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

Colour

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 15:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Appearance
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	Yes this is 3 suggestions however 1&2 can be potentially bundled as one idea and number 3 is dependant of number 2 so I figured if I submit them all at once it would save time and if need be I could separate them at a later date. 1) Coloured flares Flares are now found in one of 4 colours (Red/Green/Blue/Yellow) this does not alter the search rates, the colour is randomly selected if a flare is found. The name of the flare now has the prefix of the appropriate colour. When a flare is fired the prefix is included in the message. In-game justification: Survivors are now beginning to pay attention to the colour of flares. Note: very similar to This however the key difference is that you cannot pick the colour of your flares. 2) Coloured Paint Spray Cans are now found in one of 6 colours (Red/Orange/Yellow/Green/Blue/Purple) this does not alter the search rates as the colour is randomly selected if a can is found. The name of the can now has the prefix of the appropriate colour. When an object is tagged the message appears in the appropriate colour. In-game justification: Survivors are now beginning to pay attention to the colour of paint. 3) Zombie Tagging Zombies can now be attacked by survivors with spray cans, attacking a zombie has a 15% chance of success and a 30% chance with the tagging skill, the can is used once regardless of a hit or miss; successfully attacking a zombie rewards the player 1XP (you are not writing a message/you are 'attacking' the zombie). A zombie that is tagged is moved into a separate attack/scan/etc. stack based on the colour it was tagged ('a zombie' becomes 'a red zombie') IT DOES NOT ALLOW PROFILE VIEWING. When a zombie is killed it reverts to the default colour. The area description now includes a count of coloured zombies (e.g. there are 5 zombies here, 2 are red, 1 is green). Re-tagging a tagged zombie changes the colour to the new colour. Uses: Identifying specific zombies/types (rotters/high-level/low-health) Attacking the same zombie if the stack changes; assuming you tagged it before the stack changed. Humiliation/fun.

Discussion (Colour)

1 and 2.... Seems like harmless and pointless flavor, but I'm pretty sure they are dupes. 3 - Kill it with fire. This has been proposed before and was appropriately killed with fire. Remember, Zombies = People, NOT BILLBOARDS. --Johnny Bass 15:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1 is almost a dupe of the one included in the link, 2 I could not find anywhere. I know zombies are not bill-boards, I'm not proposing writing profanity on them (if I remember that was a reason against it and that 'real' zombies would not stand still long enough to let you), what I'm proposing is a way to mark a zombie without ruining anonymity. Zombies can gesture to Survivors but survivors have no way to point out specific zombies. This allows them to mark a zombie by spraying a stripe across the arm or similar and letting others know why you did without breaking anonymity. Zombies can point for 1AP and this would cost survivors significantly more. (small change to the description to clarify how it works) --Kamikazie-Bunny 15:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Colored Flares. 2. Colored Spraypaint. 3. This idea comes up occasionally and it is nothing more than a griefer tool. In fact, it came up about a week ago. It might help to do some research before posting a suggestion (which is why I think they redesigned the page). Also, NEVER put multiple ideas in the same suggestion (unless intrinsically tied, like a new item to go with a new skill, but even then its not a good idea). What if I like ONE of the ideas but not the others?--Pesatyel 15:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I missed dupe 2. I actually feel that my version of zombie marking is fairly unique though from what I could find... It does not allow you to write on, harm, blind or grief a player (not without significant AP cost(and all you do then is move them into a different stack)). Can you honestly say that the suggestion from last week is the same as this one excluding the name? I know not to put multiple suggestions as one but as I said at the start 1&2 (IMO) are too similar to warrant separate ones, and number 3 is dependant on number 2 if I did them separate I'd just have people quoting the dos and do not Don't Connect Suggestions --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Even without being able to write anything on a zambah it could still easily be used to grief players. Imagine the skill were in place. What's to stop someone from scanning and spraying every low level zombie in an area and encouraging people to target them exclusively? That would be a quick way to lose a lot of potential new players. What's to stop someone from only coloring pkers because ZOMG DON'T REVIVE TEHM. The potential for abuse for a simple and stupid mechanic like this is endless. --Johnny Bass 16:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny the potential for abuse, but if you were to go around tagging a specific type of player you would have to have them all on your contacts or scan them first, if they're on your contact and you want to grief then you'll be greifing your targets no matter what in some form, if not scanning would increase the AP cost, that's 4.3AP just to check and spray 1zed ignoring travel times and searching. --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I dislike the idea for reasons of my own. However, I doubt that people would tag low-level zeds and then encourage people to *only* attack them. And I find it unlikely because I don't believe we currently have a problem with zombies clicking on each survivor's name and then only attacking the low-level ones. If players don't abuse a feature that already exists, I doubt they'd abuse this feature, were it to be implemented. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 21:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Rescue

Timestamp:	Vandy 04:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill change.
Scope:	Survivor
Description:	This is basically a survivor version of Feeding Drag. A survivor enters a building where there is another survivor that is seriously wounded. Using this skill they can carry them to an adjacent building. Although this would fit as a subskill for Bodybuilding, I think it would be a better fit for Free Running. The survivor can only carry the wounded survivor to the inside of another building, ie. someplace that is safe. The wounded survivor should have a low HP total (probably 12), similar to Feeding Drag. The AP cost should be high to represent the effort needed to haul another person, maybe 15? Thanks for reading.

Discussion (Rescue)

Pied piper skill, no. --Johnny Bass 04:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dupe of Fireman's Carry. Next! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been suggested many times before and not passed for to many reasons for me to go into right now. Suffice to say that it has no chance. Sorry. --Papa Moloch 05:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just curious-- would people feel differently if the skill was restricted to carrying a wounded survivor from the street into the building at the same location (that is, the exact opposite of Feeding Drag)? ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 07:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fireman's Carry--Pesatyel 07:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Pesatyel! ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 21:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Change Ransack/Ruin

Timestamp:	Kolechovski 00:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill Change
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Currently, the lone skill Ransack provides the ability to turn an empty building into a decaying mess, costing more AP to repair as time goes on. I propose making 2 separate skills of this, each with abilities and a believable route of learning. The Ransack Skill-with this skill, a zombie can ransack a building once. With the place a mess, barricade materials can’t be dragged into doorways. Unlike current mechanics, pipes can still be jammed in doors, since they’re not falling into ruin. The Ruin Skill-having an increased desire for destruction and awareness of survivor tendencies, the zombie has the ability to ransack multiple areas of a building more methodically for maximum damage, causing the building to start falling apart. Rather than become a super-powered wrecking machine all at once, this path provides a more gradual, believable leveling path to achieve the game’s current Ransack mechanic. It also provides more strategy to zombies than simply ransack 6 times. Ransack will still be a valuable skill. With it, a zombie can takeover a building and require being cleared before the building can be brought back into survivor hands. It also provides more options for zombies. “Do I want to earn the ability to take my wrecking to the next level right away, or should I stay with Ransack and working on learning more combat skills?” Splitting the current mechanic into a branch of Ransack, this will provide believability of gradual learning, more choices for zombies what leveling route to go, and more options for hordes with sieges (which buildings need totally ruined, and which are okay just Ransacked?). Ruin will still require a Toolbox to fix.

