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.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list

---

Suggestions

"Stand Up" Revisited

Timestamp: Foxtrot 12:43, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Type: Game mechanic change.

Scope: Urban Dead players.

Description: Please don't hit me if this is a bad idea. But I think it would be a decent and balanced solution to a very frustrating game mechanic. At the moment, standing up costs quite a bit of AP. Many players use their dead time to regenerate AP and prepare for a new day. However, it is very frustrating when I have waited a day for my 50 AP and I end up with only 40 AP or so. I understand that Ankle Grab nerfs this mechanic, however I feel it would be better to have 1 (Ankle Grab)/6 (Ankle Grab + Headshot) /10 (Default) /15 (Headshot) AP subtracted from a player when they are killed, as opposed to when they stand up. It would still cost 1 AP to stand up, but no more than that.

Discussion ("Stand Up" Revisited)

That isn't terrible. Hmm. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:11, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Hmmm... --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:32, 1 September 2009 (BST)

seems familiar, though... --WanYao 15:02, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Yes, seems dupish. BTW, it nerfs ?rise tactics -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:37 1 September 2009 (BST)

Getting a bit hazy here, but headshot currently punishes newbs much more than experienced zombies. This would seem to even that out a bit, whilst still slowing down zombies, newbs would get more ap's to use between each headshot. Hmm. Rise things an issue, but saying that I never really knew if Kevan thought it was a viable tactic or not. Hmm.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:38, 1 September 2009 (BST)

I remember at least one conversation on this and I am pretty sure it got shot down by both sides. If I remeber right a lot of survivors didn't like the idea of zombies being able to wait a few hours and standing up for "no penalty" while the hardcore zombie mob screamed "don't you nerf mah ?rise" Me, I would be all for it. --Honestmistake 16:54, 1 September 2009 (BST)

I don't really see a problem with it at the moment, although one may be revealed later; the same AP cost still applies. Not that I'm against nerfing ?risers, but how exactly does this do so? I don't see anything that stops them from continuing to spam get-up commands until they IP. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:31, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Once you run out of AP, you can no longer stand. This shifts the AP cost to beforehand.

For example: Zombie A is in a seige. He has 5AP left. He is knocked to zero hp, falls down. Currently, using ?rise, he'll isntantly stand up, going down to -15AP (assuming he's headshot without Ankle Grab). Even though his AP is now below 0, he's still standing, and needs to be killed again. With this addition, he's killed, and drops to the floor. He loses the AP at this point, reducing him to -10. He can now perform no actions until he reaches 1AP. This includes standing with ?rise. So, he cannot stand up, and only needs to die once.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:37, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Sounds like an improvement to me. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:39, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Alright, so what do you think, guys? Worth submitting to actual suggestions? - Foxtrot 22:46, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Probably, but prepare for it to be spammed by the papas. I doubt they'll be fond of it.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:51, 1 September 2009 (BST)

---

Systemic Infection

Timestamp: Devorac 10:03, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Type: Infection buff

Scope: Infections

Description: Alright, Something I noticed recently is that a lot of people are unhappy with infections and feel that they are underpowered. This suggestion hopefully has at least a new view on rectifying that. (hopefully) I've always thought of the infection caused by a zombies infectious bite as a standard infection, brutal and terrible but a standard infection none the less. So if you get bitten by a zombie and get infected, there would be a cumulative chance of the infection going systemic which would have a myriad of bad effects on the host. This should hopefully keep survivors a little bit more on their toes when around infectious zombies, as well as giving the infection a neat little buff. Here's the way it works, Every action the survivor takes while infected will now have a 2% (maybe more maybe less depending on feedback) cumulative chance of going systemic. Systemic infections are meant to only really occur when a survivors doesn't have a FAK on his/her person ('cause if they had one they would have used it by now) and as such are meant to generate a far greater sense of desperation. Here's the comparison between the two, Standard infection 1HP lost per active action Systemic infection 2HP lost per active action -10% Firearms accuracy -1 Melee damage All search odds reduced by 1% NOTICE: all of the systemic effects are completely open to discussion Now curing a standard infection is shockingly simple, either find a hospital and FAK yourself, or wait around for the first none too bright civilian who has never seen a medkit before to patch you up, this process make the standard infections already meager effects dwindle into nigh nothingness. Now A systemic infection is a bit harder to cure but not much, If you or the person healing you does not have first aid then the first heal will restore 5HP and remove the systemic part of the systemic infection leaving you with a standard infection, one more FAK and POOF, good as new. However if you or your healer does have first aid then it is exactly the same as a regular infection, one FAK and you are all better. Keep in mind it was rather late when I wrote this so I may have left something important out.

Discussion (Systemic Infection)

This hurts no one but newbies (ie. those who don't have the capacity to freerun into the nearest hospital and get a FAK) and, in the other alternative scenario, promotes sitting around until someone else heals you. No more suggestions that promote inactivity, please. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:11, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Good thinking, but unfortunately bites are already very powerful. Buff infections and bite pretty much becomes a zombies ultimate attack. I'm not a big fan of mutiple penalties to the player - it's really one of the thing that ruined Fallout 3 and Oblivion for me - eat a potion and you get 1 buff and 6 penalties. - Foxtrot 12:32, 1 September 2009 (BST)

I don't agree with Foxtrot: bites aren't "very powerful" at all. Nor would this be a an uber attack at 2% incidence; it'd still not be worth going out of my way to infect people just for a tiny chance of this happening. I do agree with DDR: hurts newbies and induces sitting around. --WanYao 13:26, 1 September 2009 (BST)

From the "Frequently Suggested" page: Both improvements to damage ratings and the addition of various status ailments have been suggested for the zombie's bite attack. Truth is, the zombie's bite already has four basic benefits to any zombie using it in its maxed-out form:

  1. It does 4 damage.
  2. The zombie gains 4 XP.
  3. The zombie gains 4 HP.
  4. The target becomes infected.

Foxtrot 16:05, 1 September 2009 (BST)

I see your point, deleting shortly. -Devorac 17:39, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Suggestion:20090321 Multiple Infection Strains was/is a minor buff to Infection, and even then there were people who thought it too much. The Kill votes (and "dupe" vote) are good(ish) reasons why not to do this. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:50, 1 September 2009 (BST)

---

Survivor Rescue

Timestamp: Goudy 01:45, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Type: New Military Skill

Scope: Survivors

Description: Sleeping outside due to no AP is something no survivor wants to do. With this skill survivors are able to carry other survivors that are outside of course with a penalty of needing about 2 or 3 AP to move around while carrying them. If the survivor is logged in then he would reject the option of being saved. This could help newbies that find themselves outside with no AP. Of course the person saving would gain some XP

Discussion (Survivor Rescue)

This is one hell of a dupe. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:11, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Fireman's carry made it into peer reviewed as I recall, so first DON'T FIX WHAT ISN'T BROKEN DAMNIT!. And second No leading people around, really. What's to stop a group of pkers from ripping people out of safe houses at 5 AP a person? (1 to pick up + 3 Move + 1 to put down) I'm pretty sure that the thought of throwing living people out of buildings for 5 AP is making every zerger within a mile salivate. Getting XP for it makes zero sense example. Begin example... *Huff, puff, drag* *gains enough XP for a level* Hey! Now that I've carried joe bob in circles for six hours on my back I can do surgery! Really, that makes no sense. -Devorac 02:26, 1 September 2009 (BST)

well maybe for bodybuilding --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:27, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Devorac said:

What's to stop a group of pkers from ripping people out of safe houses at 5 AP a person?

It would be quite simple to only allow survivors to drag in, in the same way that zombies can only drag out -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:34 1 September 2009 (BST)

Please read the documentation before operating the machine, i.e. freq suggested and dos and don'ts--WanYao 02:55, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Well ok i see why it is a bad idea now; I've seen it in some movies in which Character faints and when he/she wakes up she is inside a building or somewhere save and thought it'd be cool to see here. Of course i know this game is no movie. Goudy 03:16, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Combat revived zombies often "sleep outside" so that they wake up un-dead, and feed the horde at the same time. It would be annoying to be carried inside in these situations. Such a suggestion at the very least would require the "dragee" to be able to opt out of being dragged inside -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:34 1 September 2009 (BST)

I hate to use this term, but it's true: this is way too abuseable. Maybe if it was like Boxy suggested, a skill that allows survivors to drag other survivors into a building. Foxtrot 12:36, 1 September 2009 (BST)

If it only allows you to drag someone into a building then it is a complete dupe of Firemans carry, which did make it to peer reviewed.-Devorac 17:42, 1 September 2009 (BST)

---

Catacombs in Cemeteries

Timestamp: Brain Flakes 20:53, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Type: Building change

Scope: Cemeteries

Description: Since you can enter in exit buildings, you should be able to enter and exit Cemeteries. The outdoor description should remain the same, but the indoor description should read, You are underneath ____ Cemetery in the catacombs. Since catacombs are underground, you cannot find items in them or Free Run from them. Catacombs have no doors.Catacombs could be the safe point for Zombies they could have a breather while they are looking to be revived if they were players or were infected also dead bodies could be found in catacombs dead bodies= more zombies hense a more difficult level for the survivors

Discussion (Catacombs in Cemeteries)

Need more info here. What do catacombs do? Why would anyone use them? etc.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:30, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Pointless extra hiding place for survivors.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:33, 31 August 2009 (BST)

I'm not sure what the author was intending...he appears to want some new flavor text. --Brainguard 21:48, 31 August 2009 (BST)

What?"also dead bodies could be found in catacombs dead bodies= more zombies hense a more difficult level for the survivors": You know, zombies are players too, right?--Orange Talk 00:02, 1 September 2009 (BST)

I think this guy was a newbie, but you could interpret that to mean that new zombies spawn in the catacombs. --Brainguard 01:38, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Sometimes think it would be nice to have a few hundred rambling NPC zombies wandering malton with no directive, But most of those times I've been sniffing glue. -Devorac 02:46, 1 September 2009 (BST)

This is Malton, not Paris... Doesn't fit the "story", really, imo --WanYao 02:56, 1 September 2009 (BST)

If you suggested crypts with search rates for shovels in them, (and shovels as a new pointless flavor melee weapon)... In any case, spending time around here before posting's probably a good idea. Just so you can get the ins and outs of the whole game/suggestions thing. RinKou 07:11, 1 September 2009 (BST)

---

Stabilization

Timestamp: --Johnny Yossarian 02:29, 29 August 2009 (BST)

Type: Survivor skill

Scope: People over level ten w/ 'doctor' tree

Description: Using whatever is handy, you can now stabilize your infections for 5 AP, ending damage after 25-30 turns. Basically, this would allow infections only half of their normal lifespan, depending on whether or not you have Bodybuilding. You stabilize an infection so that, while it still does normal damage (1 hp per turn) after 25-30 turns it will end completely instead of hounding you till death. So no: If you're already low on HP this won't help you very much, but if a zombie infects you and doesn't hurt you any further, this is an quick fix, but at a cost: First of all, it costs 5 AP to use: Definitely not as easy to use as a FAK, and plus you're still damaged for 25-30 turns. Second ,(and third), you need the full doctor tree of First Aid, Surgery, and Diagnosis: And, you have to be at least level 10. I was considering putting this under Zombie Hunter skills, but it seemed to fit better here. You also CANNOT use this skill on others, only yourself. Flavor: (after stabilizing) You halt the spread of your infection, but it still hurts badly. After 12-15 turns: Your infection is starting to ache a little less now. After 25-30 turns: Your infection has been completely stabilized. How does it sound? Worth a real suggestion?

