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

Zombie Hunter Skill

Timestamp:	User:Ash Cianatti/Sig 16:43, 24 February 2009 (West Coast Time)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Some skills which can be added to the Headshot Branch: DISABLING BLOW: All attacks have a 10% chance of doing 1 extra damage. TAKE AIM: Gunshots aimed at zombies have a 5% bonues to accuracy. And to the Diagnosis branch: SIGNS OF INFECTION: Infected survivors have an asterisk next to their hitpoints. And last but not least, some balancing zombie skills (various branchs): LATENT MEMORY: Zombie hunters' names are underlined. FAMILIAR SCENT: When in a group of zombies, a zombie can see how many are in his/her group. "There are X zombies standing here. Y smell familiar. SCENT STRESS: Zombies standing outside a building can choose to find out how many humans are inside.

Discussion (New Skills)

If you actually get to the suggestions board, remember to post these as separate suggestions.

• Disabling Blow I'm neutral about, but I think there'd be a hue and cry. Out of curiousity, would it be a crossover skill?
  • No. Headshot doesn't cross over, and this would be a 2nd tier of that. Ash Cianatti 01:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Take Aim, I gotta say no, because I see no reason why you could not aim at another survivor.
  • Take Aim, well, Headshot doesn't affect survivors. This is a zombie hunter skill - its for hunting zombies. Ash Cianatti 01:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Signs of Infection, I'd support. There's in-genre fluff supporting it and if it was a 2nd tier skill, I think it works.

EDIT: Thinking about it, I would like it even better if it was "infected survivors with less than 25 HP have an asterisk next to their names." That backs up the genre flavor of it ("Jack, you don't look so good"). ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 01:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that zombies often hit first with claws, then after latching on with tangling grasp, biting to infect, then moving on. You then have an infected survivor who was only damaged for 6-7 HP.Ash Cianatti 01:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Latent Memory, I'm not sure about. I guess I want to hear a justification for this, since it makes Hunters possible primary targets. It doesn't do anything except save a mouse click, though, so I see no real harm.
• Familiar Scent: doesn't Scent Death already do this?
• Scent Stress is a big NO, NO, NO. If I read it right, it's a form of X-Ray vision. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 01:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Not if it just gave a general idea (i.e., sensing only ranges of 1-15, 16-35, 36+), and you can already sorta tell this by barricade level and presence of lighting. Ash Cianatti 01:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Mobile Phone Search Tweak

Timestamp:	RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 22:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Minor Game Change.
Scope:	Survivors who search.
Description:	Simple. The 100 Buildings in Malton with Phone Masts stuck on their roofs? It is now possible to find mobile phones in these buildings with the same search rates as in clubs. (Which I assume have plummeted since they became dark buildings?)

Discussion (Mobile Phone Search Tweak)

Comments if you please? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose so. I have a hunch that it may be a dupe, though. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, in a real cell phone tower one doesn't find many cell phones, however this would make sense if one assumes that cell towers are sitting on cell phone stores. Ash Cianatti 01:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Riot Shield

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 17:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	This was inspired discussion about flak jackets below, and how they really only help zombies. Basically, a riot shield would be a flak jacket, but useful against zombies rather than survivors. A riot shield doesn't reduce damage like a flak. Instead it'd block tangling grasp from taking effect. However, when a survivor is weakened to 25hp the shield would be too heavy to hold upright, and after that point tangling grasp would work on them. The main con shield would be a 15% encumbrance. Multiple shields would not stack in effect, since there is only one tangling grasp bonus to negate. Obviously the pros of this outweigh the con by a long shot, but perhaps if introduced alongside a zombie addition to balance things out...it wouldn't be fair to introduce this now, but as a part of a larger update it'd be a useful addition (maybe upping tangling grasp's bonus for when it does work?). It'd be thematic too, survivors getting grabbed and torn apart when they're too weak to resist.