Discussion (Change Ransack/Ruin)

Seriously? Do you even consider what you say to justify a suggestion? Ruin is actually pretty weak, and it's certainly no Barricade Strafing of Free Running but by all means, call it being a super-powered wrecking machine and not the few times it actually is expensive to undo survivor indifference. Survivors can fix ruins in a 30th of the time it takes zombies to get the ruin to that point, this is just whining. --Karek^maps?! 03:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1 Survivor needs 30 AP to repair a building? OH NOEZ! What about the 7 ap it took to ruin it and the 80 it took to take down the barricades? If the ruins were attended to quickly or people actually worked together to clear them more often, it wouldn't ever be a problem. --Johnny Bass 04:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No way. As I have said to eight out of every ten suggestions I see, this isn't necessary. I currently have an alt in Miltown, an almost 100% ruined suburb and even though right now it's absolutely screwed I know it can be fixed. Ruining is NOT overpowered. As Karek said, a few survivors can fully clear up a ruined suburb within a couple of days or a weeks time. That too long for you? Well the game is meant to be tough. It's all about the constant struggle between zombies and humans.--SirArgo ^Talk 04:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Reasons why zergers should not be suggesting things number 3492.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, do you hear that? It's the fucking fail train, and it's coming straight at you. Here's the funniest part of all in this crock of unmitigated monkey-shit: It also provides more options for zombies. “Do I want to earn the ability to take my wrecking to the next level right away, or should I stay with Ransack and working on learning more combat skills?”. As opposed to the current system where zombies get both skills to start with. Oooooooooooh! I'd like to thank you on behalf of all zombies ever for offering us such great 'options'. --Papa Moloch 05:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told I'd never buy Ruin unless I had tons of free xp. It's still crap and has been since the day it was added with the exception of the large building mechanic part that was removed as a bug. --Karek^maps?! 05:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

---

The Safe

Timestamp:	Sorakairi 02:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Safehouse/Survivors
Description:	This is an item that is used for storing items. This is my first suggestion. This item is found in malls. It is used like a generator, as in one you place it, it cannot be moved. You can only have 1 safe per building. You can store items in it if you are human and know the code for it. It can be tagged. It can be used only if the building is powered, not ruined and if you have the code. It can be destroyed, though is very hard to break. If the building is ruined, the safe no longer exists and all the items are lost. It can only store FAKs, weapons, Spray Cans, books and ammo. It can be repaired, but costs 5AP. It costs 2AP to open, and it can store 25 items.

Discussion (The Safe)

This has been suggested many times before and not passed. Sorry. --Papa Moloch 03:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Search phrases Bank Vault or Safe. I'm too lazy to dig through my archives for the dupe list at the moment. --Karek^maps?! 08:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Scent Prey

Timestamp:	--A Big F'ing Dog 18:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	A zombie skill for locating survivor safehouses. Scent Prey would be a Scent Trail subskill that tells you how recently a survivor visited a building. When inside a building that contains no survivors, the zombie would see a message like so on the building profile: "The eight-hour old scent of a living person lingers in the air." This information wouldn't directly help you find victims to kill like Feeding Groan or Scent Trail does, but it does have tangible uses. It could identify ruined buildings being used as free running points, and help you deduce which building is a safehouse. It also provides an accurate estimate of survivor activity in the area, and lets zombies know whether they're needed (or no longer needed) as guards. For example, if you're guarding a ruined PD and no survivors have stopped by to check on the building in three days, maybe it's time to find another target.

Discussion (Scent Prey)

I don't think this is all that useful. I mean, it's pretty easy most of the time to be able to tell where survivors are staying often. And something about that last statement you made about being able to tell if I survivor has free runned through there just seems unfair to me, though I can't think of a specific example of why.--SirArgo ^Talk 19:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the last example is just to see if a survivor checked on the building you're guarding. It seems fair in a way. If survivors can swing by and see that zombies are guarding a building, why shouldn't zombies know that someone did so? --A Big F'ing Dog 22:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

But when a survivor swings by, it's happening in the present tense. They're not seeing that a zombie used to be there, they're seeing that at that very moment a zombie is around. You suggestion would have it be like Survivor X was in this building (Y hours ago). It is in the past tense and therefor not the same.--SirArgo ^Talk 23:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't give a survivor's name. Just lets you know the last time any living person was in the building. --A Big F'ing Dog 07:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Name doesn't matter. Survivors checking in on how many zombies are around don't see names either.--SirArgo ^Talk 07:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree : ) --A Big F'ing Dog 14:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No we don't. Humans see zombies AT THE MOMENT. Your suggestions would have zombies see when humans WERE around. What I am trying to say is those two "powers" are not equal. The big difference is the zombie one isn't helpful at all. I would buy that skill last out of all of them, because as a zombie I have never had a problem finding where the humans are.--SirArgo ^Talk 17:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Zombies do require buffs. However we don't require buff like this that lead to slippery slopes of stupidity. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If zombies can smell humans well enough to track them over great distances, wouldn't it make sense they can tell how long it's been since one was present? --07:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not gonna be helpful really, strafers are present daily. It'd have to be more along the lines of Going in and seeing a text that describes a scent heading in a direction that can be tracked a certain number of blocks. Like a stronger version of an already existing Scent Skill, and probably should only apply to generators/barricades(so you can only track the one person). That second limit I mention is really the only thing that would make it not a dupe. There's also another possible suggestion, scent retention on death except by headshot_{(I hate headshot but maybe that should be it's purpose and the AP thing reduced or removed to make up for it being made actually valuable to survivors surviving.)} --Karek^maps?! 08:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What about something that instead of telling you when a survivor was last present, it told you how many different survivors were there in the past twenty-four hours? So it'd be less of a tracker and more of a survivor activity meter. I'm afraid of letting it track people just walking through - it only seems fair to track a specific person if they interact with the zombie in some way. --A Big F'ing Dog 14:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's just as useless, number of people that were there doesn't mean anything if they aren't there now. Barricades ruin the game for zombies, strafing is the extreme of that, tracking one person who has to initiate it is already in the game and can suffer the same restrictions with ease while anything that would discourage this behavior is only good for the player base. How would you like it if you played a game and used a whole day's AP to either barely get in and find nothing or to not even do that? At least ruins are damn hard to get to that point, barricades can reach that point in less than a quarter of the survivor's AP. --Karek^maps?! 04:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Videotape

