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

Level Limit

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 20:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Diversity
Scope:	All Players
Description:	As most players are probably aware once you reach level 43 (unless your rot free) you become exactly the same as everyone else... Varying XP costs encourage diversity for lower level characters but that soon becomes redundant once players begin accumulating XP with more ease. A level limit would help encourage higher level characters to focus their skills and be suited to particular roles. The level limit should not be high enough to penalise players who prefer different tactics or dual nature so a limit of 10% of the maximum possible skills should be acceptable. So I'm suggesting a maximum level based on the formula. Maximum Level = Skill Count - (Skill Count x 0.1) In order to prevent current players gaining an unfair advantage/losing skills I'd suggest the current limit be capped at lvl45 and this not be brought into effect until the Skill Count = 50. I am aware that this is not likely to happen for a while but I am putting this up for discussion now as opposed to in the future when the level cap would need to be higher.

Discussion (Level Limit)

No. Don't mess with other people's XP or choices. They worked for them. Linkthewindow  Talk  21:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I kind of like that any player can do anything. I just wish there was more to do! --A Big F'ing Dog 21:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

'Leveling up' is not the point of this game. Role play. That will give you an infinite amount to do. Stop hiding in the malls and try to run a Rotter Revive Clinic. Have a zombie who goes into the middle of green suburbs and destroy buildings on your own. Repair ruined buildings. There are plenty of challenges beyond leveling. - tylerisfat 08:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is irrelevant and redundant as there already IS a level limit. Once you acquire all the skills (that you want) in the game, you have reached the limit. What you REALLY seem to be arguing is that Kevan shouldn't include more than 50 skills total. Or your suggesting there be single choice skills or something. I cna't tell becuase this suggestion is stupid.--Pesatyel 04:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to simplify it for you as you can't seem to grasp the concept; two examples:

• When 50 skills are available the maximum amount you can have is 45.
• When 100 skills are available the maximum amount you can have is 90.

What this should mean is that when you have maxed out there will still be some variance amongst the top level players. Granted 5 out of 50 skills isn't too much of a difference when you consider that for quite a few players the ROT tree would make up some of those skills and there will be a core set (free run/barricade/lurching gate), but it would still promote a little variance. This has nothing to do with limiting the skills available in game, only the ones your character can make use of. The level cap till 50 was suggested to prevent problems if it was implemented now. As the game stands now imagine you were limited to 39 skills instead of 43, everyone would be almost identical but with slight variations making them better suited for certain tasks. At least I hope... --Kamikazie-Bunny 12:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That DOES clarify things, thanks. The problem is is your limiting what skills that can be included and you don't take into account zombie skills. You also can't limit it that way. How would it work anyway? The only way it would work is if the next 7 skills are all included SIMULTANEOUSLY. Othwerwise you would not be able to dictate the limit. Once we hit 50 skills, HOW would you enforce the limit if everyon has 49 and the limit doesn't kick in until 50? To use your example of current mechanics, if I were limited to 39 skills instead of the full 43, players would be LOSING skills to meet the limitation and nobody would do that. I DO like the idea of diversity, but not THIS way. Not where players have to lose skills they aleady have.--Pesatyel 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What might work better is to make it cost more to buy more skills. Say the first 10 are normal cost, then the next 5 cost double, the next five x4, the next five x8, the next five x16 (thats up to level 30 there) and so on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swiers (talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC).

Hell no. This wouldn't change anything for the characters who only play one side, but would be a severe blow to dual nature characters. Also, the "encourage higher level characters to focus their skills and be suited to particular roles" thing is already done quite well by the limited inventory space. If you want to encourage it further, suggest a smaller inventory. The current limit is ridiculously high anyway. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [518,13]} 18:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Monroeville Endgame

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 09:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Scenario
Scope:	Monroeville characters
Description:	I think it's pretty safe to say that Monroeville is dead. Or, more accurately, undead. Thus, I propose the following 'endgame' scenario. The first stage of the endgame is to un-hide every character. Idling out no longer hides characters. In the same vein as Night of the Living Dead, the military is called in with the task of eliminating everything that still stands, burning the bodies as they go to fully eradicate the infestation. Eliminating a zombie is done the same way as in the movie: pile up the bodies and start a bonfire. Bonfires are started by use of a fuel can and flare gun. One fuel can will douse all bodies in an area, one Flare gun blast will ignite all doused bodies in an area. New characters can be made, but they will all be of the same class: "Marine". Marines start at Level 5 with an Assault Rifle, a pistol and an extra clip for each. Their starting skills are Basic Firearm Training, Basic Pistol Training, Radio Operation, Free Running and Headshot. Their task is to eliminate all the zombies in the city. After two weeks, no more marine characters can be made. From then on, the game has two possible outcomes: Marines win or Zombies win. Marines win if the only characters that are still alive are of the class Marine. Zombies win if all the characters still alive are of the class Zombie. In either case, once one of the two Monroeville Endgame outcomes is reached, the city is deemed officially over. All characters within will be deleted and we will finally be done with it.

Discussion (Monroeville Endgame)

The endgame already happened and zombies won. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [511,12]} 11:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I guess we need to end Monroeville someday... Linkthewindow  Talk  11:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What about those survivors still alive?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the only real problem with ending it now, but I can't really see a compromise. As Kevan said somewhere (I can't find the quote,) ether NecroTech sets up in Monroeville, or we simply transfer all characters to Malton. Personally, I don't like ether (NT-we don't want to split the player base too much, and people would expect the same for Borehamwood+future cities, and Malton, don't want to have a forced ending.) But that's just me. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What I think would make a good end game would be a "scenario" style thing. All remaining survivors have to make it to a a given point within a given period of time to "escape" the city. If the the survivors can get to the location(s) and stay there for X amount of time, ah helicopter will rescue them. The military will send a radio transmission to anyone listening to the frequenc(ies) telling them the coordinates of up to 4 locations in the city and a period of time of, say 3 days, to start say 2 weeks from the first broadcast. Any survivors that can make it to one of those locations AND survive for, say 24 hours at the location will be "rescued". Also, if the player fires a flare from a clear location (ie. not one of the 4 coded locations, but clear, like a street, park or other space for a helicopter to land) there is, say, a 30% chance of rescue. Somthing like that.--Pesatyel 04:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Helicopters

