Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

This page is for presenting and discussing suggestions which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.

Further Discussion

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

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Please Read Before Posting

• Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. There you can read about many idea's that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe, or a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles. There users can also get a handle of what an appropriate suggestion looks like.
• Users should be aware that this is a talk page, where other users are free to use their own point of view, and are not required to be neutral. While voting is based off of the merit of the suggestion, opinions are freely allowed here.
• It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.
• With the advent of new game updates, users are requested to allow some time for the game and community to adjust to these changes before suggesting alterations.

How To Make a Suggestion

Format for Suggestions under development

Please use this template for discussion. Copy all the code in the box below, click [edit] to the right of the header "Suggestions", paste the copied text above the other suggestions, and replace the text shown here in red with the details of your suggestion.

===Suggestion===
{{suggestionNew
|suggest_time=~~~~
|suggest_type=Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.
|suggest_scope=Who or what it applies to.
|suggest_description=Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive.
|discussion=|}}
====Discussion (Suggestion Name)====
----

Cycling Suggestions

Developing suggestions that appear to have been abandoned (i.e. two days or longer without any new edits) will be given a warning for deletion. If there are no new edits it will be deleted seven days following the last edit.

This page is prone to breaking when there are too many templates or the page is too long, so sometimes a suggestion still under strong discussion will be moved to the Overflow-page, where the discussion can continue between interested parties.

The following suggestions are currently on the Overflow page: No suggestions are currently in overflow.

If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the deletion warning template please remove the {{SNRV|X}} at the top of the discussion section. This will show that there is active conversation again.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list.

---

Suggestions

Alternative Flare Gun Use

Timestamp:	Chaplain Drakon Macar 21:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivor
Description:	After ages of chasing GKers and PKers about Malton I have finally begun to LOATHE all dark buildings. Well after a bit of consideration I had come up with the brilliant idea of a "small fire" lighting the building for a short while and dimly at that. Well I had considered a few alternatives to this. Actually starting a fire, well, lets all sit and laugh at the miserable failures in the past, automatic shoot down right there. I thought of making it a non-weapon skill of a sorts. Well who here really feels like spending an AP for a couple AP of light? Then it dawned on me...we have something that can be seen 10AP + away. The flare gun! Well after a few scenarios I had come up with a use for indoors. In a dark building you click your flare gun as normal or attack someone/something, it will become a lit building for say 2 minutes per flare (non-commutative). After the 2 minutes you loose your light. Firer would get: "You aim your flare into the center of the room and shoot. The flare bounces along the ground and lights the area, slowly burning out." Spectators would get: "A flare bounces across the room, lighting the area while it burns out." Outsiders would see: "A glow of light comes from inside." While it sits you would get no message but this nifty add on would come at a cost. Considering how thick headed most humans can be, it would not be unlikely for someone to aim directly above their head and hit the roof, only to have the projectile land on them. I feel that a 10% of shooting yourself for the full 15HP, regardless of using the flare to attack or just to try to find something, should be appropriate. Shooting yourself gets this: "You aim the flare gun above your head and shoot the roof, the flare falls and hits you for 15 HP." This was originally pitched to solve the hunting problem that Pro-survivors have but hey the desperate may find this as a way for a little item hunting usage.

Discussion (Alternative Flare Gun Use)

You can simply the part of your suggestion concerning "You aim the flare gun above your head and shoot the roof, the flare falls and hits you for 15 HP." by just saying instead that the flare has a 10% chance of ricocheting back onto the user. -- Galaxy125 22:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Dumping a specific body

Timestamp:	■■ 19:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill, balance change, improvement, etc.
Scope:	Zombies and Corpses/Bodies
Description:	This is the same as 'Targeted Feeding' suggestion, except with bodies. I'm suggesting that a drop-down list be added to the dump button. This would allow you to dump specific corpses/bodies that are on your contacts list. Corpses being dumped would receive the message the existing message. The list would include "a body" as the default option.

