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

Contagious Bite

Timestamp:	--Honestmistake 09:46, 30 March 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Infectious bite subskill which helps newly turned zombies.
Description:	So virulently infected is this vile specimen of zombiehood that their bite is not only infectious but that infection has become contagious. Should an already infected target be affected by a contagious bite they will be considered to have the Infectious Bite skill until they are cured! Obviously this is going to have little effect on survivors who are not killed as they don't bite people and tend to get cured pretty damn fast anyway. On the other hand a survivor who is killed while contagious may find that the option to infect people is enough of a boost to their attacks that they are happy to remain a zombie for a while instead of rolling up to the nearest revive point? Rather than making it possible to get revived/infected/killed and thus gain the skill for free I would think a natural recovery would be essential and would suggest that the chance of recovery should be something like 25% checked each time the 'carrier' stands up.

Discussion (Contagious Bite)

Put simply this skill does nothing for the zombie who buys it and no additional harm to the survivor who is bitten, if the bitten survivor stands up as a zombie while infected he or she will have a very good chance of having the chance to infect others with their bite even if they do not have the infectious bite skill... the more often said zombie dies though the more chance that they will lose this ability unless they buy it properly. --Honestmistake 09:57, 30 March 2009 (BST)

On a related note, I know that it is possible for zombies and survivors to use some of each others actions via the Url and if bite is one of those it should benefit from this for no better reason that it would be funny to do and scare the crap out of any poor sod it happened too ;)

Zergers could very easily abuse this: Get one contagious zed, bite a bunch of low-levels zergs and get them killed to trigger the effect (25% is pretty big), and voila! Easy infecting zergs. Anyway, if a survivor is killed and becomes contagious, chances are they're going to still just shamble to a revive point and get a revive. They won't have many other zombie skills (unless they're high-level and have infectious bite already), so they won't be able to do much anyway. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:16, 30 March 2009 (BST)

Zergers can make use of pretty much anything so that always needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. In this case the zerger needs to start a new zed, get revived, get the double infection and die. Having done all that they then have a level one zed with temporary infectious bite at base (20%?) until they die a few times... thats a lot of effort for so little gain--Honestmistake 19:53, 30 March 2009 (BST)

---

Freerunning: 2AP, toggle

Timestamp:	Swiers 16:50, 29 March 2009 (BST)
Type:	revision
Scope:	freerunning skill
Description:	As title says. Freerunning could be toggled on and off, say via radio buttons immediately below the minimap. Moving with Freerunning would cost 2AP. Moving without would cost 1AP, as it does now. Obviously this addresses both complaints that free-running is overpowered, and that it forces survivors to risk falling from ruins.

Discussion (Freerunning: 2AP, toggle)

Probably one of those duptastic ideas that is to controversial / major a change to ever pass voting, eh?  Swiers 16:50, 29 March 2009 (BST)

Meh. Toggling would be annoying. Especially if you forget it on/off in the wrong situation. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 18:20, 29 March 2009 (BST)

True. How about when you are inside, neighboring buildings have TWO buttons on the mini-map, one for free-run movement and one for normal ("unskilled") movement? Ruins would not have the free-run movement button, because you can't free-run into them.  Swiers 21:38, 29 March 2009 (BST)

In a manner of speaking, that is already part of the game. You have the "leave" button.--Pesatyel 01:02, 30 March 2009 (BST)

Not even vaugely similar, given its limits and mechanics. The "leave" button would still have the same use (or lack there-of) as it does now.  Swiers 04:37, 30 March 2009 (BST)

Sure, the leave button puts you outside the current building while free running moves you inside another. This suggestion, free running moves you inside another building and the "toggle" would put you outside the other building. But the mechanics are, basically, in place already, just that the "toggle" puts you outside your current building instead of the next one over.--Pesatyel 08:41, 30 March 2009 (BST)

You can't leave from a building that's over VSB (at least not if you have free running). --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:30, 30 March 2009 (BST)

I would vote for this... Freerunning is way too cheap as it stands but increasing its cost without allowing it to be turned off would be too much. --Honestmistake 23:27, 29 March 2009 (BST)

---

Plague (revised)

