Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

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

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Further Discussion

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

Please Read Before Posting

• Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. You can read about many ideas that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe: a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles.
• Users should be aware that page is discussion oriented. Other users are free to express their own point of view and are not required to be neutral.
• It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.
• After new game updates, users are requested to allow time for the game and community to adjust to these changes before suggesting alterations.

How To Make a Suggestion

Adding a New Suggestion

• Copy the code in the box below.
• Click here to begin editing. This is the same as clicking the [edit] link to the right of the Suggestions header.

• Paste the copied text above the other suggestions, right under the heading.
• Substitute the text in RED CAPITALS with the details of your suggestion.

{{subst:DevelopingSuggestion
|time=~~~~
|name=SUGGESTION NAME
|type=TYPE HERE
|scope=SCOPE HERE
|description=DESCRIPTION HERE
}}

• Name - Give the suggestion a short but descriptive name.
• Type is the nature of the suggestion, such as a new class, skill change, balance change, etc. Basically: What is it? and Is it new, or a change?
• Scope is who or what the suggestion affects. Typically survivors or zombies (or both), but occasionally Malton, the game interface or something else.
• Description should be a full explanation of your suggestion. Include information like flavor text, search odds, hit percentages, etc, as appropriate. Unless you are as yet unsure of the exact details behind the suggestion, try not to leave out anything important. Check you spelling and grammar.

Cycling Suggestions

• Suggestions with no new discussion in the past two days should be given a warning notice. This can be done by adding {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section, where date is the day the suggestion will be removed.
• Suggestions with no new discussion in the past week may be removed.
• If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the warning template please remove the {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section to show that there is still ongoing discussion.

This page is prone to breaking when the page gets too long, so sometimes suggestions still under discussion will be moved to the Overflow page, so the discussion can continue.

Suggestions in Overflow: No suggestions currently in overflow.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list

---

Suggestions

Mounted Weapons

Timestamp: Barzini 7.35 HK/Singapore time Date:23rd June

Type: Defense for Buildings

Scope: All Buildings

Description: I want players to be able to get more weapons that can only be placed on buildings.Such as mounted machine guns which can be used by players to shoot at Zeds outside.Of course Zeds can destroy those too.

Discussion (Mounted Weapons)

Bad idea. I'll let others explain why. --Papa Moloch 13:31, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Hahahahaaaa. No -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:32 23 June 2009 (BST)

---

boom, headshot

Timestamp: DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:18, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Type: flavourchange

Scope: headshotted players

Description: I wish to put forward a suggestion where the headpiece sections of clothing in Urban Dead can only get torn/tattered/cracked (for sunnies), if you get Headshotted. Why? Cause sunnies, nurse's caps and the like deserve to have more longevity on players. Guess I'm a little bored, too.

Discussion (boom, headshot)

I would vote Keep on this.--

| T | BALLS! | 11:52 23 June 2009

Dunno about you, but 9 times out of 10 it is a headshot anyway, for my zombs -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:37 23 June 2009 (BST)

---

Talk Is Cheap(er)

Timestamp: Jaeger ayers 08:43, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Game Mechanic

Scope: Everyone

Description: Create a pool of max 5 AP for each character, only used for speaking, that recharges at a rate of 1 AP every 5 hours. Radio transmissions are ineligible, as they require punching in codes, twiddling knobs and tweaking settings or whatever it is the Radio Operation skill enables the broadcaster to do. Pros: encourages communication, fraternization and teamwork on both sides. One is not forced to choose between speaking and life-or-death actions. Cons: encourages all speaking, including mindless chatter; potentially tricky coding; extra server load? (though the IP hit cap would still curb this.)

Discussion (Talk Is Cheap(er))

I've sat in rooms where certain groups have 5 members churning their 50ap out into walls of text, every day, for 5 months. It is maddening and I would not give one, let alone 5 of these chumps an extra 5 just for talking. Having that minority accounted for, I also think 1AP isn't too much, for the sake of getting out a quick message. One speech box allows for 180 characters or something, plenty to get a quick message across, in my opinion. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:17, 23 June 2009 (BST)

I personally enjoy the RP aspect of UD greatly. I end up spending 2-5 AP a day on friendly conversation, good-natured taunting of zeds and reporting observations of horde movement, barricade levels, etc. I find much of the radio chatter to be inane and maddening, but that's what my profile settings and ignore list are for.--Jaeger ayers 10:44, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Only if speech is limited to only those 5AP per day :D -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:52 23 June 2009 (BST)

---

Nice Boots, Chief

Timestamp: Jaeger ayers 08:18, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Game Mechanic (Flavor)

Scope: Everyone

Description: When in a location with one or more dead bodies, players will see a Loot button (with a dropdown targeting menu if the player recognizes any of the bodies.) Clicking the Loot button will spend 1 AP and open a modified Edit Profile page, where, in addition to the clothes available according to building type occupied, the player will find the targeted corpse's headgear or footwear as an option in the dropdown menu (or only headgear if the player is a zombie - presumably a zed is sufficiently coordinated to take someone's hat or glasses, but not remove or put on footwear.) The logic to headgear/footwear only is ease of access: Survivors presumably carry gear in pockets, backpacks, slings, web belts, stapling stuff to themselves, whatever. (Think of your "search and find nothing" results as investment of time in figuring out how to add the crap to your kit once you do find something.) Removing other clothes would involve lifting, rolling and/or pulling a dead body that might start moving again at any moment - are you gonna risk a zombie bite for that t-shirt? (Not to mention that undressing other players could be creepy in an uncool, text-rapist kind of way.) The looted target would see a message that "So-And-So looted your body", but would have to examine his profile to determine what was taken. The mechanic would not alter any game balance, but would function as "counting coup", humor value (like the newspaper slap) or trophies (PKers and bounty hunters claiming souvenirs from their targets, for instance.) Plus I like the image of a zombie mauling a survivor and stealing his hat. :)

Discussion (Nice Boots, Chief)

Don't want to sound like a role-play nazi, but if we give players the option to steal clothes from bodies, people will start to question why they can't take items. Similarly, the concept of grabbing items from dead bodies has been suggested in the past. And some items are found from places in malton that players have travelled the entire city just to get, I don't think they'll appreciate being PK'ed and ravaged simply because they had a fur coat from Curton Mansion. I do think it would be a great way to grief groups like The Kilt Store. As a kilty myself, I would find it funny. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:23, 23 June 2009 (BST)

The concept description limits it to headgear and shoes (and possibly facial accessories like glasses,) with the justification that snatching a hat or yanking shoes off is not as involved an action as rummaging through someone's pockets/backpack or removing a coat/shirt/pants, especially when the corpse will rise as a zombie at any moment.

And killing someone over a hat (Stagger Lee, anyone?) or a pair of sneakers (a depressingly common crime IRL) makes marginally more sense than the way most PKers kill at random. --Jaeger ayers 10:05, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Wrong. Most PKers don't kill at random at all. Just because it wasn't followed by a speech doesn't mean they didn't kill to help a break-in, some retribution, or just because they had a shit name. And the idea of just taking a hat or shoes doesn't matter when it comes to the core problem: taking someones clothes is unfair. There is a specific hat store in Malton. Same case as the coat example I mentioned above. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:11, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Ok, I agree to disagree. Ironically, what planted the idea in my head was getting randomly PKed by a character wearing a sweet trilby from the hat store you mentioned.