Discussion Dumping a specific body

Rather pointless, IMO, but I don't really care one way or the other. What would the use be of being able to dump specific bodies? --Pestolence^(talk) 19:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Reviving bodies enjoy being able to stand up in a powered hospital. -- Galaxy125 19:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a blow to zombie anonymity, but I think it is fairly reasonable. However, the AP cost of dumping a specific body should reflect the additional amount of time or energy you spend making sure you're dumping the right one. -- Galaxy125 19:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

How would this hurt anonymity? You'd have to have them in your contacts list before you could dump specific individuals. Besides, it'd be "corpse anonymity" ;). --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [520,28]} 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Corpse anonymity, sure. What I mean is, if a player attacks you and then is killed by another person but not dumped (and is a corpse among others on the floor), you would be able to quick-add that person to your contacts list and dump that specific one, even though (for all intents and purposes) you realistically shouldn't necessarily be able to identify it unless you spend extra energy doing so (hence the AP cost). -- Galaxy125 22:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

So, a random chance of taking one or two AP? _■^■ 20:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Random AP expenditures would get annoying. I'd say just up the dump cost by 1 AP. -- Galaxy125 22:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Could make a difference in a siege if the annoying rotters get dumped first, or if reviving bodies don't get dumped so an extra AP cost sounds quite reasonable. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea, if you notice someone has rezz'd a PK'r or a greifer, it could save you alot of bother and AP but if you are the griefer this will annoy you, but still the dumping of a known body does make sense--mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ 21:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

---

IP limit change

Timestamp:	Angusburger 18:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	All players, IP limit
Description:	I need advice on this, whether it is a dupe or not. The IP limit applies to all of us, human zombie no matter. And it says you are only allowed 160 actions per day. So why does the hit limit apply to clicking options such as 'logging in/out', 'buy skills' and 'settings'. I propose that the IP limit be restricted to in game actions. Is it a dupe???

Discussion (IP limit change)

Bot-makers would have a field day. There's a purpose to the limit and it isn't just to deter zergers. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [520,28]} 20:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The point of the IP limit is to save Kevan's bandwidth. Logging in uses the same amount of bandwidth as actually doing something. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Targeted Feeding

Timestamp:	Midianian Big Brother Diary Room: [511,27] 11:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill change
Scope:	Zombies and corpses
Description:	I'm suggesting that a drop-down list be added to the feeding button. This would allow you to bite specific corpses that are on your contacts list, as a kind of partial zombie equivalent to the newspaper (zombies do spend a considerable amount of time as corpses). Corpses being fed on would receive the message Player X fed on your corpse., while others would get the same message they do now. The list would include "a corpse" as the default option. This would give everyone the regular message.

Discussion (Targeted Feeding)

Good idea. You can target nearly every action on a specific player, so I can't see why corpses should be any different. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do like this idea, it makes it just a little bit more creepy to add the blood messages on the walls! --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ 20:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I was planning on suggesting something like that separately :). --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [510,28]} 10:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I also want to be able to dump specific bodies. _■^■ 02:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's too different from this. This is just informational, while dumping bodies serves a functional purpose. I would probably vote keep if you suggested that separately, but I have a feeling that it's a dupe. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [510,28]} 10:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And, dumping the experienced zeds first could make a difference in a siege. I can't see this making any difference in any combat situation. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Efficient Syringe

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 02:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Item\Game Change.
Scope:	Survivors.
Description:	This makes two kinds of syringes: Manufactured and Found. Manufactured syringes, called 'Adv. Revivification Syringes' are more efficient as they are engineered to combat the zombie virus as it currently is, instead of the regular ones which were designed to combat the virus as it was before, and as such adv. syringes bring you back with 3/4 of your health (37/50, or 45/60.) instead of 1/2. Other than that adv. sytinges have the same properties as regular ones.