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 18:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Ok, I know vehicles have been suggested before and it's generally a bad/ridiculous idea but here I've tried to write a working idea for helicopters in game. Let me know what you think please. This suggestion has a few elements so I'll try to explain it as simple as possible. Helicopters would allow single survivors to travel between malls and forts, being the only places with large enough flat roofs or a helipad to land on. There would be a limited number of helicopters and obviously you could only use one if one is present. In mall squares or in the fort armory when a helicopter is present the room description would say "A helicopter is upstairs on the roof" or "X helicopters are on the roof" if there is more than one. If a helicopter is present survivors that purchase a "Piloting" skill would have a dropdown display. It would list every mall and both forts. If they have a fuel can they can fly to the location of their choice. Flying moves them, and the helicopter, to that location and deducts the fuel can from their inventory and lowers their AP by 15. I think a good number of helicopters would be 10 throughout the city, starting with 5 at each fort. Over time these would spread out and transfer between the 20 malls and 2 forts however survivors use them. Nothing prevents someone else from taking a helicopter you've used or plan to use, so it's impossible to reserve your ride. Such is the apocalypse. Helicopters are a communal resource and easily stolen, for good or ill. Helicopters cannot take off from ransacked armories or totally ransacked malls since there is no roof access. You can still fly to those locations though, but the helicopter will be stuck there until repairs are made. WHY INTRODUCE HELICOPTERS? You can't use it to reinforce or evacuate a location because it can only transfer the pilot. And if a pilot takes it for someone else to use that strands the pilot there. It has two uses: First is that it creates is a better network of communication and intelligence between the malls and forts. Pilots could land in, survey an area, and then tell other malls and forts in detail what they saw. "Hello Calvert. Just swung by Pole and Bale. Pole is ruined and has about 30 zombies inside, lucky one corner was empty so I could fix it and take off. Bale has about fifty survivors. No unruined NTs nearby though." Allows more precise information than the suburb mall status map, and would also help with updating it. Second is that it could let pilots drop into held territory, behind enemy lines as it were, and then escape. They could repair a building and withdraw, or fly in with FAKs or syringes from an unruined building across the city. What keeps this from getting too overpowered, in addition to maybe getting stranded if their destination is ruined, is that if the pilot wants to escape they can't use too much AP, and they've already taken 15AP to get there. So a pilot landing in dangerous territory has 35AP at most. Even if they fly back at 1AP and return home -14AP they can probably only revive two people. And to revive someone in dangerous territory they've already wasted 30AP to transport themselves, rather than find more syringes or revive people. Useful? Yes, sometimes. Overpowering? I think not but please, give me your feedback. Thank you for reading my long suggestion.

Discussion (Helicopters)

Sorry, but no. Leave the helicopters to the military. And come to think of it, all choppers would be shot down instantly by the military who don't want the virus to escape the city. - User:Whitehouse 19:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why there wouldn't be an option to fly outside of the city (besides there not being an outside of the city). Going past the border would result in getting shot down. But within the city the helicopters operate without military interference.--A Big F'ing Dog 21:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But logic wise how would that really stop you, or them? You have a helicopter, youre in a desperate situation, how many people do you think would take there chances?--G-Man 11:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but it falls into the "No Free Lunch" trap. Although these would be rare, in most cases, lowering your AP to 15 would be much better then a 15 day trip. At best, this could be an interesting scouting tool. At worst, it could make walking for long distances obsolete. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That system has the problem of giving different travel costs. For example someone with 50AP would spend 35AP for a trip while someone with 40 would spend 25.

I don't think it's really free per se. It requires 15AP, plus a fuel can which takes a handful of AP to find.

As for making walking obsolete, the problem of taking the helicopter prevents that from happening. It doesn't allow the entire population of one building to travel the map because the copters have to be brought back. So maybe one person manages to escape the falling mall, or reinforce the building under siege, but that strands everyone else. A few individuals might be able to move quicker for personal reasons, but it wouldn't change a suburb's population by more than +-10. Hardly significant in the long run. Also, the number of working helicopters at any given point is probably going to be less than 10. A lot of them will be trapped on ruined buildings. Many flown there deliberately by death cultists.

Perhaps though travel costs should be higher, to discourage casual hops. 20AP maybe? What do you think?--A Big F'ing Dog 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

AP cost is irrelevant. It could cost 100 AP and this suggestion still wouldn't work. Why? Because its teleportation. Remember, zombies are players too. If you can instantaneously travel across the city (essentially) without having to deal with zombies at all, that's overpowered. Yes, it can be argued that the same can happen but quick clicking through squares or by free running, but even there zombies still have the chance to get in an attack or can follow.--Pesatyel 02:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Pesatyel brought up a good point-this is insanely pro-survivor. The author tries to fix that by making it "rare," but that doesn't help a thing. Just means that the survivors that can use then would have an advantage. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

While free lunches taste best, this will be dead in the water. --William Told 07:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Any air traffic from inside Malton would be shot down instantly before it had the chance of getting anywhere near the border. Remember, the people in the quarantine zone are to all effects and purposes invincible, they cannot be permanently killed. If they waited until some moron tried to fly over the wall to shoot it down all they'd get is a mini horde emerging from the wreckage, all it takes is for one of those to have infectious bite for the quarantine to be broken. The military wouldn't even wait for such a vehicle to take off, it'd be pre-emptively hit when noticed by the satellites or flyovers. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Rope

Timestamp:	Athur birling 14:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I am suggesting the introduction of rope as a survivor item. It would apply to survivors. The length of rope will allow players to exit buildings they are barricaded into and cannot leave it would also allow players to scale down buildings without the risk of injury from the Jump from a Window option. The locations I am suggesting are fire deptartments, factories and warehouse. I am not experianced enough with search rates so I leave that to the proffesionals to decide the right search rates. The AP cost would be 2AP to exit the building. This includes scaleing down from lower floors.

Discussion (Rope)

Transplanted from the main page. Someone else can fix the formatting. Also, it's a dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What Iscarot said. Has anyone informed the author that his suggestion is now here (if not, I just did it anyway.) Linkthewindow  Talk  02:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Iscarot informed him. Not much else can be said about this. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed formatting as best I could. Also, bad idea that solves a non-existant problem. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 03:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

On second reading, yeah this makes no sense. Why not just exit the building? Linkthewindow  Talk  04:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he has noticed that you can click the area next to your current location and just move there regardless of cade level! Probably used to Nexuswar or similar... --Honestmistake 10:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah he means when you are in a EHB building and you cant just leave, you need to move to a adjacent square so its a nice idea but the cost of 2 AP would be the same as if you clicked on to the adacent square and then moved back making it a pointless item/skill, but if it was 1 AP then maybe... --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ ^{MCM MOB DB} 12:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Additional Firearms

Timestamp:	7:09 AM December 9
Type:	ect.
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I'm fairly new to Urban dead, so researched on what type of things you could do, thats when I noticed their is only 2 actual firearms. Yes, anything beside a shotgun or pistol is unusual but, your bound to find something unusual in this place. I'm just suggesting 2 firearms to put into the game, maybe a SMG, Damage 5 points (4 against a flak jacket.) Base accuracy 5% Capacity 6 Bullets from Pistol Clip or 30 Bullets from SMG clip Locations Armories (3%), Police Departments (2%), Streets (1%?), Junkyards (1%?) Encumbrance 8% Special Fires 3 shots in 1 attack Assault Rifle Base Accuracy 10% Capacity 15 from rifle clip Locations Armories (2%), Police departments (2%), Streets (1%?), Junkyards (1%?) Encumbrance 25% And personally I believe that these weapons would make a great addition to the game.

