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

Call Backup

Timestamp: A Big F'ing Dog 02:08, 17 September 2012 (BST)

Type: Radio Operation Subskill

Scope: Survivors

Description: One thing the game lacks are epic sieges, like it once had. To counter that I'd like to see a skill that gives survivors a strong incentive to all gather and defend one location, so they're easy for hordes of zombies to find. My idea: Call Backup This skill allows players to broadcast on one channel otherwise off limits even to those with Radio Operation. The purpose of this channel is to call for a supply drop-off from the external military forces. A supply drop off can turn any building into a resource building, allowing first-aid kits and ammunition to be found there at the same rate as a hospital or PD. The search rates would not stack with existing search rates though, so turning a hospital into a drop-off location would let you find ammunition there but would leave FAK search rates the same as before. A very effective choice would be to convert a Necrotech building, allowing it to provide a trifecta of syringes, ammunition, and health-kits. There's a catch however: the military has limited resources and can only assist one building at a time. Whichever building has had the largest number of players broadcast on that channel would receive the benefit. Only that building would be upgraded. The vote would be based on largest number of players transmitting, not most transmissions overall, so there's no benefit to each player broadcasting more than once. The bonus would move around the city, leaving one building and going to another, whenever a building's vote tally gets higher. Ruining the building would reset the current tally of votes for that building to 0, and send the bonus to the previous runner up building. That would force the survivors there to vote all over again in order to once again become a military supply depot. This would give survivors a strong incentive to defend a specific location, and not to flee, or their precious resource bonus may be stolen away and placed somewhere far off in the city.

---

Difficulty Ratings

Timestamp: •▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:42, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Type: Game Mechanic

Scope: Starting Classes

Description: Simply put, it's no secret each class have their own starting difficulties in terms of finding a decent way to gain XP (without resorting to the hit-and-FAK procedure that most new players probably won't do). For example, Doctors and Firefighters seem to have an easier time farming XP, while Consumers take more time to farm XP. So why don't we show new players the starting difficulties? Private - Medium Medic - Hard Scout - Medium NecroTech Lab Assistant - Easy Doctor - Easy Police Officer - Medium Fire Fighter - Easy Consumer - Hard Corpse - Medium

Discussion (Difficulty Ratings)

Discuss! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:42, 16 September 2012 (BST)

I wouldn't rate Corpse "medium"; terrible hit rates, half XP from clawing revive queues and miserable hit rate penalties clawing at cades, and half movement limiting the amount of attempts you can even make at gaining XP would certainly fall under "hard". 21:47, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Aye, I was fairly split on whether I should put Corpses as Medium or Hard. In my experience, Corpses was actually a fairly easy class to level up. But then again, my experience is nearly half a dozen years dated and there aren't many street treats to nom on anymore... :$ --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:00, 16 September 2012 (BST)

It's the difficulty in playing Corpses that makes me lean against this, unfortunately. If it's accurately listed how difficult they can be, it'll deter new zombie players even further. :( 23:02, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Instead of assigning a difficulty, which varies by area, why not just label the easiest classes "Newbie Friendly" or something like that. So maybe start off labeling Firefighter, Lab Tech, and Corpse.--A Big F'ing Dog 01:44, 17 September 2012 (BST)

---

ONO A NERF

Timestamp: 03:27, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Type: Flavourful way to offset the balance

Scope: Everyone

Description: Ditch needles as a findable object. I'm not joking. If needles can no longer be search for, and only manufactured, it'll make survivors think twice about a) combat revives and b) random revives. Revives become a genuine tactical consideration instead of a throwaway object, and players struggling to get pricked might learn to appreciate dual natured play or full on embrace barhah. Obviously this can be tempered by reducing the manufacturing cost but not below the average AP cost of searching for one. 03:27, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Discussion (ONO A NERF)

Damn it Mrs Landingham, I need numbers! --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 08:09, 15 September 2012 (BST)

1) FUCK YOU

B) Fixed AP costs are boring

iii) FUCK YOUR COUCH

That is all. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:25, 15 September 2012 (BST)

YOU LEAVE MY FUCKING COUCH ALONE 14:24, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Combat revives are survivor combat. As in, they're the idea of playing as a survivor, more living people. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:09, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Uh huh. Still doesn't mean a) they're worth enabling and b) the existence of them is completely wiped out by this suggestion. They just become less disposable. 21:49, 16 September 2012 (BST)

They're the only survivor behavior worth enabling and have a net positive effect on player experience. Now if only we could get rid of barricades too. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:08, 16 September 2012 (BST)

I'm pretty sure combat revives are far from the only worthwhile survivor activity. If you can't consider a 10 AP auto-kill something that might not be a perfectly balanced game element then I don't really think we're ever going to agree on game balance. 22:13, 16 September 2012 (BST)

