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

Place on Altar

Timestamp: Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 08:23, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Flavour

Scope: Church-dwellers

Description: After several years of being stranded with the zombies in the city following the outbreak, survivors are beginning to return to their everyday activities, including weekly worship. Needless to say, these activities have also adapted to the zombie apocalypse. This suggestion allows people to place items onto the altar of churches and cathedrals, purely for religious reasons. The item cannot be picked back up again, and the altar can only hold one item (placing a second 'deletes' the first). For the larger buildings, only one of the squares has the altar, randomly chosen upon implementation of the suggestion. Zombies can destroy items on the altar for 1 XP. 2, if the item is a decorative item. This should add some interesting flavour to the otherwise mundane churches. Being able to use any item on the altar means that you can decorate it anyway you want. Want to have a traditional church? Stick a crucifix on there. How about a revival point? Use a needle. PK'er paradise? Use an axe. Death cultist? Try praying to a Human Skeleton. Want to worship the God of Trenchcoats? Place thine Holy Shotgun upon the altar.

Discussion (Place on Altar)

I'd vote keep. - User:Whitehouse 14:07, 26 June 2009 (BST)

I wouldn't. Make this church specific, if anything. Keep religion in the churches, keep reality in Malton. ;) D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:15, 26 June 2009 (BST)

What's wrong with the Cathedrals? - User:Whitehouse 14:22, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Oh, I read 'Other Buildings' as Blake implying that it could be found in any building type in Malton. Never mind. Though I wonder why this is necessary, can decorative items already be places in churches? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:29, 26 June 2009 (BST)

I think decorative items can be placed in churches, can't see why not. This would just allow some extra fun for roleplayers. And we could finally say the crucifix has a purpose. - User:Whitehouse 14:35, 26 June 2009 (BST)

It just seems to me like a more restricted, less communicative version of spraypainting, and unless it said 'XXXXX put a syringe onto the altar', I couldn't see the roleplaying element being as strong in this suggestion. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:45, 26 June 2009 (BST)

---

Fuel Siphon Pump

Timestamp: Jaeger ayers 19:30, 25 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Item

Scope: Survivors

Description: (I deliver auto parts for a living, and this tool is rare even among mechanics. The only place you would find one with any reliability is a junkyard, to drain cars before they go to the crusher.) Found in junkyards, 2% find rate, 4% encumbrance (the siphon is started with a hand pump and driven by gravity, so it's light, but it's assumed that it includes an empty fuel can.) When a survivor carrying a siphon is in a street or a carpark, clicking on the item's inventory button will spend 1 AP and has a chance (2% for streets, 4% for carparks) of changing into an item called Siphoned Fuel, which has a 12% encumbrance and cannot be acquired any other way. Use of this item is identical to Fuel Can, although using it as a melee weapon has a 50% chance of breaking the siphon and changing the item into a regular old Fuel Can (with the standard 10% encumbrance.) Using it to refuel a generator removes Siphoned Fuel from your inventory and replaces it with the pump you first had. When a survivor carrying a siphon is in a building with a fueled generator (i.e. not described as "low on fuel" or "only a little fuel left",) clicking on the item's inventory button will spend 1 AP, does not use up or change the item, and has a 25% chance of significantly emptying the fuel tank . A successful emptying action changes the description to "low on fuel" and adds "the smell of spilled fuel" to the building description (generators are usually set up on the ground for safety and to reduce noise, but the gravity-driven siphon will only move fuel to a lower height, so generators can only be drained onto the ground.) Nearby survivors will observe, "Sir Sucky of Pumpsalot siphoned fuel out of the generator." Using the pump on a generator described as "low on fuel" has a 50% chance of reducing it to "only a little fuel", and using it on one with "only a little fuel" has a 50% chance to change it to "out of fuel". This item would add several dynamics - differentiating streets and carparks from other empty blocks, an alternative weapon for GKers, a new use for junkyards, and the ability to kill the lights in a building without destroying the generator (which would be very useful in red suburbs.)