Discussion (Firearms)

Look here, scroll down til you see SMG and Assualt rifle. Also go up to the military weapon section, that's also applicable.--xoxo 12:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a quicker link and also sign your posts. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The military weaponry bit doesn't mention SMGs--xoxo 13:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

SMG's have passed into PR however. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And personally I believe that these weapons would make a great addition to the game. How does having a wider range of guns make the game any better? Either it makes survivors more able to kill (more guns = easier to find) or less able to kill / more frustrated (more types of guns = less likely to find the ammo you currently need) - but neither makes the better. And in fact, even the former doesn't really help survivors because revive / healing rates, not zombie killing power, are what enable survivors to do well. It would really just encourage trenchcoats and PKers.  Swiers 16:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been playing with a rifle that uses shotgun ammo as a compromise, but Swiers' arguments really kill any new gun. Sorry. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the page history, the user Monxer made this suggestion.

Actually, I've been considering suggesting a new starting class that starts with an Assault Rifle and an extra clip. However, I was thinking that neither the Assault Rifle, nor the ammo clips for it should be findable in Malton. That would balance the suggestion somewhat as this makes the weapon have a limited life span. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 19:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well some rifles make fine melee weapons ;) --Honestmistake 00:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Flares are also firearms. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, Blake, but then what's the point for Kevan coding for a new weapon (which I think would be a pain in the ass,) just so newbies can use it until they run out of ammo? Linkthewindow  Talk  08:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, level 1 players have very few ways to gain XP, given their accuracy ratings and such; a high-power weapon they can't restock might be just the thing to get them a level or two. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 08:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, but it's no secret that Kevin doesn't like coding, and to stop people spawning heaps of lv1 accounts as zergs during an attack (since they have a new, powerful weapon.) If you want to continue this discussion, please make a new header. We are in danger of going off topic :). Linkthewindow  Talk  09:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You have to think simplistically. The pistol is medium damage medium capacity, the shotgun is high damage, low capacity. All that really leaves is low damage high capacity. But that is already covered by the SMG suggestions.--Pesatyel 02:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Low damage high capacity is covered by the fire axe and knife, which have INFINITE capacity.  Swiers 03:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely that leaves room for low damage, high capacity, high accuracy? I don't know, just a thought since we seem not to be factoring in the accuracy. - User:Whitehouse 03:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The accuracies are much the same, 40% for an axe, 65% of the guns but less when you consider the ap spent searching for ammo.--xoxo 03:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Melee is a different category. I was talking about guns.--Pesatyel 02:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Other then flavor text, there is no real distinction between melee and firearms. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It has to do with ammunition. A fire axe has 6% encumberance and can be used for every attack, 1 AP per attack. A shotgun also has 6% encumberance... but shells also weigh 2% individually. So a guy with an axe can attack 50 times, successful or not, for only 6% enucumbrance. A guy with a shotgun could attack 34 times but it would take 70% encumbrance to do that (a guy with a pistol 42 times for 20% encumbrance). Not to mention finding ammo.--Pesatyel 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Scent Enemy

Timestamp:	. . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Career zombies, non-metagamers
Description:	After years of pestering by this suggestions process, Kevan finally gave career zombies an equivalent to Body Building and Flak Jackets in the form of Flesh Rot. This legitimises career zombie (i.e. a zombie that never seeks or needs to be revivified) play. This suggestion is the completion of the career zombie skill set. Scent Enemy is a sub-skill of Scent Fear (analogous to Scent Blood, Scent Death and Scent Trail), it is a second tier skill and will cost 100 experience points. Scent Enemy is identical in its mechanics to Necrotech Employment, except that it does not allow the operation of DNA Extractors. The skill allows the zombie to recognise Necrotech Buildings, they are marked on the map in the same way as they are through Necrotech Employment. The 'flavour reasoning' is that the zombie has developed their olfactory perceptions to the point where they can recognise the smell of the fluid contained within Revivification Syringes, as Necrotech Buildings manufacture this substance they can be differentiated from other buildings via smell. Revivification Syringes themselves cannot be detected (say to target a character carrying syringes over one without) as the syringes in question are hermetically sealed and do not allow the odour to permeate into the air. Therefore this is only of use in identifying buildings that produce syringes (or where they can be found in the context of game mechanics). The skill is not 'trans-mortal', a zombie that is revived will no longer be able to identify Necrotech Buildings (unless they have also or subsequently purchased Necrotech Employment). There is precedent in the current flavour (Scent Death) that the revive drug causes characters injected with it to smell differently, this merely expands it to those buildings where the chemical is present in its raw form. This is not overpowered in any way as the skill is available (as was Body Building and Flak Jackets) if a zombie gains a revive and the location of Necrotech Buildings is hardly a heavily guarded secret. This suggestion seeks to complete the career zombie's skill set for a complete set of mechanics and to reduce the need of zombies to metagame, even in the simplest form of referencing the wiki.

Discussion (Scent Enemy)

Tear apart at will. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer maybe an upgrade to Scent Death instead. Perhaps it should also color in squares with reviving bodies (I don't think it does this now right?). Then zombies could infer where necrotechs are since those are usually adjacent to or very close to revive points. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding more colour to the map is problematic, we had no end of problems getting Scent Death to work for the colourblind. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

you made scent death work for the colourblind??? How, i never use it cos i can't make sense of of it :(--Honestmistake 00:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Originally the shades of colour used were too similar if view greyscale (representing colourblindness) they were altered to make them clearer even when viewed this way. Swiers wrote a decoding Scent Death piece somewhere that explains about the display. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Limiting it to zombies is inconsistent as Scent Death's strangely smelling bodies do carry over to survivors. If it's the same fluid you can recognize from the corpses in small amounts, you should definitely be able to recognize it in the huge amounts an NT building would have. What's the point of making it zombies-only? It's not like getting this skill instead of NT Employment would be sensible for survivors as this is more expensive (2nd tier) and less useful (no DNA extracting, must buy NT Employment anyway if you want the subskills). --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [518,09]} 18:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Very true, that sentence was there to stop trenchies whining, I never saw it as a problem if it was trans-mortal, but you have to consider your audience. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I can't find a dupe. What Midianian said has a point though, and limiting this to zombies would be inconsistent (should NT Employment's bonuses be limited to survivors, then?) Unlike Dog, however, I would just prefer it to branch off the "Scent" tree like other zombie skills. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't find a dupe of something I've brought to this page? Colour me shocked and amazed :P -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that zombies should be able to recognize NT buildings. I'm not sure why you want this skill not to be "trans-mortal" though, since zombies with the NT Employment can identify the NT's. --Janus ^talk 20:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The lack of trans-mortal application was purely to stop trenchies whining. The downside is the lack of Extractor use IMO, as it doesn't seem to be a sticking point I'll remove the section about it not being trans-mortal on the revised text. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I appreciate what you'e trying to do, but I really don't think this is skill-worthy. As you said, the locations of NT buildings are hardly secret. Also, it's currently entirely possible to identify a suspected NT building ingame without NecroTech Employment or any metagame resources: if a building has a high number of zombies outside and a large number of revived bodies outside or adjacent blocks, it's likely, and can be confirmed by breaking in and seeing whether it has the NecroTech logo inside. Heck, even the fact of meeting a defense makes it likely to be an NT, because normal buildings are virtually worthless. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Graffitti is skill worthy, but that's a whole different rant about useless survivor skills. The difference is that anyone who's been revived probably has NT Employment, and thus there are no 'suspected' NT buildings to them, this just allows players wanting to be exclusively zombie to gain the same benefit. It's a skill because the survivor analogue is also a skill. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're forgetting that NecroTech Employment is required to use a DNA Extractor, an excellent source of easy XP and useful source of intel. Identifying NTs is pretty much a minor side benefit. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Can they smell someone who is carrying needles? - tylerisfat 22:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No. As is mentioned in the suggestion text, syringes are sealed, zombies with Scent Enemy will not be able to distinguish between survivors with and without needles using this skill. This only allows the identification of NT buildings using similar flavour to Scent Death and the mechanics of NT Employment. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, missed that somehow. Late night. - tylerisfat 02:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