I personally think that if an article of clothing is so important to a character, it should be part of the profile description, as many people do when specific articles of clothing do not have an in-game analogue. Clothing gets shredded and blood-soaked by combat. I'm sure people have hiked some distance just for a clean kilt, so I don't see how it's "unfair" to further mess with a character's clothes. I'll shut up so the community can decide now.--Jaeger ayers 10:44, 23 June 2009 (BST)

I've been a 'random' PKer, a roleplaying PKer, a competitive PKer, a survival PKer and a group PKer, and I'm here to tell you now, PKing is never random. There is always a reason. As the this description box idea, perhaps you still don't understand. There is no challenge of just saying 'this user wears a cowboy hat and a poncho'. The is a challenge in getting a fur coat from the mansion in the northern most suburbs of Malton, and then maintaining yourself so it so it doesn't get torn to shreds. It can (and does, for me) have near to no reason to do with what the item of clothing is, just how prestigious it is to have acquired it. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:10, 23 June 2009 (BST)

---

High Metabolism

Timestamp: Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 13:23, 22 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Skill

Scope: Everyone with the skill

Description: Zombie Hunter skill. With High Metabolism, players can 'regenerate' health at half the rate that they would gain AP (1 HP every hour). However, there are 3 conditions: 1. They must have a full AP reserve (50AP) 2. They must have logged into their character within the last day (i.e. no going inactive for a week to heal up) 3. They must not be infected This will not only strengthen Infection (by preventing players from healing via the skill during attacks), but also give survivors the feasable option to heal some wounds, at the cost of staying still for prolonged periods. Zombies also benefit from this skill, but they do not need to worry about being infected or not.

Discussion (High Metabolism)

1. You're making it a survivor only skill (zombie hunter skill), forcing hardcore zombies to get a revive to achieve this, and 2. you're encouraging players not to play. Where's the fun in sitting still to heal, especially when it means you've got to be over your daily AP limit already, effectively missing turns in order to heal yourself? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:11 22 June 2009 (BST)

This man speaks the truth. Make the game more fun, not less fun. --Anotherpongo 20:40, 22 June 2009 (BST)

This in combo with the 5/10/15 HP insta-heals already in the game is too much. It's got to be one or the other, IMO, either natural healing OR the Magical Wizard Healing Spell we already have. I'd like to see only natural myself, but not both.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:41, 22 June 2009 (BST)

This is seriously underpowered for replacing the current healing system. --Anotherpongo 20:40, 22 June 2009 (BST)

Well of course it would have to be tweaked. What I'm saying is one style over the other, but certainly not both.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:03, 22 June 2009 (BST)

Why only natural healing?--Pesatyel 06:23, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Because the Magical Wizard Healing Spell we have now just doesn't fit into the genre, IMO.--

| T | BALLS! | 11:53 23 June 2009

I would say that #1, it can't be survivor only. Second, why even bother with the differing rate between HP and AP? Once your AP is maxed, then you start recovering health at the same rate. Seems simpler, although if Kevan doesn't think it would be too much computer work I do think that the natural health recovery should be 1 hp/hour as you suggested. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:39, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Recovering 50hp in a day is ridiculous. Blake's numbers are much better. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:25, 23 June 2009 (BST)

---

Slippery Guise

Timestamp: --Kakashi on crack 13:08, 22 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Balance change

Scope: All

Description: basically, it will ocasionally "rain" in-game, when it does a zombie's hands will be slippery and will have 5% less chance of hitting with their claws when outdoors, at the same time a survivor won't be able to see zombies as well and will recieve a small penalty of 5% also. Rain would have no effect if you were inside and little if any effect on damaging baracades. Though this could be seen as negative to both sides, it would add a bit of realism. Perhaps after a series of rains in a ruined building, moss will begin to grow which a survivor could pick and use basically to staunch bleeding which would result in a cured infection and maybe healing 1hp.

Discussion (Slippery Guise)

OMG the realism of it all 8-O. (Too much already.) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:14 22 June 2009 (BST)

This suggestion is unrealistic (or unbelievable in the context of a zombie game, as zombies are far from "realistic"). How do my hands being slippery make me less able to use them aggressively? And moss is probably more likely to give you an infection than to cure one. And "Rain would have no effect if you were inside and little if any effect on damaging baracades"; be more decisive for goodness' sake, does it damage barricades or does it not (if it does then it's especially silly)? Please, organise your ideas neatly, so we, the editors, can throw them out in an orderly fashion. :3 --Anotherpongo 20:28, 22 June 2009 (BST)

I don't like the moss idea, it's pretty useless and, well, bad. But I love the idea of nerfing outside combat- it would help Zeds that hate being headshotted in their sleep, but keep inside combat (breakins and PKing) stable. I think you would want to make cade-accuracy the same, so zeds can break in easily. You should try and specify just how much it is going to rain, twice a month, 10 times a month, for a week or only in daily doses. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:32, 23 June 2009 (BST)

---

Zombies Drop Heavy Shit V1.2

Discussion (Zombies Drop Heavy Shit V1.2)

I kept the 100% on 20% Encumbrance items for this version. It could be lowered on a later version, but I wanted to see how people felt about it after these other new changes, especially the automatic hold on 2% Items. These could easily be secured and not near as likely to fall off after death. But I just don't see how any zombie holds onto a generator or transmitter and still be able to use its Claws/Teeth. The same could be said for a Toolbox and Fuel Cans, but I suppose they might get a good "rigor mortis grip" on it or something.--

| T | BALLS! | 23:11, 20 June 2009 (BST)

Still playing a survivor, still think death is nothing to be feared, still like your suggestion =)--Bjorn 01:23, 21 June 2009 (BST)

From last discussion: This won't instill fear of death in people, it'll instill (more of) a dislike for death. It's not "oh no, the zombies are going to get me," it's "goddamnit, now I have to do more searching." Fear is not the same as disliking something. I could say ZL is afraid of ball-less survivors, but that's not the truth - he just dislikes them. Intensely. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:27, 21 June 2009 (BST)

Yep to all you said.--SirArgo ^Talk 17:00, 21 June 2009 (BST)

You're still guaranteeing that all generators are dropped, and that your toolbox will probably also go, every time a survivor dies. Sure, a chance to loose on or two of these big items, but not a 100% chance. Decorative items however... sure, they need to go, kill them with in a fire ;) Toolboxes especially are a pain to go searching for, and are esential -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:23 22 June 2009 (BST)

Essential for reconstruction, but not so much for pure survival. I'm of the opinion that it would force Survivors to "retreat back to civilization" more often, allowing for a more natural ebb and flow of zombie infested areas. This would probably mostly effect the type of Survivor that gets overly attached to a particular "patch of ground" or Suburb so rather than moving around and trying to survive they just never leave their "home". What sort of numbers for Genny/Trans/toolboxes would you find more acceptable, though?--

| T | BALLS! | 19:58, 22 June 2009 (BST)

I'd like to see an upper limit on how much could be lost per death. If you did the maths, and worked out how much is lost per death on a fully stocked survivor, it would be quite a hit, IMO. A clear disincentive to stocking up -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:46 23 June 2009 (BST)

I like this suggestion. Yeah, maybe 65% on the gennies and radios and a lower number (I'm thinking 35-50%) on the toolboxes, but this suggestion is good enough as is. --Anotherpongo 20:31, 22 June 2009 (BST)

How do these numbers look:

Encumbrance	% Chance to Drop
20%	50%
16%	40%
10%	25%
6%	15%
4%	10%
2%	5%

I used this formula for this table: Each 1% of an Item's Encumbrance = 2.5% chance for dropping it. So, 20% Encumbrance Item is: 20 x 2.5% = 50%, a 2% Encumbrance Item is 2 x 2.5% = 5%, and so on.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:05, 22 June 2009 (BST)

a shit idea from a shit user tbqh --Cyberbob 14:11, 23 June 2009 (BST)

---

Improved Aim

Timestamp: Serran 07:39, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Type: New skill