I've written pages upon pages on this wiki about the over effectiveness of syringes in part because of the absolute success rate. DNA syringe nerfs have helped that a little but largely they're still the single most effective thing a survivor can do. They're effective because they're the only thing a survivor can do to realistically effect the ratio without griefing via game mechanic. Which is to say, you actually do something instead of making play more tedious for other players. Easier revives mean easier kills are practical, which also means that all things included claws should be running at no worse a kill rate than 10 AP once encountered in a balanced game and that barricades should be nerfed to balance with find rates. Anything else just means continuing frustrated players because of unproductive AP sinks. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:26, 16 September 2012 (BST)

I wouldn't say syringe manufacturing would be unproductive, it's just not as productive as finding them easier than my car keys. Combat revives will still exist, and will still save the same purpose, but it just becomes a lot less cost-effective to actually stock up on needles. A reduced cost to manufacture (15 instead of 20? Maybe even 12 or 13 if not-rounded numbers are acceptable) would offset the initial wailing, but you can still reliably spend a weekend stocking up on a dozen needles, which is about the same time I consider acceptable as a PKer to spend restocking my inventory. I still think the psychological aspect of less revives would encourage, at the very least, more dual natured play, which wouldn't offset the imbalance but would go some ways to helping it. 22:48, 16 September 2012 (BST)

The problem comes when you(royal) confuse encourage with force. Making zombie play less tedious would encourage zombie place, making revives nigh impossible to come by without a powered NT would force it. You can't fix the survivor preference imbalance until you address the monotony and ineffectiveness of zombie play for low level characters through, minimum, a combination of more accurate attacks and a significantly lessened barricade hit penalty. Messing with survivor offensive tempo without taking those steps just means less players not less survivor players. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:01, 17 September 2012 (BST)

where the hell is mah auto shutgun? and I agree with karek. fuck you miss!--User:Sexualharrison22:49, 16 September 2012

---

---

Newbie Radio

Timestamp: A Big F'ing Dog 05:18, 13 September 2012 (BST)

Type: Item

Scope: Everyone

Description: UD is not very newbie friendly. It's hard to find steady allies, you die continuously, can barely do anything, and figuring out what to do often involves consulting an outside wiki. I suggest that all players, both survivor and zombie, start off with one radio in their inventory. This radio would come pre-tuned to one broadcast restricted channel, receiving regular messages from the outside military forces that provide tips on how to play Urban Dead. Although supposedly aimed at survivors, the broadcasts would also contain tips useful for zombie players. Example of messages: All survivors are encouraged to find a dependable melee weapon to defend themselves if necessary. Axes can be acquired in fire stations located throughout the city. Alert: Zombies often groan loudly when they encounter the living. Other zombies may hear these groans and swarm your position. Zombies cannot easily attack buildings by themselves but are very dangerous in groups. Generators can be installed and fueled in buildings to provide light. This will aid you in finding items but the light may attract the attention of zombies. Zombies can be brought back to life with syringes from any of the Necrotech buildings hidden across the city. Closing doors can stop the less intelligent zombies, but some undead are regaining memories of life and opening doors for their hordes. Only barricades can prevent those smarter zombies from entering your safehouse. Although zombies can be brought back to life our scientists report that many people seem to prefer undeath and commit suicide from tall buildings immediately after revival. A comprehensive guide to Malton has been assembled by our experts at wiki.urbandead.com. If you still have Internet access and are not being devoured alive we encourage you to use this survival resource. Existing players would be able to tune their radios to the newbie tips frequency if they want to listen. Whenever anyone switches away from the newbie tips station the game would display a special warning message: You change your radio's frequency to XX.XX. The radio begins to hiss static. To listen to more survival tips you can switch it back to XX.XX at any time. A large and rotating supply of tips could answer many of the recurring questions newbies have, without inundating them with too much information all at once.

Discussion (Newbie Radio)

Just as long as you can throw it away, it seems like a good idea.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 11:20, 13 September 2012 (BST)

Yep, it's just a normal item. If you don't like getting messages you can drop it. --A Big F'ing Dog 14:08, 13 September 2012 (BST)

I like this suggestion, and propose the following 2 refinements:

1. Make the station the radio is tuned to a regular radio channel in the restricted band, alongside the EMRP frequency.
2. Make it a regular radio that is pre-tuned to the above frequency.

Nice one! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:58, 13 September 2012 (BST)

Definitely in favor, with the adjustments listed above. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:15, 13 September 2012 (BST)

Yes: I invited a friend to play UD sometime after I started and it was an interesting conversation topic but it frequently turned into a Q&A session. After a while I got tired of the questions I answered for myself via the wiki, and he got tired of my constant referrals to the wiki for him to do the same. My friend has since stopped playing. --Klexur 19:34, 13 September 2012 (BST)

Great ideas Revenant! I'm going to make it just a pretuned radio everyone starts off with. --A Big F'ing Dog 00:06, 14 September 2012 (BST)

I... am going to steal this... <_< -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 03:19, 15 September 2012 (BST)

It's almost at the point where I am tempted to recruit some suckers and go check out HR again. So, uh. Good work? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:47, 15 September 2012 (BST)

While you're at it, I need a PHP programmer, too. Hurf durf! :D -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 22:49, 16 September 2012 (BST)

