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

New Zombie Attack Style…bitches

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 17:40 8 December 2009(BST)

Type: Improvment

Scope: Zombies

Description: Ok so now Zombie Claw attacks go as follows: Base: 25% Vigour Mortis: +20% Death Grip: +20% Tangling Grasp: +10% long as you have a Grasp. Now, successful attacks with Claws do NO DAMAGE, yo. That’s right, bitches. What happens is you get a Grip. Whoever heard of a fucking CLAW on a Zombie anyway. Fuckin stupid, yo. Naw they hang on, then go for the fuckin Bite. They hungry and all. You know, like in a fuckin zombie movie, not whatever the fuck this Clawful undead shit is…wherever the fuck that came from. Fuckin Aliens maybe. Freddy fuckin Krueger? Maybe. It’s a mystery. Having a Grip does one thing: Lets you attacks with Bites. Yep, no bite attacks without a Grip on a bitch. Ok, so now Zombie Bite attacks go like so: Base: 35% Neck Lurch: +15% Now Rend Flesh adds +1 to Bite Attacks. Implement this today.

Discussion (New Zombie Attack Style…bitches)

Kevan doesn't read this page. Anything you put up I'll have removed almost instantly. And any small amount of credibility you ever had is gone. This is where you cry and shout like an impotent shit while we all laugh. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHA!--

| T | BALLS! | 18:13 8 December 2009(BST)

Awww, poor baby, did you not think of the obvious? If zombies don't cause damage with their claws, how do they take down barricades? Go to Quarantine 20whatever, you'll get on well with them, they cripple zombie play without realising it while telling anyone that will listen that they're "improving the game for everyone". -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously they would still be able to take down barricades, fool. Barricades don't take "damage", they just fall on successful hits.--

| T | BALLS! | 18:26 8 December 2009(BST)

Of course, that's why death cultists are using newspapers to drop all cades based on successful hits.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

fool.--

| T | BALLS! | 18:33 8 December 2009(BST)

It's sooo cute when you pout after getting caught in a web of your own stupidity. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Judith, let's make up.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:18 8 December 2009(BST)

This would just cripple zombies, which you frequently say are the weaker side. Plus, this suggestion is written sarcastically, as if it is just to cause a huge flamewar. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 21:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that's all he wants to do. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:08, 8 December 2009 (BST)

Believe it or not, I actually prefer to steer south of flamewars. If the suggestion seems sarcastic in tone, it's only because of the foolishness of "Claws" being the main Zombie weapon, and how out a genre that really is. Now, how exactly would this cripple Zombies? A Base 45% to get Grip for Corpse class and a 35% base to cause 4 damage per Bite, with a 50% attack percentage and 5 damage possible eventually. The whole Grip concept probably need to be worked out further, as in how are Grips lost, etc, but that's what discussion is for. Any ideas for improvement are welcome.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:20 8 December 2009(BST)

South being your favourite direction as it leads to the incest. Cookies and Cream 22:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the racist and other such remarks please. And please remove your racist comment on the knife critical attack thingy suggestion.-- SA 22:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not racist; it's stereotypical. Also, plz dun feed teh trolls. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's why I said other such remarks. :P And I'm not feeding a troll at the moment. Just trying to make the wiki a better place you know?-- SA 23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

no u.

I wanted to say "I do", but felt that you would prefer something esoteric to a standard confirming reply. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thematically 'Bite' really should be the zombies premium attack so i kinda support the idea.... sadly the details let it down badly. Will try to think of constructive criticism in the morning (when I sober up!) --Honestmistake 01:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your forgetting all the bonus effects of bite. 4 damage, 4 XP, heals 4 hp and infects. That is a lot of effects for 1 attack. I could see a stronger "Grip" skill where if you make 2 successful claw attacks in a row, you got some additional bonus.--Pesatyel 04:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Ruin Repair Change IV: Son of Ruin Repair Change

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 12:47 8 December 2009(BST)

Type: Improvment

Scope: Ruins

Description: Now when a Ruin is created it does not show the number of AP needed to fix the Ruin, but shows: [Repair Ruin x1]. Every 24 hours the number has a 50% chance to increase by 1. So after 10 days the Ruin will genererally be [Repair Ruin x5], and so on. Survivors must Repair bit by bit. Pressing the Repair button costs 1 AP, and has a % chance to lower the Repair number by 1. The % chance is determined as below: Base chance: 5% (+40% if the Survivor has Construction) (+20% if the Survivor has a Toolbox) So a Survivor with neither Construction nor a Toolbox: 5% A Survivor with only a Toolbox: 25% A Survivor with only Construction: 45% A Survivor with both Construction and a Toolbox: 65%

Discussion (Ruin Repair Change IV: Son of Ruin Repair Change)

You're going to face the same opposition as the other versions did. Personally I think you're going about it the wrong way. No one is going to want to have to click 50 times to fix a ruin. My own probably flawed suggestion would be: Make all ruin repairs done in chunks of 5 levels per 5AP. If less than 5 levels, then it still costs 5AP. That'd make the zombies happier about the cost to ruin it in the first place too. - User:Whitehouse 13:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Whitehouse's idea is interesting. As for this current suggestion, still not workable. You lost whatever it was that made the first version have some potential. —Aichon— 23:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Survivors without construction... DHPD... Desk Sergeants... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Ruin Repair Change

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 15:59 7 December 2009(BST)

Type: Improvment

Scope: Ruins

Description: Now when a Ruin is created it does not show the number of AP needed to fix the Ruin, but shows: [Repair Ruin x1]. Every 24 hours the number increases by 1, so after 10 days it would show: [Repair Ruin x10], and so on. Now Survivors must repair bit by bit. Pressing the Repair button costs 2 AP, and lowers the Repair number by 1. So a Ruin at [Repair Ruin x10] would end up costing 20 AP to Repair.