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 06:42, 29 March 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Infectious bite subskill
Description:	There are several good comments about my current suggestion Plague (too overpowered and KISS among others) and this is my stab at a better version. Comments are welcome. Plague would be an infectious bite subskill, a more severe form of the zombie disease that can linger in weak immune systems. If a zombie with the skill bites an already infected survivor with less than 25HP the survivor would become plagued. You can be plagued and infected simultaneously, but even with both a person only loses 1HP per turn with no other ill effect. It does not stack with infection. An FAK will always cure infection, but not so with plague. If you have plague and infection and cure your infection, you can still be plagued. Plague will only drain health if you are below 25hp though. A plagued survivor with 25+HP will keep the plagued condition but have no ill effect. If they are ever reduced to 24HP or lower though, the health drain will resume. If they healed back to 25HP the drain will stop, etc. You can theoretically play forever with untreated plague, it just makes you more vulnerable to health drain if you're ever injured. There would be three ways to be cured of plague: Revivification syringe injection while living. This would spend the syringe but only cost 1AP, used on yourself or other survivors. Being treated with a FAK in a powered hospital, utilizing the superior environment for healing. The surgery skill would not be necessary. You could still use a FAK to cure plague even when people are at full health. If infected and plagued, getting healed in a powered hospital would cure both simultaneously. Dying. Unlike infection plague would not continue after being revived.

Discussion (Plague revision)

The previous version, when put up for voting, just wasn't clear. You might want to allow those with Surgery to do it in an unpowered (but undamaged) hospital maybe. I don't think Surgery is a skill most people REALLY use. A lot of players heal for the XP and its more economical to NOT take First Aid and Surgery (especially because of all the latter's restrictions), so this might make the skill more useful. The whole idea of using a syringe to heal it kinda bugs me. It seems like it would make NT buildings even MORE a focal point then they already are, and I don't think that is a good idea.--Pesatyel 09:24, 29 March 2009 (BST)

I want new survivors without necrotech skills or surgery to be able to heal their plague somehow though. --A Big F'ing Dog 15:00, 29 March 2009 (BST)

Of course, hence the being able to do it in hospitals without skills but with power. But what if the hospital doesn't HAVE power? At least if the character has Surgery, they can still do it.--Pesatyel 20:46, 29 March 2009 (BST)

This won't make the game more fun for zombies because of the indirect nature. It will just end up as a additional annoyance for survivors.--Thadeous Oakley 13:35, 29 March 2009 (BST)

It gives zombies a way of prying survivors from defended structures like a mall or fort by forcing them to either leave to the nearest powered hospital or use up a syringe. And it gives zombies additional strategies. Right now its either infect as many as possible, or focus on killing one. --A Big F'ing Dog 13:54, 29 March 2009 (BST)

It cuts down on the "mall/nt-centric" gameplay. Survivors hang out in those two locations cause that is where all the good stuff is. Sure it makes it easier for zombies to "know" where the survivors are, but it also means theres like a couple of hundred survivors there too, which doesn't exactly make it easy either.--Pesatyel 01:06, 30 March 2009 (BST)

---

Reading Improvements

Timestamp:	Kite 12:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	The book's usefulness needs to be improved, plain and simple. It's very hard for a survivor to gain XP by reading book since it only gives you 1 XP for any other class than a Scientist which gives you 2 XP, Scientists who, unlike Civilians, more specifically, Consumers don't have, and that reading a book usually DOESN'T give you XP, since, for some reason, the chance of you learning from a book is roughly 10%. This is bad for classes such as Consumers who have very few other ways of gaining XP. Some may argue that people with most weapons without training you'll get about the same ammount of XP out of roughly the same ammount of hits/readings. while this is true to an extant, it's also misleading, since most people don't need to be trained to read a book. It is obvious that books need to be improved, but how? Well, the most obvious choice is to improve the likely hood of earning XP from a book, maybe to 20% that you'll gain XP. Will this be unbalancing to the game? No, contrary to the idea that libraries then would become more important to survivors would be true, but the idea that they would make all other forms of XP gathering obsolete would be a great assumption, since, as XP is learned and other opportunities would be openned up, using books for XP would be the thing becoming obsolete. Really, in every sense books are for newbies who have no other ways of earning XP, a back up plan, and should be made much more useful for their purpose. A few other ways of balancing book reading is by making the likely hood of earning XP much higher and the likely hood of the book being used to be thrown away after use, this would more realistic and less of a lottery ticket for one XP and more of an exchange of one AP to one, possible XP, it still wouldn't be an absolute sure fire way of earning XP but would make reading more rewarding and less frustrating for beginners.