Scope: All classes - human and zombie

Description: High Level Character Skill - Improved Aim Improved Aim would increase hit percentage and add to damage done for weapon types the skill is purchased for. Human or zombies can benefit equally. Suggestion scope This is available to characters level 15 or 20+ only, and has skill tree requirements specific to weapon chosen as well as class and also varied XP costs to reflect the specialization of class skills. Suggestion description Higher Level Skills – Specialization: Improved Aim This would be the addition of increased percentages for damages. This would encourage specialization of skill sets somewhat more instead of broad Jack-of-all-traders. Possessing the Improved Aim for (weapon type) would give a 10% increase to hit with that weapon (Axe, Knife, Pistol, Shotgun, Bite, or Hand Attack) to hit and a +1 increase to damage done. This would be a level 15 or level 20 requirements and also require Headshot for survivors & Flesh Rot for zombies. I got pretty detailed below, and I’m totally up for suggestions. I don’t think that this has been considered before – but I apologize if something similar has been. Increased Damage – “Improved Aim” • Prerequisites: Have to be level 15+ or 20+ • Location in Skill tree: Must have headshot skill & Advanced Pistol or Advanced Shotgun Training or Axe Proficiency. Headshot + any one other skill = Improved Aim for that form of combat. • Crossover skill: This skill could cross over for zombies but be applied to having Flesh Rot + Neck Lurch + Infectious Bite or Death Grip + Rend Flesh. Flesh Rot would be used as it is deeper in the skill tree and my reason for tying the skill to a skill like Headshot or Flesh Rot + others is to prolong someone from getting the skill of Improved Aim until later in the game which is also why there is a level requirement also. This is to reflect the characters improvement in combat if they have specialized. The skill should be bought separately for each form of combat to reap all benefits as well. Buying Improved Aim for Shotgun’s will not give the bonus to attacks made with Pistols, Axes, Knives etc. it will only benefit Shotgun attacks. • Cost in XP: 150 XP cost per/improved attack type. To get Improved Aim for Axes, Shotguns, and Pistols here are the costs: Civilian – Cop/Firefighter: 600 XP military skill set + 100 XP headshot + 150 XP Improved Aim Axe + 150 XP Improved Aim Shotguns + 150 XP Improved Aim Pistols = 1150 XP total cost Civilian – Consumer: 700 XP military skill set + 100 XP headshot + 150 XP Improved Aim Axe + 150 XP Improved Aim Shotguns + 150 XP Improved Aim Pistols = 1250 XP total cost Scientist – Necro Tech Lab Assistant/Doctor: 1050 XP military skill set + 100 XP headshot + 150 XP Improved Aim Axe + 150 XP Improved Aim Shotguns + 150 XP Improved Aim Pistols = 1600 XP total cost Military - Private: 450 XP military skill set + 100 XP headshot + 150 XP Improved Aim Axe + 150 XP Improved Aim Shotguns + 150 XP Improved Aim Pistols = 1000 XP total cost Military – Medic/Scout: 525 XP military skill set + 100 XP headshot + 150 XP Improved Aim Axe + 150 XP Improved Aim Shotguns + 150 XP Improved Aim Pistols = 1075 XP total cost For zombies to get Improved Aim Bite & Improved Aim Hand Attacks here are the costs: Zombie – Corpse: 700 XP required zombie skills + 150 Improved Aim Bite + 150 Improved Aim Hand Attack = 1000 XP total cost Zombie – Any other Class: 800 XP required zombie skills + 150 Improved Aim Bite + 150 Improved Aim Hand Attack = 1100 XP total cost The zombie costs are on the lower end but their attacks are slightly under powered compared to shotguns and pistols so I feel it would even out. Each class has varied costs too which reflects the specialties of their class. A similar skill like Improved Aid or Improved Revive (using less AP for those filling up a special skill tree and reaching level 15) could also be implemented to advantage those who do not use combat. I believe also that there should be a 5 level increment required between specialization. If someone chooses to buy Improved Aim Shotgun at level 15 then they must be at least level 20 before you purchase your 2nd Improved Aim skill. They would accrue if not gained (as I don’t see how else it could be done) and so by level 35 a character could simply purchase them all if he hadn’t already – which is at the high end of character levels as it stands which would reflect the character’s level of experience. The base level could be changed to level 20 making the Improved Aim skill set complete only at level 40 or higher. This outline could be used for Knife or Blunt weapons also (If a blunt specialty is ever introduced. I believe a similar skill that bolsters each class & subclass would maintain balance in the game. The Flesh Rot requirement may throw the balance off as only those who especially want to play zombies would go for it – but that seems to make sense as only dedicated zombies would have improved biting ability etc. • How it's activated: This ability would be active anytime a character used an attack that they had Improved Aim in and it would give +10% to hit, +1 to damage. • Cost in AP: There would be no difference in AP cost to make an attack. Perhaps a trade-off could be that each attack that has Improved Aim takes 2 AP to perform to reflect the character focusing their aim. If a 200% increase per attack of AP is implemented however I feel that the percentage to hit should be increased to 15% or the damage increase to be +2.

Discussion (Improved Aim)

That's pretty fresh. I like the idea of specializing in one thing. How about removing the headshot/fleshrot requirement though? Not all zombies want to have rot but all survivors want headshot. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 07:48, 19 June 2009 (BST)

I like the idea, but I think your numbers are too high. What about a 5% increase to hit percentages and no damage increase; makes you slightly better but not game breaking.(I think)--Bjorn 13:10, 19 June 2009 (BST)

I agree with Bjorn, but only if you only get to specialise in one thing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:13, 19 June 2009 (BST)

That's a good idea. But there's way too many people who hate the idea of players NOT being a homogenized mass of bland, boring sameness to ever get it through. Probably.--

| T | BALLS! | 14:38, 19 June 2009 (BST)

XP cost is no way to balance out a suggestion when you consider how many players are maxed out with thousands of extra XP. You need to find a different way to offer a balance here. --Johnny Bass 16:47, 19 June 2009 (BST)

--Kakashi on crack 22:33, 22 June 2009 (BST) This reminds me of the dnd class weapon master, Perhaps the one using this technique should only be able to focus in ONE weapon to keep it balanced so that each survivor is a little bit different?

I like that this is the first idea I've seen for a +% to hit and +damage that helps both survivors and zombies. I do agree with the others here that a player should be forced to specialize (pistol/shotgun/melee/bite/claw) and can only buy one. I'm also a fan of the idea of it costing that one extra AP, but maybe that should only be through a new button on the display (suggesting that some attacks you're focusing more on a good hit than others). --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:54, 23 June 2009 (BST)

---

Hunting Rifle

Timestamp: --Robert Egleton 20:17, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Item

Scope: Survivors

Description: Has most of you know in Dawn of the Dead the characters was able to get a Hunting Rifle. Adding a Hunting Rifle to the game would be a "ranged" weapon. You could shoot from a block away or from any window. Shooting from a block away or any window would give you 50% of hitting, shooting from the same block you would get a 75% of hitting. You would only be able to find the Hunting Rifle and ammo in Gun Stores in Malls.

Discussion (Hunting Rifle)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: June 26 at 00:59(BST)

Generally, ranged weapons (that actually have range) are frowned upon.--Zombie Lord 20:29, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Yes... not only have you not described how ammo works or how much damage it does, you've also made the percentage way too high - and is that with skills or without? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:34, 17 June 2009 (BST)

With skills. I am sorta new at this soooo. I suck, --Robert Egleton 20:36, 17 June 2009 (BST)

It's alright, we see it pretty frequently. If you look at Frequently Suggested and Suggestions Dos and Do Nots, those pages can help guide you and answer questions sans embarrassment here. Even if ZL wipes his ass with them. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:42, 17 June 2009 (BST)

This has been suggested a gazillion times before in all sorts of different styles, and thrown out every time, because it adds very little to the game. It's a new way to do old things. Also 75% is way too high for an attack chance, and you haven't clearly explained how this would be affected by skills. Even with those problems solved it will still be nuked to oblivion though. Sorry. --Anotherpongo 20:40, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Even with my mistakes it could be provided useful. Even the long ranged part for pistols. --Robert Egleton 20:43, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Urban Dead does not need another gun. To quote ol' Grimmy, you would either have to dilute search rates for current weapons, weakening newbies who would find it harder to specialise, or add them to the current search rates, overpowering established level 41ers. As I've said, it is not useful. Spend that 1AP moving to the next block to shoot something for goodness sake, which is what most people would do, defeating the point of the weapon entirely. This is uninteresting, pointless, has not passed before and most likely never will. --Anotherpongo 20:51, 17 June 2009 (BST)

That's not quite true. It depends entirely on WHERE you find it. If, say, you found them in mansions or someplace, it wouldn't affect search rates at other locations.--Pesatyel 00:59, 19 June 2009

Shooting zombies from a vantage point where they have almost no chance of fighting back (ie. from inside a building, or from adjacent blocks), just isn't sporting, old chap ;) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:38 18 June 2009 (BST)

---

Tangling Grasp in Dark Buildings

Timestamp: Zombie Lord 20:30, 16 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Skill Change/Improvment

Scope: Zombies with Tangling Grasp/Players Grasped by Zombies with Tangling Grasp

Description: If a Zombie successfully Grasps another Player inside of a Dark Building, BOTH of their attack percentages are no longer halved, as long as the Grasp is maintained. That is, both the Zombie AND the Player they have Grasped may attack at full percentages. This applies ONLY to the Grasper and the Grasped. If the Grasped Player attacks a different target than the Zombie Grasping them, they suffer the usual halved attack percentage penalty.