Discussion (Ruin Repair Change)

If you ditched the 2AP cost per repair "tick" and made it take only one click, instead of repeated clicks, I'd be up for it. I'm a supporter of partial repairs as a balance change, but charging 2AP per repair tick is a bit much, I think, at least initially. —Aichon— 16:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Changing it to 1AP makes ruins weaker than they are now, as someone can repair a chunk of the ruin without going for a full suicide repair. Doubling the cost might not be a good idea either, though making it 3AP per 2 ticks of decay could work. 16:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually think it makes ruins stronger for a few reasons. Suicide is a low price to pay for high-cost ruins right now. As per my idea, it would sap all of the repairer's AP (but wouldn't take them negative), so they'd be incapable of getting away effectively. As a result, they'd have to repeat the process and endanger themselves several times, rather than just once, meaning that there might be multiple suicides involved in a single repair. Plus, the zombies would be fully capable of entering the building at any time, seeing that some repairs had been done, and meatshielding against future repairs. —Aichon— 17:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, better than the current system anyway.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:55 7 December 2009(BST)

The major flaw I see in this is IP hits.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Major flaw"? Gimme a break. People are going to spend their AP somehow, and at 2 AP per this would be 25 less IP hits than 95% of any others actions in the game.--

| T | BALLS! | 20:02 7 December 2009(BST)

As in an action which previously cost 1Ap could now cost well in to the hundreds.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly a "major flaw" though, come on.--

| T | BALLS! | 20:11 7 December 2009(BST)

I was sayign it was more major than Ap cost.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Awww, ZL still believes that Kevan looks at this page. How cute. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Weak.--

| T | BALLS! | 20:02 7 December 2009(BST)

How does Aichon take his coffee? How does American Military Intelligence look to the rest of the world? Things that are the antithesis of strong? What is the most accurate descriptor of ZL's arguing strategies? It must be one of those, I love Jeopardy. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Weak.--

| T | BALLS! | 20:11 7 December 2009(BST)

You pussy. Grow a pair. --Thadeous Oakley 20:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Second. I don't think ruins need a whole lot of changing up; they're not broken. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:43, 7 December 2009 (BST)

Hi again, cunt. Stop trolling up my suggestion.--

| T | BALLS! | 20:46 7 December 2009(BST)

They're fuckin useless.--

| T | BALLS! | 20:46 7 December 2009(BST)

Just thought I'd mention that, for an American, I like my coffee rather strong. —Aichon— 21:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully not with that Mocha Hazelnut Caramel Pussy Juice stuff though.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:53 7 December 2009(BST)

For me, it's usually black with one sugar, if you must know. —Aichon— 23:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand how discussion on this page turns from the suggestion to insulting each other. Also; I prefer the system as it is. It's easier for me to handle one click than 24.(Assuming I wasn't sleeping inside the ruin, but next door.) And I wouldn't be able to suicide repair. Which is a tactic I like to employ. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}21:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what happens if you challenge the Pussy Status Quo. Anyway, I think repairing a long standing ruin should be "more to handle", you know? It should be like work, and feel like work, not a one click insta-action. Just my opinion though.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:03 7 December 2009(BST)

I can understand where you're coming from, but at the same time, I disagree that the game should feel like work. Also, if you use the words "should" or "feels like" then it is your opinion. :)--Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}22:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Try pounding on cades for 50 AP one at a time for almost no result sometime. :) At least with youd be making guaranteed progress for each AP you spent.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:19 7 December 2009(BST)

I do, and I still think your ideas are as badly thought out and idiotic as Winman's, just with a different bias. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'm sure the opinion of the anal-retentive Aspergerian retard faction will be important for future development.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:08 8 December 2009(BST)

Poor Wan, must be hard being on whatever medication you're on now. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the anal-retentive Aspergerian delusional retard faction. Is this a cry for help? I'm sure we could find the appropriate meds to make the voices go away, Izzy.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:23 8 December 2009(BST)

Is all this acting out because your death cult failed, and it was all your own fault? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Try again.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:31 8 December 2009(BST)

I didn't want to bring up your erectile dysfunction, but if you insist.... Is it that? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep going.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:34 8 December 2009(BST)

That one time at Band Camp? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Come on, hit me.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:55 8 December 2009(BST)

And for those of us that don't get off on watching a guy in skin tight leather straddling something... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I just knew you were transgender.--

| T | BALLS! | 07:35 8 December 2009(BST)

You're the one bringing up the millionaire playboy with a thing for gimp suits... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No shit...that's you in that scenario, numbnuts.--

| T | BALLS! | 17:48 8 December 2009(BST)

I've never dropped a bike in such a dumb way. Also, are you self identifying with a gay cowboy in Cher make-up? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's possible.--

| T | BALLS! | 18:14 8 December 2009(BST)

I'm sure you'd like to employ one-click barricading to EHB, one-click FAKing till you're out of FAKs or the target's health is full, and one-click killing and dumping a zombie if possible with your AP and ammo, too. Too bad. I find it difficult to believe I'm agreeing with ZL in any way, here, but I do. Instant repairs are stupid, for cowards, and need to go away. I do think 2 AP per day of decay might be a bit too much, though. Either keep it at one, or make it scale based on how many zombies have been loitering there (alternately, how many people have have been killed in there each day). --Mold 22:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC) <-- I put this in the wrong place in the discussion before. It was meant to respond to Rorybob's remark on no longer being able to suicide repair. "Which is a tactic I like to employ." --Mold 22:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the easy thing for dealing with ruins would be to just set a cap of, say, 40 AP. Something like that. It makes more sense that a group of people could/would do repairs together not just one person. As Mold points out, multiple people can barricade, for example, so why not repair? As for the suggestion itself, it seems a tad unecessarily complited, hence my "cap" idea.--Pesatyel 02:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not complicated. This 40 AP a pop cap is just the current system, only worse, as it has both insane super speed and the ability to breakup the work load.--

| T | BALLS! | 07:38 8 December 2009(BST)

Your suggesting that to repair a building that is ruined x30, it costs 60 AP. HOWEVER, I can do that in 2 AP increments so there is NO danger to the survivors in repairing. So long as I do repairs twice a day, I will, eventually, get it down and there is NOTHING a zombie can do to keep that from happening. Under the current system that same building I would have to spend that full 60 AP in one hit with the attendant risk of it being a suicide mission. That is the trade off there. I can see your idea being EASILY abused by survivors with their ability to keep the ruin level to, say x3 so that the building CAN'T be ruined again, thenr fix it up at their leisure. And all this by a single individual too.--Pesatyel 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose a Zombie could, I dunno, stand in the building.--

| T | BALLS! | 16:04 8 December 2009(BST)