Discussion (Efficient Syringe)

This would give some benefit to the currently useless ability to manufacture syringes for 20 AP. I can't see anything wrong with it. --Pestolence^(talk) 02:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much as what Pestolence said, and what I said to the extremely similar suggestion here the other day. Just as long as it doesn't cure infection... Linkthewindow  Talk  05:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Takes xp away from newbie survivors who go out to heal, and not combat the zombies day-in, day-out and provides more xp to zombies from those new survivors who get locked out on the street after getting a revive. As well it combines the main effect of two items into one super-item that in certain situations could be gotten for less AP (actually finding a hospital and searching for the 1-3 FAKs on top of getting the syringe), provide a better healing function when hospitals are all ruined (NT's have a back and forth mentality to them more-so then hospitals and are in higher regard to be defended) and relieve the user of several IP hits to get the items, as well as a one shot administeer process for a max of 4 items usually taken. In the end it hurts newbies more then the health drop, and buffs up senior players in mass-ruin situations. As well the move from a gauranteed syringe to a gauranteed syringe/FAK is a bit much. At least healing infection is a minor function that doesn't effect all players to begin with for several reasons.--G-Man 20:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention the drop in encumberance this would allow for dedicated members of groups who both revive and heal they're undead players. An effect felt most on those who work together in large groups, but not truly given to those who choose to go it alone. Allowing those who can do the most damage, the capicity to do so for more ammo resulting in more zombies getting kicked out of buildings easier. The change has the potential to be massive in effect even for such a little thing.--G-Man 20:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The people using these syringes did have to spend 20ap per syringe though. It's hardly a walk in the park, or fun game play for that matter.--xoxo 22:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You are bitching about 20 AP when you are one of the idiots repairing 100+ ruins? WTF?-- #99 ^DCC 15:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Since when were people repairing buildings idiots? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he's calling survivors idiots not for repairing buildings, but for letting them get to the point where it takes 100AP to repair the building instead of striking quicker.--G-Man 12:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That 20AP is now overshadowed by the fact you don't have to spend 20AP to fix the hospital in a ruined suburb, god knows how much AP clearing out the zombies inside, 7-15AP searching for the FAK's regardless of the two previvous options, 8AP searching for the syringe, as well as the AP to move inbetween the two buildings and the possibility to heal an extra 15HP outside a powered hospital. As well the convinence of meeting up with the survivor after the revive to actually heal them is now overlooked to an instant heal and up to 3AP saved there to administer the FAK's. Mind you it is limited to revivies instead of alive survivors, but most of the wounded come from those revived anyway. It may sound good at a glance but the benefits it provides are insane, and it would save Much more AP in the end then it takes.--G-Man 02:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this retarded idea is one step away from needles you can use on your self. Just because you spend more AP on it it doesn't mean it has to be better. That's insane. So by that logic the more AP you spend searching for a bullet the more damage it will do? What's the point? (other than to shut the whining survivors up) Leave manufactured syringes as a last ditch effort like they are meant to be. -- #99 ^DCC 23:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a bad idea per say, but, to have even a slight chance of getting it through the suggestions page, you should point out that the manufactured syringes do not cure infections. As to G-Man's point on dedicated groups - I thought it was generally agreed that suggestions that encouraged coordination were a good thing? Sanpedro 00:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This doesnt encourage coordination. the benefit is only recieved by the reviver who would normaly have to carry more FAK's for the heal after if they act as the healer in a group, not the revive-ie who can receive the benefit regardless by needing less FAK's to heal themselves no matter what group, if any they're assiociated with as this provides enough benefits to become the main syringes used. In the end they have more space to store ammo, while the reviver has more room for ultra-syringes creating a double headed spear, further against the zombie hoard. Whats worse, thats just in the act of reviving, on top of the other benefits I mentioned above that have to be weighed with this in mind as well. Im sorry but this is rediculous in the face of whats in place.--G-Man 02:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

OOOOHHHH!! YEAH! WEZ SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THESZ BULLETS LIKE IN WANTED!!! OMGZ!!! THEN THEY CAN BE SNIPER BULLETS SHOOTING THROUGH CITY BLOCKS AND ONE HITS KILLZ! MAKE THEM COST 10 AP! THAT MAKES IT FAIR!>!>@!@.

