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

Feral Hearing

Timestamp:	RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 12:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill found under feeding groan. (Yes level 3 skill).
Scope:	Zombies, Humans
Description:	Over the last three years zombies have gotten better at recognising those telltale feeding groans. As such. If your zombie is Inside a building and another zombie feeding groans in an adjacent block you receive the message You hear a groaning from inside Titus General Hospital This is a crossover skill, so if alive you get an inferior message. You hear a groaning from somewhere not too far away. We all know zombies can hear sounds up to 6 blocks away, and as zombies are increasingly salting the land I thought this would be an interesting addition.

Discussion (Feral Hearing)

Savage. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't get specific instructions as to the name of the building at the moment and i don't think that should change. For me it's part to make people ahve to actually think, part so people don't have to metagame to find out where to go and partly because, well, zombies shouldn't know the names of buildings (yes the map says them, but the game would suck if they didn't). So you should fix that part of it imho. Aside from that, I think it's good. Allows zombies to salt buildings and get groan messages :) --xoxo 13:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You hear a groaning from the northeast. Something like that? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

atm survivors have all the advantage telling each other where to go to deal with a zombie incursion. meanwhile, zombies can't do squat except metagame to communicate new targets. this helps and would be a very welcome addition. the only reservation i have is that atm barricade blocking is a little to strong: if you add this, it's a big boost. but maybe the only change needed is to cut back on blocking rates somewhat.... --WanYao 18:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Useful Flare Idea

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 19:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Flare guns
Description:	Here's a modest change that provides a real use for flare guns. Allow them to be launched inside buildings. The message others receive would look like "A flare gun was fired 5w2n from the roof of Henley Hospital", while one fired outside would be the same old "A flare gun was fired 5w2n." But, only allow a flare gun to be fired indoors if the building is not ransacked or ruined, since ruined buildings have limited roof stairway access. This makes flare guns a way of announcing the repair of a building, or to advertise intact resource points/safehouses to wandering people.

Discussion (Useful Flare Idea)

How does shooting a flare from a rooftop make the location any more visible to people far away than shooting it from street-level? --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 20:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You can see rooftops for potentially several miles. Unless all of Malton is shrouded in eternal mist it would be illogcal to think that people can't see more than the 3x3 map view. The map view just represents what your immediate area is, and where you can move, not what characters can see from a roleplaying/logic perspective. Also, this doesn't necessarily mean that the rooftop is visible. Just that you know it was fired from a roof, and that your character knows what building is there. --A Big F'ing Dog 21:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to see the actual firing of the flare for that, which is quite unlikely as the majority of observers would be inside, unable to see most of the cityscape, most likely looking in a direction other than where the flare was shot from. No, when you get a notification of a flare, you're seeing the flare in the sky, not the firing, which makes it irrelevant whether it was fired from the roof or from the street. And if you actually do know what's 3e7n of here, the game doesn't need to tell you what's there. If you don't know, then the game definitely shouldn't tell you what's there. Either memorize your surroundings or use a map. This isn't something the game should be telling you. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 22:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A flare fired from a roof would go higher. So you could at least distinguish whether it was fired from the street or the ground that way. --A Big F'ing Dog 00:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of distingusing between the flare "Looking" like it was fired from a roof or the ground, and the ability to fire from inside a fully repaired building only, but the exact locations name is a bit much.--G-Man 06:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you paying attention? Because this is yet another stupid suggestion you've decided to waste everyone's time with on this page. The flare gun is a weapon. It has high damage, but with a low accuracy rating to balance this. You see how this game works, a benefit is offset by a cost. Another benefit of the flare gun is that it may be used for signalling. To offset this benefit the cost you have to pay is going the fuck outside the building you want to signal from. Benefit, cost, how hard is it for you to grasp this basic concept? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