Zombies? In MY ruined buildings?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's possible.--

| T | BALLS! | 17:12 8 December 2009(BST)

Your also, for some reason, ignoring the team effort effect here. The "normal" rules, one guy takes the sucide to do the repair. This suggestion, I can revive the zombie and still have AP to repair AND run if I choose. This all seem slike a distinct tactical advantage that "a zombie in the building to block the repair" wouldn't effect much. I COULD be wrong and, other than Yonnua's sarcasm, it might be interesting to see what others thing (well beyond flaming).--Pesatyel 04:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Beer/Wine Change

Timestamp: Verance 04:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Type: Game tweak

Scope: Humans

Description: Just today, I found my first bottle of beer, and drank it. Searching around, I found another, and decided "It would be pretty funny to go outside and smack a zombie in the face with this..." so I stepped outside, found a zombie, and swung at it. Perhaps because I was a bit tipsy, I missed the first time, so I took another swing, and struck it, causing three damage. I was sad that my bottle broke, the beer splashed on the floor, and that was all. Stumbling back into the Henning arms, I wondered what would happen in a world where the bottle only broke some of the time, after all, it didn't smash on my head when I gave it a try... In all seriousness, I am suggesting this - Make the bottles of beer and wine break ~%10 of the time, and cause 1 additional damage, because really, sharp glass breaking onto your body tends to hurt. Multiplying this by 1000 is not an issue. While it is true that it does more damage (when it breaks) than a fire axe, you have to take into consideration the 25% accuracy rate, compared to the fire axe's 40%. It is still more logical and better to use the fire axe than a bottle of beer that causes one extra damage 10% of the time. (2.5% for 4 damage, 25% for 3 damage, 75% for miss, vs 40% for three and 60% for miss). So to the community, what do you think?

Discussion (Beer/Wine Change)

I think you've never been on the receiving end of a heavy strike with a wedge of steel if you think a few shards of broken glass should ever do more damage than a fire axe. This is stupid. And before you give me any lip about hitting just right to nick an artery and cause massive bleeding, remember that UD does not include critical hits, sneak attack, backstab or whatever else you might call precision damage. --Mold 04:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mold. I would much rather to be hit with a broken bottle (NIGGA KNIFE!) than chopped at with a Fire Axe. Just like i'd rather be tasered than shot or stabbed. Cookies and Cream 04:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

And yet Urban Dead is a game of such questions. How does a shot always knick a zombie in its flack jacket or rotten flash, yet dig into its skull every time you go for the headshot? I do agree with the point that it is odd a bottle does the same amount of damage as a fire axe, and that this would make it do more, but I fail to see how it could be a game breaker. And for the record, I don't consider it a "ctirical hit" or a "sneak attack" or any of that short of shit, just an idea that can be done. Verance 06:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you please not fuck up the formatting when you post? Comments go above the four-dash divider that separates this from the suggestion below it. --Mold 07:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yesshhh, I make mistakes, no need to get all huffy about it. Verance 14:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So your argument is, because the way the game handles it is already stupid, why not get even dumber about it? Ugh. I for one don't consider "Why not?" a very good reason to do stupid shit that isn't even all that funny. --Mold 22:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Axes > Bottles. If a bottle smashes on your face, which I hope hasn't happened, it will do less damage to you than an axe hitting you in the face. It's a really simple fact. I don't see how it could possibly do more damage than an axe, and changing hit rates doesn't balance it. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mold, are you this combatative to everyone? Anywho, I do understand the primary criticism, this would do more damage than the axe. Perhaps if the damage from being hit by the bottle was reduced to two, and the bottle breaking did three damage? Verance 00:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sign your posts. And no, I'm not this combative with everyone, it just looks this way on this page because stupidity makes me angry, and Developing Suggestions overflows with it. How about you tone down bottle damage to 1, with a 50% chance it breaks and does 2 instead? Never happen but it'd be somewhat less moronic. --Mold 23:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh crap; I'm late to the hatefest. Ahumhum: "This suggestion is crap, you complete moron." How was that? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Amateurish at best :/ -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Iscariots right LeLouch, that was pathetic. Surely you can do better? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sorakairi (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

The bottle does 3 damage because it is a 1 shot weapon. If the bottle doesn't break it should do less damage.--Pesatyel 02:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Pesatyel, I do have to agree with that point, and it is one I did not think of (and thanks for doing so minus insults). And moss, I love the fact that you assume people on the suggestions are deliberately "moronic". I made this suggestion because I genuinely thought it made sense. Just because you need to feel intellectually superior to other people doesn't warrant labeling other people's suggestions as stupid. (unless the obviously didn't read the frequent suggestions and whotnot, then go ahead and flame away.) Verance 00:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Jesus H. Me! Get the fuck over yourself. You haven't been flamed hard, nowhere near. Stop crying. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I can join in on the flaming if you want to feel persecuted!-- SA 00:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

CAN WE DISCUSS THE SUGGESTION I SUGGESTED RATHER THAN F*CKING AROUND AND WHINGING ABOUT IRRELEVANT COMMENTS. Idea: Change bottle damage styles, yes or no, and why. THANK YOU AND HAVE A GOOD DAY. Verance 01:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're being called an idiot because people are pointing out serious flaws in your suggestion and giving you tons of reasons why the basic concept behind your idea is flawed, and you don't appear to be listening to any of it. Here's how the escalation scale on DS works: Honest criticism-becomes->Insistant and angry criticism-->angry and hostile insistance-->insults-->templates. You were only at stage two back before you started responding to our insults (which we use to emphasize our ideas) instead of our ideas; now you're at stage three for having a shitty idea and no adequate explanation why its flaws aren't the major problems they appear to be. The main reason why anger is used so often in DS is that it is often the only thing that rookie or stubborn suggesters respond to.If you think you're at stage four right now, you're dead wrong. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Change bottle damage styles, yes or no, and why. Ideas as to no: Causes three damage because it is a one shot weapon (I already admitted I did not think of that). If you care to look, Rorybob stated "I don't see how it could possibly do more damage than an axe", to which I agreed, and aquiesensed that a base damage decrease would be the way to go. Mold came in saying "idiot" and "moronic", and Rorybob and Pesatyel came with valid criticism, to which I responded. I fail to see how that is being stubborn. BACK TO THE TOPIC. Thank you. Verance 01:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, fuck you. Your idea is stupid, fix the rest of this fucked up game first before trying to make god damned stupid unneeded fucking changes. Stupid cunt.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suicidalangel (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