I Apoligize for what i just typed. Even though it was a joke... it was painful. - tylerisfat 03:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No DCC, it's the fact that the syringe is newer than the one you found, that'd been sitting on the shelf for who knows how long, gathering dust is what makes it more effective. A lot of medicines have a 'Best Before' date too, y'know. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 09:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That explanation doesn't fit this sugestion. The syringes currently sitting on shelfs, aviable since the start of the outbreak still do the same work, not less as that situation would inspire (With the manufactured having the current effect), or more then the manufactured based on the time having an effect on the contents. This proposed change is basicly a change in the formula to the new syringes, or else the old syringes would have to be changed as well in one way or another without the manufactured syringes changed.--G-Man 12:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your grasping at straws there. Syringes have already been changed multiple times since their initial form. For a start they used to only cost 1AP to use but be a fair bit rarer. The excuse when the AP cost changed was that the Zombies were growing immune and thus required a larger dose. Dropping the revive cost is always shouted down so the only way for manufactured syringes to be improved is to tinker with their effect and that means one of 3 options; chance to cure infection, increased stand up health or chance to work on rotters. Personally i prefer the chance to cure infection as it makes the most sense, it also further nerfs an already pretty weak skill so its not going to pass. this suggestion goes to far on the HP thing but i could see merit in it increasing stand up health by 5. Reviving rotters has never been suggested and its probably a good job too as even thinking about DCC's response makes me shudder ;) --Honestmistake 19:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Giving it the ability to give health, even 5 makes it the equilivant of a new users FAK on top of a revive. Two items combined into one super-item isn't always a good idea, especially when they're seperate for a reason. Health change just doesn't cut it as a viable option. Chance to revive rotters goes against the entire point of that skill, so the best option is probably to find a way for infection to be a better skill (Note to readers:That does not mean it takes away more health, its been proposed mannny times before) and then have the manufactered syringe as the main counter to the change. Even if the infection can not be healed before someone stands is a start as it often happens anyway (At least from my experience) and FAK's only have a chance to heal an infection. Or a chance for infection to kick in when someone dies by the claws of an attacker, and a slight increase to the chance to bite could be another option. Mind you each comes with its own problems, and assoiciated mishaps however I don't think it should be passed until it has a viable counter to its increase (even if its an existing one) so its somewhat evened out for a change to something thats worked for over a year (I've never run into problems with this system), unlike this suggestion which buffs the survivor population on several fronts to throw them further on top of the ladder just by sitting in there local NT instead of at least moving between there and the local hospital.--G-Man 12:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There you have hit on the nub of the problem, many feel that manufactured syringes should be better than found ones but all the options to do so could cause a significant shift in balance. I think what is needed is for infection cures to no longer be automatic... I remember discussing an improved infection (Virulent Infection?) where we wanted to give Faks a % chance to cure. Don't think we finalised numbers because it didn't look likely to pass but I would still support something on those lines because it would make for a more scary game.--Honestmistake 12:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

this a bad idea because it's a revive plus a couple of FAKs in a spiffy new all-in-one package. however, i want to point out that going on about how easy survivors have it and how hard it is for zombies, waaah waah waah like DCC (or whichever goon it is, they all look alike to me :P )... you're dinosaurs. with the recent updates, the balance has been shifted. playing the survivor hard is a LOT harder now than it used to be. which is a good thing. and the game isn't perfectly balanced. but the days of screaming about the huge AP imbalance are over. though, like bell bottoms and big hair and arena rock, i'm sure it'll make a kitchy comeback... --WanYao 15:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

---

IRC Chat

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 16:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Addition
Scope:	All Players
Description:	Whilst I am aware there is a whole page for Urban Dead IRC channels I feel the game could potentially benefit from an offical IRC channel. By official I actually mean one that Kevan supports by including a link to it next to the News/FAQ/Wiki/Donate buttons. I don't feel this will nerf other forms of communication because IRC chat will only be avalible if you are connected, where as Radio/Talk have a history stored for you to read when you log in. This means that IRC should only be useful to people acting in Real Time with each other and although this is a rare occurance it would greatly enhance the experiance because players can now interact more fluidly whilst playing together and saving chat AP for when they really need to talk or announce something for people who are not online.