Timestamp:	CaptainVideo 06:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	New item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I like the idea of a semi-serious class of weapons, and I figured that this would be a good place to start. Long gone from our homes and stores, I think it's time we stopped thinking about a videotape as a media format and started thinking of it as a lightweight projectile with sharp edges. Encumbrance 2% Damage 2HP against the living, 3 against the dead, 1 against a flack jacket Location Libraries (15%), wasteland (2%), junkyards (5%), schools (20%) Accuracy 60% Limitations Single-use weapon. Cannot deliver a headshot. Also, you'll look like a stooge for resorting to this. (Think Shawn of the Dead, in the scene with the LPs.) Benefits: For survivors Fulfils my desire to have an unusually accurate weapon that does minimal damage, thus aiding morale for the newb on the go. Gives you something new and exciting to look for in libraries. For PKers/griefers Nothing could be more wonderfully annoying than pelting somebody with tape after tape after tape. For when you want to tormet rather than destroy. Miscellaneous You can also read the tape box (like a book) for 1 AP. No XP value - just for novelty, like the poetry books. You keep the tape after reading it, though, unlike newspapers. Flavour: Discovery: You rummage around and find a videotape. You find a videotape among the debris. Weapon: You throw the videotape at the zombie, doing three damage. You throw the videotape at the zombie, but miss. You throw the videotape at Example_User, doing 2 damage. ...and again. ...and again. ...and again. Reading Material: This is a tape from a security camera. This is a recording of MythBusters This is a copy of Ishtar. A sticker on the tape says BE KIND, REWIND. This tape is unmarked.

Discussion (Videotape)

ah nah.--xoxo 11:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

? -CaptainVideo 16:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of my concerns have been addressed by the people below me but there was too much wrong with it for me to bother giving you a detailed run down.--xoxo 08:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight.... you want a lightweight bit of plastic to cause the same damage as a 2 handed axe???--Honestmistake 00:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Are these holy videos? Is that why they do more damage to zombies? Or are they like explosive smart bombs that only detonate when in contact with undead flesh? Why do flak jackets reduce their damage and not the damage of fireaxes? Perhaps these are special stealth ballistic video tapes that give the appearance of doing 5 damage so flak jackets kick in, but are so cunning that they actually do less damage. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

or to put it simply... bugger off! --Honestmistake 03:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've beaten people with videotapes before, but I've found that their damage-causing capabilities are vastly overrated. --Pestolence^(talk) 03:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'm going to be frank, a video tape would NOT do that much damage first off. Try 0.5 HP or less, and that could never be worked into the game. Especially if it was thrown. Second of all, the rational is all wrong. As Iscariot said, why does it do more damage to the undead? I just don't see how this can work at all.--SirArgo ^Talk 03:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• My logic on that one was that, as the dead, their rotten skin would rip a little easier. Look: I knew, going in, that this was not a particularly stellar idea, but I went through all the formatting and the considerations when I submitted this. I think the level of disgust I'm getting from this group is unwarranted. This is "Developing Suggestions". "Bugger off" is not creative criticism. -CaptainVideo 07:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, two things. One, the skill Flesh Rot shows that zombie skill becomes harder over time, not softer. Two, people here give very tough criticism. This is due to the fact that half of us care about the game a lot or at least enough so that stupid suggestions or ones with any visible flaws are shot down quick, and the other half of us can't stand half-baked ideas due to the overwhelming amount of them that we get. You also get the random ass or troll who just like to shit all over the place and piss people off.--SirArgo ^Talk 07:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I try to be constructive but really a plastic box causing as much damage as a firemans axe is so far from having any good points that the best I could manage is gentle mockery. Seriously; thanks for trying but if even you didn't think it was a very good idea then chances are that no one else is going to like it either --Honestmistake 11:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Only makes sense in Monroeville really. --Karek^maps?! 08:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it would help if you knew how to play. Flak Jacket would NOT affect this. It ONLY affects attacks of 5 or higher. Also, Headshot is AUTOMATIC. I've seen people talk about doing headshots with PUNCH. Secondly, I don't think Bullseye could do that well. I only mention that because the suggestion is beyond ludicrous, even if it is conceivable we will have some new weapon that ignores one or both of those factors. This sure as hell isn't it.--Pesatyel 07:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Grenades (#9)

Timestamp:	Explodey 23:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	New item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Yes I've counted - there are 8 previous grenade suggestions (disregarding those that were withdrawn or removed due to formatting.) And yes, I think I can improve on all of them. Here goes... Encumbrance 4% (half a loaded shotgun + 1 shell) Damage 10HP, or 8 against a flak jacket (same as a shotgun shell) Location Armouries (5%), street/wasteland (0.5%) Accuracy Unskilled 30% chance of failing to detonate 20% chance of fumbling (injuring attacker and no-one else), otherwise: 0.5% against all zombies and up to 10 survivors (least recently active) 0.125% against any other survivor (11th onwards, including attacker) With Basic Firearms Training 10% chance of failing to detonate 5% chance of fumbling, otherwise: 2% against all zombies and up to 10 survivors (least recently active) 0.5% against any other survivor (11th onwards, including attacker) In darkened buildings +10% chance to fumble, but otherwise same hit rates as a powered building Limitations Cannot deliver a headshot Benefits: For PKers/griefers Not quite as efficient as pre-loaded shotguns, until you get to 100 survivors in one location. Also more expensive to search. But you can stockpile them, and entertaining large-scale grenade attacks will happen occasionally. For zombies Will discourage survivors from clustering in groups of 300+ in malls. More chance for malls to change hands, but see below... For survivors Similarly if zombies want to cluster in large groups to hold malls/NTs they must stay active & be ready to stand up. Just having 20+ sleep there will not be effective. For everyone Should distribute the action more evenly around the map - no huge groups of 300+ (either survivors or zombies) in the one mall in Malton that that side holds Grenades go BANG -- fun! Miscellaneous But this is an AoE weapon and that's bad, right? That's why there's a maximum of 10 survivors that can be hit at full accuracy. The usual argument against AoE is griefing potential, but the benefit to griefers is less than the penalty for meatshielders. No "grenade proficiency" skill? Stockpiling the things will be hard enough for newbies anyway, so it's probably not necessary. Flavour The military attempted to use grenades against the zombies during the early outbreaks, but switched to guns because of too many "friendly fire" casualties. The officers buried them before escaping in their helicopters, but they're starting to get dug up now (perhaps accidentally by survivors looking for earthworms to eat...) The reason for the higher accuracy against a handful of inactive survivors is that survivors can usually leap out of the way of a grenade, but small groups are easier to target and in large crowds a few will be stuck in the centre of the crowd or in the corners of the building and unable to evade in time. Zombies will always be poor at evading grenades.