Discussion (Tangling Grasp in Dark Buildings)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: June 25 at 20:39(BST)

First thought (and given its midnight and i have been drinking I do reserve the right to take it back!) this should only apply to none firearm attacks.... Just remember though that this would be very unbalanced as it basically just circumvents the penalties for zombies only. --Honestmistake 23:44, 16 June 2009 (BST)

I thought about the non-firearm thing, but it wouldn't be that hard to shove a Pistol to the body of a Zombie that is Grasping you. Shotguns, OTOH, probably should be out.--Zombie Lord 23:47, 16 June 2009 (BST)

Arguably, most of the weapons wouldn't be as effective when being grasped. Most of them require swinging ina significant arc to cause damage. But maybe I'm overcomplicating. I mean if you take the "butt end" of a bat or crowbar and bash with it (stabbing rather than swinging) the effect would be essentially the same, given UD's simplicity. Even the shotgun could be maneuvered enough to cause damage (shoot it in the leg, for example). So, simply put, I don't see this as that bad an idea really.-Pesatyel 03:38, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm, yes, I suppose if we wanted to really get down to it we'd have to designate both Firearms and Melee weapons that would get the bonus (based on length) and those that wouldn't. Rather that excluding all of one type or another. Off hand I'd say Pistols, Knives, Crowbar, Flare Guns, and Beer/Wine should get the full attack percentages. Maybe, since it's dark and you can't aim properly, Headshot does not work in the Dark...that's probably asking for too much though.--Zombie Lord 20:17, 17 June 2009 (BST)

I find the whole idea of a close-quarters flare gun rather weird. Maybe this could be scope for another suggestion. --Anotherpongo 20:43, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Why? The Flare Gun is particularity silly in this game anyway. 15 Damage? Gimme a break. This thing should be more like getting hit with a bean bag gun, not cause 50% more damage than a shotgun. The whole concept of how a Flare Gun works in this game is stupid to begin with.--Zombie Lord 21:02, 17 June 2009 (BST)

The whole concept of zombies is "stupid" to begin with as well. At least flare guns aren't found with other guns and flak jackets absorb some of the firey heat. I'm just glad there are fire-based weapons at all... and the 30 damage you can get if you soak 'em in fuel beforehand is well worth it. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:04, 17 June 2009 (BST)

The fire part at least makes some sense. Even though 9 times out of 10 the flare would just bounce off of you without lighting anything.--Zombie Lord 21:10, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Dead dry zombies burn real nice - the trick is hitting them well. Flare can embed themselves in soft, squishy insides as well. Wait, how do I know this stuff? proh god --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:11, 17 June 2009 (BST)

IMO, the key to any good fantasy is to take one unreasonable element (zombies, in this case), and surround it with as much reason as possible. So I could maybe go for Zombies taking more damage from Flares considering their "dry, squishy" state. But wait, how is something both dry AND squishy? A flare embedded in a squishy zombie would probably just be extinguished. A dry Zombie, maybe it would burn of their clothes...probably not much else.--Zombie Lord 21:23, 17 June 2009 (BST)

"how is something both dry AND squishy?" Jelly.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:30, 18 June 2009 (BST)

What kind of jelly are you eating? Powdered and sprinkled on toast? Me, now I like moist jelly. It's spreadable and edible. Fuckin jelly...oy.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:31, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Taking this Jelly discussion to talk.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:15, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Napalm can be dry and squishy. Coagulated fuel, yay! Dried-out dead fat (human included) burns well too, and that's squishy/gooey. Not in a good way, mind you. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:27, 17 June 2009 (BST)

I could buy that if Flare Guns caused a base damage of 3 or 4 and then had a % chance to cause additional fire damage. Yes, human fat burns well, but the odds of lighting it with a Flare...astronomical.--Zombie Lord 21:37, 17 June 2009 (BST)

What's wrong with the flare gun (as far as this suggestion goes). Take a look at the pic of a flare gun and you'll see why it should receive the bonus.--Pesatyel 03:12, 18 June 2009 (BST)

Well it also depends on WHY the survivor is attacking. Say a zombie gets a grasp on me. Does me getting a successful hit on the zombie break the grasp? If that's the case, then it wouldn't really matter which weapon you use since the idea is to use the weapon as a lever to push the zombie off. If it doesn't, then yeah probably only certain weapons would be effective.--Pesatyel 03:12, 18 June 2009 (BST)

This suggestion will penalise zombies that run out of AP with tangling grasp active, which could leave them open to full % attacks for hours (perhaps even 24 hours if they only play once a day). Also, given that survivors can't target specific zombies (unless they're on their contact list), there is no way for them to get this bonus unless it's a single zombie break in -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:33 18 June 2009 (BST)

1.Only against the single Survivor they have a Grasp on. 2.If you have been attacked and Grasped, you should be able to see that in your messages and put that zombie in your contacts if you wish to attack them.--

| T | BALLS! | 06:33, 18 June 2009 (BST)

90% of the time, survivors aren't online during a breakin. the other 10% of the time there is one online, who fights then runs. The other survivors will just have to deal with every zombie mauling the survivors with full accuracy, while they aren't online to defend it. Game breaking. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:22, 18 June 2009 (BST)

not exactly game breaking as the game managed just fine before the darkness penalties were introduced, that said it is very one sided as a smart zombie need never log out while still tangling a victim . A better option may be to ensure that a zombies full grasp bonus be added in the dark rather than half... this of course may already be the case as its damn near impossible to tell from the hit frequency. --Honestmistake 12:41, 18 June 2009 (BST)

Game breaking?...we're talking about DARK BUILDINGS here. Come on.--

| T | BALLS! | 20:39, 18 June 2009 (BST)

---

Over-Encumbrance Stops Movement

Timestamp: Zombie Lord 19:57, 16 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Encumbrance Change

Scope: Players Movement

Description: Any time a player goes over 100% Encumbrance and then tries to move, they do not move at all but receive this message: "You are Over-Encumbered, and cannot move. You must drop enough Inventory to reach 100% Encumbrance or less in order to move again."

Discussion (Over-Encumbrance Stops Movement)

Too much of a Nerf as is... perhaps if its only stopped Free running. Seems like that might be a dupe though. --Honestmistake 23:46, 16 June 2009 (BST)

Suggestion:20080131_Working_Load. While not a dupe, it shows the community is not in favor of implementing movement reduction when over-encumbered. If 2 AP move costs get shot down, I'd imagine "no moving at all" would be as well. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:00, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm, the Working Load suggestion made zombies immune, and a lot of people didn't like that. (don't blame them). Maybe a zombies too idea would go over better.--Zombie Lord 06:49, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Huge stupid nerf. --Anotherpongo 20:46, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Reasonable nerf.--Zombie Lord 20:51, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Urban Dead is unreasonable. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:56, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Survivors are just crybabies. :)--Zombie Lord 21:02, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Zombies are just dead crybabies. :) Wait, they still move too. Living dead crybabies. Also, there's no denying UD is unreasonable. Survivors can jab zombies napes at will, zombies can get their head blown off and stand up readily, and every building apparently has an infinite supply of ... supplies and barricade materials. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:05, 17 June 2009 (BST)

For now...--Zombie Lord 21:11, 17 June 2009 (BST)

Oh god, don't start that argument. Please. --Angusburger 21:54, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Who ever said I was a survivor? :) --Anotherpongo 09:31, 20 June 2009 (BST)

Details! :)--

| T | BALLS! | 05:15, 22 June 2009 (BST)

---

Radio Chatter

Timestamp: Bjorn 12:45, 12 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Both New and Change

Scope: Both Survivors and Humans

Description: This is my first suggestion, so if something if wrong please tell me. Also, when I say people, I mean players whether they be Survivors or Zombies. What I am proposing is that when there are 5 or less people in a building or on a block, that any radio chatter that one person would hear, they would all here. This is realistic in a sense that with a low amount of people, you should be able to hear other people's radio chatter, but when there is even a slight increase in the amount of people, all the background noise blocks out other people's radios. There also would be a distinction from interior and exterior noise. If you and another person are standing outside a mall (usually filled with people) that count does not count against the maximum number of people for this to take effect. Also, the count would be a total of both Survivors and Zombies in a block; so it is a total of 5 or less players, not just survivors or just zombies.