When did you last pay attention to a fired flare with the intent to help, not kill? Or bothered using one as a weapon? Currently its pretty damn useless except as a last ditch effort or position giveaway. Not only does this provide the specified use, but a flare desinated as being fired from a roof has the potential to draw more zombie players to that location as well, so theres your cost. Its a damn good idea, as an aid in green/moderate, and diversion in red, yet it still has a downside.--G-Man 03:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Flares are quite good as starter weapons, especially if your main weapon is an axe. When you find a zombie, start by shooting flares. If all of them miss, go back and leave the zombie there, it won't get a trail. If you hit, you've got a great start to killing the zombie. Just because you don't use them doesn't mean they're useless. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 13:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether the cost is too high or too low is always open to debate. This suggestion does not remove all costs from the flare gun - it still has to be searched for, takes up inventory space, is a one-use item, etc (if you think these don't count as costs, then please take a look at the Flak Jacket on a survivor and tell me what other costs it has). I think that giving the ability to fire flare guns from inside isn't too much of a buff, and increases its usefulness without making it overpowered. Although I do agree that the function of showing the location name should be removed because it doesn't really make sense. -- Ashnazg 1021, 24 December 2008 (GMT)

Everyone is right. Showing the location names is overpowered and nonsensical. I don't really think going outside is an intended cost, just a nod to realism. I mean, there's a roof there. Of course you can't fire it from inside the building. If you're on the roof though, or even launching from a high window or fire escape, a flare could be launched. And if it's launched from one or two stories off the street then it would travel that much higher, distinguishing it from ones fired at street level. Here's what I'm thinking for the final version of this suggestion - 1. Distinguish flares from indoors by this "A flare was launched from a building 5w2n." No building name, just noting that it was from a building. 2. Flares can't be launched indoors if a building is ransacked/ruined. This lets you signal that a building is functional, if survivors know where resource points are relative to their current position. --A Big F'ing Dog 18:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'ed stick with "fired from a roof", as from a building would include from a window or fire escape, however if one or the other was present then woulden't it negate the part where you can't fire from a ransacked/ruined building? Better to leave it as it was, or you'ed have to include large buildings that are ruined/ransacked.--G-Man 04:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I can see people shooting off flares demonstrates that they are more than just high variance weapons: they're for communication. Howevever, this fact that I can see them means they're already doing what this suggestion wants. The suggestion just wants to make spammishly easier to do so.... --19:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Few, if any survivors pay attention to fired flares anymore because they're generally a waste of time as a signal, and are saved as a last ditch weapon or trophy kill. The only players that currently stand to benefit from a flare fired to bring someone to your position are zombies, its a better idea to just stand there and wait it out. However with feeding groan even they don't pay as much attention as they used to. This stands to bring a use back to using flares as an actual signal in green suburbs, and a diversion in red/ruined suburbs.--G-Man 03:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Iron Sights

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 10:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	A new Zombie Hunter skill. Iron Sights allows you to use the iron sights on any firearm (Pistol, Shotgun and any that are implemented later) for a 10% accuracy boost. Purchasing Iron Sights adds a new drop-down menu, called Aim. There are two options in this menu, Pistol and Shotgun. Clicking Aim will increase the accuracy of the selected gun by 10%, and deducts 1AP. The percentage is lowered again following the player's next action, meaning that the accuracy boost is only available for one shot.

Discussion (Iron Sights)

Dude that is actually a good idea... but in order to put ironsights on you should need to get some item in like mall gun stores and Fort Armories... or you could just have it be that ironsights are already on the guns... i dont know just my 2 cents... oh you could also have it relate to Aimed Shot..Link ^_^--Swordy 18:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Iron sights are built into the gun from the get-go, you don't need to put them on. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Simply, Iron sights are already in use. _■^■ 01:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