Discussion (Grenades #9)

The usual argument against AoE weapons isn't griefing potential, it's mindblowing overpoweredness. A single person shouldn't be able to do that much damage in one go. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦C:RCS¦} 10:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

About 5.5HP per AP total against 100 survivors or 33 zombies in the same building, which is not too much (it's less than the shotgun.) Damage against large zombie hordes is greater but this is mitigated by the fact they can just stand up if they're active. It may even be underpowered because that does not account for the fact that the attacker will take some damage and will have to spend some AP healing themselves (and replacing the FAKs they use to do so.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Explodey (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

No, they can't "just stand up" since they most likely didn't die from it. This would allow survivors to whittle away at the health of a sieging horde, making it much easier to dispose of them when they manage to get inside. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦C:RCS¦} 15:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As mindian stated. AoE weapons have too much potential for abuse. --Johnny Bass 15:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Intelligent explosives that only target a few survivors. Perhaps we could get some for the US Armed Forces so they stop killing their allies? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

every now and again you type something that reminds me why you absolutly cannot be banned... this is one of those moments :)--Honestmistake 00:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because idiotic comments stemming from America hatred is better than if he actually used one of the many more humorous options this suggestion provides. --Karek^maps?! 08:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So, explain the accuracy. It makes NO sense. At all. The problem with area affect weapons is they are always too broad. Conceivably, with 6 grenades and a horde of 100 zombies, I could earn 5,000 XP with using only 6 AP. More if there are survivors present and/or zombies have more than 50 HP. Theoretically, you could earn "infinite" experience if the horde is big enough. Imagine the zerge potential? I could create said horde of 100 zombies then let others bomb them to the stonage age. Zerge flags and IP barriers wouldn't be tripped because the zombies wouldn't be doing anything other than the movement necessary to get to a common location.--Pesatyel 07:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically possible, statistically impossible. You would have to hit every zombie with every grenade. The probability is 1 in 2.4*10^1019. --Explodey 21:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Maintenance gives XP

Timestamp:	Kolechovski 22:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	One of the things I think is still horribly wrong is that even if you are actively working to keep a suburb up to par, you may still not be getting any XP for it. I have even verified this with an alt, and it took forever to level up. I propose the following changes/additions: Installing a generator/radio transmitter gives 1 XP. Refueling a generator gives 1 XP. Fixing a damaged genny/radio transmitter gives 1 XP (this may already be in game, not sure) Starting a barricade gives 1 XP. Repairing a ransacked/ruined building gives 1 XP (this may already be in game, not sure) Cleaning up blood gives 1 XP.

Discussion (Maintenance gives XP)

I like everything except cleaning up blood - that's just aesthetic so it shouldn't provide xp, like installing art. --A Big F'ing Dog 22:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You'd think we hadn't put a link at the top of the page under the header Read Before Posting wouldn't you? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Iscariot is referring to but there is too much zerging potential here - directly opposed actions (barricading/de-barricading, repairing/ruining, installing/GKing...) that give XP to both players. This would be too-easily abused and would put honest players at a disadvantage. --Explodey 22:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Second bullet point: "Don't Reward Players for Playing Out of Character. Survivors are meant to kill zombies. Zombies are meant to kill survivors. Giving zombies ways to gain XP that doesn't involve harming survivors is a bad idea. Likewise, giving survivors any ways to gain XP without harming zombies (exempting healing and spraypainting, and reading) is a bad idea." -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's rule is a little diluted now that zombies gain xp for destroying cades. I don't think survivors should get xp for core stuff like cading, or supercifial things like cleaning blood, but a few things deserve a reward. Like installing a generator. Acting like a human and intelligently aiding others isn't out of character and should be rewarded. Considering how much AP it costs to find a generator something in the range of 5xp seems perfectly fair for installing one. Maybe reward a single point for refueling. --A Big F'ing Dog 06:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Decading is a direct method of attacking survivors. Leading to them dying. How the hell does cleaning bloodstains in any way damage zombies? And where the hell do you get the idea that survivors need extra assistance to level from? A level 5 survivor is quite sufficient to assist the cause and can be played all over Malton for an extended period of time. My new character is less than a month old and is level 11 with 192XP saved in case of death. Survivors do not need a hand levelling provided they are used intelligently. The problem isn't with the characters, it's with the players. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually Survivors are meant to revivify zombies, saying they're meant to kill them is just cruel deception, they get nothing from killing them but xp. --Karek^maps?! 08:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, NO. All of these things are valuable enough without being able to farm XP from them. Survivors already have enough ways to get XP without ever putting themselves in danger – they don't need more. If you bring up zombies getting XP from debarricading, I will bite you. Debarricading XP is a cruel joke, and if a zombie isn't coordinated it will usually result in no payoff whatsoever, ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Installing/fueling a generator in a resource building should give xp and so should repairing ruins (perhaps 10% of repair cost rounded down.) but not the rest of those actions. Oh and on the subject I think it would be a nice bonus if zombies who ruin stuff got a point of xp everytime their ruins degraded a description level... probably a bitch to code but it would be nice to reward the level of dedication needed to keep such places ruined for long periods of time.--Honestmistake 09:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Installing and fueling generators already gives experience points, as well as action points. It saves a fortune in AP for the many and thus earns a fortune in EP for many. Buffing this already massive asset would be an obscenity. --Papa Moloch 07:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

All these things are AP storage and make it cheaper to do things that get you xp. It would be poor game design if you got xp reducing the costs of other things that give you ridiculous amounts of xp meant to be balanced by the cost of doing them. --Karek^maps?! 08:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I can remove the blood bit. Still, healing people aids the survivor cause, and you get XP for that, a good bit, too. Attacking zombies gives XP and helps your side. Why shouldn't maintenance do the same? It's not like 1 XP per massive maintenance action is an excessive reward. Oh, and on the cade issue, I only meant gaining an XP for starting a barricade, not for each successful cading action, which would be way over the top.--Kolechovski 00:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Because maintenance helps the other two which do give xp. The best xp in the game for that matter. --Karek^maps?! 04:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

But just adding the first piece to a barricade doesn't make any sense for why you get an XP point. I put a single tire in front of the door, how did I learn anything?--SirArgo ^Talk 04:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Experience_Points Experience Points}. Survivors already have a lot of ways to get XP.

