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

Necrotech Buildings are tall and important.

Timestamp: Rosslessness 20:20, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Type: Flailing Gesture Tweak

Scope: Zombies

Description: Small change. Zombies with Flailing Gesture and Necrotech Employment have an additional gesture option allowing them to gesture at any Necrotech building in the suburb regardless of distance. --Rosslessness 20:20, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Discussion (Necrotech Buildings are tall and important.)

I look forward to your lovely comments and images. --Rosslessness 20:21, 2 June 2011 (BST)

To understand that clearly, it would work even if the NT isn't in an adjacent block? How would the gesture be displayed if the next NT is 2+ blocks away? -- Spiderzed█ 20:26, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Yes. Um, A Zombie Gestured at the top of the Necrotech Building visible 3 west, 2 north. --Rosslessness 20:33, 2 June 2011 (BST)

This is actually a somewhat decent idea (on this page? Shocking!). However, maybe instead of limiting it to the suburb have it work in a 10 block radius. --||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 20:57, 2 June 2011 (BST)

This page is for Ross and Swiers to pitch ideas, everybody else is filler material.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 20:59, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Logically Laughing man's idea makes more sense. --Rosslessness 21:13, 2 June 2011 (BST)

How far can binoculars see tall objects on foot from? That's how far the range of this should be. 21:05, 2 June 2011 (BST)

7*7. But thats a stupid number. --Rosslessness 21:15, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Consistency > logic. 21:17, 2 June 2011 (BST)

"In the suburb" is also a "stupid number". It potentially means maybe you could gesture at one NT that's 9 blocks away (on the opposite edge of a burb you just entered) but could NOT gesture ate one that is 2 blocks away (just across the border in the burb you just left). Suburb borders have no relation to distance / visibility. Anyhow, just pulling all the NTs within x squares isn't computationally intensive; you make a sub-table of NT buildings, then pull all the ones where (|xhar-xbuild| < distance && [ychar-ybuild| < distance).  Swiers 21:47, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Bless you Swiers. 7*7 seems best. --Rosslessness 21:59, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Can survivors with the same skill spot an NT in a comparable manner without binoculars then? Like, you are standing at the X building, you can see a Necrotech building glowing in the distance (2 south, 3 west). -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:23, 2 June 2011 (BST)

No but they can speak and say "Lets go to the necrotech building 4 squares west" --Rosslessness 21:59, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Only bitch I have is that it potentially gives the ability to recognize NT buildings to even those without Necrotech Employment. I realize that's not all that game breaking though. Otherwise a good suggestion. ~ _{21:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)}

Zombies who do not have Necrotech Employment should just see: A Zombie Gestured at a Building 3 west, 2 north. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:43, 2 June 2011 (BST)

A Zombie gestured at a distant building. --Rosslessness 22:48, 2 June 2011 (BST)

---

Zombie recognition change and Advanced Death Rattle

Timestamp: Treviabot92 00:47, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Type: Change and skill

Scope: Zombies

Description: I'll start with the recognition change. Basically what will happen is zombies will be unable to recognize survivors, but they'll tell which zombie is which. For example, if Jack and Ass are dead now, they would see "A zombie", whereas with the change Jack would see "Ass" and vice versa. Next, Advanced Death Rattle. The idea here is to allow zombies to speak in English versus Zombish or Zamgrh. Perhaps a few letters might be missing still, but the idea here is to make it easier for humans to understand zombies.

Discussion (Zombie recognition change and Advanced Death Rattle)

Fuck off. Zombie anonymity and the recognition of harmanz by all players are pretty integral to the division of the two sides. And trying to kill off the creole language that this game has spawned is just stupid. This is even worse than your laser blaster or whatever that fuck was. Go home. 00:54, 2 June 2011 (BST)

The retarded unstandard cerole language (clearly not mostly/completely a cipher) that is rarely ever used outside of BANANA GANBANG? A cultural gem I say.--||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 01:05, 2 June 2011 (BST)

What's zombie for combat shotgun anyway? --Trendiggity 01:38, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Suggestions - This user can't stop XD

-- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 02:06, 2 June 2011 (BST)

--||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 02:08, 2 June 2011 (BST)

lolz it just get better. piles of stupid. just give up already. don't you have some dishes to wash or gardening to do? nah grab mah manbagz! --User:Sexualharrison02:13, 2 June 2011 (bst)

No you fucking cocksickle.--||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 05:55, 2 June 2011 (BST) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||

As katthew's Zombie suggestions state zombies should have an advanced form of death rattle to where they understand the zombie death rattles as clear English whilst survivors get the garbled trash. Whether this is done as a separate skill or just changing the current form of death rattle doesn't matter to me personally. As for this suggestion as a whole its pretty sad..       06:03, 2 June 2011 (BST)

this is just a cry for attention. hence all the negative comments on people that were being civil and constructive. kid is a moron. just ignore him and his retarded suggestions. maybe something shiny will get his attention and he will wonder off.--User:Sexualharrison06:09, 2 June 2011 (bst)

Man even pubbies admit I'm right when it comes to this shit. What is the world coming to? --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 20:01, 2 June 2011 (BST)

--Rise|||||||||||||||||||||||||||above 06:18, 2 June 2011 (BST)

---

Rev Rifle, AKA "Probably Fucking Zombies Over"

Timestamp: -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 03:16, 30 May 2011 (BST)

Type: I dunno

Scope: SAVING TEH GAEM

Description: Once every few days (the exact duration would be randomized) special crates are air-dropped into Malton. Along with the usual fare, there would also be a Revivification Rifle and Serum Vials. The Rev Rifle is loaded iwth Serum Vials, which gives the wielder 3 shots. They can then use the Rev Rifle just like any other ballistic weapon in-game. The difference is this, my friends: When shot with the Rev Rifle, the target takes minimal damage, somewhere around 2 to 4 HP, and they are set to "Revivifying" status. Revivifying status is the inverse of "Infected". Zombies with this status will lose 1 HP per action until dead, at which point they are revived. To "heal" themselves of the Revivifying status, Zombies have to regain full health once more. As soon as they hit their max HP, they're back to normal. Sure, you lose 1 HP per action, but hey. Chow down and you'll take care of it. I'm not sure what the stats of the weapon would be... IE: Chance to hit. That's why this is up for discussion, eh? Bullet points in Human favor: Reviving someone can take the 1 AP to shoot them. Three shots per loading is a bit nicer than using up an entire syringe you toiled away for. Did you see that it's like "infection" against zombies? A Zombie you just pegged is less likely to waste its AP and HP on smashing stuff up around you. Bullet points in Zombie favor: Zombie can still undo it, and can still attack. They do not go into reviving status immediately as with combat revies. ^ So this essentially helps kill combat revives. Destroying the crates helps keep this weapon out of enemy hands. A shot that misses you is a wasted revive. This is a lot like how revivals normally work on Hell Rising, so we know it can actually be put to use. (Major differences being HR is corpse-revive-only, so the combat elements aren't the same.) If it's a dupe, I'm sorry I don't care. :) Edit: Essentially, this is like a dart rifle used on wild game, retrofitted for revivification darts.