Discussion (Stabilization)

No. Because for half, even a third of the AP you spend before the infection cures, you could find the nearest Hospital, search, and heal yourself. If you added a 10 hour cap for the infection to cure as well as the 30ap, it could work, but personally I think 25-30ap is way too much. That's 30HP before it even fixes itself. Most people get revived with 30HP and an infection, what then? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:43, 29 August 2009 (BST)

No. You can use 4 AP searching for a FAK and 1 AP to use it. You gain 5 HP and you cure your infection, 15 HP if you are in a powered hospital. Your suggestion is WAY underpowered. No one would use 5 AP just for getting their infection "Stabilized", and losing 30HP. Searching for a FAK

• 10 turns for searching -10AP -10HP
• 1 turn to use it -1AP +10HP
• Something else -39AP

60HP

Using your skill

• 1 turn to use -5AP
• Something else -45AP -30HP

30HP --Orange Talk 02:46, 29 August 2009 (BST)

Actually, the "normal lifespan" of infection is UNTIL CURED. So if you get infected and then die (via the infection or not) then get revived, your STILL infected. In fact, your infected while as a zombie, you just don't take damage. Your also forgetting that most players will heal each other for the XP. You don't get XP for curing an infection, but if your infected that probably means your down 4 HP so someone WOULD get the 5 XP for healing you (and curing your infection at the same time).--Pesatyel 04:43, 29 August 2009 (BST)

Sorry, but it's a no from me. I think this is a pretty useless idea - if you are infected, you are going to have taken a fair bit of damage anyway (from the zombie that infected you). Even with this, 30 HP is most probably still going to be enough damage to kill you, and even if not, doesn't this go against the point of an infection, a typical zombie one especially? It just wears off over time? Yeah, it's a no from me, but thanks for taking the time to suggest. - Foxtrot 18:57, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Infection is so feeble as it stands. Stop trying to nerf something that that is cured with a few AP's worth of searching and one to apply the FAK. --WanYao 21:16, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Im most likely to be infected after Ive just been revived. At this point my health is at 30hp anyway. As such stablilisation will do nothing to save me. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:51, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Mm. As noted, it's a lot more efficient to use a FAK. For this to be a viable tactic, infection'd have to be only surgery-removable or something. Which is a suggestion that'll get shot down pretty quickly anyway, so. Thanks for putting some thought into it, though. RinKou 07:14, 1 September 2009 (BST)

---

Hunger strikes

Timestamp: Kamikazie-Bunny 15:22, 28 August 2009 (BST)

Type: Item & Effect

Scope: All Players

Description: Oh for the woe of a box of shreddies! All players For every 100AP a player spends they gain a level of hunger, each level of hunger removes 5HP from their maximum HP. There are 4 levels of hunger: 1 - Slightly hungry (Max HP = 45/55) 2 - Hungry (Max HP = 40/50) 3 - Very Hungry (Max HP = 35/45) 4 - Starving (Max HP = 30/40) Hunger level appears beneath your name/HP/XP/AP in the form "You are {Hunger level}." only if you have a hunger level. Your hunger level is reduced back to 0 if you are killed/die/revived in either zombie or survivor form, the exception being if you are killed as a zombie by a zombie. Survivors Survivors can reduce their hunger level to 0 by eating 'Canned Food'. 'Canned Food' (*enc 2%) can be found in the following buildings: Malls - Malls will also have a new area to search called 'food court' if the survivor has the shopping skill. Mansions - Kitchens Stadiums - Snack Stalls Fort storehouses Cinema - Snack stalls Hotels - Restaurant Pubs - Pub Lunch Schools - Canteens Zombies Zombies can reduce their hunger by 1 level by biting a survivor. If the zombie has digestion their hunger level is reduced to 0.

Discussion (Hunger strikes)

No.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:25, 28 August 2009 (BST)

Care to elaborate? Also just realised zombies can avoid hunger by killing each other, will try correct this. --Kamikazie-Bunny 15:26, 28 August 2009 (BST)

No, I think what I said covers this adequately.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:08, 28 August 2009 (BST)

Yeah, make Malton even more of a living hell for new zombies. That'll totally fly. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 15:53, 28 August 2009 (BST)

Actually, its easier for zombies to ease hunger than survivors. --Brainguard 16:03, 28 August 2009 (BST)

While I agree in part about how this will make it harder for new zombies the main argument for new zombies having difficulties is they die on a daily basis and have to stand up (which negates this) and the effort taken to get through barricades. This would only affect a new (or any) zombie after they have been active for 100 AP (two days) without dying by survivor hands which is (IME) quite rare. --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:07, 28 August 2009 (BST)

Uh-huh. It's really easy with our beloved RNG for new zombies to A) even get to targets in the first place and then B) make them use their crappy 10%/20% bite attack to relieve hunger. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 16:25, 28 August 2009 (BST)

I know the RNG can be a bitch but bites are actually best for gaining XP and causing damage if the Zombie only has 1 or 2 zombie combat skills... --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:38, 28 August 2009 (BST)

Better than my old idea. Though there should also be a Thirst rating that affects maximum AP (zombies would not be affected) Here's my idea for thirst-related items:

There would be a new Mall store called a "Food Court".

• Water Heater - Factories, Power Stations, Mall Hardware Stores, and Fort Storehouses. Can be installed in buildings, only works in powered buildings. In a watered building, survivors have the options to "Drink Water" (cures Thrist), "Fill Canteen" (fills 1 of the user's Canteens) and "Wash Clothes" (removes blood and fuel form clothes). Can be attacked, and has these damage levels: 'dented', 'battered', 'damaged', 'leaking', and destroyed.
• Canteen - Fire Departments, Warehouses, Mall Sports Stores, Fort Storehouses. Appears as either "Canteen (Full)" or "Canteen (Empty)". If you use a full Canteen, it cures thirst but empties the Canteen (can be filled fo 1AP in powered buildings with Water Heater).
• Fast Food - Cinema, Bar (Pub), Mall Food Court, Hotel, Fort Barracks. Cures Hunger, but, due to the diuretic nature of soda and grease of fast food, has a 50% chance of causing Thirst.

--Brainguard 16:59, 28 August 2009 (BST)

It's a good idea, but again, not for Urban Dead. A more realistic zombie sim, probably, but as far as this game is concerned, adding this would completely change the game. RinKou 16:07, 28 August 2009 (BST)

I know it would be a big change however I'm not sure any of us know what kind of game Kevin wants urbandead to develop into. If the 'realism' isn't going to be advanced then I agree this shouldn't be added. However I hope that if this gets suggested you vote keep if you still believe this is a good idea so that Kevin is more likely to notice it if this is the direction he wants the game to head. --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:16, 28 August 2009 (BST)

It's not actually a bad suggestion, as far as hunger suggestions go, but it simply isn't suited to Urbandead. If I wanted to deal with this sort of thing then I would go and play The Sims.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:12, 28 August 2009 (BST)

lol nice. Yeh an while we're at it we can get jobs and worry about our hygiene and go to the bathroom, yadda yadda. And the sims have zombies, too. The perfect criticism HA!--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 18:29, 28 August 2009 (BST)

The Sims - Zombie Apocalypse... Now THAT I would like, give the sims guns and the ability to barricade, throw in the compulsory zombies and tell me that's not a game you'd play. --Kamikazie-Bunny 18:48, 28 August 2009 (BST)

I'm going to stay neutral on this because I'm in a good mood... This idea has been suggested many times in different ways, I have no qualms with food and such but it, in all suggestions, makes certain areas death zones and others zombie-free... Why don't we just put in some money for people to spend at Mczeds? XD --Gat 19:31, 28 August 2009 (BST)

No. Adding a hunger meter hasn't worked for any game, ever, (The Sims and its various ripoffs being exempt) and this is no exception. Too many new items would be implemented for something that will not be fun, innovative, or more than anything but an annoyance. The realism argument makes no sense either: If this were a realistic game, every police department would have long since ran out of guns and ammo, every FAK would have been consumed, and zombies wouldn't exist in the first place! --Johnny Yossarian 01:24, 29 August 2009 (BST)

There is one thing to consider that hasn't been brought up. Zombies with Digestion can feed on corpses.--Pesatyel 04:33, 29 August 2009 (BST)

Yes, but only if the zombie hunger aspect goes away.--Maps 07:50, 29 August 2009 (BST)

I'm sorry, but this is a game. This really isn't fun, I don't want to crippled by starvation. - Foxtrot 19:14, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Ugh. --WanYao 21:17, 30 August 2009 (BST)

I like the idea, but most other people don't. How about making it flavour, like clothing? That would allow people who don't want to spend time with it to ignore it, but allowing serious roleplayers to have to worry about being hungry. User:Armpit_Odor/sig 23:06, 30 August 2009 (BST)

---

Beta-Ville! (Thats not the sanctioned title, just something I'm kicking around the office in my head)

Timestamp: Devorac 06:22, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Type: New Testing City (NTC)

Scope: All Enormous Suggestions

Description: How many times have you seen a suggestion that has amazing potential, that is amazing potential to either be amazingly cool, or to break the system in a truly amazing fashion, but the catch is you have no idea until the suggestion is implemented what will happen! Now most of the time you can make an informed hypothesis about the probable effect of a particular change, and on little things you will be correct almost all of the time. For instance The "Just a Knife" suggestion, it only changed the name of a thing, this means that the effect will be near nil. Now let's say we are to consider the Augmented fear that's under discussion now, that one can pan out in a great number of ways some good, some bad, some that really don't make much difference and only addd complication. Now instead of being forced to either ditch it completely or implement it, why not create a city where large scale suggestion could be tested without breaking any of the other burbs? In this new testing city (Reffered to as NTC from here on) Kevan -or a particularly motivated team sanctioned by kevan- could implement new suggestions in full scale tests without hurting malton. This allows for suggestions to be refined further than they could be before by putting them under live-fire conditions, the residents of the NTC should probably mostly be suggesters themselves (if you know how to make something then you'll probably be better at ripping it to shreds as well) to help stress testing and so that they can provide experienced, intelligent *Eyes several people* feedback. I know every experienced Suggester here has/had something they would love to get testing for, but if we decided to test everything then the coding alone would be more demanding than mass genocide. So there would have to be a set of fairly rigorous conditions first, it would have to be of sufficient scope that beta-testing in the NTC would be worthwhile, and it would have to be passed by a sufficient majority of people willing to test it -willing to test, way different from voting keep. I would vote kill on most of the SMG suggestions i've seen, but there are a few i'd like to test out the intricacies of- so that if it is implemented there will be people to use it and provide sufficient feedback. Alright, your thoughts, wants, etc