Discussion (Fuel Siphon Pump)

I think this had been suggested before. Anyway, its a zombie nerf with the killing of the lights and the waoopsidoozey. Sorakairi 23:18, 25 June 2009 (BST)

With those success percentages, it makes generator draining easier than GKing with maxed knife attacks (and more accessible, as you don't need HtH and Knife Combat,) which will make survivors' lives more complicated. How about modifying one of the Scent skills so zombies can smell a fuel spill from outside the building? That way, survivors can kill the lights to keep from drawing attention from neighboring blocks, but zombies who cross the block still have a sign of potential targets (doubly so if the generator is refueled before the spill evaporates.) Or link it to Scent Death and within 5 blocks, the zombie is told, "You smell spilled fuel to the north/east/wherever." Put the fuel smell lifespan at, say 72 hours - not instantly hidden but not long enough to overwhelm scent trackers with false positives. I'm not interested in penalizing zombies, just giving more tactical choices to survivors. With the right Scent penalties, I think this could do that without dramatically boosting survivor strength.--Jaeger ayers 01:47, 26 June 2009 (BST)

I recon it's more of a survivor boost than a zombie nerf, anyhoo... You might want to ditch the "spilled fuel" description to reduce word spam. This suggestion is fresh but I wonder about the carpark thing. It might be overkill to have so many places to find fuel. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:05, 26 June 2009 (BST)

There should be at least a message for who runs the genny runs dry, otherwise you have an unpunishable stealth GK weapon (of course, that could justify/balance the greater availability of fuel.) You could throw out the success on the street and lower the carpark success rate, if there is a concern about fuel oversaturation.--Jaeger ayers 01:43, 26 June 2009 (BST)

One of the things Iscariot was actually good for on the wiki was finding dupes... I've seen this kind of thing before, more than once... But CBA'd to find it. --WanYao 03:25, 26 June 2009 (BST)

I don't think this is a dupe. That's because its overcomplicated and unncessary, not to mention promoting PKing. The simple thing (which MAY be a dupe) is to just allow players to siphon gas from cars. But everything beyond that is just bad.--Pesatyel 03:37, 26 June 2009 (BST)

It's a combo of gas siphoner and siphon fuel -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:50 26 June 2009 (BST)

Yup, it's a duplicate of my suggestion. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 05:27, 26 June 2009 (BST)]

Wellll... I'll be a cock monger. It was a good suggestion when you did it friendo. A shame it got peer rejected. Ah well, looks like this one is doomed. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 05:31, 26 June 2009 (BST)

---

Wash Yourself V1.2

Timestamp: Sorakairi 04:34, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Flavour / Negate / Items

Scope: Humans.

Description: This is a rethought version of the earlier Washing. You can collect Soap, Shampoo, Deodorant and Cleaning packs from Malls, which can be used to wash yourself. If you have washed recently, you negate the effects of Scent Fear and Scent Blood for 20 Actions, and if you wash while being Scent Trailed you can weaken it. Not Washed - Scent Trail isn't affected at all. Washed with one item - Scent Trail range is reduced by one. Washed with two items - Scent Trail range is reduced by two. Washed with all three items - Scent Trail range is reduced by three. Washed with a Cleaning Pack - Scent Trail range is reduced by four.

Discussion (Wash Yourself V1.2)

First of all, you forgot the numbers for your items. Where are they found? What is the encumberance? What is the find rate? I only say that because they are necesary for a complete suggestion. However, beyond that, I don't think "items" is a good idea. The easier thing to do would just be have a "washing success" percentage at different locations. For example, a school could have a 20% while a junkyard 5% or something. Also, go with the "levels" from the first suggestion.--Pesatyel 06:40, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I agree. While people can waste their AP on whatever they'd like, adding MORE items to search rates would only screw up the possibility of actually finding something of use/value that MOST people will actually use. I mean, sure. The germ freaks would enjoy this addition, but its practical use is a bit on the low side. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 06:51, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I agree as well, it should be a flat percentage for each type of building. POSSIBLY you could add an item in game that increased that percentage by a small amount, but trying to find 4 items to make it effective. --Bjorn 17:59, 24 June 2009 (BST)