That almost sounds tempting, almost. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:06, 17 September 2012 (BST)

In all honesty, I'm on the verge of closing the game(s) out. Just too little getting done, and too few people playing because of it. Half-finished this, unfixed that, etc. etc. etc. Only so much I can do with "copy/paste/edit = new feature". :D -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 03:43, 17 September 2012 (BST)

That's a shame. Haven't had a chance to play your game yet, but it seems pretty cool from what I've read on its wiki. Would you give up working on this kind of game then, or start working on another one? --A Big F'ing Dog 07:58, 18 September 2012 (BST)

It's not a course of action I want to take, but after a few years one has to wonder if something like this should actually exist because ten people are on it. I love the ten folks playing (probably) but yeah. It's a bit much for that few. There are old easter eggs and hidden features nobody's really discovered, etc. because the player base is so low. I wouldn't focus on a new game, would probably just move on. I'm sure the next game would suffer the same fate because I'm not a legit PHP programmer. I just know my way around existing code and can figure stuff out to add and edit things. I have to rely on a cohort who can code, which opens a bunch of cans of a bunch of worms. Features I didn't want or know about before they're put in, problems that go unfixed because I'm the only one who thinks it's important, and so on. Basically what I'm bitching toward is, yeah, I'd probably just move on to something else. Heh. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 18:05, 18 September 2012 (BST)

This is a very nice alternative to changing game mechanics or buffing new players. -- †  talk ? f.u. 14:51, 15 September 2012 (BST)

---

Urban Dead Classic

Timestamp: •▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 21:48, 10 September 2012 (BST)

Type: New Game Mode/New City

Scope: Urban Dead

Description: Now call me a grumpy old veteran or whatever, but I'm sure we can all agree that the best days of Urban Dead was before Cade Blocking was introduced in 2008. The classic era, 2005 through 2007, or the Golden Age of Urban Dead, if you will, were the days in which Urban Dead reached the height of it's popularity. How? Well, for one reason. Long term sieges. I wish to propose a new map (something preferably a little smaller than Malton, due to the low number of players Urban Dead currently has) to feature the classic days of Urban Dead, for any players, old or new, to re-experience the classic days of Urban Dead before Cade Blocking was introduced (as well as other old features that no longer exist, such as the Wire Cutters and wired fences).

Discussion (Urban Dead Classic)

Discuss, give ideas, etc etc! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:48, 10 September 2012 (BST)

Maybe as an alternative map. Which would be unlikely to happen, unless there is cash involved to get Kevan to work. -- Spiderzed█ 22:00, 10 September 2012 (BST)

Make it extremely small so as to enable even feral zombies to realize when sieges were going on. If there are several "siege spots" (malls or the like) then there should be no spot on the whole map that a bellow centred on one won't reach. I could see this being interesting but I'd suggest removing headshot from the skills available to players on that map to balance out the loss of interference; that or allowing brain rot to straight up never allow revives. 22:02, 10 September 2012 (BST)

Aye. I agree with you here. The survivors need to lose something dear themselves in this Classic Mode, since zombies will be losing something dear themselves. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:10, 10 September 2012 (BST)

This. Make the whole map like 9 suburbs with 1 mall in them, maybe 5 NTs. Something easy with just a few simple siege points on it.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 22:12, 10 September 2012 (BST)

As for size, I'm wondering if perhaps 7x7 suburbs; possibly even making those 7x7 blocks too; might work. That's 49 blocks each way; a day's AP to get from one end to the other and it would mean you could place 10 or maybe even less hotspots in the map, they'd all be easy enough to place within radio and bellow range so that each one is within range of at least one other. Construct them as hybrid multi-block buildings (say 2x2, one corner is a hospital, one an NT, one a cop shop and one plain but tall) and you assure that survivors will stay there, making them perfect targets. Obviously you'll want there to be some items unavailable there so as to create a tension between leaving and staying; perhaps generators and/or fuel are only available in other locations. Strip down the other building types somewhat and you should have a map that enables this style of play while supporting it just enough without forcing it (obviously surviving is easier for those who avoid the obvious places but then they also miss out on the sieges). Might also be an idea to dispense with all of the dark building types; given the fact that bounty hunting will be a thankless and probably incredibly rare task it makes sense to remove a resource which combats it. 22:18, 10 September 2012 (BST)

I'm thinking Newspapers should be located in Hospitals again. You couldn't spend a day searching a hospital back then without finding four or five newspapers for every FAK you find. As for the size, I was thinking a 5x5 suburb area, which would make this classic city 1/4 the size of Malton. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:21, 10 September 2012 (BST)

Yeah, 5x5 suburbs of 10x10 blocks (2500 blocks) is about the same as 7x7 of 7x7 blocks (2401); but it loses the idea of squares inside squares which makes things easier to work with. 22:25, 10 September 2012 (BST)

Kevan has stated on his talk page before that the maps are randomly generated (apart with some minor manual tinkering). So I don't think we have much a choice where the buildings are placed... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:29, 10 September 2012 (BST)

