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.
• If you decide not to take your suggestion to voting, please remove it from this page to avoid clutter.
• 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 your 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

Reload On Firing

Timestamp: Mold 00:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: New Settings Toggle

Scope: Survivors

Description: Attacks tend to come in quick flurries, followed swiftly by either escape or retribution. It doesn't matter whether you're a vanilla survivor, bounty hunter, PK or death cultist -- it's a nuisance having your last gun run dry in the middle of a series of attacks, while you've got plenty of AP and reserve ammo to spare. I propose adding a new option toggle to the Settings page, called "Reload On Firing" for the sake of argument. For characters who leave this option unmarked, the game will behave as it does now. For characters who check this new option box, they will no longer see "Your gun is out of bullets" (or whatever the wording is) if they try to fire an empty gun for which they have more ammunition. Instead, they see a message along the lines of "You quickly reload, and continue firing." This loads a clip or 1 shell as appropriate to the weapon, and makes an attack, consuming 2 AP and 2 IP hits as normal for performing these actions (but skipping the IP hit for the out of bullets reminder). In the case of such a character with no more ammunition of the correct type in reserve, the attack attempt would behave as attacks with empty guns do now. I think the sudden stop when running out of ready bullets is a sufficient annoyance for gun-using players (iow most of them) to be worth trying to eliminate. Making this optional rather than automatic will prevent players that don't want to from eating into their reserve ammo during absent-minded moments or via misclick.

Discussion (Reload On Firing)

I like it, but I'd consider making it a military skill rather than an option which can be toggled. That keeps the optional element, as it doesn't need to be purchased if it's unwanted. 00:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see that. A couple seconds saved now and then can be a tactical advantage in a real-time fight, that does suggest military. However, I like the ability to turn it on and off depending on whether the situation calls for conservative fighting. It being a skill may well turn out to be more popular with the other posters, though. --Mold 01:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The real-time aspect is actually why I don't like this idea. I've had a few real-time battles go my way as a zombie, where I was able to finish a kill because someone had to take time reloading their gun. I see that as being a nice balance. After all, guns are already the best weapons in the game in terms of damage inflicted per AP spent attacking. —Aichon— 01:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thnking the same thing. From a bit of a "realism" standpoint, in the heat of combat it would be easy to run out of ammo. That having been said, at best, I would say this could be a zombie hunter skill. A normal person would be scared in combat and prone to lack of control, not keeping track of firing and such. But a zombie hunter, it is implied, is "used to" zombies so would be able to have better control.--Pesatyel 02:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Meatshielding skills

Timestamp: Explodey 22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Mechanic

Scope: All buildings, low-level characters

Description: To prevent meatshielding by zerglings: Standing survivors no longer prevent ransacking unless they have the Construction skill. Similarly, standing zombies no longer interfere with barricading or ruin repair unless they have Memories of Life Since neither of these is a starting skill, new level-1 characters are no use as meatshields. However both skills are usually purchased early and the vast majority of characters have them, so "genuine" characters won't be badly affected.

Discussion (Meatshielding skills)

Interesting idea, but I'd use a level cap (5?) instead of specific skills. 22:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that version has been suggested before and was unpopular because too many characters would be affected. --Explodey 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The only thing this does is harm newbie zombies. Also, there's already a sistem to prevent zerging--Orange Talk 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The most important thing to a newbie zombie is getting XP. Although they won't be able to help their group hold the ruin anymore, this will not deprive the bahbahz of food. And the existing anti-zerg mechanism is not perfect; Zerg-meatshielding does still happen. --Explodey 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll allow people to free run into their building to headshot them rather than leaving safety and searching each ruin for them. It hurts the babahs. Don't suggest things that hurt the babahs. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I reckon they are less likely to get headshot, because the experienced zombie hunters will kill the zombies with MoL first then repair and cade. The babah will be killed, but there's more chance that it's by a low-level character such as a level-1 firefighter. --Explodey 23:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A level one fire fighter that can't free run into the building? Was stupidity a slow onset? Or is it a sudden thing? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay not necessarily a level 1 firefighter (though it could be - remember there's a horde outside bashing the cades.) There are plenty of characters out there with Free Running and a combat skill but not Headshot.--Explodey 23:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I like it. The skills that you chose make sense, but I think I might like it better if it was actually set up as a sub-skill of those skills, rather than a new capability for those skills. That said, the zombies would have a leg up with this change, since if my zed walked into a building, he either has the Ransack button or he doesn't, depending on if the survivors have Construction. There's no ambiguity or wasted AP. If my survivor was trying to stop a breach, however, he has the Barricade button regardless, and won't know whether or not the zombies coming in have Memories of Life. He'd either have to DNA extract them all or else take his chances with the barricade button. Even so, I'd be in favor of it, since it's a buff/nerf to each side, with a slight edge to the zombies where they could use it. —Aichon— 23:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you know, an idea that has some serious gameplay merit. I like this idea, and doubt that newbie survivors/zombies are going to miss being able to interfere or change ruins. It will be a bit harder on survivors to determine if interference/ruin holding is in play for specific zombies, but if nothing else I'm sure they'll learn to deal with it. I'd rather have a zombie that may be able to block barricading then a zombie that can block barricading in my building any day. (and the same but flipped for my ruins) Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I'd vote this in. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 10:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Air strike

Timestamp: Kamikazie-Bunny 22:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Destruction

Scope: Suburb

Description: The 24th August, a day that passes like any other for most ordinary people, however for those citizens of Malton who remember 2007 it was the first day the external military forces began transmitting data vital for survior. Some saw it as hope, others as information to barter and use, others believed they were faked from death cultists inside the city setting traps. In truth the military were researching the city in preperation, the surviors inside mearly fortunate to hear it. The military have been preparing for 'Operation:Cold Start' and now they are in the final stages... Operation:Cold Start In an effort to destroy the zombie menace the military will conduct a co-ordinated airstrike on the suburb with the highest zombie population regardless of survior presence (The 'survivors' of malton are to be considered expendable). Date: 24th August, 2010 This aerial bombardment has one ultimate goal, complete and permanent destruction of the zombie, nothing short of complete destruction of the targetted suburb is to be expected, all buildings, surviors and most importantly zombies will be ruined and killed. At 23:30hrs on the the 23th of August 2010 two bomber wings will be launched with a fighter squadron escort, at 24:00hrs the bomber wing will drop their payload on the targetted suburb and return to base. The HE payload will contain traditonal explosives and a classfied VX22-f additive developed by a NMO, it is expected and predicted that the modified explosives will prevent the targets from re-animating, permanently. Should this fail further development on the VX22 additive will ne neccessary and bombing will be repeated one calender year later every year until the desired effects are acheived. If VX22-f is succesful 12 further bomber wings will be lauched with objective of the complete destruction of Malton for the purpose of reclamation by non-infected personel. Commander K.Davis

Discussion (Air strike)

It's a good thing this will never actually happen, seeing as how "24:00hrs" doesn't actually exist. Also, humourous suggestions is over here. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:07, 8 November 2009 (BST)

24:00 does exist:

• 00:00 = midnight, start of day
• 24:00 = midnight, end of day

You can't display both at the same time as they overlap so most people are only familiar with one version. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

24:00 in military time is technically incorrect, and does not exist. There's 23:59, and then 00:00, but no 24:00. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:24, 8 November 2009 (BST)

The Internet's Big Book of Things That Might Not Be True says that airstrikes don't use 24:00. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a tie, it does exist, but not in the military, I suppose you win though as this is in military context. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Lawl. I know the RRF is frightening, but you can't expect Kevan to nuke Ridleybank and perma-kill a large chunk of the RRF for you, repeatedly. --Mold 22:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be permakill, "Should this fail... bombing will be repeated one calender year later!" The military wouldn't waste the resources if it would fail, they expect to succeed (but it won't) so this becomes an annual event. --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a fighter escort, a brilliant tactic to counter our own interceptors.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, when did we get interceptors?-- SA 22:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you not buy the Airspace Battle Manager skill? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait! Who's team are you on, the E.M. just want to clear Malton, they don't discriminate between Surviors and Zombies they're all infected... are we looking at the beginning of the first Zombie/Survior alliance? --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, because now I'm going to get the ABM skill and learn to pilot a Titan so I can rain down fiery death upon the harmans. >:) -- SA 22:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

40K references lose you bonus points. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think "Airspace Battle Manager" and "Titan" would combine to be more of an EVE reference than 40k. 'Course, you could multi-task and pilot a Titan... in a Titan. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:43, 8 November 2009 (BST)

It was actually a Battlefield 2142 reference. :( -- SA 22:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Also good! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:54, 8 November 2009 (BST)

I just hate the amount of vehicle spam that goes on in that game. :/ -- SA 22:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So everyone dies, the zombies stand up again 5 seconds later and get busy ruining every building in the suburb with no interference from pesky survivors? Brilliant! --Explodey 22:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

All the buildings are ruined as well so they can just move on (need to mention that everyone receives an instant headshot as well, whoops).--Kamikazie-Bunny 22:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Rediculously OP in favor of zombies; this page isn't for Humorous Suggestions. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed this isn't. It's only funny because he so serious about it.--Thadeous Oakley 10:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Lawl.--Thadeous Oakley 08:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

	LOOK GUYS, ANOTHER ONE

--DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Items Wear Out

Timestamp: Chase1993 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Change of all items

Scope: Items

Description: Alright, so here's my idea. Doesn't it seem funny that you can use an item for an unlimited amount of time and it never breaks? Obviously, this would never happen in real life. In alot of other games they have a system where items wear out as you use them. I propose the same thing for UD. Basically, the mechanics would be as follows. 1. Any item used for melee combat would have a 1% chance to break when used (so it would break after 100 uses on average). 2. Any item used for ranged combat would have a 0.5% chance to break (200 uses on average). 3. Any item not used for combat (DNA extractors, binoculars, etc) would have a 0.25% chance to break when used (400 uses on average). I think this would add a more realistic element to the game, and would make survivors have to search for things more often, and not just be able to keep something forever. CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is appreciated, and of course, the numbers are subject to change. --Chase1993 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (Items Wear Out)

Dupe. Next. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I searched for it but didn't find anything. Tell me what's wrong with the suggestion. --Chase1993 21:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WTF? You said that the first time dude. I told you I couldn't find anything on the subject. If you supply the link so I can see why people thought it wasn't a good idea, so be it. Until then, why don't you tell me what you yourself think of the idea. --Chase1993 21:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He has the tendency to do that now. Your just supposed to "accept it" as "fact" when he says its a dupe I guess.--Pesatyel 00:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Constructive criticism is constructive. --Haliman - Talk 21:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Useless one-sided nerf; all this does is hurt survivors. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 21:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate to bring up other MMORPGS, I really do, but did you know that ALL other big MMORPGS (WOW, City of Heroes, LOTR Online, Warchammer Online, etc) have this system. I mean, they must be doing something right. If you think the numbers are too harsh they could be lowered. --Chase1993 21:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

All you've done on this wiki is bring up other MMORPGS. UD is not WoW. This suggestion is a big nuisance to add to the existing difficult choices and item juggling of inventory management, with no other purpose than to make UD more like the others.--Mold 21:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying UD is WOW. But for you to tell me that you know better than the world's best game developers is so funny it makes me shit myself. Also, its purpose is not just to make UD more like other games. My suggestion would make the game more realistic. When have you ever had an axe that you could hack at something forever with? --Chase1993 22:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Do I think I know better than people who cave to their own players' virtual terrorism? Do I know better than the people that unleashed a massive and debilitating virus on their player base? Do I know better than people who ship their game with illegal monitoring software? Yeah, I fucking do. Very simple question, why does death decay exist in WoW and not in UD? Does it have something to do with an ingame economy and making people spend time maintaining what they've got? It's about money, WoW needs you to spend money every month, UD doesn't. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If people wanted WoW, they'd play it. UD is UD, not all games need to be the same or there'd be no point playing one over another. Also you can maintain items in real life, such as sharpening blades, cleaning guns, replacing broken parts, etc, so you're "realistic" point is null and void. Go play Shintoin if you're that concerned about items lasting. 22:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Being a developer of a good game doesn't make you better than everyone else. They may know whats good for their game, but that doesn't mean anything they do for their 'game is going to be good for our game simply because they thought of it.k?-- SA 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

People who want realism don't play zombie apocalypse games. Verisimilitude is good, up to and not including the point where it makes the game less fun to play for the bulk of the players. And seriously, you have got to come up with better reasons to suggest things than just making the game more like other MMORPGs. Those players that want to be playing other MMORPGs would be playing them, not UD. --Mold 22:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"WOW... world's best game developers" so funny it makes me shit myself! --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The "world's best game developers" may know a lot about the games they make, but this is a different game. You should pay attention to players who have played this game for months, even years, who come here to help you with their knowledge of what this game needs. --Orange Talk 22:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the guys that made StarCraft were fucking boss-- SA 22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Misanthropy, I don't know how old you are, or how many possessions you've been accountable for, but if you use something for a long amount of time, especially if you're using it to hack something to pieces, it will break no matter how much you clean or service it. Fact of life. THINGS GET OLD. Live with it. Secondly, to everyone else, will people please stop bitching about me trying to make UD like other games? I've said before that I like UD better than WOW, but to say that Kevan, or god forbid anyone on this forum, knows more about making a good game than the WOW developers is simply a stupid thing to say. There's a REASON that WOW has 50 times more active players than UD. People didn't wake up and just decide to play WOW. WOW had to earn it. One of the ways they earned it was by giving it good features. I'm not trying to turn UD into WOW, I'm just borrowing some of its tried and proven features. If EVERY other game has it, and it's a normal realistic feature, why couldn't UD have it as well? Also, instead of saying "omg too much likez WOW" and "UD iz different we like UD likez itt iz", please tell me WHY you feel that even though it's a good feature on most other games, it would be a bad feature on UD. --Chase1993 22:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You did not just question my fucking common sense with the age card. Go choke. Fact is, no one wants this suggestion, it's not as realistic as you think, and you're a cunt. 22:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. Fact is, I DID just question your common sense with the age card. As it turns out, the way you retaliate pretty much proofs your adolescense. "Go choke." Dork. --Chase1993 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You might not want to make childish spelling mistakes when you play the 'I'm older so know better card', particularly when the 'child' you're berating catches on to the basic principles that you can't grasp. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

My friend, if the childish spelling mistakes you are referring to are "omg too much likez WOW" and "UD iz different we like UD likez itt iz", I'll let you in on a secret. THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE WRITTEN LIKE THAT. Moron. --Chase1993 23:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"I've said before that I like UD better than WOW, but to say that Kevan... knows more about making a good game than the WOW developers is simply a stupid thing to say"... WAIT! You think UD is better than WOW, but Kevan (who made UD) can't make a game better than the people who make WOW... --Kamikazie-Bunny 22:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

RE to Kamikazie-Bunny: Sorry about that, you're absolutely right. I meant to say that I think UD is funner personally for me. --Chase1993 22:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You've already been told why. It's an unneeded additional nuisance for an already trying item management situation. Now why don't you tell us WHY the suggestion is actually worthwhile. And no, the games you're talking about didn't earn their player bases by being especially great. They acquired them by having gigantic budgets and spending a fortune on advertising. Plenty of features in those games are only there to keep that money flowing, as Iscariot points out. --Mold 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Activating cruise control... CRUISE CONTROL ACTIVATED.

