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

Road Flares

Timestamp: Uberursa 21:46, 21 July 2009 (BST) Edit: --Uberursa 21:39, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Type: Item

Scope: All unpowered buildings

Description: Location: Auto Repair Shop (6% with lights;4% without lights; 1% in ruins) Fire Stations (5% with lights; 2.5% without lights; 1% in ruins), Mall Hardware Stores (6% with lights; 4% without lights; 1% in ruins),Police Departments (10% with lights; 5% without lights; 1% in ruins) Can be used to make it appear as if a building is lit on the mini map. This does not include when a survivor uses binoculars (the magnified vision allows them to see that it is not actually lit). These are LED flare lights, and thus do not have flames or fumes as a traditional road flare would. When standing outside the building the message There is a light flickering from inside the windows appears in the building description, when inside, the message There are road flares in the windows. If there is a generator in the building, the building's external description will ignore the flares as long as the generator is running. The internal description will indicate both the flares and the generator. They can also be lit and dropped on streets and outside buildings with the message There are lit road flares here. The flares will not be visible on the mini map when placed on the street, as they are hidden by low-lying debris. If someone lights a flare, the message XXX placed a flare behind the windows or XXX placed flares on the street appears (depending on the situation). The flare lasts 48 hours once lit. They can be taken down and subsequently destroyed or disabled (removing batteries, smashing, etc.). NO OTHER EFFECTS. The interior of the building will remain the same as if it were not lit, except for the message that there are flares in the windows. A flare on the street can also be destroyed/disabled. Destroying flares provides 0 XP to survivors and 1 XP to zombies.

Discussion (Road Flares)

I'm not entirely clear on the search system in UD, and the wiki was little help due to the amounts of conflicting/out-of-date/generally confusing information (and the fact that I'm lazy), but I felt the above ones were fairly reasonable. Any help from someone with a clearer understanding of that system would be appreciated. I just feel that it needs to be said one more time, in bold lettering, to ensure no confusion exist about the fact that this will not improve search rates or hit rates in any way --Uberursa 21:48, 21 July 2009 (BST)

I'm not big on misrepresentation or decoys, especially when they can't be removed for a fixed period of time. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:12, 21 July 2009 (BST)

I could change it so that someone could destroy it with a weapon, or just throw it in the street next to them.--Uberursa 04:20, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Also, who would want to do this. The only time I can see lights coming in to play are when zombies are looking for targets, and no survivor (the only person who can use this) would want to make their building a target. The other situation is for suburb reports, which this would mess with. Messing with suburb reports for newbies is not good.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:17, 21 July 2009 (BST)

As far as who would want to, a lone survivor in a ruined suburb could use it to make a decoy, on the flip side, the moment the zombies in the area realized it was a decoy (due to the description) they would search the surrounding ruins for a survivor. The fixed period of time is relatively short (in Malton terms, assuming a player logs in once a day on average) so they couldn't have gotten too far, depending on how long the building was ruined and to what point it is 'caded. It could be changed so that binoculars could see them as flares, thus the status reporter helicopter could see that they were flares.--Uberursa 04:20, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I'd consider rethinking this item as a weapon. Road flares look nothing like either incandescent or fluorescent light, and nobody ever uses them inside (they put off chemical smoke). Also, they only last for 30 minutes to an hour. No, I'd suggest you consider their possibilities in a more active role - perhaps a dangerous weapon that only works for a brief period of time. -George Zip ^◆◆◆ 01:11, 22 July 2009 (BST)

No one can see in or out of a building (for whatever reason), so saying that it could be mistaken for a light at a distance isn't too much of a stretch. I got nothing for fumes aside from "it is the zombie apocalypse, not real life" (bad excuse), or one could use their imagination (like with free running). As for a weapon, it could be essentially a melee flare gun. Any thoughts on that? --Uberursa 04:20, 22 July 2009 (BST)

You don't need to use your imagination with free running. It's a real thing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:01, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Good luck.--Agunin_Anoven 04:25, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Don't make it a weapon... it will get shot down :) As for a light source, it might work if you drop its duration down to 24 hours and call it a chemical light. Those things can glow for hours and produce no smoke. They are pretty light and increasingly common. --Honestmistake 10:08, 22 July 2009 (BST)

You're probably right as far as a weapon goes, it would just be another flare gun. It could be changed into a LED light signal, those things are pretty bright and could last longer than a standard road flare. Not to mention it wouldn't present the whole "toxic fumes" problem that was brought up by CaptainVideo. If I did change it to 24 hours, there would be a good chance that no one would see it, and by the time this is finalized, they will be able to be removed. In fact I'll just do that right now. --Uberursa 21:31, 22 July 2009 (BST)

As per your changes, what does this even do? I see nothing, other than the pointless building decoy method you previously mentioned, which no smart survivor woudl do. All I see that this would do, in a very rare situation, is a PKer/ Death cultist putting one in a ruin that survivors are hiding in to alert zombies.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:10, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Actually I think a lot of survivors would use these in an attempt to decoy zombies so my main concern would be wasting zombie AP... on the whole though I think there use as "bread crumbs" to lead zombies to easy targets would balance it out. --Honestmistake 14:24, 23 July 2009 (BST)

The "bread crumb" use was part of the whole point of this. Yes, a death cultist could use them to alert zombies to a survivor presence, or they could be used as a signal that a building was taken and needs a genny, or could be used to draw zombies from a more important target. They could be used to make a zombie player think that no one was in the building at all and check the surrounding ruins for a survivor that is not there. This would especially play a role in a siege environment so that survivors could draw in zombies and slow them from reaching the core of a 'burb, but the zombies would be pounding at their doors, and they would have the no access to the advantages of a genny. The uses of the item are endless, however it is not imbalanced in one direction or the other, because it simply alerts those outside that there is a flare in the window, and zombie players could figure out that it is a decoy, turning their attention pointedly away from it and towards other targets. It lights up a building without the need for 30% encumbrance, but that comes at the price of having all the attention of a genny, without the light granted by it.--Uberursa 21:36, 23 July 2009 (BST)

No, it's uses aren't endless. It can be used as a decoy, that's it. Rather ineffectively too. If you want a cheap decoy, give a building a quick 2ap repair, and zombies will flock to it. As I'm presently repairing a ruined suburb with my main account, I can tell you that i would never use this.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:59, 23 July 2009 (BST)

---

Over encumbered

Timestamp: Kakashi on crack 21:26, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Type: game mechs

Scope: survivors (and zombies... kinda sorta)

