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

Crippling Blow

Timestamp:	Faranya 02:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Zombie Hunter Skill
Scope:	Survivors above level 10
Description:	Along the same lines as Headshot, Crippling blow would be a zombie hunter skill available only to players above level 10. Essentially, Crippling blow would passivly give the character with that skill the chance (somewhere like 5% or lower) to 'cripple' the target. Crippling would result in the cost of 2 AP to move between blocks until either: A) 5 blocks have been traversed (10 AP) B) Death This would give the zombie hunter a chance to keep a zombie that was attacked but not quite killed at a distance. As they would be able to be tracked by Scent Trail unless they escape 10 blocks, this would mean that there might be a chance that chasing them down is slightly less likely from the attacked zombie. The target would recieve a message along the lines of "<name> attacked you for <damage>, and crippled one of your legs", while the attacker would recieve no confirmation of a cripple, and cannot be certain that they had actually crippled the target, as it would on average only occur once every 20 (or possibly more) successful attacks. This effect is not necessarily detrimental to a zombie, if they are part of a siege then it is likely to be of little consequence. Additionally, low level zombie without Lurching Gait would not be effected by this, they would jsut proceed as normal. The percentage of effect is open to suggestions, but I think 5% is the highest this can possibly go without becoming ridiculous.

Discussion (Crippling Blow)

Why doesn't this work on humans? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it could, but I figured Zombie hunter would be the category to fit it into, so there was a pre-requisate level to obtain it. Faranya 02:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Show exhausted survivors

Timestamp:	Turtleboy412 06:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Helpfull flavor
Scope:	Urban Dead players
Description:	If you are in a room or outside block with someone who has 5 or less AP they are shown as exhausted. If they have 0 AP they are shown as asleep. [Example: You are inside A Factory. The building has been very strongly barricaded. Also here are ZombieSlayer007 (51HP)(Exhausted) and Dr.Trenchie (17HP)(Asleep) and RedbullWings (50HP).There are 2 zombies here.There are 3 dead bodies here.] In the example it shows everyone's HP as if the player had diagnosis. You wouldn't see anyone's HP if you didn't have diagnosis (Duh). You would not see if zombies where asleep or exhausted. Zombies would know if survivors where exhausted or asleep but the flavor may be changed to somthing along the lines of slowed and lying rather than exhausted and asleep.

Discussion (Show exhausted Survivors)

I think something like this has been proposed before and was shot down due to the griefing potential – this would make it too easy to kill people who can't run/fight back. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That and if you're a nice person looking to heal, then you'd get the skill needed. This makes it much to easy for those looking to kill to narrow it down to the easiest to kill. So i guess it is balanced, in that everyone gets an advantage...-tylerisfat 13:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No bloody way. My AP is my business. Why? Because if this information were available, then attackers would know exactly whom to neutralise and who's harmless and can be ignored. This information would be invaluable in sieges and totally shafts any group that coordinates to defend a building. Totally unbalanced. --WanYao 13:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What WanYao said. This is essentially a way to negate someone's AP by killing anyone able to barricade or heal. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Scope

Timestamp:	Angusburger 21:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Item/flavour
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	You can get different kinds of knife (kitchen knife, large scapel etc), so I suggest a new 'type' of binoculars. You would have the same search percentages of finding binoculars, except only in an armoury. The flavour text would read You find a military sniper rifle, although the gun is damaged beyond repair, the scope is still servicable or simply You find a sniper scope. Help me with this one.

Discussion (Scope)

The "scope" of it is too limited. Armory only? You can already find binoculars there as it is. Or are you suggesting that the description be changed there?--Pesatyel 03:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't help you with this because I don't know what you want... --WanYao 13:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere between "Meh" and "Isn't needed." I'll be assuming that scopes work like binoculars? Also, this will spawn a heap of "Attach scope to teh_pistol" suggestions, although that isn't a valid kill reason. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a bad idea if it's just like Knife, which seems to be the intent. Just be wary that the name alone will put people off for fear of people wanting to make it more than just flavor.--Karek^maps?! 02:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The flavour idea is all right, I suppose, but IMO binoculars are already sufficiently military in flavour. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the flavour text :) - I kinda want to see trenchies elite zombie hunters spending tons of AP in armories hoping to find a repairable sniper rifle. -- 

•  Nevin McAvoy 

•  (talk) 

19:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

---

GPS Unit Zombie Alert Improvement

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 15:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	GPS Unit
Description:	Here is an idea for the GPS Unit. GPS Units are found in Necrotechs. Necrotech Inc tracks zombie positions through DNA scans. What if the GPS unit was connected to that system? Of course we don't want to make anything redundant to necronet. So what I suggest is this: the color of a GPS unit (by which I mean the text "GPS Unit") changes depending how many scanned zombies are in the 7x7 area (49 squares total) centered on you. Few zombies would be green. As the numbers increase the color would become yellow, orange, and red. It would not tell you where they are, just provide a vague idea how many are nearby. Mall tech store GPS units would not be connected to necronet. GPS units found there would remain gray. Redundant with the suburb danger map? Not really. This is much more precise because it covers the specific 49 squares right around you. The map gives you a good idea as to the state of a suburb, not so much for any one part of the suburb, or an area that covers more than one suburb. Plus, that map is updated by hand and can be slightly outdated at times - this would be completely precise, with the limit of only counting scanned zombies. Any ideas what numbers of zombies should correspond to the different color levels?

Discussion (GPS Unit Zombie Alert Improvement)

For fuck's sake, read the archives. I'm tired of you filling this page with dupe shit. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything like this in the archives. I do like this suggestion a lot though, but that one is unrelated to this. Please post the link if you have one that's the same. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

there have been lots of attempts to use GPS units to track zombies. this, however, is different. but that doesn't make it better. this makes the game too easy. essentially it's a form of x-ray vision. if you want to know more concrete zombie numbers, go outside and/or get some binoculars. --WanYao 22:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

oh.... and what it is redundant with is NecroNet scans... actually, if i read this correctly, it's a giant buff to NecroNet scanning! there have been MANY attempts to bypass the blind spots in the necronet, and all of them got shot down. rightfully, because the blind spots are part of the game. --WanYao 23:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Setting Christmas trees on fire

Timestamp:	WanYao 13:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Survivor "flavour" action
Scope:	Grinches and pyromaniacs
Description:	Game change allows you to douse a Christmas tree with fuel, then shoot a flare fun at it and set on fire. All attacks would use normal to-hit %ages, via the attack drop-down. That's how it works to smash christmas lights already... Realistically, there should be a chance of this causing a fire which would wreck some barricade levels, etc. -- preferably all of them, leaving the building auto-ruined, bwaaaaaaaaahahahah!! However, I know... that's too much. :( Therefore, there would be no in-game effect, just a nifty message something like, "(player/you) fires a flare gun at the Christmas tree. It burns, filling the room with a thick smoke". Plastic trees would melt, leaving a smouldering black lump on the floor.

Discussion (Setting Christmas trees on fire)

You know you want to! --WanYao 13:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I kind of do.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I kinda wish it didn't destroy the tree, just changed it's description to "it is on fire".--Karek^maps?! 13:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You scratch your head, pondering this idea. --WanYao 13:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This I would do over and over again! Can you then pick up the black lump and hit folk with it? or am I going to far with this! :-P --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ ^{MCM MOB DB} 19:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well... no. It's just flavour. If it were more than just flavour, I'd make a 20% chance of setting the bulding on fire, causing all barricades to be destroyed and the building to become ruined. No one would take damage, which I know is not very realistic... but we have to keep game balance in mind!

But, all fun and games aside, this is a serious suggestion. I wanna be able to set Xmas trees in fire. So let's deal with finalising a good mechanic and ram it throught voting! ;) --WanYao 22:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Xmas trees? Or any decoration in the building? You are lighting it with a fuel can. Faranya 20:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Flaming Zombies

Timestamp:	Urgggggggh 19:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Attack expansion.
Scope:	All players and barricades
Description:	Fire spreading from zombies attacked with Flare Gun/Fuel Can combo.

Zombies hit by the Flare Gun/Fuel Can attack combo and are not killed remain on fire (as 'flaming zombies') and are able to spread that fire to surrounding Survivors, Zombies and Barricades with a successful claw attack. Only 1 target can be ignited per successful attack. XP would be awarded at one payment of 2 per ignited survivor and 1 per zombie/barricade.

Flaming Zombies would take fire damage at 1HP per AP spent until dead, upon which they would burn out.

Ignited Survivors would take damage at 1HP per AP spent until dead or extinquished. Survivors would be extinguished by spending AP's rolling on the ground, being 'smothered' by other survivors or sprayed with a fire extinguisher (see below) or dying. The ignited target is unable to spread the fire further.

Ignited Zombies would take damage at 1HP per AP spent until dead and is able to spread the fire as above.

Ignited Barricades are 15% easier to smash down until rebuilt back to Heavy or higher level (non-flammable materials).