This idea smells bad. It's, to put it bluntly, a silly idea. But moreover it's an unnecessary zombie nerf and I can't support it on that basis. --WanYao 15:55, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Luckily for me I have school Holidays coming up so I'm going to completely remake this. With some friends, so i have ideas from both sides. Okay? Sorakairi 23:35, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I'm enjoying the evolution of this. I agree this version is just a zombie nerf and not really necessary. If being clean benefits survivors, then being dirty should benefit zombies. I still like the Scent bonus for tracking people that reek, maybe modify Scent Death so the zombie can detect a really putrid survivor it has on its contact list (maybe under a certain HP as well, a combination of B.O. and blood?) within its current 3x3 grid - nothing specific, "you recognize the scent of Stinky McNeverWashed nearby." Could lead to amusing bits of peer pressure - "Dude, go take a bath! You wanna get us killed?" --Jaeger ayers 04:35, 25 June 2009 (BST)

While zombie olfactory augmentation is an accepted part of the game, I'm not sure we want to really introduce a smell rating system to the game. It's gross. Also lolz @ survivors being eaten half to death by zombies, jumping into a beauty salon and taking a nice little bath before free running to the nearest hospital. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:09, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Also, this is arguably a dupe of the cologne/perfume suggestions that have popped up over the years... --WanYao 03:33, 26 June 2009 (BST)

---

Limit radio spam

Timestamp: -- boxy talk • teh rulz 01:53 24 June 2009 (BST)

Type: improvement

Scope: survivors and radio spam

Description: In order to make radio spam more difficult to do, I suggest that each character is limited to a set number of APs that can be spent on radio messages in a day. 5 to 10 ap should be plenty for anyone sending useful messages.

Discussion (Limit radio spam)

I like you boxy, but this isn't really fair. What about radio stations/shows? Kinda limits them in their ability to entertain. Tuning to a station that doesn't spam is best I think. Limiting those that use it for a noble cause isn't really worth the ability to stop radio spamming. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 05:31, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Well they should play the game properly, and put up some barricades every now and then, like the rest of us :P Seriously though, how many broadcasts would such a player need per day? I don't listen to the radio unless someone else turns it on (because of the spammage) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:43 24 June 2009 (BST)

I don't either. Spreading some great propaganda truth is all I ever use it for. But sometimes it's nice to tune into one of the decent stations and enjoy a reading or song or some such. Adds to the role-playing IMHO. I think maybe 20-25 AP on radio broadcasts may be a bit more fair. And hey, if that's how they want to waste their AP, I say let 'em. It'd make the spammers a bit more limited still, too. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 06:49, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I don't see how a per-character limit would do much good. It'd have to be per-IP to do anything, but even then I don't see much benefit. You have to remember that radio messages are short and it can take ~4 messages to say one thing, then consider if you need to say it on more than one channel. Seriously, the best cure for spam is to tune off 28.01, or (if you're living with people who like to listen to that crap) select "Only listen to broadcasts from your handheld radios" in settings. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:02, 24 June 2009 (BST)

10 should be plenty. Some groups might complain that 'ooh lookie we have a specialist guy who sends out radio messages' but usually they're just spamming shit. Evils used to do pretty good radio shows and we'd lose stuff like that, but to have spam limited so much it'd be worth it.--xoxo 09:12, 24 June 2009 (BST)

No... No... NOO! Really, there are few ideas that I would supprout less than that- there are numerous good radio shows, and making rarely takes less than 20AP. And Great Radio Messages is another good reason for shooting this suggestion down. And it would directly harm this and I do not want it being harmed, for it's my own, personal station!:P--Gargulec 12:39, 24 June 2009 (BST)

No. If someone wants to waste hits on spamming the radio... well... And, as everyone else, this'd take away a totally legit RP aspect of the game. Instead, I'd like to see stronger anti-zerg measures -- that'd stop the REAL spammers. Yes... I can dream... --WanYao 16:07, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Fair enough. I'll just continue to ignoring the radio as predominantly a griefer tool -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 17:08 24 June 2009 (BST)

No, players should be able to spend their AP however they want. If you don't want to listen to it, drop your radio(s) and stay in a place without a transmitter. --Bjorn 17:59, 24 June 2009 (BST)

NO. as above. if I want to spend 50ap singing "the humpty dance" over the radio i should be able. and I agree with WanYao, we need way more anti-zerg measures.!! they are ruining the damn game.----Sexualharrison 13:15, 25 June 2009 (BST)

---

Wash Yourself

Timestamp: Sorakairi 23:21, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Flavour / New Items.