One could assume, however it could now be reasoned that they weren't before, the suvivors just pointed and fired in what would be a tight situation, and after years of combat aren't as afraid of the zombies and are now slowing down to aim. I've just effectivly countered your arguement. How? Theres nothing that truly saids the iron sights are currently used and thats based on speculation, based solely on the way people are taught to fire when not faced with an enemy trying to eat there brains in close quaters. your reason is no reason for that system to not be changed.--G-Man 06:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, however, see Wan's comment. _■^■ 21:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, maybe we could speculate that also, no one has used their left hands! but after years of living in an apocalypse, they decided they should, so now double ap! - tylerisfat 15:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said I supported the sugestion, I said your arguement was useless. Why isn't it a good idea? Because ethier two things would happen, it would be ammo and AP saving, or AP wasting. To figure out which you would have to look at the actual numbers, however one you don't want to do, the other isn't needed. Thats a bit more indepth as to why it would be a buff to guns (or just a stupid idea), which are already powerful enough as is. Thats an example of the arguement to use Dr Cory Bjornson. Speculation alone is no reason to kill a susgestion. Common sense, I.E. the use of the left hand comment above me, however is. Of course we would be using our left hands, otherwise the whole Malton population would be Right handed, that just doesn't make a lick of sense.--G-Man 03:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the Left hand one was meant in the context of using your left hand to help steady the gun.... not that we are all Right handed...--Swordy 03:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

From the way it read, I'ed say it was a joke at my expense, and meant actually having 100AP. I was joking, as well as using it as an example in my response as to when such an arguement could be used. Solid reasoning based on most likly senerio has to be able to be used to back an arguement, however theres no need to be serious 100% of the time. In a CQB with an enemy hell-bent on trying to eat you, chances are higher that your not stopping to aim, then stopping to aim as taught when shooting targets, or a normal person. Why aim at point blank range when you can't miss? However when it comes to zombies a more well aimed shot has a better capitity to do meaningful damage to zombies. As things stand it seems you just have a better idea of where to generally aim the weapon with a steader hand, not actually stopping to aim while the zombie lurches for your neck. Thats based on both how the system currently works, and how people would react in that situation, not people firing in a calm or distanced senerio.--G-Man 04:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Guns don't need buffing. SPAM! --WanYao 19:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Will be spaminated by trolls, sorry, also this lowers the DPA for guns anyways. --Diablor 23:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Useful for when you have low ammo and really need to hit though. - User:Whitehouse 23:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically this increases the damage per ammo at the cost of significantly reducing the damage per AP. I like this idea, it gives a different way of using the gun that becomes useful when you have plenty of AP but low ammo, as Whitehouse said. Alternatively, you could use this all the time, which would mean that you have to spend less AP searching for ammo in the long run; so it helps if you don't live near a source of ammo. Overall, I really like this idea - it is not really a buff to guns, it gives a different option that you can use if you want to save ammo but reduces your damage per AP. -- User:Ashnazg 0724, 25 December 2008 (GMT)

My bad for not reading properly... However, I seem to recall seeing about a bazillion "aim gun" suggestions. How is this different? In any event, I'm not sure that +10% to hit for +100% AP cost is really worth it... 'Sides, guns are already reliable, and if you plan your AP and ammo use properly, you really shouldn't need to do this. Or else, get a little organised: even two coordinated survivors can kick some serious zombie butt. Hit IRC or MSN and try it sometime!

In any event, this would not really help dedicated survivors, and it's irrelevant to zombies. Ultimately it'd just buff trenchcoaters and PKers IMO. --WanYao 22:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

---

multi target shotgun impact

Timestamp:	Johnny wings 02:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	Survivors with shotgun.
Description:	if zombie hordes (+10) are inside a building and a survivor fires a shotgun chances are it will do damage to more then one zombie. So when a survivor fires are a horde the first zombie target is hit as normal (e.g10% without training) then then next 9 in queue are skipped the the 10th has 5%hit chance, 11th has 2.5% 12th has 1.5% and at 20 or more zombies everyone else has 0.5% chance of getting hit. This will dissuade huge masses of zombies gathering and attacking together giving survivors no chance. Of course exact figures might need to be modified by experiment but that's why I'm putting it here.what say you?