• Attacking/Killing zombies.
• Attacking/killing survivors.
• First Aid.
• DNA Extraction.
• Reviving.
• Tagging.
• Dumping Bodies.
• Repairing Buildings.
• Repairing Equpment.
• Reading.

Most of which are "safe". Zombies ONLY get XP by attacking. Survivors don't need more.--Pesatyel 07:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Zombies starts with one chosen extra skill

Timestamp:	BlackEagleBR 22:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Change in New Players Skill
Scope:	New Zombie Players
Description:	This ideia is: when a player makes a new zombie character, he will get 2 skills: Vigour Mortis and one skill that he will choose from a list with 3-4 skills to be choosen from. Right now I don't know what skills would be able to be choosen, but all of them will be from the zombie skill list. Suggestion of skills to be choosen from: - Scent Fear: Helps news players to know what survivors are near death and will give more XP from killing. - Digestion: Helps new players to stay alive longer (note that the bite is a little more effective in the start, but later the player will use the claws, as they're more effective and can use Tangling Grasp). - Feeding Groan: For when the zombie needs help. Also helps new players because it will increase the number of groans, so they will know faster where to go. As you may notice, I tryed not to add skills that help too much in combat, because the point is not to make a "super ninja zombies that kill everything in the first day", the point here is to give new zombie players a help in the game. Note that: - The list isn't static, we can modify it according to what you guys think about this suggestion; - Those skills won't nerf survivors (they're already easier to play than zombies), and will help new zombie players to get a little help from the start; - Also, this bonus only apply if the player makes a new zombie character, because thiose skills will be useless when they become a survivor (except for Scent Fear, but any survivor will get Diagnosis if they want to know more about the HP); - Yes, I put a 2nd level skill (Feeding Groan), but we really don't have much 1st level zombie skills to choose from; - I've been away from the game for near 1 and a half year, so I don't know yet the last changes of the game, but I do know that we're still with too little zombie players.

Discussion (Zombies starts with one chosen extra skill)

I believe both sides need help as low-level characters. I think the current mechanics and meta-game conventions drive new players away in frustration. So I'm all for things like this. We can discuss survivors elsewhere, though I think it's important to not institute zombie changes without corresponding survivor changes.

Now, that said, why not try out some zombie "classes"? All zombies start with Vigor Mortis, but we could try out something like this:

Shambler starts with Vigor Mortis and Lurching Gait.

Screamer starts with Vigor Mortis and Feeding Groan.

Carrier starts with Vigor Mortis and Infectious Bite.

Rotter starts with Vigor Mortis and Brain Rot.

It's even possible to divvy up the zombie skill trees into 75 XP and 150 XP branches, depending on your starting class. Now, again-- I want to see stuff added to both sides to keep balance. But honestly, starting new players (on either side) at the equivalent of level 2 isn't going to break the game. Or at least I don't think it will. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 23:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See, you don't think giving the survivors an extra starting skill will break the game, I know it will. Let's say for sake of argument, I'm a zerging scumfuck, now instead of levelling my zergs I can create them to fit. I'll have Axe Zerg with Axe Proficiency and Hand to Hand, I'll have Gun Zerg with Basic Fire Arms and Basic Pistol, I'll have Revive Zerg with Necrotech Employment and Lab Experience and using these I'll have an army of alts that'll work from day one.

Even worse than that will be a Scout with Construction as its free secondary skill, welcome to the return of the barricading bot. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, I only suggested this zombie change first because most of the new players that start as zombies go away from the game too quickly, usually they don't have the patient to wait the game become better. But we really need new survivors players help suggestions too. I don't think that a equivalent of level 2 will break the game, specially if the bonus skill isn't a combat/easy XP one. This suggestion can be turned into zombies classes, I only avoided this because not everyone is happy with zombie classes (yeah, those people exist...). This skill system would make the "zombie classes" and give the new player a perception that they can change the way they play later (one of the reasons I didn't add the Brain Rot as a chossen skill, new players usually don't know the game very well). I though on those skills from the list (Digestion, Feeding Groan and Scent Fear) because they aren't too powerful to unbalance the game and help, even in a minor way, the new players, by giving them: a way to survive longer (Digestion), to get help/food (Feeding Groan) or to better choose the targets (Scent Fear). I didn't put the Brain Rot because not everyone knows what this means, but if we put a zombie class with Brain Rot (not in this suggestion), I belive that they should get Flesh Rot for free too (because they will never be able to get Flak Jacket and Body Building). What do you think of the list of suggestions? Any improvements? By the way, Infectious Bite would be a nice choice in the list (perhaps replacing Digestion?). - BlackEagleBR 23:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Zombie class suggestions.--Pesatyel 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a dupe. And this fits a little here too.--Pesatyel 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me if this is a silly question, but I honestly don't know the process. If these suggestions were made and "well accepted as is" two years ago, what happens now? Do they just hang in limbo unless/until Kevan chooses to use them? ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 04:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Peer Reviewed means precisely fuck all to this game, all it means is that the idea was considered popular enough/needed enough/meatpuppeted through (delete as appropriate). Generally any mechanics or gameplay change doesn't come from this system, and certainly not from Peer Reviewed, Ankle Grab and Barricade Blocking came from Peer Rejected. Suggestions that go through the system remain in the archives, the dupe system exists so that we don't have to go through the same arguments over and over and waste time covering old ground. If Kevan wants to check what's gone before, he knows where the archives are. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Moloch and I discussed the idea of secondary skills a few weeks ago on the grounds that new zombies are even more shafted now that most zombie tactics relate to mobility and intentional dying. He thought a Borehamwood Rage style mechanic would be optimal, I disagreed on the grounds that the biggest beneficiaries would be organised survivors, thus increasing the gap between the two starting sides. The only fix to this problem that I could see would be to give all newly made zombies Lurching Gait in addition to Vigour Mortis, using the flavour justification of the time spent dormant having been used by the virus to strengthen the zombie's motor processes, survivors would not benefit from a similar mechanic (an extra skill) because the virus is forced to maintain their bodily process whilst in a dormant state. I pointed out that this would also fit the progression of zombies in the canon from slow shambling creatures to faster and more agile antagonists. We never brought it here because we knew the trenchies would whine and cry forever about the unfairness of it all, these are the same people that think zombies should be the minority in a zombie apocalypse and that the aim of the game is to collect the best and cleanest military wardrobe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If new zombies are screwed by the tactics something's wrong with the tactics not the game. --Karek^maps?! 03:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Prisons