Scope: Humans

Description: This is simple. You can now collect Soap, Shampoo and Conditioner to wash yourself when you're in a Necrotech or a Hospital. Washing yourself doesn't really do anything, just adds a message to your profile saying one of the following. Filthy - If You have Never washed, or at least not for 3 weeks Unwashed - You get this if you haven't washed for 2 weeks Unclean - If you haven't washed for 1 week Clean - You've washed sometime between now and 4 days ago. Washed - You've washed sometime in the last 4 days. Pristine - You have just washed within the last day. It's as simple as that. Happy Discussion

Discussion (Wash Yourself)

I might like it if it didn't involve collecting items. Like you just need a powered building and it costs 1 AP for the action.--SirArgo ^Talk 23:24, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Just a waste of AP on stuff that people can put in their character profiles themselves, if they're at all interested in doing so. Pointless RP realism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:56 24 June 2009 (BST)

Maybe zombies could get a "bonus square" on the Scent skills for those that really stink.--Pesatyel 02:25, 24 June 2009 (BST)

What if "filthy" and "unwashed" give you some kind of penalty to infection? Someone who is dirty for a long time is more likely to get and/or stay sick.--Pesatyel 06:42, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I like the concept in theory (especially the Scent bonus suggestion) but I imagine implementing it would be a headache for not much benefit. --Jaeger ayers 04:17, 25 June 2009 (BST)

How about if you are especially filthy it will affect your ability to interact with other survivors. They'll just keep thinking about how gross you are and anything you say will be censored and replaced with "blah blah blah". And if you wash too frequently you will develop obsessive compulsive disorder and you will have to spend 5Ap every day washing yourself or you will have a panic attack which wastes 10AP.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:16, 26 June 2009 (BST)

---

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)

Would be cool, but its going to get voted down. --Bjorn 18:07, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Wouldn't be cool here's why for starters. Give me a sec to pull up more things.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:13, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Perfectly fits in here as well.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:14, 23 June 2009 (BST)

No, I mean it is a cool idea. You are correct however and it would tip the game balance to far for the survivors. --Bjorn 17:59, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Hahahaha...hehehe...--Thadeous Oakley 23:44, 23 June 2009 (BST)

The moment I read "mounted machine guns" sorry hahe...--Thadeous Oakley 23:45, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Oh my... D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:47, 24 June 2009 (BST)

... oh my oh my my my my... --WanYao 16:09, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Besides the problem inherent in new weapons, it implies the addition of the ability to see targets outside the building (pretty useless without it, I'd say.) --Jaeger ayers 04:12, 25 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)

Well since headshot is automatic, yeah.--Pesatyel 02:23, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Hmm, yes, it would just mean a lot less trips back to Thompson for Survivors that manage to get Revived before taking one as a Zombie. Which I would be all for. Either that, or put a damn Hat Shop on both sides of Malton.--

| T | BALLS! | 03:05 24 June 2009

Doesn't make sense. Headshot is powerful enough to knock a zombie down, daze it and make rising harder, but not to knock the hat off its head? If you're worried about losing your trophy hat, don't get killed. Removing the risk takes the challenge away and makes it less of a status symbol. --Jaeger ayers 04:08, 25 June 2009 (BST)

Are you dense? Did you read the suggestion? "Headshot is powerful enough to knock a zombie down, daze it and make rising harder, but not to knock the hat off its head?"? What? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:58, 25 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)

Would zombxorz get the same 5AP pool for speaking? --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 03:24, 25 June 2009 (BST)

