Developing Suggestions: Difference between revisions
RadicalWhig (talk | contribs) |
RadicalWhig (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
6. Eat dicks. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 00:26, 10 October 2012 (BST) | 6. Eat dicks. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 00:26, 10 October 2012 (BST) | ||
7. As Misanthropy. --[[User:RadicalWhig|RadicalWhig]] 04:55, 10 October 2012 (BST) | 7. As Misanthropy. --[[User:RadicalWhig|RadicalWhig]] 04:55, 10 October 2012 (BST) | ||
---- | ---- |
Revision as of 03:55, 10 October 2012
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. |
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
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
"Military Bases"
Timestamp: Spit50 06:50, 9 October 2012 (BST) |
Type: Terrain Change |
Scope: Everyone |
Description: I had this crazy idea that if we put in military bases into UD, it would make it interesting. Think about it, if you have no were to go, what cold be the safest place??? A military base! I was thinking, in the military base, everything you could find in NT buildings, hospitals, and police departments, could be found in the military base. It would be sick. Of course it would be a main place for zombie attacks, it would be worth it. The barricade status of military bases should have 1 to 2 levels of increase, meaning instead of extremely heavily barricaded, it can be barricaded up to 1 or 2 more levels, just to make it interesting. If this suggestion were to be implemented, as part of the story of UD with the whole zombie attack thing, UD could also explain that secret military bases were set up in order to control the infestation, also stating that they were recently found. its just an idea, but a great one in my opinion. The "call backup" suggestion would be perfect for this, especially for resources. It would make the game more fun. If anyone has suggestions to this idea, please add to it, nothing off topic though. |
Discussion ("Military Bases")
Three things. First: Fort Perryn. Second: Fort Creedy. Third: Barricades and revives (not to mention the other resources) are the most effective defense mechanisms humans have, and you are proposing to upgrade the former and add more places where the latter can be found and make them easier to defend. This may make play duller for the zombie population, though I will admit that I think that the current forts are slightly easier to breach than defend. -- † talk ? f.u. 10:16, 9 October 2012 (BST)
- Four things. The three listed above by Than...And 4: Suggestions Dos and Do Nots, especially the part that says, "Don't connect suggestions." --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:35, 9 October 2012 (BST)
5. Where would it be? --Ross Less Ness Enter Stranger... 21:06, 9 October 2012 (BST)
6. Eat dicks. 00:26, 10 October 2012 (BST)
7. As Misanthropy. --RadicalWhig 04:55, 10 October 2012 (BST)
Storms
Timestamp: · Amazingphobia 23:06, 25 September 2012 (BST) |
Type: I dunno |
Scope: Everyone |
Description: Face it. Nothing unpredictable happens on Urban Dead.
You know what's unpredictable? The weather. No, I'm not talking about a full weather system with sunshine and rain and hail and rainbows and sky frogs. I'm strictly talking about one relatively small addition that would create an all new facet of gameplay. Storms. A Storm has a 40% chance of occurring once every 24 hours. It wouldn't be at the same time every day, but rather every three hours a storm would randomly come into being or not based on how the dice rolled... and it would only decide "yes, let's make a storm" once every 24 hours. So what's a storm? A storm mimics the Halloween "fog" effect. However, tiles would read "Rain Storm". Having an umbrella in your inventory sets the map view back to normal! During this time, anyone caught outside would have their clothing effected as such... "Soaking wet" for standard clothes, and "Muddy" for footwear. Umbrellas would prevent "soaking wet" but not "muddy". The "Soaking wet" would be removed after the storm is gone, but the mud stays because water dries and dirt/mud doesn't just evaporate. There would be two random events that would also randomly occur during a storm:
"Why?" you ask... Because it throws a monkey wrench into things. Essentually because it's somethign unpredictable that will happen and give you a reason to do something.
|
Discussion (Storms)
I prefer my weather suggestion a bit more. Er...Sort of. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:21, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- Surely this is a dupe? --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 23:22, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- "Pigeon poop" is not a dupe of "Cream cheese". In other words, just because someone suggested all-encompassing weather system(s) doesn't mean a simple "duplucate fog with cool add-ons" is a dupe. · Amazingphobia 23:35, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- btw, Axe's suggestion even points out his is not a dupe because his is complex and the others aren't. My arguement is the reverse. Mine is simple or elegant and his will never get in because it's complicated. · Amazingphobia 23:37, 25 September 2012 (BST)
Actual Mannequins
Timestamp: · Amazingphobia 03:27, 25 September 2012 (BST) |
Type: Flavor |
Scope: Humans directly, Zombies indirectly |
Description: So. Mannequins.