Discussion (Beta-Ville! (Thats not the sanctioned title, just something I'm kicking around the office in my head))

Sounds good to me! Of course I wouldn't have to do any of the coding for it or pay for the servers but hell yes I'll show up and test stuff.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 07:54, 27 August 2009 (BST)

I like it, but it's a little idealistic, this could potentially give Kevan hours and hours of work with little payoff... In the end, Kevan knows what he will want to implement, and that's all that matters. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 08:06, 27 August 2009 (BST)

It would be a team sanctioned by Kevan. That way, they could show him what worked and what didn't. --Brainguard 15:06, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Finally the idiot trenchie can see that his suggestions are retarded, the whiny zombie can see how stupid it is to exterminate survivors, and the suggestion page aristocrats can be unthroned. --Brainguard 15:05, 27 August 2009 (BST)

It'd probably suffer from the same problems as Boringwood and Moronville - lack of participants. Sure, we might get a few hundred, but that's hardly representative of the ~25,000 in Malton. Also, I'd bet that certain players would stop using this NTC if something undesirable (to them) were to be implemented there. Well, if a ZL suggestion were implemented, it'd be a ghost town in no time. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 15:29, 27 August 2009 (BST)

There's plenty of precedent for changing the rules mid-game in Monroeville, so this is effectively a dupe of in-game. All that's required is for Kevan to reopen the city and start tweaking the rules to try various options. It would, of course, be slow going, as you'd want to test each change individually and give each of them a while to show their effect before implementing another, but it'd be worth it, I think.--Necrofeelinya 15:51, 27 August 2009 (BST)

You could make it only the size of one or two 'burbs so that it wouldn't be hard to code. It would have a Fort, a Mall, some typical buildings and TRPs, and an "Army testing ground" (empty blocks where new weapons could be found and tested). --Brainguard 00:10, 28 August 2009 (BST)

Good idea, that both makes it so you don't have to code as much, plus you don't have to have as many people to run effective tests. If malton is 10 by 10 then how about 3 by 3, or 4 by 4?-Devorac 00:48, 28 August 2009 (BST)

I'm thinking it wouldn't just be the coders playing - anyone could join, too. The TRPs and Mall would be to test the effect on full-scale seiges. --Brainguard 03:12, 28 August 2009 (BST)

Remember:Too much better than climaxville!!..Betaville is the Fictional City of another game...try to change ir later...And sound ok for ...Is only a city for test of people can enter?---(x)Alvaromesa^{Talk | Bacardi |MPD | Malton Public Radio} 04:14, 28 August 2009 (BST)

People can enter. And here's my idea for the "Army Testing Complex", which would be used to test prototype items:

Testing Ground	Testing Ground	Testing Ground	Testing Ground	'Testing Ground
Testing Ground	Testing Ground	Testing Ground	Testing Ground	'Testing Ground
Shooting Range	Shooting Range	Shooting Range	Shooting Range	Shooting Range
Silo	Guard Tower	Road	Hangar	Secret Research Facility

• Testing Ground - empty blocks
• Shooting Range - tall buildings for testing sniper-related suggestions
• Silo - where prototype weapons could be found
• Guard Tower - PD, just for flavor
• Hangar - where new vehicles could be found
• Secret Reaseach Facility - where new medical and NT items culd be found

New items would first only be available in the Testing Complex. Once proven to be bug-free, they would be tested in the rest of Beta-Ville for balance. --Brainguard 16:19, 28 August 2009 (BST)

Good idea in theory but I don't see it as practical. --Kamikazie-Bunny 15:37, 28 August 2009 (BST)

Okay the idea of special buildings for the items, I don't like at all. The items should be found 'as they would be naturally found if implemented in malton.' That gives you a bit more accurate idea of how this will work, the point is not for this to be flooded with trenchies who want to test automatic shotguns, but for suggestions to beta tested on a small scale world that replicates malton. If the NTC is going to be 4-by-4 then there should be two forts and two malls (bit unbalanced, but we would need at least one that survivors can access at all times for testing) so if your SMG is found in an armory you go grab it from an armory not from a silo. If your Black powder rifle is found in a museum THEN IT IS FOUND IN A MUSEUM, and not in strange facilities, Etc. Zombies who beta should have the opportunity to start with one of the new zombie skills, survivors should have the opportunity to start with a new item. All big changes (hunger/fear/motorcycles/mutant space goats) would be implemented on one particular quadrant. This prevents weird feedbacks between different ideas, allowing you to test multiple ideas at the same time, just in different areas allowing you to preserve the purity of your tests. -Devorac 20:37, 28 August 2009 (BST)

Ok, get rid of the special buildings for items. The tesing complex would just be a TRP. There would be no fort below it. The resources of the buildings in it:

• Shooting Range - ammo and flak jackets.
• Silo - same items as Fort Storehouse.
• Guard Tower - same items as Fort Barracks.
• Hanger - same items as Fort Vehicle Depot.
• Secret Research Facility - same items as NecroTech.

--Brainguard 02:33, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Betaville sounds fun.--Maps 20:41, 28 August 2009 (BST)

Here's an idea for the news update for Betaville: The military has set up a new live-fire training and testing facility and is looking for soldiers, citizens, and scientists to staff it (Signup link for survivors). NecroTech has been collecting specimens to fill the facility (Signup link for zombies). There be two seperate signup pages, one for survivors and one for humans. --Brainguard 02:33, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Meh, sorry, no - it's not something I see being public. Gives Urban Dead too much of an open-source feel. Perhaps if it was only accessable by members invited specifically by Kevan, but otherwise, no, sorry. - Foxtrot 19:23, 30 August 2009 (BST)

As long as the amounts of survivors and zombies are limited to keep people from filling it with thousands upon thousands of characters. User:Armpit_Odor/sig 23:14, 30 August 2009 (BST)

brainguard, NO. Down, Stay would you kindly?. There would not be a public opening, the public might not want to play in a burb with ever changing rules and items, where you can't be sure that anything will be at all the same as the second before. The opening would be on a wiki page, open to all willing beta testers who know full well what they are getting themselves into. And there would be a cap on the number of people able to join total. -Devorac 05:25, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Alright then, man. This is a good idea. If Kevan doesn't take this up, I could always have a look at programming a city for us (I can't make any promises though). - Foxtrot 12:16, 31 August 2009 (BST)

-both eyebrows raise- I'm impressed, if you could do that then most of us suggesters would be in your debt. -Devorac 02:51, 1 September 2009 (BST)

---

Climaxville

Timestamp: BlueSpurt 00:43, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Type: New city.

Scope: Cool people.

Description: So we all know that Malton sucks balls. It's boring and everything is destroyed. Therefore, I say we open a new city - Climaxville. The city would be administrated by DanceDanceRevolution, Boxy and Devorac and that Kevan guy or whatever he's called would pay for the servers and shit. This way, when a good suggestion comes along, the guys can like, put it in their city right away and make the city awesome and whatso. The city would hold home to many cool and unique places including: the Wikipedia Building, Burger King and Bill Cosby's House. So, what do you think? Moved this to Developing Suggestions. I feel it must ripen before advancing any further in it's path to glory.*

Discussion (Climaxville)

Your basis is bad, and you should feel bad. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:53, 27 August 2009 (BST)

While I appreciate being made administrator of a new city, I don't think that you should give that to someone who joined the wikipedia group less than a month ago. Also I would like to say, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING??!

• Creation of a new area as a testing grounds for new ideas= awesome idea one that I will have to champion of your just going to be sarcastic.

• You being bitter because the majority of your ideas have died in flames= understandable.

• You doing something stupid to get back at people= Not the best maneuver, it not only makes you look like a dick but it also makes people equate "new testing city" with that sarcastic idea that a bitter suggester made.

Think hard, roll with the punches, and use developing suggestions with either the purpose of providing pleasure or to add constructive input. -Devorac 01:29, 27 August 2009 (BST)

RE: I'm sorry? I'm not just going to be sarcastic, I don't understand what's up with everybody. It's not an attack at anyone...

Meh, fuck off you vandalizing troll; no one gives a shit about the fact that you're getting butthurt because your suggestion sucked. Try either learning to take criticism or making suggestions that don't suck in the future. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:36, 27 August 2009 (BST)

RE: I really don't care about suggestions I make. I can take criticism, what has that got to do with anything? Will someone fucking explain what I've done wrong? This was supposed to be a humorous suggestion...

Yeah, it was "humorous" until you started pissing all over the suggestions system with it, breaking anti-spam rules, and trying to falsify evidence to cover it up. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:29, 28 August 2009 (BST)

What did you do wrong? This area is not FOR humorous suggestions. Also, if YOU don't "care about your suggestions", why should we? And if we don't why are you wasting everyone's time (not to mention the limited space on this page) with stuff no one will care about?--Pesatyel 05:59, 28 August 2009 (BST)

Wow. I'm trying to decide whether or not this is the worst "new city" suggestions I've ever read.--Pesatyel 04:47, 27 August 2009 (BST)

I thought that this was a humorous suggestion...-- Uberursa^{this bear wants honey} 06:04, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Please not let the children made more suggestion...next time we are going to fight zombie Pokemons--(x)Alvaromesa^{Talk | Bacardi |MPD | Malton Public Radio} 04:19, 28 August 2009 (BST)

You lost me at "the guys can like,". --Kamikazie-Bunny 15:39, 28 August 2009 (BST)

This would be the ONLY TIME IN MY FUCKING LIFE when I would vote SPAM. --Brainguard 01:45, 1 September 2009 (BST)

Meh, if it came up I'd still just vote kill, gotta stick to your guns. (not to mention your axes, knives, flares, Etc. -Devorac 02:41, 1 September 2009 (BST)

---

Head Desk

Timestamp: --Papa Johnny 15:28, 26 August 2009 (BST)

Type: Adding important realism to the game

Scope: Survivors.

Description: Survivors now get a button labeled "Head Desk." This button only appears indoors. Upon clicking it, the action will cause 1 damage to the player, display "You deliberately hit your head onto a desk for 1 damage," and other players will see "X hit his head onto a desk." This would be an important addition to the game and clearly must have been left out by mistake. Also, you cannot die by damage caused by using this. This action would cost 1 ap and would not be affected by infection.