Description: Pack Rats have been seen in buildings recently carrying too many things to even move, these have become easy prey to the phycotic maniacs and thieves throughout Malton... basically, Survivors who complain (rarely) about the encumberence levels can go above 100% items at some setbacks... 1. if they are above 100% they cannot move, this will leave them vulnerable to attacks... 2. if they are above 100% they get a reduced accuracy of 20% due to the heavy weight of all the items carried and the fact that they constantly get in their way hampering with their vision 3. if the survivor reaches 200% encumberence, they will start to loose 5 HP for every 10 AP spent 4. if the survivor reaches 300% encumberence, they are crushed by the sheer weight of the items and will die, losing everything they are carrying 5. A survivor who goes to search a building while they are over-encumbered has a 30% chance of having a random item stolen from their posestion (not really but it will disapear) (if this happens they will be informed that something seems to be missing when they search) 6. if a survivor becomes a zombie while encumbered, the weight of the items will slowly wittle away at their poorly supported structure (1 hp per AP spent) until they basically collapse (die) at which point they will lose all items weighing more then 5% encumberence

Discussion (Over encumbered)

Honestly?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:19, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Alright then, you asked for it. 300%? You do realise that 100% means "Complete", "Maximum", etc. You can't have more than 100%. It's illogical. Then, there's the matter of everything about this idea being completely insane.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:19, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Depends on how you want to define 100%. It could mean the maximum weight someone can carry comfortably without penalty. Or it could very well mean the maximum any one person can carry. Having said that, no I don't think we need Survivors being able to carry 300%, so I'd have to vote kill on this. Maybe if the author worked up a penalty system that worked within 100%. But Survivors would shit a cow over that so...probably dead in the water.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:41 20 July 2009(BST)

what the fuck is going on here?--Agunin_Anoven 23:15, 20 July 2009 (BST)

You're still on crack. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:33, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Still on crack, but that won't stop me from writeing a sugestion a day to keep the moderators away XD (of course I haven't got anything big planned, heh, maybe I should put project T.O.G. in here for the hell of it to see how everyone reacts XD --Kakashi on crack 06:45, 21 July 2009 (BST)

This idea sucks big time, go kill yourself.--Agunin_Anoven 07:51, 21 July 2009 (BST)

^ He's just hating cus I forgot to post a siggy and he won't let it go XD --Crazy Hobo Man 08:29, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Keep your dumb ideas off the wiki, this suggestion sucks so much ass. Not only are you on crack, but your fucking dumb. Take your computer and throw it out the window, PLEASE.--Agunin_Anoven 22:57, 21 July 2009 (BST)

There's no need to be insulting just because you don't like the suggestion. You're so badly overreacting that you just make yourself look like an idiot.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:15, 23 July 2009 (BST)

Ignoring the fact that we can't currently find anything once we reach 100% encumbrance, this suggestion seems contradictory in part. If you have a 30% chance of loosing an item once you reach 100% you are very unlikely to ever reach 300%. Stuff would be getting "stolen" as quick as you'd find it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:24 21 July 2009 (BST)

According to this page, the average search rate is 20%. That means that with each search over 100%, there's a 20% chance of an item being gained, and a 30% chance of an item being lost. Over, that means that you are 1.5 times more likely to lose an item than you are to gain one.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:51, 21 July 2009 (BST)

However, in a powered mall with bargain hunting, the average becomes 50%. This means that you are 1.6 times more likely to find something than to lose something. Therefore, every 2 search would give you an item, whereas every 3(.33) would make you lose one. (For ease, we'll say that for every 10 turns, you lose 3 items, and every 10 turns, you gain 5). This means that in one 50AP day, you could gain 10 items. The average encumbrance is probably about 4%, so that would mean +40% in one day. From 100%, you could achieve 300% (and thus death) in 5 days.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:58, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Apart from the fact that if your encumerence is over 100% you can't pick anything else up. Which seems to be a major flaw with this suggestion. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:47, 22 July 2009 (BST)

I would assume that he's suggesting butchering that.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:03, 22 July 2009 (BST)

Leave Other People's Inventory Alone. This doesn't make the game more fun, no one would use it and it would just be a pain in the arse for survivors.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:12, 23 July 2009 (BST)

---

Item Giving

time: --Catachan 15:04, 19 July 2009 (BST)

name: [user: Catachan]

type: Player-to-Player interactions

scope: survivors

description:-- As the title suggests, players may give items they do not require to another person that can use the item. For example, a person who gets a toolbox and does not have construction may give a person with the construction skill his toolbox. It may also work if the player does not wish to have an item he can use, such as a weapon.

Doesn't really need a huge explanation, due to the fact the title pretty much gives you all you need to know.

Discussion (Item Giving)

This is a massive dupe. --ϑϑℜ 15:08, 19 July 2009 (BST)

As DDR. Sorry but mechanics for moving items in between characters have been suggested many many times before. --Cyberbob 15:12, 19 July 2009 (BST)

This could work really well.--xoxo 15:17, 19 July 2009 (BST)

lollllllll --Cyberbob 15:17, 19 July 2009 (BST)

This is going to face the usual opposition: abusable by zergs. - User:Whitehouse 15:20, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Giving is bad, m'kay -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:27 19 July 2009 (BST)

The problem is that this is easily abuseable (as pointed out above). Higher level characters can search, more easily, for the "good stuff" (syringes, faks, guns and ammo) to hand off to the player's lower level alts.--Pesatyel 19:38, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Why the fuck do you suggest this?--Agunin_Anoven 23:16, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Agunin, this is called a SUGGESTION page. It's for suggesting ideas. Now, I'm sorry this is a problem suggestion, but for christ's sakes, keep it nice in the future (aimed at Agunin_Anoven. Everyone else is alright).--Catachan 23:40, 20 July 2009 (BST)

To be honest i think this is the nicest i've ever seen such an dupity/bad suggestion get rejected. So be thankful! --xoxo 07:29, 21 July 2009 (BST)

Was AliM really needed? ;) --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}21:21, 22 July 2009 (BST)

---

Factories have a new use

Timestamp: Kakashi on crack 07:30, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Type: Flavor