Given the greatly reduced size I think it's conceivable that if the impossible happens and Kevan does anything at all; that he could manually overlay a few specific buildings over an otherwise-random map. 22:33, 10 September 2012 (BST)

I've thought that rather than a smaller map, just quarantine some (20-40) of the suburbs to make a maze like area. This would still allow alts, since most of UD is single players with alts. I've never experienced a lack of cade blocking, so I don't really know what that's like. But rather than compensate for stupid survivors by changing mechanics how about the previous suggestion of Spidey: that HP is dropped to 25/30. Makes it easier to clear buildings of zombies and easier to kill survivors, so more fun for everyone. Drop needle cost to 5 AP. Sorry, I've never played UD when it wasn't just assholes, morons and moronic assholes so this idea of fun is foreign to me. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 22:43, 10 September 2012 (BST)

And that's what this suggestion will give you a chance to do. Experience Urban Dead when it was in its prime. ;) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:50, 10 September 2012 (BST)

So...Here's what I've got for the full suggestion so far:

• New map of 5x5 suburb area, each suburb are 10x10 blocks.

• It means this will be an entirely new city, so anyone looking to play in this UD Classic map has to create a new character in this map.
• Cade Blocking will not exist in UD Classic.

• Number of TRPs:

• Malls x1.5-2
• Fort x1
• NTs x5-10
• PDs x5-10
• Hospitals x5-10

• Reintroduction of old items and mechanics.

• This includes the reintroduction of Newspapers in hospitals.
• This also includes wirecutters and the reintroduction of wired fences and padlocks, just like when Urban Dead first began.

• Weakened Headshot.

• In this new city, since zombies are losing something dear (the cade blocking), it's only fair that survivors lose something as well. A weakened Headshot seems to be the best way to go without pissing off a lot of people. In this version of UD Classic, instead of Headshots forcing an addition 5AP to stand up, it will do a lot less (probably 1-3).

That's all I've got so far. Anything else? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:42, 11 September 2012 (BST)

So the best days of UD were before zombies could actually compete against barricades? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:07, 11 September 2012 (BST)

The best days of Urban Dead were before there were zombies. DUH! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:25, 11 September 2012 (BST)

2008 was when the number of players first started declining. What occurred in early 2008? The introduction of cade blocking. What were the main source of action that almost everyone participated in before 2008? Sieges. What did 2008 kill? Sieges. Also, if you look into it, 2005-2007? Neither side ever really dipped below 40% of the population for a year at a time. So when were the best days of Urban Dead, when the population was actually in a constant back-and-forth? 2005-2007. If you think about it, this suggestion is really a battle between old school and new school. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 18:31, 11 September 2012 (BST)

While I'd think there were a number of factors that was certainly the big one if you ask me. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:07, 11 September 2012 (BST)

Your time frame is a bit off. The first big decline was in the end of 2006 and then mid way through 2007(post yahoomas) a descent started that continued until today with only one really noteworthy bump(SA) since. SA's bump was because they wanted to cause havoc because zombies finally had something that worked with large hordes(ransack maintenance). 2006 and 2007s declines were because the game was balanced in a way that made it boringly stupid simple for survivors and just frustrating for zombies. So yes, barricade blocking had an effect on survivor numbers because the players left were the ones who WANTED an easy no effort game, the zombie player base was already thoroughly decimated and well on it's downward spiral. The games numbers track this quite blatantly. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:27, 12 September 2012 (BST)

The barricade blocking shifted some of the barricade frustration on the part of zombies to the survivors, while not really alleviating much of the frustration for zombies. Barricades are not really a fun mechanic. If it's not fun people won't play. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:42, 12 September 2012 (BST)

Meh. —Aichon— 19:21, 11 September 2012 (BST)

I agree with the basic premise, that smaller is better, but beyond that I'm not sure we'll ever get consensus. Still want a pre ruined permadeath city --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 20:34, 11 September 2012 (BST)

I think a no-Construction/no-NT/no-interference city would be interesting. It'd obviously have a time limit on it, with the situation growing more and more dire as the game progressed. Have it set to repeat automatically once the survivor population dropped below a certain amount, which would thus encourage a big siege finish, as opposed to a slow game of fox and hound. More or less, make it a true MMO version of Kevan's Zombie Simulator, where we already know the outcome and it's just a matter of how long (oh, and it needs to not suck, unlike Q2019). —Aichon— 21:05, 11 September 2012 (BST)

Sometimes you read my mind. Certain "victory" conditions may be nice. All NT's ruined, certain survivor/zombie ratio etc. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 21:09, 11 September 2012 (BST)

Quarantine allegedly does some of this stuff. If only it weren't utter shite! (Appropriately named, too.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:46, 12 September 2012 (BST)

I'd like to play an original version of UD (prior to any suggestions being implemented). -- →Son of Sin← 22:12, 11 September 2012 (BST)