Discussion (Reading Improvements)

This is a logical idea, and my only complaint is how long you take to explain it. Tell me if I've done your concept an injustice by condensing it to: "In my mind, books aren't useful enough. How about we up the odds - just a little, say to 20%, from 10 - that you actually learn something from reading?" -CaptainVideo 06:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't be using books as any kind of serious source of XP. This is a zombie apocalypse, not a librarian apocalypse. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Which would be quieter.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

So much quieter... Anyway I like this idea, I'm all for it.--Super Nweb 21:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Crucifix Uses

Timestamp:	Super Nweb 03:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Humans
Description:	Crucifixes as we know have no uses. When I immagine this I am thinking of a large crucifix, something about a foot long by 6in wide, like this. Not one you wear on a necklace. You could attack with a crucifix with these accuracies. Without Hand To Hand Combat - 10% Chance to hit, 1dmg Hand To Hand Combat - 25% Chance to hit, 1dmg When you hit someone with the crucifix it would say one of these "You hit -Player Name- on the head with a crucifix dealing 1dmg" "You randomly swing a crucifix at -Player Name- with little result" If you are hit it would say "-Player Name- whacked you on the head with their crucifix doing 1dmg"

Discussion (Crucifix Uses)

... So, exactly like punches, except it takes an item. Naw. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's mostly for the flavor, the only useful melee weapons are Fire Axes, and Knifes. The others could all be compiled into one, since they (Excluding the crowbar and the pool cue), are the same.--Super Nweb 03:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The game already has baseball bats, tennis rackets, hockey sticks, pool cues, cricket bats, fencing foils, crowbars, golf clubs and ski poles. What do they have in common? Nobody uses them. The game doesn't need more melee weapons.--Pesatyel 03:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok how does another melee weapon hurt the game? It just adds flavor for users, it is in no way going to harm your gameplay so why strike it down?--Super Nweb 04:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Spam, primarily. Flavour's nice, but not more of the same flavour. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't really IMPROVE the game in anyway.--Pesatyel 05:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Crucifixes should be useless in the game, just like they are in real life. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes they serve no magical purpose against the undead, but getting hit with a 1 foot long block of wood would still hurt.--Super Nweb 21:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As would it hurt getting hit with a generator, yet you still can't attack with one. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 21:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit harder to swing, I mean you can attack with a toolbox!--Super Nweb 20:20, 30 March 2009 (BST)

Crucifixes aren't weapons for a reason: they fail too much. --3R 19:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

---

More ways for zombies to gain XP

Timestamp:	LaosOman 22:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill/game mechanic changes.
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	Currently, zombies have four ways to gain XP - destroying people, destroying barricades, destroying buildings and destroying stuff in the buildings. There should be more, partly to give a small boost to the zombies and partly to encourage more altruistic behaviour... -- Feeding Groan. Upon groaning, you gain XP equal to the amount of survivors present, with a maximum of six AP per groan. You can groan again, but this won't net you any more XP unless the amount of survivors increases. If one zombie groans in the building, another zombie can still get XP by groaning over the same crowd. Removed the ruin and drag suggestions - dragging would be abused, as one commenter mentioned.

Discussion (More ways for zombies go gain XP)

I'm pretty sure each of those has been suggested individually. Also, at least the Feeding Drag one is quite easily abused. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 23:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am intrigued by the feeding groan suggestion. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Nom nom nom! I think the numbers you suggest are a bit high, but +1 XP for drag/ruin/groan would be good. Think of the babah zambahz! Billy Forks 00:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that zombie XP gaining is limited to only a few actions, I also must concede that zombies only have a few actions. With the exceptions of groaning and shambling around, zombies can potentially gain XP for just about any action they choose to take. That's why most XP suggestions boil down to "make this easier so we gain XP faster" or "give XP for this action that currently gives no XP."