Discussion (Suggestion Name)

I like the idea of riot shields (obviously) but don't think this is the right way to do it. Stopping tangling grasp has the advantage that it doesn't harm newbie zombies but it also has no effect on melee in general which makes no real sense. As for being unbalanced on its own... that really should not matter if its a good suggestion, balance is Kevans job, we are here to make suggestions that we think will improve the game if well implemented. Thats not to say a suggestion can be totally uber powerful but it does not need to be balanced in and of itself if another suggestion can even out the benefits!--Honestmistake 18:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean, I don't think it's unbalanced or that it would mess up the game. But survivors don't seem weak now. I appreciate what this suggestion would add to the game, but just a purposeless "have a present!" buff seems unfair.

What about this as an alternative counterbalance - The riot shield blocks 10% of incoming melee attacks, but also blocks 10% of outgoing melee attacks. --A Big F'ing Dog 19:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Do the numbers pan out? This is an item that negates a 10% conditional to-hit bonus, and only until the survivor is half dead. There are people who know numbers better than me, but looking at the stats for claw, here's what I see. I'll cut-and-paste from the page.

• Vigour Mortis, Death Grip and Rend Flesh (50% accuracy, 3 damage) average AP to kill 60HP enemy: 40
• Vigour Mortis, Death Grip, Rend Flesh and Tangling Grasp (60% accuracy if grasped (50% if not), 3 damage) average AP to kill 60HP survivor: 35

Which is to say, a zombie attacking at 50% will use only 5 AP more (on average) to kill a 60HP enemy than will a zombie attacking with 60%. So, since the shield stops working at 25HP, this would only mean a 2 or 3 AP difference to kill the 60HP survivor. Since the shield is 15% encumbrance, would survivors really carry one? ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 00:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I think if the shields blocked a certain percentage of all attacks that would be better. To balance them the shields could be 20% or something encumbrance. Another way to keep them balanced is when the shield stops working at 20-25hp, when a survivor would show up as 'wounded' for zombies. User:KingsblendRizla 03:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Basic character visuals in profiles

Timestamp:	--Topgun 18:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	interface
Description:	I know Urban Dead is a browser based game, but it would be pretty nifty if your profile contained a visual representation of your character, for example clothes, and their various stages of detiriation, could be displayed on a small character, illustrated by a simple pixel drawing. As a optional extra for those who want it of course. I genuinely believe this would be a worthwhile aesthetic touch for Urban Dead and as a graphic artist with nothing better to do I would happily illustrate said pixel drawings.Although anyone could do it.Obviously EDIT- this is a simple example of how it could look: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3631/3305706939_639173f871_b.jpg --Topgun 12:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC) It would also flesh out those unimaginative characters who have no description what so ever.

Discussion (Basic character visuals in profiles)

I'd like to keep it. I've thought the same thing before, but I think that this would be more for the UD toolbar than for Kevan to do.--Waytouy

it's better than allowing just any picture. As long as it's enabled by the character, but also possible for other people to disable the pixely pictures.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Change Dark Building Mechanics

Timestamp:	Kolechovski 16:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	balance change
Scope:	dark buildings
Description:	Under current methods, certain buildings are permanently dark, as is explained with skylights being covered with lichen. Somehow, even though Free Runners can move from rooftop to rooftop, they can’t clean the skylights while they are up there. I think better reasons for coated skylights would be that with the eternal conflict of battles, dust spreads throughout the air, slowly coating the skylights, which can be kept clean. The suggestion is for the following changes… All “dark” buildings can be maintained by anyone with the Free Running skill. No special tools are needed. If a building has gone 24 hours without cleaning, an option to “clean the skylights” is added for those with Free Running. Descriptions will show up as… 24 hours later: A thin layer of dirt and dust covers the skylights. 48 hours later: A thick layer of dirt and dust covers the skylights. Dim light shines through. 72 hours later: The skylights are heavily covered with dirt, blocking light from entering. You squint to see in the darkness. At the 72-hour mark, a building becomes dark. Ruined buildings are not automatically dark, but with the damaged walls, it is impossible to reach the skylights to keep them maintained. If such a building can be repaired before darkness fully sets in, a fueled generator won’t be required to repair the building, but after that mark, it will require one. Also note that if a dark, ruined building reaches the point of a roof collapse, light penetrates the area, and a generator isn’t necessary. Any dark buildings repaired return to having clean skylights with the repair, as maintenance is done with the roof as well. The person who cleans a skylight gets 1 XP for maintenance.