This would also require the introduction of Fire Extingishers as a item in most buildings; Fort, Hospital, Fire Station and Police Department 5%; Malls, Clubs, Hotel, Public Houses 3%; everywhere else 1%.

Discussion (Flaming Zombies)

That's actually pretty amusing. =p -- Cheese 23:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of work to implement... Faranya 23:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Read the FAQ's please. This is a multi-suggestion, and shouldn't be made. This is a suggestion that solves no problems, adds nothing to the game, and is over complicated with no gain. - tylerisfat 03:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I did read the FAQ, it has nothing that says this type of action/idea is illegal, but please explain 'multi suggestion'. If this is about the extinguishers then their inclusion here is common sense and part of the effect. And the gain is both flavour and pseudo-realism; a zombie set alight by petrol and wasn't killed by the explosion wouldn't just 'go out', it would continue to burn and everyone knows that fire spreads. Urgggggggh 10:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Err, I'm not sure why i said it that way. I get on here late at night. What i meant is, you are not adding anything good, or addressing a current problem, but instead creating a problem and a not very good solution that involves new items. These suggestions are regularly spammed. - tylerisfat 13:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Tylerisfat means by this being a "multi-suggestion" but the main flaw is that zombies CANNOT put out the flames themselves.--Pesatyel 08:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would they? A zombie wouldn't even notice it was on fire :) I see your point though, would it work better if a survivor could extinguish a flaming zed? Urgggggggh 10:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's more for balance than realism - it seems rather annoying to have to force a zombie to die to put out the fire, especially without Ankle Grab. Regarding the multi-suggestion thing, it's because this tries to introduce too many things at once. Whether this is more than one suggestion lumped together is a bit debatable (I personally think that it is), but at the very least it's certainly too complicated. Plus, I'm pretty sure that fire is one of the things we're not supposed to suggest, especially fire that can spread - the potential for it going out of control is pretty high. -- User:Ashnazg 0452, 30 December 2008 (GMT)

I realized that it was a new event/skill/whatever AND a new item. But I think exceptions like this are a necessity. The only other thing I can think off off the top of my head would be that a flaming person would set off the sprinklers if inside, thereby partially negating the requirement of a fire extinguisher.--Pesatyel 05:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ashnazg; If we cant have fire in the game, why do we even have the 'Fireman' class? Fire that spreads once should be considered, after all, what zombie film doesn't have a fire in it somewhere? Also, this cant be any more annoying than being infected as a beginning survivor can it?, at least this will go away after you die. Urgggggggh 11:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it IS more annoying then an infected newbie survivor. Newbie survivors can HEAL THEMSELVES or GET HEALED BY OTHERS.--Pesatyel 03:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Setting a zombie on fire is definitely more annoying for the zombie than for a newbie survivor. Regarding firemen in the game, this suggestion does nothing to make them any more useful either (and no, please don't start allowing only firemen to extinguish fires). They are there mostly to have someone that can start by using a fire axe. And yeah, of course zombie films have fire. But trying to introduce something into the game for flavour without taking balance into account is a no-no. Want to introduce fire? Sure, go ahead. But make sure it is a balanced, controllable, non-griefy type of fire rather than something like this, which is not only difficult to implement but also has great potential for griefing people and growing out of control. See the case of the World of Warcraft plague a few years back for why status effects that spread uncontrollably from person to person should not be introduced into games. I mean, fire like this could allow the whole of Malton to be swarmed by flaming zombies setting each other aflame left and right in order to break down barricades more easily and burn survivors. Basically the whole city would go down in flames. Which actually sounds pretty awesome, but would screw up the game completely. -- User:Ashnazg 0422, 31 December 2008 (GMT)

A flaming zombie is a very dangerous thing... And a fun idea. However, as others have pointed out it's very difficult to implement something like that in a way that isn't over the top and griefy. Multiply it by a million, eh? --WanYao 12:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool and all but probably not the best idea. Yeah infection sucks but I don't think we need a second form of it that only survivors can trigger, that would be a way for Survivors to temporarily buff zombies and runs into the problem of encouraging cross-play of the two sides. It should be survivors vs zombies not survivors vs survivors and zombies(no this is not what Death Culting is).--Karek^maps?! 12:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Headshot Text Change

Timestamp:	Pestolence(talk) 22:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Minor text change.
Scope:	All players.
Description:	It's pretty simple: Currently when a zombie is headshot, the text for other players in the same room is "Player 1 killed a zombie." I suggest that it be changed to "Player 1 headshot a zombie." Feedback?