MAYBE WE DON'T KNOW AS MUCH AS GAME DEVELOPERS, BUT WE KNOW WHAT IS FUN AND WHAT IS NOT. IF YOU THINK THAT GAME DEVELOPERS ARE SO AWESOME, WHY DON'T YOU SUBMIT IT TO THE SUGGESTION SYSTEM? I DARE YOU >=(--Orange Talk 22:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Needless addition. It doesn't actually add anything, though crying "onoz nerfing survivors" is a bit useless, since nerfing survivors is needed. 21:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. We need more buffs not more nerfs. Just buff the other side more. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 22:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Let's bring realism into this game. First we'll impliment this, and then we'll get rid of zombies. What? Zombies aren't real. Chase wants a realistic game. It's basic logic. We'll then change the name of the game to Urban RPG. Goribus 22:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, very clever. So if I came up with a suggestion that doctors could shoot laser beams out of their asses, and people shot it down for being unrealistic, I could technically say that since their are zombies, there could conceivably be laser beam-firing asses. Don't be so incredibly fucking stupid Goribus. Yes, zombies are not realistic, but we need to stick to some general laws of reality. --Chase1993 22:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself manchild. It's not my fault your idea is blatantly retarded and therefore open to both scorn and being mocked. You also misspelled the word "beam". I suggest you read a fucking book (any book) before you make another dumb ass suggestion on wiki. Goribus 22:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Go fuck yourself manchild"??? Jesus fucking christ, is every user on this wiki under 14 years of age? I'm certain about you, Goribus, but I hope some others have managed to hit puberty. --Chase1993 22:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, excessive cursing and vitriol doesn't make you look hard and everyone else look like a kid. The tantrum-throwing and rampant egomania make you look very much like a child, however. --Mold 22:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it. It's like you're made for irony, Mold. There you go again, more complete nonsense. I have NOT used excessive cursing. In fact, I've said fuck 3 times in this discussion. That is NOT excessive cursing. --Chase1993 22:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Come on, kid. I can tell from your posting that you're poorly educated, but it's not that hard. I even posted the link to the dictionary file for you. Here, I'll even do it again. Verisimilitude. Click it, read it, and try real hard not to continue making an ass of yourself. We're getting edit conflicts from trying to count the myriad ways you do so. --Mold 22:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, Sherlock, how the fuck do you deduce from my posts that I'm uneducated? Again, just as with the Abundant APs discussion, you're throwing out COMPLETELY unfounded accusations. --Chase1993 22:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't spell, you can't grasp simple concepts, you cannot debate salient points that have been made to counter your argument. That's how I deduce, that and putting a year after a user name is indicative of a birth year. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Chase1993" has been my computer name for about the past seven years, ever since my email address couldn't come up with any combiantion of numbers after one_dead_angel than 1993, if you follow. Secondly, I can spell. Saying I can't is just another completely unfounded accusation that people in this wiki seem to have fun throwing around. If I make mistakes it's because I'm typing fast and I don't look at the screen. My bad, I just never was a whiz at typing. That does NOT mean I'm uneducated. PLEASE, I BEG YOU, stop throwing unfounded accusations, and let us insult each other on things we know are true. --Chase1993 23:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

How convenient, "I'm typing too fast", I still notice that you've yet to engage with the points that have been made and are instead wasting time on pointless minutiae. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's not convenient, as because I make mistakes typing, I get people like you telling me I don't know how to spell. Secondly, which points would you like me to engage? --Chase1993 23:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I shall repeat myself: Do I think I know better than people who cave to their own players' virtual terrorism? Do I know better than the people that unleashed a massive and debilitating virus on their player base? Do I know better than people who ship their game with illegal monitoring software? Yeah, I fucking do. Very simple question, why does death decay exist in WoW and not in UD? Does it have something to do with an ingame economy and making people spend time maintaining what they've got? It's about money, WoW needs you to spend money every month, UD doesn't.-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is hilarious coming from you. 23:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you're a faggot and your suggestion sucks.-- SA 23:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Clever. --Chase1993 23:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I know. ^^ -- SA 23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's fairly simple. Your grasp of the english language is even weaker than mine, which is quite frankly pathetic, and you don't have the slightest clue of what an argument consists of, but you throw around terms often used in arguments like buzzwords that you seem to think make you correct. You have no clue about game design or economics, yet you make broad assumptions about these things and attack people for not immediately agreeing with them. You clearly don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, but believe aggression and posturing will make up for your deficiencies of knowledge and understanding. You're a poorly educated little thug, and probably a sissy at that, given you do your lashing out on the internet rather than in the real world. --Mold 23:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

AGAIN. It seems impossible, but it's not. You have made an unfounded accusation for the fourth post in a row. How is my grasp of the English language poor? And secondly, HOW do you know that I don't lash out in real life? --Chase1993 23:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you throwing out internet challenges now? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow you, Iscariot. --Chase1993 23:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless your very next edit accurately and completely addresses the points I've repeated at your own request, I'm claiming victory and letting the vultures finish you off. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'll be around ripping into him much more. I'm still pretty bored, but this is going in circles so much that it's not substantially better than staring at the wall. --Mold 23:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's because your choice of wordage and sentence structure/grammar suck.-- SA 23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The word you're looking for is "wording", not "wordage". That's the most ironic post I've seen in a long time. Please, don't embarrass yourself any further. --Chase1993 23:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wordage is correct, but what do I know, my honours degree minor was only in Professional Writing... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The word SA was looking for was "wordage". Try to be correct when you're correcting others. ;) --Mold 23:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong or not, if you knew me, you'd know I couldn't give a rats ass about how you spell or talk. I was telling you why everyone else said you were uneducated and shit. Dick fais. >:| Also, I thought I was making up a word. Huh, cool that I'm not!-- SA 23:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you ought to learn what "unfounded" means before you use the word any more. You don't know how words work... seems like a reasonable foundation for a statement of poor education to me. As for how I know that you don't lash out in real life, the answer I could give - while true - would sound like BS, and you're already spewing enough of that, so there's no point adding to it. --Mold 23:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Unfounded" means: without foundation; not based on fact, realistic considerations, or the like: unfounded suspicions. Taken from the link you gave. Therefore, in case you're too dumb to realize, an unfounded accusation would be an accusation not based on fact. That does it. I'm officially keeping a tally now. That post was unfounded accusation number five. --Chase1993 23:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As I and some others have pointed out to you, there is a strong and ever-increasing body of evidence for you being poorly educated. Any accusation in that direction is not only not unfounded, it's more justified with every post you make. --Mold 23:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Aha, but you were not correcting me for being uneducated. You were correcting me for misuse of the word "unfounded", which I proved by your own link that I DO know how to use. Therefore, it WAS unfounded post number 5. And I believe your last post brings it up to 6. --Chase1993 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Except you used the word referring to my accusation that you're poorly educated. You have gone far out of your way to prove that your education has been rudimentary at best. You can quote a webpage if I link it for you, great, but you clearly don't know what the word means, else you wouldn't have used it, and you'd understand by now that my accusation was never unfounded. --Mold 23:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Look my friend, I KNOW I have had a good education. You continually reiterating that I have not will not change the fact. So just shut up already, OK? --Chase1993 23:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

DICK BUTT-- SA 23:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not, never have been, and never will be your friend. If you've had such a great education, start showing it. Do your research and argue cogently, rather than ranting like some mouth-breathing mongoloid. You'll probably get a better reception here, but not from me. To me, you're not worth the smear of chemicals that makes up your body, and the very idea that you consider a suggestion a good one makes it suspect. I'm done here. --Mold 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone stop feeding the troll until he responds to the salient points that have been made in the same manner. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually on a team thats in the process of making a Medieval themed FPS with a hint of RTS in it. 20 bucks says it will be better than WoW.

Does it have an automatic signature adder? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

^^WIN!--Orange Talk 22:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the poster was trying to confuse the op and keep out of anymore of the discussion while also being a troll.-- SA 23:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Given he did not engage the points that I so kindly repeated for him, I hereby claim victory. He is scared to engage in rational debate as he knows he would lose. One of you sycophants should now make me a template displaying how awesome I am and place it below. The rest of you can feel free to spam his every response with lines from 4chan. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you cannot claim victory. You cannot expect me to spend all of my time checking responses on this wiki. It may surprise you to know that I have other things to do with my time, unlike many of you who seem to spend most of your waking hours on this wiki. I would recommend masturbation as a secondary activity, as it is almost certain you will not get a girlfriend in your current state. Secondly, what points would you like me to engage? These "I shall repeat myself: Do I think I know better than people who cave to their own players' virtual terrorism? Do I know better than the people that unleashed a massive and debilitating virus on their player base? Do I know better than people who ship their game with illegal monitoring software? Yeah, I fucking do. Very simple question, why does death decay exist in WoW and not in UD? Does it have something to do with an ingame economy and making people spend time maintaining what they've got? It's about money, WoW needs you to spend money every month, UD doesn't" are not points. Please tell me what you would like to engage in debate about, and I will readily do so. --Chase1993 00:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I'm actually engaged. Again insulting EVERYONE and failing at it. Also, those are good points to debate about, but put in a less than debateful form. :trollface: -- SA 00:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Because I can: "WOW had to earn it. One of the ways they earned it was by giving it good features. I'm not trying to turn UD into WOW, I'm just borrowing some of its tried and proven features." I FUCKING LOVE PLAYING WOW JUST TO FIX MY WEAPONS. --Ezekial Riddle 23:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What I think we need is a new category similar to clothing suggestions. We can call it "hardcore" suggestions. I think the game could stand to have a few more "realistic" factors involved and items wearing out fits into that category. However, I do NOT believe they should be forced on everyone. Instead a toggle on the character's profile could allow INDIVIDUAL players, if they so choose, to turn on these "hardcore" ideas to make the game harder for themselves and not force it on everyone. Thus, if I want my own personal gear to wear out, cool. It would only affect me, not anyone else. That would be the ONLY way a suggestion like this would have any merit whatsoever.--Pesatyel 00:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea Pesatyel. A heartfelt THANK YOU for actually thinking about the suggestion instead of just blurting out "omg UD isn't realistic this suggestion sucks". I salute you. --Chase1993 00:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's my one post for this suggestion. I feel that something we've told you before bears repeating, Chase1993. Your suggestion needs to get through a voting process. The voters are the people you're currently making angry. Whether or not you're wrong, they think you're wrong, and this suggestion simply will never pass. Further arguing merely exasperates them and damages your credibility. Additional points:

• This is a duplicate suggestion, though I'm sure the wear-out rates are different.
• Your comments represent you. If you're producing typos because you're typing too quickly, you should slow down and preview or reread your comments before posting them. Doing anything less is lazy, and claiming you're typing too quickly is no excuse. Your comments will exist on this wiki for months or years. Take a few seconds to proofread, because you will be judged by the comments you make.
• Making ad hominem attacks, even in retaliation to ones aimed at you, is not a good idea. Regardless of who might have started it, it makes you look petty. Girlfriend, masturbation, and age-based attacks are particularly poor behavior.
• And, most importantly, in WoW, repair costs (note that the items never permanently break) are used to ensure that the economy remains stable. Since players are constantly bringing new money into the economy through various activities, money needs to exit the economy as well in order to curb inflation. Repair costs are one of the primary means for accomplishing this goal. It was indeed a smart move by the Blizzard developers, but it's entirely inapplicable here, since it has nothing to do with realism. Blizzard developers have acknowledged that it's a necessary evil, and admit that it's not fun for players.

So, basically, there's no reason why we should add a fix for a problem that doesn't exist in UD, just for the sake of realism at the expense of fun. That is all. I won't be replying. —Aichon— 00:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a good idea Chase. The real problem is that 90% of UD players don't want a game. They want a social network were they get to decide what they what to do, when they want to do it, and never be challenged or face any real threat or change that means anything. They don't ever want to be truly effected in any way. Just the same old status quo forever and ever amen.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:34 9 November 2009(BST)

---

Revivification time limit

Timestamp: Explodey 13:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Mechanic

Scope: Revivifying bodies

Description: After a zombie is injected with a NecroTech syringe and slumps to the floor, it has 4 days to stand up. Once that time runs out, it de-revivifies and reverts to being an ordinary dead zombie. Why? It's unfair that survivors are able to be revivified and lie on the floor, invincible for as long as they want and be able to stand up a month later after the suburb has become a ghost town, still with 50AP. Active survivors cannot do this, because they would have used some of their AP to reach the revive point. Remember - you got killed, went to a revive point and then did not log in again for a month. This should not be rewarded with invincibility. It's not the same as a standing survivor idling out. They can become invisible and survive while others in the building were eaten and the building ruined, but this player earned it by finding a good place to hide, making friends who healed them in the meantime etc. Why 4 days? Because that's the same as the idling out time, hence just long enough to negate the advantage of idling out. However de-revivification is not tied to idling. To avoid idling out you only have to log in. To avoid de-revivification you must actually stand up. Otherwise the timer keeps ticking (even if the idle timer doesn't.) Not to be confused with ZL's suggested change to idling. This one would not directly affect idling.

Discussion (Revivification time limit)

Sorry if this is a dupe. I would be surprised if no-one had thought of this before, but I did search for "de-revifify", "devifify" etc. and nothing came up. --Explodey 13:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No way. One way ticket to nerfing survivors is a one way ticket to peer-rejected. --Thadeous Oakley 14:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Survivors do need a nerfing but this isn't the way to go about it. I don't really see what good this does. 15:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this suggestion would get into Peer Reviewed. If you are revived, you become a survivor. Not "If you're revived you turn into a survivor unless you don't stand up for 5 days." It will be seen as "greifing the already helpless human population"; something to that tune anyway.--Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}17:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Way too OP; suggestions should generally benefit both sides equally in terms of gameplay. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 17:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yeah. But there are a LOT of suggestions that do not.--Pesatyel 23:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. How is a survivor, in a ghost town with 30hp and probably infected a massive bonus, especially if he's been lying down for 4 days? he's already lost at least 150 potential AP's for the survivor side. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping me on IRC some time and I'll show you the correct way to use this loophole. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I can think of a worse abuse (that I don't want to mention here.) I wonder if we're thinking of the same thing. --Explodey 20:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

For your own mental sanity, I hope that you don't.--Thadeous Oakley 21:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Each side gets balanced out in different ways. Zombies can generally stand up for 1 or 6 net AP loss after being killed, which is chump change compared to the net AP loss that the survivor side loses with each death. All I mean to say is, it's not exactly as black-and-white as it was explained, and there's really no need for this change from what I've seen. —Aichon— 23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is this different from a zombie dying and waiting till AP is maxed before standing again? At best I could see some kind of penalty for standing after being revived (like Lurching Gait not working, for example), but even then I doubt something like THAT would pass. Simply put your seeing a "problem" where there isn't one.--Pesatyel 00:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Scent Infection

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 11:28 8 November 2009(BST)

Type: Zombie Skill

Scope: Zombies

Description: Sub-skill of Scent Fear. For 1 AP, the zombie can sense Infected Survivors. Just like a NecroNet Scan, but shows the zombie all Infected Survivors within a 3x3 area around the block the zombie is in.

Discussion (Scent Infection)

How would this information be useful? --Catherine Athay 11:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you would know what buildings had Survivors inside before you started using AP to tear down cades.--

| T | BALLS! | 11:57 8 November 2009(BST)

X-Ray Vision. Next stupid idea please. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, X-ray vision is bad. Unless Survivors get it in the form of Binoculars and Necronet scans. Moron.--

| T | BALLS! | 12:05 8 November 2009(BST)

And zombies get a Pied Piper skill in Feeding Drag, what's the connection? That's right Kevan can invent whatever he wants because he isn't constrained by the Suggestions Do and Do Nots. Feel free to stop whining about the great injustice and put it into the main system for me to spam out in six hours. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

HAHAHA, as if anyone cares what you SPAM, loser. These suggestions are for Kevan, not your lame ass.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:37 8 November 2009(BST)

If they are for Kevan, why are they here where he doesn't frequent rather than in the main system? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't know shit about what Kevan frequents. Go lube up your rulebook and fuck it some more, you anal retentive, absbergian bag of shit.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:08 9 November 2009(BST)

Although Iscariot's generally disregarded elsewhere, on the suggestions system, he knows what he's talking about ZL. Your suggestions have always been bad, always been one-sided, and have almost always been dupes. Give it a rest, and find something better to do.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"He know what he's talking about" Oh, so a bunch of biased halfwits that don't know shit about game design will vote it down. What a fuckin shocking revelation that is. Look at the shit around here: "I don't like this idea cause it will effect my brain rotted death cultist". It's fuckin ridiculous.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:08 9 November 2009(BST)

Pay some fucking attention, you stupid cunt. Not mine, the two or three in a group I run. Or is reading too fucking complex for you to manage, you ignorant bag of shit? 00:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Like it fuckin matters, you're arguing for a tiny minority that shouldn't have been stupid enough to buy Brain Rot if they wanted to play Death Cultists. Make a new fuckin character, cuntfaces. Yeah, we should make the game retard proof enough so that any fucktard that buys Brain Rot isn't inconvenienced. Fuckin spoiled brats, the lot of you. "I play on My timetable and no one elses", "Don't inconvenience me for making retarded skill purchases". Sad and pathetic babyshit.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:19 9 November 2009(BST)

OR stop suggesting bullshit ideas that do nothing but change the game for the worse, lose player retention, annoy people and take viable avenues of gameplay and throw them out the window. Now do us all a favour and drown in the bath. 00:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop disregarding ZL's suggestions or opinions simply based off of past precedences. It doesn't mean every single one of his suggestions is going to be trash, and it certainly doesn't mean what Iscariot says is god. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

More than 3x3. Make it Scent Death length. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that a 5 block radius? That's a pretty strong nose there.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:37 8 November 2009(BST)

Just helps make it more familiar to the current system is all. It's not a skill that can hurt anyone because knowing where infected people is isn't detrimental to survivor defence, but a nice addition. Why not? 3x3 makes it near useless imo. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Because so many survivors spend long periods of time alive with an infection, right? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 19:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually like the idea behind this, although I'd prefer it if you could only smell infected Survivors inside the building you are standing outside. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Bincoulars allow you to see an area that does not include your own square and the NecroNet requires people go out and tag the zombies. This suggestion has no such limitations.--Pesatyel 23:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What are you, fuckin stupid? Survivors have to be infected. They can get rid of infections. Wow, a limitation.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:01 9 November 2009(BST)

It is still overpowered. You have the ability to see EVERY character in 18 locations that is infected. Both NecroNet and bincoulars require specific locations to work (and NecroNet doesn't say if a scanned zombie is inside or out, just in the square). With this you can roam all over the map without impediment. And your also assuming that EVERY infected person (which includes zombies) will maintain curing of said infection. Multiply it by a billion. In the end though, it actually makes no difference what I say since your a rude and arrogant troll. I could COMPLETELY agree with you and you would still be rude and arrogant.--Pesatyel 00:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

So, yes then, you are fuckin stupid. Thanks.--

| T | BALLS! | 04:37 9 November 2009(BST)

I like this one. Makes infection have a little more teeth and makes curing it more important, plus it works similarly to the way NecroNet scanning does (only those "tagged" by the other side are visible). It's got a smaller radius than NecroNet, but it has the advantage of being usable from any outside square, plus it's harder to land an infection than it is to scan a zombie and infection can be cured. TL;DR: I'd vote for this. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Fuck the Idle Out function

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 23:06 7 November 2009(BST)

Type: Game Change

Scope: All Players

Description: Yeah I said it, no more Idle Out function. It’s fuckin retarded in a game were no one can ever die. The only way it would be needed is if the game had perma-death. Since too many players are ball-less pussies, that ain’t gonna happen. So here’s the fuckin news: Instead of Idling Out, after 5 days with no activity, you just die. Fall over, become a body. Bodies don’t Idle Out either, they fuckin rot. Uh huh. Now you get a description of bodies depending on how old they are: 1 to 10 days: There is a body on the ground. 11 to 20 days: There is a moldy body on the ground. 21 to 30 days: There is a rotten body on the ground. 31 to 40 days: There is an extremely rotten body on the ground. 41 to 50 days: There is a desiccated body on the ground. 51 to 60 days: There are skeletal remains on the ground. 61+ days: No description. Course, the game would keep track of bodies, so for example: “There are 7 bodies, 3 moldy bodies, 1 desiccated body, and 4 skeletal remains on the ground” Once a character reaches “skeletal remains”, they can log in but no longer play. They see a screen like when you are asleep, but get this message: “You have become so rotted that you can no longer function.” After 61+ days, the character is ERADICATED, and can no longer be logged into.