For me, the saddest thing about Monroeville was that there were no fences, padlocks, or wirecutters. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:46, 12 September 2012 (BST)

I find it interesting that despite what appears to be severe issues with game mechanics and the lack of additions, the game has taken a very long and drawn-out decline over the years, not a sudden expulsion of people. I'd offer something to the discussion if I didn't think it would be futile (from Kevan's end). --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:42, 12 September 2012 (BST)

I sort of suspect that when players declined, zerging began to increase dramatically to counter the pop loss. I wouldn't be surprised if the zerging population were 50% or higher at this point. Because of this perhaps the slow decline is just an illusion giving the appearance of a drawn-out decline. The only other explanation for our weirdly high number of level 1's might be if Kevan had implemented some sort of automatic random character creation.--Alice Gravesend 05:52, 13 September 2012 (BST)

One fact we're not considering in the population decline is that Urban Dead is old technology. It might not be anything the game did wrong other than exist for a long time. Back in 2005 there were a lot fewer and lower quality options when it came to browser MMOs and free games in general. Now people can play Realm of the Mad God and get fast paced action in their browser. Or just load Steam and play TF2 for free. Or play a zombie themed MMO on their iPhone. I love UD but we have to be realistic that as the game gets older and new game options arrive we're just going to get fewer people just from increased competition. So I don't think interference is to blame for the player decline (in fact I think it's a pretty good mechanic), I think the decline is just the result of the passage of time. And if existing players want action packed sieges they don't need a new city for it, instead we just need to agree to fight for the same places. Something similar is going on at Caiger right now, as survivors and zombies trade the mall back and forth, even though there are plenty of other less contested malls either side could easily claim instead. To keep and grow the population I think we should instead find ways of improving the late game and early game experience. We need to make it less boring once you have all the skills, and more inviting when you have none. --A Big F'ing Dog 04:51, 13 September 2012 (BST)

That's not a siege. That's just a constant changing of hands. You want a siege? Take a look at the Battle of Blackmore. Now that is a siege. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 22:19, 13 September 2012 (BST)

Yeah, the Caiger stuff right now is boring and frustrating. It's a bunch of feral players on both sides taking the mall for themselves. Whenever an organized group sends in just a few members to take it, it can be easily retaken and held (I would know: the SoC did that a few times recently, as have some zombie groups that passed through). That doesn't make it a siege. That said, I agree with your premise that we need to pick a place to fight. Interference itself isn't so much of a problem as the River Tactics that it forced the survivors to adopt. As a result, I think we need to get together a group of suckers volunteers if we're to have any hope of having a real siege again. —Aichon— 22:46, 13 September 2012 (BST)

River tactics predated interference by two+ years. Pretty much since Caiger survivors have had it in their head that they can't defend malls(even before that they used to rant about groan and gesture, oh the rants about gesture). River tactics are "My group survived so victory" when what survivors should have been doing is what they did pre-caiger "the area is livable so victory". It's a misunderstanding a lot of groups have historically had about the purpose survivors groups should be serving since about the era they stopped having supermall defenses that made it stupid easy to play smart to the point that you almost didn't have the choice not to. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:09, 15 September 2012 (BST)

---

Buff the Starting Classes

Standard Zombie 09:27, 10 September 2012 (BST)