udtoolbar or whatever shows them differently, it's a nice touch and i wouldn't oppose it, but i don't really see the need.--xoxo 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's all about giving career zombie players equal abilities in the game mechanics without forcing them to play outside their chosen (and genre true) play style. Yes they could use plug ins, but people constantly go on about plug ins not working on different browsers (although personally, anyone who doesn't use Firefox is a Philistine and should be shot), also it should not be required for any player to use a single plug in. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate giving career zombies equal abilities, but I don't think that necessarily implies identical abilities (with all due regard to Brown v. Board of Education). Zombies' scent abilities tend to allow zombies to know extra information about their current map location, and (with AP expenditure), extra information about their surrounding area. I would make this suggestion with this paradigm in mind: Scent Enemy should allow zombies to determine NT if they're outside it, and should place an asterisk within NT locations on the Scent Death mini-map. -- Galaxy125 19:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This fits better under Memories of Life. --WanYao 10:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

They don't remember the NT buildings, they smell the chemicals, hence Scent tree. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Just as zombies shouldn't have to become human to get 60 HP and a flack jacket, zombies shouldn't have to become human to get the NT-identifying ability. Also, the more information provided IN-game (vs. having to look in the metagame for it) the better. And no one should be forced to use plug-ins. --Jen 14:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll vote for this when survivors get their own version of ankle grab for standing up after a revive, and when they get their own version of scent death for identifying reviving bodies. Personally I don't wish to encourage playing for one side only. - User:Whitehouse 20:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it. It further validates the career zombies, and there's no reason I can think of to not vote for it. --William Told 07:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Zombies just want to have Fun

Timestamp:	tylerisfat 00:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	balance change
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Simply put, just take 1/4 off a zombies attack rates in the dark, rather then 1/2. Why? Zombies have sharp pointy teeth and claws, which really don't need as much aiming as a pistol. Try it out yourself. Go into a building and try to hit a target with a pistol in the dark. You won't hit it. Now try just running into it and flailing about. Easier, huh?

Discussion (Zombies just want to have Fun)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  02:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Logical, but in the current game climate, unnecessary. Also shouldnt the same then apply for knifes and axes? --xoxo 01:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of unnecessary. I think it makes more sense, and as far as knives and axes, no. They have a very specific blade on them, and should have cut accuracy. Go into a dark place and swing and axe around and tell me that you can do it almost the same as in the light. You're more likely to hurt yourself then something else. - tylerisfat 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of balance and RP, axes should be included too. Other then that, this suggestion is unbalanced as it raises zombie hit rates, but not survivor's. Finally, a person could get a decent idea of were their target is in the dark, by noises that it makes. Zombies are quite loud ;). Linkthewindow  Talk  01:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Zombies are loud? They can't talk. They can't search so it isn't their inventory that is clanking. Is rotting really that loud? -- #99 ^DCC 02:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Running into something? I can think of plenty of instances where zombies are quiet, or groaning/moaning.. _■^■ 02:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ether way, breathing in a dark room would produce enough noise. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Zombies don't breathe. If anything you've just produced a great argument in favour of the suggestion. --Papa Moloch 03:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this side discussion is purely on RP, there is no zombie movie I have seen where a zombie is quiet enough to not be noticable, dark or not. Whether if it's snarling, groaning, bumping into things with no regard, etc. -- Yungblood 21:14, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, however, I've can recall plenty of occasions where they are silent. _■^■ 03:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you all need to watch more zombie movies. Forget the new dawn of the dead. There are plenty of scenes that aren't action scenes, where a person is creeping around a dark house, looking for whatever it is they are looking for, and then a zombie JUMPS OUT AND GRABS THEM! BOO! But seriously. For sake of balance, is the point of this suggestion. Its addressing a situation that is, currently out of balance. I love playing my survivors, but there should, realistically speaking, be absolutely no benefit, mechanics wise, for a survivor in a dark building. At all. Human players can put in generators, repair it, and that is there state, which serves their needs. Zombie players destroy the Generators and ransack, thus that state should serve them. - tylerisfat 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This might make a useful "bonus" ability for a melee weapon. Pipes can be used for barricading, crowbars can be used for debarricading, knives are the newbie weapon, axes are the power weapon. I think the tennis racket or cricket bat (maybe the baseball bat or fencing foil) would be fitting here as they are closer range weapons than most of the others (meaning they need less swinging room than the the others).--Pesatyel 08:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty sure you need to come in closer to knife a guy than you do to hit him with a cricket bat. Same goes for beer bottles. --William Told 00:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the knife already has a extra use (its the newbie weapon). Same for the bottle (it heals and is a one use weapon). The point is to make the other melee weapons nobody uses beyond roleplay reasons more useful. People use knives, axe pipes and (kinda) crowbars) but NOBODY uses baseball bats, cricket bats, fencing foils, tennis rackets, ski poles, golf clubs or hocket sticks because they are inferior to the first 4 items.--Pesatyel 04:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If I put this up for voting, i will almost definitely not be doing anything of the sort. There isn't a need for a 'specialty' for the worthless weapons. Or, I should say, their specialty is that they ARE worthless weapons. Sometimes new characters have to use them. RP players use them. Thats all thats needed. It really has nothing to do with this suggestion. - tylerisfat 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it and see no reason why it needs balancing with a survivor version. Fighting in the dark isn't just about finding your target, a big part of the problem is in the inherent fear of being unable to see... try closing your eyes and running in an open space and you will start to see what I mean! Zombies don't have so much fear and probably don't feel pain the same way so i have no problem with them thrashing away regardless--Honestmistake 09:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is based on a very faulty presumption. Try running into something in the dark, putting a gun muzzle against it, and pulling the trigger. A good bit easier than grabbing hold and biting a vulnerable bit, isn't it?  Swiers 17:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

True. But then why have a hit percentage at all for guns? You could always run right up. I think, using present game play models as an example, it is assumed that it is not going to happen. And its still pretty hard to run through a dark, destroyed building and start grabbing things and trying to find where to shoot it. - tylerisfat 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a game. Don't think too hard about it :P --xoxo 00:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But I am in work... if I don't think hard about this i might have to actually do something ;) --Honestmistake 10:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So, the general consensus is... some people think it should apply to melee weapons, some people don't... voting or no? - tylerisfat 22:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's simple: negate dark penalties if and only if your zombie has a Tangling Grasp in place. I'd accept this even if only applied to bites. --WanYao 10:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Builder's Estimate (Or, the lack thereof)

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 09:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	When a ruined building is 'dark', you cannot get an exact listing of how much AP is needed to repair it. Instead, the AP amount shown is rounded to the nearest 10 AP. If there is less than 5 AP required, it is rounded to 10 AP.