Discussion (Rev Rifle, AKA "Probably Fucking Zombies Over")

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 06:54, 30 May 2011 (BST)

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha. The reason Hell Rising sucks donkey balls is because you're able to put retarded ideas like this into the game. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 09:39, 30 May 2011 (BST)

Because browser-based games must be taken very seriously. Imagine an animated GIF of a platypus saying "Eat Shit" right here. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 17:57, 30 May 2011 (BST)

No.Treviabot92 22:24, 30 May 2011 (BST)

1 million percent yes!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 02:00, 1 June 2011 (BST)

I like this. I'd rather do this than combat revive. --Trendiggity 01:41, 2 June 2011 (BST)

---

Shopping Cart

Timestamp: Private O'Hara 17:53, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Type: Unique bonus

Scope: survivors only

Description: Locations: Shopping Malls (1%) Shopping carts do not take up any encumbrance points, rather they allow a survivor to have 200% encumbrance (carry twice as much stuff) and can only be found in shopping malls in any store with a low 1% chance.

Discussion (Shopping Cart)

Fuck off. 17:59, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Watch your language. Please only constructive comments. There is no need for foul words. Private O'Hara 19:02, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Fuck off.Treviabot92 22:25, 30 May 2011 (BST)

Of course this would disable Freerunning on any players carrying the shopping cart, right? They would have to spend 2 AP to move 1 square?--

| T | BALLS! | 18:17 29 May 2011(UTC)

Yes it would disable Freerunning for any players using the cart, and the 2 AP to move 1 square makes sense...it would be a good balancing factor.User:Private O'Hara

I can't see a shopping by any more encumbering or movement hindering than a portable generator. Should even weigh less than a gennie.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 19:13, 29 May 2011 (BST)

of course, I should READ the proposed suggestion before commenting--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 19:14, 29 May 2011 (BST)

I think that if you incorporate Zombie Lord's suggestion, it would make it very different than Rucksack, A Little Red Wagon, and Duffel Bag. Losing the ability to perform Free Running AND an increase to AP movement in favor of having increased inventory slots could end up balancing it out. There would have to be some sort of additional information for the server side of things, however, such as specifically listing what items are carried in the cart, what happens when the cart is gotten rid of when you have too many items, and the ability to select an option to actually start Free Running again at the cost of the cart (such as the caution warning before jumping off of a tall building). --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:45, 29 May 2011 (BST)

unneeded and stupid. did you just get done watching "The Road"?.--User:Sexualharrison19:31, 29 May 2011 (bst)

No I have never seen nor heard of said movie. And you are welcome to your opinion.--Private O'Hara 19:39, 29 May 2011 (BST)

so what are you homeless? cause only a hobo would find this useful.--User:Sexualharrison19:41, 29 May 2011 (bst)

You don't think shuttling 5 generators around town would be useful? It's too useful. Give the newbie a break, for Christ's sake. (Do malls even have shopping carts?) --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 19:52, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Depends on what stores are at the mall, and if it is a proper mall, or a strip mall. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:54, 29 May 2011 (BST)

O'Hara doesn't know about indenting, as he/she is brand new to the wiki. Cut him/her a little bit of slack. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:54, 29 May 2011 (BST)

meh. fine it's still a dupe.--User:Sexualharrison19:56, 29 May 2011 (bst)

This wouldn't be so bad... as long as it reduces survivor movement rate to 2AP per block, and negates their ability to free run so long as they have it. Oh, and you wouldn't be able to get past barricades either. Plus, when attacking, there would be a 5% chance of the shopping cart rolling away and taking half your inventory with it. Also, zombies with a shopping cart in their inventory should be able to use it as a battering ram weapon against barricades, for a 50% chance of success. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 03:33, 30 May 2011 (BST)

Can one zombie push the other in it? What is the Death Rattle version of "Wheeeeee"? -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 03:45, 30 May 2011 (BST)

Obviously the solution is that zombies with the survivor skill Construction can use shopping carts to create rudimentary catapults that allow them to launch other zombies inside barricaded buildings. It's the only rational thing to do. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 06:37, 30 May 2011 (BST)

Tragically in the name of realism the shopping carts wheels immediately lock the minute you leave.--|||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:14, 1 June 2011 (BST)

And for even more realism, we need to take into account the fact that shopping trolleys usually have a mind of their own, veering off to the side and cracking some poor soul in the ankle when all you wanted to do was walk forwards. They're noisy bastards too - wheeling these outside will make enough noise to alert any zombies in the vicinity ("You heard a loud rattling noise (now 4 south)"). ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 19:32, 2 June 2011 (BST)

I really can't see any reason why this would be unbalanced once the suggested mods were added in.... Oh thats it, it would just end up killing newbie survivirs who couldn;t understand why they are stuck outside! --Honestmistake 00:58, 1 June 2011 (BST)

---

Morph in to brood lord

Timestamp: -- Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 18:09, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Type: New Skill

Scope: zombies

Description: Zombies now have a new ability: Morph in to brood lord. The skill costs 100XP, and falls under flesh rot in the tech tree. A zombie could use this ability for 5AP, and for the next 10 hours (real time) they would be a brood lord. Brood lords can only move 1 block for every 2AP (as newb zombies do) but could perform a "broodling" attack instead of the usual claw and bite attacks. Firing a broodling has a 55% chance of dealing 2 damage, but it would benefit from rend flesh (and only rend flesh) giving it a maxed out DPA of 1.65, making it superior to bite, inferior to claws and inferior to terran guns. However, to give being a brood lord a significant advantage, brood lords (as flying creatures) can only be attacked with guns. To counterbalance this, there would be a +10% chance to hit brood lords when using a gun. In my opinion, this is much needed balance to tilt the game away from fire axe and syringe play and more towards gun play. Zombie hordes would tactically need both zombies and brood lords in their army to succeed.

Discussion (Morph in to brood lord)

Discuss.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 18:09, 25 May 2011 (BST)

What is a brood lord and why is it flying around in my zombie apocalypse? It sounds positively Lovecraftian. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 18:19, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Starcraft.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 19:04, 25 May 2011 (BST)

How effective are my rocket launchers and machine guns against it?       18:56, 25 May 2011 (BST)

2 words RP Zerging (ok technically that was one acronym and one fictitious word but still). ~ _{19:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)}

Yes, I agree. This would add a very pleasant aspect for those players wishing to role play as zerg. Thank you for your support.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 19:55, 25 May 2011 (BST)

If there are no hel characters, then there sure as hell are no flying characters. Treviabot92 19:57, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Can we have a Cthulhu instead? --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 20:00, 25 May 2011 (BST)

I am aware that there are no flying characters. That would be what this suggestion would implement: Characters which could fly.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 20:04, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, I figured as much. Did you also consider the fact that no one is going to approve a flying character? Including myself? Treviabot92 04:51, 26 May 2011 (BST)

Considering the fact that I would approve a flying character, I would definitely not say that nobody would.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 08:12, 26 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, you and, what, five other people? You want flying characters, go play Nexus War--oh, wait, that got shut down because Brandon couldn't continue to pay for it! Guess what, no flying character is going to make it into the game, because it's way too unrealistic and no one likes a rot-fag.Treviabot92 22:27, 30 May 2011 (BST)

Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot how realistic zombies are. Especially when compared to a "flying character", which is actually something which occurs naturally. So yeah, not the most unrealistic thing in this game.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 22:43, 30 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, we can just play Nexus Clash instead....--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:47, 30 May 2011 (BST)

can i haz wraithz? ~ _{20:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)}

Is this serious? 21:00, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Deadly. We could discuss just how serious I'm being in the secret sysop boardroom, but iirc, you were fired by alan Sugar. :( --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:01, 25 May 2011 (BST)

He didn't fire me, that show is just an extended job interview. Until I'm hired, I can't be fired. QED. 04:59, 26 May 2011 (BST)

Quoting Edward Dembowski?--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 08:12, 26 May 2011 (BST)

Quoting my cousin, who actually watches it. He's probably nabbed it off someone though. 16:51, 26 May 2011 (BST)

Joke fail. :( --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:29, 26 May 2011 (BST)

What a lovely circle jerk I've stumbled upon. *burrows underground -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 21:43, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Terran is OP.--Trevor Wrist 01:21, 26 May 2011 (BST)

It's those darn ghosts that do it: Always one-shotting my drones and EMPing my ghosts. :( --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 08:12, 26 May 2011 (BST)

yeh had to use word Terran. yon as always hopelessly gay.--User:Sexualharrison02:20, 26 May 2011 (bst)

Well you could say the Wutz could have been considered Zerglings, disappeared about as easy too.       02:49, 26 May 2011 (BST)

And the dead is like mass voidray: you don't see it coming, then you lose.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 08:12, 26 May 2011 (BST)

Thank you for your input.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 08:13, 26 May 2011 (BST)

Silliness of terminology aside, Kevan seems determined to avoid clock-based status effects. Something like a status that remained until the zombie was killed or revived would be more in fitting with the game's history / unstated design assumptions.  Swiers 19:23, 26 May 2011 (BST)

Which a good design decision IMHO: Time-based status effects are generally bad for server load and don't really fit into a game which is designed to be played once a day and with most actions not tasking place in real-time. It's best to use the current in-game mechanics.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:07, 26 May 2011 (BST)

Well, since having it until death would be too powerful, how about it lasts until death, or until the BL leaves the block? obviously this would mean no 2AP movement, but it would make it function in a somewhat similar manner to tangling grasp.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:29, 26 May 2011 (BST)

Semi-auto shotguns

Timestamp: Treviabot92 01:49, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Type: Weapon

Scope: Survivors

Description: The idea here is purely extended capacity. It's a shotgun that cycles each shell through some mechanism, be it gas, recoil, spring, whatever you imagine. It'll behave just like the current shotgun except that it can load six shells instead of two. Now, obviously, because of the mechanics involved to allow for this action to work, I'd say that the new shotgun should be half again as heavy as the current shotgun, and in order to have six shells, two AP needs to be spent to load the first shell, as you need to open the bolt to do that (unless y'all think the bolt should lock open when the gun's empty). I'm thinking same accuracy, same damage, and about twice as hard to find; it uses the same ammunition and skills, after all, and it has a higher capacity, why shouldn't it be harder to find? What do y'all think?

Discussion (Semi-auto shotguns)

DUPE SPAM & DUPE have you even read the guidelines for suggestions?--User:Sexualharrison01:55, 24 May 2011 (utc)

It's not a dupe. Treviabot92 02:06, 24 May 2011 (BST)

fine than it's spam. what does SPAM stand for? Stupid. Pathetic. Assinine. Moronic. (props to Xoid)--User:Sexualharrison05:51, 24 May 2011 (utc)

Oh? Might I direct you toward Combat Suggestions? A suggestion concerning the fact survivors can carry too many shotguns? Combat shotgun (which was already peer-reviewed)? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:25, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Ok, clearly you're thinking of a different semi-auto shotgun. That type is military in nature; this isn't. Again, semi-auto shotguns in real life are weapons often used in sport and self defense, and it's usually only the military-centered ones that can hold eight shells; civilian shotguns typically have a capacity of six. In any case, this still isn't a dupe, and considering that both forts are now overrun, this isn't overpowered either, since it can be found in police precincts and malls. Treviabot92 21:49, 24 May 2011 (BST)

...Combat shotgun was suggested specifically to allow for the use of holding more shells and reducing the amount of shotguns that a survivor carried, which in November of 2005 was an insane amount compared to now. It has not been implemented. I don't know why yours would be, as Kevan has known for over five years about the request from survivor players to reduce the total number of shotguns and increase the number of shells they can carry. It still hasn't been implemented in any shape or form. Your suggestion is almost exactly the same as Combat shotgun. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:02, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Mine has a much higher possibility of being implemented because eight shells is usually military capacity, and military weapons are always shot down. Mine is scaled down from that at best, but it's not a dupe; I hadn't even seen that until recently. But then again, why are there even gun shops in Malton? Based on the language and the building names, as well as the suburb names, the city is likely either in Canada or Great Britain, where it's illegal to own a gun, much less set up a gun shop in a mall. Thus, the United Kingdom would likely fall quickest in the event of a zombie apocalypse, and there shouldn't be guns in Malton at all. Treviabot92 05:25, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Loud, unreliable and quickly-exhausted pieces of machinery which take much more training than John Q Fuckabout will ever have are clearly the only thing anyone will ever need to survive doomsday. 06:35, 25 May 2011 (BST)

...that makes absolutely no sense. Treviabot92 19:59, 25 May 2011 (BST)

I'm saying that you new worlders seem to have an over-inflated sense of the usefulness of guns in these situations. Look at the amount of training a combat soldier goes through before being armed, and compare it to the fact that in actual warfare, only one in a quarter million rounds fired actually kills anyone.¹ If anywhere would fall quickly in a situation like this, it's going to be some large American city where a false sense of safety and assurance coupled with population density leads to needless endangerment and death. Also good luck hiding from the horde when you're working away with a 120-160 decibel dinner bell. If you want to be anal about realism, equipping the masses with advanced firearms and expecting them to be useful isn't the way to go about it. 03:20, 26 May 2011 (BST)

A semi-auto shotgun is FAR from advanced. If we already have full-auto firearms now, then semi-auto is an antique. An advanced shotgun would be a full-auto version of the street sweeper, a Pancor Jackhammer, an AA-12, need I list more? A person can only fire as fast as the mechanism permits and as fast as they can pull the trigger (and cycle the bolt, if it's a manual action, or load the next round, if it's a one-shot gun). Treviabot92 05:11, 26 May 2011 (BST)

Because that was clearly the only thing you needed to rebut. 16:54, 26 May 2011 (BST)

It's still a dupe of a previous suggestion. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:11, 26 May 2011 (BST)

Whether or not it is a "military" weapon is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion: The reason such weapons are shot down is because they are almost inherently unbalanced (because they're better than the current implemented weapons). Also, whether or not you noticed the previous suggestions has no real bearing on the status of this suggestion as a dupe.