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 21:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors, Cliche suggestion to add prisons
Description:	It might be nice to add a prison or two to the game, probably by converting existing empty streets into prisons of the same name. Here are three possible ideas for prisons, I'll suggest whichever people prefer: Idea 1- Prisons are one square buildings. Their tactical advantage is that they have both firearms/ammunition, as well as first aid kits from the infirmary (but they don't allow surgery). The odds of finding either is about half that of finding them in a PD or hospital, but your overall chance of finding a useful item is the same. The downside of prisons is that freerunning into one automatically costs 10hp in injuries from climbing the barbed-wire fencing. You can't enter a prison if doing so will kill you, you'll just get an error message "You are too injured to climb the prison's fences" There's no hp cost to get out since you're likely jumping down from a second story guard tower, or something similar. Idea 2- Prisons are 4x4 square large buildings. One square has the armory and guns and ammo at a rate comparable to PDs. Another square has the infirmary and contains FAKs at a similar rate to hospitals and allows surgery. The other two squares are cell blocks and have no useful items. It is impossible to freerun into any square of the prison, so at least one square must be maintained at VS++ if survivors are to get in. Idea 3- As idea 2, except three squares do not have entrances or barricades, and do not allow any kind of entry by survivors or zombies. The fourth square, a plain square with no search items, serves as entrance to the entire structure and does not allow free running in. All four squares can still be ransacked/ruined to lower search rates, even though only one has cades. Essentially option 1 is a PD/hospital hybrid that balances its one stop shopping with a penalty for freerunning in. Option 2 is a side-by-side PD and hospital that requires intense entry point management. Option 3 is similar to the fort, except that if the gate falls the entire complex is immediately accessible.

Discussion (Prisons)

I may be missing the point, but isn't this very similar to adding more forts to the map? I guess I would like to see this evolve into something a bit more unique. I'm not intrinsically opposed, though. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 21:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The main difference between options 2&3 and the fort is a matter of independent resource points. A fort's armory and infirmary are both in the fort but they can be held or lost individually. When a prison is breached both resource points are simultaneously overtaken. --A Big F'ing Dog 03:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The other difference is that a prison can have no EH barricade defense without being shut off. A fort can have a gatehouse at VS, then use EH for the infirmary and bunker using other buildings as an entry point. Here there's either a direct VS++ weak spot zombies can hit for immediate access to all resource points, or no survivors can enter. --A Big F'ing Dog 05:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dupe. -- Cheese 23:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been suggested a few times. The problem is that there is nothing "special" about them to include them. One could easily find guns/ammo/faks in other locations already in the game if Kevan were to add that. One thing to comnsider is the nature of "updates". They are added linearly so it would seem odd to suddenly "discover" a prison nobody noticed before. But NOT impossible.--Pesatyel 04:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Like the forts being constructed overnight, it'd require a little suspension of disbelief but it could be done. "The outer gates of the long secure prisons have finally rusted and broken down, allowing survivors entry." Or insert your own bs but perfectly fine reason. With only so many items in the game there's going to be a limited amount of variation possible, but I think the free running limitations would make this tactically interesting. I mean, when you get down to it a fort is just a hospital and a PD with a few freerunning changes. Another permutation should also be interesting.--A Big F'ing Dog 04:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely. The forts already exist within the game. They were just modified. This is adding an entirely new building.--Pesatyel 07:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I like idea 3. It adds some flavor, as well as a new place for people to congregate (all the better for those hungry zombies) yet it is still useful and adds another tactical aspect to the game. I especially like the idea of the zombies being able to break in and then move through out the prison like a mall, but it makes it easier to hold than a mall yet balances it with the amount of useful items. --S1leNt RIP 08:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Massive dupe.
2. I don't know how many prisons you've been to, but if you think they're 'large buildings' in the same fashion as malls and cathedrals then you are sorely mistaken.
3. Intelligent survivor play emphasises decentralisation. This does not do that, this is dumb.

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure prisons have been suggested before. But not these prisons. I've presented three variants, surely at least one is new. #2, I'm not suggesting that prisons are giant singular cavernous halls, but a large complex structure like the mansions. #3, river tactics are usually the best ideas. Yet survivors often hold buildings and resist sieges for days or even months until they're all slaughtered. Why? Because it's fun. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Option 4: How about this. A three-block large building laid out in a straight line segment. The infirmary is located on one side. The armory is located on the other. Neither side square has an entrance or barricades, doesn't allow freerunning, and doesn't allow people or zombies to exit the prison even to the street. The center square has no useful items, but serves as the sole entry and exit from the prison. --A Big F'ing Dog 22:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You've basically just suggested the various incarnations of Forts. --Karek^maps?! 08:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Protecting Generators

Timestamp:	~ extropymine Talk | NW | 4Corners 20:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Balance Change
Scope:	Everybody, but mostly affects zombies attacking occupied buildings.
Description:	Built into the current game is a diminishing % chance for success when building barricades once zombies are inside. I don't know the exact numbers, but once 3 or 4 zombies are inside a building, barricade attempts usually result in the "You try to barricade, but zombies lurch into the way" message. I'm curious why there is no diminishing chance for zombies to destroy a generator in a building with dozens of survivors in it. Right now, it's one of the first things that gets done once zombies get into a building. Destroy the generator, making it impossible to call for help with a radio, reduce search rates, no rotter revives, etc., etc. A lone zombie can accomplish this even if there are 100+ survivors in a building. It's extremely frustrating, and often necessitates that survivors carry extra generators because of the ease with which they are destroyed. So I'd propose a similar diminishing chance to destroy a generator. You could give a message like You lurch towards the generator, but there are too many survivors in the way. My initial thought would be to use half the barricade %-- that is, if 2 zombies in a building reduce the barricade chance by 50%, then two survivors in a building would reduce the chance to attack the generator by 25%. If it takes 8 zombies to add -100% to the barricade chance (making it impossible), then similarly it would take 16 survivors to make it impossible for a zombie to attack the generator successfully. I don't know the precise numbers, as I said, but it seems like twice as many survivors would be needed, since zombies are scary and all. While the counter-argument would probably be "this change makes NTs impossible to destroy," I don't see how it would really affect well-organized groups like RRF or the MOB, who are smart enough to do all their damage at once using many coordinated zombie players. A change like this would only necessitate a slightly greater level of organization to take out a powered NT building. For other powered buildings, all it does is raise the challenge by allowing survivors the opportunity to call for help on their radios during an attack. Anyway, I'm interested in discussion on this. There are probably factors I haven't thought of.