Discussion (Fuck the Idle Out function)

Yeah, nope. This is a terrible idea. Also, mouldy. 23:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

	Vader Recommends Balls
	I find your lack of BALLS... ...disturbing.

--

| T | BALLS! | 23:32 7 November 2009(BST)

Two words: Attention Whore. --Thadeous Oakley 23:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The scary thing is that I actually like the "remove super inactive players" part of this, but as always, doesn't this go in Humorous Suggestions? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Idle mechanic was disabled in Monroeville during the first quarantine. Every building was stuffed absolutely chock-ful of meatshields, which combined with the perma-headshot means the zombies quickly ran out. I did what I could to correct the issue, but one Monroevillain can only do so much… :( The piles of bodies were fun, though. I just wish the decay flavour part had been implemented, that would have been awesome. Overall, though, this idea is terrible. Sorry. :/ ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You would still fall over as a body after 5 days, so you couldn't just meatsheild anymore with this than you can now.--

| T | BALLS! | 23:51 7 November 2009(BST)

It's not meatshielding that's the problem. The problem is that anyone who only plays at weekends comes back every week to find all their alts needing revives, taking even more time and AP off of them. It's an awful idea that doesn't actually improve a thing. 00:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It would stop people from idling out and then magically appearing after a zombie devastation, which is a pretty weak tactic. It would make it a little harder on Survivors. This would be an improvement. If you can't log in for 5 days, even just to check up on yourself, you probably deserve to die.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:11 8 November 2009(BST)

Yes. Not paying for two internet connections means all my characters deserve to die every week regardless. I run a group with several brain-rotted death cultists. You know how shitty this suggestion would make it for my guys to maintain those characters? Dmub idea. 00:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Inconvenient for you, but that does not make it dumb. That's what you get for buying Brain Rot.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:19 8 November 2009(BST)

Inconveniencing a lot of people for no reason pretty much sums up the word 'dumb'. 00:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok whatever. :) I mean, you can say that this is dumb because this would inordinately inconvenience the tiny minority of players that chose to play "brain rotted death cultists", but it seems pretty biased there dude.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:44 8 November 2009(BST)

No, it puts out anyone who plays on an irregular basis. Not everyone plays all the time, anyone who only makes weekends gets shafted under this idea. That is unbiasedly dumb. 00:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's what they get for being irregular. Inattentive people would die quicker. dunno, seems like they might just have to play better or more often. Maybe get some balls or something. You make it sound like the end of the world or something, oh a revive is so hard to come by. Shoot, it takes 55 days to be actually taken out of the game by this.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:58 8 November 2009(BST)

I grow tired of your elitest, having-no-outside-life attitude. Fuck your suggestion up its ass. 01:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Elitist.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:21 8 November 2009(BST)

That's what I was thinking. Other then ZL's hyper-rant, this suggestion is rather pointless as it is. What is the difference between an idled-character becoming active again or a new character springing up out of no where? Big deal, it is a non-issue.--Pesatyel 00:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that under this you cant hide as an idle character and use it as a tactic, which is the sort of lame tactic that appeals to the ball-less.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:00 8 November 2009(BST)

So, basically, you just want to force everyone to play at least once every 5 days, whether they can or not. You DO realize the point of idling out right? Yes, it is abusable, but what ISN'T abusable? If you just get of your rant and high horse, you could probably think of something better than this crap.--Pesatyel 01:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

They wouldn't be forced to play, they would just suffer a minor inconvenience if they didn't. Which would be worth getting rid of the abusable nature of Idling Out. --

| T | BALLS! | 01:21 8 November 2009(BST)

Yes. They would. If I don't want my character to die AUTOMATICALLY. I would have to play.--Pesatyel 01:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You're being bombastic. You would not be forced into anything. You would simply suffer a minor inconvenience for being inattentive and lazy. Of course, if one had any balls, this would not bother them.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:36 8 November 2009(BST)

Inattentive and Lazy? Dork.--Pesatyel 01:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So you have no argument then? Fine, I accept your defeat.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:45 8 November 2009(BST)

Accept yours; this suggestion sucks and will never pass. Either back down and remove it or charge ahead like an idiot into the burning fires waiting for this concept, but don't just hang around here so you can prolong your little drama flame fest. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I could say the same about you...--Orange Talk 01:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have accepted that the ball-less outnumber the those that own a pair. But you can't give up on the ball-less, though they will fight bitterly to maintain their lowly status. But those that finally grow a pair do thank me in the end. I'm only trying to help.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:53 8 November 2009(BST)

Help who? Your own deprived little ego?--Pesatyel 02:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No! I come to help you Pest, and bring you into the light. Do not turn away from your salvation! You, yes, even you can grow a pair. I believe in you Pest.--

| T | BALLS! | 02:07 8 November 2009(BST)

Please don't feed the trolls; isn't it obvious that the only reason he's doing this is to piss people off and stir up drama? Just let it fade away. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a pair inside of you just waiting to grow. Believe in yourself, LeDouche, and you shall grow a pair as well.--

| T | BALLS! | 02:20 8 November 2009(BST)

Yes, that was my bad. Some of us live and learn.--Pesatyel 02:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Blind fool, I do not troll. I am in earnest about your wretched state of ball-lessness.--

| T | BALLS! | 02:27 8 November 2009(BST)

Sorry to disappoint you, Zombie Lard, but those D&D dice of yours, they ain't balls. --WanYao 03:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls; isn't it obvious that the only reason he's doing this is to piss people off and stir up drama? Just let it fade away. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Second. It was so very nice when he wasn't here trollin' any "I don't like this" with "GET BALLS," eh? If wasn't trolling, he'd just put it up for voting immediately... not like putting his fundamentally broken suggestions through DS makes a whole lot of difference with how the voting turns out. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:57, 8 November 2009 (BST)

Did some of you even look past the fact that it's ZL bringing the suggestion? Seriously, I don't see how it's "fundamentally flawed", so much as you guys bitching because of who is suggesting it. I think it'd be pretty damn fun. It actually encourages people to play more often. Sure, it punishes those who don't, but it will push others to play more. Is that so bad? And the deletion thing isn't so bad either. It frees up names. ;) -- SA 04:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe all the major flaws in this suggestion have been raised; I have no bias against ZL, but this suggestion clearly isn't intended to pass. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it is intended to pass. I don't expect it to, not because it's flawed, but because it's the Urban Pussies Wiki, which still lacks enough players with the balls to want to play a real game. Oh, I know, let's add a counter to track how many beers get drunk in a day. Let's add Fart Actions and have a counter to track the number of farts that characters blow out their ass in a day. Then there could be descriptions of how foul the city air is based on the total Farts in the city each day. Imagine the lulz!! I guess that would be more your speed.--

| T | BALLS! | 04:51 8 November 2009(BST)

Did you read the legitimate discussion points people brought up? How does it "encourage" people to play more often? It FORCES them to so that their character doesn't die. All it does is hurt people that can't play on a regular basis and the way people play should NOT be forced on them by anyone other than Kevan. This is a game. It is supposed to be fun. The "encouragement" of a handful of people to "play more often" is better than the disillusionment of the handful of people who keep dying (or even potentially lose their characters) because they can't play as often as YOU or the author wants them to? The author's argument is that, basically, idling out can be used as a "sneak attack". How is it any different for a brand new character to suddenly appear in game? Or for a player to Free Run into your room? Or for a zombie to stand up? Or for a horde of zombies to bust in to your building? Given that, this idea hurts more than it helps, unless he wants to outlaw all the other "sneak attacks". They key to your statement is that it "punishes" those who can't play as often as you like. I will play on MY time table. No one else’s.--Pesatyel 05:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Easiest way to deal with this one people is not to respond and spaminate anything he puts into the main system. You should not be responding here. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Haven't you slit your wrists yet?--

| T | BALLS! | 11:32 8 November 2009(BST)

We'd be hip deep in skeletal remains. The idle out function is abusable, but only in specific cases, which could be fixed by having idled out players "wake up" outside the building they were in (if inside at the time). No need to remove it totally -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:09 8 November 2009 (BST)

But then Survivors could still make a pile of idled out characters that just wait for hordes to pass and then "activate" their hidden army of repairers. Inside or outside doesn't really matter. Skeletal remains only hang around for 10 days, so they would go away pretty quick.--

| T | BALLS! | 11:32 8 November 2009(BST)

So let me get this straight. ZL, clearly lacking in balls, has a big piss stain on his pants about the mere possibility that someone might pseudo-teleport via idling out, and get him. So to protect his fearful, pansy ass, he comes up with this rubbish and accuses anyone that disagrees of having his own, ball-less condition. Heh, that's cute. Like a sad puppy, or a poor kid trying to raise money to buy an X-mas gift for his dying mother. --Mold 11:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, dipshit, it's about the Survivor Armies that hide in idle and only come out to clean up suburbs after hordes pass through. Single assassins are small potatoes.--

| T | BALLS! | 11:44 8 November 2009(BST)

I hope you'll take some constructive criticism. There's actually some merit to changing the idling system but I see some problems with your suggestion. Try the following changes:

Lengthen the time to 8 days before a character "idles". Do away with rotting flavor descriptions, it's just text spam. Lengthen the time before a character drops dead (additional 2 weeks?)

With these changes weekend players could still do their thing without consequence. Also, it would provide a mechanism for idled players to eventually die, and prevent "cloaked" survivors from mysteriously teleporting into existence with a generator and fuel in a ruined suburb.

I think that's fair, it prevents abuse, allows casual play, and I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with their character dying after being abandoned for 22 days. Zombie apocalypse or not, wouldn't you die if you just stood in the same place, taking no action, moving not once, for almost a month?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Course I'll take constructive criticisms, it's just in rare supply on these pages. Anyway, yes, your ideas sound good to me.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:43 8 November 2009(BST)

Would you guys shut up? I don't know who is dumber, ZL, or you people who keep feeding him! Leave the damn flamebait alone and let it die already. He doesn't want constructive criticism, he doesn't want input, so just quiet down and let this piece of crap idle out... Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

HAHAHA...oh, LeDouche...go make up a suggestion about Shit Actions, and make it so we can throw it at each other for 0 damage. The fuckin LULZ WE COULD HAVE! Retard.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:43 8 November 2009(BST)

Well, well well. Look who's back. If it isn't my favourite idiot who has no idea about how to play the game. But when we say his suggestions are bad, we're wrong because we haven't played as zombies. Whereas I can tell that you spend so much time as a survivor. The long and short of this suggestion is that it hurts every player ever. It hurts people who aren't addicts, but most of all, it hurts survivors. If a zombie player doesn't log on for a week, they die, stand back up for 1AP. If a survivor doesn't, they die, they go to a revive point, spend a couple of days there, get revived. Complete abuse of the suggestions system. Please return to whatever hole you've been hiding in the past two months. I thoroughly enjoyed not waking up to see your terrible ideas spewed all over this wiki.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, nothing ever changes. I see you are still a pathetic little toady, doing tricks for table scraps.--

| T | BALLS! | 04:39 9 November 2009(BST)

---

URBAN DEAD IPHONE APP

Timestamp: Meanoldrunk 02:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: iphone app

Scope: iphone users

Description: an iphone app for ud cause playing on the phone stinks

Discussion (URBAN DEAD IPHONE APP)

No--Orange Talk 02:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

"cause playing on the phone stinks " This game was designed for playing on a PC, an iPHONE is designed for making phone calls and text messages, yes it has a browser but it's going to suck for 99% of website that haven't been designed for it. If that's your only justification then I want an App for my K550i as well and my phones been around longer so it should have priority --Kamikazie-Bunny 02:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

People with iphones are useless posers who need to understand that the whole fucking world doesn't revolve around them and that everyone isn't going to jump to code something at their whim. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so harsh they're not useless, they are good for a laugh at! --Kamikazie-Bunny 03:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As a useless poser who owns an iPhone, I've thought about coding something like this up as a way to learn the iPhone SDK, but, to be frank, it'd be more effort than it's worth. It's also outside the scope of what we should expect from Kevan. Definitely a no. —Aichon— 03:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

NO AND I'M SICK AND TIRED OF YOU GOD DAMN LAZY ASS iFUCKERS NOT DOING YOUR OWN SHIT. You want a fucking app for your 300 dollar piece of shit? Make it your god damned self. For now, I'm just going to take my Sansa View and, you know, use it for music. Because everything else I've got a FUCKING COMPUTER FOR. YOU KNOW? THE THING YOU TYPED THIS PILE OF GOD DAMNED GARBAGE ON?!?-- SA 03:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I like SA pissed off. He makes me laugh ^_^ --Haliman - Talk 05:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

>:| -- SA 05:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

>:D --Haliman - Talk 05:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like someone's jealous they didn't get an iPhone for their birthday. ;) —Aichon— 07:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I had one for about a week, took it back and got my View instead. It was cheeper (For more storage too) and, well, in my opinion had better functionality.-- SA 14:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, see, an informed decision. Just be aware that some of us also made informed decisions (or at least like to think we did), and don't think that the world is there to serve our every whim. But I do agree that many folks in the demographic that the iPhone is targeted towards seem to have a sense of entitlement that is rather annoying. —Aichon— 06:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I know people who play UD on their phones with no problems. If iPhones suck, maybe someone who uses one will write a compatible stylesheet or whatever's needed... or maybe they'll, yeah, use a real browser. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there's really no need to. It displays the exact same on an iPhone as it does in a modern (non-IE) desktop browser, and I've used it plenty of times that way. The only problem is the slight loss of accuracy (as compared to using a mouse) if you don't zoom in far enough...which of course could be a bad thing if you accidentally click on the attack button instead of the FAK button, for instance. But really, the only thing a stylesheet might do is space the buttons out a bit more, while a native app would basically just be an uncluttered interface and nothing more. Other sites (eBay, banking sites, Facebook, etc.) have done similar things, but there's little point since the UD user base is so small and the iPhone owners amongst that group are even less. I mean, at best, we're talking about an app that maybe a few hundred people in the world would use. More likely just a few dozen, if even. —Aichon— 07:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I defer to your expertise, and suggest to the suggester: "Don't do that, then!" ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly expertise, but thanks for the vote of confidence! ;) —Aichon— 06:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

first it was only an idea and as for them being 300 they are only 100 dollars and what am i posing as? i did in fact type this on my phone not my comp MAYBE i should have asked for a mobile friendly option urban dead was ok on my old razor but unplayable on my wifes zte

Please to be signing posts. Also mobile versions of the game would take extra coding which could instead be funnelled into adding new features, not making the same ones available to someone who doesn't want to sit down for 10 minutes in the day. 23:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, this suggestion got shot down in Epic Fail Flames about a month or two ago for the reason that people didn't want to hear someone sit around and bitch about how they didn't have an app that they wanted. This page is for improving Urban Dead; if you want greasemonkey or iPhone apps then you're in the wrong place. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dupe (almost) --Catherine Athay 11:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been on DS so much it makes me fucking cry. Requesting another addition to suggestion do's and dont's. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't really get away with putting stuff on the Do or Do Nots just because I don't like it. Otherwise it'd read "Anything you can think of" and be a protected page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

But if enough of us support it, it's okay right? RIGHT?-- SA 13:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Get 9 users to support you and I'll add it, after you cut down the largest tree in the forest with.... A HERRING!!! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Arcade Machine

Timestamp: Kamikazie-Bunny 02:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Unique Mall Addition/Flavour

Scope: Survivors

Description: The Arcade Machine is a unique addition to ONE MALL only and can only be found in one corner.... Description Addition Unpowered: "There is an an amusement arcade here, the machines are switched off." Powered: "There is an an amusement arcade here, only one machine is working." If no one has played the game "There is no high score." is added If someone has played the game "'Player' has the highest score with xxxx points" is added Function When powered Survivors can click the button 'Play the arcade game', this costs 1AP. When clicked a number is generated ((Rnd 1:100)*10) IF this number is higher than the current high score the player receives the message "CONGRATULATIONS!!! you have set a new high score of 'xxxx' points!" and the building description is updated. ELSE "you scored 'xxxx' points." Notes If power is lost the high score is lost/reset. When ruined it cannot be used and is automatically repaired with the rest of the building. When a zombie ruins this corner they gain +1XP In order to make the malls more unique this feature will be placed in one mall (at Kevin's discretion) that is currently non-unique so the following malls are excluded; Ackland Mall (The Goth Store) Lumber Mall (Only 2 block mall) Nichols Mall (The Kilt Store) Pole Mall (Only 3 block mall) Thompson Mall (The Hat Store)