You should be able to find mannequins in malls, which could then be used to 'decorate' an area in the same way as current decorative items. The difference is that when you set it up, you'll have the clothing option drop-downs for that area. So in effect you could decorate a Police Station with a mannequin in police garb. To keep things relatively spam free (because you don't want three mannequins with five items each on, all cluttering the page) you'd only be able to set up one mannequin per location with the fail message: "There is already a mannequin here." and nothing more need be said. If you select more than three clothing items for your mannequin, any items beyond the first three are placed with "and more". ie: "This room is decorated with a mannequin dressed in a white hoodie, a white t-shirt, white slacks, and more." (Or however this is currently phrased in-game.) This makes is so that you can choose any type of clothing you want... hat, shoes, etc. Otherwise to prevent spam we'd have to do things like block clothing types. This way you can pick from anything, but it's just a matter of the first three ending up being recorded. When a zombie smashes a clothed mannequin, they recieve 2 XP instead of the traditional 1 XP. Undressed mannequins just give the 1 XP. Additionally up for discussion: Should people be able to re-dress or strip mannequins? If so, how would that work on the game view? Additionally up for discussion: Would it be better if, to dress a mannequin, you had to edit your profile and actually put something you're wearing onto the mannequin? This would enable you to "bring" clothes from other locations. Clothes you place on would of course remove whatever was in that slot. No taking things or taking things back. |
Discussion (Actual Mannequins)
My version is better. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 08:44, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- Link? I did a search for "Mannqeuin" but admittedly didn't look far into the results. · Amazingphobia 19:09, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- Many years ago, my first edit to this wiki was to this very page, and a suggestion called mannequin. I was immediately taken to vb for spamming the page with humorous suggestions, only for grim to save me by pointing out ds is for all suggestions however retarded.
- To recap. Mannequins could be found by searching clothes stores in malls. (2% base value). They took up 10% encumbrance. They could be placed, like decorative objects. HOWEVER, rather than be objects, they remained in the stack, with your own profile. If they were attacked, they were automatically destroyed (for 2xp). They were, in effect a pretend version of your ingame character. Useful for hiding from griefers, making empty buildings look like they were full, and generally annoying the hell out of everyone. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 19:39, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- Ah. Yeah, I was thinking more like the sexy mannequin in the corner in the fishnet stockings. Or bunny suit. Or whatever you want to say about your group. <_< · Amazingphobia 21:22, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- How are either of those things more sexy than me? --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 22:35, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- So when you said zombies would 'attack' your mannequin... you meant sexually. · Amazingphobia 22:50, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- Obviously. Unless I attack "myself" first. Would you do me? I'd do me. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 22:54, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- No offense, but I've been seeing this transparent bikini-clad torso for a while now. · Amazingphobia 23:16, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- Fair.--I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 23:23, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- No offense, but I've been seeing this transparent bikini-clad torso for a while now. · Amazingphobia 23:16, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- Obviously. Unless I attack "myself" first. Would you do me? I'd do me. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 22:54, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- Maybe we could combine suggestions. Mannequin looks like you unless you decide to dress it differently. XD · Amazingphobia 22:52, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- So when you said zombies would 'attack' your mannequin... you meant sexually. · Amazingphobia 22:50, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- How are either of those things more sexy than me? --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 22:35, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- Ah. Yeah, I was thinking more like the sexy mannequin in the corner in the fishnet stockings. Or bunny suit. Or whatever you want to say about your group. <_< · Amazingphobia 21:22, 25 September 2012 (BST)
- To recap. Mannequins could be found by searching clothes stores in malls. (2% base value). They took up 10% encumbrance. They could be placed, like decorative objects. HOWEVER, rather than be objects, they remained in the stack, with your own profile. If they were attacked, they were automatically destroyed (for 2xp). They were, in effect a pretend version of your ingame character. Useful for hiding from griefers, making empty buildings look like they were full, and generally annoying the hell out of everyone. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 19:39, 25 September 2012 (BST)
APPS
Timestamp: · Amazingphobia 01:50, 24 September 2012 (BST) |
Type: Object, sort of. |
Scope: Humans |
Description: I was thinking about modern products, etc., which have become ubiquitous since the dawn of Urban Dead. One is the phenomenal rise of the "smart phone" as opposed to the cells found in UD.