Discussion (Protecting Generators)

There are two issues conceptual issues which I'll raise here, followed by a game-play one. The first is one of space, which is very simplified within the game. When zombies break into a building they are positioned between the survivors and the door. The door occupies a small, fixed space and to barricade it the survivors need to access that space. Generators on the other hand are internal and their position is unclear, so there is nothing to suggest that the survivors in question would be anywhere near it. Indeed, experience of generators suggests that the majority would probably want to be a significant distance away, due (mostly) to the noise.

The other issue is that of narrative character dynamics. Zombies in the canon are essentially killing machines. All they do is kill, eat and create new zombies. Now, the flavour text for barricade blocking states that a zombie lurches into the survivor's path, which I consider somewhat inelegant and unlikely. I believe that what the zombies are (or should be doing) is lunging at the survivor and scaring them away. I believe that this is not used mainly because it implies an auto-attack, which is a big no-no in Urban Dead. Now, apply that to survivors trying to block path to a generator. Personally I find it unlikely and non-canonical for survivors, who fear death and injury, to throw themselves into the paths of dangerous, infectious killing machines in order to protect and object. Watch the films and attempts to protect are aimed at preserving lives, not lighting. For the most part survivors give zombies a wide berth and strike either from distance or with a speedy withdrawal, neither of which indicates a willingness to stand in the path of the onrushing hordes for the sake of a machine.

The third point is the game-play one: This would be a massive boost to the already extremely powerful combat revive weapon, which would make it potentially cataclysmic. --Papa Moloch 20:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to invalidate those concerns, but I guess I'm not sure I share them. On the "space" issue, we commonly overlook a whole bunch of these issues every day. If we try to "conceptualize" spaces in the game, why can't a survivor hide behind other survivors, or barricade the stairs in a tall building, or lock themselves in the bank vault? I guess I see the issue, but I also see how often we overlook that same issue. On the issue of "character dynamics," I would respond that zombies should not care about generators in the first place when there are so many meaty treats in a building. Perhaps instead of survivors "throwing themselves in the way," zombies should be unable to attack generators because there are too many tasty brains distracting them. Now, on the game-play issue, I cannot argue. It might change things, certainly. I'm not sure it would be as massive as people might fear, but even if it did: why not have NTs be strongholds? We complain so much about malls, maybe it would help to make the game less mall-centric? And aside from possible problems with NTs, does this have the potential to unbalance anything else? ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been suggested before. The main problem is that it usually ended up being an auto-defense. Or, if not, then it has significant zerge issues. One of the ideas I came up with last time was for players to "allocate" AP to defense. That is to say, I could allocate 10 AP to defending the generator (the AP is spent). If someone attacks said generator, the next 10 attacks will be affected (percentage reduced or whatever). After that, I'm not defending anymore. Of course, this also has zerge issues, so a level limit would probably be needed.--Pesatyel 04:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm unclear how this presents zerg concerns? Zombies block barricade attempts; survivors prevent a building from being ruined; zombies prevent buildings from being repaired. I haven't heard people crying foul about those being significant zerg issues (though they might be, and i'm just unaware of it). ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 04:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, firstly, those are already part of the game. Not much of a counter-excuse, admitedly. Its just the fact that your trying to introduce something new.--Pesatyel 06:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Buffing combat revives = bad. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand the reaction, but I think it's a knee-jerk one. CRs are sloppy tactics that win short-term gains but not long-term ones. Since all NTs are tall, a combat revive is basically a 4AP slowdown (unless we're talking about a low-level "career" zombie who took Brain Rot before Ankle Grab)-- stand, jump, stand, go inside at full health again. The survivor who CR'd, on the other hand, will spend ~6AP to find a new syringe in the powered NT. Worse still, they run the risk of the CR'd zombie rising and smashing the generator as a survivor. I'd also wager that when Barricade Blocking was suggested, someone said "Buffing horde attacks = bad," and ultimately it added tension, danger and excitement. Why shouldn't it be more dangerous or challenging for zombies to attack powered NTs? Right now, no building in UD is any more challenging to attack than any other building, it's just that some take longer to get the barricades down because of the population inside. The process is always the same: whittle the cades, get zeds in to prevent re-barricading, destroy the jenny, feeding groan, wait for reinforcements. It's fun but also formulaic. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Combat revives shouldn't be buffed because they are already overpowered. There is no other weapon in this game (excepting newspapers if you really want to get picky) that has a 100% hit ratio. In a powered NT this effectively has a 100% kill ratio. The majority of career zombies don't carry guns to break the genny because they don't want to spend their time in human form, and they shouldn't fucking have to! Syringes exist in this game as a mechanic to allow survivors to continue playing without having to start with a new character. The fact that this is allowed to be exploited is wrong, the fact that you want to buff this completely out of genre tactic with a logical fallacy that a human being is going to jump in front marauding zombie to save a replaceable piece of machinery and put their own safety at risk is so retarded you might want to think of running for sysop. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to calm down. Cursing and insulting me really isn't going to help me see your point. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 17:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to calm down, nor do I need to make you see my point, you are the one bringing the suggestion, you are one with the burden of proof, not me. Why do NTs (which are the ultimate beneficiary of this upgrade) need a buff to help them resist attacks? Downdey Mall was defended by the most intelligent survivor groups in the game, along with having some really stupid ones tagging along. Which do you think was harder to take? That or the nearby NT? Given that we understand this about the game, why is this needed? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The burden of proof is equally shared here, because I made a suggestion that you refuted with a blanket statement. You want more evidence, and so do I. You want me to show that the suggestion does not unbalance the game, and I want you to show me that it does. The fact is, neither you nor I know for certain what would happen if it was harder to take out generators. I believe it would be one less hassle that survivors need to deal with when even a single zombie gets into a building full of people. Any building, not just NTs. You believe it would make NTs impregnable because of combat revives.