Discussion (Arcade Machine)

I like the general idea, though your score generation could use some work, I think. Sure, it's useless flavor, but it'd be interesting. I'd put in more than one though. Maybe around 4-5 or so. —Aichon— 03:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

How could the score generation be enhanced? It's just increments of 10 between 10 and 1000. I though about more but if they were in different malls it wouldn't be unique, if they were in the same corner it would create screen spam and if they're in different corners of the mall it would be weird to me (most shopping centres I've been to only have one arcade). --Kamikazie-Bunny 03:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't keen on the increments or the range. I'd rather either see a wider range or smaller increments. And I know it wouldn't be unique then...which was kinda the point of my suggesting it. I was talking about different malls though, not in the same mall. —Aichon— 07:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow.--Pesatyel 05:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Good or bad wow? --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this a dupe? I don't remember ever seeing it.-- SA 14:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Veery iintereesting... Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd consider supporting this if it were a pinball machine. And if it were in Tommy ... erm, Thomson Mall. --WanYao 03:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it won't become part of Thompson mall as it already has a unique feature, The Hat Store. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I also decided not to name the machine so people could imagine it as whatever they wanted. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I liked this so much I suggested my own variant of it. --Explodey 14:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So is this going to voting or what? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Double wield

Timestamp: ==Characters== [Favalli]Survivor [BransBrans]Zombie I have one PK character but I wont say his name so that he doesnt get hunted down. Templates Template Whore This User includes as many templates as possible on his or her User Page. I mean, come on! Tusken Raider?!? Sacred Ground Policy Supporter This user or group supports the Sacred Ground Policy and acknowledges that all Cemeteries in the city of Malton are considered Revivification Points. River Tactics Supporter This User or Group supports River Tactics. A.L.I.C.E. Is Watching... This survivor is NOT paranoid. He knows his every action is being closely monitored by A.L.I.C.E. and that she is manipulating everything and everyone to her own ends. It's all just one big test... ending with cake. Ban Stupidity Kralion does not tolerate stupid people. BEWARE: Roundhouse Kick Master! This user has mastered Chuck Norris' signature only move. It's deadly! RickRolled! This user has been RickRolled and wouldn't get this from any other guy. STFU N00B Kralion recognizes the difference between a Newbie and a Noob. Du Nu Nu Nu... Kralion can touch this. No EH-bitching This user/group does not support barricading over Extremely Heavy without a good reason. Remember: overbarricading kills. Literally. It's a Joke, OK? This user supports the use of humor, even when other people don't get it. Firefox User Kralion uses Firefox. Alt user This user has alts but DOESN'T Zerg. Prevent the up?rising This user believes that playing Whack-A-Mole with zombies is plain retarded. I don't even know that guy! This User has one or more PKing characters, but the rest of his or her characters think those guys are crazy, so please don't shoot them. Big Bash 3! This user or group was with Big Bash 3. They were last seen heading home after the party. Please have your brains ready for later. Characters Backstory FAVALLI- Favalli was a succesful university student with a 15 year old sister called Lilah.They had moved to Malton with their parents but they were on vacation in scotland and they stayed with their Granfather Joe. Joe was a really good Grandfather and he owned a gun store in Malton. He had secretely teached Favalli how to use firearms and sometimes they went hunting togheter. But one day,Things changed. Favalli had just returned from university and had passed about 3 riots by now. They where getting crazier and crazier in Malton for some strange reason. When he saw home the front door was open and there was blood in the doorknob. Inside there where 3 dead bodies and Grandpa bleeding and with a 2 barrel shotgun in his hands¨Whats going on? are you all right?¨ Favalli asked. Grandpa didnt even answer. He gave him a pistol,a radio and an extra magazine and told Him ¨Boy,Get out of here now.These things will get up and bite you like they bit me¨ ¨But¨ ¨There is no time for this Favalli. Now go find your sister and look for a same place.Remember when we went hunting and I always gave your objectives? well,now the objective is to find Lilah,get to a safe place and SURVIVE¨. Favalli didnt even argue,he understand him perfectly well.He Jumped from the window and ran away as he heard blast after blast to come from the house. Its been 4 years since that day,and He is still looking for her sister and more importantly SURVIVE. 18:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Zombie hunter skill tree

Scope: Survivor

Description:

Basically,dual wielding weapons would apply only for pistol and knife since they dont weight so much. If you are dual wielding a revolver,there is chance of making dmg x 2 since you hit with both guns, but the bad thing is that the accuracy is downed by 10%. Same goes for knife,chance of damage x 2, but 10% less accuracy. To dual wield weapons,click both of them and to stop dual wielding them click the weapon (that will become one) and they will appear in the inventory.

Discussion (Double wield)

Okay: 1) you screwed up your formatting; follow the directions next time. 2) Your grammar and spelling aren't great; your suggestion won't go far if it's hard to read, let alone support. 3) This is just a really crappy and overpowered idea that will never ever work; you do realize that zombies are player too, and don't appreciate survivors being allowed to run around with godlike weapons? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 20:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You haven't even mentioned my favourite part. Pistol starting accuracy = 5%. Pistol accuracy is reduced by 10%. Pistol accuracy = -5%. So... It definitely won't work, and there's a 5% chance of healing the zombie for 10 damage? --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

How would this affect the ammo count of the gun(s)? Also, having a chance of double damage for pistols means it is the same as a shotgun(when the double damage happens) but with 15% more accuracy. Too overpowered. Younna: It wouldn't heal, it would just never hit. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}20:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the accuracy comment. I can't military skills. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}20:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was jokign about the healing, because -5% is worse than never hitting.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely needs a more drastic accuracy hit. Make it 0% flat and disable reloading, and I'll vote keep. RinKou 21:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Come on guys. You should have found this Suggestions/24th-Aug-2006#Dual_Wield --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If it halved accuracy, was a zombie hunter skill and used a round from each gun i would be tempted to say yes. otherwise you can shove it back in your trenchcoat :) --Honestmistake 22:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As Ross and Honest, except with more "Die in a fire". -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Leave my d20s out of your religious sermonising. --WanYao 03:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So, I can have a fire axe with 6% encumbrance and 3 damage, or 2 knives with 4% encumbrance and 4 damage? Both with a 40% chance to hit.--Pesatyel 05:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Knife Differentiation

Timestamp: RinKou 01:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Useless flavor

Scope: Knife users

Description: I can't remember when Kevan made the search flavor text change that differentiated between knives (as in the hunting knives in sporting goods stores, rusty knives in junkyards, and large scalpels in infirmaries), but since we have visible kill-weapons now, having the differentiation back would be nice. Now, I know what the problem with this is. That last change was a change in flavor text. No matter what text you got, it was still a knife in the end. This change affects the knife itself as an object, seperating it into those three (plus? Those are the only ones I remember) redundant objects. So, in either case, three (or more) new weapons: hunting/rusty/scalpel, same stats, no changes save for the cosmetic, found in the exact same places at the exact same rates. All current knives in existence are just "knives" of the nondescript variety. If you want a special knife, you need to go loot a new one, just for coding convenience. Presumably, nondescript knives are still findable in the same locations.

Discussion (Knife Differentiation)

I really don't like scalpels being used as knives, because they're fragile as fucks sometimes.-- SA 01:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Mostly just code duplication, as well as special stuff like carving pumpkins - there'd have to be some kind of check for "do you have a knife to carve this with" when you tried to use one. Yeah, just a Halloween thing, but small stuff. I'd probably vote keep. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:54, 5 November 2009 (BST)

IT'S NOT BECAUSE I'M EMO YOU DICK. I actually am a big fan of papercraft. I have a friend who's a nurse and he gives me a shit ton of the disposable scalpels that they have where he works. Things suck ass, but they're free! ^^ -- SA 01:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

YOU DONT EVEN HAVE A JOB. Jobs are essential for the economy you know. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:08, 5 November 2009 (BST)

I was temping at another ware house, until today. They layed off the entire side I was working on because of the other workers starting fights with each other. Shit sux yo'-- SA 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, I had thought they were simply called "Kitchen Knife" before that change. I didn't realize they were consolidated as well. Anyway, I'm in favor of the flavor. —Aichon— 02:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, we homogenised the knives for ease, otherwise we're going to have to program every single pistol make and type into the game, every make and type of shotgun, every make and type of hockey stick.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That pretty much sums it up as to why this is uncessarry.--Pesatyel 04:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pistols and shotguns have always only been "pistol" and "shotgun" in the search flavor. I'm only saying knives because knives are differentiated between in the search flavor text. RinKou 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

---

number of survivors total in a building and their classes.

Timestamp: Winman1 00:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: number of people of a certain class in a building.

Scope: text inside a building.

Description: When you enter a building it will say the "total number of survivors" inside a building and how many survivors of each class there is inside the building. For example it would say "there are x survivors in this building. x Are military. x are scientists. x are civilians. There are x zombie hunters here."

Discussion (number of survivors total in a building and their classes.)

There's not a whole lot of problems with this, besides "screen spam" and "what happens with 50+ people?" I'd say it should not give you these stats unless you hit "show full list" (or whatever it is with 50+ survivors), as you could only gather that info manually if you had done that (it costs another IP hit, basically). Otherwise, it's just automation of intel gathering... though the other thing to consider is the screen spam. There's no difference between a level 41 military character and a level 41 scientist - and both are (presumably, unless they made some weird skill choices) already zombie hunters to boot. I do suppose the whole "zombie hunters" value is a quick way to assess how many survivors are high-level in a building. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:31, 5 November 2009 (BST)

Being that I see scientists in army/police regalia frequently, I think this idea is dumb. You CAN'T know what class someone is until you see them in action or ask them. Looking at them won't tell you shit.-- SA 01:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Classes really don't matter at all after the first few levels, so that information would just be bloat text. And if there are a lot of people in a building (i.e. 50+), it already tells you how many are there (e.g. "You are inside Monica General Hospital. There is a crowd of 59 survivors here."). Anything less than that and there's very little reason to display the information anyway, since a quick glance will tell you if it's closer to 1, 10, or 50. As for zombie hunters...it has some use, but I don't see how you can explain being able to see the stat instantly. —Aichon— 01:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Teeeeeext Spaaaaaaaam!--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't we have little boxes around their names on the minimap with different background colours denoting starting class? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 08:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This could be done with a GreaseMonkey script --Explodey 11:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It essentially already has been done. —Aichon— 20:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Heroic Death

Timestamp: Mooman72v2 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: New (Zombie Hunter?) Skill

Scope: Survivors

Description: Here's the idea: We add a new civllian (maybe Zombie Hunter) skill or skills, each costs 100 XP, the first of which is "Last Words" which allows one to set in their profile something that the player will say as a free action (0 AP) when they die. Other skills, purchasable after Last Words, incude: Heroic Death: When a character (with the skill) is killed, he makes an auto-attack with the last weapon used, at half accuracy, using up 1 AP. If the last weapon was a gun and is out of ammo, or was dropped since then, or if they have 0 AP, the attack is not made. Movie Gun: When a character (with the skill) is attacking with a pistol and runs out of ammo, with no pistol clips, they have a 5% chance of somehow getting another bullet. Like those movies where the guns only run out of ammuntition when it's convinient.

Discussion (Heroic Death)

First, why? Second, Last Words = spam. Third, Heroic Death = auto-attack, and auto-attacks are usually dead in the water. Fourth, Movie Gun = genre-breaking, since guns in zombie movies always run out of ammo too early, rather than at the convenient time. —Aichon— 18:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly as Aichon said.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Spam. User:Armpit_Odor/sig - 21:49 4 November 2009 (BST)

This dupe is older than America. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Last Words is a Dupe. Heroic Death is overpowered, unless you upped the AP cost a lot or something, but even then, don't count on it. Movie Gun is just Hella-Retarded.--Pesatyel 04:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

WTF CENTAURS - In America! (someone had to say it) Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 18:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Show Encumbrance At Top of Inventory

Timestamp: A Big F'ing Dog 17:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Inventory

Description: I suggest displaying encumbrance level above the inventory. It would change "Inventory (click to use)" to "Inventory (click to use): X% encumbered." Why? Because when searching players often check to see how close they are to maximum encumbrance. This might require scrolling down to the bottom of the screen several times. Although scrolling down requires minimal effort there is no reason to not eliminate this minor persistent hassle, and this change requires no new coding just a minor page edit. Encumberance could still be displayed below your inventory.

Discussion (Show Encumbrance At Top of Inventory)

Keep - Why not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mooman72v2 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

This isn't a vote. :) This is where the suggestion gets bantered around for awhile before going up in flames, fading into obscurity, or moving on to the vote. Anyway, I like the idea. It's simple, would remove the need for a line of text, and would put useful information further up the page, making it more accessible. Simple, but useful. —Aichon— 18:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should my interface change after 4 years for your personal preferences. Get Greasemonkey. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to once again enumerate ad nauseam why it's a better way to do things. —Aichon— 02:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Izzy, I'll give you one really good reason why your interface could (and might just should) change after four years, the game does not revolve around you. I like the suggestion for the same reason Aichon does, it is simple, it is useful, and it is a nice and easy fix for kevan to make. No harm in it, and a bit of good. (Not much mind you, but it all makes a difference) -Devorac 06:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC) PS. Also for a number people I know, greasemonkey doesn't work so well. Really Izzy chill out and remember that other people play this game, not just you. -Devorac 06:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not just him, I don't like having my interface change very often either. I'm used to having it where it's at, and I like it where it's at. :c -- SA 13:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I know, and I would have no problems with it if he had said "Why should everyone's interface change..." it was the "My" that got me... People will decide if this goes to vote (kinda unlikely but wonders never cease) Personally I don't mind my interface,it only clutters when I'm carrying an absolute ton of FAKs and Needles, but this change has a merit to it. -Devorac 18:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

SA, I agree with you. It's useful to have it at the bottom of the inventory. But why not have it at the top as well? It's not like that line "(Click to use)" is so important that adding a bit of useful information after it will be distracting. --A Big F'ing Dog 19:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

---

vaccine against infection

Timestamp: kralion 3:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: medicine

Scope: survivors

Description: Once I became a zombie and I had lots of things as a survivor,like a shotgun and lots munnition and a home in which my friends inside killed me and dumped me outside and I wished so bad I could get my things back,but the only way is to get a Revivification Syringe and a player that actually wants to make you a human again,but it takes a lot of time to find both. So I think that in the game a vaccine against becoming infected should be consider,when you use the vaccine you gain inmunity from the zombie virus in the game,but it only lasts a week or 10 infectious bites.If you die with the vaccine on it wont make any difference,you will wake up as a zombie.the vaccine would most likely be found in hospitals and necrotech buildings,they are likely to become very valuable and rare,though necrotech employees can create them,but they need to be in a necrotech lab.

Discussion (vaccine against infection)

So, this is a vaccine that NT employees can manufacture at NT facilities (or can be found by anyone at an NT facility or hospital), and its purpose is to simply stop Infectious Bite from working for either a week or 10 bites? This seems unnecessary, since FAKs are relatively easy to come by and can remove the infection. And since every survivor should be carrying a few FAKs at all times to deal with infection and being attacked, it seems like it's not that big of a deal. Infectious Bite only really comes into play when you have a survivor who gets away while low on HP. Otherwise, it's little more than a nuisance. There's no need to provide survivors with an edge over zombies in this area. —Aichon— 18:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As above. Well said, Aichon. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Though I would say infection is useful for discouraging and/or slowing down actives in general, not just folks that escape combat with a few hp, I mostly agree with Aichon. All you'd really accomplish with this is to eliminate IB's use in deterring/distracting active defenders and making real-time survivor vs zombie duels closer. Query, is this meant to be something used only by the beneficiary, or can one player use it on a different player? If it's the latter, this could be a big nuisance to players that want to be infected most/all of the time. --Mold 19:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Infection is fine, doesn't need nerfing. --Papa Johnny 19:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea, worse formatting. User:Armpit_Odor/sig - 19:59 3 November 2009 (BST)

I hope to god this idea is as shitty as it appears, because otherwise it's a suggestion to make people immune to zombification. This is almost as bad as that agility crap that was all over DS. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 20:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just dealing with Infectious Bite. It had no impact on zombification. —Aichon— 20:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that the grate engrish helped clairify tat. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:58, 3 November 2009 (BST)

Either way, its an unneeded nerf. Infection is only dangerous to newbies.--Pesatyel 03:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And people in red zones; infection is really becoming a pain in Roftwood at the moment. Regardless of that fact, infection remains pretty underpowered in most situations. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 18:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

True, there are always other situations. But you hit the nail on the head. Infection is underpowered and doesn't need to be made weaker.--Pesatyel 04:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lets just Nerf Zombie skills right? NO! --Technerd ^CFT 21:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Dropping junk out of buildings

Timestamp: Winman1 21:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: attacking

Scope: survivors

Description: when you are inside a barricaded building you can drop things out the window for 1 AP to damage zombies standing outside the building (if any are present). You cant target a specific zombie or person, its just a random target. Once you drop an item from the building, it is removed from your inventory. Without any skills, dropping an item out of a building has 5% accuracy. With hand to hand combat, the accuracy is 20%. A person with knife combat or axe proficientcy will have a 25% chance of damaging a zombie with the item for that particular skill. Light items such as newspapers, beer, wine,books, and crucifixes will always hit a zombie (if one is there) with 0 damage. normal items such as Hockey Sticks, pool cues, ski poles knives and golf clubs will cause 1 damage if they sucessfully hit a zombie standing outside. Heavy items such as fire axes cricket bats, baseball bats, lengths of pipe, and toolboxes can cause 2 damage. If you drop an item out of a building and have noone standing outside you just lose the item with no damage to anyone.