Sure. You could argue that talking is more of an actual exertion for them, but the point is to combat the perception that "talking is a waste of AP", encourage things like role-playing and non-combat interaction, and generally make the game less trenchy and (I think) more fun. (But then I enjoy other in-game actions more than killing people. I guess I'm weird. :P) --Jaeger ayers 03:59, 25 June 2009 (BST)

If you're weird then so am I. With zombies getting the same allowance I likes it. =) --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:22, 26 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)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: June 30 at 11:10(BST)

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

So, basically, your arguing semantics?--Pesatyel 02:15, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Uh, no...there would be quite a difference between slowly healing HP over time vs. the Instant and massively high healing we have now...As in, you could not just stand in one place taking massive damage and massively healing yourself/being healed over and over. That's "magical", if you will. Whereas slow healing would be more Natural. That's one reason I get a good chuckle over people who hate Crucifix suggestions on the grounds that they are "magical", because the current healing system is about as magical as it gets. Laying on of Hands/Faith Healer style "magical".--

| T | BALLS! | 03:22 24 June 2009

No. It is semantics. AP =/= time. For 1 AP, I get out the first aid kit, open it, administer the various drugs (painkiller, antibiotics, etc.), clean/disinfect wounds, perform minor surgery (dig out sharpnel or something, for example), sew up wounds, apply bandages, splints and tourniquets, etc. I'm sure there is more but that's just off the top of my head. THOSE are things that occur when you "use a FAK on someone". And, yes, I'm well aware that you would make it cost an AP to do each of those (as well has have failure chances and shit), but this isn't Snake Eater. This is a simple text based game where it is a "given" that you do all that stuff listed above when you use a FAK without having to go into the waste of time and the semantics of DOING it. Just like survivors have to eat and shit and sleep. Its and assumed task. What it boils down to is that your argument is that using a FAK should realistically be "more difficult and/or time consuming".--Pesatyel 06:34, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Did you even read the suggestion? Blake is talking about regenerating HP the same way AP is regenerated, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the mechanics of using a FAK. This is what I am referring to as "natural healing". I'm saying either we have regeneration(natural healing) or FAK's(magical healing), but not both. It has absolutely nothing to do with semantics regarding the way FAK's work.--

| T | BALLS! | 07:19 24 June 2009

Yes. I did. Your assertion was that this was better than "magic healing" when, apparently, you didn't seem to UNDERSTAND how a first aid kit worked, so I attempted to explain it to you. By your logic, every character is Wolverine if we were to only go by this suggestion. And, arguably, we CAN have both because the realistic use of first aid treatments, medicines and surgeries is to SPEED UP the natural healing process of the body. For example, if you have a cold you can get over it "naturally" but if you take cold medicine, you get over the cold FASTER. Or another example, do you know how long it would take to "heal naturally" from a stab wound or a having chunks of flesh torn/ripped from your body (among other things)? Realistically, your not "good as new" after 2 days of rest (when your HP is "naturally healed" back to 50/60). It takes weeks, if you survive, since your NOT using any medical supplies.--Pesatyel 15:41, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Now you're not even making any sense. The current system is much more like "Wolverine" than actually regenerating HP would be. There is nothing magical about regeneration...that's what the body does. It regenerates. Medical attention merely optimizes the body's own powers of regeneration. Medical attention does NOT in and of itself heal anything. "Wolverine" just has an insanely FAST regeneration power, much like the way FAKS already work in this game. If you want to go that route then all the "doctors" in this game are really Jesus, especially if you throw Revives in! (Which is why the "anti-crucifix on magical grounds" crowd is so amusing to me) Regardless of all that, none of this ever, had anything, to do with all the procedures using a FAK represents in one AP. It's not about the number of procedures that you listed, it's the actual quickness of the healing itself. (Again, much more like "Wolverine" than anything I have suggested to replace it) I would prefer regeneration of HP only because it would be more challenging. A much better representation of FAKs would be if there were Bleeding rules that stopped regeneration and a FAK would be required to bandage yourself up enough to allow that regeneration to continue. Again, none of this has anything to do with the way FAKs work currently, as they would either be removed or given an entirely new function.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:13 24 June 2009