Discussion (Headshot Text Change)

Unneeded. The Player 1 text gives a profile link. Go check if they have Headshot. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe this could be achieved with GreaseMonkey. _■^■ 03:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"I believe this could be acheived with GreaseMonkey" is not a valid reason to reject asuggestion. However, there is no need that I can see to include this information in the game. --WanYao 05:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said I was rejecting it.. I was just saying it could likely be replicated in GreaseMonkey.. _■^■ 06:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why'd you change your sig?? Also I like what iscariot says.--xoxo 06:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I was bored yesterday and had nothing else to do. --Pestolence^(talk) 15:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it also say "they take a headshot and die"? And I hate the "do it with a script" bullshit.--Pesatyel 08:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's if you're the one who headshots the zombie. This suggestion would only be for other players in the block when the headshot takes place. --Pestolence^(talk) 03:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok. I'm of a mind it should occur for ALL weapons. "Bob killed a zombie with [insert weapon here]". Since headshot is automatic, it can say "Bob hit a zombie in the head with a [insert weapon here]".--Pesatyel 05:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If my zombies deaths are at all typical, it would make more sense to describe the unusual situations in which the zombie is NOT headshot. "Player 1 kills a zombie, but he missed the head!"  Swiers 03:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I know that feeling. I once got headshot, stood up and got headshot again, and stood up a third time and got headshot yet again in the span of a few hours. --Pestolence^(talk) 03:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I did that once in a few minutes during a live combat.--Pesatyel 20:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Handcuffing

Timestamp:	Faranya 03:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Type:	Skill/item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I am aware that handcuffs have in fact been suggested, however this suggestion is quite a bit different. Handcuffs, which would require finding in a police department, would be able to be used by anyone, with a 15-20% chance of handcuffing someone. Being handcuffed means that one would require an expendature of 10 AP to do anything with their hands, similar to death, except movement is in no way restricted. Free running would work the same way. Similarly, actions not requiring hands, such as speaking or biting (zombies), would be uneffected. However, if attempting to handcuff someone, and it fails, there is a small (5-10%) chance of losing your cuffs. Now, there would also be a skill (let's call it Take Down) to increase the effectivness of handcuffing (perhaps up to 40%), as well as a skill (let's call it Lock Pick) similar to Ankle Grab to allow 1 AP to free yourself. This would mean, effectivly, that one with handcuffs could in theory cuff someone, and then kill (or revive) them, which would mean that AP would need to be spent to stand up, and then again to uncuff your hands to use them. Worst case scenario, 15 AP to stand (headshot), 10 AP to free your hands, which I must admit would be very irritating. Best case scenario (Ankle Grab and Lock Pick) 2AP total. The only real thing survivors have on Zombies is to eat into their AP (hence headshot), so there should be some way to increase the capacity to do so. However, I think that having to take to time to find the cuffs, use them sucessfully, with the risk of losing them entirely while doing so helps maintain some balance for this.

Discussion (Handcuffing)

No, Unneeded, don't mess with people's AP. Also, not specific enough, and likely a dupe. _■^■ 04:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What Cory said. Messing with people's AP is bad, and this could be a spectacular greifing tool. Especially for zombies who don't have ankle grab-a 25AP stand-up cost could make 'em quit the game. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A very misguided idea. First, as everyone says: don't mess with my APes!! Second, eating into their AP via headshot is not the only thing survivors have versus the zombies... First of all, there are barricades. The point of shooting a zombie isn't to "kill" him, or to eat into his AP by headshooting him: it's to get him the hell out of the building and then to build the cades. Cades are the real AP eater... And then of course there's my favourite: the 100% to hit, 100% effective, mere 10 AP to "kill" -- the combat revive **bwahahahah**

Now... if handcuffs were purely accessories... eeerm... "role play".. erm... accessories..,, erm... clothing... ermm... uh... nevermind... :P --WanYao 06:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

grieftastic like nothing else. other people are players in this game, and this, used on anybody for any reason, gives way to high a penalty for no risk whatsoever. its basically, for all intents and purposes, BETTER then a one shot kill. it gives a no-penalty way for only survivors to give someone else a 10 ap penalty for next to nothing, and sets that person up to be killed, which could over-double that penalty. so as far as numbers, way out of whack and griefy. but even the idea of it is pure grief. multiply it by a thousand. see 30 griefers load full inventories of handcuffs and enter a mall and handcuff everyone, repeatedly. it would totally kill the mall for way less AP then zombies having a seige. or imagine a super group of survivors handcuffing a bunch of newb zeds repeatedly. it would kill the game because they would quit. straight up. ap is too valuable to screw around with like this. - tylerisfat 09:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I will have this cycled in minutes if it goes to voting. Let me guess? Lockpick is a survivor skill? Shocking(!) Way to try and reinstitute headshot amongst rotten career zombies. Also, how badly do you want to fuck over newbies? Because you will see the emergence of PKer groups using this on newbies to grief them out of the game for fun. I know you'll see it, because I'll start it!