Discussion (Head Desk)

Game balancing suggestion ♥ Moonie ^{Talk Testimonials} 15:30, 26 August 2009 (BST)

If you were fucking a sparkly vampire, you would not need this. --dgw 15:33, 26 August 2009 (BST)

[1]..... --Papa Johnny 15:35, 26 August 2009 (BST)

Exactly! --dgw 15:36, 26 August 2009 (BST)

You would once you realized due to the lack of pumping blood vampires can't "get it up" ♥ Moonie ^{Talk Testimonials} 15:39, 26 August 2009 (BST)

Unfounded assumptions about vampire anatomy, all the vampires I've known have been able to get it up. --dgw 15:43, 26 August 2009 (BST)

It would seem you have been had then by men (not real vampires) taking advantage of your unhealthy teen obsession with twilight, i'm sorry :( ♥ Moonie ^{Talk Testimonials} 15:45, 26 August 2009 (BST)

I'm not actually obsessed with it. However, if you can enjoy a nice hard, sparkly, cold cock and then tell me its owner is not a vampire, you're blinded by dislike for Twilight and thus in denial that the guy you're fucking is a vampire. --dgw 15:50, 26 August 2009 (BST)

Glitter and ice packs... ♥ Moonie ^{Talk Testimonials} 15:53, 26 August 2009 (BST)

Meh. If the sex is good, I'm not going to nitpick over whether or not the guy's really a vampire. --dgw 15:56, 26 August 2009 (BST)

*Preorders The Vamp* --Fiffy ^{404 ♥ OBR ♥ RRF} 16:09, 26 August 2009 (BST)

I also approve of this suggestion. --Fiffy ^{404 ♥ OBR ♥ RRF} 15:52, 26 August 2009 (BST)

What's the AP cost on this? .1? Besides that missing piece of information, this suggestion is A++++ would vote strong keep again. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 16:00, 26 August 2009 (BST)

Added 1 ap cost and note about infection to prevent death culting abuse. --Papa Johnny 16:01, 26 August 2009 (BST)

Suggestion upgraded to A++++++ would vote strong keep every time thanks to abuse limitations. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 16:03, 26 August 2009 (BST)

You are obviously taking the piss, however take away the damage and it would add a little harmless humour to the game so Meh :) --Honestmistake 17:01, 26 August 2009 (BST)

The damage was actually included to try and keep people from spamming it constantly and make them think twice before doing it 49 times. --Papa Johnny 17:12, 26 August 2009 (BST)

DUPE! Oh god what a dupe. I will dupe the flavor out of this duping dupe. Oh gawd oh gawd dupe dupe dupe...

oh god.

dupe--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 17:20, 26 August 2009 (BST)

Wrong suggestion. --Papa Johnny 17:23, 26 August 2009 (BST)

Just for a second assuming you are serious I would have to point out how easy this would make leveling for zergers who normally use whack n Fak to advance. --Honestmistake 17:47, 26 August 2009 (BST)

They would hit each their characters and FAK them anyways to level up, this doesnt change anything, they would X attacked Y then Y attacked X, now they just have X and healing X...perhaps there is a way to prevent XP from the FAK process if you head desked. Other then that is is balanced well to avoid Death Cultists abuse and would add much needed humor to the game. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

22:57, 26 August 2009 (BST)

Meh, it's not abuseable enough for leveling for it to be a concern in my book given FAK find rates. --Papa Johnny 23:53, 26 August 2009 (BST)

I support this suggestion unequivocally, as per Moonie. Now as for the zerg-levelling thing... If you made it a function of a skill you have to buy, then it'd be "balanced". Because it'd be the same as buying a couple of gun skills and going nuts. Question is, what skill? Headshot? Makes sense, but there are some characters who never buy Headshot (I have an alt or two like that) so it kinda shafts that RP choice :\ Any other ideas? --WanYao 00:39, 27 August 2009 (BST)

I think I've got it: Memories of Life! :D --WanYao 00:40, 27 August 2009 (BST)

lol!!! I like this idea as it would give me somethign to do when I want to waste AP :D --Gat 01:38, 27 August 2009 (BST)

It's a great suggestion, but be sure to submit it to Humorous Suggestions instead of the normal system. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:37, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Flavor and realism, not humorous. It's not nearly ridiculous enough to be humorous. --Papa Johnny 05:30, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Agreed. This is a real suggestion. --WanYao 03:33, 28 August 2009 (BST)

Okay if we're talking for reals I would spam this.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 18:38, 28 August 2009 (BST)

Giles, get that pole out of your ass, why are you always so pessimistic??? :P --Gat 19:46, 28 August 2009 (BST)

Because there's a pole in my ass.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:33, 29 August 2009 (BST)

lol ok, case settled then :D --Gat 19:33, 29 August 2009 (BST)

---

A Quick Nap

Timestamp: Villard 18:03, 25 August 2009 (BST) Villard

Type: Game Change

Scope: Survivors, mainly new players

Description: The basic idea is simple. At low levels, most survivors don't have an easy source of healing. They find it hard to get into hospitals, and use up their little FAKS very quickly because they aren't any good with them. An infection is a slow death sentence for them. I was thinking of allowing survivors a "rest" option, that would essentially be converting your AP into HP. I was thinking 5 AP for 5 HP, though the rate could easily be bumped higher. Higher level players have much more useful things to with their AP, so this wouldn't change things much for them, except allowing them to get into negative AP for some small gain, but it would really help the lower-leveled ones from slowly trickling down to 0 HP from the various hazards they face, or get back up to full after reviving.

Discussion (A Quick Nap)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 2 September 2009 at 10:33 (BST)

Every newbie survivor quickly learns to keep at least one FAK around to cure infections. If they fail that there are other options including finding a hospital, searching and hoping the RNG is feeling nice. Otherwise just sit tight in a safehouse and hope another survivor heals you rather than wasting your own AP and HP. If you don't use AP, the infection is no threat. So even if you're in the nasty spot of being without a FAK, they are plenty of viable alternatives already. Infection is weak enough without allowing survivors an indefinite way to postpone death by simply trading away their AP for another 5 searches. --  RoosterDragon  19:20, 25 August 2009 (BST)

Surprisingly enough, this isn't a stupid or horrible suggestion; it's just a useless one. At this stage in the game, newbies are about the only characters seriously vulnerable to infections over a long period of time; call your group, metagame, keep a FAK handy, and remember that zombies are players too. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:40, 25 August 2009 (BST)

Making early game easier is a good idea, but, like Lelouch said, it's a bit unnecessary. As far as I can tell, there's a lot of VSB only resource buildings. EHB ones generally only appear in contested suburbs, where new survivors would be killed quickly, infection or not. RinKou 00:35, 26 August 2009 (BST)

As a zombie one of my favorite actions is wearing a newb survivor down to low health and then infecting them, delighting in the knowledge that they will suffer an ignoble death. Please don't take my sunshine away. =) --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:41, 26 August 2009 (BST)

1) It nerfs infection. Yes it sucks that low levels are affect more easily then others but it is not THAT hard to find a FAK or get healing which leads to 2) People will frequently heal each other in order to get easy XP. Granted this suggestion doesn't really affect healing for XP THAT much, the author's reasoning for the suggestion IS already "taken care of" in the game.--Pesatyel 07:04, 26 August 2009 (BST)

You wanna convert AP to HP? Search for some Faks. Ergo, dupe of in-game effect. Kinda. Sorta. ;P But, seriously... --WanYao 10:33, 26 August 2009 (BST)

Oh well, I tried didn't I? That's what developing suggestions is for anyway. I'll be back! Villard

---

Toolbox vs. Heavy Barricades

Timestamp: -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:20 25 August 2009 (BST)

Type: Accuracy change

Scope: Survivors removing barricades over VS

Description: Toolboxes are carried around by dedicated, maintenance orientated survivors, and would contain tools like pribars, hammers, handsaws, etc., that are perfect for removing the tangle of barricade material when the cades are more than VSB, but it's tools arn't very helpful when just levering away lighter cades, which just requires brute strength. The mechanics of this suggestion is that the halving of the melee weapon hit rate when aimed at barricades be removed from toolboxes, just like is currently the case with the crowbar, giving the toolbox a slightly higher hit rate (25% vs. 20%), but once the cades come down to VSB, the bonus is removed from the toolbox.

Discussion (Toolbox vs. Heavy Barricades)

I like this, so long as the crowbar is still alot better than the toolbox.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:17, 25 August 2009 (BST)

It isn't, the crowbar's accuracy against barricades is 20%, with this, the toolbox would have and accuracy of 25%. I don't like it because it encourages the tearing down of barricades from the inside to VSB. While that is not a death sentence, I don't want a death cultist or a griefer coming along and tearing down my barricades when I'm holding off zombies outside of a building. The only use I see for this is to encourage the aforementioned activities because a crowbar does the same job for less encumbrance and a maxed-out survivor can just as easily use a fire axe as a crowbar to tear down barricades, especially most survivors have one on them anyway. -- Uberursa^{this bear wants honey} 19:49, 25 August 2009 (BST)

Then I disapprove. The Crowbar should always be the best weapon for decading. And Uberursa, as far as I can see, the primary purpose of this would be dealing with overcading, from a survivor's perspective.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:12, 25 August 2009 (BST)

I like it. Overbarricading is one of the most annoying things for survivors of all levels. Especially newbs. So let's make the game more fun, give survivors a nice way to bring the cades to VSB and let the good times roll.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:44, 26 August 2009 (BST)

Anything that allows survivors to lower barricade levels also allows survivors to lower barricade levels; beware of griefing potential. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:07, 26 August 2009 (BST)

That's why it's limited to heavily and above barricades, and balanced by being a toolbox with a huge encumbrance. Overbarricading by paranoid survivors (rather than griefers) is annoying to a survivor character trying to keep an area "newbie friendly", because it's almost impossible to do anything about it... I've thought about it, and the best option (hell, make that the only option) would be to jump out a window, and start clawing -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:02 26 August 2009 (BST)

Everyone carries a toolbox anyway. The encumbrance isn't going to dissuade them. Crowbars should always be the best decading weapon for survivors, because that's the point of the crowbar. Make the crowbar better in that barricade bracket, don't make something else better than the crowbar.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:28, 26 August 2009 (BST)

Unfortunately, the axe is "technically" better at debarricading then the crowbar when you get axe profiency. Both are 20% against barricades, so why bother carrying a crowbar too? Oh and, even with the suggestion's limitations, you don't like it?--Pesatyel 07:16, 26 August 2009 (BST)

I would support making the crowbar better or making a skill that allowed a survivor to better use the crowbar and/or fire axe for dealing with over barricading. This is simply for realistic purposes, because a screwdriver isn't going to be as effective as a crowbar when getting rid of things in the way. In other words, a toolbox is meant to build while a crowbar is meant to destroy. -- Uberursa^{this bear wants honey} 20:56, 26 August 2009 (BST)