So now your reiterating what I was saying as a counter? First of all, you obviously don't understand the Wolverine reference, but I digress. You were saying that the game would be better without FAK and with only this idea of natural healing. Do you have ANY idea how long it would take a person to heal to full health without medical aid? Especially when they've had significant injuries? Your not "back to health" after resting for 2 days after you've been stabbed or shot or had chuncks of flesh torn out of you. In fact, without medical attention your probably DEAD. But since you can't seem to understand THAT either, let us move on. The best result would be a combination of this idea and the FAK system. Your bleeding idea isn't that bad, but bear in mind K.I.S.S. Realism is a requirement for all suggestions but shouldn't be the only thing. Given a choice between the current system and this suggestion, the current system is more logical and fits better into the game.--Pesatyel 04:09, 25 June 2009 (BST)

No, you blockhead, your Wolverine reference actually supports my argument. Seriously, if you refuse to see even that...then you're just being willfully dense. I said I would support natural healing in general, not necessarily exactly the way Blake describes it. I'll assume you didn't actually read or comprehend as usual and quote my original comment: "Well of course it would have to be tweaked. What I'm saying is one style over the other, but certainly not both." I would much rather see 1 HP per half and without the "full AP" conditions he has put on it. The current system is certainly NOT more logical. Jesus Christ in the passenger seat with his balls hangin' out the window, but your whole debating style is just to twist everything someone says completely out of its context or meaning until it fits whatever you want it to mean. And for God's sake learn the difference between Your and You're. Holy Fuck, but you would try the patience of a saint!--

| T | BALLS! | 04:57 25 June 2009

Wolverine didn't require an object to heal. He just healed. That's what this "natural healing" idea is. So how is the current system like Wolverine's healing factor? Also, I like how you focus on the unimportant parts of the argument. I notice you ignored my comment about how long it would take to heal from injuries without medical treatment since that's what you are advocating.--Pesatyel 03:44, 26 June 2009 (BST) Oh, and thanks for keeping it civil!  :) Spot on!-Pesatyel 03:44, 26 June 2009 (BST)

OMG, I'm beginning to think you really are just dense! And here I was trying to credit you with some sort of intelligence and assume you were just bullshitting to get out of the obvious logical flaws in your argument. I'll spell it out for you: Wolverine heals really, really FAST. You know, like when you apply 4 or 5 FAKS and totally heal in about 2.3 seconds?! GET IT?! Let's see, now the other idea...1 HP per half hour...I'd say that was a hell of a lot slower, wouldn't you? Oh wait, I forgot you live in fuckin Superman's Bizarro world where everything is the opposite! Out the handful of attempts you made at making a point, the one about how long it would take to heal from injuries without medical treatment was the only valid one! Since you ignored or twisted everything I said, I figured turnabout was fair play! Fun hue?! Tell you what, you start to read and comprehend and I will be more than glad to keep it civil. Jerk me around with your usual obvious bullshitting (once you have figured out your argument is full of holes) and you can forget about civility.--

| T | BALLS! | 04:16 26 June 2009

You still don't get it because you choose to ignore the rest of what I said. Would you like me to reiterate AGAIN? I have a better idea (and no, I'm not trying to be hostile). Go stab yourself with a knife, then DON'T apply any kind of medical treatment. Hell just give yourelf a good cut. Just lay down for a few days. A few weeks. See how long it takes you to heal where you no longer have the wound. THIS suggestion is like Wolverine's healing factor because you would WITHOUT using FAKS be healed to your full HP after only 2 days. Yes, your body does/will recuperate given time and rest but it will be a very long time. This suggestion (which you keep bringing up) is that this suggestion heals 1 HP per hour. That is VERY fast considering that it would literally take WEEKS to heal WITHOUT medical treatment. Or another idea, stab yourself TWICE but only apply medical treatment to one wound. See which one heals faster, M'kay?--Pesatyel 07:36, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Somehow I just knew you wouldn't be able to keep away, heh. You lasted a whole four hours or so. Anyhow, your example of course ignores my assertion that the mechanics would have to be tweaked. It also ignores my idea about Bleeding rules, which would address your concerns about "healing without medical aid" nicely. But of course, since none of that fits into your argument, you choose to ignore it, and remain rigidly within the confines of Blakes original proposals with absolutely no room for change. Are we done here?--

| T | BALLS! | 07:58 26 June 2009

Realism is not a requirement for suggestions, but believability is, for the most part. Realism doesn't hurt a suggestion's chances, though. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:07, 25 June 2009 (BST).