Discussion (shotgun multi zombie damage)

It can't just cascade exponentially like you are suggesting. There are only so many pieces of shot that could hit. However, based on the significant damage the shotgun deals, one could assume that it utilizes a slug, not shot, and as such there would not be this spread you are suggesting. I don't think it is a good idea, although I would appreciate more balance for survivors. Faranya 03:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Too complicated (I mean WHAT? I don't get it at all) and I think it's been suggested before.--Pesatyel 03:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. It's also covered here, as it is very similar to an area-of effect ability (assuming I understood it right.) Thanks for posting it here first, and not taking it straight to voting, however. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I was composing a whole rant in my head about the idiots who post this kind of thing without taking it to developing suggestions first, but then I noticed that this was developing suggestions! :) Yeah, anyway, this is unrealistic because one shotgun blast isn't going to have a chance of hitting every zombie in a huge horde. Besides, splitting HPs opens a whole new can of worms that I really don't want to get into. --Pestolence^(talk) 04:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Firearms are already very powerful -- they don't need a buff. Also, how come this only shafts zombies? Why wouldn't it apply to PKers strafing others? And it's realistic (within the genre conventions) for zombies to all mass together -- and then when they do, you're screwed! How many times in the movies have you seen some idiot shooting wildly and uselessly into a hoard with his shotgun or AR or whatever... only to get chewed to nifty little bits... Part of the zombie genre's schtick is delighting in watching those idiots getting munched...

Or... the short version: Just say no to trenchy gun buffs. --WanYao

This comes up so often I should make a template. Suggestion assumes those 10 zombies are standing around on the opposite side of the room from survivors, like shy schoolboys at a dance. Truth is, they would most likely be in INTIMATE contact, and so shotgun spread as likely hit other survivors as other zombies. Also, this suggestion totally ignores survivor on survivor combat; why is it assumed people would be shooting zombies?  Swiers 01:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As Swiers, why are these bullets so smart that they only target zombies? The question you need to ask yourself is: Do you want my death cultist coming over the barricades and blasting you and your trenchie rent boys at the same time because of this suggestion? Because I would, and will. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Bloody Scene has an Effect

Timestamp:	G-Man 00:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Effect Change
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Survivors would be taken back by a bloodly scene created in the areas of battles and murders, and have a -5% chance at attacking or building barricades while the blood is evident in such an area. All other actions are unaffected.

Discussion (Bloodly Scene has an Effect)

Just a random thought I had, thinking of how someone might react coming across a massacure, even when in a daily violent atmosphere.--G-Man 00:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Don't frack wit ma rates. Blood is pretty much everywhere and it was introduced as pure flavour. I enjoy the blood and my survivors never clean it, don't make them have to.--xoxo 01:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine enough, although I think blood should be more of a sign of zombies and pkers, not an everyday "Yeah, its just there" kind of thing. However the simulation of the effect of a slaugther such as this would make it grab your attention.--G-Man 01:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Aww, I'm kinda with J3D on this...I like seeing blood everywhere, and like that it's just pure flavor. Don't make me clean it! Realize that what this will really end up doing is giving zombies an marked advantage once they manage to establish a beachhead...you can't clean levels 4 and 5 (and possibly 3) of blood if there's zombies standing in the room. Meaning perpetual -5% hit rates, until they zombies are kicked out. Either that, or it'll mean that we never get to see those awesome-high blood levels, because survivors will clean up the blood as soon as the first spatter falls, to prevent the negative hit rates from happening. :( --Jen 17:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