Discussion (Builder's Estimate)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  02:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Perhaps add a "Get a better estimate" button so you could get the full amount? Linkthewindow  Talk  10:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The real question is why would anyone want this? Doesn't really help zombies and does nothing but make it harder to do an already unpopular thing.--Karek^maps?! 13:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You can get a rather good estimate of the repair cost simply by reading the building's decay-level description. Sure, it's only good for 0 to 60 -- it doesn't differentiate between buildings costing 62, or 82, or 202 AP to repair...but at that point, does it really matter? It's been ruined over two months, and you're going into negative AP regardless. --Jen 13:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No,not a good suggestion, It might deter people from repairing the high AP buildings, maybe someone would repair it if it was 46 AP but the est shows 50 AP and they decide its not worth the risk getting back to safety? --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ 14:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the point of it being dark: you can't see well! Instead of buffing survivors, buff zombies hit %ages a little, stop all the trenchy stuff please. --WanYao 15:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that dark buildings didn't show the AP needed to repair... --William Told 06:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the wiki article about it. You can't repair it, but I'm not too sure about seeing the amount of AP. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Im pretty sure you cant see the AP till you light it up with a genny, buildings that dont need gennys show you the AP from a ruin --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ 00:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you can't see the AP required to repair it (until you light up a genny). You can, however, see a description of the level of decay, which allows you to make a good estimate. --Jen 04:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with no incidation bar decay level – as dark buildings need to be lit to be repaired, you can get a quick sight estimate (as Jen mentioned) and then simply get the exact cost once you power up the genny. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm, as appears to be the case already? Dammit, Kevan, stop reading my thoughts before I've had the chance to think them! *shakes fist* ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I think I remembered wrong...you're stuck with the outside decay level descriptions (some time, several weeks, months). Which are still useful, just not as useful as the internal decay descriptions. --Jen 21:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Blood Rot

Timestamp:	MrCarver 22:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies.
Description:	This skill can only be purchased after the Brain Rot skill is had. If a zombie can make a fatal blood rot bite, then the victim can only be revived from inside a powered NT building. Thus Blood Rot turns survivors into zombies with temporary Brain Rot. I think this will had a fun twist to game dynamics for both players wanting to be revived and survivors looking to revive players. Survivors infected with Blood Rot will need try to gain entrance into NT buildings instead of the wait in line approach now used. When the fatal bite is given the dead survivor will see "You are dead and the taint of blood rot runs through your veins." The percentage chance for the fatal blood rot bite should be the same as a Head Shot that survivors enjoy.

Discussion (Blood Rot)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  08:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Im not an expert on the game or any of the mechanics and balances, etc. but im pretty sure this will annoy the shit out of the newbies of this game. also, with the multiply by a billion rule, many high level zombies would have this ability, tipping the scales in the zombies' favor during seiges.-- Yungblood 17:58 December 4, 2008 (EST)

Duuuuuude, you wrote this from a month ago? Can I ride in your time machine? --Pestolence^(talk) 02:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Time machines are sooo twenty-first century. -- Galaxy125 03:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, craap, its been awhile since i signed something, so i forgot it was december. xP I can sell u some time machine for maybe $10. All u need is some fire, and this little green bag.....-- Yungblood 7:36 December 5, 2008 (EST)

Read the Do's and Do Nots! This would force survivors to artificially play as zombies, and probably many of them would quit the game. Also an incredible griefing tool. I'm a zombie player, but this is just way too overpowered. (But thanks for bringing it here first before putting up for voting.) --Pestolence^(talk) 23:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC) (AARGH EDIT CONFLICTS >=[)

Agreed, im sorry but this woulden't be fun for the majority of survivor characters. If they wanted the challage they would get brain rot. Much as I love the idea of harder to revive survivors, more open NT's and the balance shift that would surely cause im against the idea. Hell I'ed probably quit my survivor characters as I play them to actually be a survivor the majority of the time, not an undead character who has to travel to a current clinic or threaten the lives of my fellow survivors just to become one. As well those who don't actually metagame would be wholly screwed as theyed be stuck to the local NT's who may not have friendly open arms. If its a minority of players it works, if its a majority we'll only have problems.--G-Man 00:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, learn how to play a little more before suggesting something like this. The percentage chance of a headshot is one hundred percent. If you have the skill, it automatically happens if you kill a zombie. This is, effectively, giving the target automatic brain rot and HAS been suggested before. This wouldn't hurt survivors. It would hurt the game. A lot of survivors HATE playing as zombies and suggestions that "force them to" usually go down in flames. Survivors that hate playing as zombies will either quit (at least quit playing that particular character) or play as Mrh?-Cows (which is pathetic). But if you force those Mrh-Cows to have auto-Brain Rot, they will just quit.--Pesatyel 02:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This may be interesting as a once-off for a limited-duration city, but I agree with the posters above me about applying it to Malton. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not force brain rot onto other people, this has in the past been considered a major bug doubtful it will become a game effect.--Karek^maps?! 13:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Need a say "XD"? 8161 Survivors (39%) Versus 12695 Zombies (61%). That's new shiny new apocalypse. I like it, but don't make it too shiny! This say anything? _■^■ 05:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

this is a dupe, but i CBAed to find it. --WanYao 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I liked Swiers' Cerebral Infection (You have to be FAKed before being able to be revived, if not, the revive fails-Sub-skill of Infectious bite) I believe it got to PR too. _■^■ 03:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion:20080615 Brain Rot: Cerebral Infection is in fact "peer reviewed", so "blood rot" would likely be considered a dupe.  Swiers 00:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Feeding is Messy

Timestamp:	Midianian Big Brother Diary Room: [509,04] 09:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Flavour
Scope:	Zombies & building descriptions
Description:	This is really simple. Any time a zombie feeds off a corpse, there's a chance (half of what it's when attacking someone) that the scene will become bloodier.

