please, locking the room after they're done for the day. Effectively, they could be invulnerable - they can go out and hunt, but no one can fight back unless you happen to log in in the five minutes the vault is opened. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:31, 22 April 2009 (BST)

If you see these movies where they have blast doors on bunkers and the like, they take time to shut since they're so huge. Usually an epically long tense time while the protagonist, his girlfriend/companion, etc attempt to get inside before it shuts leaving them trapped on the other side with something particularly nasty. Maybe about a 5 minute delay before the doors are too far shut to make it through without squishing would help zombies out. Means the survivors would have to kill and dump all zombies in less than 5 minutes before they get trapped inside. And then it would take time to open the doors again so they could get through. =) Actually now I think about it, this bit might kinda render them useless....unless....*goes away for a think* -- Cheese 21:43, 22 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)

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

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)

This should be with the humorous suggestions. Why is it here? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:29, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Winners don't use drugs. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:10, 21 April 2009 (BST)

Micheal Phelps. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:25, 21 April 2009 (BST)

Aspirin. Also, No true winner. ;) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:44, 21 April 2009 (BST)

But I love destroying absolutes! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:53, 21 April 2009 (BST)

And I love tautologies, circular reasoning, and paradoxen. >:D ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:55, 21 April 2009 (BST)

... so how 'bout that RNG? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:58, 21 April 2009 (BST)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Disembowel

This suggestion is now up for voting. It's discussion has been moved to its talk page. -- Cheese 16:03, 25 April 2009 (BST)

---