Discussion (Radio Chatter)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: June 25 at 20:39(BST)

I like this. It makes sense, given that there are few people in the area. --Bwii 1:07 13 June 2009 (BST)

Worst case scenario, this creates spam and leads to PKing. there are two ways to receive a radio transmission. Having a receiver in your inventory and being in a room with a transceiver. Either way I can control the receipt of transmissions. If some other guy has the radio however, I'd have to kill him to shut his radio up. The question you have to ask yourself is HOW this makes the game better and/or more fun? Realism is (or should be) a requirement for all suggestions but it shouldn't be ONLY reason. YOu can't hear gunshots (which would be much more useful) for example, so why should you be able to hear someone else's radio?--Pesatyel 04:10, 13 June 2009 (BST)

I don't agree with Pez's assessment, overall. But I don't personally see how this adds anything to the game, it's sort of ... fluffy. --WanYao 15:53, 13 June 2009 (BST)

Well I WAS speaking "worst case" but my main problem with it is that is not particularly useful.--Pesatyel 20:28, 13 June 2009 (BST)

Well, shutting off radio input could be extended to all radios. If a Transmitter can be shut out in Settings, surely that could be extended to other peoples radios as well. Still, I'm not too hot on this idea. Leaning towards this being "fluffy" as well.--Zombie Lord 20:35, 13 June 2009 (BST)

It is indeed fluffy, but its supposed to represent a small group of people, hiding from the horde, trying to figure out where the next safe place to go would be by listening to a bunch of radio channels. I think it would not be a spam issue because anyone that is going to be a griefer is probably not going to collect that many radios and then go to a place with 4 people or less (because he makes the 5th) and stand there hoping someone broadcasts. Also, if you don't like it, just log out and then log in and its all gone. --Bjorn 00:54, 14 June 2009 (BST)

Log out then log back in? Hows that suppose to change the station?--Pesatyel 03:40, 14 June 2009 (BST)

It won't. It'll just get rid of the 'Since you were last online' event messages. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:53, 14 June 2009 (BST)

I know, that was a little bit of sarcasm. It boils down to having to listen to some OTHER jerk's radio. If you log out and log back in, sure it will clear the spam from before you logged about, but what about the spam after you log back in.--Pesatyel 08:42, 14 June 2009 (BST)

How many times have you been playing when you get more than one message over your radio?--Bjorn 23:21, 14 June 2009 (BST)

Let me clarify; how many times have you been actively playing (moving, shooting, searching, etc) and gotten a message? Maybe once for your entire 50 AP. Most message are received when you log in.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjorn9486 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 15 June 2009.

Before this gets deleted due to inactivity, do people think I should post this in the suggestion page or not?--Bjorn 13:07, 19 June 2009 (BST)

---

Scent Trail Alteration

Timestamp: Bob Boberton TF / DW 03:36, 12 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Skill Change

Scope: Zombies with Scent Trail

Description: Currently Scent Trail only triggers when someone attacks a zombie. With this proposed change, a zombie remembers the scent of its last target and can track them if they move. A message such as "PLAYERNAME fled. (Now XN / XS, XW / XE) (Time)" would now be displayed if the last attacked target of a zombie moves away before they are killed. Of course, if the target or zombie dies before they log in again, the Scent Trail would be lost as normal.

Discussion (Scent Trail Alteration)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: June 25 at 12:43(BST)

That makes sense. --Honestmistake 08:10, 12 June 2009 (BST)

I like this. --Rolfero 10:14, 12 June 2009 (BST)

I thought this already happened. If it doesn't, then it should.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:47, 12 June 2009 (BST)

Yep.--Necrofeelinya 23:44, 12 June 2009 (BST)

I'd vote Keep.--Zombie Lord 23:48, 12 June 2009 (BST)

What happens if I enter somewhere, attack a survivor, then proceed to groan and gesture, does that remove my tracking or is it simply the last successful attack is used as long as I stay in that location and the survivor runs? Which message takes priority: my last target, the most recent person to attack me, or both? I'm currently for this suggestion, I just want to make sure everything is covered. - User:Whitehouse 14:49, 13 June 2009 (BST)

I like the concept, but as Whitey, I think there need to be limitations/conditions, etc. --WanYao 16:00, 13 June 2009 (BST)

Well, Scent Trail allows a zombie to track the last person to interact (attack, heal, extract or revive), so there is are base. In this case, I'd imagine the tracking would apply in either facet. That is the LAST survivor to interact with the zombie (either by doing something to the zombie or the zombie hitting them) would be the trail. Other than that, why would anything beyond the perameters of Scent Trail need to really affect it.--Pesatyel 20:41, 13 June 2009 (BST)

I'm thinking I'll put this up for voting with zombies having one scent trail "slot" - whichever last interaction takes place (zombie attacks someone or someone attacks/scans/etc. the zombie) gets the location notifier. Any other previous actions either show nothing or "Scent lost." "PLAYERNAME fled" would always show for the last attacked target, but would obviously show "Scent lost" if another action was taken against the zombie in the intervening time. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:51, 15 June 2009 (BST)

I think I would prefer this as an extra skill called something like "Taste for Blood". This could/should store the trail of the last person you bit until you (the zombie) die. --Honestmistake 12:43, 18 June 2009 (BST)

---

UD Building Status Widget

Timestamp: 9:26AM 06/11/09

Type: NEW 2.0 Widget

Scope: Survivor and Zombie Groups

Description: My name is Tahko Tetsujin and I am the current leader of Rotter's Relief. We have a website set up at http://www.rottersrelief.org I come to you after almost two years of building the group up from one office to five. Rotted revives are big business for us and the status of our NTs are crucial. Real simple. An urban dead widget that allows you enter the X and Y axis location of a building to track the real time status of the building to see if the lights are on, wheather the building is ruined, and if the barricades are up or not. This will allow groups with supporting websites, like us to check the status and make sure that it remains the way we wish for operations to proceed. This will not only allow quick access to status but encourage way more game play for groups. For example. If we see a building with no power, we know we aren't able to do rotter revives, so many of us will look for generators and come to that area to install. It could be a big boost for groups both human and zombie. Imagine someone doing a mall raid, they could make a widget to cover all the sections of the mall in their forums so they know how they are doing over all and if it's not going the way they want, they can assist quickly to the area they need too. I know this would REALLY help my group and I'm certain it will help other groups as well and I'm certain it can't be too tough to cook up. You can have the browser do most of the work so it isn't all internal operations. We really could use a feature like that. I hope you can make it for us. It would be awesome and it would encourage more game play. Also, this widget could increase the widget accuracy as you would be able to see status of a building in real time on the wiki. Thank You for your time and consideration. EDIT: Just to clarify, the x,y axis declaration would be made to generate the code for the widget for just that location, I never meant for it to be so dynamic that you can check all over the place from the same widget. For example, If I wanted to post the status of my NTs I would just input those and it would generate the code for the widget for just those locations.

Discussion (UD Building Status Widget)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: June 24 at 20:06(BST)

The UDWidget isn't created or operated by Kevan, if I am correct. Plus this seems WAY too over powered.--Haliman - Talk 17:46, 11 June 2009 (BST)

Even if UDWidget isn't created or operated by Kevan, it would be great if an API or a method of Read-Only Access to the data would be adequate. In what sense is the suggestion too over powered? I believe that both Zeds and Survivors do have the "benefit" of accessing the information.