It should also be noted that the ownership of shotguns and rifles is legal in the UK; we're just much stricter on licensing (e.g. "Self-defence" is not a good enough reason). It's only handguns that are outright banned.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 01:00, 27 May 2011 (BST)

And before you ask, Trevia, rifles have been suggested. Kevan has stated (privately and publicly) that he would prefer to look for new content rather than taking existing content and slightly changing it. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:15, 27 May 2011 (BST)

Just so you know, guns are quite legal in Canada. Lrn2wiki mebe? --Trendiggity 01:46, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Unneeded..       02:07, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Hey, it'd save space. I got way too much crap in my bag at the moment. Treviabot92 02:10, 24 May 2011 (BST)

There's a simple add on to solve your "space" issue. Assuming you are referring to the cluttered mess of the inventory system.       02:14, 24 May 2011 (BST)

You would think that a bot who has been on the wiki this long would know not to bother with such a spammy suggestion. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 09:08, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Shotguns are balanced by the fact that they hold only two shells and so you have to carry a ton of them if you want to actually kill anyone. In order for this to be balance you'd have to make it 3x the encumberance of a normal shotgun.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:20, 24 May 2011 (BST)

I've already made it twice as hard to find and half again as heavy, three times the encumbrance would mean that people could find it just as often as a normal shotgun. And besides that, no shotgun is going to be any heavier than another unless it's a punt gun or a tank cannon firing a canister shot. Treviabot92 20:16, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Better yet, have a shotgun that loads 32 shells, but has 96% encumbrance.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 08:37, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Nah, where am I supposed to keep my 10 pistols and two portable generators, then?! .--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:53, 24 May 2011 (BST)

as you Parkour up a six story building no problem.--User:Sexualharrison12:42, 24 May 2011 (bst)

What's next, you guys suggest a gatling-style shotgun? Come on, be realistic here, and stop with the sarcasm. I mean, really, anybody with half a brain would grab a semi-automatic shotgun because of its capacity. Treviabot92 20:14, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Even Survivors are never going to get behind something like this. Because most of them know that the "balance" of this "game" is already shifted far in their favor. Why take chances screwing with the status quo when you're already ahead? And don't talk to me about The Dead. It's an anomaly, aggravated by the fact that Survivors are lazy and complacent for the most part. They aren't even fighting, their fattening up their dirtnappers and waiting for the Dead to get bored and go away. The aftermath is going to be even more ridiculous. I don't even wanna think about all the syringes we're going to be buried in.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:01 24 May 2011(UTC)

Dude, you're completely dismissing the fact that 76% of the Malton population (unfortunately including myself) has gone zed, and more than half probably like it. Meanwhile, I'm waiting in a cemetery next to St. Emelia's Church for a syringe in the back of the head, which I'm starting to think is unlikely to come at all. Stupid arguments like what you're putting up right now is what makes said survivors lazy and complacent, so let's aggravate the situation. How's about we don't, ok? Treviabot92 21:40, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, sucks when the shoe is on the other foot huh? Despite that fact that God is allowing you to shit needles and faks now.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:43 24 May 2011(UTC)

I wish. Treviabot92 21:45, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Oi! Both of you. A version of this suggestion was already approved. Kevan just never implemented it. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:47, 24 May 2011 (BST)

I DON'T GIVE A SHIT, IDIOT. Treviabot92 22:00, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Then why aren't you putting it up for voting, so I can dupe it? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:07, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Trev, now you're just being obtuse. Akule, that thing is almost 6 years old. Sort of doubt that it still applies to my argument since the game has changed so much since then.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:51 24 May 2011(UTC)

Yeah, I'm being obtuse, that's why Kevin hasn't implemented that bullshit. Military weapons belong to the military, thus the military would take military weapons to their military quarantine blockades to do their military business. Meanwhile, civilian weapons, unless the military needed more weapons themselves, would be left alone for the civilians to put to their own use. Thus, these shotguns would still be around, albeit rather rare by comparison to other available firearms. Treviabot92 22:00, 24 May 2011 (BST)

My argument about it is that Kevan has had over five years to do so, but hasn't. Don't you remember how many shotguns you could carry in 2005? The number of shotguns you can carry now is far lower than it was then, but we still don't have it implemented. That should explain something. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:03, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Yes I understand. I just don't mind arguing with Trev. The fact is that UD is completely counter-intuitive. You don't need guns. You don't need any of those guns skills.It doesn't really matter does it? Not when the most powerful weapon you can carry is already the syringe. Which is where I was planning on directing the course of my argument with Trev but, eh, as you can see above he's just being a jackass now so, screw it.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:08 24 May 2011(UTC)

Hey, it ain't me being the jackass. This ain't a dupe, it sure as hell ain't spam, so if anything, all this negative shit I'm getting is spam. Frankly, a syringe is the worst weapon you could use if you don't even know who the hell you're using it on; that's why I carry a scanner as well.

You don't get it. Stuff like the Big Bash is what fucked up the forts and most of the malls to begin with, and since no one's doing shit to get them back (or so it seems), the zed/PK players have all been having a party, to the point that most players are zeds now. Treviabot92 02:47, 25 May 2011 (BST)

I think you worked him up too much. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:11, 24 May 2011 (BST)

I'm still waiting for my gun to be implemented--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:17, 24 May 2011 (BST)

In case you haven't noticed, your gun has more kill/spam/dupe votes than the "Combat Shotgun" bullshit up there does. No automatic weapon is going to be implemented into the game, and full-auto guns have been suggested so much that it's BOTH spam and dupe. Treviabot92 02:47, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Oh, I thought we were trying to implement retarded game devices... if so, clearly mine is before yours.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 04:26, 26 May 2011 (BST)

This is a terrible suggestion by a terrible person unable to cope with the fact that currently it's one of the very few short times during the last six years where zombies have outnumbered survivors. A better suggestion would be dealing with it. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:16, 24 May 2011 (BST)

This is a terrible comment by a terrible idiot unable to do anything but insult people. This suggestion is dealing with it, in case you haven't noticed. Treviabot92 02:47, 25 May 2011 (BST)

^ :D ~ _{03:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)}

People like you make me feel better about myself. You should be honored to be the standard all other humans can be proud they haven't lowered themselves to! *applause*        03:55, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Thank you. You've helped me come to the realization that I can never be as wonderful as you. After all, I am unable of coming up with something as fucking stupid as this and pretending like it's some sort of good idea. Please, oh great one, please teach me your ways so I too can become a mouthbreathing moron who vomits forth every retarded thought that spews from my manchild brain. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 10:49, 25 May 2011 (BST)

oh look whats on the telly. it's clash of the trolls! narrated by roger mellie awesome!--User:Sexualharrison11:10, 25 May 2011 (bst)

Well my comment was directed at Treviabot92 probably should have specified that. Eh, I'm glad you got all excited over it though. Kudos.       14:41, 25 May 2011 (BST)

i'm pretty sure this is all directed at Treviabot92--User:Sexualharrison14:45, 25 May 2011 (bst)

Yes, yes it is. He's earned every bit of derision heaped upon him for his retarded idea and spergy need to defend it. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 17:45, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Dude, you can't even do anything but insult people, what do you expect out of my mouth? It certainly ain't fecal matter, although I half wish it was because then you'd be covered in shit. Treviabot92 20:01, 25 May 2011 (BST)