Maybe he should just [change] it from "toolbox" to "crowbar".--Pesatyel 04:31, 27 August 2009 (BST)

The reason I didn't just buff the crowbar is that I can't see any flavour reason that would fit having a crowbar work better for heavy barricades, but not make it better at completely removing them. Making the toolbox better at removing high cade levels, was the perfect flavour solution (as explained above), and also a way of ensuring that there would be a cost involved in the boost. But the cost (carrying a heavy toolbox) only applied to survivors who weren't already wholly survivor/maintenance orientated. As Yonnua Koponen pointed out above, "everyone carries a toolbox anyway"... this isn't correct. The only people who already carry a toolbox are ones that find them useful. People who maintain suburbs for survivors. PKers and death cultists have very little need for a toolbox as it is, and are much better off filling up on weapons, FAKs, weapons, syringes and more weapons. By making these "anti-survivor" types carry another piece of (damn heavy) equipment that they wouldn't otherwise, it makes it less likely to be used as a griefing tool, as would no doubt happen if crowbars were buffed to any degree nearing what zombies can do with their claws. (btw. I added a word to your post above, please let me know if I got it wrong) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:00 29 August 2009 (BST)

This is the perfect setup for adding a dynamic for countering over-barricading in an interesting way. The intricacies behind the choice of item, flavour and resultant balancing are off the scale awe-inspiring for such a simple change on the face of it. Would strong keep and possibly create socks to strong keep too. --  RoosterDragon  02:29, 29 August 2009 (BST)

No prob. I liked the idea, but I do see a problem with the crowbar being took weak at its "job". I mean it is the ONLY weapon that isn't halved against barricade but even then it is still, technically, inferior to an axe once you get the two skills. Just something that needs to be considered in a suggestion about debarricading. As for the correction to my post...doh!--Pesatyel 04:23, 29 August 2009 (BST)

---

BARRICADE NOTICE

Timestamp: Jmadsen 13:06, 24 August 2009 (BST)

Type: An announcement when you add to/destroy barricades

Scope: Survivors

Description: Simple - when a survivor adds to or destroys barricades, announce it in the building ("Dickwad added to the barricades"). So when people keep telling Dickwad not to cade up to EHB, and then he shoves another #$%& chair in front of the door, the entire building can fill him full of lead and use thier axes on his head like a pinata. That's right - I'm talkng to you, Dickwad!

Discussion (BARRICADE NOTICE)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 2 September 2009 at 07:18 (BST)

It's basically a dupe of in-game. It shows when someone adds to barricades already, but only their first barricade action. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:10, 24 August 2009 (BST) uhm, don't get you. You mean, I barricade...it says something, then as long as I stay in the same place, I can barricade without a notice?

If that's correct, then mine is NOT a dupe, because it doesn't solve the issue I am trying to address. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmadsen (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Yeah, that's what is in the game. Otherwise we'd get too much spam. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:16, 24 August 2009 (BST)

Then lets change this to every time it change level? (Ex. VSB-->HB) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmadsen (talk • contribs) 13:20, 24 August 2009.

Probably still a bit much. I'd just go for the one change from VSB++ to HB. "Some guy strengthened the barricades and made the building unenterable from street level". Addresses your problem without masses of spam. I have good money somebody will turn up a dupe of it though. --  RoosterDragon  13:24, 24 August 2009 (BST)

Sure, that would solve it. I searched about, but didn't find anything similar.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmadsen (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

I'd actually be for that sort of thing. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:43, 24 August 2009 (BST)

You could just have it use the ...and again the game already does with most repetitive actions.(Unless it does that already and I'm just babbling like a moron)-- Uberursa^{this bear wants honey} 20:07, 24 August 2009 (BST)

Suggestion:20070704 Barricade Alerts -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 20:58 24 August 2009 (BST)

Well darn. I mean, yay! *stumbles off* --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:32, 24 August 2009 (BST)

I'm not sure if he's trying to suggest that is a dupe because the suggestion is from Undecided.--Pesatyel 04:43, 25 August 2009 (BST)

Ah, sorry - didn't know about the Undecided list. What does that mean, exactly? Kevan or some group will look at it and make a final decision? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmadsen (talk • contribs) 04:10, August 25, 2009.

Voting here is only a way of organising and improving suggestions. Kevan is the one that makes the final decision on what to put into the game. Being peer reviewed/undecided only makes it more likely that he'll notice it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:10 25 August 2009 (BST)

Undecided basically means a suggestion didn't quite get enough keep votes to make Peer Review. The original idea, as I understand it, was that the "almost made it to PR" type of suggestions went to Undecided so that, later, they could be resurrected and discussed again and/or tinkered with (especially if some significant game change occured). The problem, now, is that suggestion never GO to Undecided anymore. Either they are easily kept or quickly spammed. Or worse, given the ambiguous "dupe" vote (in which if the same word appears in both ideas it is automatically considered a dupe). The reason I even brought it up is that there are people that would say it WAS a dupe, even though it was in Undecided.--Pesatyel 05:42, 25 August 2009 (BST)

Undecided suggestions are eligible for duping, they're workable suggestions that simply didn't get a clear majority (PR) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:58 25 August 2009 (BST)

Then all those suggestion should be moved to Peer Rejected, should they not? How does that work exactly that they are considered "dupeable"?--Pesatyel 07:18, 26 August 2009 (BST)

---

Leg Crunch

Timestamp: Brainiac 08:34, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Type: Zombie Hunter Addition

Scope: Survivors

Description: if your going to hunt a zombie you obviously want to do some major damage in any possible way,even if death doesn't occur a temporary disadvantage to the zombie would be major help. im thinking that if zombies can infect us and slow us down to get us to use a first aid kit we should be able to slow them down to.this skill would add a 20% chance of hitting the zombies leg and cause him to use twice the AP to move and cause half double damage but only with melee weapons.zombies with lurching gait would use 2 AP while others without it would use 4 AP and only way to rid of it would be to spend 6 AP to "fix displaced leg" but maybe lose 2 hp from blood lose. --Brainiac 08:34, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Discussion (Leg Crunch)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 2 September 2009 at 07:21 (BST)

Nooouuuu!! Leave my AP alone!--Maps 08:47, 23 August 2009 (BST)

You only need ask yourself if this would be fun to know its a bad idea. 4AP for movement is not fun!--Honestmistake 10:12, 23 August 2009 (BST)

This suggestion is offensive. 4ap just to move. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:15, 23 August 2009 (BST)

You must have the most comically ill-chosen name on this wiki. --Papa Moloch 13:37, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Ah, if only you knew how truely good I am at Dance Dance Revolution ;) --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:46, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Aww crap. Does this mean that I have to change my username to Football Manager 2009? It's really not catchy. :o( --Papa Moloch 23:18, 25 August 2009 (BST)

It's an interesting concept, but obviously needs to be better implemented. I say get rid of the additional hit percentage (20% is way too high anyway). I also say scrap AP from this suggestion altogether - use HP. You say you want to make this like a surivor version of infectious bite, yet infectious bite doesn't modify AP at all. Name doesn't work either. So here's how I picture this skill working:

Crippling Blow (Player can cripple a dying zombie (those with 12 HP or less) causing them to lose 1 HP per move for 2-5 moves.)

Have a new action button, "Crippling Blow" with two boxes next to it - one for which weapon to use and the other for which zombie. Good luck, hope this makes it to current suggestions and then soon. BlueSpurt 14:02, 23 August 2009 (BST)

No. Zombies already get the short end of the stick on AP-usage. Survivors don't need this overpowered buff, they just need to up the level of their game play. As usual. --WanYao 17:20, 23 August 2009 (BST) And infections are almost meaningless, almost not worth the AP needed to inflict them... and FAKs are cheap and easy to come by... This is the creme-de-la-creme of bad, super-trenchy ideas. --WanYao 17:24, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Your suggestion is broken, useless, and suggestive of someone who is too stupid or lazy to even think about their own ideas before asking others to fix them, and BlueSpurt's idea is just worthless. This suggestion isn't going to work. Take my word for it; it's broken beyond hope of repair. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 17:23, 23 August 2009 (BST) Edit Conflicts! Curse you Yao!

Why? It's a perfect suggestion! Think of these newbies who join the game everyday! Those who choose playing as zombies! They will have to waste amazing amounts of AP just for walking! With this, We'll show them the right way! The SURVIVOR WAY! That would balance the game, making it fair for us, poor survivors! UR AWESUM U DUDE :D! (No, seriously now. There's no fun in playing a game about zombies if no one wants to be a zombie)--Orange Talk 19:26, 23 August 2009 (BST)

This is effectively a quick way to knock down a zombie. While it wouldn't be effective at all in a siege environment, it would be useful in griefing lone, traveling zeds. This suggestion is useless to survivors and painfully annoying to zombies, akin to a bully pushing over a child in a playground. Also, you misspelled "loss." --Uberursa 18:38, 23 August 2009 (BST)

whoa... another noob who thinks that we should make the game urban alive! I'm sorry but this idea is crap, ok, its just crap because zombies are already weaker then survivors in every way, even in areas they should be STRONGER then them in... The only things zombies get are the ability to get up at full health, and not get turned into the enemy if they die... next thing you know we'll start seeing the necro-knife, a weapon that can revive zombies while hurting them for double the EXP -_- I'm pissed at all these survivor ideas now, seriously are you guys not already OPed as it is??? do you NEED to exterminate all forms of zombies? almost every zombie in the stats page is a rotter >_> (rage post out of anger at survivor ideas... --Gat 21:52, 23 August 2009 (BST)

nice to know you guys were so interested and this was my first post!.......i guess name was stupid enough to attract enough people,you all say that zombies should be stronger then i will change to to benefit the zombies. --Brainiac 20:27, 24 August 2009 (BST)

Who said "zombies should be stronger"? Have you even PLAYED one? I have the perfect way for you to test your suggestion. Create a new zombie. Then every time you step into a new square, immediately waste 2 AP. Suggestions like this you have to be reminded that zombies are players too.--Pesatyel 05:08, 25 August 2009 (BST)

i do have a zombie account and yes 2 ap is a pain but isn't that why this is for the zombie hunters? its not just for everyone and my ALT zombie account has lurching gait so its only 1 AP to walk. --Brainiac 22:54, 25 August 2009 (BST)

Being "limited" to Zombie Hunters is irrelevant. It isn't them that need to deal with it. You just said "2 ap is a pain"...so imagine FOUR AP per move. That's more fun?--Pesatyel 07:21, 26 August 2009 (BST)

---

Augmented Fear

Timestamp: GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 00:35, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Type: game change, new skill, skill change

Scope: zombie vs survivor confrontations

Description: Okay this suggestion is big and crazy but as a community we can work out the details. I propose that the element of fear in the game be expanded upon in the following ways: Game change:When a survivor is at 13HP or less, they experience mortal fear. Wild with terror, their fine motor skills diminish and their chance-to-hit for all attacks drops by 10% (or whatever % the community decides is best). Skill change:Zombies who have scent fear and scent death will now have an enhanced ability to smell the mortal fear of their prey. When they use scent death, the positions of survivors with 13HP or less will show up on the scent death map as red asterisks. Only one red asterisk will display per block, regardless of how many dying survivors are at that location. There would be no difference between survivors outside or behind barricades (negotiable). New skill:Survivors can purchase a new skill called "Focused Fear" (or whatever sounds best). It would be a civilian skill under body-building (or a military skill under hand-to-hand combat). It would cost the same as other survivor skills relative to its branch, ie civilian, military, scientific. Focused Fear can only be used when a survivor is at 13HP or less. Focused Fear is a survivor's ability to channel their near-death adrenaline rush to deal more damage with heavy melee weapons. They would deal an extra 2HP of damage (or whatever amount works best - the end result should better than a fire axe but not as good as a pistol) with heavy melee weapons like fire axes, toolboxes, lengths of pipe and baseball bats. Knives and fencing swords would be unnafected. Other weapons are up for debate. They would still have the 10% hit penalty with these weapons, because they are using crazy rage to attack, rather than precision and technique.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 00:35, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Discussion (Augmented Fear)

Okay I realize this suggestion is hardcore and it involves a number of changes, but I think it would add greatly to the gameplay and to the fun of pitting survivors vs. zombies. My general idea is that greatly wounded survivors should feel an additional sense of impending peril. They should feel hunted.