Scope: survivors/groups

Description: survivors have recently been searching factories to find words written on metal pipes and logos such as necro-syringes and claw marks etched into them, local pranksters have been hitting people with the said pipes to learn that the words etched in can remain on their face for up to a week before going away... this will basically add a bit of a "prank" weapon to the game that can be used like a metal pipe but has a 20% chance of breaking with each use to avoid people spamming them and the ability to create your own with a metal pipe, powered factory, and 20 AP plus 2 per letter or to find generic ones laying around with labels on them... the "brand stick" will be the letters/logod etched into a metal pipe that acts like a metal pipe but because of them being etched in, when hit with it they will have a 50% chance of leaving the mark on your head or other part of your body for a few days to a week, every day the subject who was hit with it can try and remove it (after 24 hours have passed since they were hit with them) for 1 AP at a 25% chance of removal... Zombies when they have a mark etched in, will have it stay forever, until they remove it at the cost of 1 AP (since their skin doesn't regenerate as fast) but they will be able to remove it immediatly after 24 hours with a 80% chance of removal since they have no problems clawing off their face as it doesn't "hurt" them. this could be used by zombies who wish to "tatooe their body with their group logo" (such as an RFF zombie) or by survivors who want to label zombies as a problem or a patient to be healed... or even other survivors as PKers or trenchcoaters (I personally find trenchcoaters amusign when they try to "stop zombies with wasted ammo" but this doesn't give zombies any rights Kakashi, don't they deserve a form of this? yes, zombies who have at least 1 skill that increases their chance of hitting with their arms will be able to make claw marks on others faces or into pipes that survivors could later find and zombies who have the skill flailing gesture or memories of life will be able to "graffiti" dead bodies with a dropdown list of certain things (such as a circle or a mustache) or with a certain letter if they have memories of life or death rattle how will this appear on someone? simple: if there is only 1 person with an insignia on them then the description will mention that "so and so/a zombie has a mustache carved into their face or a big L on their forehead" if multiple people/zombies have it, it will say that "a group of # people/zombies all have the insignia, PK or RFF on them, some in spots best not mentioned... I know I'm going to get a lot of negative feedback due to just being able to have a "custom" item making the trenchcoater populace happier but this is more for flavor and pranks rather then being serious and "labeling" people

Discussion (Factories have a new use)

This is a big suggestion and I'm short on time so I'll focus on how it would be displayed to other people. Do you mean for those description lines to be shown on the main screen or just in the profiles of people who have been marked? From the looks it seems as though you mean the former, which has the potential to end up being extremely spammy if there are lots of unique marks in a given crowd (which I would say is highly likely). --Cyberbob 07:36, 19 July 2009 (BST)

We don't need more ways to spam.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:47, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Because we really need immature idiots branding people with curse words and the like. - User:Whitehouse 15:16, 19 July 2009 (BST)

The biggest use for this would be as a griefing tool, as far as I can see -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:29 19 July 2009 (BST)

You're still on crack. You know why you're going to get negative feedback? (hint: it's not because of trenchies) It's because your ideas are incredibly overwritten and complicated with unnecessary effects. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 16:45, 19 July 2009 (BST)

---

Dual-Nature Names

Timestamp: Necrofeelinya 22:24, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Type: Dual-Nature Encouragement

Scope: All players

Description: Simple, really. When you create a new character, you can pick both a survivor name and a zombie name. When you're alive, your profile shows your survivor name along with your description, and that's how you appear on the map, as well as in people's contacts. When you're dead, you still just appear on the map as "zombie", but your profile and other people's contacts display your zombie name. If you want to always be known by the same name, just choose the same name for both your zombie and survivor name when creating your character. It might encourage people to play their zombies and survivors differently if they're distinguished by different names, that's all. It would make you feel like a different person when you become undead.

Discussion (Dual-Nature Names)

What if someone's zombie name is someone else's survivor name? In general, everyone changing names quickly would be complete chaos. If you made this so that when a survivor died, their name became the same in zombie-speak, that would be better, but I don't really like the idea of changing names.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:41, 16 July 2009 (BST)

There'd be a lot of names, then... twice as many. And do old players get this option? If so, how does the profile database compensate? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:42, 16 July 2009 (BST)

It explodes in fire and death. Or, it uses a specific name, either the one from the starting class, or the survivor, I would assume.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:48, 16 July 2009 (BST)

in addition to the chaos, this would negate the effect of contact lists. it'd destroy organised revive points. it'd make the random revive policy (which is nothing more than smatr play) obsolete. it'd be giantic buff for PKers and Death Cultists. as much as a part of me thinks this'd be fun on so many levels (bwahahahahahaaaa), it really is too much. --WanYao 22:52, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Having "AKA: <other name>" on a player's profile page so you could see their alias when on the other side of the life fence would remedy that. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:02, 16 July 2009 (BST)

All I'm suggesting is that characters have a zombie name as well as a survivor name. Yes, the number of names in use would double. No, names would not be possible to duplicate... a player could not use a zombie name for a separate survivor character. Contact lists wouldn't be that badly affected, the contact name would just change when the character dies. If you know that person, chances are you would quickly be familiar enough with their alter ego to recognize them on your list. Just the disappearance of their survivor name and the appearance of a new zombie name should clue you in. They even have the ability to write their survivor name in their profile's description area, so this wouldn't shaft organized revive points. And no, old players don't get this option unless Kevan decides to make it possible for some reason. Just make another character, for cryin' out loud.--Necrofeelinya 23:37, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I don't like it... add in BobBob's AKA part though and it might be workable. However I think it would have to be an automatic recognition thing.... ie you only get the contact name for whichever state they where in when you add them but get an in game message to say you recognize them when you 1st interact with them in their other state. Put simply you add "Bob" to your contact list while he is a survivor.... later he tries to eat you as a zed and you get the message " a zombie clawed at you and missed... you recognize it as Bob (aka "EVILDEADBOB") --Honestmistake 23:44, 16 July 2009 (BST)

It might encourage people to play their zombies and survivors differently...'. Can't/don't players do that already simply by the nature of what they are capable of in either mode? You have the gung-ho survivor who becomes a Mrh?-cow. Distinctly different, IMO. You have the revived dedicated zombie who offs himself as soon as possible, so I can't really see that as counting for anything. You have the Life and Death Cultists who modify the way they play because of the nature of the form. And you have the true dual natures who do it on their own. And, yes, Contact Lists WOULD significantly change. Your giving more information than a name change. Your giving every player the ability to determine the status of anyone on their contact list for free. Also, why SHOULDN'T older players get this?--Pesatyel 01:45, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Pesatyel, you can already tell whether a person on your contacts list is a zombie or not. I'm just saying that this would encourage people to play zombies as zombies, by giving a bit of different identity to them. If they want to just line up for a revive, fine... nothing's going to change that. And if older players want this, then they can start a new character with it. Or if it's easy for Kevan, then let older players have it too. Either way, I don't really care.--Necrofeelinya 02:25, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Based on the information from this wiki, I do not find ANY indication where you can deteremine a contact's status (whether they are alive or zombie). There is a listing for CLASS, but that is not the same thing as the contact list indicating whether or not a contact is CURRENTLY alive or zombie. Am I mistaken?--Pesatyel 07:40, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Class: Zombie = Dead, anything else = Alive. I think it may only properly update once the contact stands up (ie if a survivor dies and stays dead for a day it'll show them as "Military" or such until they stand as a zed. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:48, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Ok.--Pesatyel 07:58, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Oh, and really the benefit I see of this is that players can create a character named something innocent like "Li'lfluffybunny" and when it becomes a zombie its name would change to something like "Unholynibblingdeathterror". Or players could take a fairly normal human name, like "Jack Mehoff" as a survivor, and then use a more zombie-ish name for their alter egos, like "Namnamz Gutrupture". Or even something that would actually fit the character limit for names. The point being, survivor-ish names for survivors, zombie-ish names for zombies... all voluntarily, of course.--Necrofeelinya 02:58, 19 July 2009 (BST)