Discussion (Dropping junk out of buildings)

Although the accuracy and damage is low, this is still just a way for survivors to attack the underpowered zombie side without even leaving the confines of their safehouse. I don't dig it, jack. 21:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As above. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Read this. Should make it clear. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As both Misanthropy and Ross have said. —Aichon— 21:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Its also a dupe of several other suggestions. Personally i have no problem with the concept as long as accuracy is terrible, you don't get XP for doing it and it can't cause headshots! --Honestmistake 22:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you get the chance to target a specific character? I hope not (because you would need X-ray vision for that.) If not then who is targeted? The zombie at the top of the stack? A random zombie? A passing survivor? --Explodey 22:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait, not only are you proposing all of what's already been torn out of this, but you also want HTH to improve its accuracy? What? How? Why? In what way does your ability to perform tai otoshi help you drop things accurately? You have to actuall be 'hand to hand' for HTH to work, the clue's in the title. Or have you learnt The Art of Dropping Anvils by Grandmaster W. E. Coyote? Not even Hatsumi would make something so dumb up, and he's invented some right crap in his time. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You know who used to spamflood DS? Blake Firedancer. I miss those days; his suggestions almost always sucked, but at least they were experienced and plausible... Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Tselita was funnier. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel simultaneously honoured and insulted. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I kind of miss the Tranny now that you mention it.-- SA 02:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you been reading up on BlueSpurt's failed Ideas? 'Cause this one reminds me powerfully of one of his that died in writhing agony...-Devorac 23:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, but the details are a bit lacking. Here's my take:

• Given that it's impossible to see outside your own building and thus you can't aim (as indicated by the random targeting), I think that it's unrealistic to have the accuracy be increased by aiming skills.
  • Instead, why not have a flat 5% chance of hitting each target outside, starting with the most idle and working down the list until one is hit? This gives decent odds of hitting *something* if there's a large crowd, but very little if there are only a few people outside – which, again, is commensurate with how dropping objects into an unseen crowd would realistically work.
• Finally, I would have the damage done be weight/3, rounded down… so all the 2 encumbrance items would do 0 damage, common items such as pistols and shotguns (4%/6%) would do 1 and 2 damage, respectively, going up to heavy rare objects such as generators, paintings and Christmas trees (20%), which would do a whole 6 damage… *if* they hit.

Thoughts? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Negative AP visibility

Timestamp: Explodey 20:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Type: UI, Game mechanic change (minor)

Scope: Survivors with Construction or Lab Experience. PKers.

Description: When a survivor goes into negative AP (e.g. after repairing a long-ruined building or manufacturing a syringe), they will be described as "sleeping" in the location description, so other players can see that they just repaired the building or manufactured a syringe they will probably not move for a while they would probably appreciate it if any passing survivors barricade the building. Other points Only the fact that they are asleep is shown, not their exact AP. Having -9 or higher AP would not trigger it, only -10 or below, so a player will never appear as sleeping due to standing up or reviving. Alternatively the threshold could be lower, e.g. -20 or even -50, which would show that they are not going to move today. PKers gain 25% XP (instead of the usual 50%) for attacking a sleeping survivor (not a big deterrent, but makes clear that this is discouraged.) Zombies still get 100% as normal. I would not worry about this cluttering the screen. Only one player per day can go into negative AP by repairing the same building. And manufacturing needles is rare anyway.

Discussion (Negative AP visibility)

PKers get 25% AP for attacking a sleeping survivor? What? Surely you mean XP. Also, no, unnecessary.--Thadeous Oakley 20:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I meant XP. Edited. --Explodey 22:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely unnecessary and pointless. If a person is not logged in, their character is considered "sleeping". Why are we now redefining this and blatantly showing who won't be able to do anything for (potentially) a long time? That's part of the excitement--not knowing when they will log back in and do something! --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing Thad is right and he means 25% XP. Even so, this change is very arbitrary. PKers are already discouraged from attacking survivors, so why discourage them further? What's the point in showing that people are sleeping if not to make things both more dangerous and more apparent that they're in need of help? Also, why the arbitrary "it only works below -10AP" idea? Why wouldn't something like this work for any negative value? And even if all of these are dealt with, see Maverick's last point. Part of the fun is not knowing. —Aichon— 21:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Violates basic D&DN guidelines while also managing to do nothing of any value. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Make it a zombie only skill on the scent tree and it could have some potential but as a general freebie its a a big fat NO! --Honestmistake 22:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So your trying to deter PKing by making them only get 25% XP? You do know that a lot of PKers PK because they are assholes, not because they need XP. This boils down to telling everyone "attack me, I won't respond for a long time" (especially if you "lower the threshold"). I see absolutely NO benefit to this and the ONE you actually came up with, that someone might be nice enough to barricade for you, is nothing compared to all the nice little bad things that would ensue.--Pesatyel 22:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

OH HAI GUYS PEEKAYARS R ALL ASSHOLES N PLAY RONG OMG ITS TRUE.

Dick.

23:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say all. I said a lot. Grow up.--Pesatyel 01:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just a token penalty. Although all my PKer characters have gained all their XP from PKing (never attacking zombies or healing) I'm not assuming other PKers will care about it. It's not supposed to be an important part of the suggestion. --Explodey 23:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If it wasn't supposed to be an important part of the suggestion, why is it there at all? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 23:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Because he needed SOME kind of penalty to make it seem less overpowered and that was all he could think of.--Pesatyel 01:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So this suggestion adds a status effect that can only be applicable in two instances, syringes and suicide repairs? It then follows with a nerf, for no apparent reason and the proposal is based around a free form of communication? Am I following this ridiculousness?

For a start it's only going to occur in one situation, no-one intelligent manufactures syringes. Importantly people who suicide repair expect to die, there's a reason it's called a suicide repair. The aim of these repairs is not to stay alive by barricading the building and retaking it then and there, it's to reset the clock on the AP expenditure to allow anyone one else to move in, repair, cade and leave in the same 50AP cycle. There's no logical reason for the XP drop, none at all. Finally the notion that survivors need more avenues of communication is dumb, they already have the most and easiest in the game. If they're not using the ones they have, why should they get new ones? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Shattered glass

Timestamp:--Winman1 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Type: Barricade improvement?

Scope: survivors

Description: When you acquire a Beer/Wine Bottle there is an option to "shatter bottle". This can only be done by survivors when they are on the outside of a building with barricades. Doing this removes it from your inventory, and gives a message "you smash the bottle, spreading its shards into the barricade." Afterwards the building description on the outside will include "There are glass shards spread in the barricade. Zombies, when attacking these barricades have a 35% chance of receiving 2 dmg when attacking barricades which contain shards. Once any zombie is injured by these glass shards, shards are removed from the barricade, with the text "You smash at the barricade. Shattered glass injures you for 2 dmg." The shards can only damage a zombie if they attack the barricade. Barricades themselves can still be damaged by zombies whether there are glass shards or not. Glass shards can only be applied 5 times total. This does not mean it will cause 5dmg. It is still 35% to hit 1dmg, but can successfully damage zombies for 2 dmg 5 times before being removed from barricades. This suggestion would simply improve barricades slightly deterring zombies and make a near useless item useful.

Discussion (Shattered glass)

1. Barricades are fairly well balanced right now, if anything they are a tad too strong... Hurting zombies who try to smash them down will not go over well, at all.

2. Why the hell are zombies being badly damaged by teeny glass shards?!?! Really, these are zombies, shambling rotting corpses who couldn't care less that the got a glass splinter, think about it you are having this do the same damage as stabbing a zombie with a knife, WAY too much damage.

3. How are survivors sticking these things into the barricades? You can't just smash a bottle on the cades and hope that a zombie will walk over and snog the glass shards.

4. A lot of people will consider this a dupe of the six billion and ten shattered bottle suggestions, while I haven't seen anything quite like yours (Not necessarily a good thing) wait till Iscariot posts. -Devorac 19:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

First, why the hell would glass shards do 2 damage? Secondly, beer and wine already have 2 uses. They can heal AND they do a lot of damage with a hit (3 points). If you want to "improve" the bottles, I've got 2 ideas on both of the above mention "abilities". Treat them like spraycans that have a certain amount of "uses" for healing (say, from 1 to 3 per bottle) and give them a % chance of NOT breaking when used in an attack (even glass bottles can be pretty sturdy). Or, for simplicity, give them the "effects" of both the spraycan and the pool cue. Oh and, one last thing, if the bottles can be applied "5 times total" does that mean the first zombie to attack the barricade takes 10 damage?--Pesatyel 19:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he's saying that there are up to five "charges" on the barricades. That is, if a zombie attacks five times and is unfortunate enough to get the 35% chance for damage each time, they'll have taken two damage five times, as opposed to ten damage one time. Anyway, not a fan. As was said, barricades are already rough enough on small groups of zombies as it is (and this change wouldn't affect hordes much since five charges of glass would last about five minutes). I think it's interesting flavor, but I don't see it making much sense, and I don't like the effect it has. —Aichon— 20:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. My point was to point out the author needs to explain that a little better is all. The suggestion is bad but that doesn't mean we can't help him so the next one is better.--Pesatyel 22:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Also sounds like an autoattack. Besides, does anybody remember that HP means nothing to all but the lowest level zombies? Much less 2 damage, which wouldn't have any effect even if zombies cared about HP. And, as mentioned above, I'm sure tearing apart wooden barricades with your bare hands gets much nastier jagged wood gashes than little sprinkled glass shards could ever hope to achieve. Sounds like this'd stop survivors trying to climb into entry points moreso than zombies. In which case it'd be an unneeded death cultist ability. RinKou 23:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

MOAR ZOMBIE RAPE ON THIS PAGE PLZ-- SA 23:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Urgh, there are so many Epic Fails popping out for Haloween, but using my Epic Fail template on all of them will make it mundane and meaningless! Curse you fate, you irony-loving bitch! Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone mentioned my name? This is another piece of dumbness from someone who thinks survivors are all valorous and pious and zombies and PKers are bad, evil, wrong and wear black hats and must be crippled by the game 4 GRATE JUSTISS!!1!! This is an auto-attack suggestion, a trap, this is shotgun trap with the bottle being substituted as the offending implement. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Alphabetization of Items

Timestamp: KainYusanagi 21:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Type: Ease of "what do I have in my inventory?" play.

Scope: All Items

Description: Simple... Items get alphabetized. i don't know how many times I've lost track of my ammo while it's mixed into with FAKs or other things.... the buttons get really messy. Could we just get a little order to the things we pick up?-KainYusanagi 21:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (Alphabetization of Items)

This doesn't effect the merits of your suggestion, but there are Firefox plugins like UDtool and Greasemonkey extensions that organize your inventory for you, in case you wanted this, you know, actually fixed. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 21:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, if you use Firefox and have Greasemonkey (or use Safari and GreaseKit or Chrome and GreaseMetal), Midianian has a great script called UDICOS that does what you're looking for and more. Regardless, heck yes. The interface is a mess and needs major reorganization (*cough*). Alphabetization definitely helps. Even just grouping similar items. —Aichon— 22:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't run Greassmonkeys or any of those other plugins, partially due to having issues with them having caused infections in the past and partially because I'm what I'd call an "originalist"... I play games with their original UIs because that's what's provided. I'd rather the source issue get fixed over just trying to cover it up. >.>;-KainYusanagi 06:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest here, even if this suggestion gets passed, which it well may not, it's not likely the issue will be resolved, and certainly not quickly. Greasemonkey is virus-free, and if you're worried about infections, get NoScript for your browser and lock up your Javascript. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 13:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it pass? Granted there are better things already in Peer Review, this isn't bad nor is it going to break anything. Using "you can use scripts" isn't a reason to kill.--Pesatyel 22:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Because not that many suggestions pass these days, and because passing in no way means, implies, or even gives reason to hope that your idea will be implemented; it's just a pool Kevin might someday reach into if he runs low on think-juice. Granted, he's implemented suggestions before, but that was ages ago... Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That has more to do with the general apathy of us wiki patrons then it does the suggestions. Why do you think the really bad ones get so much "discussion"?--Pesatyel 01:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want my items alphabetised. I want to be able to find them in the order they entered my inventory. Why should my basic user interface be changed for your sense of OCD? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would consider someone who wanted items to be displayed in the order that they were procured to have a stronger sense of OCD than the person that wanted to alphabetize items that are essentially jumbled together. It's one thing to accuse someone of having a sense of OCD if they're alphabetizing food in the pantry or some such nonsense, but it's entirely different when we're talking about buttons whose only representation is text on the screen. Alphabetization/lexicographical order makes sense here. Also, the order in the current system only functions if the user memorizes the order that they gathered the items. Since most people are not sufficiently skilled at memorization, nor have the desire to memorize such mundane details, the sensible thing to do is to put the items in an order that more players can use effectively. This can also be used to improve muscle memory to an extent, which is a desirable trait of user interfaces. —Aichon— 22:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that you want to change my interface from what I prefer to what you prefer for no other reason than you'd prefer it that way. Give me a good reason why this change should be made when people have been coping fine for four years. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree that he didn't provide reasons in the description. As for me, I gave you at least three in my last comment: it makes sense, more players can use it effectively, and muscle memory can be applied. If you want a few additional ones:

• People are used to dealing with alphabetical order, so it should be easier for newbies to learn how to use the interface (i.e. more intuitive to learn), which is good, since we all like newbies,
• It's easier to pick up where you left off when you come back on following days, since most people would have forgotten the order in which they picked up their items (i.e. no need for memory),
• It's more intimidating to an end user when they can't make sense of the things in front of them, and grouping like objects with each other reduces the complexity (i.e. it helps to eliminate the choice paradox),
• I could also cite Fitts's Law and the fact that the current system increases mouse travel distance by not having similar objects grouped (i.e. it takes longer to use),
• If a user doesn't have the order memorized, they have to go searching for the next item after the one that they clicked on disappears from their inventory (e.g. if you need to FAK someone multiple times), whereas alphabetization lets people have an intuition for where it should appear.

I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons as well, and if I had my old computer-human interaction textbook, I'm sure I could cite a few case studies and whatnot. I'll grant that none of the reasons I gave are "slam dunk" reasons in and of themselves, but when an advocate for the current system is using terms like "cope" to refer to how users deal with the it, a slam dunk answer shouldn't even be necessary.

Besides, I've seen you around the wiki, and I've observed that you like to make decisions based on evidence and reason (at least, that's my opinion, though I may be mistaken, of course). While your personal experience may color your reasoning, as it does with all of us, I don't think you are honestly trying to suggest that this is a mere case of opinion vs. opinion and that there is no argument to be made for alphabetization as a superior arrangement over a seemingly-random one. I'm sure you're making the argument for some reason, but what it is, I can't fathom. —Aichon— 03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the newest item you picked up put at the bottom when you get it?--Pesatyel 04:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep. That's what we've been talking about. —Aichon— 04:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Then the above points are all...relatively pointless. The game doesn't magically rearrange your stuff when you stop playing.--Pesatyel 07:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

But unless you memorized the order in which you picked up your items, you'll have no basis for understanding the arrangement of the items when you come back the next day. That's one of the major problems with the current system. —Aichon— 14:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So, it is REALLY that hard to figure out the order? That the object at the bottom is the last one you picked up? And the one the one at the top is the first one you picked up? I can see where there might be some confusion to those unfamilar with the way English is displayed (left to right and down to the next line) but it really seems like all the "points" are just nitpick justifications. 1) Its not like objects "go bad" so what does it matter the order you picked stuff up? 2) Alphabetizing isn't necessarily going to alleviate the problem of "having to move the mouse too much" when you have to just click on the object. Its not like you have to drag and drop the shotgun shell to the shotgun. Not to mention there are better ideas then simple alphabetizing. I'm not saying the idea is a bad one, just that there are better ones and that the above points seem, to me, to be overdoing it a bit.--Pesatyel 02:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel like we're on different wavelengths here. Figuring out the order is not the issue. Being able to find items in your inventory is, and an ordering based on when items were picked up is not conducive to finding them later since it relies on memorization or else just visually searching. I'm afraid I don't quite understand or see the relevance of your #1 point, your #2 one seems to miss the obvious (best example: if using FAKs repeatedly, you wouldn't have to move the mouse at all since the next FAK in the inventory would take up the exact same pixels as the previous one if they were grouped next to each other, which would be guaranteed with alphabetization, but is not guaranteed now), and the third point (that there are better ideas) should not have an impact on determining the worth of this suggestion. I'll admit that I was making a big argument over small details, but reasons were requested, so I simply enumerated a few. —Aichon— 04:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we probably are. I don't suppose it matters. I'd probably vote keep even though there are better suggestions already in PR.--Pesatyel 02:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

luhlwhut? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If that was aimed at me, allow me to paraphrase and simplify my earlier point: "no u. my way is better." —Aichon— 03:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

o i c wut u did thur. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

---

New Skill: Agility Version 2

Timestamp: Chase1993 12:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Type: New Skill