They were telling you your idea sucks; you can't nerf the whole game for realism. Read the D%DN: It's a zombie apocolyps, it's not realistic. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it may be a suggestion, but please elaborate on how this is nerfing the game? I look forward to your input. Verance 01:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Causes three damage because it is a one shot weapon...I agreed, and aquiesensed that a base damage decrease would be the way to go. You're encouraging one of two things with this shitty idea: Powering up beer/wine or other melee weapons, which is OP and useless, or powering down beer/wine or other melee weapons, which is nerftacular and useless. The power balance between weapons is very delicate and not something to be fucked around with for "realism". Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Who uses the bottle as a weapon? The trade off is that it turns the bottle into a "regular" weapon (or at best another pool stick). I see that as a nerf myself, but given the above question, does it really matter?--Pesatyel 04:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I saw ONE comment about how the axe is better than the bottle (ignoring the fact the bottle does the samage damage but is one shot) and 1 person agreeing that the axe is better than the bottle.--Pesatyel 04:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Beards

Timestamp: Cookies and Cream 03:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Type: Clothing?

Scope: Humans

Description: This suggestion implements a new thing, Beards. Beards grow in levels. These levels are: No Beard, Fuzz, Scratchy, Bearded and Shaggy. A Beard grows every 5 server resets (do we have server resets?). If there aren't server resets, then your beard will grow once every 5 days Kevantime. Beards can be turned off through your settings page, for all you women and unmanly men. Beards can be cut through a new item, Hairclippers, which reduces it down 1 level. I was going to make it wire cutters, but thought they'd be unsuitable for cutting beards. Having a beard appears in your profile description, next to the face description. You can't wear a mask if your beard is Bearded or Shaggy.

Discussion (Beards)

Just was looking through Clothing Suggestions when this struck me. Cookies and Cream 03:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Then put it through clothing suggestions, we don't need an item to alter clothing slots, I have enough with laundry and seamstress suggestions. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Where's Anime (and his beard) when he's needed? 04:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mine's better :P -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What about characters who claim to be female/androgynous/inanimate/severed limbs/small fluffy animals/single-celled organisms/fish/only capable of a pencil mustache? How will this effect them?--DT^PK 02:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

They can turn it off. Or...I dunno, just live with it. And surely those who claim to be androgynous/inanimate/severed limbs/small fluffy animals/single-celled organisms/fish/only capable of a pencil mustache are a minority? Cookies and Cream 11:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Fuck beardless men and men who are androgynous/inanimate/severed limbs/small fluffy animals/single-celled organisms/fish/only capable of a pencil mustache. The only people with excuses to not have an awesome manly beard are wimminz. Also, just reminding everyone I got hoodies implemented. I am awesome like that.-- SA 22:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Hey, this could lead to new PKer groups, killing only people without beards! Cookies and Cream 22:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd dot it! I just don't play anymore. :( -- SA 22:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely killing beardless people would be a hilarious reason to come back. Cookies and Cream 22:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I can come back, I just can't maintain activity for more than a week or so. :/ -- SA 22:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed? Still, killing beardless people. it can't get much better that that? Cookies and Cream 04:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

hands break though the barricade

Timestamp: --Kralion 15:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Type: Flavour

Scope: zombies

Description: When zombies began attacking barricades,there could be a 10% chance that their hands break through it and it will be visible to the survivors inside.The zombie would recieve the message you attack the barriacade.Your hand breaks through the barriacade and is visible for the survivors inside.For example You are inside the Shears Building. The building has been very heavily barricaded.You see a few hands hands come out from the barricades.When 2-5 hands have breaked through survivors will see few hands 5-8 some hands 8-11lots of hands11+ A hell lot of hands.This will just add flavor to the game and will sure scare those survivor inside.You can still attack the barricades with your other free hand with no penalty.Taking the hand out of the barricade costs 0 AP.There could be an option that asks you if you just dont want it to happen.The zombie hand cannot be attacked.

Discussion (hands break through the barricade)

Sounds like useless flavor that will cause more effort and problems that it will create fun; I ask this suggestion the same question I ask many others: Why? Also, people will want to attack the hands. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

X-Ray Vision. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That too. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 19:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Breaking through barricades is already painful enough for zombies, so getting their hands caught would just make it more annoying. Also, how does this really work? Can the survivors on the inside only see the hands if they're still stuck in the barricades? If not, then do they see hands that came through the barricades within the last hour? The last day? Since they last logged on?

I'm also opposed to it for the x-ray vision issue, since it lets you tell how many zombies are beating on the barricades. Perhaps a better way to implement it would involve not saying how many hands there are and only give the message whenever the barricade level actually decreases. Changing it to work that way yields scant additional information to survivors, but it definitely goes in a different direction than this suggestion was originally. —Aichon—

RE:k,just added something that wont tell you the EXACTLY the number of hands that there are--Kralion 01:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on leaving your suggestion completely broken and unworkable in almost every way described after your revision. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Changing that flavor, while it does help slightly, does not make this suggestion acceptable. Just as zombies have to break in to see how many humans are inside, humans have to exit to see how many zombies there are. Anything that changes that formula is x-ray vision. You also didn't address my entire first paragraph. —Aichon— 09:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the flavour, but I think the in-game translation of it would work better as an attack skill (10% chance of claw hit w/o tangling on last active survivor with each successful attack on the barricades) than as just flavour. 20:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that would be barricade negation. :P This suggestion just isn't good...--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Two hits out of a fully-barricaded building isn't that bad, though, is it? 21:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't see any kind of negation for either side passing a vote.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what Aichon said, if my survivors whilst inside can know that zombies are outside without doing the leg work to go outside and physically check, then this is X-Ray vision and will get spammed to death regardless of whatever changes you make. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

At best, this could be added to the "Halloween knocking".--Pesatyel 02:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Item sorting

Timestamp: Diavolone 06:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Type: Feature of ease

Scope: Everyone with items

Description: What I noticed in this game was that when you got a lot of items, pistols, ammo etc, its hard to keep control of it all. One little easy implemented feature would have been to sort the items alphabetically or something. Or by type, but alphabetically is easier to implement. That way all the pistols would be in a row, and all the pistol clips in a row, and the same with medkits, and shotguns and everything else. Seeing how many you have of each item will be much easier, and I think that a lot of players would appreciate this.