I think it could be nice flavour but I don't like the huge effect it would have on the metagame - I'm thinking of anything that involves highlighting names here like the contacts list function and UDTool. It's all well and good to have an AKA tag on their profile page but nobody is going to click through every single name in every single horde or building just to find the one person they want. --Cyberbob 07:43, 19 July 2009 (BST)

Makes people much harder to recognise for dubious role-play/flavour reasons -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:33 19 July 2009 (BST)

Aren't zombies fairly anonymous anyway? In addition, doubling the number of names on the server wouldn't be a good thing, making the number of cohesive names drop until there are twenty "Larry"s each with a different string of randomness afterwords (i.e. larry1102, Larry1, larry2.0, etc.) Personally I vouch for Bob's "A.K.A." idea. --Uberursa 23:10, 20 July 2009 (BST)

---

Zombie speech therapy

Timestamp: Kakashi on crack 21:35, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Type: speech improvement

Scope: Zeds

Description: I'm going to TRY and use some logic for this one as it is just a minor addition to the zombie language that could greatly improve conversation... I believe zombies should be able to use the letters (if two letters, they have to be used like so) sni, ka, e, s, cl/kl, and a few others (possibly) SNI: this is kind of like when you whistle while keeping your tounge over the hole and sucking in while keeping you teeth planted on your lower lip like the *snip* sound or kiss blowing sound, this could be replaced with smi also, or even a clicking kinda noise KA: this is like when you pull your tounge back into your throat, and force it forward with a burst of air t makes a strange sound that sounds kinda like kah! or something similar (I know this uses the tounge but a zombie could simply pull back their bottom jaw making the top of their mouth closer to their tounge) E: this could be used by zombies in more of the sense of ehhhh rather then the letter itself... S: this is kinda like a hissing sound and could also be used as SI since zombies who have damaged throats trying to pronounce letters may form the occasional hissing sound... this could also be used as more of a hiiiiii sound CL/KL: this is kinda like the sound you would make if choking on a bone or piece of chewy bacon, this could also be pronounced as hleeeeh in some senses to pronounce the apropriate noises, try to use as little tongue work as possible any other sugestions would be appreciated as long as the letters used require less work of the tounge and more work of the throat as current zombie language would suggest... I got these all by randomly making strange noises from the throat or mouth while using as little tounge movement as possible making them more Zambah! like

Discussion (Zombie speech therapy)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 23 at 20:38(BST)

Zombie speech is fucking great the way it is. Frustrating? A little, but it is one of the more entertaining parts to being a zambah. There isn't really a need to add to the vocabulary. --Papa Johnny 22:35, 15 July 2009 (BST)

You're on crack. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:03, 15 July 2009 (BST)

It would help if you had some examples of how this would appear in game or something as I have NO idea what your on about here.--Pesatyel 02:13, 16 July 2009 (BST)

"More Zambah! like". Don't know about you, but I've never seen a zombie say "KA" or "SNI". Sounds like something from a fantasy novel. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:22, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I tried, and I can't make ANY of these sounds in the way you described. I can make several weird clicking sounds, all through using my tongue. Honestly, this would make zombie communication WORSE.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:38, 16 July 2009 (BST)

---

Light Barricades

Timestamp: Rogueboy 19:08, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Barricades

Description: Ever get in a siege and you try to raise the cades to a higher level like EHB but fail about six times in a row? And spending your remaining AP trying to do it? Only to wake up and find yourself on the side walk while zombies are pointing and laughing? This suggestion is intended to reduce the percentage chance of failing to cade a building when the lights are on, since if the lights are on it should be easier to find materials to cade a building. I haven't worked out the percentages but I feel to half it seems fair 40% failure when cading HB would now be 20% failure. Some may say well how does this benefit zombies? Truth is it doesn't, some might say why not lower the chances in an unlit building? Because that would become far too problematic since the majority of buildings are unlit and in the past months survivors have won fewer and fewer battles, hopefully this will try to raise that to at least a decent ratio.

Discussion (Light Barricades)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 24 at 10:52(BST)

Hm. Lets see. The implication that light helps barricades is already in the game, because its harder to cade in the Dark. A three level system, with say dark (halved chances), normal (-5%) and lit (+5%)? Don't think it would be too difficult to code. We already have varying chances of success. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:17, 15 July 2009 (BST)

That makes more sense than just a +%, reduce the non-lit % to balance it and you'd have my vote. --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:16, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Cades are fine. If anything, they should be either harder to build or easier to take down. Making it easier for trenchies to put up everything to EHB will also encourage the idiots out there to overbarricade an entire suburb. --Papa Johnny 22:29, 15 July 2009 (BST)

From a zombie point of view I don't want survivors being better at cading, as destroying cades is dull and feels less like an accomplishment than killing a survivor. From a survivor point of view, while this could be beneficial, the last thing I want is more overcading. The current system is more than good enough for survivors. Moderate cades equal low cost and accessibility. High cades equal high cost and screwing over other survivors. Trust me, you're better off not reducing that cost and making it easier for people to screw each other over. Besides, your argument that zombies have been winning more battles doesn't reflect the games population. Make it harder for those zombies who are fighting hard as it is to maintain their side, and we might just see this game losing more zombie players, not exactly what we need in my opinion. - User:Whitehouse 00:19, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I have little to add to what everyone else has said. Except that if zombies have been "winning all the time" (which isn't true) it's because survivors have gotten lazy and stupid (lazier and stupider, even, than before!). --WanYao 15:15, 16 July 2009 (BST)

It's because it's summer, and (from what I gather) there are far more dedicated zombie players, who are still willing to check on during summer. Survivors are, as you said, lazier, for some reason, and don't seem to log on as much. Weird, but truish.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:35, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I wouldn't say it's because they're lazier, they're probably going outside and doing stuff and just not as bothered because they're filling their day with other activities. In the winter your more likely to stay indoors with less things and sit in front of a screen. The reason the zombie players are more active is probably because they have a much better on-line community which draws them back. --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:10, 16 July 2009 (BST)

It's the hunger, I don't know how to explain it but there is a hunger in my mind, the dope receptors just go crazy for namz.--Bonghit420 21:42, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I always forget the zombie community. Yeah, that'll be it.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:52, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I could not support this. Why make it easier for survivors to jack up the cades to extreme levels? Unbalancing.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 23:54, 16 July 2009 (BST)

---

Critical hit!