I guess instead of Real Time Data, maybe the information can be read on an hourly basis instead?--Natakaasd 17:52, 11 June 2009 (BST)

My idea was an independent widget from Urban Dead. I wasn't looking for a 3rd party solution. I'm speaking of something I can post in my forums, not a firefox extension. This can't be overpowered if it benefits everyone.--Tahko 18:04, 11 June 2009 (BST)

See: people who do not metagame.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:49, 12 June 2009 (BST)

Intel is a big part of this game. If a zombie can see a building with people inside and no cades, Free Lunch! No free lunches. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:52, 11 June 2009 (BST)

Nothing to do with player existence. Read above once more: Lights (Yes/No), Ruins (Yes/No), Cades (Yes/No). Tahko didn't mention about the number of Survivors or Zeds.--Natakaasd 18:58, 11 June 2009 (BST)

It's still over powered. Why should I be able to know the stats of a building I want to attack without having to actually do any data gathering myself? Why should I be able to see from four 'burbs which buildings look like the juiciest target without having to scout? Why should we get this info? So you guys can be lazy and not check the building status yourself? So survivors can hawk over the data and wait for a zombie group to try to break in somewhere, and they can come swooping and 'cade like hell? This idea is beyond salvageable, and should be tossed out immediately. If you want data so bad, get a person to scout out the target every couple of hours instead of, you know, suggesting something gamebreaking.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 19:11, 11 June 2009 (BST)

If that is to be the basis of discussion, then External Widgets like UDBrain would have made the whole game imbalance. I can go through those data files just like that and know most Cade AND Survivor/Zed Count. We are only interested in Building Status, nothing more.--Natakaasd 19:21, 11 June 2009 (BST)

UDBrain is a cheap ass tool for people who don't know how to play a game properly, nothing more. "Oh, wow, I got stuck outside with little amounts of AP! I better use the data gathered by someone else to save my ass!" "Look at this men, this entire suburb is empty, we can easily retake it! Time to travel half way across the city now that we know about this 'burb from data that we were too lazy to get ourselves!" And you know what? If your idea was implemented, guess how much faster your rotter stations would be messed with now that the people who disagree with them would know the status of them too?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 19:39, 11 June 2009 (BST)

Don't care. People already ruin our game. If you don't see how important this is then you need to keep walking. This is why I didn't want to post this here because you people don't grasp the concept and are still poking holes through it. UDBrain is a firefox extention so is UDWidget. Again, I don't want that. Please read and understand that the concept is only designed to go on a webpage not for everyone to horde for themselves and it doesn't go all over the place, whoever had the bot generated code determines what locations are displayed. UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT FIRST PLEASE.--Tahko 19:40, 11 June 2009 (BST)

Why don't you learn to read a conversation before you bitch at people to understand a simple concept? I didn't bring up anything else, your friend did. Now, what you're saying is that the only people who get to choose are the people who have access to this bot? So basically it's just a tool to help you guys, and only you guys? Now it's not just over-powered, it's horse shit. So I should be able to suggest that Red Rum actually gets their Tommy Gun, because it'll "benefit" everyone?

Instead of screaming that we don't understand the concept, make sure that the concept isn't abusable all the same, and that what you're saying is clear and concise. Someone can just as easily create a widget for the places they plan to attack at a later date, and use that info. Look, abused all the same. The examples you use benefit survivors defending places, and survivors that are playing with rot to make it harder. You don't say exactly how it benefits zombies. That they can see the status of a building? Chances are if they can see it and attack said building, the survivors defending the place would have a scanner set up to tell them when their cades are down. Look at that, it just made it harder for zombies. Benefit them my ass.

If you're going to bitch when we find flaws in what you're suggesting, then don't put it here. This place is for finding the flaws and fixing them. If you can't handle us telling you why it sucks, why it's abusable, why it's game breaking, then really, just stay on your forum. inb4rants of "UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT"--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:05, 11 June 2009 (BST)

Sorry, this is totally wrong. When you use binoculars, you earn the information. When you run to somewhere and scout out the location, you earn the information. This is just asking for a free ultra-tracking-software, which makes no sense from an in-game perspective. And let's be honest, it should make sense from an in-game perspective for it to be considered good for the game. - User:Whitehouse 22:43, 11 June 2009 (BST)

in game is fine if you are just by yourself but I oversee a large operation and I can't bee in all places at once. It makes more sense for groups and would encourage more gameplay. I'm personally sick of being in the dark about most of my places and having to spend a weeks worth of AP on status because I have five offices all over Malton. I'm sorry for needing efficiency. I can have more people upholding and doing what they need to do instead of wandering aimlessly everywhere. I have an entire website dedicated to this game. I doubt many can say the same that is naysaying. So I would challenge thier perspective.--Tahko 23:49, 11 June 2009 (BST)

How do you explain this In-Game? Security Cameras placed all over? Psychic powers? What?--Zombie Lord 00:59, 12 June 2009 (BST)

No, Tahko/dontaco000. You're totally wrong. I was the leader of the largest human organization, the largest pker organization, and the largest zombies organization. I've led one of the most impressive pker events ever. I've led five historical groups. I've never had trouble with leading. All it takes is an IRC client, a centralized forum, and a theme. I did not need my own website. I never needed to check 5 places to make sure everything worked. That's why the leader has people under him in a hierarchy so that things run smoothly. When a leader does all the work himself then he's not leading. If you are having trouble leading then you're the problem. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 01:01, 12 June 2009 (BST)

Why not just make your own private mod? I can name a few other private UDBrain-like mods that have direct links to infomaps and automatically update themselves with no effort on your part. Well, two, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were more out there. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:24, 12 June 2009 (BST)

It's moot. This is NOT a game suggestion.--Pesatyel 02:29, 12 June 2009 (BST)

Thing is, asking for this in the game is quite a lot of Kevan, who's said (at least I think he has, somewhere) he knows he's not the greatest coder. Even if passed, I wouldn't be surprised if this sat in Reviewed indefinitely. It's just so much easier to make your own - and then you know it's going to get done and not a "maybe." Well, unless you're major busy and crazy indecisive like I am. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:50, 12 June 2009 (BST)

BobBoberton, do name them, if it is alright with the original makers and/or the groups using it privately. I'd like to have something for reference. Even so, the discussion goes on as usual. Thank you.--Natakaasd 03:12, 12 June 2009 (BST)

Well, one's listed on the wiki publicly so I might as well: the DEM's "DEMON" is one such tool. The other, unfortunately, is top-secret. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:16, 12 June 2009 (BST)

No wonder that name struck a chord. Thank you, pity no access. =/ --Natakaasd 07:23, 12 June 2009 (BST)

That's my point though. This has, essentially, NOTHING to do with Urban Dead. It would never even make it past voting because it is an outside extension. Simply put, if these guys want it, the can make their own.--Pesatyel 07:41, 12 June 2009 (BST)

We did make our own, however, I believe those that are actually making money off this site are missing out on a golden opportunity to breathe new life into a game and bring in old and new players alike. The biggest problem with this game is that 80% of the people who sign up get bored with how counter intuitive it is. I only play from the outside. I don't have time to run around in game myself anymore. It's good to know the status from a widget so I can mobilize the people who are in game to the proper areas. Good luck figuring out how to do it yourself, I'm not telling anyone.--Dontaco2000 09:34, 15 June 2009 (BST)

You only play from the outside! Are you honestly saying that your only role in the game is to co-ordinate the efforts of others and you want Kevan to make it easier for you to continue not playing? Step away from the keyboard and try to remember where you last saw your life.... --Honestmistake 09:57, 15 June 2009 (BST)

ouch..--xoxo 10:00, 15 June 2009 (BST)

Honestmistake, you just slandered someone for not playing an online text based massive multiplayer role playing game the way YOU think it should be played. If you care THAT much about what a random does, maybe you should be the one re-evaluating yourself?--CyberRead240 10:15, 15 June 2009 (BST)