So in that regard, I'd like to see cell phones a bit smarter. There should be a series of "apps" that are available for use on cell phones when cell service is available. Apps would not come pre-installed on cells, and would instead have to be shared with you by another player or "discovered" during cell use. For example, when using your cell, and additional message reading "You discover a map application." would appear below your normal call. (This happens only once per app, and it's randomized.) To explain 'sharing' an app, you'd be able to send any app you have to another player in the same way you'd place a call. Everything is identical except the app notice would be 'forced' with your message, not randomly aquired. You'd recieve an additional drop-down next to your cell with names of the apps once you aquire at least one app. Selecting one and clicking the phone button lets you use that app. Default selection is 'none'. List of possible apps:
And so on. The possibilities are endless for these sort of "mini features". Please don't ask where the smart phones came from. Where did generators come from when they were added? You just "noticed people carrying them" in the news announcement. |
Discussion (APPS)
Could be an interesting way to give mobiles and mobile towers some relevance. What it would take for that are some apps that can't be replicated by userscripts. -- Spiderzed█ 06:43, 24 September 2012 (BST)
- Indeed. I know there are faults with it so far, but I figured it was worth opening up to discussion, etc. Plus (I used to say this in 2005, so forgive me if this sounds stupid now) it's good to keep in mind all the players, new or just casual players, who don't know about or don't want to use (or can't use) out-of-game resources. Back in the day, I remember someone suggesting that Necrotech buildings should be colored differently, or that lit buildings should, something like that... and everyone was replying: "KILL - Get the Firefox script." Reminding folks not everyone used Firefox just incited "Use Firefox, then." Ha ha. · Amazingphobia 01:59, 25 September 2012 (BST)
Peekaboo
Timestamp: A Big F'ing Dog 23:12, 23 September 2012 (BST) |
Type: Skill |
Scope: Zombies |
Description: Right now zombies face a huge challenge in dealing with barricade strafing and river tactics. Sure, a good horde can take over any building they want and hold it ruined for a long time. But what good does that do if survivors can abandon it and hide in any of the many other buildings next door? Here's an idea to make it dangerous for survivors to let a building stay ruined:
Peekaboo (Don't worry, just a placeholder name until someone suggests something more appropriate) As decay sets into Malton's buildings gaps appear in the ruined walls allowing a glimpse of the tasty prey next door. Zombies with the Memories of Life subskill Peekaboo are smart enough to stare through these small gaps. While standing inside buildings that have been ruined for 5 consecutive days or more, zombies with the skill can see how many standing survivors and zombies are inside adjacent buildings. The adjacent buildings you can see into only includes those north, south, east and west, not diagonally adjacent ones. And the gaps are not large enough to let you see individual player names or profiles. Although zombies can see into the adjacent buildings they cannot free run into them. Trying to do so just places them outside the building as normal. And no, you cannot see from an intact building into a ruined one. The gaps may be there, but there's too much debris and dust in the way to easily stare into the ruined building. You also cannot see from one ruined building into another ruined building, meaning that this skill cannot reveal survivors hiding in ruined structures. This is an X-Ray skill suggestion, which is usually a big no-no, however it's based entirely on letting a building stay ruined for a significant period of time. Want your safehouse to be safe? Don't let zombies party for days on end in the building next door. |
Discussion (Peekaboo)
I hate the inconsistent nonsense of it. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 23:29, 23 September 2012 (BST)
- Seconding Ross. I have nothing against a suggestion that makes running away a bit more unattractive, but as it is it is just weirdly inconsistent. -- Spiderzed█ 06:45, 24 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.
- by A Big F'ing Dog at 18:16, 19 September 2012 (BST)
- by A Big F'ing Dog at 00:42, 16 September 2012 (BST)