Timestamp: Kakashi on crack 07:11, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Type: new skill

Scope: combat

Description: Zombies and Survivors have been seen aiming at critical points of their enemies including the groins, head, and chest... Basically, Critical hits will be an extra skill you can get for one weapon of choice in both survivor and zombie form. A critical hit will basically be an attack that can do extra damage based on your % chance of hiting the enemy (survivor or zombie) and how much damage the weapon does. Critical hits will be at 1/5 of your percent chance of hiting the enemy. When succesful, a crit will do an added 35% damage to your attack at a minimum of +2 damage. (if it is borderline between say 2 and 3 extra damage it will always round up) Critical hits will sometimes be at crucial points that could temporarily disable opponents in otherwords a normal crit has a 50% chance of hitting them in the chest, this will make a "temporary infection" come into activity (that can affect zombies too) that will do 1 point of damage for every 3 AP spent (for the victim, not you attacking them), this will automatically be cured after either A. the victim uses 30 AP (not including talking) B. is healed with a FAK, or C. (if zombie with digestion) bites someone/something that is/was alive A critical hit also has a 20% chance of doing Hand/claw damage: this will (for survivors) lower all attacks % of hitting by half and make necrotech injections only work at a 65% chance of success until healed, and (for zombies) disable tangling grasp (if they have it) make all hand/bite attacks reduced by 1/4 (if they don't have tangling grasp) and reduce hand attacks by 6/10 in damage/% of hiting) until they regenerate health (wether it be through feeding or biting something/someone) A crit ALSO has a 15% chance of hitting a survivor/zed in the legs. this will (for survivors) disable free-running (since the only LOGICAL explanation for it is that they can jump from building to building lol) and will cost them 2 AP to move (unless they have lurching gate or whatever that zombie skill is, 2 AP part only) and (for zombies) will cost them 3x the AP to move (so either 3 or 6 AP to move) and an automatic 10AP to go inside a building (unless they have free-running, which will get rid of the entering a building penalty) FINALLY a critical hit has a 1% chance of hitting the enemy in the head causing instant-death, this will automatically become 0% if the "survivor" has body building and/or a flak jacket or the "zombie" has flesh rot and/or a flak jacket. THIS IS ONLY A SUGESTION, I know this is in Do not sugest and if people don't like the idea because of this one part, I'll remove it, but please realise I am only sugesting it... Crit sugestions posted above will NOT stack though If the person attacked recieves a lethal blow, (a blow that will otherwise KILL them) the critical chance will be at only 1/10 and will cause the victim to go into a miniature head-shot which will require an extra 3 AP to stand up and will cause them to stand up as a zombie at only half health (so think of it this way, a zombie with ankle grab who is headshotted at a critical hit will have to spend 9 AP to stand up and a zombie WITHOUT it will have to spend 18 AP to stand up, this will encourage everyone to get ankle grab which in my own opinion is a VERY usefull skill for both sides lol) critical hit requirements: unlike zombie hunter and skills like that, a critical hit will require that the person in question has at least 3 combat-based skills in their category (in otherwords, you can't get it as a survivor if you have 3 zombie combat-skills) and be at least level 5 to get it (in other words, for someone to have critical hit as both a survivor and zombie, they will have to be at least level 8) this skill will only work on a SPECIFIC WOC (weapon of choice) and can only be choosen once, of course all zombies will get it for claw, but it could have its advantages/disadvantages with different weapons as a survivor AKA, it will do 4 extra damage with a shotgun (or two if they have a flak/fleshror basically) but will also require ammo unlike a fire axe... NOTE to posters: I would prefer if you used constructive critiscism since I know I'm going to get a lot of crap for this but I don't give a rat's ass if you thought it was too long so you didn't read it and all TL;DR posts will be deleted on sight... on that note, any imrpovements/removal of certain parts are completely possible (especially the unlikely insta-kill which I know is going to get me a lot of hate-spam)

Discussion (Critical hit!)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 22 at 22:33(BST)

It's way, way too long, and ludicrously unnecessary. In essence, tl;dr. And you can't preempt that by saying "omg i delete ur tldr posts." --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:54, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Wow, my eyes hurt. But I'll try to decipher it. First of all why can't zombies pick bite? Ok the chances of “activating” it are:

• Pistol/Shotgun: Base 1%, basic training 6%, pistol/shotgun training 10%, advanced 12%
• Knife: 4%, HTH 7%, knife 10%
• Axe: 2%, HTH: 5%, axe 8%
• Flaregun: 0.5%, basic training 3%.
• Punch: 2%, HTH 5%
• Damage: Pistol 5.4/6.75, Shotgun: 10.8/13.5, Knife 4, Axe 4.05, Flare gun 16.2/20.25 (32.4/40.5), Punch 3

Other effects:

• 50% chance of causing a victim to take 1 HP per 3 AP spent (so I could potentially force the guy to take 16 damage per action).

OR

• 20% chance of causing survivors to be -50% to all attacks. Zombies are -35% to be revive AND lose tangling grasp AND -25% to hit AND -60% to damage (if I can decipher that right, meaning claws will do 0.8/1.8 and bite 2.4).

OR

• 15% chance of (for survivors) disabling Free Running AND costing 2 AP to move. Zombies will have to spend 3 or 6 AP per square of movement' AND spend 10 AP to enter buildings.

OR

• 1% chance of INSTANT DEATH.

Yes, the author IS on crack.--Pesatyel 08:10, 15 July 2009 (BST)

He has been for quite a while. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 08:16, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Well, I gave him a little for trying. But now? Wow is he even anymore?--Pesatyel 08:26, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Explain how it works for zombie attacks again? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:47, 15 July 2009 (BST)

TL;DR, but if Boberton's summary is accurate, kill it with fire. --Papa Johnny 22:33, 15 July 2009 (BST)

---

New status: In pker hands.