Hardly slander as I doubt many people (including Dontaco) would consider someone who doesn't log on and actually play a character to be "Playing" the game... In any event my mockery was aimed at the sheer amount of effort Dontaco obviously puts into not playing a game designed to be played in a spare half hour a day... My participation in this WIKI is a different issue and one which I am reducing to work hours only ;) --Honestmistake 11:38, 15 June 2009 (BST)

No, I don't play in game anymore. I'm too busy with my group's website and my other websites. I'm sure you don't have a website other than some myspace page that has said "single" since you've started it. I know a widget like this is unconventional but if anyone pays attention, the people who are actually playing is tapering off again. It's boring to be a zombie and it's hard to be a survivor. No one wants to play this game anymore, see for yourself. All I was doing was trying to introduce a way to get people playing again. I mean it isn't like it is unbalanced, everyone would have access to whatever they wanted. If I had some direction I may play in-game and have my AP go towards what needs to be done instead of wondering around in-game until I get killed. Sorry. It's a game and why can't people focus on rebuilding suburbs? Because they can't organize the best they could. Mall defense and attacks would be much more epic and the average player could look at group pages and look at groups actions from a far. I think it would benefit the game way more than it would hurt. Of course, you guys fear real change. It's probably why this game hasn't changed much in the two years I've been playing it.--Dontaco2000 10:44, 15 June 2009 (BST)

I struggle to operate a wiki so its pretty fair to say a website is beyond me, I don't use MySpace but my facebook profile does list me as single (much to my girlfriends annoyance)so well done you for such remarkable perception. As for your assertion that this change would be good... it wouldn't, what it would do is allow players (I use the term loosely) like you to gain huge advantages for their survivors while giving no benefit whatsoever to the casual player. Zombies would find wide availability of a tool like this made their job a 100 times harder as co-ordinated groups of survivors could sweep in and clean up within hours. The game you want would quite simply not be fun for anyone else and would result in an even bigger drop in numbers than you already claim, surely you can see that the gathering of the data you want for free is a major part of the games challenge and having a tool do that for you lessens the game leaving it as little more than an exercise in button clicking with nor surprises, no challenge and absolutely no point! --Honestmistake 11:38, 15 June 2009 (BST)

One minute, you're confusing me. So, does everyone get it, or do you guys get it? Because you seem to have said different things at different points. If you do, then you need to make it yourself, if everyone does, then someone (preferabbly you, seeing as you're the one who wants it) should make it, and distribute it.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:00, 15 June 2009 (BST)

It's funny how people who doesn't get their way in suggestions accuse people of "fearing change". We don't fear change, it's just that we don't like or want many of the proposed changes. Hey, I have a great idea! How about we change the game so that instead of survivors and zombies, we'd all be mice and rabbits! By disagreeing with the proposed change, you acknowledge that you, indeed, fear real change. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:40, 15 June 2009 (BST)

Aye, the whole "the UD community fears change" has been popping up a lot around here recently. It's annoying, both because it's wrong (there's been many major changes throughout the game's history, see barricade blocking, ruin, etc,) and the UD community didn't go screaming to Kevan about how it destroyed the game. But, yes, the lack of logic doesn't matter - it's almost always used by a person when their suggestion is failing epically and they need a cop-out.

Secondly, painting everyone with the same brush makes you look stupid. There's people like Honestmistake (who can't tell their typewriters from their computers,) to people like myself (who would rather ATATGCATACT over 1001010010010101 any day. Don't know what the former is? Obviously got a Myspace page that says "single" :P,) and to people who manipulate said strings of 0's and 1's daily. In short - stereotyping is bad, and I have no idea as to why it took me a paragraph to say that. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:53, 15 June 2009 (BST)

"There's people like Honestmistake (who can't tell their typewriters from their computers,)" Hey! I'm not that technologically retarded, the computers the one that needs plugging in... I didn't even understand the rest of that post though :(--Honestmistake 13:39, 15 June 2009 (BST)

Wow. Insult the whole community. Because you can't get your own way and people don't like your crap idea! "I'm sure you don't have a website other than some myspace page that has said "single" since you've started it."

What an sshole.

There, I didn't take a whole paragraph to say that. :P --WanYao 12:13, 15 June 2009 (BST)

lol. You doin' it rong. See 404. Build your own, and get back in game, have other people assist you in corrdination. People with information can repair suburbs better? Not that information, it doesn't help in the beginning. "look at groups actions from a far." Who am I looking at? Groups are buildings? "you guys fear real change." You phear (unbroken and realistic) game mechanics. You still play this game? How do you justify this, you launched a supah sekrit spai satellite? _■^■ 02:43, 16 June 2009 (BST)

So these guys are saying they love the game SO much they want to "play from the outside" because they don't have FIVE MINUTES a day (or, hell, every other day or once a week or whatever) to play? I fail to see how this will get "players to play" when the "author" of the "suggestion" admits HE doesn't. Simply wow. Do you know what it boils down to? MAKE YOUR OWN AND QUIT BUGGING US WITH THIS CRAP. This is NOT a game suggestion so quit pretending like it is.--Pesatyel 03:06, 16 June 2009 (BST)

The really funny part is that this non-game suggestion that doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of being implemented, has the most discussion of any suggestion on this page. :)--Zombie Lord 20:06, 17 June 2009 (BST)

---

Sterilisation

Timestamp: Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 02:19, 11 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Item + Skill

Scope: Survivors, Zombies

Description: Adds a new item to Hospitals/Infirmaries, called "Sterilisation Kit" (15% encumberance, in Hospitals for 5% base rate and Infirmaries at a 3% base rate). This item, when combined with the new Scientist Skill "Sterilisation Training", can be used to create sterilised rooms in non-ruined buildings, so that they can offer the +5 HP boost of Surgery (so long as the building has power). However, everytime the bonus is utilised there is a 25% chance that the sterile room will be contaminated, and will need another sterilisation kit to once again acquire the bonus. Zombies can ransack the sterile room no matter how many survivors are inside, and will gain 6 XP for such an action.

Discussion (Sterilisation)

Someone will complain that this is two suggestions is one, but I don't mind that part so much. I think the Hospital's +5 HP bonus has more to do with specialized tools (that require power to operate) than Sterilization, so idk.--Zombie Lord 02:56, 11 June 2009 (BST)

It "technically" is, however sometimes its necessary.--Pesatyel 04:16, 11 June 2009 (BST)

It is my interpretation that the rule only applies for suggestions that can be seperated (i.e. the parts can operate independant of each other, albeit at a reduced effect). However, as the kit is entirely useless without the skill (and vice-versa), the two-suggestions concern is mute. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 06:56, 11 June 2009 (BST)

Well, like I said, I don't personally have a problem with that part.--Zombie Lord 08:01, 11 June 2009 (BST)

So, you want to turn malls and NTs in the hospitals? The game needs to have MORE uses for the non-mall/nt buildings.--Pesatyel 04:16, 11 June 2009 (BST)

As pesa, above. Bad idea. --WanYao 08:02, 11 June 2009 (BST)

I would have liked the idea, but Pesa provides an interesting point.--Thadeous Oakley 21:24, 11 June 2009 (BST)

Just make it unusable in malls. There's too much area to sterilize or something.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:36, 11 June 2009 (BST)

I could say that the sterilisation kit requires a smaller room than what malls can offer. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 22:07, 11 June 2009 (BST)

There we go, biggest against problem solved.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:10, 11 June 2009 (BST)

True. You might do better just suggesting particular buildings that might be appropriate for this (rather than just "any but malls"). A school, for example, might be appropriate (nurse's office or maybe a science lab). Also, it counters malls, but what about NTs? That's not a good idea either.--Pesatyel 02:33, 12 June 2009 (BST)

Though being a scientific facility, it's resources and equipment would be on-par or better with a hospital. Just not capable of dealing with more than a few people at a time.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:42, 12 June 2009 (BST)