Discussion (Feeding is Messy)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  08:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's useless flavor (but then again, who cares?) In short, I like it, and can't see any problems. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for more gore!--Honestmistake 11:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. Can we have napkins and bibs? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah chuck 'er in.--xoxo 11:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple. Why not?--Pesatyel 02:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not just make this into a clothes status description effect like the other player on player actions?--Karek^maps?! 13:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this would only affect clothing? I don't really like that :P. Besides, attacking is also a player on player action, which is where the bloodstains normally come from. However, making it so that there's also a chance for getting blood on the clothes... What do you people think? --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [519,09]} 19:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hooray for blood! Chaplain Drakon Macar 21:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Good flavour. Will get my Keep vote. --Papa Moloch 02:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I'll give this a Keep. --Pestolence^(talk) 02:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, could you take my previous suggestion to voting? I've never put a suggestion up for voting. Though it's probably easy enough.. _■^■ 05:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's easy enough to do yourself-just go to the Category:Current Suggestions page and follow the instructions. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Paint the Walls! --Nny The Person 00:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it could also create a different description (bits of gristle, etc.) --A Big F'ing Dog 17:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Hear nearby gun blasts

Timestamp:	Linkthewindow  Talk  11:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Weapon text change
Scope:	All survivors
Description:	Yes, there is a similar suggestion here. That one had several flaws which I hope to fix with this new one. Simply put, survivors (not zombies, for balance reasons. It would be like survivors groaning at themselves,) can hear gun blasts from nearby blocks. The actual chance of hearing the blast is based on some probabilities: Same block-100% chance One block away-75% chance Two blocks away-50% chance Must have been at least ten shots before message can trigger Three blocks away-25% chance Must have been at least twenty shots before message can trigger No blasts can be heard if they are more then three blocks away. Note that the probabilities apply to everyone in the block. Simply put, all of them hear it, or they don't. The exact type of weapon can't be determined, and nether can the user shooting the weapon (even if you are in the same block.) To prevent screen spam, the shots "add up" over time. For example, one shot would produce one message, ten another one, twenty another one(and so on.) This means after ten gunshots, you would have only received two messages. To prevent useless messages (Who cares that a single shot was shot in a factory two blocks away,) for two and three block messages, there must have been a certain number of gunshots. Here is some suggested flavor text. Of course, it is very malleable. You hear a gunshot from close by You hear multiple gunshots from close by (5+) You hear rapid gunshots from close by (10+) You hear rapid gunshots from close by again (20+, 30+, 40+) You hear a gunshot from the North (the X building) You hear soft gunfire from the North East You hear loud gunfire from the North East Note that all gunshot messages expire after a day-that is, if you idle for a week, you won't be told that there was rapid gunfire after the tenth shot. Thoughts?

Discussion (Hear nearby gun blasts)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  20:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't really add anything, just the survivors feeding groan but unintentional. Decent but really whats the point when you see "X" zombie(s) nearby or with your binoculars?Chaplain Drakon Macar 16:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's meant to be more passive then binoculars and doesn't use AP. Binoculars also don't show zombies inside. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There was another, this is much better than it. However, I'm skeptical, as it mostly says "Halp cleer this building" or "z0mg pkrz". _■^■ 18:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Inside or outside? If its outside, its pointless to have it on one block, you can see the zombies on your map. - tylerisfat 20:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Blasts indicate combat, while the simple presence of zombies does not. I can't think of a decent RP reason to allow "inside only" blasts. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The primary problem is how buildings affect it. If both the shooter and the listener are outside, the listener would hear the shot much easier than if one or both are inside.--Pesatyel 02:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)05:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

True, but I don't want to make this more complex. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So you you dont get to know the name of the person doing the shooting? Still it could be useful for working out who the PK'r is and for scouting other buildings for zombie breaches to go alongside the new "building lights" flavour (though if this was implimented I would try this out in a fort and watch them go nuts trying to find the culprit!)--mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ 07:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Yes, I was thinking of the "Building Lights" flavor when I thought this up. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Why SHOULDN'T zombies get to hear? Why not just a significantly reduced chance.--Pesatyel 03:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, it's because it would be like survivors groaning at themselves. I'll admit I can't find a solid RP reason, but it's just balance. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If survivors can hear groans, zombies should hear gunshots. --William Told 20:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why zombies wouldn't hear it. Also, I think you should change the flavor text from "rapid gun shots" to something that makes sense. --William Told 03:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Point taken about the flavor-as I said, it's very malleable. See above about the zombies hearing it. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Runs into the issue of "Do you really want more spam text than the already large amount survivors get?". Hearing gun shots without information on how close or where they are coming from might be interesting flavor for everyone though.--Karek^maps?! 13:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The closest analogy is not groaning, it is flares. A Feeding Groan can ONLY be activated if a survivor is within the zombie's square. Guns can be fired at ANY time. Zombies being able to hear it could work to their disadvantage just as much as your "balance" reason. I do not put it past players to fire guns for no reason then to mislead. The only logical reason why zombies wouldn't be able to hear them is due to auditory degredation due to decomposition (hence suggesting the reduce chance to hear). The author also neglects to deal with the comment about being indoors or out. While I can understand not wanting to complicate things too much, that is STILL an issue.--Pesatyel 08:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually quite like the idea about using shots to confuse, but guns can only be fired at another survivor, or at a zombie. Ether way, a gun blast would indicate combat. I was tired then, and there would be no difference if a gun was fired indoor or out. Gameplay>realism. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You can also fire guns at radio transmitters, generators, decorations, and barricades. --William Told 20:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but that still indicates combat, or at least hostility. Maybe add a "Fire gun into air" option? Linkthewindow  Talk  03:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Firing at the barricades won't harm them, so it's pretty unnecessary to add a "Fire Gun into Air" option.--William Told 06:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I was partially incorrect in the fact you have to have a target to fire the gun, but William Told brings up an obvious loophole around that.--Pesatyel 08:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of RP however, I would rather a "Fire gun into air" option. I might rewrite this suggestion next week-you guys brought up some great fixes/changes, and I might see how a newer version goes. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Closed search

Timestamp:	Yonnua Koponen 07:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	balance change/improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	As it is fairly clear to see from the map that all hell has broken loose, and further more that there are no syringes / Mall FAKs / Gennies etc. to help us, it would be a fairly basic decision to find a new way of searching which would allow Kevan to keep to the odds he has, whilst simultaneously improving them. Also, contained withing realism (No bullet dodging here, I'm afraid) I have decided upon a possible idea which could help to eradicate the problem, possibly, and also keep part of the difficulty of searching in there. This suggest would provide a simple tab on the search option, with the option of 'search normally', or 'search thoroughly'. The search normally option would simply be the present mode of searching that we have, with exactly the same odds. The other option would be a Probablity tree. Roughly a 50% chance of lower odds than normal (Half?) roughly a 50% chance of higher odds than normal (double? / 1.5x?). Logically thinking, as supplies become scarce, people are more likely to start risking their overall chance of getting something by searching thoroughly in a contained area, such as the corner of a mall. That would be what this represents. Either there's a chance you'll find there's nothing there, and the odds would be low, or there's something there, and you find it more easily. This also adds thought to the one aspect of the game that doesn't presently require any, searching. Attacking, baricading buildings, reviving, all have different possibilities, and are all more entertainign because of it. I think that this may make it more entertaining for some people, as some would use this, whereas others would remain with the classic system. I feel that one of the main uses for this would be towards the end of seiges, or in ruined buildings, where the stakes are stacked on you getting that one item. Overall the percentage breakdown is something like: NORMAL: X% CLOSED: 1/2(2X)OR 1/2(1/2X) = roughly X% What do you think? ~Yonnua