You seem to be confusing critiques with insults. Although It's interesting that you half wish you could vomit shit. Do you RP that ingame? -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 21:47, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Here's a critique: your stupid fucking idea was already fucking suggested 5 fucking years ago and was shot down then because it was fucking stupid. You keep going on like some fucking halfwit that it isn't the same fucking thing when anyone capable of basic fucking thought can see that it fucking is. And for some reason you fucking blame the people who are pointing out your fucking ignorance instead of the one fucking person whose fault it is that this fucking suggestion exists in the first fucking place. Fuck you, fuck your suggestion, and fuck you again. Fuck. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:35, 25 May 2011 (BST)

+1^       02:52, 26 May 2011 (BST)

+2^--User:Sexualharrison03:49, 26 May 2011 (bst)

You know, spouting obscenities only makes you sound worse.Treviabot92 23:04, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Put it up for voting. Its perfect the way it is.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 04:27, 26 May 2011 (BST)

THANK YOU! Finally, someone actually has sense.Treviabot92 23:04, 29 May 2011 (BST)

do Mexicans understand sarcasm?--User:Sexualharrison21:59, 1 June 2011 (bst)

Surprisingly, I agree with this. The sooner this crap gets put up for a vote the sooner it can finally go the fuck away hopefully taking the creator with it. --|||||||||||||||||||||||||| 14:23, 30 May 2011 (BST)

Well personally I really do like this, however I would suggest limiting it to the Police departments only.... sadly it is a dupe and has zero chance of getting past that fact! --Honestmistake 17:25, 26 May 2011 (BST)

It's already twice as hard to find. I'm not going to limit it to one particular building. Especially as all firearms can already be found everywhere they would normally be found.Treviabot92 23:04, 29 May 2011 (BST)

You'd like Combat shotgun more. ;) --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:11, 26 May 2011 (BST)

No, I wouldn't.Treviabot92 23:04, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Ur Hurr - Math Hard

Okay, so let's look at the "merit" of your suggestion. Your Semi-auto shotgun (which you say is "not" Combat Shotgun), weighs 1.5 times the current Shotgun, which means it weighs 9% of a person's inventory. That means that a player could carry a total of 12 of these (9% * 12 = 108%), for a theoretical total of 72 shots (6 * 12 = 72) Currently, a player could carry 17 Shotguns (6% * 17 = 102%), for a total of 34 shots (17 * 2 = 34). That is a massive increase in survivor damage output.

Why would anyone carry any other weapon than your Combat Shotgun Semi-auto shotgun? It has the same accuracy, same damage, slightly harder to find (approximately Mall Gun Stores (2%/2.5%), Armories (1%), Police Departments (0.5%), Pubs (0.5%) _{which is all depending on the variable drop rates}), same skills, same ammunition, but you have to spend a +1 AP "penalty" when you load your first shell. You think that's balanced? Hardly. People would go around and just pick up the Combat Shotgun Semi-auto shotgun and drop anything else. A potential of 720 damage (all hits, no loss from vests or rot) almost catches up to the 750 points of maximum damage that a survivor fully-loaded with pistols would do, but for far less AP.

Pistols have six shots, you can carry 25 of them, and they do 5 points of damage apiece - 4% * 25 = 100%

• 25 pistols * 6 shots per = 150 total shots
• 150 total shots * 5 damage = 750 maximum damage

AP to shoot:

• Pistols - 150 shots = 150 AP to shoot
• Combat Shotgun Semi-auto shotgun - 72 shots = 72 AP to shoot.

Who cares if it takes a maximum of 7 AP to load it up (2 for the first shell, plus 1 AP per additional up to five), as you would spend a maximum of 143AP to load and fire all 11 shotguns (you lose one shotgun to be able to load them all) vs the maximum of 174 AP to load and file all 24 pistols (you lose one pistol to be able to load them all):

• 66 AP + 11 AP for first shells = 77AP
• 77 loading AP + 66 shooting AP = 143AP total
• 24 AP to load pistol clips + 150 AP shooting = 174 AP total.

Starting to see yet why your suggestion will be shot down? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:11, 26 May 2011 (BST)

First off, taking a look at this bullshit you keep spouting off on, the guy said same stats as the normal except for capacity and location. That means he'd be able to carry, what was it, seventeen you said? Ok, so seventeen Bullshit Shotguns times eight shots apiece is 136 shots total, for a potential damage of 1360 just emptying them. Factoring in full accuracy, that's an average of 884 for a 65% hit rate.

Now, mine. Same stats aside from weight, capacity, and find rate. Now you said max capacity is 12. That's 72 shells, 720 potential damage. A lot less, ain't it? Now, accuracy accounts for a total of 252 damage lost, meaning that accuracy allows for a total of 468 damage.

Now for what we got. Seventeen shotguns, two shells apiece for a total of 34 shells. Emptying them gives a potential total of 340, but factoring in accuracy gives 221.

And finally, the pistol. You say 25 cap, ok, so that's 150 bullets. 750 potential damage, 487.5 actual damage factoring in accuracy.

Now for actual-damage differences. My gun differs from the shotgun by 247 ADP, while the Bullshit Shotgun differs by 663 ADP. You're calling mine unbalanced? Do your damn math next time.Treviabot92 23:27, 29 May 2011 (BST)

EDIT: This is to factor in damage per 50 AP, counting in reloads for individual guns and gun pairs. The normal shotgun currently has a 162.5 ADP rate, while the pistol has a 139.75 ADP rate. For a pair, the normal shotgun has an 169 ADP rate, while the pistol has a 143 ADP rate.

Now for these other guns. Mine has an ADP rate of 123.5, while in a pair it has a rate of 182. The Bullshit Shotgun has an individual rate of 162.5 and a paired rate of 169. Sure, mine's better when paired, but not by much; it can't be fully loaded every volley for 50 AP, not to mention that the individual and paired ADP rates have a larger difference.Treviabot92 00:09, 30 May 2011 (BST)

How have you not choked to death on your own lolling tongue yet? --Rise||||||||||||||||||||||||||above 06:47, 30 May 2011 (BST)

Simple: you're an idiot that can't articulate your own thoughts. I oughta be asking you how it is you're not in a coma right now, what with your complete lack of intelligence...and I believe I just did XD.Treviabot92 20:00, 30 May 2011 (BST)

Oh man, with a cool dry wit like that you could be an action hero. Too bad you didn't have it when you made this stupid suggestion that people who don't like each other came together to show just how stupid it is. --|||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:05, 30 May 2011 (BST)

I practically already AM an action hero. My family has three different shotguns, three different rifles, and two cap-and-ball revolvers of the same make, and I've shot them all, with my favorite being the pump action shown here (which is mine).

This is my gun.