Discussion (Item sorting)

This was actually suggested, here at least, like a week ago. We also have this.--Pesatyel 06:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a month or two ago, but yeah, we just talked about this. Nothing came of it in the end though, and I think the idea got cycled, so we may as well discuss it again. I recall Iscariot had an issue with people changing his interface around, and there was the usual smattering of people saying that this is just a Greasemonkey issue, rather than an actual interface issue. Personally, I'm all for alphabetizing it.

As an aside, since people will say you should just use a script for doing it on your own, here's one such script that does a bit more than just alphabetize. —Aichon— 07:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Dupe. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I reckon this suggetion isnt a dupe. Its a Dupe-A-Saurus Rex. Cookies and Cream 12:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Adrenaline shot

Timestamp: --Kralion 22:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Type: new item

Scope: survivors

Description:Basically, the adrenaline shot will give you 5 AP when injected they can only be injected once per day to prevent abusing of it,making it overpowered. This would be useful when walking into a safehouse...and find it infested with 20 zeds,those 5 AP will probably save your life. Adrenaline can be injected to any other person that hasnt been injected already. When you have already injected adrenaline and try to inject more will trigger the message you have already injected adrenaline today,too much is very dangerous will waste 1 AP but the adrenaline shot will still be there. Trying to inject to somebody that has already injected will trigger the message you notice that the person has already injected adrenaline,better dont give him more.. Adrenaline shots can be found in necrotech buildings (maybe they were experimenting with them?) with a search radius of 2% and in hospitals with a 4%.After an hour,a message will trigger saying you fell the adrenaline wear off,you suddenly become tired and lose 5 AP points,if the person has 0 AP he wont start regenerating past 2 hours and a half (5 AP). Discussion (Adrenaline shot) Only if one hour later you automatically lose 10 AP, and it works in the negative if applicable. (example: you have 5 AP when your hour is up, you fall to -5. Also, you can't go over 50 AP, so any AP you would have gained over 50 is lost.-- | T | BALLS! | 22:29 1 December 2009(BST) RE:I gotta seriously think about this,but maybe the AP lose would just be 5 less AP.You urgently need AP,you inject,then lose 5 AP.Sounds good to me,what do you think guys?. Make it so that you can be injected more than once a day, but for every shot you get over 1 in 24 hours you take 5 damage as well. Then if you die from it it says: "[name] died from a drug overdose."-- | T | BALLS! | 22:42 1 December 2009(BST) RE:Interesting,maybe we could do that,but then the adrenaline shot could not be applied to other people beside you because it would be an effective killer,and besides in a mall siege,people could keep injecting adrenaline and other people will heal them,doesnt sound to balanced to me if you ask me.What do you think?--Kralion 01:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC) THIS IS NOT LEFT FOR DEAD. This is Urban Dead. --    Timmah!     Talk   22:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) RE:So just because it looks similar to the left 4 dead 2 adrenaline shot (I got the idea from it indeed) it cannot be applied?.--Kralion 01:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC) As a zombie player, this clearly is over balance, your helping the survivors but putting the zombies at a negative, we lose AP because of headshots as is, now effectively a survivor could use 55AP while a zombie gets 44ap. That is extremely unbalance. Not to mention you clearly aren't thinking of PKers who would use adrenaline and clear out buildings faster and better, then you get more people butthurt about pkers, then there already is. OVERBALANCED STOP DISCUSSING IT, kthanxbye. --    Timmah!     Talk   01:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC) RE:I am just gonan discuss about PKers,5 AP 1 day arent gonna make a HUGE difference.An average high lvl PK may kill 3 people 1 day.5 AP arent gonna make him kill 6 more. Have you ever traveled amongst a semi-ruined suburb were over 1/2 the people are 30 and under. Its easy picking, you also never addressed the fact that would be 55 AP for a survivor versus 44 for a zombie. This is still overpowered and thus NO! NO GOD DAMN ADRENALINE! --    Timmah!     Talk   04:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Template:TPolice-- | T | BALLS! | 04:42 2 December 2009(BST) Will someone make a THIS ISN'T FUCKING LEFT FOR DEAD template we can start smacking down these idiots with? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements Left 4 Dead This is not fucking Left 4 Dead. You're welcome. payment is one (1) internets. 23:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Template:TPolice-- | T | BALLS! | 04:42 2 December 2009(BST) I like Zombie Lord's nerfs to this.--Pesatyel 04:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I like how Zombie Lord has made so many suggestion's that upon hearing he made another, it becomes an automatic "NO." If you think I'm joking check his contribs everything he suggests he removes as the author [1]--    Timmah!     Talk   06:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Well most of it was his shitty attitude and generally trolling nature. He seems to have calmed down some.--Pesatyel 06:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC) I swear this is a dupe, but I don't feel like looking for it. Maybe after I've had coffee. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 06:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC) It's definately a dupe... I cannot be bothered looking either. --Honestmistake 08:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I'm pretty sure it is, and I'm also pretty sure I wrote the first version. However, if I did, I'm definately sure I never took it further than DS. Either that, or I didn't record it --Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 09:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Quick search found this from way back. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/RejectedMarch2006#Adrenaline_Syringe Not the same but does have a fair few similarities. --Honestmistake 10:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC) RE:okey guys,I added zombie lrod suggestion of losing AP after injecting adrenaline.--Kralion 10:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I liked the way Nexus War handled this. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Nexus War's amps worked because hospitals were the bottom of the barrel when it came to healing items. Sure, hospitals are still lower tier than malls, but when there's really only two healing items in the game (one of them revive, which is arguably different), everybody'll search hospitals instead. Whereas NW had all sorts of food, regeneration, innate healing, passive healing, specific status ailment and cures, etc. This is a lot closer to Shartak's mushroom juice, if anything. Thing is, it works in that game because all sides are relatively equal. There's no logical zombie equivalent (unless somebody brings up that old godawful "eat self" suggestion :P), so it really shouldn't be in the game. Zombies are players too, etc etc. RinKou 19:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Don't forget Beer and Wine --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 19:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Actually, hospitals are top-tier for FAKs now. You raise a very good point re: availability – this suggestion is one-sided and needs to consider zombies, because zombies are the ones with the AP shortfall! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC) In my opinion, the search rates are a bit high. They should be about half of what they are now. Otherwise, no complaints. --AORDMOPRI ! T 21:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC) RE:Done.