Discussion (Change Dark Building Mechanics)

I have two issues with this. Right now dark buildings have an interesting trade off. They can keep survivors safe from attacks, but make attacking zombies and barricading harder as well. People can use generators and fuel to weigh that trade off in their favor, at the cost of finding that generator and fuel. However EVERYONE gets free running. Letting people just press a button to allow light in eliminates that trade off.

Second, most dark buildings I don't think are dark because of skylight issues. Rather it is a building designed not to let sunlight in, such as a nightclub or cinema. --A Big F'ing Dog 20:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think he's talking about the flavor text that some really ruined buildings have. The flavor text doesn't have any gameplay effect (ie-the ruined building doesn't become dark.) Linkthewindow  Talk  20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not really relevant either way, the suggestion is based on the faulty premise that survivors need a way to remove darkness. They have one, generators, and since darkness is a pretty big survivor boon there's not much reason why they'd want this, it would just end up in more death cultism which we don't need. --Karek^maps?! 12:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless the cost of cleaning them is around 50AP, no. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are a few factors involved. First of all, Free Running is NOT specficically defined as "jumping from roof to roof". It is going from building to building in an UNDEFINED way. Jumping, mini-bridges, etc. I could be mistaken though, given the slip chances. Secondly, just how DOES darkness work? If I have a 20% chance to do something in a building and having a generator increases it to 25%, does the darkness drop it to 10% or to 12.5 (technically speaking)? Or the reverse, if normally I have a 20% and its dark (now 10%) does adding a generator just put it back at 20% or does it go all the way to the generator's bonus to 25%? To me, it makes more sense that, if a person is going to repair a ransacked building, cleaning the stuff on the windoes would be part of it.--Pesatyel 04:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Free running is wikipedia:Free Running. --Karek^maps?! 12:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not wearing a flak vest and carrying a generator and a brace of shotguns its not  ;)--Honestmistake 12:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Did KEVAN say specifically that it is? I don't believe he did. Its the same way the "pistol" is wikified to be a revolver even though Kevan hasn't specifically defined it as such.--Pesatyel 04:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As Karek said, survivors already have a way to remove darkness, and unlike generators which can be destroyed, zombies would have no way to reverse this.

Also I'm pretty sure this is a dupe.--Explodey 18:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

---

The dog

Timestamp:	Waytouy 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	item
Scope:	survivors and zombies.
Description:	The dog is an idea I recently came up with. Why wouldn't Malton have them? Really? When you search a street, you will get the message "you find a dog circling around looking confused. It sees you, then bounds towards you, tongue hanging out. You suppose that you could use a companion." The dog will add an extra 10% to your encumbrance, and will have a 20% chance of adding 1 extra damage to your own when you fight. If you die, then the dog will also become zombified, doing the same effects, or it could have a random chance to run away when you die. If you find more than 3 enemies facing you, the dog will bark, which can be heard a set number of blocks around. If you are revived, so is the dog You may name the dog, and it will also be a random selection from a list of breeds, like a golden retriever, mongrel, sheepdog, etc. when you 'release' I.E. drop it, it will run away.

Discussion (The dog)

Never going to happen. --Papa Moloch 02:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA what?--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 02:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh God, I need to stay off developing suggestions. I'm starting to hallucinate that people are suggesting dogs!--SirArgo ^Talk 03:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This was more of a joke, actually. I hope nobody took it seriously. Perhaps I should suggest a bong, so that people would actually accept this for the game. At least I didn't open with the word 'DICKS' in rainbow flashing font.--user:Waytouy

Uh huh, sure it was a joke. Keep telling yourself that.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 11:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It has actually been suggested before, more than once. Beyond the useless "help" above, the main reason this is a "bad idea" is that most players don't want NPCs in anyway. As for the dogs themselves, there are too many technical mechanics, IMO, to make them work. They would be, essentially, "full" characters with hit points and attack percentages and such. Personally, I don't mind the idea. I think if the right balance can be created, it could be fun. Even if it doesn't make Peer Review, Kevan can put ANYTHING he wants in and has, at times, put in Peer Rejected ideas.--Pesatyel 08:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I realize that this is a veritable programmer's nightmare, and I see why people would not like it. I apologize for attempting to write it off as a joke, as it was simply my Noob way of trying to make it unsaid. I will try to come up with more reasonable and balanced ideas, and I am thankful for the responses that I received, although a little more explanation for a few would be also be welcome.--Waytouy