Discussion (IRC Chat)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  21:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it me or are the only IRC channels that have active people on for dedicated groups. Not players in general...--Kamikazie-Bunny 16:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That is true, but for most groups they don't mind you hanging around, such as the #redrum and #rrf-ud channels.--Drawde ^{Talk To Me! DORIS Яed Яum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing!} 21:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think (don't quote me on this) there used to be a general one, but it got spammed to hell so everybody bailed on it.--xoxo 04:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it would be spammed to hell, or just be completely inactive. There are a few general purpose channels, but they don't seem to active. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

IRC is easy to find and do, if it's your schtick, you'll go there. If it's not, you shouldn't really bother... As the saying goes:" you can lead a Mrh? cow to brainz, but you can't force him to barg"... --WanYao 23:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Review the character limit for radio tranmissions.

Timestamp:	Three Dog 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	Any survivors using the radio
Description:	I was wondering, Since I started the Galaxy News Radio i've found that the very small amount of characters you can use is at best, a thorn in my side, couldn't it be possible to make the transmission amount of characters the same as for speaking, it makes perfect sense really. I understand that the limit is there to stop spamming of the radio channels, however they can still spam, just it takes more ap, and if it takes up a new line everytime they broadcast something, it probably makes more of a mess. Not to mention something like this would greatly benifit the many radio stations around the cities. I appologise if this has been brought up before in suggestions, and if it has feel free to delete it.

Discussion (Review the character limit for radio tranmissions.)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 3 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  21:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds kind of dupey, but I'm pretty sure the limit is there from a technical point of view. Only the people in your current building can see speech, while everyone with a transmitter can see radio. I guess it may be there to save Kevan bandwidth. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

So because they can "still spam" we should make it EASIER?--Pesatyel 07:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No way! Can you imagine how much more pure, unadulterated GARBAGE this would create? Imagine Real Gamer, Timmy the Trenchie, those counting people on 28.01, and all the noobs who ask for help or broadcast things like "Come to the fire station we have ammoz!!1" on the radio. Now imagine them broadcasting 3 or 4 times as much crap as they do now. Ignore this Voice, in voting now, could neutralize this in the unlikely event that it is implemented, but then Frequently Suggested says don't suggest anything that most people will choose not to see. --Pestolence^(talk) 02:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The 'Out of AP' Page

Timestamp:	Yungblood 02:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	interface
Scope:	the forgettful and the busy
Description:	unlike my other suggestions, this one is abnormally simple: You are still able to view your inventory and drop items when you have run out of AP. Once, you run out of AP, you are given the message 'You are asleep' for humans and 'You are swaying slightly' for zombies. The page is then useless and you can no longer interact with the game. My suggestion is that you will still be able to view your inventory, but the list is no longer in 'button' style. Also, you can drop any item as you would if you still had AP. This would give survivors a chance to drop what they were to busy to drop while in-game. If this is a dupe, then I'm sorry. I'm horrible at searching for dupes.

Discussion (The 'Out of AP' Page)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 3 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  21:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the point? You can drop stuff once you get AP back, and there's never really any hurry to drop stuff.  Swiers 04:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not good from a RP point of view, ether. You are sleeping when you are out of AP. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And if your in that much of a hurry, its only half an hour. What about zombies?--Pesatyel 07:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

zombies can still drop stuff ;) --xoxo 11:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, im a person who only checks my accounts once a day, so I guess why that affects me. i usually let my AP get the full 50. -- Yungblood 16:28, 23 November (EST)

You can also use the back-page button to go back and review your inventory and make plans for the next day.  Swiers 14:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Bloody Clothing V.2