Timestamp: --Suff-TMS- <-- Killin' zombies! 21:54, 14 July 2009 (BST)--

Type: Small wiki change.

Scope: Wiki

Description: In pker hands could be used as another building status that could still be commonly used. There have been many group Hqs,malls,Mansions,And NecroTech buildings that have been Completely run over by pkers forcing those who once inhabited it to run to another safe spot. As i understand it Pkers still cause harm to another player and seek the same objective as zombies do. The only difference is they are inside the building. And can cause alot more damage to the people who call it home. Must we remember giddings? That was ridiculous. I understand that you can put "taken over by pkers" in the description when updating the status. But how can you still leave "safe" as the picture? have you seen urbandead lately? Pkers with horrible or vial names roaming around killing people. There are alot more than there should be. There are alot of respected pkers out there such as Silly Lilly and Pathetic Bill. But many of the pkers now days are preteens that have figured out they can ruin a persons day with 20 clicks of a button. Thanks--Suff-TMS- <-- Killin' zombies! 21:52, 14 July 2009 (BST)

Discussion (New status: In pker hands.)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 23 at 21:02(BST)

You could use the "Under siege/attack" logo and in the description state its pk'ing as a stopgap. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:55, 14 July 2009 (BST)

Contact Hagnat about getting an image made, rather than using the suggestions system (which is for game related changes). Would cause more drama than it's worth, IMO, but meh -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:02 14 July 2009 (BST)

lol,Nice to meet you boxy. And yea i guess ill contact him thanks.--Suff-TMS- <-- Killin' zombies! 07:11, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Whine much??? Anyway, PKers and zombies are not on the same side. Seeing as PKers desire and use stuff like... strong barricades, guns, powered malls, NT syringes... all things inimical to zombies... that makes them closer to being pro-survivor. That and that little, insignificant fact that they breathe.....

Anyway, a building barricaded and powered but "occupied" by PKers is still "Safe". Because the zombies are outside. It's simple, really. --WanYao 15:25, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Hiding in a room with someone who wants to kill you is not safe, it may be safer than standing outside and you may be safe from zombies but it is not safe... --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:02, 16 July 2009 (BST)

---

Fort Gun Flavour

Timestamp: Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 13:23, 14 July 2009 (BST)

Type: Flavour

Scope: Forts

Description: This would be a minor flavour change so that guns from the fort armouries would be called "Fort Creedy Pistol/Shotgun" or "Fort Perryn Pistol/Shotgun". It would be a nice flavoural touch, I feel, and you can tell that loads of trenchies (And non-trenchies, for that matter), would want to say: "I'm going to kill you, you filthy zombie, with my Maxxed-out Fort Creedy Shotgun". Alright, so only trenchies would say that, but you get my point.

Discussion (Fort Gun Flavour)

{

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 23 at 15:32(BST)

No offense, but needless pro-survivor/trenchy flavor isn't anything we need. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 14:43, 14 July 2009 (BST)

The first half of that sentence said the second half for it. If you can honestly name something wrong with having a gun with "Fort Creedy" slapped on the front, then I'd like to hear it. Saying "We don't need it" on a flavour suggestion is ridiculous. Of course we don't need it, it's flavour, but if we didn't have any flavour, it would be a boring game.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:32, 14 July 2009 (BST)

I can think of one. Nobody can see it but YOU.--Pesatyel 03:06, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Great observation...except that it was already pointed out below.--

| T | BALLS! | 03:10 15 July 2009(BST)

I was going to add more but then that's an entirely different suggestion. I think it would be good (and has been discussed before) to have "hands". That is you put an object/weapon in hand which can then be seen when people check your profile as well as keep weapons from switching around when stuff happens.--Pesatyel 03:15, 15 July 2009 (BST) Oh and D'OH!--Pesatyel 03:16, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Sounds groovy.--

| T | BALLS! | 03:18 15 July 2009(BST)

No. The Fort dwellers just got their own frequency, and that's one addition more than they deserved. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:50, 14 July 2009 (BST)

Oh yes, I had forgotten about that. However, in my opinion, this would be a more valuable suggestion for people on the other side of the city from the forts, kind of like special hats or kilts. You get the idea.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:54, 14 July 2009 (BST)

Except you can see if another person's wearing a Mall t-shirt, Fort dog tags, special hats, kilts, etc. - guns, as they should be with other inventory items, are invisible to other players. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:00, 14 July 2009 (BST)

Excellent point.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:05, 14 July 2009 (BST)

This is just silly. What on earth would make a Fort Greedy pistol different than any other? Because it's pink with a fake fur trim? Now, if it shot a flag reading "BOOM HEADSOT!" or some set of random expressions, now that I might accept as valid... --WanYao 15:32, 16 July 2009 (BST)

---

(The Highly Foolish) Turning the lights back on

Timestamp: RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 22:16, 12 July 2009 (BST)

Type: City Change

Scope: BOREHAMWOOD

Description: So anyway. Borehamwood is different than other cities. It has no power stations. Its power generation is based outside the quarantine. The military influence is much lighter. No Helicopters, Supermarkets instead of forts. Its based on Dead Set a TV series in which the power stayed on. See where this is going? Quite simply, borehamwood's power is turned back on. Zombies don't have to have hand attacks halved in the dark, and you don't need a genny to repair dark buildings. However. Search Rates increases, surgery and radio transmitters still require generators, as the power drain would be too great. Or something.

Discussion ((The Highly Foolish) Turning the lights back on)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 22 at 22:22(BST)

Please mock --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:16, 12 July 2009 (BST)

Consider it mocked. Could you explain what you think this might accomplish, Ross? Because I'm not seeing it.--Necrofeelinya 00:48, 13 July 2009 (BST)

It may "light up" Borehamwood a tad. Dear god, I'm so damn witty.-- Adward  10:35, 13 July 2009 (BST)

Um, make it easier for zombies to kill humans in banks, clubs and cinemas? Make it easier for said humans to maintain these structures? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:15, 13 July 2009 (BST)

Ross, one of my zombies just yesterday happened across 15 'caded buildings in an area where there are no other zombies. Fifteen, Ross. Survivors aren't having trouble maintaining structures.--Necrofeelinya 23:45, 13 July 2009 (BST)

Nineteen actually. I thought you might approve of this thanks to the frustrations of almost eating a couple of survivors inside darks. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:51, 13 July 2009 (BST)