Type: Skills

Scope: Starting classes

Description Let's face it: Urban Dead is dieing. The number of active players has been going down and down over time. As Yahoomas showed, most players that join the game don't stay. They go out, find they can't really do anything, write the game off as boring, and don't come back. I've seen it first hand in friends who decided to play the game. So, I suggest significantly buffing the starting classes. Almost every player in Malton is expected to eventually get every survivor and zombie skill (with the exception of Brain Rot) anyway, its not like there are unique skill trees to worry about. Doing this, I believe, is the only way to rescue Urban Dead from decaying. It would also make the game much, much more fun for new players. I suggest, instead of level 1, players start at level 5. Military and police classes start with a flak jacket. Medics and Doctors start with a nearly full inventory of first aid kits. Starting zombies begin with the entire Vigor Mortis skill tree (but not survivors who have died). Vote yes on this, and let's hope Kevan does it, or else this game will go the way of so many others that have simply died because their player base eroded. Discussion (Buff the Starting Classes) I'm definitely against giving them consumable items, since that's the sort of thing that would make zerging way more powerful. Create 100 accounts, have 1000 FAKs, or syringes, or pistol shots, or whatever else immediately at your disposal. Anyway, I could agree with certain skills being things that everyone has. Memories of Life or Free Running, for instance, since those are so pivotal in being able to do the most basic things on their respective sides. I wouldn't do flak jackets or Body Building, since getting together your basic inventory is kinda like a rite of passage for newbie players who are figuring out the game, but I would be up for some of the other stuff, such as increased % to hit and the like. —Aichon— 16:05, 10 September 2012 (BST) Giving each of the starting classes an additional few skills based on the class (perhaps expanding zombies out to have a few starting classes too) might be better. If a good number of starting skills was agreed on (three? five?) we could work up a list of classes and starting skills and let Kevan ignore it forever because he's probably dead. 16:17, 10 September 2012 (BST) Think about this for a second. A level 5 zombie would have, vigor, lurching gait, memories of life, death grip and rend flesh. Thats basically a fully effective zombie, immediately. Likewise, a survivor with freerunning and construction is already a very effective individual. Of course, I'm more than willing to give all newb players scout safehouse, tagging, shopping and knife combat. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 16:40, 10 September 2012 (BST) Yes & No. Yes, give new players/characters starting skills and starter kits. No, new players/characters will be abandoned as usual (waste of development). -- →Son of Sin← 22:12, 11 September 2012 (BST) No. Zergs. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:49, 12 September 2012 (BST) Everything benefits zergs though. At the very least I'd argue for giving everyone ankle grab for free (but take 100xp off everyone who has a couple of harman skills already and still hasn't bought it. Fuck those guys). 04:52, 12 September 2012 (BST) Revenant, you wanna pull a RuneScape where people are so worried about abuse they destroy their own game? Urban Dead is dieing, and this is why. New players do not stay, because being a new player is absolutely awful. It takes weeks (if you're lucky) to be able to do anything at all. If we use your logic, at least you'll get your goal: zergs won't be a problem because there won't be any players for them to zerg against. Standard Zombie 02:20, 13 September 2012 (BST) I've broken down my response into points, for ease. 1) I do not and never have or want anything to do with Runescape, thanks, so you might want to either use an example that is more relevant or something that illustrates your point, assuming there was intended to be one there. B) By the numbers, Urban Dead has been dying since not particularly long after its launch. Among other factors, one is a proliferation of "clones" or other similar games, which have the additional benefit of allowing us to see how some other factors affect game growth and play. iii) You seem to be under the misapprehension (well, one of many), that zergs all play together and live in perfect harmony. I assure you that this is emphatically not the case. Toodles! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:54, 15 September 2012 (BST) "...you might want to either use an example that is more relevant..." its very relevant. Its a case where worry about abuse made it so a game was made worse. That's what you want to do. Just because some people abuse the system, that makes you want to keep the system worse. "Among other factors, one is a proliferation of 'clones' or other similar games..." So we need to be able to compete with those similar games. Why would someone play Urban Dead, where it takes them weeks to be able to do anything, when they could go to a clone and have fun immediately? "You seem to be under the misapprehension (well, one of many), that zergs all play together and live in perfect harmony." How so? I'm aware zergs have all sorts of agendas. Some are pro-survivor, some pro-zombie, some have really wierd objectives. Standard Zombie 15:51, 15 September 2012 (BST) Zerging is already bad enough. Have you seen the stats page? Something like 2,500 level 1's at any given time. Pretty high for a game that is dying. All this would do is strengthen all those zergs. --Alice Gravesend 04:29, 13 September 2012 (BST) We'll always have zerging, since Kevan's counter-measures are pretty limited and thus nobody really stops them... This could however, encourage new players to stay, since the reverse learning curve of UD really puts off a lot of new players. PB&J 15:05, 13 September 2012 (BST) Simply put, five levels is ridiculous. In all honesty, a few smaller updates, I have no issue with. In all honesty, lets make Rage available in Malton. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 19:26, 13 September 2012 (BST) What's your actual reasoning? Why is it ridiculous? It would get players to stay. They're going to get those skills anyway, the game is built so that that happens. There is no reason for it to be so difficult, and make the game so monotonous and boring for new players. Standard Zombie 22:16, 14 September 2012 (BST) Several reasons. As I stated above certain combinations of skills are supremely effective. The 5 zombie levels stated means the character is already A) As effective at killing a survivor in a stand up fight as is possible. B) Already as effective at smashing barricades as is possible. Thats your two core areas of zombie game play entirely levelled. So lets look at some survivor examples. Lets say, Freerunning, Construction, NecroTech Employment, Lab Experience, NecroNet Access. Thats the perfect build for a specific area of the game, namely reclaiming NTs Here's another one. Freerunning, Body Building, Basic Firearms Training, Pistol Training, Advanced Pistol Training. A nice simple build for a PK'er. Now there's a huge problem with the suggestion, and that's Immediacy. You create a new character, and they can do lots of things ingame really well. It might be great, but it falls down because of two things, one zerging, and two, the sudden completely pointless need for permament characters. The lower level issue is IMO the best zerging countermeasure we have. A bunch of zergs can't turn up on day one and repair a whole suburb. The same bunch of zergs likewise couldnt murder everyone in a suburb, because of doors. It's also a learning experience. The reason why we have a wiki, and all these groups and forums, it to teach, to get peopple to organise, and to answer our levelling questions. I'd hate if everyone in the game was given construction before knowing what VSB stood for, and I'm not the only one who thinks this. On to my second point, and I'm using the devious bastard part of my mind here. Say I have a level 5 survivor with Freerunning, Construction, NecroTech Employment, Lab Experience, NecroNet Access, and I use them to reclaim a Necrotech thats been ruined for a few weeks. It's taken me a day to get my toolbox, genny and a few needles together and I'm now standing in a reclaimed NT, next to the bodies of 3 reviving rotters on -23ap. Why would I bother to keep the character? In the time it takes for them to gain positive AP's, stand up, probably get myself revived, I could have created a new level 5 character, and done exactly the same thing again somewhere else. Doesnt even matter if I die there, I'll just spawn up a brand new one somewhere else. Same with PK'ers. Who cares if I get killed. I'll just roll up a new cop with the above mentioned skills. I've got a flak jacket, spare pistol clips and I'll Spawn in a powered Police department. Perfect to kill even more people with the minimum of fuss. None of this stupid time wasted levelling a new character, when I can get murdering now. The suggestion as a whole cheapens the idea of levelling, and also the idea that we learn as we play. It also makes the game a lot more brutal. You're a new level 5 zombie standing in the street. A new level 5 survivor enters the street and tries to kill you. Chances are, with a fully ranked pistol skill, he probably will. Before, that level one survivor had no chance of killing you. Welcome yto a world where survivors are more deadly. So you log on, and you're dead. So you stand up and go to attack the level 5 survivor. Only he's not there. He's gone back inside a building, which he can do easily, because of freerunning. He's not trapped outside. He's not having to hide in a ruin. He's gone. This is because survivors greatest protection isn't killing zombies, it's Barricades. By making additional skills available to all, you've actually shifted the game even more to the survivor side. So anyway, in addition to benefits for zerging, and the use of disposable alts, there's griefing. Say I have been targeted by another player, this is a fantastic tool. If they throw up a new character every week, I can't ignore list them. I can't report them to the rogues gallery, I can't even move away from their character. Because it could be anyone. Everyday, it could be a new person. With more free ammo to kill me with. And now I'm being the person who is being punished for keeping a persistent character. If I just created a new character I could just escape. And that's the issue. Characters. By cheapening the idea that a character is important, your making the game less fun. Would your suggestions make the game easier? No. They'd make the game harder. Would new characters stop giving up? No. This is a browser game, with terrible graphics. You have to wait 24 hours to do anything. Most people can't cope with that. This is exactly my issue with quarantine. I logged on, and had no idea at all what to do. Then half an hour later I had been killed. Immediately stopped caring. In urban dead, new players HAVE to rely on others, whethers it opening doors, or grabbing a revive, the key to the game is organisation. I can understand how you want to be able to do more yourself, but at it's best UD is a game where you have to collaborate to thrive. ^That's why I think it's ridiculous.--I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 13:57, 15 September 2012 (BST) I agree with every single thing you said, but I'll disagree with you because dared people to. :P -- †  talk ? f.u. 14:43, 15 September 2012 (BST) Thank you, Ross, for writing the post that needed to be written but that I was too lazy busy lazy to. I award you one internet. Don't spend it all in one place. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:35, 15 September 2012 (BST) "...one zerging..." Zerging is a problem no matter what you do with the game. The fact some people abuse the system isn't a reason to make the system worse or not improve it; that's like saying we shouldn't have painkillers because drug addicts exist. My suggestion would actually make zerging less of a problem, since there would be more players seeing ads, donating, etc. so Kevan would have the resources to improve the anti-Zerg countermeasures. As far as the permanent character issue goes, so what? Why is it bad if some people choose to switch rapidly between characters? There's still the daily IP limit. Heck, if anything, this might improve the game since there'd be more incentive to donate so your IP hit limit doesn't get in the way. Also, why would someone start with "Freerunning, Construction, NecroTech Employment, Lab Experience, NecroNet Access". What class would that be? There's no Tony Stark class where somebody is an athlete, and engineer, and a scientist. Ideally, reerunning would only be given to starting military classes, construction to civilian ones, and NecroTech Employment to scientist classes. Only by keeping a character for a while could you have that combination of skills. "A new level 5 survivor enters the street and tries to kill you. Chances are, with a fully ranked pistol skill, he probably will." Most zombies begin their day by rising anyway. At least then, the survivor wouldn't have Headshot, so you wouldn't be at as much of a disadvantage. "The suggestion as a whole cheapens the idea of levelling" levelling is already cheap. Everybody just winds up with the exact same combination of skills anyway, its really more of an anti-zerg feature than anything else. Gives new players a sense of accomplishment too, and some goals to work towards. But you can have goals without making new players completely impotent, so they don't bother to level up their character at all. "Say I have been targeted by another player, this is a fantastic tool. If they throw up a new character every