Timestamp:	Galaxy125 20:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC), changed to v.2 11:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Minor Improvement - Clothing Adjustment
Scope:	Survivors.
Description:	I propose that blood-flecked, blood-stained and blood-soaked clothing reduce the infection-curing powers of the FAK when the FAK is administered outside of a lit hospital. Specifically, I suggest that blood-flecked clothing reduce the likelihood that an FAK will cure an infection by 15% , blood-stained by 25%, and blood-soaked by 35%. The bloodiness value of the most-bloody article of clothing is used to gauge this. This will have no effect on the amount of XP acquired through healing fellow survivors, as I wouldn't want to penalize survivors for healing their fellow person. This is motivated by the unhygienic qualities of bloody clothing, and is meant solely as a realism boost. It is assumed that in a lit hospital, survivors would have sufficient time and wherewithal to strip dirty clothing from the antivirus injection site.

Discussion (Bloody Clothing V.2)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 2 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  21:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This would be way too confusing, since the survivor would appear to have two different HP totals at the same time. --Pestolence^(talk) 20:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Pestolence. We would have EVERYONE wearing bloody clothes. What's the hinderance to that?--Pesatyel 22:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If infection cure was not 100% and bloody clothing reduced the chances further i could see a point... as is its just a confusiong fluff for no good (in game) reason. --Honestmistake 01:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Interesting idea, though, but would just get annoying pretty fast. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

confusing and unnecessary. clothing is for flavour; it has no game-play impact. --WanYao 22:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's masks and fuel-stained clothes. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [510,24]} 10:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oooh, precedents (thank you Midianian!), but I agree with WanYao, Pestolence, Pesatyel and Honestmistake that it's too confusing. However, Honestmistake had an interesting (and far less confusing) idea for having bloody clothing partially prevent infection cures. I'll update the suggestion/idea to reflect that. Thank you all so far for your input, and I would appreciate more. -- Galaxy125 11:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Profile Reset

Timestamp:	Tony 07:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	just some things
Scope:	players in general
Description:	ok you know when you make your first profile you get a sweet name but later you want a fresh start BUT you DONT get keep that name of yours,well i propose that you use the wikito contact kevin or whoever to request a reset by sending them your character info and such, and it will only work if youhaving an acount on the wiki. il try to think of somthing to help with this.

Discussion (Profile Reset)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 4 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  21:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed your formatting. However, this is covered in the official FAQ. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [509,21]} 09:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just create a new character and capitalize a letter or add a number at the end. big freaking deal. Although, i wouldn't be so opposed to kevan doing a death purge of any character that hasn't been logged in for a year or more, to free up some names. - tylerisfat 21:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That is something i fully support... I also can't see why we cant have the same names in different cities/maps but that is a different matter!--Honestmistake 00:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That'd leave to confusion. What if a new guy rocked up and created Finis Valorum (coz he liked star wars like that) and then got PKed constantly and had zerging allegations threw at him. Far better to just create another name, there's still truckloads of them out there. In regards to this suggestion, nah, extra work for kevan and you might change your mind again. Create another character if you want.--xoxo 00:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand all the reasons to ban same names in same cities but in the case of new maps it just doesn't work..... sure a new Finis will probably get whacked (i waved at him myself?) but so will "finis valorum 99" or whatever... If there can be no transfer then there should be no name blocking... for gruds sake the new map dies in about a week so name blocking romm themis a real pain!--Honestmistake 01:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah i guess the different city is just a kevan thing. He could make Bwood profiles b1,b245 etc but i guess this was easier...--xoxo 01:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Same names in different cities could easily cause trouble. I certainly wouldn't want anyone running around in another city with the same name as my character in Malton. It's natural to assume that they're controlled by the same player. Anything they do there is going to be reflected on my character in Malton.