--Kralion 22:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Patrol/Prowl Timestamp: --Honestmistake 15:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Type: new skill & action Scope: survivors and Zombies with MoL Description: There are always certain folks you just don't want messing with the radio/generator/safehouse/revive line. Currently you can't do much to stop them if you are not online so I am suggesting a new Skill that would be co-ordinated through the settings page. If implemented this Skill would allow you to designate a single action that you wish to protect against; once set it would remain until you came back to change it (like descriptions) "Patrol" would be an addition to the existing Military list while Prowl would be a free zombie skill requiring MoL and "Patrol". Prowl effectively just makes Patrol a crossover skill but i suggest adding it as a freebie to make it appear on a zeds profile) Actions you may select (via a dropdown) would include: Attacking Generators Attacking Barricades Building/adding to Barricades Attacking Radio's Broadcasting Setting up decorations (Why you would I can't imagine but what the hey?) Creating Revive Syringes Necrotech scanning Reviving Ruining (dubious about this one but its probably only fair) Repairing Free Running Any others that people think might be worthwhile? Once an action is selected you then choose a target: "colour" contacts all contacts all survivor all zombies What Happens: Once set up, a new action will appear in the normal game panel, For a cost of 2AP you can begin a prowl/patrol of the area. Once anyone at a location is defending the area the description will include "One", "Several" (up to 10) or "Lots" (10+) "of survivors/zombies are patrolling/prowling this area"... it will not say what part of the area they are defending though. Should anyone from your target list attempt the action you are currently patrolling for you will attempt to prevent their action. The chance to prevent the action is 10% + 1% per character defending against the same action, no more than 10 characters can defend the same target and attempts to stop freerunning are at half chance due to the number of potential entry points. For example; If Burt, Ernie and Kermit are trying to stop Cookie Monster attacking the generator they have a 13% chance of success. If they are trying to prevent him freerunning this would be 6% (6.5 rounded for simplicity) Should an action be prevented by the patrol appropriate notification will be given, "Prowling Zombies (list) drove you away as you tried to revive 'survivor x'" etc.... The patrol/prowl will end as soon as AP regeneration takes you back to a positive number or you are damaged by any attack. As soon as the patrol/prowl ends the character will lose 4AP (taking the total cost to 6) This reflects the idea that your character has been awake and active (in a limited fashion) and is now very tired. Final note on this point is should any survivor who is infected take damage everytime their patrol is triggered? I can see reasons both ways so would appreciate ideas. Discussion (Patrol/Prowl) WARNING This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 9th December To a large extent this is the heavily reworked Defend skill i put forwards last week.--Honestmistake 15:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I honestly think the idea just won't work, period, but for the sake of discussion, let's talk about a few of the larger flaws. Actions that can't normally be observed by other characters should not be able to be protected against (e.g. necronet scanning, making syringes, free running, etc.), since that just doesn't make sense. The idea is also severely underpowered, both in terms of AP spent and the chance of success. Essentially, you're saying that for 6AP, I have a 10% chance to stop someone from engaging in a 1AP activity (which may or may not even take place), which they can attempt to do as many times as they like. I.e. it's a useless skill. And speaking of skills, requiring a human skill in order to use a zombie skill is a definite no. Either make them stand-alone skills that can be used independently of each other, or choose one side for the skill. —Aichon— 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Hmm, I will try to answer those points in some sort of order... I think one of the main reasons that you don't see those actions is because it would be pointless screen SPAM... I mean its not like you could do anything with the info? With this however you are actively choosing to look out for such actions and try to prevent them. As for underpowered, I was rather worried that it may be the opposite. Sure you pay 6AP to patrol for 1 hour and have a small chance of stopping your chosen nemisis, but its potentially possible to trigger this a million times in that hour which is why i set the chance so low. With team work that chance would soon build up to a pretty reasonable level. To all intents and purpose I have made this a human skill, its a crossover if zombies also have MoL but the fact that they get prowl as a freebie is just to show it in their profile if scanned and to make it easier for the server to assign the right flavour text (ie "lots of zombies are prowling") I do see where you are coming from when you say you don't like this but i really think the game needs a bit more complexity to keep it from stagnating and I think options like this might be the way forwards. --Honestmistake 08:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC) As Aichon. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 06:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Actually, further question. If zombies are prowling and watching for people attempting to build barricades, how would this skill work with the current barricade blocking function? --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 11:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC) I think it would be best if while prowling they contributed only to this rather than both... Not even sure how the current blocking feature works though so it may be possible/fair to check both seperately or even to add them together? Does anyone have the actual chances of blocking? I don't think it is high cos i never seems to work at the low level cade stage. --Honestmistake 13:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC) DEFEND Timestamp: --Honestmistake 12:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Type: new action Scope: survivors and Zombies with MoL Description: There are always certain folks you just don't want messing with the radio/generator/safehouse/revive line. Currently you can't do much to stop them if you are not online so I am suggesting a new option that would be available through the settings page. If implemented this would allow you to designate a single action that you wish to protect against; once set it would remain until you came back to change it. Actions you may select (via a dropdown) would include: Free-running into the location. Attacking Generators Setting up/fueling Generators Attacking Barricades Building/adding to Barricades Attacking Radio's Broadcasting Setting up decorations (Why you would I can't imagine but what the hey?) Creating Revive Syringes Necrotech scanning Reviving Ruining (dubious about this one but its probably only fair) Repairing Others that people think might be worthwhile..... Once an action is selected you then choose a target: "colour" contacts all contacts all survivor all zombies all. Finally you would choose a weapon... any weapon including newspapers. What Happens: Once set up, a new action will appear in the normal game panel, For a cost of 5AP (more/less?) you can activate your selected "defend" criteria. Should anyone from your target list attempt the action you are currently defending against you will then make a single attack with the chosen weapon. If this attack causes damage the action defended against will fail (1AP/IP hit no item loss, free running fails should be subject to potential falling damage as if falling from a ruin though!) the target will receive a message saying something like "Arson Lover tries to prevent you damaging the radio by attacking you with an axe, they hit you for 3HP and foil your action" or "Arson Lover tries to prevent you damaging the generator by attacking you with an axe, they miss and seem winded by the attempt!" While "Defending" you may not regenerate to above 45AP. "Defense" will end when it is triggered, when you spend AP on any other action or if you are injured. All players defending a given action will be triggered by it but regardless of actual numbers no player will be reduced to less than 1HP and it is only the action that triggered the defense that will be prevented. Discussion (Defend) WARNING This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 9th December A heavily reworked take on a previous discussion.... I take all the blame though :) --Honestmistake 12:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Wouldn't this be a huge pain to code and program? Also if I multiply by say...50..50 people will "defend" a genny, if one player would try destroy the genny, well that would be quite fucked. Also if you defend a barricade, and a zombie attacks it from the outside, you somehow manage to defend it by attacking through the barricade, or wa?