I'd be more interested in seeing zombies given other options of things to do for XP, rather than just provide XP for every possible existing action. People like to say things like "survivors can gain XP 8 ways, and zombies only 3, it's not fair," and that's not an invalid statement. But compare the number of possible actions both players can make.

By my count (and I could be miscounting), survivors have 22 possible ways to spend their AP: Moving, talking, attacking others, dumping bodies, building barricades, repair ruin, install generator/radio, repair generator/radio, destroying generator/radio, destroying barricades, searching, reading, healing, DNA extraction, revivification, tagging, firing flare, transmitting on radio/phone, manufacturing syringe, taking NT scan, consuming beer/wine, refueling a generator. It is possible to gain XP with 9 of these possible actions. 41% of the possible actions survivors can take can gain them XP.

Zombies only have 12 possible ways to spend their AP: Moving, talking, groaning, gesturing, attacking others, attacking barricades, ransacking, ruining, destroying decorations, destroying generator/radio, dragging survivors to the street, scent death. It is possible to gain XP from 5 of these actions. 42% of the possible actions zombies can take can gain them XP.

So really, it's about the same-- a little less than half the possible actions a player can take are potential XP earners. If we talk about common actions, then survivors (who fight, barricade, search, and heal-- 50% of which gain XP) have a slight disadvantage compared with zombies (who fight, attack barricades, and groan-- 66% of which gain XP).

Again, invent new things for zombies to do to earn XP, instead of giving XP for more things they already do. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 02:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

An interesting list. You forgot "stand up" and "feed on a corpse" and "open door" all of which I believe give you no XP? 5 out of 15? 33.3%?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombies can't explicitly open doors, it's a part of entering a building, which I think is a part of moving. Survivors on the other hand are missing "close door". --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 12:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I forgot "stand up" for both sides, "feed on corpse," "close door," "jump from building," "send text message" and "re-tune radio/transmitter." But that might be all of them that cost AP. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 15:59, 30 March 2009 (BST)

Thing is, they ARE zombies, so they ARE limited in what they can do. Urban Dead zombies aren't "typical" zombies (ie they are smarter or more capable) but they are still relatively restricted to "typical" zombie abilities. So there are very few choices on new wasy for zombies to earn XP.

• Give more XP for the XP earning abilites they already have.
• Give XP for non XP earning abilities they already have (I actually think the Feeding Drag one has potential for this because of the risk the zombie could be considered to be taking by getting "locked out", besides, tossing bodies gives XP).
• Create new abilities that earn XP for a zombie. This last is definately the hardest both becuase of the genre restriction AND the game balance restriction. There are two ways to do that.
  • "Emulate" survivor skills that gain XP such as these
  • Make up entirely NEW abilities.

Both of which aren't easy. The former, people will argue that you shouldn't (or don't need) skill emulation and the latter, again, has to do with both game balance and genre restriction. Intrestingly enough, I did a quick through the peer reviewed zombie skills and there really aren't ANY that are XP earners (beyond the temporary increase in damage or increase in the ability to do damage). So, the question is, what can zombies do that fits in to genre and balance? There IS one aspect that most (hell probably nearly all) players ignore and that is the ability of zombies to use melee weapons. They've always been able to but using a melee weapon is inferior even to a convert's bite (for the most part, especially since even converts would be using claws). So what if we did something with THAT ability?--Pesatyel 09:51, 29 March 2009 (BST)

Thanks for the comments so far, I removed two of the actions that would earn XP. Now the groaning just needs to be fleshed out some more. --LaosOman 19:44, 30 March 2009 (BST)

---

Survivors Can Open Doors

Timestamp:	Mail2345 22:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	New Action
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Currently, survivors are unable open doors. Sure, they can get though, but what if they want to open a revive clinic in a useless building since there are no near churches? What if a death cultist wants to open the doors for hundred of hungry zombies? I propose that survivors should be able to open doors at the cost of 1 AP. This change will add significant flexibility without unbalancing effects.