Scope: Survivors AND Zombies

Description: Alright, so here's my new and improved Agility suggestion. Again, this would be a Civilian skill; it would only be available once a player has learned Free Running and is level 10 or above. '''''1.''''' Would give a flat 5% chance that a survivor would not lose an AP when doing ANY action that requires an AP. '''''2.''''' Would give a 80%/60%/40% chance that a survivor with this skill would be able to climb over HB, VHB, and EHB barricades, respectively. Once the survivor has tried, if he failed he cannot try on that same building on that same day. As before, this is to not make it overpowering for Pkers and Death Cultists, and so as to not replace Free Running. '''''3.''''' Any zombie on the block when a player climbs over would be able to "see the routes the player takes to get over the barricade" and would have a 40%/30%/20% (basically half the survivor rate) chance to climb over the barricade. This zombie would be able to try TWICE to get over. If it fails both times, the zombie could not try again. (Note 1: This would only work if the survivor had actually succeeded in getting over the barricade. Note 2: Zombies would NOT have to have the skill, NOR be level 10 to follow a survivor over the barricade) IF the zombie succeeds in getting over the barricade, for the following 10 minutes ANY zombie that comes into the block would see this message "You see the telltale signs of a route over the barricades; obviously a fellow undead has recently cimbed over this barricade" or something to that effect. That zombie would then have two chances (same rates as any other zombie) to climb over the barricade. '''''3.''''' A survivor could make a barricade unclimbable from the inside. As before, this would NOT make the barricade any stronger, but WOULD cost an AP to do. Again, this would be for paranoid survivors scared of Pkers and Death Cultists, or just people trying to be assholes. '''''4.''''' A killed survivor could carry over a portion of this skill into the undeath; namely, he would have a 4% chance for an action to not cost an AP. He would NOT, however, be able to climb barricades (accept if he's following a survivor, as above). Alright, there's my revised Agility suggestion. I hope I have made it more balanced, and of course, the numbers are subject to change. '''''Clarification 1:''''' A zombie CANNOT learn this skill unless he had learned it as a survivor and then been killed. '''''Clarification 2:''''' Just in case anyone's wondering, the 4% chance for zombies is not a typo, it's meant to be that way. Come on, whoever heard of agile zombies? '''''Clarification 3''''' As to previous concerns of it overpowering Pkers and Death Cultists: Firstly, I think in real-life, this could happen. A traitor COULD leave the building and show the zombies a way in. Secondly, I think if we're adding a buff to Survivors and Zombies, it's only fair to add a buff for Death Cultists, especially as it would be something they COULD do in real-life. '''''Clarification 4:''''' Free Running is, as Rorybob stated, a Military skill. I thought to make Agility a Civilian skill so as to make it more accessible to all classes. However, it doesn't really matter to me which class it's under. Anyway, that's my idea. Now have fun tearing it to shreds. --Chase1993 12:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (New Skill: Agility Version 2)

Free Running is a military skill; therefore this skill should be a Military skill, not, as stated in the description, a Civilian skill. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}12:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My bad. What do you think of the actual skill though? --Chase1993 12:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again I want to know why you think survivors need more AP. - User:Whitehouse 12:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the climbing of barricades should happen. It borders on gamebreaking, especially when you factor in a horde of zombies seeing a survivor climb into a large building; the building would be lost within the day. Depending, of course, on the size of the horde and their luck. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: WHITEHOUSE: With my new revision though, it wouldn't just be survivors gaining AP, it would potentially be zombies as well. Plus, other AP increasing skills have passed Peer Review, so obviously it's not entirely disliked. I mean, come on, everybody wants a little more AP. --Chase1993 12:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that zombies should be forced to buy a survivor skill to be on par AP wise with survivors. - User:Whitehouse 13:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, my intention was to make a Survivor skill; the zombie part was just to balance it out. Plus, zombies are already buffed in this new skill with the ability to climb barricades. If you have any balancing ideas though, please post. --Chase1993 13:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How would this effect actions costing more than 1 ap, for example, repairs, manufacturung syringes and dumping bodies out of forts? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It would still only give a 5% chance for 1 AP to not be lost; only 1 AP, mind. Or perhaps two seperate 5% chance rolls; that might be too overpowering though. --Chase1993 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of the AP boost altogether. The barricade climbing in and of itself is a workable idea, if not a duped one. RinKou 16:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree, since it seems like the most fundamentally broken part of the suggestion. The issues with it are still far from resolved, and some are actually worse now. With the death cultists, even though it might be more "realistic" (as realistic as anything can be in a zombie apocalypse game) for them to be able to lead zombies in, it still is game-breaking, and realism != fun. If there's a horde of zombies outside and you give them two 20% chances to get in after seeing a death cultist succeed, on average, 36% will be following that death cultist into the mall through the EHB barricades for the cost of 1-2AP, which is actually worse than the last suggestion. Plus, now, 36% of the zombies that arrive within 10 minutes will get to do it as well, which actually makes things even worse.

Also, there's the issue of forcing players to switch sides to be the best at their side. It's a poor game design decision, and the community pretty much seems to agree that each side should have all the skills they need to be the best they can be. Adding a skill like this would be a nuisance for Brain Rotted zombie players and makes little sense from a game design perspective.

He's also mentioned, but hasn't detailed, the fact that people on the inside can reinforce the barricades so that they can't be entered via climbing. How does that mechanic work? How much AP does it cost? What sort of flavor text is visible to the people inside and outside? Does it have a chance to fail at being reinforced? How would the reinforcement be taken out if it's not the same as a barricade level? It's definitely better than the last suggestion, but it still has too many open issues. —Aichon— 17:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-workable, I should've said. It's not a insta-kill as AP gain would be. RinKou 21:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This idea still sucks

This idea still sucks

This idea still sucks

This idea still sucks

This idea still sucks

This idea still sucks

This idea still sucks

Did you not read the template on your last one? Try reading the basic guidelines on suggestions and actually thinking about them before you crap them out all over DS. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 21:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The only way I could think of to even begin to "balance" this would be that, if you "fail" your 5% to save your AP, you have a 20% chance of USING twice as much instead. As for the barricade part, give me a break. That's not even worth discussing. Oh, I might add, MULTI.-Pesatyel 19:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Chase, I would you mind deleting your earlier version of this idea?-Devorac 03:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC) (PS preferably this version too)

People who know nothing about death cultists should never be suggesting things that explicitly mention them. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

---

No Freerunning from Ruins

Timestamp: RinKou 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Type: Ruin tweak

Scope: Survivors with freerunning, zombies with ruin.

Description: I'm sure the general consensus is ruin is a very powerful skill. Maintained ruin in TRPs can and will shut down a suburb unless supplies can come in from outside, or the buildings are retaken. This still only applies to TRPs, though. As far as any other building goes, zombies not only have few reasons to ruin them, but they're at a severe disadvantage to even put out the effort to do so. A zombie will ruin a non-TRP building for only three reasons: 1. Reduce places survivors can hide safely. 2. Morale boost for zombies/hit for survivors. 3. Disrupt freerunning lanes. Seeing as if repaired within the first week of being ruined, survivors still have a net AP gain over the zombie who ruined the building. That, plus how easily an unmaintained ruin (bound to be the non-TRPs) can be barricade strafed, we have each of these ruins costing zombies significant amounts of AP, both for tearing down the barricades in the first place as well as ruining it. Secondly, the morale boost works both ways. If anything, it's stacked against the zombies much more. At current ratess, a survivor can repair six ruins for every one ruin a zombie can make, assuming it's unmaintained. And as noted, no real zombie is going to maintain a non-TRP ruin. Not only does that put zombies at the AP disadvantage as noted above, but it also allows survivors to claim, "Look how efficiently we're reclaiming the suburb from the horde," boosting their morale theoretically 6:1. So that leaves the only real tactical reason for ruining non-TRP buildings: disrupting freerunning lanes. You can't freerun in to a ruin, forcing survivors to spend 3 extra AP to go around each one. One to jump onto the street next to the ruin, one to move to the ruined square, and one to enter the ruin and be reconnected to the freerunning lane. The only problem with this strategy is, though, ruins, if anything, help feral survivors to be so much more easily connected to a freerunning lane. A survivor unfamiliar with a suburb who doesn't metagame no longer has to check every building for an entry point. They can spot ruins easily on their 3x3 map and just get in one to hop into the lane. All that being said then, let's say we disallow freerunning from ruined buildings. Attempting to do so would result in the flavor text: "The ledges and outcrops on this building are too dilapidated to free run from." and an AP is spent for the attempt, but the character will not be moved a space. Because really, zombies should be ruining every building they can. They really shouldn't be at a disadvantage for doing exactly what they were meant to do.

Discussion (No Freerunning from Ruins)

Dupe.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of if it’s a dupe, I'm definitely not a fan. The whole 6:1 AP argument doesn't take into account the fact that only survivors with Toolboxes and Construction can fix ruins, or the fact that the net AP loss for survivors is generally much larger than six since they're sacrificing AP every time they try to move through that block. And while it does generally help feral survivors, I think that's a good thing, since it balances out the act of destruction that would otherwise entirely disrupt things for them. Plus, pinatas REALLY put a damper on a person's day already. —Aichon— 00:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Also against this idea. You are essentially penalizing survivors who do not metagame, and that's a big no-no. Those who metagame should not have such a significant advantage over those who do not.--Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 05:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I definetly like this idea. I mean, how many players past level 3 or 4 don't have construction? And toolboxes are a dime a dozen nowadays. -- User:Leoofvgcats 08:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, a startlingly large number of trenchies. —Aichon— 07:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I also know a large number of people who do not carry a toolbox because of the weight. They can carry more needles/FAKs and prefer it that way. Generally these are people in well-organized groups, but still. Not everyone has a toolbox.--Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention it depends on how a character chooses to play. An 8th level zombie primary probably wouldn't have it. Or somebody going for science or military skills. So anyone that doesn't take Construction right away is a trenchie?--Pesatyel 19:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you're partially responding to me, but "if A then B" does not imply "if B then A". I was giving an example of trenchies as a case where people tend to not carry toolboxes, but that doesn't mean that people who don't carry toolboxes are automatically trenchies. —Aichon— 20:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It was more of a comment on people telling others "how to play", no offense intended. It comes up in suggestions and/or in discussions once in awhile.--Pesatyel 22:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary. I've been playing a death cultist again recently... consequently I don't give a damn if I do get caught outside and eaten, and I spend a lot of time in zombie-infested areas. Even so, once about 1/3 of the buildings in a suburb get ruined, getting around is a giant pain in the ass for me, I'm sure it's worse for people that don't like group hagz and gh!zzaz. Besides, I think ruins functioning as entry points to the free running network is a good thing. It provides more opportunities for people who don't metagame much, and serves as a useful counter to idiots trying to turn an entire suburb into EHB Barricade Fortresses of DOOM. Especially when a whole burb is in defense mode and every building is either ruined or EHB, it'd be pretty lame for there to be no practical way for breathers, death cultists and PKs to get back inside once they're ejected. --Mold 08:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That was my reasoning, actually. To stop the EHBing of EVERYTHING. I've been trying to play a character without freerunning, and it's about next to impossible to get into a TRP unless it's wide open. If you have no way to get back into buildings, you're going to have to open up more entry points for revived survivors to get back in. RinKou 16:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it would lead to a cascading failure. With this suggestion, if the zombies ruin one building, survivors are forced to knock others down to VSB to compensate. That makes the buildings easier for zombies to take and ruin, which leads to more needing to be VSB, and so on. A single generic ruin shouldn't have that much impact on a suburb. Alternatively, they don't knock buildings down to VSB, and everyone gets trapped outside. I might be okay with it if it only happened to ruins that were older than, say, 50 days, but not for every ruin. —Aichon— 17:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good change. Survivors do not need to be anymore nerfed than they already have been. At most, let there only be a CHANCE that Free Running doesn't work, ie, 40% chance that a survivor cannot Free Run out of a ruin. --Chase1993 11:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"Survivors do not need to be anymore nerfed than they already have been." Did I miss a major survivor nerfing update? Because I don't really see how survivors have been nerfed any lately. RinKou 16:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

They haven't; he's an idiot. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 21:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What scares me a little is that the quote is often used when talking derogatorily about trenchies. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}21:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Which one? I'm a little slow this morning, mind filling me in? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 13:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

First, this isn't a Ruin tweak. It is a Free Running tweak. Secondly, I don't see how survivors can repair ruins 6 times faster than zombies can make them. Assuming an empty building, the survivor would have to repair it the SAME DAY it is ransacked to get that. If that were to happen, we wouldn't be hearing stories (and it wouldn't come up as suggestions a lot) of 100+ AP repairs. The only thing I can say is I could see upping the cost of Free Running out of a ruined building to, say, 2 or 3. But making it impossible? That's a bit much.--Pesatyel 19:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As presented this is just waay too much. A 1% per day of ruin chance of failing to freerun on the other hand seems a lot more fair? --Honestmistake 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I rather like the idea of making it a 1% chance per day that the building has been ruined. It provides an incentive for repairing those buildings. —Aichon— 20:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this a dupe, but I like it, so they better find the right link. It's patently broken when zombies spend time, effort and AP breaking into a building, killing everyone and then ruining for the survivors to be able to cade everything up to SHB (Stupidly Highly Barricaded) because they've got a free entrance to the free running network provided by zombies doing what they should. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Broken it may be, but do you really expect it'll change much? I think if this is implemented, you'll still wind up with everything either SHB or Ruined, you'll just have a lot more dead people because of it. Sure that's how it should be, but you've got to be at least a little willing to forgive abject idiocy if you don't want one of the sides to effectively disappear. --Mold 04:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I never forced the survivors to cade above VSB. That's their problem if they don't make enough entry points for themselves, precisely the same as if they sleep in resource buildings and die when they're attacked, not my problem, I didn't make them sleep there. The culture of barricade to infinity is meta-principle, like the Rogues Gallery, and therefore completely separate to game mechanics and balance. Initially I think there will be more deaths due to people being locked out, soon enough there'll be a lot more entry points and common sense will prevail. It doesn't change the fact that this is the only occurrence of an encouraged in-game and in-character act giving a massive benefit to your opposition. It needs fixing. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Feeding Groan Tweak

Timestamp: RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Type: Feeding Groan Tweak

Scope: Zombies with Feeding Groan

Description: Right. The distance in squares that a feeding groan can be heard is based on the number of survivors present at a 1 to 1 ratio. What I propose is that zombies are also counted within this figure at a rate of 0.5 to 1. So for example if you enter a building that contains 2 survivors and 2 other zombies your groans can be heard 3 squares away (1+1+0.5+0.5) all halves would be rounded down and you wouldn't count yourself. Flavour justification? The more zombies present the larger the chance of a freshly served brain, and the louder the groan of hunger. Obviously one surivor must be present. Normal maximum distances apply.

Discussion (Feeding Groan Tweak)

I see this as being useful. One addition I would like, however, would be flavor text to indicate if you're hearing the groan because of this change. For instance, with your example, if you were within two blocks, you'd get the standard groan text ("You heard a loud and low groaning..."), but if you were three blocks away, the text would change to indicate that you can hear the noise because of the additional zombies (e.g. "You heard a group of loud and low groanings..."). —Aichon— 22:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So a zombie logs in to see a major groan going off seven blocks away several minutes before, but arrives only to find 18 zombies who have since eaten the only harmanbargar. It's kind of unfair to ferals/newbies, the people who need groans most. This suggestion would turn groans from a tool to help small crowds of zombies maximize break-ins into an ap-wasting spam button that has no real information content. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If i'm a new zombie and it directs me to a horde of 18 zombies, surely thats a good thing? lots of local zeds who are opening buildings, half killing humans and the like. I can see how that might be frustrating in the short term, but in the long term you've just found a horde. But anway, how about as suggested elsewhere If there are a certain conditions (Say more zombies than survivors) where the groan sounds different? LIke the muffled message at the moment. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Still not clear and it still takes all the information content out of a groan. Another thing: A horde is almost completely useless to a new zombie if they're in front of an empty building; all Hordes do is open places up and give meatshields, neither of which justifies turning Feeding Groan from a food finding tool into a Zombie finding tool. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If a horde did spend all there time outside an empty building then yes. But they don't. They attack neighbouring buildings, drag people out on to the street, open doors, and let you sleep in the Dark. And strangely enough, If you a a zombie inside a building and have a few ap's and a survivior is in front of you on 7hp what would you do? Kill him? Or groan? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I agree that it needs to have something built in to distinguish whether the groan is carrying further because of more survivors or more zombies (or both). It would help with distinguishing whether there's more food/resistance around than the groaner can handle, or there's a feeding frenzy going on that will probably be over quickly. Important difference for youngsters that need XP, especially those that don't have Lurching Gait yet and can't afford to be shambling after empty promises. --Mold 07:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Lelouch said what I had in mind.--Pesatyel 18:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This'll hurt the newbies. I like the newbies. Therefore I don't like this idea. You'll get survivors that real time revive doing it at well populated RPs, newbie zombies that are still spending 2AP to move will generally follow the most recent groan. 1 reviver and 12 zombies will sound exactly like a feast for a poor newbie who'll then spend loads of AP to walk to... a revive point... where they'll be stuck in the neck forcing them to spend even more AP getting back to death. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My god, you're a devious bastard. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's why you love me. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Making AP's More Abundant

Timestamp: Chase1993 18:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Type: Entire Game

Scope: Entire Game

Description: Okay, I may seem stupid, and this has probably been asked many times before, but WHY do we have so few AP's and WHY do they take so long to recharge? This makes the game EXTREMELY annoying to people who are not entirely dedicated to the game. When I recommended the game to my friends, they all replied in various ways this basic statement: "What the hell is this? It's not even a game; all you can do is spend 5 minutes max everyday on it." I myself enjoy the game, but it actually keeps me awake at night wondering WHY the game is like this. I propose that these changes be made: 1. Player's maximum AP points increased to 100 2. AP points recharge at the rate of 1 every 5 minutes 3. After a player logs out, there character would stay online for 30 minutes before disapperaing I understand that this would change some of the fundamental aspects of the game, but I think it would make the game much funner for all, and would CERTAINLY make it easier for casual gamers to play, get something accomplished, and enjoy the game. I would like people to comment on my ideas, and ways they could be tweaked, as I realize that other things may need to be changed as well for these changes to be feasible.