week, I can't ignore list them." Malton is a big place - it'd be no different than now. If a PKer wants to find and kill you, they easily can if you stay in the same place. If you move around though, they'd need an army of alts to find you. Only a crazy person would put that much effort into finding a single player Standard Zombie 15:46, 15 September 2012 (BST) Right, lets start by hammering down exactly what you're saying. You've mooted the level 5 issue, I've come up with some examples, and why the fail. Please can you actually hammer out the details of Which 5 skills you are proposing. As for permanent characters. My first response is, well Groups actually, the aforementioned collaborative nature of the game, Profile ID's usefulness in scanning. The use of DSS satellite phones, the, well foundation of the game. In addition, a clarification of what zombie skills you suggest. Your zombie point no sense to me. The suggestions involved would make it more likely zombies would be killed, and far from being at an advantage, it will still take 10ap to stand. So in terms of daily issues, you've made it harder for new zombies to stand. In addition, the whole points of groups, is, that in many cases , they are static. Thats how people, genrerally play the game, territorially, and the reason for harassment, which would be made easier by this suggestion. You've also failed to address the zerging concerns, the fact the suggestion advantages survivors more than zombies. Finally, I completely disagree with the cheapness of levels. You say its "Cheap", because everyone gets the same skills, but then suggest we give them all extra skills because its hard to be a competent character. Your entire suggestion is about how Hard it is to gain levels, and yet you call levelling Cheap. You need to understand that people have to work to level. One final thing. Can you suggest to me a successful game in the genre without levelling or unlocks? I'd like to see how others deal with similar issues. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 16:27, 15 September 2012 (BST) Actually, his suggestion is wrong-minded in it's method but not in it's stated goal. Buffing starting characters to make it so that the difficulty curve isn't ass backwards is a good idea. It has been since the day the game started, it's something that Jorm noticed in the last few years of Nexus War and tried to address, and it's normally the biggest pitfall this game and it's clones have had. 5-15% to hit rate for a level 1 player has always been a big obstacle in facilitating player buy-in, it's part of why zombies had better buy-in from yahoomas and part of why horde mechanics developed in the way they did. It's why barricades are an issue to new survivors(Barricade Plans) and new zombies(Feeding). it's also, ironically, one of the least important things to the game. Accuracy that is, beyond Zombie barricade hit rates which are half what they should be in the first place(barricades shouldn't have more than a 15% acc penalty). The main source of XP is almost unusable for low level players, this is counter to positive player experience. Also, zerging while an annoyance to organized groups, is not a particular concern to game developers beyond traffic impact. Particularly when anti-zerging measures impact player turnover negatively, if it weren't for the horrible starting mechanics and poorly balanced barricade mechanics this game might actually be insanely successful still considering it's turn-over rate. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 05:08, 16 September 2012 (BST) Mark Lair Timestamp: A Big F'ing Dog 22:48, 25 August 2012 (BST) Type: Skills Scope: Zombies Description: Mobile phones and radios allow survivors to arrange to meet from anywhere in the map. Zombies should also have a way of finding specific contacts. I suggest a new skill: Mark Lair. Mark Lair would give zombies two new powers. The first is the power to mark a lair for 1AP by spreading your blood and ichor around the room. This power can be used inside any ruined building. You can only have one lair designated at a time, and marking another ruined building as your lair erases your link to the first one. Your link is also broken if the ruined building is repaired. The second power is the ability to "Scent Lair" any of your contacts for 1AP. Using this power provides directions to their lair (even if they aren't there anymore). If they don't have a lair, or their last selected lair was repaired, you'll get a message informing you that you can't detect any lair for them. This would allow zombies to use ruined buildings to summon allies from anywhere in Malton. Discussion (Mark Lair) The meta-gaming communications (DSS SatPhone, forums, irc, etc) ruins the need for this. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:23, 25 August 2012 (BST) I don't think out of game options should preclude in-game features. And even if you do use something like SatPhone, it's not necessarily available on every computer you play Urban Dead on (for example, playing UD on a school/work/friend computer or using a mobile browser). And for roleplaying reasons, someone might not want to ruin immersion by going to an outside forum. I have nothing against metagaming, but I think it shouldn't be mandatory if you want to find friends. Also, this would allow you to track down any of your contacts. Communicating out of game requires knowing their SatPhone number or knowing which forums they frequent (if they're even on a UD forum). All those practical problems aside, one of the reasons there are so few zombies is that it's hard to be a casual zombie player. You need to organize out of game to be effective, which means that players who only play briefly and casually won't find that side as attractive. There should be better communication for casual players who just spend their 50AP and they're done for the day. --A Big F'ing Dog 01:12, 26 August 2012 (BST) That's not true. I ran a zombie alt before and I played solo. No groups. It's very simple playing a casual zombie. Just follow the latest groan. That's really all you need to do if you run solo. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 01:25, 26 August 2012 (BST) I just don't see this ever being used. Why would zombies need a building to gather in? This might be useful for helping mark NecroTech buldings for other zombies to occupy, but there's already a skill that allows them to do that. Standard Zombie 09:30, 10 September 2012 (BST) And again: metagaming makes recognizing NTs ingame a bit useless, since there are countless maps, both on- and off-wiki, displaying them and most zed don't actually give a rats ass about buildings without humans in them... The few buildings that means something to zed can be found in Ridleybank, and I don't think the RRF needs more help keeping that burb nice and red ;) PB&J 16:03, 17 September 2012 (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. There are currently no suggestions up for voting.