Discussion (Survivors Can Open Doors)

Clarification: do you mean in buildings with no barricades, or barricaded buildings? -CaptainVideo 02:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Since we're still at the plastic, impressionable stage where details have yet to be hammered out, I think we should wait for specifics to surface. Just saying this is a dupe is not unakin to saying "Who needs another zombie game? There are plenty of zombie games." Just a thought. -CaptainVideo 03:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There are really no "details" TO be hammer out. The suggestion is pretty simple.--Pesatyel 05:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What Pesatyel said. How does this need details hammering out? The suggestion is survivors opening doors. I have a dupe for it. Hammer out whatever details you like, I'll still remove it from voting with the same dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

When you scream 'Dupe' in suggestions could you please provide a link. It allows people to compare it to the dupe and potentially improve on it and make it more unique. Granted that might be harder with simple suggestions like this one but if your not going to be constructive I'll call BS till I see a link. --Kamikazie-Bunny 13:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk is cheap, call BS on it by taking it to voting. You put the effort of creating a suggestions page in and I may grace it with my presence and dupe it. I'm quite sure you know how to create a suggestion for voting. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we go over this already? He doesn't want people to improve the suggestion, he just wants the suggestion to die (be it here or as a Dupe in voting). In general I'd say ignore him if he doesn't give a link, but in this case I do remember something like this at least being discussed so it's quite possible there's a dupe. Didn't find one when I looked for it, but I didn't look very hard. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

YOu REALLY don't think this would be unbalancing?--Pesatyel 05:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This? --Janus ^talk 14:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You had to spoil my bunny baiting didn't you? :p -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I found that but only read the first sentence and thought it was only about zombies. Oh well. Also; holy shit, we had a lot of people voting back then. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry people, my mistake. I did think Open Doors From Inside was only for zeds. Let this suggestion die. --Mail2345 20:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Retrieval

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 09:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Sub-skill of Bargain Hunting, Retrieval allows a survivor with 100% encumberance or more who has found a valuable item via. searching to 'store' the item in a temporary place until they have made enough room to carry it. Once an item is found, the button 'Retrieve Item' appears. Retrieving the item has a success rate of (100 - (10 * X))%, where X is the number of AP the user has spent since finding the item. Clicking the button costs 1 AP, regardless of if the player succeeds in retrieving the item. It is based on AP as dropping items doesn't cost AP, and as such dropping enough items to retrieve the found item is entirely acceptable, whilst stocking it for later whilst the player does other tasks is less likely to succeed. Leaving the building/area/part of the building would forfeit the item.

Discussion (Retrieval)

Is it not far more sensible to just drop something before you search? This just seems like a lot of coding for something of so little value. --Honestmistake 09:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As HM. It seems like a heck of a lot of coding for very little gain. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the seldom-cited rules of suggestion parameters is that we're not allowed to reject things because it would take too much coding for them to work. Only Kevan can make that decision. -CaptainVideo 02:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, however with that method, should you not find anything you're down a possibly useful item. If you search first and use Retrieval, you don't have to lose anything. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 10:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you've only got useful items in your inventory, why on earth are you searching? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

To get more useful items. -CaptainVideo 02:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And the logic behind that is....? To reitterate what Midianian said, if your at 100% with all useful items, why the hell would you be searching?--Pesatyel 04:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, encumbrance is there for a reason. 100% is a lot to hold. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really much of a purpose, if your looking for something in particular make sure you have room (even 98% enc leaves enough room to fit a 20% enc item). --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

---

NecroTech Training

Having taken your suggestions into account, "NecroTech Training" is now up for review at Suggestions (please check the modifications I've made before voting). The other two ideas I had - Facility Access and Memories of Employment - have been allowed to die, since people considered them too unbalanced. -CaptainVideo 06:04, 29 March 2009 (BST)