Your anecdotal evidence is no more or less valid than mine. In your anecdotal evidence, NTs are already hard to take out. In my anecdotal evidence, they are very easy to take out. I suppose under various circumstances, both are valid. However, in both our experiences, the NT was taken out. Your attack was rough but not repelled, and you destroyed the NT. If you hadn't been successful, would something be wrong with Urban Dead?

I don't believe every zombie attack has to be ultimately successful for this game to work, because this game is clearly not about one side winning. If one side is ever in danger of winning, Kevan changes numbers around to bring it to a stalemate again. This game is about stalemate, and having a good time trading blocks and suburbs, green-to-red and back again. So I think that if NTs were harder to take out (and I'm still not convinced my suggestion would stop a well-organized horde like RRF or MOB from destroying an NT anytime they set their minds to it), what would happen?

Let's take a worst-case scenario and say NTs became the hardest buildings in UD to destroy. I suppose my advice would be, "then don't try to take one without your horde." No one here is giving any sympathy to a lone survivor who complains that he can't re-take Ridleybank. They laugh at him, because he's trying something incredibly difficult without a large, well-organized group (and even then, I dunno). If taking NTs became incredibly difficult, the same logic would apply. Don't want your Rotter to get CR'd? Then don't go into an NT. It's that simple; they don't have extension cords to CR you on the streets. But well-organized hordes would eventually start taking them down, because players are resourceful and want to overcome obstacles. Taking out NTs wouldn't be routine anymore. It would be difficult, and require more than just a handful of zombies with Brain Rot to do it. But those who did take out NTs would have something to really brag about.

Finally, let me get back to the idea itself. You think that survivors protecting a generator instead of themselves makes no sense. Personally, I think lots of things make no sense in UD. 40 survivors sleeping through a zombie attack makes no sense. Having a zombie stumble into a building with 40 survivors and decide instead to eat the generator makes even less sense. Generator-killing is a meta-game tactic, not an in-genre convention. But I accept that survivors protecting the generator might not fit. So, again, as I stated above, perhaps the flavor text of the effect could be changed to You lurch towards the generator, but are distracted by all the fresh meat or something similar. Make it about the zombie's urges rather than the survivors' bravery. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 01:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Where do I start?

"Your anecdotal evidence is no more or less valid than mine. In your anecdotal evidence, NTs are already hard to take out. In my anecdotal evidence, they are very easy to take out. I suppose under various circumstances, both are valid. However, in both our experiences, the NT was taken out. Your attack was rough but not repelled, and you destroyed the NT." - The difference is mine, as with Rev's 'anecdotal evidence' below is based on the experience of defending and attacking hundreds of NTs, over years through the various updates.

"I'm still not convinced my suggestion would stop a well-organized horde like RRF or MOB from destroying an NT anytime they set their minds to it" - The RRF, MOB, MT2009 and The Dead will never have a problem taking any building they choose. This is a direct result of years of tactical evolution. It's the smaller hordes that will have the problem. You should not have to join one of the Big Four if you want to crack a single building. It's not like an individual case you're referring to, as with MCM being more difficult to take then a normal hospital, you are rolling out a blanket change amongst all buildings with absolutely no downside. Have you ever taken down a NT as a feral zombie? Perhaps you might want to get some experience with the type of play you will be affecting before altering it in a fundamental way. If this goes through they'll be less than 10 hordes that could take a NT, the Big Four, Minianz, RFTM, Swarm, FU and perhaps a couple of others. Nerfing the feral zombie class is a bad thing.

"But well-organized hordes would eventually start taking them down, because players are resourceful and want to overcome obstacles." - Why do you think it's acceptable to force zombie players to be more resourceful whilst making survivors live easier? Why aren't survivors being more resourceful in protecting the generators in a building as they do with TRPs in a suburb?

"But those who did take out NTs would have something to really brag about." - Why do you think we want to brag about something that you've made more difficult with no downside? Why would we want to brag full stop? Do we wear trenchcoats?

"You lurch towards the generator, but are distracted by all the fresh meat" - The zombie is a predator. The updates prove that they can learn on a fundamental level. Removing a generator causes panic and reduces the ability of the prey to fight back, how is this unbelievable in any way? Also, how could the zombies ignore street meat by your justification? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot, thank you. You may think I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. You took the time to talk this out with me, which is what I wanted. I still don't agree with you on a couple points, and I'm not crazy about your tone, but that's not as important as acknowledging that you responded in a way that makes me want to listen what you have to say. It's food for thought. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 05:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What I, and indeed Kevan from his barricade blocking update, want is for the casual player, who does not metagame to be able to play the game fully. The cade blocking is designed, and indeed now used exclusively, to allow casual players to benefit from the work of the meta community without having to join that community. In the MT we use this tactic as standard, we go in and do nothing but groan, cade block and ?rise. This allows the casual players to come inside and eat humans, whereas before you could have two hundred zombies inside a mall corner in a coordinated strike but if a single survivor started to recade before they followed the groans, the casual feral was screwed. You generator blocking will mean that NTs manned by 15 to 20 players will be all but impenetrable except by the coordinated meta hordes. If an NT cannot fall, the resultant impact on a suburb that any zombie group can have is minimal. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Survivors can already protect generators. It's called ?fixgen, ask 404: Barhah not found about the time they fixed the generator 18 or so times in a row while holding off Extinction's Shadow Company death cultists. This is a buff to reward lazy survivors, which there are already too many of. Generator off? Search with slightly reduced rates or drop another one. Can't revive the rotters? That's why there are trenchcoaters with 17 shotguns. Or, yes, drop another one. Survivors throwing themselves in the way or harm for a piece of easily-replaced machinery is nonsensical and very very out-of-genre. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In the past (and maybe even today), it is easier to find an revive syringe than it is to find a Generator. In an area where humans can easily get revived by saying Mrh? while it takes more time to find and transport a generator, I can see it being in theme for human beings willing to sacrifice themselves. Lives are cheap in Malton. Generators are not.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 22:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There's just one problem with that. Getting eaten by zombies (I have no firsthand experience in this, though, so I could be wrong) sounds highly unpleasant. That combined with the thing called "self-preservation instinct" would probably persuade most people to just give the zombie some alone-time with the generator. At least he's not chewing your arm off. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 04:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And that is exactly why the phrase combat revives are overpowered is correct. Revives in general are too easy to do at this point and it's not good for the game. --Karek^maps?! 11:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

• Suggestion:20090216 Ring the Bell is up for voting. Discussion moved to here --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 08:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

---