Developing Suggestions

NOTICE

The Suggestions system has been closed indefinitely and Developing Suggestions is no longer functions as a part of the suggestions process. However, you are welcome to use this page for general discussion on suggestions.

Shortcut:
DS

Developing Suggestions

This section is for general discussion of suggestions for the game Urban Dead.

It also includes the capacity to pitch suggestions for conversation and feedback.

Further Discussion

• Discussion concerning this page takes place here.
• Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general, including policies about it, takes place here.

Resources

• The Frequently Suggested List
• Suggestions Dos and Do Nots

How To Make a Discussion

Adding a New Discussion

To add a general discussion topic, please add a Tier 3 Header (===Example===) below, with your idea or proposal.

Adding a New Suggestion

• To add a new suggestion proposal, 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.
• The process is illustrated in this image.

{{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.
• 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 month may be cycled without notice.

Please add new discussions and suggestions to the top of the list

---

Suggestions

Internal Barricades for Malls

Timestamp: Mindlessidiots 22:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Type: Barricades

Scope: Malls

Description: I have played Urban Dead for a long time, mostly as a survivor but I have now started to play as a zombie. In the week I have played as a zombie, I have participated in the sacking of three malls. It is my opinion that it is simply too easy for zombies to break into a mall and then take it over, with the survivors inside having little chance to rally to take the mall back. My idea is to allow survivors a better chance to hold the mall by constructing internal barricades which would block zombies from immediately entering the other parts of the mall. These internal barricades would only be able to go VSB for two reasons, one is if it went any higher survivors would not be able to move around, and two that it would be unfair for zombies to bring down what it likely EHB cades on the outside and then have to do it again on the inside to get to other areas. I think this idea would give a fair way for survivors to hold the mall longer and make for longer sieges, which judging from what I hear the old timers complain about, is something that is wanted a lot.

Discussion (Internal Barricades for Malls)

This will be shot down by all zombie players. I promise. Just to throw a few of the arguments up which will show up (since I'm a dual-nature player, playing both sides): Malls are a MASSIVE source of supplies (but are countered by the risk involved in USING them), malls usually have a TON of defenders keeping the barricades EHB anyway, zombies already have a LOT of AP drains as-is, so MORE barricades would be a pain. Eh...I'm sure there's more reasons, but I don't know them. Shadok ^{T Balance is power} 01:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If a mall falls. its stupid lazy inhabitants deserve it. --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 08:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless you are in MOB or RRF (or are following their trail), it's _not_ too easy to break into a mall. Barricades are the biggest AP saver that there is for harmanz (where harmanz spend 1AP to create a level, zombies spend 4AP to remove it), and it takes two zombies working together to bring up the APs to take down EHB cades. And with the big number of shotgun-collecting trenchies inside any mall, any break-in that isn't backed up by a large beachhead is usually quickly repelled.

Plus, mall blocks used to be separate structures, requiring multiple barricade bashings exactly as you suggested. Kevan himself has changed that for exactly the reason of being to easy to defend. -- Spiderzed▋ 08:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, how would this all appear in game? Secondly, I like seeing what's happening in the other mall corners, so I can move to bolster defences and evict zombies. I don't want to be blinded by barricades. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Semi-Dark Buildings

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 03:37 20 February 2011(UTC)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Buildings

Description: This would be a new classification for certain buildings. A Semi-Dark Building would count as Dark if it is Barricaded to Heavily Barricaded or higher and it has no power, due to light sources such as windows being blocked off by the Barricades. The following would count as Semi-Dark: Power Stations, Forts, Auto Repair Shops, Libraries, Museums, Police Departments, Schools, Warehouses, Railway Stations, Public Houses. Some buildings, such as Churches, Malls (skylights), Tall Buildings, etc, are exempt due to having large high windows that can be left unblocked.

Discussion (Semi-Dark Buildings)

Makes sense but over complicates things and looks like the main effect would be to NERF Pkers. --Honestmistake 12:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Pkers would also have more places to hide. Sleeping in a Semi-Dark building for protection, for any Survivor, would be a lot less certain though.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:23 20 February 2011(UTC)

It would probably work both ways. ----Anarchomutualist _says: ^{The state is war, ⓐnarchy is order.} 22:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Simplify it to say that any single-block building becomes dark if unlit and EHB. Multi-blocks stayas normal for the flavour reason you gave, which means PKers still have malls, stadia, mansions, power stations, and cathedrals to PK in freely. 18:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds better.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:27 20 February 2011(UTC)

I'm not a fan of anythign that makes EHBitching any more annoying.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

but surely this reinforces the EHBing stuff is wrong? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking...--

| T | BALLS! | 21:23 20 February 2011(UTC)