---

True Dual Nature

Timestamp:	--Vissarion Belinski 00:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Balance, roleplay, maybe for next Monroeville
Scope:	Everyione
Description:	I'm not a good writer in English, but I'll try to describe the idea. Maybe it's just my naive phantasy. But please say whad do you think, and how it may affect the game. It's developing suggestons page anyway You know what Dual Nature is about. It's roleplaying, which also makes the game more difficult for the rest of survivors, who do not follow the Dual Nature Idea. Survivors usually go straight to revive point after death. But Dual Nature, Roleplaying and Realism (if there is any=) vote for random revive, and true flesh eating zombies - you die, you rise, you bite your own ex-friends, making them your friends again. I'd like to share with you some thoughts how to make the game more interesting, funny and difficult, especially for survivors. And maybe use ideas for the next Monroeville, Borehamwood or Manchester (with some NT infrastucture), as they change the game very strong. Or maybe this can be used in Malton. So they are: 1. Zombies can't see survivor names. They can see only HPs, and they can't see if an attacked survivor is their friend/ group member. 2. Zombies can't see Building name. It's just Building/ Park/ Street. 3. No GPS, wiki, map and other navigation for zombies. And no suburb name. 4. Zombie, if there is no meat nearby, makes one random movement once in, say, 6 hours, for no AP cost. Numbers 2,3,4 makes it impossible to organize revive points. Only combat revive - survivor sees his friends and tries to revive them. And this will not harm zombies. 5. Make feeding groans louder. Or add some kind of "gather the horde" groans. To make zombies easier to find each other. There is one problem. It makes zombie life absolutely stupid, and I don't know if it'll be interesing being "somewhere in Malton". The general idea is to make revive difficult and random.

Discussion (True Dual Nature)

Problem is, the mechanics that prevent organizing revive points would also prevent organizing strike teams. Plus, you can always make the revive point "outside the building you were defending". The proposals are also un-implmentable. How do you prevent metagmaing? Location co-ordinates are (and pretty much need to be) coded into the game pages, so how do you block extension that allow players to know where they are?
Anyhow, forcing all zombies to play as ferals isn't "enforce dual nature" (as players could still choose not to attack survivors / barricades", its "make zombies stupid" and "prevent zombie players from co-operating". Yuck.  Swiers 02:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about making zeds just stalk pointlessly? Every few hours a zombie moves in a random direction if there is no feedeing groans and no fresh meet in current location. Or maybe move to nearest groaning. That should prevent waiting in the revive point --Vissarion Belinski 02:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that making survivors anonymous to zombies is interesting (maybe give the ability back when Memories of Life is purchased?), but I agree with Swiers, it's really not workable in UD. In a whole new city, maybe, and you pointed that out yourself. It might also be neat to connect one or more of these "stupidities" to Brain Rot-- like failing to recognize survivors, or losing the ability to read graffiti, something like that. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 02:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I kind alike the first idea about just seeing hit points (I'd suggest being able to see the full name if the person is a contact). I just think the author is a little flawed in his reasoning about "dual natures". It sounds, as I read it, like he is arguing the only way a "true" dual nature would be revived is if it was a combat revive. But I digress. How about a TOGGLE for some of the these? For example, you can toggle off and on your ability to see building names. Volunatarily make it "harder" on yourself.--Pesatyel 02:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The others may be interested in debating with you, but I am not. It is beneath me even to acknowledge the 'thinking' which lurks behind these kinds of suggestions. I'm only going to say this: Fuck you.

• Fuck you on behalf of every new zombie player who has ever stood up with almost half their playing time gone because some arsehole got bored and went outside to masturbate with their guns.
• Fuck you on behalf of every new zombie player who has had to spend two action points per step in probably the worst example of game unbalancing 'realism' ever conceived and which means that every day there are new zombies who are making just seventeen moves whilst new survivors make forty-eight.
• Fuck you on behalf of every zombie player who ever went days, sometimes weeks, without attacking a survivor because the barricades have just a 12.5% chance of success.
• Fuck you on behalf of every zombie player who earned their claw skills only to find that the barricades still only go down at a rate of one-in-four, and that only if they are lucky with the truly abominable RNG.
• Fuck you on behalf of every zombie player who has taken on the barricades alone, broken them open and been unable to get in more than a few swipes at a survivor before being headshot, dumped and all their work undone by just a single survivor.
• Fuck you on behalf of every zombie player who has discovered the metagame and learned that the only way to actually make a difference in this game as a zombie is to coordinate with other zombie players.
• Fuck you on behalf of every zombie player who works hard to help other players by arranging hordes, group activities, massed attacks, mini-games and tours.
• Fuck you on behalf of the ferals.
• Fuck you on behalf of the strike teams.
• Fuck you on behalf of the hordes.
• Fuck you to everyone who ever suggests game ruining, zombie nerfing shit in the name of 'realism', 'believability or 'balance'.
• Fuck you to every player who takes the easy way out and does not have a zombie character because they'd rather spend every IP hit they have searching for ammunition.
• Fuck you to every player who treats zombies as though they are non-player characters, with no human being behind them trying to have fun.
• Just fuck you.