So my Gore Corper walks into a room of fresh faced newbies, slaughters them indiscriminately until it's nap time and then the moronic bounty hunters get minuses to hit? Fucking awesome! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically you'ed only get away with ~one kill, then you'ed hit minuses as well, and the bounty Hunter can clean it up for 1AP leaving them ~49AP to attack you. So if your going for 2 kills your on an even playing field, and if your going for 3, your the one outta luck.--G-Man 01:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point for me, an anti-pk/pro-bounty hunter suggestion will not make it through the system whilst I still have the ability to log on. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It would still aid you to kill one person..., you only hit negatives at three.--G-Man 02:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't anti-PeePeeKayR/Boontang Huntar: it's anti-trenchcoater. In theory I effen love the idea of nerfing guns. However, in practicality.... No. It doesn't make sense: it's been 3 years or someting, we're quite used to blood and guts now... --WanYao 03:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion is retarded. 3 years in a city with the walking dead, where death is a daily occurrence, and pretty much everyone has died many times, and the survivors are so fainthearted that the sight of blood affects their ability to shoot their weapons (which, by the way, they've had three years to practice shooting)? --Pestolence^(talk) 01:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Were not talking just a little blood here (Yes certain situations in the game would only cause a small amount, but to be truly even noticable in this situation it would have to be more). You walk into a room, theres body parts strewn about, blood covering the walls, and you just suck it up? This isn't the same as a couple bite wounds or a gun-shot wound, and is in effect, a person with there inards strewn about. In reality its not something you shrug off, and woulden't truly be a daily occurance at this point in the outbreak. Post-Tramatic Stress Disorder x5. Your going to break down sometime.--G-Man 02:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

So we're just talking level 5 or 6 bloodstains here, not 1 or 2? Ok, that makes more sense, but still, this penalizes every survivor, and not every survivor would break down (in fact, some would thrive). --Pestolence^(talk) 02:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Realisticly Yes, but urban dead isn't all about realism. Some things have to be generized for the effect that would be recieved by most, not nessicarly all. Fire-arms are a prime example where some people would learn to be marksmen, others would suck no matter how much practice, yet we all shoot at the same %rate as long as we have the skills purchased.--G-Man 02:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This would make sense affecting newbies. Problem with that is, all things considered, you don't really wanna do that. What might make things interesting is if players could toggle things like this. When they first create a character, they have the option to toggle this on (but if they do, it remains "on" until they reach a certain level).--Pesatyel 03:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Kind of a challenge thing eh? I like your style, although it should still be optional after that level is reached, as the game would still only get less challenging, and its the older folks who would be looking for some spice.--G-Man 04:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Just my Two cents but what if instead of the gore aspect of it freakin people out what if you hade the Blood and Gore and body parts like trip people or make them slip? --Swordy 00:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the in-game effect should be that there's a 1% chance that you'll slip on fresh blood and get a concussion, making the screen blurry for the next 50 turns and putting your character into a coma if you AP out. --William Told 01:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Or it could give you AIDS. --William Told 01:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

And the Aids make Infections do more damage like say...3 Hp per action maybe? --Swordy 18:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that you'll have to drop everything in your inventory, because no one can use a shotgun if its all covered in blood, far too messy for the average survivor--Brian Eetar ^DTD|CFT|GMG 19:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Retuning radio AP cost adjustment

Timestamp:	Serpentine Green 12:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Tuning a hand held radio receiver currently requires 2 AP. 1 AP is taken when the radio is selected, and 1 AP is taken when the new frequency is entered. Retuning a radio transceiver on the other hand requires only 1 AP. I can't see any reason for this discrepancy (though I'm open to enlightenment) and I suggest that tuning a hand held receiver should only require 1 AP.