This is my gun when I'm cleaning it.Treviabot92 22:47, 30 May 2011 (BST)

I'd show all you guys my gun but they took me to A/VB before for something similar. :( 23:41, 30 May 2011 (BST)

I got a picture of trev holding his gun. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 02:13, 31 May 2011 (BST)

I may be fat, but I ain't that fat. At least I can walk, that guy looks like he'd have problems doing several things.Treviabot92 17:59, 1 June 2011 (BST)

Mommy and daddy are going to be pissed when they find out you took apart their airsoft replica. --|||||||||||||||||||||||||| 02:28, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Mommy and daddy won't give a shit if I take apart my Winchester 1300 pump action shotgun because it's my fucking gun.Treviabot92 21:27, 1 June 2011 (BST)

you got an ugly couch--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 23:56, 31 May 2011 (BST)

and your cabin or trailer looks really dark and dank. what is that mold?--User:Sexualharrison20:53, 1 June 2011 (bst)

First off, I took those pictures with my cell phone, so the resolution is crap. Second off, the lights were already going to hell. Third, I live in a house, you little stinkweed.Treviabot92 21:09, 1 June 2011 (BST)

point 4b you're still stupid poor white trash no matter how you slice it. don't forget to vote republican--User:Sexualharrison21:15, 1 June 2011 (bst)

I'm white trash? Really? Ok, you tell that to all the 100+ Mexican neighbors I have, see how they react. And anyways, if that's true, then why is it that I don't have a logo of bouncing tits?Treviabot92 21:27, 1 June 2011 (BST)

first what does my sig have to do with anything we are discussing? boobies are white trash? that's news to me. i was just going off the shitty dog blanket you have on you're shitty dirty couch. you living with or near 100's Mexicans makes you poor white trash or just a Mexican. whom as a people I have nothing against. but you on the other hand. well tons of people here have already pointed you're short comings. and every time you reply just proves how stupid you are. keep on trolling moron.--User:Sexualharrison21:46, 1 June 2011 (bst)

You too, faggot. Again, shitty phonecam and lights going to hell. Plus, that's how the couch is supposed to look, proving that you have no idea what a good piece of furniture is supposed to look like.Treviabot92 22:02, 1 June 2011 (BST)

so now i'm a cigarette? late for work at the gas station huh? and I'm finished with you. you curse like 5th grader. just put it up for voting so we can be done this stupidity and nuke it from orbit--User:Sexualharrison22:07, 1 June 2011 (bst)

And you reason like a preschooler, what's your point?Treviabot92 22:10, 1 June 2011 (BST)

Hello, missing the point. The community in 2005 approved Combat Shotgun. Kevan did not. I pointed out that your version made things pointless, but you decided to compare it against something that Kevan declined to add to the game, explaining that yours "is not unbalanced", and how eight shots is "bullshit" while six is "fair and balanced". You even admit that yours is better than the suggestion that Kevan ignored:

Treviabot92 said:

Sure, mine's better when paired, but not by much

So, why do you think that Kevan is going to go for your suggestion? I'll give you a hint as to why Kevan won't accept this suggestion: Kevan is looking for new content and not rehashing of old content. Of course, this won't pass via voting, so it's moot. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:49, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Dude, the faggot gun was already a dupe on the face of it. This isn't. This is not based on that shit, and the least I'd expect out of you is the comprehension of that fact. Also, I said it's better paired, not it's better all the fucking time, not to mention that the difference of the worse value is greater than the difference of the better value. There's a reason I'm not taking speed loading into account.Treviabot92 22:00, 1 June 2011 (BST)

Ah, I see. I need to explain things out for you.

• Dupe is UDWiki slang for duplicate. The Combat Shotgun is not a duplicate suggestion, as it was the original suggestion for adding additional shotguns that carries additional ammo to the game. When I state that your suggestion is a duplicate of Combat Shotgun, I mean that users at the time requested an additional shotgun type that carries additional ammo to be added to the game. Kevan, already having shotguns in the game, declined the suggestion, despite the fact that the community approved it. Your proposed suggestion is the exact same type of request, as you are proposing to add an additional shotgun to the game that carries additional ammo. Unlike in 2005, the current community disagrees with this idea, and looks like it will shoot it down before it ever gets to Kevan. This is mainly because they know that if Kevan wanted to add other guns to the game, he would have done so sometime in the past five years. On to your next point.
• You compared your proposed shotgun to Combat Shotgun, which is not an implemented feature of the game. Comparing the two is a moot point, as Combat Shotgun was never implemented in the game, as I have stated several times before. The real comparison should be with the normal shotgun, which I had done above. Next.
• Speed loading was a proposed suggestion on November 6th, 2005 that was removed from voting on November 22nd, 2005, due to requests to change the suggestion. Speed Loading is also not an implemented feature of the game. Therefore, it is good that you are not taking Speed Loading into account, as it would also be a moot point. As this is the second thing that you have factored into your thinking that is not actually implemented in the game, I should caution you to take the time to completely read the links I send as well as the Gameplay page & subpages. It would appear that you need to get some of the basics of the game down, and then read the various subpages of the Suggestions portal, so you can know what was suggested before, and the differences between various suggestions.

If you are upset with my statements, then the fault is on you, as you might recall your previous statement which caused me to stop assisting you with this suggestion and just explain why it is a duplicate suggestion. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:22, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Yo dudes his shotgun is totally different from the combat shotgun because it's only 6 shells instead of 8. That makes it a CIVILIAN SHOTGUN and not a COMBAT SHOTGUN because everyone knows soldiers need the extra two shells to kill brown people with. How can you not understand this? --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 20:01, 1 June 2011 (BST)

Ok, now you're not only being an idiot, you're also being a dick.Treviabot92 21:40, 1 June 2011 (BST)

You know, spouting obscenities only makes you sound worse. --Rise|||||||||||||||||||||||||||above 06:01, 2 June 2011 (BST)

My good sir, during my usual stroll through archives for information on how to improve this lovely game I came across this previous suggestion. It seems yours is a dupe of it. Now now, it's okay to make mistakes every once in awhile, so be a dear and just remove this developing suggestion, will you?--||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:45, 1 June 2011 (BST)

No, now fuck off and use one fucking account, troll.Treviabot92 21:48, 1 June 2011 (BST)

But but, I AM using one account. My old account is locked because of me leaving the wiki for a long time. You are not a happy person, are you?--||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:52, 1 June 2011 (BST)

Sure you are, that's why fifty million people have the same signature.Treviabot92 21:54, 1 June 2011 (BST)

Good thing that they all link to different places though! Gosh, I don't know what I'd do if people thought I was a filthy goon!-||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:56, 1 June 2011 (BST)

It's still both the same signature and a waste of code.Treviabot92 22:04, 1 June 2011 (BST)

Someone's awful cranky. Did your moonshine not come out the way you were hoping? --||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:05, 1 June 2011 (BST)

I'm just proud of the fact that he managed to figure out we're separate people.--||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:06, 1 June 2011 (BST)

You sure that ain't your shitty moonshine?Treviabot92 22:10, 1 June 2011 (BST)

With a cool dry wit like that you could... that seems familiar. Oh god, I'm lapping myself! --||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:12, 1 June 2011 (BST)

Yeah, how's about y'all do us a favor and get a normal signature, one that doesn't take up so much fucking space in the editor?Treviabot92 22:15, 1 June 2011 (BST)

Only if you quit being retarded.--||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:21, 1 June 2011 (BST)

It ain't me being retarded when you keep putting all that code in.Treviabot92 00:27, 2 June 2011 (BST)