I appreciate the effort, but this won't really put a dent in the problems zombies have in Borehamwood. And increased search rates for survivors? The frustrations of almost eating survivors in Borehamwood are caused more by the fact that survivors are utterly awash in FAKs. They strand a survivor, then post a Life Cultist to check up on them, and if anyone attacks they FAK barrage to keep them healthy until they can move again. I'd prefer actually leaving dark on and decreasing search rates for survivors. After all, like you said, there are no black helicopters in Borehamwood... shouldn't supplies have run out by now?--Necrofeelinya 01:52, 14 July 2009 (BST)

Oops, did i not make it clear? Search rates would be unaffected. You only get the boost, if a genny is hooked up in the traditional sense. I assumed that the additional power was used to open security doors, light up basement areas where the power has been severed etc. Hence the reliance on them for search boosts. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 08:49, 14 July 2009 (BST)

Ah, I think I get what you're saying now. Yeah, I guess it couldn't hurt if you're not talking about just a general boost to survivor search rates, but it wouldn't do much really, since survivors don't seem to currently feel the need to hide in darkened buildings that much. The last fiasco I encountered was in a normal building, not a darkened one. Just bad luck, really, plus the lack of hasty zombie reinforcements combined with survivors FAK barraging the stranded to keep him alive. But it might help should one of our zombies miraculously break through heaving piles of 'cades, actually find a survivor behind them, and have enough AP left to do anything with them. Or maybe one of the nearby zombies will be awake and manage to take advantage of the situation before a survivor wakes up, kills and dumps the offending zombie, re-cades and FAKs the whole thing up. I mean, hey... it could happen. Someday. I think I still prefer the notion of decreasing the availability of FAKs, though. Those things should be precious under the best of circumstances.--Necrofeelinya 22:22, 15 July 2009 (BST)

---

New Town Concept

Timestamp: Necrofeelinya 01:26, 10 July 2009 (BST)

Type: Hardcore town

Scope: A new town, or revised rules for Borehamwood or Monroeville

Description: I'd like to suggest a new hardcore town, one which would differ enormously from previous "hardcore" towns in the way it functions. The details would be as follows: 1. XP system completely revised. Skills are no longer permanent and aren't bought. Instead, characters have a set of involuntary "skill points" to divide between the various actions they are capable of taking in-game, and the frequency with which they take those actions determines how successful the action will be. New characters start with variation in the distribution of those skill points - Firemen will be good with an axe, Doctors good with finding and using Faks, etc. Thus, if a person rarely 'cades, they will likely fail often should they try, but with practice, they will become more proficient. If they've developed proficiency with a skill but cease to use it regularly, their proficiency with it will decrease over time. This would eliminate useless XP buildup with "maxxed out" characters and still allow for characters to change over time, as well as providing real variety in character class distinctions. Veterans would have no advantage over noobs except that which their experience and skill actually playing the game provides them. 2. Revised Headshot. Rather than headshotted zombies simply needing to spend a few AP to stand up, headshot now "kills" a zombie, replacing it with a corpse and regenerating the zombie at a random cemetery elsewhere on the map. Rather than the inconvenience of losing a few AP standing up, zombies get the inconvenience of being resituated on the map when they're headshotted. This way noobs suffer no more penalty for being headshotted than veterans. Also, headshot is not an automatic skill, but a low % chance for every survivor when attacking a zombie which is modified slightly by their proficiency fighting with that particular weapon. 3. No Necrotech. 4. Survivor regeneration - Don't want to play a zombie? Click on "revive". Following an "are you sure?" message, your character can choose again what class he wants to start as, gets stripped of all his items except those he would normally start the game with, gets an intro storyline, and gets randomly regenerated in a class-typical building in the city (Doctors in Hospitals, Firemen in Fire Stations, etc). This'll keep players from having to create a new character every time they die and want to keep playing a survivor. 5. A brief history page, similar to contacts but without info on attackers, lists how many times you were killed with time and datestamp as well as location, with map coordinates and revive dates. It'll help keep track of how long people have managed to stay alive, which is a matter of survivor prestige, and will be viewable by all players as a link on people's profiles. 6. A "victims list" automatically logs who you kill, when and where. Only viewable by the player. Because that would be cool, and who really wants to go in and add contacts all the time just to keep track of that? Only keeps track of survivors killed, because zombies are both anonymous and just too easy and numerous. 7. Keep new character creation open. It's a basic idea, and incomplete, but it's just a suggestion after all, and I thought I'd put it forward as a drastically revised manner in which Urban Dead could be reworked for people seeking something other than a social networking site. Apart from the admittedly substantial workload, there's no reason not to experiment with new cities, and this would be a great concept for a test drive. With the ease of regeneration, this actually wouldn't be that hardcore in a sense, but I think certain aspects of it would be highly enjoyable and might encourage action-oriented play somewhat. Being stripped of equipment and starting fresh is enough incentive for survivors to try to avoid death, I think. Posting it here because I don't believe that all suggestions need to be 100% worked out in detail before being worthy of Peer Review. After all, this kind of suggestion can't be made in parts, and too much detail would be overwhelming anyway.

Discussion (New Town Concept)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 22 at 03:11 (BST)

Not very "hardcore" when you screw zombies and give survivors an "auto revive" feature. Give me a break.--Pesatyel 03:20, 10 July 2009 (BST)

The "auto revive" basically resets their character to exactly what it would be if they created a new one. There's plenty of incentive there not to die, I think. And headshot should both be "permanent" in a sense and much, much harder to do than it is currently in the game. Zombies aren't screwed with this, and I don't think survivors are either.--Necrofeelinya 03:40, 10 July 2009 (BST)

Seems pretty cool. I'd try out a character in this new town.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 05:21, 10 July 2009 (BST)

Ok. But, again, how "hardcore" is it if survivor's DON'T/CAN'T die? "Starting over" with nothing I don't think is significant (at this point in the discussion) since we have unlimited resources. What's your new XP idea? Something that significant needs to be fleshed out and, since its your idea, we need a base to go of off.--Pesatyel 06:51, 10 July 2009 (BST)

If the city is meant to go long-term, you can't restrict new sign-ups. This just allows people to retain their characters. I had over 20 characters in Monroeville, which was utterly excessive. I know that at least one guy had over 50. This eliminates the need for that. The new XP idea involves a set # of points dedicated to a character's in-game activities but which aren't voluntarily disposed. One's actions in-game determine where one's skills are accumulated. That's how you become proficient at certain tasks, whether they be 'cading or fighting, or finding and using Faks, or finding or refueling gennys, etc. I don't think simple abilities like speech should be affected, of course. Basically, it's a rough idea of how a new city might work, and I don't think it needs too many details because 1)Kevan can decide most of that himself, and 2) the more specific details the more people you alienate. I'm not trying to make this my personal wet dream city, I'd like a general consensus that the basic idea is something worth trying.