Discussion (Making AP's More Abundant)

No. This makes individual players way too powerful, and you seem to miss the point that UD is meant to be a five-minutes-a-day kind of game. There are plenty of other ways to use up your free time between UD sessions, metagaming/joining a group being one of them. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:23, 26 October 2009 (BST)

Well, I'm not entirely opposed to increasing the max AP. But recharging at 1AP per 5 minutes is way too fast, 288AP per day is just overkill. As for everyone disappearing after 30 minutes, how the hell are zombies going to get food and XP when they break into buildings and there is no one there to attack? - User:Whitehouse 18:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Too many questions. Even the worst suicide repairs ever recorded (160 ap plus I think is the highest ever done) could be completed in a day. And zombies could ruin everything if players idled out so quickly. Also would probably cripple the server. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks in my group have done 220+AP repairs, I believe, and there are others who have done larger ones.

Anyway, getting back to the bigger issue, these changes would not make the game more casual friendly; they would actually do the opposite. Also, the entire game is balanced around a slow recharge rate and a limited max AP, otherwise people can do too much before others log back in again. There's a similar zombie game that recharges AP every 7.5 minutes. That game seems to be unbalanced though, in that people can go on killing sprees while others are recharging, and your suggestion is way beyond what that other game has. It would ruin the tempo and nature of the game and upset all of the balances done over the years, since AP is everything. So, no. Just no. —Aichon— 19:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: TO ALL OF THE ABOVE Of course, the 30 minute after logout could be changed. Perhaps 2 hours would be better. As to letting people accomplish way to much while other people are logged out, that's the idea. If people could accomplish alot, more people would be encouraged to play. It would obviously change the whole style of the game, and I didn't expect my suggestion to be universally well recieved, but come on, don;t you ever wish you could spend hours playing at a time? In my opinion, Urban Dead is the best game out there, and i've played WOW. I just wish I could play Urban Dead more often than I can now. -- Chase1993

Hours spent playing UD being fun? Sure. Would that be fair to other players? Definitely not. There's your crux. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:41, 26 October 2009 (BST)

How do people talk to each other in-game if they disappear quickly after logout? Or heal each other, for that matter? How does one justify a zombie being able to singlehandedly take a building from EHB to ruin in a day, even with a survivor or two inside? Or, on the flipside, justify singlehandedly barricade strafing half of a suburb to VSB in a day? These changes would create lots of empty buildings and even more boredom since people wouldn't be able to find each other.

If you'd like to play UD for longer periods of time, there are already ways to go about doing that. Multiple characters, planning out in detail how to spend AP, meta-gaming with others, and participating on the wiki are just a few I've found. I can spend several hours a day on UD-related things if I so choose, but I like that I only need to spend 5 minutes a day. This game is not supposed to play like WoW. —Aichon— 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If people could accomplish a lot more than they can now, people would be driven out of the game. As it is, it's possible to survive the night in one place. With your suggestion, it would be difficult for even that to be achieved. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}19:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: To post directly above: In what way would it be impossible to survive the night in one place? If you dissapear 30 minutes - 2 hours after logging out, you can't be killed. I KNOW what I'm saying would drastically change the game. RE: To BobBoberton's Post: How would it not be fair to other players? If everyone played more often, then it would be fair to everyone. Also, there would be much more live action. Players would mainly be combating other active players (of which there would be many more if these changes took place), instead of always just attacking logged-out characters. As is, there is almost NO live action. The main purpose of my suggestion is to change this. -- Chase1993

Real-time combat isn't fair either. Faster internet connection? You win. Zombie with Infectious Bite? Either your opponent flees or uses lots of resources. Human? Run away with free running! And it doesn't make it fair if a player can kill half a dozen others every day - now, you're lucky to kill one player a day on average (taking stocking and cade-smashing into the equation). I could easily foresee a zombie victory (since a human one is nigh-impossible) where players just log in every, what, nine hours or so and kill five times as many other players a day. Zombies get stronger with more volume - as in how every well-coordinated large horde is always successful in a mall/NT siege. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:13, 26 October 2009 (BST)

(dang edit conflicts) There would be less active players at any given time because of the fast disappearance and less live action with your changes (though live action would make up a larger percentage of encounters). Having played a game that works similarly to what you're describing, I can speak from experience. You don't see enemies for a few days, then suddenly wake up to find out that someone killed you in the night (as well as all of the other friendlies nearby). It's a giant game of hide-and-seek, with no sieges or close calls or real strategy, which is what UD would become with these changes. And see my earlier issues about FAKing and talking. —Aichon— 20:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: ABOVE POSTS: Firsty, Aichon, again, you would NOT wkae up and find yourself dead because as I have said many times before, your character will disapper 2 hours after logging out. Secondly, you WOULD see enemies, because more people would log on and play. To BobBoberton: FASTER INTERNET CONNECTION??!!! I've played Urban Dead on 33.3Kbs, which is THE slowest connection availabe, and it worked just as fast as it does on my current connection. Again, focus on what you said: " you're lucky to kill one player a day on average". THAT'S what I want to change. What you need to understand is that of course, it would DRASTICALLY change the game (and to be frank, I don't think it's a change that will happen, because of server issues). As to it being a good change if it were possible, obviously my idea would have to be majorly tweaked, however, I cannot amagine anyone NOT being happy with the core element of my idea: being able to play for longer periods of time. -- Chase1993

I was speaking from experience with another game that's similar to your idea, and yes, you do wake up dead often. And no, you would not see more people, because 2 hours is not appropriately scaled to the AP recharge rate (do the math for it...a 12-24 hour timeout would be more appropriate, but still problematic). Also, no, that is not the slowest connection. And finally, if you can't imagine anyone not being happy, then you're clearly not listening to what anyone is saying. —Aichon— 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(yay edit conflicts) Not wake up dead? With players getting max AP every eight hours or so (1 per 5 minutes), there's a very good chance that yes, you will wake up dead. I don't know about you, but on occasion UD is quite slow for me. It might be because the server's in the UK and I live in the US; it might be because of heavy server load at the time. Either way, sometimes UD is sluggish - and when that happens, it can be fatal with regards to real-time combat. And as stated before, killing more than one other player a day makes players too powerful, and the game severely unbalanced. UD's not broken, why "fix" it in this manner? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:47, 26 October 2009 (BST)

How long have you been playing? I'm guessing sub-3 months. Otherwise you'd know that entire suburbs would go down in minutes if unlimited play was allowed, MOB would take entire suburbs in a strike, Mall Tours would be over in an hour and if a group like The Dead came from another community it would be the end of Malton. Your idea would kill the game for people who wanted to play casually, a hardcore strata of players would emerge on the zombie side and literally win the game through attrition. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am unhappy. With characters disappearing every two hours, how could humans ever win a siege? More importantly, this does nothing to get survivors back on their feet more quickly. The sticking point will still be revives. OR would you be happy having to log in every two hours to stop your character at a revive point disappearing. Finally, this punishes all those players who aren't online 24/7. Urban deads simplicity is that it can be played in 5 minutes. And this is a zergers dream. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: ABOVE POSTS: To Iscariot, no I am not a long term player -- I have been playing the game for about 3-4 months now. However, I do LOVE the game. Is there no conceivable way that the game could be improved to let people play for long periods at a time? Secondly, in what way does it punish players that aren't online 24/7? They wouldn't get as much XP as others? Of course they wouldn't! In ANY MMORPG, the players that DO play are the ones that get to advance the levels, etc. It is SUPPOSED to be rewarding to the players that play often. That's what MMORPG's are TRYING to do. But at the same time, the dissapear 2 hours after logout would make sure that casual players can stay in the game without being killed. Of course they wouldn't advance as fast; that's the point. Also, of course it would make the game faster paced. It would change the gameplay. I don;t expect hardcore UD players to be entirely happy with it. But it WOULD make for faster gameplay, and more importantly, it would allow people to truely immerse themselves in Urban Dead. TO ALL ABOVE POSTS: Maybe I'm missing something, but why is it that everyone is saying it would nerf humans and make zombies too powerful? I simply don't understand the logic. -- Chase1993

Learn to sign your posts, and fast if you're going to engage in walls of text debates. Four months? Four whole months? There are players on this page who have played for four years, and they're going to give you the same opinion everyone else has given you. This is a bad idea and will hurt people. Given you weren't here, The Dead were an organised group of 1200 people from an external forum from all timezones of the planet. They could easily have people active 24 hours a day and given that the refresh time from the server isn't huge on UD, with limitless AP they could monitor the interior and exterior of every building in the city permanently. It doesn't matter that you'd idle in two hours, you'd be found long before then, a post made on their communication networks and you'd be dead five minutes after, as simple as. That's before we even get onto Extinction, spying add-ons and auto-scripts. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Because if people dissapeared after 2 hours, zombies could ruin buildings without having to kill the humans inside the buildings. If this happened, the zombies could ruin all the NTs in a suburb in a day or two. The surivors would then be unable to revive anyone.--Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}21:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the zombies are better organised. Its no secret that of the top 5 groups in urban dead, usually 4 are zombies. Also your point is that if people idle out more quickly, they won't be killed as much. What's that about? Its a zombie apocalypse. Dying is part of the process. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Zombies can't ruin buildings until after all survivors are out of it, and your suggestion would make it so that there would be less survivors in buildings since they'd be disappearing constantly. Sieges, which happen all over the city, all the time, at very small scales, only work because humans can act as meatshields once the zombies break in (which they already do on a routine basis). If the meatshields are gone, the buildings will fall while people have disappeared. They'll come back to ruined buildings and a lack of revives if they were unfortunate enough to be one of the few that hadn't disappeared when it was attacked.

As someone who has been playing the game for even less time than you, I'd suggest checking up on some of the historical stuff that happened in 2007 and 2008 with Extinction and the Salt the Land ideas. Now imagine if the zombies had no limits. The game would end, which is no fun for anyone. —Aichon— 21:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

*Cough* Eve Online *cough* Why don't you create more characters? This is supposed to be more of a quick, time killer game anyways. Well, the game that is, not the wiki or forums... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: ABOVE POSTS: Again, I still do not understand WHY zombies would win. If zombie groups are more organized it just means that human players will need to get BETTER organized, which would actually add elements of gameplay. Again, obviously elements of gameplay would need to be changed, and I don't have all the answers. I accept that in a gameplay debate, I cannot stand up to many of you who have played the game for years. However, I have played for several months, and I cannot understand HOW it could possibly be SUCH a big issue in gameplay. I mean, there MUST be a way to increase gameplaying time. -- Chase1993

Organization won't matter if all it takes is 1-2 zombies online at the same time to break open any building in the game, kill all of the survivors, and ruin it, all in less than 5 minutes. There's no way survivors could react in time. If those 1-2 zombies are all it takes to ruin any building, you wouldn't even need organization of the zombies...ferals alone could hold every TRP in the game, or else re-ruin them on a daily basis for relatively cheap. Especially so when compared to the cost of reviving the dead, finding gennies, finding fuel, clearing the zeds, repairing the building, and re-barricading it. —Aichon— 23:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: ABOVE POSTS: Also, one thing people seem to be forgeting is that there will still be humans in the game. Everybody's saying things like "Zombies will run wild" and "Zombies will destroy everything" and "Zombie groups will takeover". Um... there WILL still be human players in the game. As there are MORE human players than zombies, I don't see how it could work in the zombies favour. Humans could do exactly the same as the zombies could. -- Chase1993

Not sure why people are saying that either. Possibly because zombies are an attacking force and survivors have to react to attack, thus zombies have an easier time of coordination than survivors (this is thinking on an out of game level, just so people don't tear my apart for misrepresenting who has best in game communication options), because survivors have to wait for the attack to occur, then plan and assemble a reaction force. But even then, once an attack has taken place, it would not be hard for solo survivors to quickly repair and re-barricade a substantial portion of what has been destroyed. As zombies could not hold every building due to insufficient amounts of coordinated zombies, many buildings would remain empty, just waiting for a barricade straffer to come along. A barricade straffer could easily manage 20 buildings at VSB level. Costing him 200AP, and costing the zombies 800AP to undo his work. Anyhow, the changes you have suggested are way too drastic for most peoples liking. It's just too much of a change to something that works rather well right now. - User:Whitehouse 23:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If a human finds a zombie and kills it, the zombie stands up for a worst case loss to zombie AP of 15AP, or a typical cost of 6AP, since most zombies get Ankle Grab early on and most survivors have Headshot. If a zombie finds a human and kills him, the human, in the best case, costs his side 13AP (two ?rise, one revive, and one search). And that's assuming that the reviver found the syringe on his very first search and that the revivee has Ankle Grab. The more likely outcome is that he doesn't have Ankle Grab and that the reviver had to spend 8AP on average to find a syringe, yielding a loss of 38AP to the survivor side, and that's still ignoring any AP the revivee gains while capped as a zombie or AP spent traveling to revive points, NT facilities, or elsewhere. Reviving is a major drain on gross survivor AP.

The reason why this matters is because this is not a game of zombies against humans, but, rather, zombies against barricades. Barricades are life to humans, and rendering them useless by giving everyone so much AP means that it becomes a straight-up war of attrition between the two sides. And in a war of attrition, humans simply cannot keep up because of the AP costs involved with reviving and the scarcity of the syringes involved during emergencies. Plus, the AP cost would actually go up even higher in my earlier equations if a lit NT facility wasn't handy, such as when they're ruined. If nothing else, the zombies would simply win the AP war, resulting in new zombies being created faster than they could be revived all across the city. —Aichon— 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Not if the zombies broke into buildings where there was nobody to kill (likely to occur if players disappear after 30 minutes). The fact is if the changes were implemented, the zombies wouldn't be able to kill enough survivors for it to destroy the survivor population. If the zombie players could be on 24/7, I might agree, but as they can't, I don't really think this would aid either side hugely, just make the loses and gains increase in size, and frustrate newbies who can not find targets to help increase their XP quickly, be it by killing, healing or reviving. - User:Whitehouse 23:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

They don't have to break into every building. They just need to crack open the NTs and keep them ruined most of the time. After that, they've won. Just picking off a few survivors here and there would bleed the survivors' needle supply dry, which is a win condition for the zombies. And since there hasn't been talk of increasing encumbrance limits to match the greater AP, survivors simply couldn't pack enough needles to keep up with the increase in deaths. And we still haven't had an answer on how survivors would revive/FAK/talk to people that have disappeared. —Aichon— 23:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Because survivors would be safe while inactive, the focus of the game would shift. Zombies would become the defensive force, keeping survivors out of buildings where they can get resources. Survivors would become the strike forces, coordinating attack times, stocking up on supplies and scattering to safe "idle" locations. Due to zombies also idling out, these strike teams would have no problem repairing the buildings and getting what they needed from them. Zombies would need to be logging in every hour to keep a significant presence in buildings they want to keep from survivors, while survivors no longer need to worry about the zombies eating them once "idled". As you just added on before I could finish this: Interaction would suffer from this, no talking, hardly and healing, reviving having to be coordinated. All in all it's a bad game change. I'm just not convinced that either side would "win" because of it. - User:Whitehouse 00:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Babah zambahz don't get anything to eat, newbie breathers don't get anything semi-damaged to fix with their minimal skills, tactical resource points get ruined (original poster: that means they can't be re-barricaded until they're repaired, and they can't be repaired until all the zombies are gone) quickly and easily, and people are encouraged and rewarded (practically required) for spending many hours of their life per day on this. This is just a bad idea all around, and no amount of tinkering will make it good. Chase1993, don't even worry about Urban Dead right now. I want you to read this, think about what it means, and then take a serious look at your life and how you're living it.--Mold 03:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: ABOVE POSTS: Aichon, and most everyone else: I STILL cannot understand HOW there would be no barricades left. Human players can (almost) just as easily repair the barricades as zombies can attack them. Now, did you know that there are 2 times more active humans than active zombies? The humans would be barricading MUCH faster. Again, to Aichon: About the syringe thing, etc, I've said many times that I know many things would have to be revamped for my idea to work. If my idea were implemented, DRASTIC changes to the rest of the game would have to occur. Seeing a way my idea does not fit in with such and such aspect of the game is not good enough reason to shoot it down, as I'm not suggesting it be implemented EXACTLY as I have put it down. I simply would love to see some changes that would make the game more friendly to players who want to play all more often. To Mold: Qoute, "and people are encouraged and rewarded (practically required) for spending many hours of their life per day on this. This is just a bad idea all around". Um... what about my posts (and life in general) have you been missing?! It's SUPPOSED to encourage and reward those people! The point of ANY MMORPG IS to reward those people. That's how it goes with ANYTHING in life. I practice parkour; do you think that I got out of bed one day and just decided to do parkour? EMPHATICALLY NO! I spent YEARS of my life training EVERY day. Life is designed to reward those who work hard at something. That's the WHOLE point of my game changes. Unlike it is now, the hardcores SHOULD be able to gain XP faster than the casual gamers. I mean, haven't you played ANY other MMORPG, or any other game (or practice any real-life skill)??!! If you had, you would know that working hard and consistently at it is par for the course. (Also, that link really wansn't as clever as you think it is) -- Chase1993

Who said anything about being clever? I'm not here to show off, and I don't need to entertain you. You need help kid, seriously, and if you can't see why, I hope somebody nearby has the sense to stage an intervention for you.