Discussion (Retuning radio AP cost adjustment)

Almost certain this is a dupe, but I'm not going to hunt for it now. --Pestolence^(talk) 23:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Mmh, yeah it's a dupe. Also here. --Janus ^talk 23:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The wiki is your friend. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a dupe because it ought to have been implemented years ago. sigh --WanYao 03:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I smell a Greasemonkey coming up :). --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 11:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mid :). Linkthewindow  Talk  22:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

And there it is! --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 13:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Walkie Talkie

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 23:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Firestations, survivors
Description:	This idea of walkies isn't new I'm sure, but I hope the specifics will be different enough to avoid being a dupe. Radios are great as a game-wide chat room between people in safe suburbs. They're really bad for people trying to coordinate with others in a small area, those in small groups or by themselves, far from malls, perhaps hiding in ruined buildings or scattered by the fall of their safehouse. Walkie talkies would be found commonly in fire stations, and rarely in police stations and mall tech stores (they've just been looted more by now). They let you broadcast, like a radio transmitter, but with a range of two blocks, a 5x5 area in total. There would only be one channel and mostly importantly a generator, or even being indoors, is not needed. People in your location would hear what you say, walkie talkie or no, and everyone within range with a *powered* walkie talkie would hear you. Now let me explain how power would work. Your walkie talkies can be powered or unpowered. Each time you broadcast a message there's a chance one of your powered walkies will become unpowered, much like a spray can getting used up. If you have no powered walkies you can't send or receive transmissions. Unlike spray cans, powerless walkie talkies stay in your inventory and can be recharged. Another item, commonly available in firestations and rarely in PDs/tech stores, would be a walkie charger: http://acsspirit.com/motorolabusinesstwoway/chargers.htm Chargers could be set up just like transmitters. When inside a building with a working generator and a walkie charger you'd be able to click unpowered walkies to charge them again. Since it takes a while to charge this would cost 10AP. Walkies would be very useful, but sharply limited. You'd have to be sparing in their use, powering walkies in advance and saving them for when you really need them. They would have different uses than radios. To sum up their respective pros and cons: Radios: Unlimited range and usage (AP permitting) makes it good for recruiting and announcements, also causes spam and unimportant messages. Multiple channels allow for privacy or dedicated topics, also prevent everyone from getting your message. Need for a powered transmitter makes it a lot easier to broadcast from secure safehouses. Walkies: Limited range makes it bad for announcements/recruiting, good for local communication. Limited usage prevents spam, but also stops back and forth communication or follow-up messages. Allows you to broadcast from unpowered buildings, but requires a significant AP investment ahead of time, as well as increased encumbrance if you carry spare walkies. Lone channel makes it great for reaching everyone in your 5x5 area, but quite bad for sharing anything secret - remember, nothing prevents a zombie from carrying a powered walkie...

Discussion (Walkie Talkies)

People don't generally use ap on one to one communication in the game. They're better off using an IM or something. --Diablor 23:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And the link. - User:Whitehouse 23:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Walkie talkies are peer reviewed. So I guess the focus of this suggestion isn't the broad idea but the power recharge aspect. Perhaps Kevan hasn't introduced them because they are too powerful in that suggestion. This could be one way of doing it that ties them to generators - in the suggestion I believe there is no limit on broadcasts or need for generators at all. --A Big F'ing Dog 02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's no secret that Kevan doesn't like coding. That could also be why. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't blame him. But he does make updates if he likes an idea enough. I'd like to make walkie talkies as appealing as possible. No point getting it into peer reviewed if we don't keep improving it (when possible) until it's worth his time. --A Big F'ing Dog 04:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What would happen if someone killed you before the WT was recharged, or indeed the genny was killed part way through the recharging? Is there a metre for the WT to show the charge? Is it able to work on part charge? These questions are only the tip of the iceberg so I think its a overly complicated item to maintain which makes it of limited use to people. --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ ^{MCM MOB DB} 23:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Recharging is a one click action, like manufacturing a syringe or fixing a ruin. So a generator couldn't be interrupted mid-charge. And there would not be a partial charge, either it would have power or it wouldn't. --A Big F'ing Dog 02:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What Diablor said. It would be rather redundant as most groups use IRC to communicate. I could, however see a small use in communication by groupless groups of survivors, but it's a dupe anyway. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I address whether it's a dupe above. This obviously is unneeded for a metagaming group, but it would be useful to talk to groupless survivors or those in different groups. It'd also help stragglers meet up with each other. In ghostown suburbs a survivor looking for company could broadcast "Anyone out there?" and wait for a reply. Or they could warn people about nearby breaches, and trust that survivors will come to their aid before a zombie with a walkie talkie hears it and attacks. --A Big F'ing Dog 02:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