You mean the NT facilities? Of course, but that's the whole point. What two buildings are THE most focused upon in the game? Malls (for all the goodies) and NTs (for syringes). By comparison, the other buildings have relatively minor uses (even if you factor in that you can find FAKs in hospitals easier than in malls since, in malls, you can find essentially everything you need except generators, gas and syringes). The two factors that make hospitals useful are FAKs and Surgery. If you transfer the Surgery ability to the NT, you weaken (unnecessarily) the hospital.--Pesatyel 07:46, 12 June 2009 (BST)

I still think the +5 HP for Surgery is due to specialized equipment in Hospitals that need power in order to function. If anything a non-sterilized room would give a -HP penalty, with the Sterilization canceling the penalty. Idk, FAKS are "magical D&D wizard spell" enough already.--Zombie Lord 23:20, 12 June 2009 (BST)

I think the idea is that your taking the nessary equipment with you to set up at another location (ie. not just "sterilization" equipment). If you want to throw in a "realism" argument, I can't imagine there being that many places that you would find clean enough to perform surgery in in the first place (including hospitals) after years of quarantine. But, of course, that argument is moot. That is part of the reason I suggested a place like a school since a nurse's station would HAVE some of the "hospital like" things already. Oh, and I like the D&D analogy, but are you saying there is something wrong with the way FAKs work?--Pesatyel 04:23, 13 June 2009 (BST)

They are a little too magical for me as they are. I would prefer healing 1 HP per half hour inherently. With Bleeding rules that stop that inherent healing, with FAK's stopping the Bleeding (allowing the healing rate to resume). I'll suggest it one of these days, triggering howls of anger and consternation, I'm sure.--Zombie Lord 06:43, 13 June 2009 (BST)

Inane discussion removed.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:54, 14 June 2009 (BST)

Why not make it so when any player does any action (search, barricade, even free run through) then there is a chance that the Sterilization goes away. That way in heavy populated areas it would be useless.--Bjorn 12:50, 12 June 2009 (BST)

That would be undercut by the ability of any player to go into any building at any time, effetively speaking.--Pesatyel 04:14, 13 June 2009 (BST)

I think you chaps are overselling it. For a start, this kit comes from hospitals which means hospitals are now more useful. Anyway, imagine there's a hospital next to a mall, and you want to set up a station in the mall. That's an average of 20AP in searching (at 5% base rate), and two more to move and deploy it. For 22AP+ you've added an average of 20HP in bonuses. (at a 25% failure rate, that's the average if my maths is right) To match that you need only 2 FAK's. I am unsure what the new rate is, but it needs only be above ~9% to come out ahead given 22AP to search. --  RoosterDragon  14:36, 12 June 2009 (BST)

For starters, did you even read the discussion? Secondly, the numbers can be changed, that's the point of this discussion page. Surgery has always been more for situations when your really hurting. That's why it heals more, but doesn't give you additoinal experience.--Pesatyel 08:49, 14 June 2009 (BST)

Actually, I was thinking that NTs would provide an 'ideal' setting for sterilisation with a lower chance of contamination, as they are the most naturally sterile building other than the Hospitals and Infirmaries. On the other hand, NT buildings are already one of the extremely high priority target for zombies, with the others being the all-you-can-eat-flesh-buffet that is your local shopping mall and the stupid-meat-in-a-concrete-can known as the forts. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 06:27, 14 June 2009 (BST)

I was actually think the forts might nobe be a bad idea, since there are only two. Are they REALLY that contested? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm asking. If I were to pick "appropriate" locations, I'd say the zoo, schools, hotels, buildings and towers. The zoo and schools would most likely have medical facilities of some minimal kind. Hotels, I could see having minimally adequate conditions if you don't look to closely and the last two are so vaguely defined that they could be anything essentially.--Pesatyel 08:49, 14 June 2009 (BST)

They're no moreso contested than the malls. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 05:19, 15 June 2009 (BST)

OK, I'm considering whether or not to put this up for vote. Are there any further issues to be figured out? --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 09:58, 21 June 2009 (BST)

Well, you might want to edit your suggestion to reflect the discussion.--Pesatyel 06:14, 23 June 2009 (BST)

---

Military/Zombie Hunter Strength Skill

Timestamp:	--8devon8 18:14, June 8 2009 (DST)
Type:	survivor skill
Scope:	survivors
Description:	Give an extra amount of encumbrance. This skill will give an extra amount of encumbrance of about 15% or 25% but this skill costs around 175 or 200 EP. It would let players have a few more items to carry around but only a few because misuse by PKers. Also because of the small increase of encumbrance it may just be a useless skill.

Discussion (Military/Zombie Hunter Strength Skill)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: June 23 at 19:50(BST)

Did you read the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots? If not, read it. If so, then why did you suggest this? Sorakairi 23:38, 8 June 2009 (BST)

I did read it but I didn't see anything about this and I did say this just could be a useless skill. 8devon8 18:46, June 8 2009 (DST)

I've fixed your formatting too (what's up with the last two people to try and use it flub it up? ;c), and this is unbalanced. We can already carry a crapload of stuff, and this just makes it worse. Oh, and what are "EP?" XP? :P "It would let players have a few more items to carry around but only a few because misuse by PKers." I think you might want to rephrase that bit, and remember that balance also includes zeds. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:00, 9 June 2009 (BST)

If I'm not mistaken "EP" is a spendable quantity similar to "XP" from an urban dead clone game. Play quarantine much? =P --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 19:25, 9 June 2009 (BST)

I don't know, I just read it as the tactical term: "Entry Point." A >= VSB+2 building you can use to get inside and away from hungrah zambahs. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:27, 9 June 2009 (BST)

He means XP. And, expensive =/= balanced. And, this unbalances the game. And, people suggest encumbrance buffs all the time = dupe/ --WanYao 19:29, 9 June 2009 (BST)

I think it would make more sense to just add this as part of Body Building. But Survivors can already carry way too much crap...so does not make much sense in that regard. Maybe if Survivors were capped at 75% Encumbrance until they picked this up, and could only then carry the full 100%.--Zombie Lord 03:08, 11 June 2009 (BST)

Or maybe we should find a sillier way to Nerf survivors. Nope, Zombie Lord's idea here kind of takes the cake on that one.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:39, 11 June 2009 (BST)

Put down your five Portable Generators and cry me a river, bitch. :)--Zombie Lord 07:58, 11 June 2009 (BST)

As ZL. --WanYao 08:05, 11 June 2009 (BST)

I carry no generators, because there's no room in my inventory. If I want to carry a generator, I have to drop several of my items and get new ones after using the generator. Any Encumberance less than 100% would be a nerf. Kevan designed it around 100%, because 100% was the right amount. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:58, 12 June 2009 (BST)

WHOOSH!--Zombie Lord 23:21, 12 June 2009 (BST)

You do realize that 100% is 100% right? If you could only carry 5 items total and you had 5 items in your inventory you'd be at "100%". I'm just curious why it is "bad" to actually use up items and replace them though. Don't you do that anyway?--Pesatyel

My comment says drop, not use.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:28, 13 June 2009 (BST)

You do realize that 100% is 100% right? If you could only carry 5 items total and you had 5 items in your inventory you'd be at "100%". I'm just curious why it is "bad" to actually use up/drop items and replace them though. Don't you do that anyway?--Pesatyel--Pesatyel 03:44, 14 June 2009 (BST)

What, randomly drop and pick up items? It's a waste of AP to drop your guns or radios or whatever, pick up a generator, put it somewhere, come back for fuel, put that somewhere, then go and look for said guns / radio again. That could take up two or so days, when finding a generator and putting it down (even refuelling) shouldn't take that many. This leads to entire groups being about generators. There's no problem with that, but making it even worse would be completely unfair.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:50, 16 June 2009 (BST)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Gameplay Change

This Suggestion is now up for voting as Gameplay Change - Stand Up. It's discussion has been moved to its talk page. --Zombie Lord 19:19, 9 June 2009 (BST)

A Horde Of Zombies

This Suggestion is now up for voting as Mobs, Hordes, and Swarms. It's discussion has been moved to its talk page. --Zombie Lord 20:30, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Crumbling Barricades Notification

This suggestion is now up for voting as Outside Barricades Notifications. Its discussion has been moved to its talk page. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:15, 21 June 2009 (BST)

---