Nothing wrong with putting the idea here. The majority of people here are VERY cynical (most "having seen it all" already). Point of fact though, your trying to impress KEVAN (the guy who runs the game) with your idea, not necessarily US. There have been suggestions that we disliked that made it into the game. There have also been suggestions that were made here for voting and failed several times before TWO where accepted (the submachineguns). Sure, it would be helpful if people would say WHY an idea is bad (after all, that's the WHOLE point of this page) as opposed to simply "this sucks", but what can you do. A few keys to remember are realism IS a factor (you can't make a suggestion without it), but that is tempered with balance, mechanics wise. Don't be afraid to submit an idea, just do a little research and plan out the idea as best you can.--Pesatyel 04:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Us just going and saying something like "it sucks" is akin to the spam vote. Something so horrid that it shouldn't have even been brought here in that state. :) --Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 11:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"Is akin to the spam vote..." And that means what? The point of THIS PAGE is to help a person with a suggestion, even if it is "the worst". And how do you help in that case? You tell him what is wrong with it. Just saying "it sucks" can make people just look like unhelpful dicks. And, no, I'm not saying that to attack you or anyone specifically, but it HAS happened in the past. What's wrong with constructive criticism?--Pesatyel 04:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Flak Jacket Tear & Wear

Timestamp:	Alex Row 12:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Item Change
Scope:	All players, safe the Rotters.
Description:	This idea came to me after I noticed that my characters in Malton wear the same flak jackets for more then a year now. I think it will be within the "real word (+zeds)" idea that flak jackets should be rendered useless after stopping NN shotgun shots. Such a suggestion would have been unbalanced earlier as it would make life unfairly harder for career zeds, - but they now have access Flesh Rot. I feel that flak jackets should become useless after stopping 150-300 damage (wearer killed 10-20 times with the use of firearms). This change will make life a bit harder for high-lvl players, as they would now have to search for FJs more than once in a lifetime. It will also encourage career zeds to go rotters (IMO this is good), as Flesh Rot will be outright better then the FJ.

Discussion (Flak Jacket Tear & Wear)

Pre-flesh rot:

• Zombies felt they were getting the hard end of the stick because they would need to be revived in order to collect them. "Zombies are people too" rotting, smelly, cannibalistic people, but people all the same.

Post-flesh rot:

• It was 20/18 split... Pro-change were saying it was logical/makes sense, those against just didn't like it or felt that low-level/non-rotter's should still be allowed to benefit from "an 'invincible' flak jacket".

Effectively a dupe of this idea... Read the feedback if you consider carrying this idea forward. --Kamikazie-Bunny 13:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Flak jackets are hardly useful for survivors anyway since they provide no protection against zombies. It merely serves as a slight AP drain on PKers, a benefit that probably isn't equal to the encumbrance cost. So there's no real need to nerf flak jackets for survivors. They very much a benefit for zombies, but if a zombie can get "infinite flak" with Flesh Rot anyway, why force people to be rotters if they don't want to be? Yeah, rotters are hardcore but lets not twist anyone's arm. --A Big F'ing Dog 20:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tried that argument before. Its not an easy concept to accept. The way I see it, if I were in a zombie apocalypse, were I to choose to wear body armor of some kind it would be becuase it helps protect me from ZOMBIES. If it helps protect against other survivors who don't seem to be coping with the circumstances too well (to put it mildly) then its a bonus.--Pesatyel 04:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be all in favour of swapping flak for riot shields. Riot shields are primarily designed to protect against melee attacks and would be a damn sight more useful against zombies than a vest... of course anything that provided an actual bonus would screw zombies thus making it a no no :( --Honestmistake 09:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It could theoretically be balanced by adding a movement penalty (try running with one of those things :P, but it's a balance minefield. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I am all in favour of making it impossible to use freerunning when over encumbered and easing it in with a bulky item first would be a good start. --Honestmistake 09:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhm what? No, that wouldn't balance it. What would balance it is allowing zombie claw damage to be upgraded more, you know give zombies skills that make them better at killing things. Upping the damage just means they can level and kill better but it's not a game changer like upping their accuracy would be(although that also needs to be done a bit, like say 10% so barricades don't take a full days' AP at VSB). But that's not really something that can be added to this suggestion, just a parallel escalation that Kevan should do if he were to implement something that game damage resistance against melee attacks. --Karek^maps?! 12:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would not balance it, its just something that should be added in alongside a riotshield that offered protection against melee attacks. I think a boost to zombies would be a good thing but as things stand i would prefer it to be a boost to 5 damage for bites, that would actualy make the flak vest useful at the same time! Another potential boost for flak would be for it to prevent infections x% of the time... you would still take damage from the mauling but could reason that the flak prevented the zeds teeth from realy biting deep. --Honestmistake 12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Keen Eye