Regarding your inability to see how there would be no barricades left, it's pretty simple: this suggestion makes ruining buildings and keeping them ruined much easier, and ruined buildings cannot be barricaded until they're repaired.

To get back closer to the main point of contention, no, MMOs are not necessarily about sitting on your ass all day grinding for XP and gold, greens or whatever the game uses to show how much time you've wasted. Many of them present themselves that way, and apparently that's a thing about MMO games that you like. That doesn't mean MMO games that don't do things that way -- and in fact go out of their way to discourage players trying to do it that way -- need to be dragged into conformity with all the treadmills that make you fatter. Urban Dead isn't that kind of game, the creator of the game has clearly intended for it not to be that kind of game, and taken steps to ensure it doesn't become that kind of game. Even if you were gaining any support for the idea here (which you clearly aren't), it's not going to fly because it goes so hard against what Urban Dead is. You're barking up the wrong tree trying to drum up support for turning UD into WoW with zombies.--Mold 07:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: ABOVE POST: Firstly, my friend, I'm not trying to make this into a war of insults against each other, but I MUST question your logic. In WHAT way do I need help? From my point of view, it is YOU who have been GREATLY deprived of an important aspect of life: working hard to achieve something. If people want to spend their time playing MMORPG's, so be it. However, you clearly do not understand my situation. Why you do not understand I CANNOT think. I have cleary stated that I practice parkour. Perhaps you don't know what prakour is? Look it up. I can assure you, however, that parkour requires a GREAT amount of time OFF of your ass. Therefore, my life seems pretty balanced, as I have time to get outside with my club and partake of exercise, and also have time to play games. It's YOU that should be seeking help, and maybe should START putting your mind to a goal in life. Insults over, I understand that many hardcore UD players would not like the fact that it requires people to play more often, as playing for small periods is something that makes UD what it is. I still think that if there were a way to let players who want to play for longer periods of time do so, it would please more gamers out there, which is the general idea. -- Chase1993

I know what parkour is, and I know that a lot more people claim to practice it than actually do. Something to do with its trendiness in sandbox video games, no doubt. Whether or not you actually practice it is no concern of mine. The issue we're having here is this: Your suggestion is dead on arrival, and people before me have quite clearly pointed out why it's no good, and you don't care. This implies that the problem isn't actually with the suggestion, but rather, with you. I don't really care why you want to turn Urban Dead into World of Warcraft with zombies, I'm telling you it's not going to happen, full stop. Your inability to hear or understand what people are saying to you, and your celebration of the worst (at times lethally bad) aspect of MMOs as integral and good and able to teach valuable lessons about life, implies you have dangerous psychological problems and may wind up hurting or killing yourself with them over time. I mean, if you want to go hurt yourself, that's none of my business, but I wish the windup toward your breakdown and suicide attempt could happen somewhere other than Developing Suggestions.--Mold 08:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing a way my idea does not fit in with such and such aspect of the game is not good enough reason to shoot it down

Yes, it is. You're providing us with an idea here on Developing Suggestions. It's your task to develop the suggestion into something that the players can agree is a good idea. If your idea would break the game, it's our duty to shoot it down and tell you where it's broken. We've told you repeatedly where it's broken, but have yet to see any development. I believe most of us agree that your idea is fundamentally broken and will not work, regardless of the tweaks involved. I'm sorry that you we can't understand each other, but it's not any of our responsibility to make you understand our reasoning, but it is your responsibility to bring us around to an understanding of and agreement with yours. This will be my last response unless I see significant changes to the suggestion, since there's no point in continuing a discussion that can only serve to frustrate both of us.

Regarding humans and zombies, there are not twice as many humans. Check the stats. And you're arguing that net barricade levels would be on the increase, but net barricade levels don't matter when the zombies just need to hold a few positions to win, which would be trivial if they could break down the barricades at will. You've been playing this game long enough that you must realize that humans are incapable of winning the game (literally and technically) and, faced with large enough hordes, have no recourse but to flee.

Due to Beachhead Tactics and the like, only a small number of zombies are necessary in order to render buildings ruined, and as we saw before with Extinction, ruining buildings is already very doable and is extremely dangerous. Even though humans could repair the buildings, as you point out, they'd have to expose themselves to do so, which comes at great cost to them if they're found and killed. On the other hand, zombies risk practically nothing to undo the barricades. There's also the fact that a lone zombie now has enough AP to take down a VSB by himself and maybe get a few hits in on survivors. A handful working in unison can expect to get in and do serious damage. The way that survivors can survive in this game is by having those barricades stay up 24/7. Once the barricades fall, survivors start dying, and dying is extremely costly. Your suggestion would make the barricades fall all the time, which means lots of survivor deaths. Or maybe they disappeared, in which case they just gave away the building to the zombies.

Also, you seem to have missed the point of the game. It is not to reward the hardcore players, and not all MMOs are the way you described. Life may reward those that work hard, but games don't have to reflect life since they are meant to be fun. This game, like many others, chooses not to make a point of rewarding an individual's hard work, and instead tries to be fun for the demographic that it's aimed at: people who only want to spend five minutes a day playing the game. I played WoW for years (back when it wasn't nerfed all to hell), I raided at the high end, I was there for guild and server firsts, and if you think that this game is supposed to play out like WoW, you've most certainly missed the point.

Anyway, I'm done for now with the arguing, but I would like to reiterate a few things that have already been said. First, if your suggestion needs "drastic" (using your words here) changes to work, make them instead of beating around the bush. Don't keep arguing it as it is, since it just wastes everyone's time. Second, if this many people are coming out against your idea, whether or not you can see a problem, you need to admit that the players think there is a problem and that your suggestion will never be accepted as it is, since suggestions get voted on by the very people that you are arguing against right now. Third, use a signature. Iscariot mentioned this to you already, and I posted on your talk page even before he mentioned it to you, but it's common etiquette to use one. If you need help, I'll be glad to help you with it. —Aichon— 08:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: MOLD'S POST: "I know what parkour is, and I know that a lot more people claim to practice it than actually do." Firstly, friend, you have to take what I say for granted. If everytime someone made a claim "I've played UD for 4 years" I said "HAHA, you're just lying", we'd never get anywhere. I DO practice parkour, by myself AND with a club, and you're just going to have to take that for granted. "Something to do with its trendiness in sandbox video games, no doubt." Seriously, my friend, stop trying to insert clever lines everywhere; it comes out, for want of a better word, extremely dorky. "Whether or not you actually practice it is no concern of mine." Not in the general sense, but for this debate, it IS a concern of yours. You have said that I should get off my ass and stop wasting time. As I have proved that I DO get off my ass, it is a concern of yours, as you were the one who first stated that I was inactive. "The issue we're having here is this: Your suggestion is dead on arrival, and people before me have quite clearly pointed out why it's no good, and you don't care." Of course I care. I was the one who said at the very top of the page, if you'd care to look, that I wanted feedback as to how it would not work. Maybe you are not familiarized with the construction of debates. I'll fill you in. The point of a debate is that we're arguing something. If everybody agreed to my suggestion, there WOULDN'T be any debate, now would there? "This implies that the problem isn't actually with the suggestion, but rather, with you". Um... let me get this straight. You're saying that because I argue my point, there must be something seriously wrong with me. Simply put, I don't understand the logic of that statement. "I don't really care why you want to turn Urban Dead into World of Warcraft with zombies, I'm telling you it's not going to happen, full stop". To be honest, as I have said before, I didn't think it would ever really happen, because of server issues. However, to be quite frank, and I know that most hardcore UD's will hate me for this; yes, I would like to make UD more WOW style. And in all fairness, if it were more WOW style, it would attract far more players. "Your inability to hear or understand what people are saying to you, and your celebration of the worst (at times lethally bad) aspect of MMOs as integral and good and able to teach valuable lessons about life, implies you have dangerous psychological problems and may wind up hurting or killing yourself with them over time. I mean, if you want to go hurt yourself, that's none of my business, but I wish the windup toward your breakdown and suicide attempt could happen somewhere other than Developing Suggestions". Firstly, as I have stated above, I do understand what people are saying. I'm simply debating the point. Secondly, are you saying that all MMORPG's that require gameplay time of more than 10 minutes daily should be shut down? If so, you are the bane of pretty much EVERY gamer out there. If you would not like to partake of such "time-wasting activities", perhaps you should refrain from them, and live a quiet life with the Amish somewhere. And finally, please stop with the dramatism. "Winding up killing myself". Get real. I could start throwing any number of unfounded accusations at you: "If you don't start playing WOW, there is a serious chance you will kill all your family". Stick to reality. Playing MMORPG's will NOT make me kill myself. It's just a stupid thing to say. -- Chase1993

Okay, this is getting very boring, and seems increasingly pointless. A few last things and I'm done.

You haven't proved anything, you've claimed things but a claim that I can't disprove isn't proof of your claim. Proof looks more like this: "I started playing Mold roughly four years ago, feel free to check the character profile to verify this." And that's not even airtight logical proof of the claim, that's just pretty strong evidence that the player database thinks that somebody started playing a character with that name on that date. Though I have made a slight change to his profile just to firm things up a little.

Debating involves more than just stating your opinion over and over again while other people say other things.

There's more to arguing than saying something that a lot of people disagree with. I suggest you start with the wikipedia article on argument and go from there. Many here at the wiki don't actually argue, lord knows I often don't, but if you're going to claim to be using things like "argument"s and "logic" it might help if you were doing so.

Maybe you ought to spend more time familiarizing yourself with the game and its community before you start suggesting drastic -- or even small -- changes to it. Give it a year or so. Run around independent. Join a breather group. Join a zombie group. Get a feel for how the game looks and plays from different angles. Know what you're talking about.--Mold 09:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: TO AICHON'S POST: I understand completely what you are saying. If everyone is against me, why do I keep debating? Because my idea from the first was not to implement changes EXACTLY how I put them down. I simply want to find a way that players can play for long periods of time. I DON'T have all the answers. I want everyone to work together and try and find a way that my idea could be implemented. As it happens, I am VERY surprised to find that most people do NOT want to play for long periods of time. That's peoples prerogative. I STILL however, cannot understand why, if there were a way to implement it, people would not like it. Seriously, I don't understand how someone would not like to be able to play a game they love for a longer period of time than 10 minutes daily. But I hope you see where I'm coming from. My proposal was the only way I could think of to reinforce my idea; that of longer playing periods. I understand that this forum is unanimously against me, but all I was trying to do was find a way to make the game funner. I salute you, Aichon, for debating with me thus far, but all I would like is simply for people to try and find a way to play for longer periods. -- Chase1993

RE: MOLD'S POST: Firstly, I understand where you're coming from. I have never posted on this wiki before, and I do not know very well how this community operates. I HAVE played the game for the past 3-4 months, but perhaps I still do not quite understand the mentality of most of it's players. That's part of the reason I wrote this suggestion in the first place, as it says at the top. Finally, as I have stated several times before, the purpose of this suggestion is to throw around ideas that would increase playing time. Several players, BobBoberton, Whitehouse, Aichon, and others, have offered constructive criticism. You have offered nothing but insults and unfounded accusations. Perhaps my suggestion isn't airtight. That's why I posted it in the developing suggestions page; to get an idea if how it would be received. Obviously, it has been very poorly recieved; that still gives me a right to state my opinions as opposed to other people's. Anyway, all that to say, the purpose of this page is, as far as I am aware, to debate, make suggestions better,and give constructive criticsm. You have done none of those. I do understand your point. However, continously reiterating that I should shut up and get help is NOT helping the game. If you have nothing constructive to add to my suggestion, say you don't like it and then stop posting. It makes life easier for everyone. -- Chase1993 10:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[1] Heres a similar game, with almost identical graphics and similar skills, and a massively increased ap rate. Go and play it, the ask yourself "Is this what I want urban dead to be?" Also note the number of registered players, approximately 600. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this idea sucks ass so very badly. Even worse than my worst suggestions. Cookies and Cream 13:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

EPIC WIN Wait, what? The title's wrong... Come to think of it, what the hell is up with the picture? Uhuh. No way. No fucking way. You're telling me that someone actually made a good suggestion on DS? Get your lying ass out of here before I start putting bullets into it.

This time, it's been earned.

Lelouch vi Britannia 19:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WOW. I sure am happy I remembered to jump back into DS at the right time. I'm saving this crap in my userspace. So much argument for such a abysmal idea... It's mindblowing! --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like all the logical arguments have been made here. I'll just point out the whole "Urban Dead...fun" quote. Just because I find that hilarious. RinKou 10:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If your character automatically disappears 30 minutes after you log out, then Malton would be a ghost town. Character would only be available, what, an hour at most? That is unless you forget to log out. I mean imagine walking into a mall that holds 200 people....and only seeing about 10 people. 8 that are actively playing at that time and 2 that forgot to log out after playing. To be fair, it would probably be a higher number, but zombies would be totally screwed by this and the game would be even MORE focused around malls and NTs then it already is as survivors in any other buildings would most likely disappear. I mean how would Ransack work? That would add insult to injury. Zombies bust in and try to ransack but can't because there are disappeared survivors in the building. And that is just but one example.--Pesatyel 19:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you seem not to appreciate Urban Dead's unique, more leisurely-paced gameplay. Might I suggest Hell Rising or Quarantine 2019? Both of these were made by former players of Urban Dead; Hell Rising, in particular, gives players substantial quantities of Action Points. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Who killed me?

Timestamp: --Haliman - Talk 00:23, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Type: Interface Change (I think?)

Scope: All players

Description: Simple. I think the capitalized letter "i" should be viewed as this instead of a lowercase "L". Why? To stop confusion. EX: RossIessness "rossiessness" attacks and kills another group's member. That member takes a screenshot, and reports it to his group. Now "Rosslessness" and "Rossiessness" are both going to be blacklisted/searched by the group. The current "i" now is a major troll tool.

Discussion Who killed me?

[Haliman] profile A....[Haliman ]Profile B...still very exploitable in my opinion. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

00:56, 21 October 2009 (BST)

So, you want a serif font to be used, but only for capital letter Is in character names? Seems somewhat convoluted to me. Besides, it seems kinda odd to make a change like this in order to support meta-gaming, since that's the only time that it matters. Most of the PK list sites require links to the profile anyway, so you have the character ID, which is already unique. —Aichon— 01:03, 21 October 2009 (BST)

it seems kinda odd to make a change like this in order to support meta-gaming, since that's the only time that it matters. - That's pretty much all that keeps ALOT of the players here playing UD. --Haliman - Talk 01:13, 21 October 2009 (BST)

I don't disagree with that, but, aside from making data available, which is already being done, stuff like this seems to fall outside the scope of the game. Besides, a more consistent way to do it would be to display the character ID of the person that killed you in parenthesis next to their name, but since we already have a link to their profile, such things should be unnecessary. —Aichon— 01:26, 21 October 2009 (BST)

That would take up a lot of space on the game screen.--Haliman - Talk 01:37, 21 October 2009 (BST)

We're arguing details of an unrelated issue, but 9 characters (e.g. "(1598119)"), at most, is not a lot of space. Besides, as I said, such things aren't necessary anyway. —Aichon— 03:07, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Totally unneeded. If I want to confuse the subject or frame you I will. Read the section on Industrial Light and Magical Fraud. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:18, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Already saw. But all the names to frame me are taken *cough, KRAUSER cough cough*--Haliman - Talk 01:31, 21 October 2009 (BST)

I don't even need control of the account I'm using to frame you with. I could make an iwit of Bub killing Petro with a katana if I so chose. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:37, 21 October 2009 (BST)

After reading that...he scares me. I found it rather amusing though, and a good read. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

17:05, 21 October 2009 (BST)

I've always been annoyed with fonts that don't distinguish between I and l, Illustrated by the Ill coceived font on this page. However I agree with others here that it isn't a gameplay problem. STIll, I'd support you just because I, GIles the lIl, fucking hate fonts that use the same characters for different letters.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 02:27, 24 October 2009 (BST)

i c wut u did thur... Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:55, 24 October 2009 (BST)

For one thing, it isn't the same character used. Lower case L's have a little curvature at the bottom, which is visible in-game. Capital i's are completely straight, and if you view pictures with characters who use this trick, you will definitely notice the dissimilarity. Also, there are entire groups who depend upon this text for their gimmic. Changing the font suddenly would inconvenience these existing groups, and make them considerably less interesting to see in-game. Additionally, this similarity in character makes it all the more important to click on your attacker's name, and actually look at who they are. --DT^PK 20:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit it does have the tail thingy.-- SA 23:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Pumpkin Count

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091104 Pumpkin Count

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091108 Candy Count

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091108 School lunches