I am adding code as protest against Treviabots harmful usage of vernacular that marginalizes those with mental difficulties/differences deemed to be detrimental to social function in the current cultural context and genetic differences that result in evolutionary disavantages and a reduced quality of life while simultaneously implying that things that are of larger size are somehow inferior to their smaller counterparts. You should be ashamed of this disgraceful WikiConduct. --||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 06:21, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Is it too late to get in on mocking this guy? 'Cause, y'know, an obsession with shotguns is probably compensation for something. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 10:41, 2 June 2011 (BST)

"::::::::::::Fucking do it.--||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 11:16, 2 June 2011 (BST)

---

Survivor Health

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 04:14 19 May 2011(UTC)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Survivor HP

Description: Here's one the Survivors will love. All Survivor HP should max out at 25. What?! Yeah. See this even HP thing was ok before Barricades but really should have been changed when they came into play. See Barricades basically ARE an HP boost for Survivors and once they are gone, it should be easier to kill some people. More 10 point bonuses for the baby zombies and such. Zombies should be "tougher", being able to absorb damage that would kill a living being. It makes more sense anyway. 5 pistols shots or 3 shotgun blasts to kill a person just makes more sense than 10/5. Plus, this makes a PKer/Bounty Hunters life less pointless. Right now being a PKer/Bounty Hunter is just REAL dedication to being an asshole, since its one of the most inefficient ways to spend your AP. Body Building works the same...for now. Stuff not included in this suggestion, but could be used later if it was implemented. Body Building: could be made less idiotic as well, trading extra HP for being able to carry 125% encumbrance or something. You know, something BB would actually do. Headshot: might be able to be altered as well, giving a Survivor like a 10% or 20% chance with each attack to just totally wipe out a zombies health to 0. (and minus the 15/6 AP to stand crap) Flak Jackets: Could have 25 HP all their own, and once out of "HP", they are discarded as useless. This way Survivors could still get that 50 HP thing for a time, as far as PKer/BHer attacks are concerned.

Discussion (Survivor Health)

I like this, actually. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:17, 19 May 2011 (BST)

1. In principle, I actualy kinda like this because survivors really shouldn't be able to go toe-to-toe with zombies and mass breakins will normally result in death whatever your HP is. However, I really don't think that survivors need a nerf right now.
2. BB increasing carrying capacity does makes more sense than the current implementation.
3. Multiply by a billion: Headshot insta-killing zombies would be horribly broken because it has the potential for one survivor to wipe out a breakin single-handedly.
4. Flak jackets degrading has been suggested before: It's not actually fun for the players, is a pain to code and adds quite a bit of server load.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:22, 19 May 2011 (BST)

I agree on the change to body building. About headshot, I thought of this a while back what if headshot, instead of giving you a possible insta kill ,just gave you a percentage boost to accuracy against zombies while keeping the 6/15 ap to stand up. Although if we nerfed survivor HP down to 25 an instant kill(10-20% chance) thing might not be a bad idea. Flak jackets degrading just takes away the fun and they don't really provide much of a boost. Sadly this will never go through in an actual vote. I'd suggest you do the body building change by itself assuming its not already been suggested as it is the only part that really has a shot at being peer reviewed.. Unless you can get a bunch of goons on your side :P       13:15, 19 May 2011 (BST)

Not directly a dupe, but still relevant. And this was actually a comparatable tame version that just reduced HP by 20 across the board for both zombies and survivors. Still, peer-rejected by zombie- and PKer-hating trenchies. Go figure. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 17:23, 19 May 2011 (BST)

If only we had more wiki active zombies instead of trenchie survivors.       18:03, 19 May 2011 (BST)

I like it. I'm not sold on the headshot thing, but the rest seems fine. From a zombie point of view, it is irritating that survivors are somehow all specimens of physical and mental health, with a tactical mind, heroic organizational skills, finely honed military skills and are seemingly geniuses with PHDs in biochemistry.. during a zombie apocalypse. - Serious Post. Please do not silly. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 02:19, 20 May 2011 (BST)

Well I suppose you can justify it by learned from experience. And jumping from rooftop to rooftop carrying a few gennies gives you some good cardio as well.       03:25, 20 May 2011 (BST)

5 shots couldn't stop him. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 00:35, 21 May 2011 (BST)

Who the hell is he?--

| T | BALLS! | 21:36 24 May 2011(UTC)

File name is tupacdance.gif. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 21:57, 25 May 2011 (BST)

No. Treviabot92 01:34, 24 May 2011 (BST)

Like this idea, as a simple survivor player most of the time it'd probably get me to try out other roles (PKer, full time zombie, etc). --Robert Egleton 01:33, 29 May 2011 (BST)

Make it so. Except the instant kill headshot stuff. Would also let flares be a one-shot kill, which makes them more useful. 17:01, 29 May 2011 (BST)

---

Max Axe

Timestamp: Ronarprfct 17:19, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Type: Skill

Scope: Survivors above a certain level

Description: I suggest the adding of a new skill to the military skills-I like the name Max Axe, but whatever-with Axe proficiency and hand-to-hand as prerequisites-perhaps also some minimum level prerequisite. This skill would boost the accuracy of the axe by 10% so that it would be 50%. I don't think this is unreasonable at all. It would then make a human with an axe equal in damage per AP to a zombie without the effect of tangling grasp but with Vigour Mortis, Death Grip, and Rend flesh. I think it is only fair that the damage we can deal with our axe be equal to the damage they can deal with their claws. They would still be able to do more damage with tangling grasp, but I've personally never seen tangling grasp work all that well for me when playing as a zombie. If you look at the XP leaderboard, most of the leaders are characters who play as zombies because of the greater damage of their hand attacks. I don't think this would unbalance the game-one axe wielder still couldn't kill as many zombies in a session as a gun toter. It would just make things fair for those who like or are forced to use melee. Also, it isn't unrealistic to think that an axe could do at least as much damage to a zombie as the zombie's claws could do to a human. If anyone feels this would make the knife useless, you could add a new knife skill that would take it to 60%, thus making the knife do as much damage per AP as the axe now does.

Discussion (Max Axe)

the axe has lower damage per AP than a maxed zombie for the simple reason of balance.... remember that the zombie has to get to you before he can start clawing and biting and you have barricades to prevent this. for every AP most zombies spend attacking a survivor they will probably spend at least 10 (lots more for ferals) on trying to get to them. --Honestmistake 17:37, 17 May 2011 (BST)

This would also make the knife nearly worthless. It has its niche compared to the axe by having the higher to-hit % and by costing less encumbrance. By making axes as likely to hit, the knife would be reduced to a poor man's axe that only has encumbrance as redeeming feature. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 17:45, 17 May 2011 (BST)

I address the knife in my suggestion-apparently you didn't read it. As for balance, if the game is so balanced, why is most of Malton red or orange? Sure, survivors have barricades, but zombies have ruin, salt-the-land, 1 AP to be back up and at full health with ankle grab, no need to find a place to sleep ever, easy recourse should they become revived while we have to wait forever to get revived by needle with rotters clogging up the revive points, etc. It isn't going to break the game or even allow humans to win(The Dead number 1700+ against the largest human group of a couple hundred). It would just make things fair melee damage wise and give people a somewhat acceptable option besides guns. Humans are already royally screwed in this game and will probably remain screwed, I'd just like the screwing to be a little more fair.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronarprfct (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 May 2011.