But it's mainly newbs who don't understand the problems with it that do it, so this won't stop them.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I could even see EHBitching happening to save from both zombies and PKers. And I'm not a fan of anything that makes things even safer for survivors in green suburbs than it already is. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean by making things more safe for survivors, and I am against that fully. I still vote zombies with the scent blood skill get full attack rates in any building dark or not. Granted that's a whole new suggestion that was called "overpowered" in the discussion but it'd make me more open to the idea of semi-dark buildings. Also, just a thought, when a building becomes semi-dark from EHB cades only the search rate is degraded(-25%?). The idea is that large things like furniture to rebuild cades and the human form are still easily distinguished.       02:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I hate everything about this idea. We do not need more dark buildings, nor do we need semi-dark buildings. IF this was - as I had hoped against hope that it was from the title - a suggestion about making Clubs/Banks/Cinemas semi-dark if the Genny is damaged (not dented), or running low on fuel, then maybe. Keep the other buildings as they are, regardless of whether it's Survivors or PKers getting the buff. --DT^PK 03:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No wait, I lied. Make this apply to every building inside a Fort. Anyone who lives in a Fort deserves whatever crap search-rates they get. Hell, make the Armory Double-Dark. But keep darkness away from everything else. --DT^PK 03:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see this making life difficult for people maintaining VSB buildings. PKers will go to the VSB buildings for an easier kill, rather than waste ammo in an EHB building. - User:Whitehouse 03:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Stamina

Timestamp: Peter Mason 20:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Type: New Skill

Scope: Survivors (Maybe zombies)

Description: Instead of having a maximum of 50 AP, you can have 60. For zombies you could have a different name but the same idea by being able to move father distances. This skill would cost 175+ XP ( we can decide on a cost later, but it should definitely be greater than usual) and should fall under a miscellaneous or general category. I don't have a name for this skill. Right now, we can leave it at Stamina. If you have suggestions please leave them below.

Discussion (Stamina)

AP increasing skills are usually shot down pretty quickly. The game's done okay with 50 for the past 4 years or so, I don't see any need to change it now. -- Cheese 22:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You want extra AP? Scout Safehouse already gives you 5 free actions a day in your designated safehouse, until you die or until the safehouse is ruined. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Only if Zombies automatically get 75 AP to represent the extra 8 hours of activity they would have due to not having to sleep.--

| T | BALLS! | 03:41 20 February 2011(UTC)

---

Heal Over Time (modifided)

Timestamp: -- boxy talk • teh rulz 09:22 18 February 2011 (BST)

Type: Healing change

Scope: Application of FAKs to survivors

Description: At the moment, First Aid Kits (FAKs) are a powerful tool for survivors in real time combat situations. If there is a survivor online with a full load of FAKs, there is no way that a single zombie can kill any survivor in that location (unless the online survivor is inattentive). All they need to do is continue to apply FAKs to the target survivor (even themselves) when they get anywhere near death. A zombie has no chance to keep up with the healing. This suggestion would change the application of FAKs to limit the healing that can be done instantly. Instead of all healing being done at the instant that the FAK is applied, 1/5th of the potential healing would be dealt at the time, and the rest spread over the 4 following AP ticks. 1 HP per tick when healed by unskilled survivors. 2 HP per tick when healed by a survivor with the first aid skill. 3 HP per tick when healed by a survivor with surgery, if they are in a powered hospital. All XP will be credited to the healer at the time the FAK is applied, regardless of whether all HP are gained before the patient dies. This means that each FAK will have the potential to deal exactly the same amount of healing, and will gain the same XP as before, it's just that the healing takes time to take effect. It is more realistic, and gives zombies a chance against healers in real-time situations.

Discussion (Heal Over Time (modifided))

Previous DS discussions can be found here. I'm just putting this up here to see if I've made any glaring errors, before putting it up for voting -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:25 18 February 2011 (BST)

How would the HP be displayed of a healing survivor? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes. For survivors with diagnosis, it would show the actual HP, as well as "potential healing", but FAKs added to survivors who were already at max. potential healing would be uneffectual, and not consume the FAK. I think healing an already fully healed survivor consumes and AP, but not an FAK, at the moment... we should probably keep that as is... -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:59 18 February 2011 (BST)

Yeah, it does. As someone who recently made a newbie for kicks, I found it quite annoying to lose AP all the time by trying to heal someone who didn't need it. Shadok ^{T Balance is power} 23:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

How much screen clutter is this going to create (without any scripts, obviously).--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Heal Over Time

Moved back to userspace for reworking -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:51 17 February 2011 (BST)

---

Suggestions up for voting

The following are suggestions that were developed here but have since gone to voting. The discussions that were taking place here have been moved to the pages linked below.

Defile Graffiti Change

Moved to Suggestion:20110217_Defile_Graffiti_Change --

| T | BALLS! | 11:47 17 February 2011(UTC)