At least you brought it here first.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Try playing as a zombie before suggesting this kind of griefing shit. --Papa Moloch 05:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As Moloch. Way overpowered and griefers can do enough as it is. -- Cheese 23:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much what other people said. But I have to add this, why wouldn't Free Running be affected? Whatever the argument that Free Running entails (and most players, I believe, use the idea it is jumping from one building to the next) most interpretations require the use of hands, be it for balance or grabbing onto things as you land.--Pesatyel 09:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

---

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)

yes to the version with no building names. an interesting thought might be memories of life having some sort of impact on this... - tylerisfat 09:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think survivors should be able to hear it. It'd be impossible to breach a building next to a crowded building. As for zombies, I think to balance this out they should only hear it if it's very loud, caused by a high number of survivors. --A Big F'ing Dog 02:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What do others think about the crossover ability? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the below skill for the same reason. Directions, not names. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No building names it is then, as that seems to be the feeling. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it with or without the names, but doesn't the game already tell you what direction a groan is coming from? --William Told and Co. ^{ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ} 04:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As per WanYao, you'd have to reduce blocking rates. At the moment, a zed has the choice of blocking a building or being outside to hear the groans - being able to do both would be too large a boost unless you were to cut down on the effectiveness of squatting a ruined resource building. Personally, I prefer my zed having to make the choice Sanpedro 06:27, 30 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)

I don't pay attention to them for the same reason I don't pay attention to property ownership tags. They don't mean anything. That's your fault as survivors, not mine. Institute a policy as with Sacred Ground regarding flare use. Make them mean something like cemeteries do, don't ask the game engine to do the work because you are too lazy/moronic. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:06, 27 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)

There are always exceptions and I mentioned two, and that may be so, but that lasts a min. of one level, max of say 3? Not to mention killing zombies is far from the only way, and using flares to do so is argueably not the best way to level up as a newbie. Its also better for survivors as a whole to have quicker leveled players that can hit easily, instead of newbies struggling to kill one zombie with a couple flares that aren't even that easy to find in my experience. It currently loses any real use after that third lvl. and isn't even really much use there. Better it finally gains some all around use, so it gains some of the original point back to it.--G-Man 06:31, 26 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)

I'll make it easy. Firing flares from buildings is overpowered for two reasons.

1. It implies meaning, you see it's from a building and you know that building is repaired. That's a hefty bonus for no fucking downside.
2. The current downside to signalling is the chance of being attacked by an active zombie, you want/need to remove this because?

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It may lower the chance for being attacked by one active zombie (VSB buildings can be bypassed by one), however with the current system in place it greatly increases the risk that your whole building will be overtaken by a small/medium horde of zombies, possibily putting several survivors at risk. You seem to be ignoring the fact that this would attract the attention of zombie players, much more then flares do now,yet still sligtly less then feeding groan. Unless i've been living under a rock and knowing where food is, is useless information to them? As for knowing a building is repaired for no downside, I can achieve the same with one radio call, 1 wiki update or 1 "safe" passby. However all three of those won't attract zombie attention, two know no bounds on how far they will reach in the community, one takes no extra AP. However not everyone checks the wiki, a radio call might not reach anyone who gives a damn and a passby only personally tells myself. With this its possible to actually reach someone who gives a damn, and with increased zombie attention on that building it could very well just be leading them to there demise. As well what building is important enough that knowing its repaired through use of a flare, that most likly had been fired at least an hour ago (In my experience, I've never had one closer, as it has 24hours out of my two minutes of gameplay to hide in), in a game where it takes two minutes for a building to fall or cade status to change, would somehow help or hurt you in an overpowered way? Any important and VSB building gets advertised to both sides, and any unimportant building gets ignored regardless. Unless im mistaken the info ain't free, can be useless to both sides, and can easily lead to your demise, yet can still come above all that to be helpful if its used in a smart way, and you just know its not always going to be. Hell it could even be used by pkers just to raise a little hell.--G-Man 11:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Iron Sights

Iron Sights is up for voting. Discussion moved to here.

Show Item Encumbrance

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

Walkie Talkie

This suggestion is up for voting, and the discussion has been moved to the talk page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:21 27 December 2008 (BST)

---