Also, I like the risk/reward of being a constant target with low HP and dealing more damage. Finally, the zombie scent skills are extremely disappointing. Zombies should be granted a better hunting tool for maxing out the scent tree.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:46, 22 August 2009 (BST)

The skill should probably be a zombie hunter skill because a)Science doesn't make sense and we have too many military skills and b)It makes sense that this would be gained over time. Also, when you say "better" do you mean in AP spent per damage or flat out damage?--Uberursa 02:05, 22 August 2009 (BST)

That's a good question and I hadn't considered if it should be damage or AP efficiency. I want this to be a community developed suggestion so I'll leave it to you and the community to decide what would be the most balanced option. Also, you're right that it should be a zombie hunter skill, that makes more sense. Maybe it could be called Death Blow--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 02:30, 22 August 2009 (BST)

The effect of this is so vast that it really should probably be tried in a new city first, not in Malton, but I like the idea. It just needs a test drive somewhere before we could really know what effect it would have. Monroeville would be good for that if Kevan were to decide to reopen it.--Necrofeelinya 04:45, 22 August 2009 (BST)

As far as the weapons go, I'd imagine any of the "clubbing" weapons would apply. It doesn't take a lot of percision to swing a tennis racket or bat when your trying to crush something.--Pesatyel 06:38, 22 August 2009 (BST)

No. No. No. No. No. No. Just No. The Skill change is an acceptable alteration, it would even be good, but the rest is just horrible. Too much of a zombie buff.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:32, 22 August 2009 (BST)

I tried something like this once before. It didn't work. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 11:49, 22 August 2009 (BST)

As blake, there are several elements in this suggestion that have been tried before. User's don't like their accuracy etc being messed with beyond their control. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:31, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Fair enough, Yonnua. I like that you see some promise in the skill change and I respect your criticism. Let's try this: what specifically is wrong with the rest of the suggestion and what would you do to fix it?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 19:17, 22 August 2009 (BST)

In real-time battles (although they aren't common, this is probably all they'd effect), survivors are already screwed by infection. We don't need to make the situation worse by lowering their accuracy. At the same time, we don't need survivors to be able to lower each other to 13hp, and run around dealing 12 damage a shell. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:47, 22 August 2009 (BST)

I'm not sure you read the suggestion. YOu said above that "the skill change is an acceptable alteration". As I read the suggestion, the "skill change" is changing Scent Death to allow zombies to see those that are "dying". That is already waht Scent Fear does so that entire part is a little bit of a nerf. That is the only acceptable part? And "12 damage per shell"? The suggestion ONLY applies to melee weapons (most specifically axe, toolbox, pipe and bat unless he decided to include the others).--Pesatyel 20:39, 22 August 2009 (BST)

I missed the part about it only being melee. Still, a 5 damage axe? That would completely nerf the pistol.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:48, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Well he did say the damage was negotiable. Also, the 5 damage axe has lots of penalties to its use and I'd imagine that would offset the extra damage. A pistol does 5 damage, sure, but at 65% to hit (this would be, currently 30% to hit) and you can use a gun whenever as opposed to this where you have to be near death.--Pesatyel 21:09, 22 August 2009 (BST)

It actually only affects guns. A flak jacket wouldn't affect an axe, that would be stupid. No weapon should be able to deal 5 damage, or even 4 damage, without having to reload. It would be far over the top.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:08, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Not according to the game mechanics. The fact there are no melee weapons that, currently, do 5 or more damage does NOT change the game's mechanics. Hence why it becomes an issue in this suggestion. You DID read the suggestion right? Or are you saying all the negative associated with gaining the ability to do 5 damage with an axe are not enough? I'm not clear on why your displeased. Also, why would it 'be stupid" for a flak jacket to affect an axe?--Pesatyel 20:32, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Come back to me when you know what a flak jacket is.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:50, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Nice catc all answer and avoidance of actually answering. ;) That's fine.--Pesatyel 21:48, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Fine, I'll say it then. An axe would cut through a flak jacket easily. Flak jackets are built to resist gun and shrapnel attacks. Therefore, it would be stupid for an axe to be weakened by one. Therefore flak jackets only effect guns, not all weapons greater than 5.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:02, 23 August 2009 (BST)

My point was it is a GAME MECHANIC consideration, not a reality one. IF there is ever a melee weapon that does 5 or more, it will be effected by flak unless Kevan changes the mechanic and, given the circumstances, it is a relavant point in this discussion.--Pesatyel 22:22, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Well, no. Where did you get this nonsense about it effecting weapons of 5 or more from? It effects GUNS. if the fire axe did 5 or more, Kevan would make it so that it did not effect it. Plain and simple. Because a fire axe isn't a gun.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:35, 23 August 2009 (BST)

I got this "nonsense" from here. It only affects guns on technicality because there are no other weapons that do the same. Unless you count fire. We are talking a "gun" yes, but if you look down farther about the "fuel soaked clothes", fire ISN'T a gun, but still affected by flak. And, so you know, I'm NOT disagreeing with you. I'm only going by the mechanics AS WE KNOW THEM. If Kevan were to include a non-gun weapon that did 5+, he MAY make it so that flak isn't going to affect it. Or he may change the name to "body armor" or something, but regardless its what we know not what you think it should be until it is.--Pesatyel 01:24, 24 August 2009 (BST)

*clap, clap* You quoted an article written by another member of the game. Very well done. I also like how you've completely ignored that the fire isn't the aspect being effected, and the flare itself is, because it penetrates a far smaller surface area, thus rendering less fire on to the flesh. *clap, clap.* --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:24, 24 August 2009 (BST)

Ok. If you say so. Doesn't change the mechanics as we know them now does it.--Pesatyel 05:25, 25 August 2009 (BST)

1) Game Change: 10% is definately too much. I'd say 5% at best. But the point is to "simulate fear" in someone who is significantly injured, tired and afraid, right? What about having a % chance of an action costing +1 AP (it is taking more energy to do it because of the way you feel).

2) Skill Change: This part doesn't really make sense. Scent Fear already does this. It allows you see those that are "wounded" (25 HP) or "dying" (13 HP). And Scent Death doesn't apply at all (with regards to this situation) but Scent Bloood might by comparison. Either way this part is more of a nerf then a bonus.

3) New skill: Gotta agree, making it a Zombie Hunter skill sounds better.

4) Focused Fear: I'd think it would apply to any of the "clubbing" weapons. and +2 damage is fine, especially if you consider that those wearing flak (or with Flesh Rot) would get the reduction. What about having such attacks cost 2 AP (or, of course, as above a chance of costing that much).--Pesatyel 20:39, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Flaks only affect guns. The +2 damage would stand. Also, YOU are the one who's misread the suggestion. He says that on the Scent Death scan image that you get, it would show squares with injured survivors. Scent fear does not do this.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:48, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Flak affects only guns by technicallity. It affects ALL DAMAGE of 5 or more. And, again, this suggestion does not apply to guns anyway. And, yes I didn't consider that Scent Death would get a buff (mostly becuase that part is dumb and makes no sense since Scent Death applies to dead bodies and would thus not really apply to people that are still ambulatory). And Scent Fear, the point of Scent Fear, is to tell a zombie which players have 25 or 13 HP which is BETTER than what this suggestion is doing.--Pesatyel 21:06, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Beer and wine should (temporarily) stop fear, and the Focused Fear skill should be under Zombie Hunter. --Brainguard 20:51, 22 August 2009 (BST)

What is it with you and beer suggestions? Do you own a pub or something?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:55, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Does it matter? It isn't a bad idea to consider.--Pesatyel 21:07, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Actually, yes, it is. Alcohol has been added to the game as a 1hp heal item. It wasn't added to make being drunk look funny or cool, and definitely shouldn't make people think that being drunk makes you stronger. Alcohol has a purpose, this is not it's purpose.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:10, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Who said anything about making them look funny or be stronger (in this context)? His idea was that it negated fear temporarily. Nothing more. It's current purpose is as a 1 HP heal, true, but that was before this idea. Alcohol is commonly called "courage in a bottle" for a reason.--Pesatyel 21:26, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Because it makes people drunk? It doesn't actually make people mroe courageous. Hell, it makes people less courageous. And I was quite purposefully referrign to hsi suggestion, as you would have noticed if you'd paid attention to the scope of my comment.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:08, 22 August 2009 (BST)

I'm not advocating drinking. I'm not old enough to drink. But alchohol should have more effects and more of a purpose than a 1HP heal. --Brainguard 23:14, 22 August 2009 (BST)

And I suppose FAKs should have more use than they currently do too? And Newspapers? And books? Ooh, let's not forget poetry, that needs to cure infections. And let's not forget crucifixes, they need their almighty lasers of death. No. it has a use, and that's healing 1hp.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:45, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Actually the reason its called "courage in a bottle" is because alcohol lowers inhibitions (not always a good idea), it also tends to lead to increased aggression and "fearless" behaviour when taken to excess.. it was this reason that led to the insanely large rum rations given to british troops before battle in the 18th & 19th centuries. --Honestmistake 02:24, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Excessive amoutns of alcohol are also why Harold Godwinson lost at the battle of Hastings.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:25, 23 August 2009 (BST)