There are tons of names available, just pick one and make a new character. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [501,22]} 01:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be problematic. The profile interface is very simplistic. Having "Bob" 3 times with different classes and skills would just be too complicated and also unncessary. I mean there is already an infinite number of names out there. But I DO like Tyler's idea of deleting the oldest unused characters.--Pesatyel 05:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No. For about the 248th time. No profile resets. --WanYao 22:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I like it. I want to keep my character's name, but start over and not get Brain Rot.--Drugsanimudongs 10:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Look inside/outside

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 09:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Ability
Scope:	All players
Description:	Allows anyone, regardless of living/dead status, to look inside/outside of buildings, so long as there are no barricades and the doors are open. This adds a new button, labelled "Look through doors". By looking through the open doors, you can get a basic idea of what is awaiting you inside/outside. You cannot see outside graffiti from inside, but from the outside you can spot bloodstains and graffiti, but you are not close enough to read the graffiti, nor are you able to make out how much blood there is. You can spot players through open doors, but the following rules apply: If there is less than 5 people present, you will not spot them. If there is between 5 and 9 people present (inclusive), then you have a 10% chance of getting the message 'Through the open doors, you see something move.' If there is 10 to 14 people present (inclusive), there is a 25% chance you get the message 'Through the open doors, you see something large shifting around'. If there is 15 to 19 people present, there is a 50% chance you get the message 'Through the open doors, you see what appears to be a group of people'. If there is 20 or more people present, you will get the message 'Through the open doors, you spot a large group of people'. When I say 'people' , I mean both zombies and humans. This does nerf the Hiding in Plain Sight strategy somewhat, however only if you're in a large group.

Discussion (Look inside/outside)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  05:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Will this cost an AP? Pretty useless IMO-why not just enter the building? Linkthewindow  Talk  09:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The chances of a building with 20+ survivors inside having DWO is pretty low. Likewise 20+ zombies in a building would probably give clues outside. (It being ruined or the windows being smeared with bloody handprints. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No AP cost. It does take an IP hit, though. I was actually thinking about making it automatic. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if the doors are open, it'd be a better option to just enter the building and see everything and peek inside and get a vaugue description, assuming this suggestion requires AP. -- Yungblood 7:54, 20 November 2008 (EST)

I think if this was a freebie for whoever brings down the last level of cades (if they have MOL) or closes the door then i would say yes but as a generic freebie for all its not so good.--Honestmistake 22:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty useless; why not just enter the building? This also is Xray vision, which is a huge no no. --Pestolence^(talk) 01:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's borderline X-ray, but the lack of barricades makes it uncommon, and not as bad as other X-ray suggestions. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus, it also makes sense that you can look out an open door. Unlike other X-ray suggestions (one or more of which may have been my own) --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 07:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Could be fine if it was automatic, like if the doors are open you just get the status report on outside in the description, otherwise it's too pointless, so no.--xoxo 00:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Zombies In The Water

Timestamp:	Maunder 04:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	environment interaction
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Zombies should be able to walk in deep water (eg, style c85 "a river") that survivors cannot, as in Borehamwood. They're not breathing, after all, and haven't we seen them emerging from rivers and ponds etc in the movies? An automatic ability for anyone in a zombified state. Survivors are still prevented from entering deep water, with a message about the current or being weighed down by equipment, or even just You think about entering the deep water, but it looks too dangerous. To slow them down a little, it should take Zombies an extra AP to enter a deep water (so 3AP without Lurching Gait, 2AP with). Zombies in deep river would be invisible to anyone not in a deep water square themselves. Zombies in the deep river would be able to see others in deep water, since they're all underwater, but no one in shallow water or on land. Basically a deep water region of more than one block becomes visibly distinct from the surface and shallow-water area, just like being inside a multi-block building. Zombies can attack other zombies in the deep water, but damage from claws or melee weapons will be reduced by 2 points (but not below zero). Bite attacks work normally.

Discussion (Zombies In The Water)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 5 days.