~ _{18:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)}

Humans can't...win. In fact, there's no winning at all in this game. There isn't 'fair' or 'balanced', either; most of Malton is red because there are a *lot* of active zombies, not because one side is inherently more powerful than the other. sannok^{(talk)(kilts)} 23:21, 17 May 2011 (BST)

I would argue that the knife is never worthless, even if other weapons eclipse it. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:29, 18 May 2011 (BST)

Offensive weaponry should be the LAST of your concerns right now.--

| T | BALLS! | 18:16 17 May 2011(UTC)

+1. Get outta your trenchcoat and become a massive prick instead. If just 10% of the survivors would go all-out crapping, The Dead would have no chance given the current search rates. Sadly, most survivors will instead look how to power up their favourite mall and collect shotguns. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 21:59, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Ya know, I am already dirtnapping one of my characters and will be with some of my other 43 level characters. I even looked at The Big Prick and have given some consideration to joining. That said, this suggestion is important to me and I'd like actual discussion about it rather than advertisements for other things. I know I can't be the only one that supports this redress of an unfairness in the game. I don't think a 50% hit rate for the axe would be such a huge deal and it would make us melee even-except for tangling grasp, which I don't care about anyway as I never had much success with it.

Learn to sign your posts for one.. And secondly survivors do not need and buffs in this game its at the perfect balance for a "zombie apocalypse". Lastly the axe need not be buffed for the simple reason it is an easy to find weapon that will last forever. Where as guns earn their high hit rates because you have to constantly find ammo for them and typically that takes a fixed up PD or mall with a genny to do well(consider the AP exhausted to do all that). Now if axes had a chance to break that might warrant a higher hit percentage but that's doubtful.       23:52, 17 May 2011 (BST)

“	Those who live by the sword axe get shot by those who don't.	”
—Proverb

ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:25, 18 May 2011 (BST)

I am all for survivors thinking they can kill their way out of a war where the other side's one, singular benefit is that they can stand up after being killed. Makes my job a heck of a lot easier. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 18:09, 18 May 2011 (BST)

I would personally be in favour of banning all outdoor combat until the survivor:zombie ratio has been improved. Either that or feeding all trenchcoaters to the zombies in the hope that it will give them indigestion.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:34, 18 May 2011 (BST)

The axe is carefully balanced because:

• it requires no ammo
• it requires very few skill points to make effective
• it can kill people behind barricades

Making it more powerful would only boost PKers (which I'd personally love) and insult zombies, who require many more skills to have a similar attack that only works without barricades about. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:57, 18 May 2011 (BST)

Give zombies free running! That solves all the issues! :D        13:21, 18 May 2011 (BST)

If my suggestion were implemented, the axe would require exactly the same number of skills purchased as the zombie does to do 1.5 damage per AP, three: Hand-to-hand combat, axe proficiency, and Max Axe vs Vigour Mortis, Death Grip, and Rend Flesh. The axe would then be just as balanced as a zombie's claws. Guns can also kill people behind barricades-there is no difference except that way less AP would be required with guns than with an axe under my suggestion. Zombie claws also require no ammo and apparently don't degrade with all that debarricading either. Zombies have more than that one singular benefit-and it is by itself a powerful one. They get to stand up for 1 AP as the class they like playing. Humans have to expend tons more AP to get back to human. You can't honestly think PKers would want to expend all that extra AP when they could just shoot someone and get away!Ronarprfct 21:48, 18 May 2011 (BST)

Your missing the point. Zombies are suppose to be natural killing machines. A person wielding an axe should not be able to equal the killing prowess of a zombie it's illogical. Zombies in Urban Dead are considerably weaker than they should be but that is another topic all together..       22:36, 18 May 2011 (BST)

What zombie movies have you been watching? Zombies aren't natural killing machines-they are actually inferior to humans as killers, being rotting corpses and slow and the like-the only advantages they have are defensive or passive ones like immunity to most damage and no need to eat or sleep to keep going. Killing prowess? It is only their overwhelming numbers and single-mindedness together that enables them to defeat humans-besides their lack of dependence on things humans need. You talk about them like they're lions on the prowl when they are just shuffling corpses with a taste for human flesh. I bet you money any man with an axe can do way more damage than a single zombie without one.Ronarprfct 00:34, 19 May 2011 (BST)

You my friend fail. Now go get eaten by a shuffling corpse while carrying 20 shotguns, 5 gennies and your invincible axe not to mention all forms of military weaponry. Enjoy.       02:35, 19 May 2011 (BST)

Ron, you're just being retarded now. One of the bases of the game: zombies are effective without AP investment, survivors require an AP investment but are much more efficient overall. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 10:21, 19 May 2011 (BST)

Where, exactly, does Kevan say that is one of the bases of the game? You're full of it.Ronarprfct 19:16, 19 May 2011 (BST)

You think half the player base should be mooks who get regularly bitch-slapped by random trenchies with axes? Zombies in this game are run by players too. Don't take away one of the few advantages the game grants them (which is the better and more AP-efficient melee attack). Survivors easily make up for that by being able to potentially dish out much more damage in a brief time window by using guns. You can come back with your idea as soon as my zombie can search for missiles for his rocket launcher. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 19:59, 19 May 2011 (BST)

I was under the impression that this page was for developing suggestions through constructive criticism so they could then be voted on-not voting on them. Maybe you death cultists could do that.Ronarprfct 21:00, 19 May 2011 (BST)

We tend to get a tad hostile to people who continually miss the point. I'm not sure if your aware of this but until the recent return of The Dead zombies were greatly out numbered by survivors the ratio hung around 60:40 survivors:zombies. This one hints at less people wanting to play as a zombie or two survivors being stronger. In either case this meant zombies needed improvements to solve either problem. Honestly they still need those improvements, survivors do not.       21:34, 19 May 2011 (BST)

You know what, he is right, an axe really should do more damage than a claw or bite... but then a firearms should do more damage too. But (and these are big buts) zombies should be almost unstoppable without headshot,infections should always prove fatal, survivors should need to search for food and shouldn't be able to freerun with more than a minimal load, oh, and revives shouldn't exist. Why doesn't the game work like this? Because it would not be much fun to play! --Honestmistake 22:24, 19 May 2011 (BST)

OY! Coming to a safehouse near you! -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 01:26, 20 May 2011 (BST)

AXE TORNADO! --|||||||||||||||||||||||| 04:11, 20 May 2011 (BST)

Perhaps the game would be less fun to play if ALL of those things were implemented. I don't think my suggestion being implemented would make it less fun to play.Ronarprfct 23:39, 22 May 2011 (BST)

So there are no suggestions for improvement of the suggestion before I submit it for peer review?Ronarprfct 00:14, 24 May 2011 (BST)

No. Spam. Treviabot92 01:35, 24 May 2011 (BST)

How's your psychological projection working out for you? -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 09:26, 24 May 2011 (BST)

A lot better than yours, thanks. Treviabot92 20:08, 25 May 2011 (BST)

Woooosh is the sound of the point going over your head like all the thoughts you've put into COMBET SHETGUN tia Phuzzy 03:32, 26 May 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.

Static Search Rates

Now up for voting. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:14, 28 May 2011 (BST)