Ots a good start. Necro, Ill feedback a bit more in a bit. I'm assuming you can only respawn if you're dead? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 08:43, 10 July 2009 (BST)

That's the basic idea, Ross. Can you think of circumstances where it would be beneficial for survivors to respawn without being killed first?--Necrofeelinya 09:21, 10 July 2009 (BST)

Im a level one survivor or zombie spy in west necroville. I want to get to far east necroville. I just keep on clicking on revive until it respawns me over there. Much easier than walking. You're not getting tired of Borehamwood are you? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:39, 10 July 2009 (BST)

Pretty much everyone would be level one under this system, but I see your point. So yeah, you'd only be able to respawn if dead. That wouldn't guarantee people wouldn't just kill themselves and respawn over and over anyway, but it would be some discouragement, especially with the couple of steps involved... choosing a character class, getting an intro storyline, basically at least 3 or 4 server hits minimum for each attempt. Besides, they'd still need to gear up again, as well as walk from wherever they respawn to their chosen destination, so it'd be an exploit, but not the worst one. After all, under the current system can't they just keep creating new characters until they get one near where they want? And I think everyone but survivors tired of Borehamwood many, many months ago. I'm just more tired of Malton and Monroeville. Borehamwood could be called less entertainment than habit at this point.--Necrofeelinya 04:50, 11 July 2009 (BST)

A few questions:

• How would you have infection work? Without a "skills for xp" system would all zeds have infectious bite?
• Wouldn't this make Infection damn hard anyway as zeds spend most of their AP using claws and very few using bite?
• Do you envision all survivors being able to cade? If they can you do realise you have invented the perfect cade zerg mechanism?
• Free Running?
• Radio Op?
• Feeding Groan, Scent trail, repair/ransack... I could go on.

I know you say details would be up to Kevan but give without all these details at least fleshed out you are asking for altogether far too much! --Honestmistake 10:23, 10 July 2009 (BST)

From what I can tell, a character can do anything. They just really suck at it. But if they do it often enough they "get better" at it.--Pesatyel 01:54, 11 July 2009 (BST)

Exactly. Yes, all zombies would have infectious bite, and would need to practice to have an improved chance of hitting with it. All survivors could 'cade, and while 'cade zerging would be a problem, it wouldn't likely be moreso than bots and people creating characters just to get construction and use them the same way is now. The rest, all a base chance modified by practice. There would be minimum % chances for everything, so that a character couldn't sink below a certain level of competence, as well as maximums, so they couldn't attain 100% proficiency, but between those base levels their % chances for every action would be variable.--Necrofeelinya 04:50, 11 July 2009 (BST)

That doesn't answer any of the OTHER questions though. What are the starting percentages? How do you increase said percentages? Wouldn't this, effectively, cancel most of the skills (gun upgrades, hand to hand, etc.)? Would healing have a percentage? Wouldn't it be rather easy to level both construction and physical combat quickly?--Pesatyel 03:11, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Something this significant, I'd imagine we would have to work on each part individually. I think most people here need as many "details" as they can get. Or at the very least what the author thinks needs to happen. The whole skills idea, for example. How will it work? Honestmistake and I are only guessing but if we are correct, that's a start. But where do we go from there? And that's is just skills/XP alone.--Pesatyel 01:57, 11 July 2009 (BST)

Yes, it's a basic concept, and the XP system needs to be fleshed out, but it's posted here at the moment largely to get feedback and gauge interest. I think that once I figure out a rough system of what in-game actions would require a % chance of success and what minimum and maximum % chances there would be for success then it might be worth putting up to a vote, but for now it's largely here for feedback as a general concept.--Necrofeelinya 04:50, 11 July 2009 (BST)

I like the idea, it just needs a bit of developement and details put into it (and that's why it is here) the percents based off of working in that skill are a good idea and that from disuse they will be lowered as if your character is a real person adding to the RPG aspect... here's a couple concepts I was THINKING of that could help it with the "hardcoreness" of it...

perhaps survivors inventory items could take up "handspace" or "backpack space" instead of encumberence or in other words, if they are holding generators, shotguns, health packs, books, and all the other crap, they will get reduced accuracy due to their heavy objects making them tired but if they were to say, put them down and then pick them up when they are done shooting, they wouldn't lose accuracy but the items may go missing...

also to answer Honestmistake, (and please realise, these are SUGESTIONS for the sugestion)

infectious bite could simply be a 50% chance but for every time they killed someone with their teeth, they gained a 1% with it...

cading could be at a very low percent passed strongly baricaded but the more they practise the better they get at it until they get to the point where they would have basically gotten to "normal" percents

1. if a town is hardcore, why even have free running or 2. Free running would be achieved by tryign to go to another building when you are inside a building, or even 3. everyone has free running but they have a 35% chance of messing up and it could either A. kill them if they are inside a office building or B. hurt them since they jump into a wall (since the only thing I can come up with for realism is that free running is jumping from building to building and through windows XD)

perhaps if they kill a zed, they have a chance of finding a radio "tag" allowing access to restricted channels, why even have radios though if the town is hardcore?

feeding groan can be a skill with a chance that they will mess up and instead it will just say in the "general direction" instead of something like 8 east and 2 north XD

scent trail only works if the survivor is nearby, perhaps just give, the zombie scent trail and if they die then they lose the scent?

everyone can ransacking a building could require that you have destroyed enough baricades, and repair can require that you have made enough baricades...

these are just sugestiosn for your sugestion lol --Kakashi on crack 05:50, 11 July 2009 (BST)

I'm assuming that every survivor/zombie starts off with a 1% chance of performing any action and everytime it is successful that increases like more traditional role playing (or GTA SA) On you profile page it could give a rough indication "Construction Good, Freerunning Poor, Diagnosis Expert." --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:40, 11 July 2009 (BST)

I just want to say this: people keep askign for more details and such but every time someone makes a detailed sugestion, the majority just posts TL;DR, so make up your friggin minds! XD --Kakashi on crack 22:44, 11 July 2009 (BST)

More words =/= more detail. Especially if it's worded poorly and fundamentally changes up the game in unnecessary ways. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:30, 12 July 2009 (BST)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Groan Identification

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

| T | BALLS! | 09:33 13 July 2009(BST)

Place on Altar

This suggestion is now up for voting. Its discussion has been moved to its talk page. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 09:49, 8 July 2009 (BST)

---