Timestamp:	KdaAnimefan 05:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC) 12:34 am Eastern time
Type:	Skill
Scope:	surviours, miltary class
Description:	A 10% increase in probablity of finding items in any location

Discussion (Keen Eye)

This will not fly, for reasons I will let others elaborate upon. But in the interests of helping you to improve any future suggestion you might make, I'll try to get you thinking more about balance. So I'll start off by asking 1) why you envision this as a military skill, and 2) why it's not a sub-skill of something else. The "finding things" skills are all in the miscellaneous skill tree, and a blanket +10% to search is clearly too strong for a tier 1 skill. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 05:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Way. Search rates would be entirely screwed up. Do you even know what the existing percents are? Did you even think this through? I would go on a huge rant, but I feel it will serve no purpose.--SirArgo ^Talk 06:10, 22 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)

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  11:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Topgun: I think it's a great idea in theory.

i personally don't think it's in genre for zombies to attack a generator over attacking a human. Considering zombies only smash things to get to humans, it seems ridiculous that a zombie could strategize enough to disable the human's power supply instead of just running straight for human brains- as they are meant to do.

however, in the context of the game, where zombies are paradoxilly controlled by humans, it would be hard to avoid unbalancing the game. If you did introduce this zombies would have to receive some sort of attack percent bonus in fully lit areas- zombies being attracted to light (as is the cause in almost ALL zombie canon) would therefore have an incentive to go directly for their true target. This would also create an interesting dilemma for the humans, as they would have to decide to kill the lights themselves and have a harder time equipping, or leaving the lights and becoming more obvious targets to the zombies.

That is the only way this could work.

Also, if survivors can't erect barricades while zombies are in the way, then zombies should not be able to destroy equipment such as this while humans are in the way- if an AP'd player is standing in the way of the generator, surely he would have to attacked in order to reach it. If he can get out of the way, out of fear, then your that's suggesting an AP'd player can essentially dodge zombies. --Topgun 13:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough I was thinking about this yesterday... I was going to suggest making radios and generators invisible to zombies without "Memories of Life" reasoning that they don't so much not see them as don't recognize them. To compensate for what is effectively a penalty to the zombies I would think giving ransackers a chance equal to their normal attack to damage them by chance might be fair?--Honestmistake 14:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's interesting, but I'm not sure it would change anything: you need memories of life to open the doors anyway, so the first zombie in would have it, and will still kill the genny first. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really... my rotter is a feral and on the few occasions that i do manage to get inside i am lucky if i have enough AP to yell some abuse and infect someone let alone ruin a generator! In an organised horde it probably wouldn't matter, but then an organised break in of 10+ zeds is going to ruin your day anyway. ;) --Honestmistake 00:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• If I was in a zombie apocalypse, and I knew which way zombies would be coming in, I'd sure as heck put the valuable generator as far away from the entry point as possible- ditto for radios. Then it makes sense that there'd be survivors between the zeds and the genny, and since at any given time most building occupants are inactive (asleep) they wouldn't flee to one side or the other. Ash Cianatti 01:22, 26 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)

---