Discussion (closed search)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  20:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting notion, but I'm leery of adding additional random elements to searches. However, I'm of the opinion that Malton is about the way it should be now: dangerous, with zombies on the loose all over the place. After years of survivor numbers consistently in the 60% range it's time to give the undead a little face time. Thus I'm against messing with things at the moment. Let's give this balance shift a little more time to play out.--Jiangyingzi 13:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This has been suggested on here before, I believe it was killed. Don't fix my apocalypse, I just got it! _■^■ 18:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, from a survivor POV, it's much more fun when the zombies are dominating the game. Let's see how this pans out and then suggest fixes later. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's more fun for zombies too, less outdoors headshots. And when they do come it's almost welcome because idiot survivors are wasting ap they actually need to repair all the dead suburbs around town.--xoxo 11:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

...I don't know whether you're trying to be sneaky with this or whether you honestly don't see it - this is a search with a 25% boost to the normal chance (0.5 x 1.5 + 0.5 x 0.5 = 1.25), nowhere near the normal chance as you claim. Not only that, even assuming for the sake of argument that we tweaked the numbers so that it was the same as the normal chance...seriously, what is the point? You're just changing the distribution to give it a higher standard deviation with the same mean. I.e. more streaks of successes and more runs of failure, but with the same average outcome in the long run. Why, exactly, do we need that? It does not increase your chances of finding "that one item" at all, as you claim in the suggestion. -- User:Ashnazg 1525, 4 December 2008 (GMT)

Okay, let's assume you passed first year maths. 0.5 x 1.5 = 0.75, 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25, 0.75 + 0.25 = 1.0. Check your maths again. --Yonnua Koponen 12:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, typo. I meant 0.5 x 2 + 0.5 x 0.5 = 1.25, considering that's what's written at the bottom of the suggestion. -- User:Ashnazg 0708, 6 December 2008 (GMT)

Also A typo. It's meant to be 0.5 x 1.5 = 0.75, 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25, 0.75 + 0.25 = 1.0. Had to go to work as I was writing it. --Yonnua Koponen 20:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so it was intended to be the same as the previous search rate on average after all. Still, it makes no difference, really. As I mentioned earlier, if this is the case, it doesn't change anything when you get down to it, apart from the standard deviation of the distribution. Which has no real effect in a case like this. Basically, the two types of search would be functionally identical. -- User:Ashnazg 0711, 7 December 2008 (GMT)

---

Immolation

Timestamp:	CodeBlack 16:47, 1 December 2008
Type:	Weapon Effect
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Influenced by the old practice of Plague Burning, this is an additional effect to the Flare Gun. If zombification is caused by a virus, then it makes sense that survivors, in a desperate attempt to prevent the spread of the plague, would turn to burning bodies. However, regular burning of random corpses on the street would be a too much of a buff, but a burning body would continue to burn if no one tried to put it out, so, basically, should a survivor kill anyone who is Infected, either zombie (who may be infected but not be effected) or survivor, with the Fuel Can / Flare Gun combo, that person body will be set ablaze and continue to burn until they rise. Upon being revived, if they are ever, the survivor will no longer be Infected, as the plague was thoroughly burned away from their body while the corpse was lying inert. The trick is, not only is both attacking with the Fuel Can and Flare Gun of low percentage and rare to pull off, but Flares disappear after use, Fuel cans only randomly douse with fuel, and the average survivor has no way of knowing who is infected or not. In addition, this only works if the target is killed by the attack, as otherwise the target could either conceivably put out the flames or survive long enough for the virus to resurge. If this attack works, then the following message will be shown to the attacker: ... (message that occurs when the Flare Gun / Fuel Can combo works)... They die. The body continues to burn. When the dead player next logs in, they will be shown the following message: You have been killed by Blank. Your body is slowly burning, causing smoke to fill the air (regular players passing the body should not notice the smoke for a burning player, or know that a body is on fire) When the dead player wakes up, they get this message: The last few embers die down as you rise. Upon undergoing revivication, the player will not be infected if they were before dying. This also works for zombies that were infected during prior life.

Discussion (Immolation)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  20:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Chaplain Drakon Macar 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion makes no sense. Fire doesn't cure infections in real life, why should it do so in game?--Jiangyingzi 22:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's not curing if the person being voided of viruses is dead, now is it? Fire, or, more specifically, extreme heat, can kill viruses and such, and a thoroughly burnt body may very well be cleared of infestation of a disease after being burned for long enough. That's why the person burned needs to be killed by the burn; if the person survives the burn, then the virus will survive with them, but a dead person will not feed the virus anymore or help it protect itself from the fire. [User:CodeBlack|CodeBlack]].
  • First off, there's no in-game proof that it even is a virus. Urban Dead seems to follow the Romero canon: the cause of zombification is not explained, and anybody who dies for any reason comes back as a zombie. A level 1 survivor who dies without ever even seeing a zombie will still rise as one. In any event, burning a body sufficiently to kill an infection would pretty much destroy the corpse, leaving that person forever dead. If you can't see why your suggestion doesn't make any sense I'm probably wasting my time trying to explain it to you, though.--Jiangyingzi 23:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Except we come back from having our heads blown off with shotguns, axes to the brain, bullet holes riddling the body, and things like that. Destruction and degeneration of the corpse doesn't seem to be an issue, and I've always assumed that revivication causes the body to naturally heal things it needs to survive, such as a skull, brain matter, and flesh. Also note that cooking things causes the destruction of harmful agents, so the body doesn't necessarily have to be burnt to cinders, more along the lines of slowly charred by embers. Also, Zombification may not be caused by a harmful agent, but an infection caused by a bite that can be cured with medicine certainly could/should be (and, after all, I'm not suggesting burned people are cured of becoming zombies). On one last note, try not to be condescending to people you don't know anything about.
      • But how do we measure how burned the corpse is? Is it always charbroiled to 100% pathogen-killing perfection every time? We're talking about infection on a massive scale, seeing as it can kill a healthy human being in a day and half, and since we're cooking an entire body you'll have to be thorough, right down to the marrow. What we have here is an incomplete suggestion that, even if implemented, would add little to the game. As for condescension, have you put a suggestion up for vote yet? Trust me, my attitude is mild by comparison to that pool of sharks.--Jiangyingzi 06:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, UD isn't much for realism, but I don't think you'd be able to stand up unscathed after your body's been burnt thoroughly enough to kill any infection. Besides, the fire wouldn't just kill the infection germs - it would also kill every other bacteria in your body, including those helpful ones in your digestive tract, which would give the survivor massive diarrhea. --Pestolence^(talk) 01:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I get your point, but see my above response to Jiangyingzi
  • Massive diarrhea, eh? I think I have a theme for a new suggestion Sanpedro 06:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Hey, that's my idea! :D --Pestolence^(talk) 22:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I read your above responses, and they're just as nonsensical as your reasoning above. There is absolutely no reason killing someone by setting them on fire would cure them. If you haven't noticed, all those times you've listed when characters take massive amounts of damage end with them rising as a zombie, not a human. --William Told 03:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Night