I suppose getting shot through the eye by an arrow didn't help things either. That william was such a bastard. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:16, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Actually, Harold, who had just finished battling Harald Hadrada in the North, had a diminished force, and so reruited an army of mainly peasants, all of whom got drunk the night before the battle. By the time they got to Hastings, it didn't matter that Harold and his brother were ploughed down by archers.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:39, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Where exactly did you get that from? Its true that Harald had just annihilated a viking army in the north but your drunken peasants story is new to me? --Honestmistake 23:26, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Well, it's correct. After he returned South to face William, his forces were diminished, he had to recruit untrained, inexperienced peasants, who knew they'd probably die, so they went out and got drunk the night before to celebrate or something. I dunno. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:14, 25 August 2009 (BST)

So you were referring to brainguard's suggestion or gile's? Honestmistake actually summed up my point. I'm NOT saying drinking is a good idea. I'm saying that brainguard suggested it temporarily counter the effects of fear. How temporarily? No idea. Ask him. I just don't get all the piss and moan about it. In fact for all the negativity people have been spewing about it, how does alcohol even heal?--Pesatyel 20:41, 23 August 2009 (BST)

The flavour for alcohol healing should be that you pour it on wounds, but I'm sure people would complain about that. And I was referring to Brainguard's suggestion. And if you were drunk, and saw a zombie, you would suddenly stop being scared. Logic doesn't work that way.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:50, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Fine.--Pesatyel 21:55, 23 August 2009 (BST)

eh... I'm gonna stay neutral on this... --Gat 01:37, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Alright, I did the math and as is, the suggestion would raise the damage per AP of an Axe from 1.4 to 1.6 (damage per single AP) whereas the damage per AP for a pistol, (reload and fire) is 2.23 AP. --Uberursa 02:13, 23 August 2009 (BST)

I assume you counted searching for ammo?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:25, 23 August 2009 (BST)

No, but it would be somewhere around 1.15 damage per AP. I didn't want to anger the RNG--Uberursa 18:45, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Read Giles' comment below.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:40, 23 August 2009 (BST)

And your point is what?--Pesatyel 20:34, 23 August 2009 (BST)

There's a nice article on Median_Battle_Rating which lists the axe at an MBR of 1.2. With this suggestion, a survivor who was using the new skill would weild the fire axe for an MBR of 1.5, which would make it more powerful than a pistol or shotgun against a flak jacket, but less powerful than zombie claws and bites. SO, now that everyone has actually read the suggestion and sorted out what it means, what's wrong with it and how can I make it better?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 21:11, 23 August 2009 (BST)

For starters, the axe shouldn't be better than the guns.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:40, 23 August 2009 (BST)

We just got into a stupid side argument about alcohol. So people aren't actually commenting on whether or not the fear penalties are enough to compensate for the bonuses granted. Or maybe they just don't think they do? Hard to say. That was the point I was trying to make with my "and your point is?" post. The suggestion ISN'T just allowing a player to do 5 with an axe. so maybe you need tougher penalties?--Pesatyel 21:53, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Or maybe, he needs to make it weaker. You shouldn't give someone something overpowered, and balance it by screwing them in another area. Just make it weaker.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:02, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Perhaps. But then all he could do would be +1 instead of +2. Is that significant enough? This whole idea is more of a "realism" suggestion then anything else and players should probably feel they are getting some "good enough" benefit to warrant including this in the game. If all it is penalties, only the handful of players that want more realism would like it. Nobody else would.--Pesatyel 22:22, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Exactly. I don't think that this suggestion is good. (Other than the scent death part).--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:35, 23 August 2009 (BST)

How is the Scent Death part good? Scent Death allows you to detect which corpses are reviving so, techmically, it is "Scent Revive Serum in Corpse". Not to mention you need Scent Fear (which already tells you which players are at or below 13 HP) so giving, basically, the same ablity to Scent Death would be both moot and meaningless.--Pesatyel 01:29, 24 August 2009 (BST)

He suggested adding an asterix to the scent death map, indicating where such survivors were. This would be useful to zombies in a besieged suburb, as it would allow them to find weakened buildings without having to resort to metagaming.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:24, 24 August 2009 (BST)

@ Pestayel - I'm not sure you understand how the suggestion would change scent fear and scent death. Do you know that scent death currently gives you a mini map of reviving and dead bodies? And you know scent fear just lists (wounded) or (dying) next to the names of survivors, right? What I'm proposing is a skill enhancement whereby zombies would know precisely where dying survivors are in their immediate area, via a mini map. Does that change your opinion on the skill enhancement?

Yes it does. Thanks for clarifying. But even so, Scent Death is moot. This could either be just an add on to Scent Fear or a new skill (but probably better the add on).--Pesatyel 06:30, 24 August 2009 (BST)

@ Yonnua, how about if a maxed fireaxe had an MBR of 1.3 with this suggestion? That puts it between a fire axe with a 1.2MBR (assuming maxed skills) and a pistol with a 1.37MBR (assuming maxed skills vs flack jacket). Also, what if it was 1.4? Would it still be imbalanced if the survivors using the skill had to take the trade-off of acting like a homing beacon for zombies in the area?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 05:58, 24 August 2009 (BST)

1.3 would easily be acceptable. You'd have to convince me more on the 1.4. It wouldn't be that drastically difficult to have a group with 3 strike teams, one who knocks their members down to 13hp, that group then runs out and destroys all zombies in sight, returning to be healed by the third. But still, it's a lot of effort, so a 1.4 might well be acceptable.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:24, 24 August 2009 (BST)

Thank you both for your excellent input and for helping me to develop this. So, I agree that it's cheesy to put the skill change into scent death. Let's make it a change to scent fear as pestayel suggested. And I've been thinking about the survivor strike team idea and that is definitely a problem. While such a tactic would be rewarding groups for coordinated play, (and that's good), I'm not sure I like the idea of people putting each other into the death state so they can be more effective fighters.

My original vision is for the new fear dynamic to be a highly situational bonus for both sides, and the situation is when a zombie is tearing a survivor to shreds but can't quite finish the job. This should be a special situation where the survivor really feels the impending death and can swing away with some desperation attacks before succumbing to infection. I'm going to think more about how to implement this properly, and please feel free to comment with any ideas in the meantime.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 20:06, 24 August 2009 (BST)

Well, if you coudl pull it off so that it worked without abuse, that would be awesome. There should be benefits to be actually weakened to low health, but there's no real way I can see that people can't just do it to themselves. You could always say that you get a bonus / penalty / both if you've been attacked within 10 minutes, because that would be more reminiscent of fear, i feel. But still, not overly exciting or useful. So, I dunno. :S--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:14, 25 August 2009 (BST)

Okay, I've checked the math and it's possible to put the fireaxe at 1.4MBR and 1.32MBR. 1.4 is easy, it involves a 5% hit penalty and +1 damage. 1.32 is kinda cheesy since it involves a 7% hit penalty and +1 damage. Everything with accuracy in UD seems to work in increments of 5%. Anyways I've thought about it and developed a way to counter survivors spamming the new skill to devastate zombies. How about this: Survivors enter the "panic state" when a zombie attack brings their health below 14HP. The "panic state" ends when they either receive a FAK or when they die.

So in essence, the game mechanic would work something like infection in that it can only be caused by a zombie, and anyone offering aid can calm the survivor down and end their panic. This would prevent survivors from intentionally triggering the damage bonus and then healing each other, as you mentioned. Also it would make it highly difficult to zerg. Also, this would make the "panic state" an exhilarating experience for survivors, since it doesn't happen all that often. By the same token it would be fun and useful for zombies to sniff the air and zero in on a nice tasty snack that is guaranteed to be at very low health. What do you think?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 06:48, 25 August 2009 (BST)

I love it. You've counterbalanced everything, and there's no way to fiddle it. Nicely done.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:08, 25 August 2009 (BST)

Okay great. I'll put it up for discussion with the new changes worked into the suggestion. Let's see what the rest of the community thinks about it now that we've had a chance to trim down the weak points.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:36, 26 August 2009 (BST)

I like the idea of it requiring a zombie to "put you in the state" but the main problem with that is that "live" combats are very rare. I'm not sure how much of a factor THAT will be. So a zombie puts me in "fear mode". Then what? I'd have to say you should only get to use the "bonus" against zombies. No P/G/Rking. The other idea I had was what if using the hit bonus had the chance of causing you damage. Not damage that could kill you, but say, for example, a 10% chance of doing a point of damage (or perhaps needing an additonal AP to complete the action).--Pesatyel 04:43, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Hmm, I would have to disagree with the chance of doing damage. That's adding a whole new element to it and people generally don't like causing damage to themselves. I want the suggestion to be fun, not aggrivating, and self inflicted damage is aggravating.

And as I understood it, we weren't talking about having this as a "live" combat feature. Any attack by a zombie that takes you under 14HP just makes you "afraid". From there you keep the damage bonus until you die or are FAKed.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 18:44, 28 August 2009 (BST)

No prob. It was just an idea that popped into my head. What did you think of the idea of only being allowed to use the "fear bonuses" against zombies? No P/G/Rking.--Pesatyel 04:12, 29 August 2009 (BST)

I can see some merit to that. It would be good because that would encourage zombie vs survivor combat, and that's my intention. My only reservation is that nothing else in the game works that way. All other attacks are possible against either survivors, zombies, barricades, generators, etc. I'm hesitant to suggest a change that introduces a "selective" attack, as there's no example in the game to model it on. I want to get this suggestion through with as little resistance as possible, and I'm afraid that adding elements or complications to it will only serve to present additional targets for people to have objections about.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:35, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Well actually, you cannot use guns, knives or bites against barricades. Something like this the concern is more about "flavor" maybe. If it makes sense that only a zombie can "activate" it, then it might make sense that "only zombies" are affected by it. To be honest, I could see it being useable against survivors but NOT against radios or generators. Your scared and, possibly, alone so it wouldn't make sense to attack the lights or the "voice". Simply put, your using your fear based adrenaline to defend yourself against threats (be them living or undead).--Pesatyel 08:45, 30 August 2009 (BST)

So your idea is to further cripple those who are already near death? Sorry, no. - Foxtrot 19:41, 30 August 2009 (BST)

---

XP Hoarding

Timestamp: Uberursa 15:17, 21 August 2009 (BST)EDIT: --Uberursa 00:47, 23 August 2009 (BST)

Type: Mechanincs

Scope: anyone who gains XP

Description: Players will only be able to accumulate as much XP as is useful. A second TXP amount will keep track of the XP that a character has gained since the beginning of their time in Malton. The TXP amount will take the place of the current XP amount on the profile page. When a new skill comes out, XP for the skill will become available for those who have excess XP. While this amount is derived from the TXP amount, it does not effect the TXP amount and only effects the useful XP amount.