--Thadeous Oakley 12:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC) In order: coding is not really an issue for us... I think it even says that in the guidelines? However setting it up should be very easy as its just going to put a few more boxes in the settings page and a flag on the character when active. How that flag links to the action is (i would think) going to be the more problematic but it can't be that hard to do can it? multiplied by a million (or even 50) and this could easily get very messy but remember it just cost 250AP to do (or 5,000,000!) and cannot kill the target no matter how many people do it! The action would have to be one done in your sight. Attacking the barricade from your side of it, free running into your location etc... I suppose it might be advisable to put a limit on how many folk can be defending at a time though as 50+ folks watching a generator might be a bit OTT :) --Honestmistake 13:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Doesn't this effectively give people more knowledge than they normally have? For instance, normally, people can weaken the barricades without others in the building knowing who weakened them, so long as the barricades aren't actually broken through. Or they can attack the generator in the same way. As for ruining, people already stop that simply by being in the building, so I don't see a reason to have it as an action you can defend against. —Aichon— 15:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC) The thing about not noticing barricade/generator attacks is that you really should have the option to notice. Of course there are often very good reasons to attack the barricades as a survivor so perhaps the option to make this only apply to dropping below VS might be a good idea. As for the blocking ruin, I include that purely because some zombies may wish to try to prevent it... They may be rotters in a revive clinic or just Mhr cows waiting somewhere convenient for their group to find them or even just survivors who die defending their mall and stand up as a zed with only a few AP left. --Honestmistake 16:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC) That's a big boost for life culting when again, multiplied by a billion. 30 undead mallrats "defending", while one zombie tries to ruin the corner. Vice versa for repairs. --Thadeous Oakley 16:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC) So the ruining zombie gets mauled to 1HP and fails his 1AP action. Hardly upsetting as all it cost him is 1 click while each of those billion cultists just spent 5AP each to slow his effort. Remember this only works for the next action so as soon as triggered it needs an active player to re-click defend for another 5AP.... Just not going to find this chain reacting very often in my opinion. --Honestmistake 18:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC) You know how they say opinions are never wrong? That doesn't apply here, your opinion is wrong. Everyone will use this, mostly for the same kinds of targets, and the only times you won't get a chain reaction like this is when you're in a mostly-deserted block, or when everyone's auto-attack has already been burnt up. --Mold 21:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Most players are too selfish to even barricade so how many do you think will be willing to spend AP defending against a single action for 10% of their daily AP? The only real problem would be zergers, but as it would require them to log on lots more than i suspect is normal it would be of little real use to them so i can't see it being a huge problem! On the whole i think this would mostly result in G'kers and Pker's and Combat Reviver's getting a nasty shock every now and again. --Honestmistake 23:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Maybe most players are too selfish to even barricade shared buildings, but hear them scream for blood if someone even gives a genny a dirty look, let alone actually wipes them out. Oh noes, we can't search up shotguns and shells as easily now, KOS KOS zomby spys PKers traitors blah blah! Or watch them blatantly ignore other players' needs for gear and shelter, and build their own little EHB fortresses of doom to protect their own asses (rather than, say, cade an NT or the corner of the mall they're leeching from), and then freak out when somebody brings the cades down to VSB++ so other people can actually come inside. This would still get a lot of use from those idiots, just not on anything constructive for the rest of the survivors. --Mold 04:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Auto attacks are bad mmmkay? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC) cari is right; this suggestion sucks. Basic D&DN violations going on here. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 1st; you cannot "violate" D&DN as they are only recommendations and they are pretty broadly expressed guidelines at that! 2nd. How is it an auto attack? You have selected a pretty specific target and payed 5AP for the privilege... should no relevant target present itself then you have burnt those AP for no reason. Sure the attack you make is triggered automatically if/when the criteria are met but so is every other attack (it fails if the target has moved!) --Honestmistake 23:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC) How is it an auto-attack? Hmmmm, I walk into the location, you aren't online, your character automatically attacks me. Would you like a diagram? Yeah, only if the criteria are met, because no-one free runs into malls.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Free running is the biggest problem I see with this as its the only action that carries any real penalty for the victim, in that it could easily leave them stranded outside! However, I personally think that free running is waay overpowered and could use a serious nerf anyway which is why I put it on the list. As for it being an auto action is it really such a huge problem? Manufacturing syringes is (in effect) an auto search for a very high cost, placing a generator affects other players and provides an automatic bonus on things even after you log off, Infection is an auto attack triggered by anotherplayers actions and feeding groans result in effects after you have logged out too. OK so none of those is exactly the same as my suggestion but they are all things that add to gameplay and have effects which are not immediate, do not necissarily benefit the actual player and cause harm (or inconvienience) to the opposition. Put simply.... what is wrong with the concept? --Honestmistake 09:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Infact... exactly which of the various D&DN guides does this even contradict? --Honestmistake 23:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC) It doesn't contradict d&dn, however it is mentioned on frequently suggested. Also, I think it's just overly complicated for a simple game. - User:Whitehouse 23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Multiply it by a billion, and you can violate D&DN by stupidly ignoring blatant warnings telling you that these kinds of ideas are fundamentally flawed. Would you prefer I called them "blatant ignorances of freely and obviously given common sense that's been tested over many years"? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Multiplied by a billion zombies are unstoppable.... perhaps we should ban them? Almost everything in game has the potential to be overwhelming in mass use so that guideline makes very little sense. What this suggestion aims to do is give new options to both sides, those options are expensive in terms of cost to use and have little real effect (as you need to be active to reset your defense) The only one of the actions which are ever likely to cause any real grief is free-running because as presented it can leave the victim outside, in the case of just about every other action the worst possible outcome is that you are injured and waste 1 AP! --Honestmistake 08:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Multiplied by a quarter billion, barricades shut out the billion zombies completely. Stop being stupid on purpose. This is a bad idea, and no amount of snark on your part will change that. --Mold 12:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Not actually trying to be 'SNARKY' just replying to the normal shit folk throw about it failing because of some randomly invented guideline. You can't multiply this by a billion because it inherently stops doing anything useful after a certain point. It's a bad idea you say.... justify don't just complain! --Honestmistake 20:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC) okay, that reads back as pretty damn snarky. So i ask without malice, what exactly do you think is so obviously bad about bending those suggested guidelines? --Honestmistake 00:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC) You've got a clearly overpowered suggestion that can only be justified with a "Just not going to find [the massively overpowered bit] very often in my opinion." But you will -- useful things get used when they're noticed, everything that can be abused will be, and there are a lot of players in UD, which tend to gather in herds. Multiply it by a billion is an attempt to get you to stop and think about what a suggested change will actually do in play. It's an exaggeration, sure, some people can't take a hint unless it's applied with a 2x4, they need the obvious to be grossly exaggerated to notice it. Remember that assumed rarity doesn't balance an overpowered implementation. Either a large portion of players go out of their way to get it and it's not rare anymore, or you arbitrarily limit how many can do that and wind up setting up an elite class and discriminating against everyone else. --Mold 04:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I see you've addressed some of the common problems with auto attacks (AP spent while logged off etc.) but the result is that it's too complicated. --Explodey 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I agree that setting it up is complicated (well as complicated as choosing a new set of clothes anyway) but once set it hardly changes the actual interface at all. Can you think of anything to make it less complex or is it just the uncertaintly that it would add to certain gameplay styles that is the problem? --Honestmistake 09:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Rather than having the drop-downs on the settings page and an activation button on the map page, maybe you could use the same format as the "attack" button, with two drop-downs beside it (if it would require more than two drop-downs then reduce the number of options to make it fit.) Having it on the settings page takes too many clicks (Go to settings page; Select target to defend; Select weapon; Select group to defend against; Back to the city; Press defend button: 9 clicks total.) --Explodey 18:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I did think of that but figured that it would clutter the main page a little too much. Also the ability to select all 3 items separately is pretty important to functionality and would easily work in a similar way to clothing selection (at least to set up). Remember too that once set the selection is stored it only needs to be changed if you want to change your options. --Honestmistake 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC) You don't need all combinations. Why would you let some characters GK or RK but not others? The same applies to most of those actions (with the exception of Free Running.) Reviving, scanning and syringe manufacture should not be in there at all. Adding features just for death cultists seems wrong. And defending against broadcasting would mostly be used for trenchie in-fighting and would be a distraction from the human-vs-zombie war. Remove all that and you're left with: Stop red contacts free running, stop blue contacts free running, stop everyone free running, stop everyone barricading/de-barricading, etc. You could get it down to fewer than 15 options and combine the group & action selection into one drop-down box. --Explodey 12:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC) I agree that its unlikely that you would want to defend your radio/generator from only some folk but the same cannot be said for most of the other actions. Reviving, scanning and manufacture are all very important things from a zombie point of view and this suggestion aims to include them... anyway deathcultists et al are already part of the game and suggestions should not be unreasonably tailored just to prevent them gaining any use. Reducing the number of drop downs but increasing the options in each would work well though.--Honestmistake 14:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC) As Honestmistake said, they are GUIDELINES, not set in stone rules. That is what these discussions are for. I don't think the "attack" should do damage. Your just stopping the person from performing the action. Thus no "weapon selection" would be needed exactly. Or, at best it could require a melee weapons (maybe it could be a "special" ability of the hockey stick ala the pipe or crowbar?). The only problem is Free Running which, I agree, is overpowered. If the point is to impede the action, either the person falls outside or doesn't make the "run" at all. In that case, maybe the person attempting the free running gets the message "someone is blocking the window, you cannot see a way past them at the moment".--Pesatyel 05:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC) It couldn't use that exact message as it would make people think the "defender" was still blocking the way in when in fact they will not be (it only works for 1 action once). But Free running is certainly the biggest problem i see with this even with any tweaks i can think of??? --Honestmistake 09:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Well, that's not ENTIRELY true. It would be quickly learned that the free run attempted could only be blocked, technically, that one time. In this instance, it is more of a matter of how many people are allowed to "block" in the first place. Something else to consider (with Free Running in particular) is that one person can't exactly block EVERY means of ingress. That is to say, instead of blocking entirely, I'd imagine it would be a chance of success percentage.--Pesatyel 08:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Hey HM; your suggestion sucks zombie balls, and everyone here knows it. Either take your frills down and listen to us or take this turd to voting, but don't pretend like you're actually using DS. This suggestion is fundamentally flawed, and deep down, you know it. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Your right about this having flaws however, its only been here 3 days and when I am good and ready I will post a reworked version to see if I can make use of the criticism to get something that is workable. Now either come back with some useful criticism or fuck off back to trollville and stroke your templates! --Honestmistake 09:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC) I don't see the "fundamental flaw" (or the tasit implication that this suggestion has no merit and/or cannot be "made good" in any way).--Pesatyel 08:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I have no constructive criticism to offer this. Because nothing constructive can possibly be added to a suggestion which essentially forces players (by way of AP-nerfs to certain actions) to align themselves with one 'side' of the game. So I have this to say: Fuck. Off.--DTPK 03:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Align themselves with one 'side' of the game? What does THAT mean?--Pesatyel 04:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Suggestions up for voting Location Specific Actions Moved to Suggestion talk:20091206 Location Specific Actions