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  21:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

most humans can swim, i wouldn't worry too much about logic.--xoxo 05:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Borehamwood is a temporary city so adding suggestions for it is pointless. Also, Malton has no water. But as said, why can't survivors swim across too? Then you have to deal with the ramifications of the water. What about water/underwater combat? Are zombies "invisible" underwater?--Pesatyel 05:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a river, perhaps the curent of the river is too strong for survivors to swim? As for no water in Malton, there is supposedly a "river" to the North, its just that the map would need to be expanded, which is possible in the future, even if it doesn't happen in the near future.--G-Man 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The river doesn't appear in the game, and if the current is too strong for survivors to swim, then how would zombies, who are supposedly slower and clumsier than humans, manage it? --Pestolence^(talk) 01:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Supposedly" is nothing and that doesn't counter the whole host of other things necessary to consider, as I stated.--Pesatyel 02:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

@Pestolance, think World War Z and the zeds in oceans, yes this is different but its a good example, the zombies are merely grounded, not trying to swim, which would be a huge difference. @Pesatyel, yes those would have to be considered, but this is still a start, and can be justified as just zombies with the ability to move through, as well as a possible spot in Malton that could be opened up in the future. It is something interesting to explore for future maps or additions to Malton and shoulden't be shot down so quickly.--G-Man 03:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, which cause me to elucidate my thoughts a bit further. I wanted to change one aspect of a map's dynamics and tactics, without changing the direct player interaction any: survivors can be "cornered" in a space bounded by deep water, but zombies cannot. Survivors cannot depend on a few access bridges as defensive choke points. I'm not trying for "realism" about how people should interact with water, so I'm not even going to suggest a rationale behind it other than its effects on game play. The consequence of my suggestion as it stands is that zombies could attack each other normally while in the deep river, but they'd have no interaction with survivors because there can't be any survivors there. You can think about changing combat in the water if you want to, or allowing humans to enter it too, but my proposal doesn't suggest that. If you're going to criticize my suggestion, shouldn't you actually address what I suggested? Or if you really think the suggestion ought to include those changes, can you explain why it's better that way, or what my suggestion lacks on its own? -- Maunder 03:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, even though it won't have a big impact on Malton as it stands, it's a relatively simple rule adjustment to implement and understand, and would have interesting effects for any future maps with deep water, whether they be short-term or long-standing (and may inspire the design of such maps!). -- Maunder 03:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Details are important to shoot down those who will vote down your susgestion based only on the lack of them. They expect rational situations and any sugestion (even here) to cover all bases, so it is imperitive that the suggested problems by Pesatyel be addressed. It makes sense so only the best suggestions make it through, that all players will be happy with, even if the suggestion system is broken based on voters taking sides instead of a neutral point of view. Don't worry, just figure out how those situations fit into your sugestion and then ask for comment on your proposed solutions. Even a basic idea can help someone here figure something out. Personnely I would have no survivors in the water, and zombies "invisible" in all spaces except for a few exceptions.

• When in the same space as another zombie, all zombies are visible.
• Zombies in a nearby water space to another zombie will be counted as "blurred images", and no accurate numbers will be given.
• Any survivors next to a water space have a "blurred image" of any zombies in adjacent water spaces.
• Any zombies in a water space have a "blurred Image" of any survivors/zombies on dry land.

As well I would go with the ability to attack, but no damage done or xp recieved, due to water slowing the blows. As for the actual message given to survivors, "You think about entering the water, but realise the current is too strong to swim across"--G-Man 03:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay I think some of these suggested changes are reasonable: invisibility, anyway, fits with the basic idea. Biting attacks would still work, and I'm not sure claws would be hindered much by the water either -- perhaps lower damage on them. But I'm wary of anything which over-complicates the suggestion, because that's less likely to get implemented. I'm dubious about a "blurred" image-- what would that look like? Doesn't sound easy to implement. So what do I do, change the suggestion as its written (making this discussion look moot), or submit a new one, or...? -- Maunder 21:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The lack of claws hitting is to make it so xp can't be gained from the "safety" of the water, where they are completly untouchable by survivors. As for the blurred image, what I mean is in the text it would say something along the lines of "you see the image of *fellow* zombies in the water nearby (not even a direction given), but can't quite make out how many are located there", or a spin as such.--G-Man 02:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Ignore this Voice

Suggestion:20081115 Ignore this Voice is up for voting. Discussion moved to here. Linkthewindow ^{Talk MCM} 07:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Depants

Suggestion:20081125 Depants is up for voting. Discussion moved to here.