Timestamp:	--G-Man 04:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Gameplay Change
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	Probably a terrible idea but inspired loosely on the suggestion below. For half a day (Or perhaps flipped every 2 days) the outer ring of your map display wouldn't give the building names, or zombie/survivor/dead players (Fog is an easy comparative to the effect), however a flare would light an 3x3 - 4x4 area around the space it is fired from for a period of time (2-3 hours min.). Zombies would be able to "smell" out other zombies/survivors/dead bodies and would be given the numbers, but not the building names. Note: A simular susgestion almost three years old has been found to exist here. Although this was unintenional, credit should be given to the author for coming up with the basic idea first.--G-Man 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (Night)

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

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously just a basic idea that needs alot of work, but my main question now is, is it viable? Does it even sound if it would be fun? and answers to some of the larger questions such as the time period it would work over. Perhaps it could only be random days, where day and night are counted between two different days but the majority of nights have a moon out that provides enough light to see by. Once these questions are answered we can look at the smaller details such as the area the flare could cover, and a viable zombie equivalent (the smell thing just doesn't seem fair to me).

Perhaps it should be scrapped due to the high availability of Maps in Malton, or worked out for any new maps in the future (yes I realise it could be years before we see another).--G-Man 04:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this would be fun at all. I know some people enjoyed it for the few days, but a few days is different to long term. Could be very cool in a new (and smallish) map, but not for Malton, it'd really damage the the fun/playability of UD.--xoxo 04:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see now that's what I was a bit worried about. As well its why I proposed it being random days in my comment above compared to all the time, so it would only happen maybe 2-4 times a month, or something along those lines and would always end in 24hrs. Would that help with the whole long term thing or is it just an "Oh damn not this again" moment.--G-Man 04:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Night that comes 4 times a month?? I'd just not play my characters on those days.--xoxo 04:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily night coming on 4 days a month, but night that doesn't have a moon to light the way. As well if you don't play your character then its just wasted AP considering you'd have it back by the next day..., However point made, its useless to pursue.--G-Man 04:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-annual Eclipses and Full Moons giving different effects would be kinda cool. See, moar corollary flavor.--Karek^maps?! 12:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a very similar suggestion here, but doesn't include the fog ability, and some other details. Both suggestions seem very similar. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I don't suggest things often and (against what i should do), don't have a whole lot of time to search for dupes. (Case in point this is the first time online since I suggested this), however things have changed and although the visuals match, the flare and zombies having a skill for use in the night is a bit different and further in depth, and would change the whole outcome of the senerio and how it works without requiring seperate sugestions to deal with something that should be in the one. I hate to say this but some of the older PR susgestions should be periodically reviewed from time to time with recent changes kept in mind (perfect example given below with the dark building update) to see if it would still have the desired effect, or if it needs a change and then proper action (I.E. a suggested change by someone once it has been posted there is a problem) should be taken to ensure it reflects the current game, not the game 3 years ago. Im sure I've seen someone suggest an alt. page for revotes before though so...--G-Man 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a few issues, dupe thing aside because it would be a completely different mechanic now. The biggest one is that there's not enough detail about what night might do, for example do all buildings get Dark building status at night? Do normally dark buildings get a sort of darker comparison to the rest, like say flares can't be seen inside of them? How long of a period would be balanced and fun(12 hour nights probably wouldn't be, maybe hour or half hour cycles instead?)

This does sound like it would make the game much more interesting, if only for all of the stuff that would be able to come in relation to it like reactivation of the Power Stations, Street Lights, even, potentially, an actually useful Scent Skill(or changing one that already is) for hunting in the dark. Please, continue.--Karek^maps?! 12:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

All that I was hoping to get into after figuring out what the best timeline, overall effect (I.E. the fog effect) and the actual playability of the idea. The flare and zombie thing is meant as an example of what can be done hence the reason I mentioned it was a basic idea. Lets start there, and work our way forward. The only thing I have against 1hr and 1/2 cycles is that you can literally just dodge the night system with no downside to your AP and any effects such as flares, etc. would last the entire time. 12 Hours runs into the problem with different timezones where if I always play in the morning or night, again I could get to skip out on the effect with no downside while other players would always get screwed with night. 24hrs is probably the least you push it where everyone deals with it equally.--G-Man 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Adds new depth and dimensions to the game? Check. Makes flare guns consistently useful and viable? Check. Fully developed? Not so much. You should require that zombies have scent skills in order to detect prey through the darkness. Lit buildings and the contents of their exteriors should also show up to survivors and zombies at night if they're within the 1 area radius. I also like the idea of all unlit buildings experiencing the Dark status. --The God Emperor 19:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

scent skills in order to detect prey through the darkness Sounds like an alright idea and fits in how I wanted that to work. Lit buildings and the contents of their exteriors showing the survivors and zombies at night if they're within the 1 area radius, may not be a good idea as there's no evidence of lights actually outside the buildings, just light slipping through. Perhaps a general description of survivors/zombies to any player, in that direction would bring the desired effect. This also brings in the thought of Spotlights as a seperate findable item...

however, as i've already mentioned several times before that this is it's early stages (First comment)..., and in the comment above what I want to address first (timeframe). I appreicate your imput but its not quite time to explore those options, as we have to know what they'll be fitting into and what effect such a change would have on the game based on how long they would be effective.--G-Man 21:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, while awaiting the opinion on a 24hr timeframe im going to propose the basics for powerplants and half-moons. First of all, I think survivors should have less of a chance to hit in full night. A Semi/Half moon will negate the effects as would the activation of a powerplant which would activate street lights (as suggested above. Reasonable flavour could be that survivors managed to set up a dedicaded line to the street lights, as there repairs are not stable enough to power the buildings, Stephen Kings "The Stand" is what provided the idea for this, although its a bit different senerio with the P.P. having problems due to too many electronics to power up at once). The powerplant would have to be "repaired" in order to activate and would degrade in status over a time period. This would be handled through a seperate button, and would have to be approx. 75% (give or take) in all sections to work. New skill to allow this is possible. Button not aviable if ransacked, and it is inactive if one section is in ruin.--G-Man 21:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Targeted Feeding

Targeted Feeding is up for voting. Discussion moved here. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [509,04]} 09:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In the Dark

In the Dark is up for voting. Discussion moved to here.