TL;DNR ... However, radios are very powerful tools: use 'em. Or, hit IRC or IM if you really need to coordinate. --WanYao 03:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As the author of the above linked PR suggestion, I obviously see the merit in adding WTs to the game. WTs would do a lot of good things that IRC does not; saying you could just use IRC instead is like saying IRC makes "feeding groan" pointless. The whole point is that its AREA SPECIFIC communication, not group specific. Even the "powerful" radio is largely group specific (lots of frequencies, only way to know which to use is via metagame) and not area specific (city wide range means its not).
The above suggestion is probably a bit better than mine (simpler to code due to fixed range, nice touch with limited power / recharging) although I do think having a 10 channels ads minimal complexity and would be worthwhile.  Swiers 05:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, sweirs, the radio freqs in my experience that tend to get the most use are area-specific already. Some of them are mall freqs or burb freqs, and some of them are "run" by the larger groups -- but in fact used by everyone in the area... These freqs are all over wiki and easy to find in-game. So I don't see the point of WT's. --WanYao 07:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, radios would be better for dedicated groups or coordinated survivors. Walkie talkies are an ideal way of survivors becoming coordinated. You can use WTs to find other people, and working together maintain a generator and transmitter. Today talkies, tomorrow radios and metagaming! -- There would still be some uses to mobility obviously even for large groups (for example, maintaining a transmitter at an HQ and having scouts report back with walkies), but a walkie talkie is especially useful for someone who doesn't have a forum of people already working with them.--A Big F'ing Dog 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wan- yes, a small bit of metagaming organization does allow people to use radios in an area specific fashion, but they are not INHERENTLY area specific. More importantly, the current "area" usage sucks sweaty dog balls. There's a HUGE difference between listening to radio noise from a 5 suburb "cluster" (500 blocks, most often not centered on your location) and listening to a WT that only picks up conversations from a 25 block area centered on your location. Hell, you can easily be on the border of 4 of the current "radio zones" - should you then listen to / broadcast to all 4? That's 20 suburbs worth of noise.
And no, a finer grid of frequency allocations is NOT the answer. Having to look up what freq to use and change your radio each time you move 5 blocks would suck even bigger, sweatier balls... pig balls, maybe. The fact is, there's really no truely good way to make radios area specific because, by design, they are NOT area specific.  Swiers 03:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Just use a mobile phone. That's my contribution and what my vote would be if it came up, if there's nothing here that doesn't make that a legitimate rebuttal then the suggestion either needs work or death.--Karek^maps?! 00:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Mobile phones require mutual contacts. They're only good for contacting people you already know, and only one person at a time. They're also designed for use just in secure neighborhoods with powered masts, not good for somebody on the go, battling in new and exciting places.--A Big F'ing Dog 01:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have described a Radio Transmitter as your optimal. It is already in game, you win nozzing!--Karek^maps?! 04:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? What do you mean? --A Big F'ing Dog 14:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it...a survivor equivalent of feeding groan, if you will. Area-specific communication IS something that's not there, for survivors. --Jen 17:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that would be the flare gun, which they had first.--Karek^maps?! 08:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC

Flare guns though are devoid of meaning. Feeding groans have a meaning programmed in. --A Big F'ing Dog 03:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Flare guns have as much meaning as you want to give them. Doesn't hurt that they're rarely used either.--Karek^maps?! 05:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

True. But you need to agree with whoever you're signaling what the flare guns means. Which brings us back to it only being useful for organized players. --A Big F'ing Dog 15:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Show Item Encumbrance

Show item Encumbrance is up for voting. Discussion moved to here.

---