Discussion (XP Hoarding)

While this would not fix any current in-game problems, it would make suggesting some changes easier. Case and point being the Rot cure suggestions that pop up, as this would help prevent abuse of such a system if it were implemented. In addition, it would make it a bit more interesting for level 43 players when a new skill came out as they would have to gain the XP needed to buy it. It would also stop people from making suggestions that drain your XP (or at least give an excuse for every voter to spice the mechanically separated ham). People with big egos get the TXP amount. Everyone wins!--Uberursa 15:18, 21 August 2009 (BST)

But this already exists. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:37, 21 August 2009 (BST)

I think he is suggesting that any XP over what is needed for the current skills is stored only as a statistic and cannot be spent. If a new skill comes along you would not be able to buy it from these existing xp but would instead need to earn more. --Honestmistake 15:44, 21 August 2009 (BST)

Exactly. --Uberursa 16:40, 21 August 2009 (BST)

No. We like to collect XP.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:24, 21 August 2009 (BST)

But that's essentially what a player has right now? So what if they are level 32 and have 3000xp, just add 3200 XP onto the total and you've accumulated the approximate amount of XP they've gotten- this feature is practically already in the game, in a better form than I see this is. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 17:29, 21 August 2009 (BST)

Sort of but as I say the main (indeed only) point of this seems to be to make all that excess XP unusable once you are maxed out meaning you will always have to do some work to obtain a new skill rather than just buying it with some of that unused XP mountain so many of us have... I almost approve tbh, only problem is that its pretty much only going to have any effect on zombies who buy rot. --Honestmistake 19:01, 21 August 2009 (BST)

It's not really useful as a change to the game, but may be useful or even vital to the implementation of other suggestions. I don't know whether I'd vote for it, but I think it should at least be sent through the system. Even if it winds up in peer-rejected, it will still be on record. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 21:08, 21 August 2009 (BST)

This would put those players who never gain the whole skill set (survivors without brain rot, or zombies without survivor skills) at an advantage. Because they always have skills available to buy, even though they never will, they will have the XP available to buy any new skills immediately, while brain rotted zombies with all the human skills will have to earn new points each time. The same applies to zombies with no intention of buying any of the human skills, they will have hundreds of XP immediately available, because the system doesn't realise that they have no intention of buying basic firearms training, etc. -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:21 21 August 2009 (BST)

True, but the current system has that anyway.--Uberursa 22:37, 21 August 2009 (BST)

No it doesn't. Currently, level 43's can save XP for immediate use, under your system they would be the only ones not to have XP available for new skills until the new skill was implemented -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:52 21 August 2009 (BST)

Oh so that's what you wanted to get across. Sorry, I didn't pick that up. In any case, it could be changed so that when a new skill came out, it would automatically transfer the correct amount of XP back into usable form. --Uberursa 02:00, 22 August 2009 (BST)

So what's the point? It then becomes so similar to what we have now that there's no point. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 06:19, 22 August 2009 (BST)

I don't like this as it diminishes my Ascension idea under Gat's crap which basically lets you spend 1k EXP to start over when you reach max level... look under gats crap sometime for it as I wish to expand on it. --Crazy Hobo Man 02:20, 22 August 2009 (BST)

In what way? I looked at the idea, and it could simply be available as an option when someone get 1000 above the useful XP amount.--Uberursa 05:18, 22 August 2009 (BST)

- Damn it crackhead, stop hyping your stupid list of dumb ideas you didn't even bother to post on DS, and stop trying to act like any of it matters. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:03, 22 August 2009 (BST)

I believe you guys are misreading the suggestion. As I read it, the suggestion says NOTHING about doing anything to your XP. It is suggesting that, somewhere on your profile, it shows how much XP your character has earned. Simple as that. The way the game currently works, I can look at your character's profile and infer how much you have earned based on your class and skills, but beyond that I don't know for certain. This suggestion would let me know for certain.--Pesatyel 04:13, 22 August 2009 (BST)

You're half right. Everything you said it true, but (as I said above) it would also prevent a level 43 character from gaining any more useful XP. The XP they gained while level 43 would show up in their profile, but could not be used to buy skills. Also, a level 41 character would have 200 useful XP, in case they ever wanted to buy brain and flesh rot. By the time this goes up, it will probably have been changed so that a level 43 character would get XP available when a new skill is implemented.--Uberursa 05:18, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Ah, ok, guess I was wrong too. But now that makes me ask....what's the point?--Pesatyel 06:29, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Yeah. Now it's actually been explained properly, it's just absolutely useless. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 08:30, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Currently, it is useless. However, it would be useful to future suggestions, case and point being the Rot cure suggestions, because one of the argument that can be gotten rid of is the fact that it can be abused by those who have mountains of XP. Other than that, it takes the guesswork out of determining the total amount of XP a person has ever gained. --Uberursa 14:04, 22 August 2009 (BST)

Basically you are arguing for something that will appeal to a very small target audience; that being those that want to see who has the most XP. For those 0.5% of UD players that want as such can take the time to find the total amount of XP the hard way, for all I care, for the current system is fine. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:33, 22 August 2009 (BST)

So this suggestion actually has NOTHING to do with XP totals (to which I can just put in my description if I wanted people to know), but is all about forcing maxed out players to go out and earn XP in order to buy any new skills that may be added to the game. The "XP total appearing on your page" thing is just a side effect so people don't feel like they are getting screwed since they are, technically, losing the thousands of XP they've accrued since the last couple of skills were added.--Pesatyel 20:46, 22 August 2009 (BST)

While this would not fix any current in-game problems, it would make suggesting some changes easier(See Leluoch's post). Case and point being the rot cure suggestions. You're right about taking away useless XP from characters. What I'll just do now is attempt to re-word it so that it is more clear and allow characters with excess XP to retrieve XP when new skills come out. --Uberursa 00:39, 23 August 2009 (BST)

In that case, this is a dupe of an ingame function. Since XP can only be spent on skills and there are no no skills currently to be bought, then the XP is, effectively "unavailable" until a new skill is introduced. And, if I wanted people to see my XP total, I can put it in the character's description.--Pesatyel 20:26, 23 August 2009 (BST)

I will say this again THIS WILL NOT FIX ANY IN GAME PROBLEMS. IT WILL SIMPLY MAKE IMPLEMENTING CERTAIN SUGGESTIONS EASIER, INDEED POSSIBLE, WHILE DISCOURAGING THE USE OF XP AS A BALANCING FACTOR. That is all I'm trying to do. That is the point. I have said it four times now, once in bold. I'm sorry if I am being offensive, but it is not a dupe. It changes a technicality into a hard-and-fast rule, similar to making a flack jacket work only on guns as opposed to weapons that do 5+ damage.-- Uberursa^{this bear wants honey} 02:54, 24 August 2009 (BST)

You can USE ALL THE CAPS YOU WANT since your not saying anything at all.

• Your suggestion: Once a player is maxed out, they cannot use their xp for anything until a new skill comes along. Once one does, they can then spend the XP they have accrued (75, 100 or 150, depending on class and skill) to acquire the new skill. Is that or is that not what your suggesting?
• Current game operation? Once a player is maxed out, they cannot use their xp for anything until a new skill comes along. Once one does, they can then spend the XP they have accrued (75, 100 or 150, depending on class and skill) to acquire the new skill.

Now, how is what your suggesting NOT a dupe of how the game currently works? The only way it isn't is if you force players to earn the XP to buy the new skill when it comes up, but you yourself said you were going to allow maxed out characters to spend their banked XP. So did you change your mind?--Pesatyel 05:59, 24 August 2009 (BST)

First, yes. Look at the suggestion again. Also, would you consider changing the mechanics of the flack jacket from reducing damage by 1 for every 5 base damage into only working on guns (-1 for pistol, -2 for shotgun) a dupe of an in game function? It is like 2+2=4 versus 1+3=4, different equations, same answer. If the answer is what you base your dupe argument on, then I would have to agree, however, I am trying to change the way we get there to make it useful to other, future, suggestions.-- Uberursa^{this bear wants honey} 20:28, 24 August 2009 (BST)

So your saying you changed your mind and your NOT going to include the ability of players to use cached XP for new skills when they get added? You ARE going to force them to earn the XP to buy the new skill?--Pesatyel 05:29, 25 August 2009 (BST)

No...-- Uberursa^{this bear wants honey} 19:32, 25 August 2009 (BST)

No WHAT? No your not going to let players used bank XP or no your not going to force them to earn the XP when a new skill is added? Which is it?--Pesatyel 07:23, 26 August 2009 (BST)

People will not be forced to get new XP. -- Uberursa^{this bear wants honey} 20:24, 26 August 2009 (BST)

Then it is a dupe because thatis how the game works right now. You don't see that?--Pesatyel 04:44, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Would you consider changing the mechanics of the flack jacket from reducing damage by 1 for every 5 base damage into only working on guns (-1 for pistol, -2 for shotgun) a dupe of an in game function? It is like 2+2=4 versus 1+3=4, different equations, same answer. If the answer is what you base your dupe argument on, then I would have to agree, however, I am trying to change the way we get there to make it useful to other, future, suggestions. I understand that nothing will change initially. I have said that. I'm just trying to make it easier to suggest future things. -- Uberursa^{this bear wants honey} 06:29, 27 August 2009 (BST)

Your not understanding. Your not ACTUALLY suggesting anything at all.

• Your suggestion: Once a player is maxed out, they cannot use their xp until a new skill comes along. Once one does, they can then spend the XP they have accrued (75, 100 or 150, depending on class and skill) to acquire the new skill.
• Current game operation: Once a player is maxed out, they cannot use their xp until a new skill comes along. Once one does, they can then spend the XP they have accrued (75, 100 or 150, depending on class and skill) to acquire the new skill.

Show me how your suggestion is 2+2=4 and the current game mechanics are 3+1=4. If you had stuck with the "force players to earn the XP to buy the new skill(s)" you would have a suggestion.--Pesatyel 07:09, 27 August 2009 (BST)

It is a different way to achieve the same result. Players will be forbidden to use their XP as opposed to just not having anything to use it on. The difference is removing the "for anything" from your description of my suggestion.-- Uberursa^{this bear wants honey} 14:59, 27 August 2009 (BST)

I said show me how your suggestion is 2+2=4 and the current game mechanics are 3+1=4. Did you? No. You said players are "forbidden" to use their XP...until a new skill comes along. Then they are no longer forbidden. Other than semantics, how is that different from how the game works now? Forbidden = not having anything to spend the XP on. BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SPEND THE XP ON. Since you couldn't answer my question, how about I posit another. My character is maxed out right now. Then what happens?--Pesatyel 05:55, 28 August 2009 (BST)

This is about semantics (and nothing in answer to your question)-- Uberursa^{this bear wants honey} 14:20, 28 August 2009 (BST)

Recommendation: Don't submit as an actual suggestion.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:16, 28 August 2009 (BST)

You took the words right out of my mouth, but to be honest, had he stuck with (and discussed) the original idea, it mighta been better.--Pesatyel 04:10, 29 August 2009 (BST)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Last Reviver reviver's note!!!

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

Hide XP

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

---