Good point. How the hell did I get into ANOTHER argument with this guy and why is perpetuating it when he's just going to ignore the important parts? Oh well, I'm done before it escalates. It was getting away from the central suggestion anyway.--Pesatyel 03:44, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Oh, promises, promises!--

| T | BALLS! | 04:16 26 June 2009

Yeah your right, I can't "win" against you cause I was only trying to be mean. I give up. Feel better?--Pesatyel 07:48, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Yep.--

| T | BALLS! | 08:05 26 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)

I've been thinking a rotter equivalent in conjunction would solve this. Obviously the two skills wouldn't stack. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 07:47, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Not a fan of the fact that this could allow zed zergers meat-cow alts that would regenerate their own health for free tasty XP. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:41, 25 June 2009 (BST)

That's probably the best reason against right there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pesatyel (talk • contribs) 07:38, 26 June 2009 (BST).

That's also why it's a Zombie Hunter skill, and as such inaccessable until Level 10. Not to mention the fact that you can't let the character go idle. Besides, if you were going for a meat-cow alt you could harvest for free XP, surely FAK'ing the meat-cow before it dies would be easier? After all, FAK's take less time and also give XP. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 07:47, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Sure but that requires searching for FAKs. You could take your cows to some far off corner away from everyone else (or at least away from hospitals) and or sprinkle them around the city some. If your going for "realism" a combination of natural healing and FAK use would be more logical. Also zombies DON'T heal. They are zombies. So "natural" healing wouldn't apply to them.--Pesatyel 07:51, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Anything can be zerg abused. I don't see how, if they are zerging anyway, they can't just make a shitload of alts and stand them up over and over. Would regen really help that much more?--

| T | BALLS! | 08:11 26 June 2009

---

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)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: June 30 at 08:32(BST)

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)

But a clear incentive to staying alive. PKers could actually be punished for their killing sprees, and PKer groups could likewise put a hurt on Bounty Hunters. Well, not so much with these new lower numbers on losing 6% and less Items. It just seems to me that a lot of strategy could be gained with some sort of actual loss for dying. Anyway, I'll work on those items lost per death numbers.--

| T | BALLS! | 03:15 24 June 2009

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)

Logical, but this will mainly affect toolboxes, generators and fuel, i.e. stuff that PKers don't use. Plus, isn't repairing ruins already hard enough? --Jaeger ayers 04:51, 25 June 2009 (BST)

Well, those numbers have been moved around a lot, but one of the original intentions was to make Survivors think more about killing other Survivors if they though some "police" group might being the hammer down and make their life hell by making them drop numerous items. Death itself isn't really much of a consequence, IMO. As for the Ruins part, it probably depends on what side you're on at the time, Zombies or Survivors. :) From a dedicated zombie perspective, I think it's sort of lame that 6 AP worth of work can be undone with 1 AP unless a few days have gone by. Usually no one is probably going to be around to "hold" a ruin before 6 days goes by, so the Survivor is generally getting off cheaper than the Zombie who Ruined it. OTOH, months worth of Ruin repair AP build up can be undone in 1 second by a suicide repair, and yeah the repairer is going to die, but again, death isn't much of a consequence IMO, and you can always just play one of your alts while the Suicide guy recharges.--

| T | BALLS! | 05:17 25 June 2009

---

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)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: June 30 at 07:54(BST)

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)

---

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)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: June 29 at 05:15(BST)

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 26 at 13:07(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)

---

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)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: June 30 at 06:14(BST)

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)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Scent Trail Alteration

This suggestion is now up for voting. Its discussion has been moved to its talk page.--

| T | BALLS! | 10:39 25 June 2009

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)

---