TL;DR? Fuck you. --Papa Moloch 03:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to back that up with a Fuck you¹² (I don't agree with the RNG ones and am generally against meta-gaming). --Kamikazie-Bunny 13:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As Moloch said. Oh, and pass me some of whatever you smoked before writing this. --Johnny Bass 04:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

and i would like to add a "steaming cup of shut the fuck up" with your retarded suggestions. how long have been playing this game anyway?----Sexualharrison 13:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombies are not NPCs. If they were, maybe in another city, your stuff would already be implemented. Also Moloch is my hero. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As an unassociated bystander wandering through the area, I'm going to say this has veered from the path of productivity, and perhaps contains excessive use of bold. Just throwing that in there. Carry on. -CaptainVideo 02:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It was entirely needed. --Johnny Bass 15:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion sucks, but the person making it is clearly new. This aggression will not stand, dude. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 16:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That carpet really tied the room together, man. --Johnny Bass 16:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, Johnny. At least it's an ethos! --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 16:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

God damn you Paddy! You fuckin' asshole! Everything's a fuckin' travesty with you, man! And what was all that shit about Vietnam? What the FUCK, has anything got to do with Vietnam? What the fuck are you talking about? --Johnny Bass 16:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up, Johnny. (The name even rhymes!) --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 17:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Paddy, you're out of your element! Dude, the Chinaman is not the issue here! --Johnny Bass 17:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a more succinct answer to this than even Papa Moloch: No. --Private Mark 07:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Sexy Zombies

Timestamp:	Giles Sednik CAPDSWA 21:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Balance improvement
Scope:	everyone.
Description:	To improve the feel of a zombie apocalypse, and to bring lasting balance to the game, players should be encouraged to play as zombies. In this pursuit, the following changes should be implemented: All players get a free new skill called Brain Virus, and a new button labeled Succumb to Virus (or something). When players push the new button they die and get a form of temporary brain rot that lasts 3 months (they get a warning just like with regular brain rot). The justification here could be that a mutated/previously unknown NecroTech brain virus has now permeated all of Malton. At any time anyone can succumb to the virus, which attacks the brain and effectively works like brain rot. After 3 months the virus becomes dormant and the player can be revived. Whatever, feel free to write a better explanation. Players who choose to take this temporary form of brain rot and play as zombies/survivors with brain rot for 3 months will be rewarded with a special badge/symbol in their profile. Successive tours of duty using Brain Virus will yeild something like badge "x 2", badge "x 3" etc. The use of Brain virus should be promoted on the wiki and on the log in page. The front page will include a prominent link to an article promoting the use of Brain Virus, encouraging players to try out the zombie lifestyle for a while and talking-up the virtues of game balance and the earning of shinny badges. The badges should be described in a way that players will covet them and lay claim to bragging rights on the number of badges they earned. Zombie players can also use Brain Virus, whether or not they have brain rot.

Discussion (Sexy Zombies)

I'm really disappointed, this isn't about sexy zombies at all. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 21:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I see huge zerging flaws, but yes, Sexy zombies for all! --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect, Midianian, the idea is to make being a zombie sexy. And I just had another thought ~

To further incentivize zombie play, people who succumb to Brain Virus at least once per year would benefit from some viral intelligence boosting so that:

• Suvivors who had succumbed would gain dual-wielding, a flavor boost. In their profile they would add the line "dual weapons". Example: "Wearing: dual weapons, tinted glasses, a trenchcoat", and when they attack, others players would see "Trenchie67 expertly shot zombzorz34 with a pistol.. and again.. and again." etc.
• Zombies who had succumbed would gain terrifying intelligence, a flavor boost. Their profile would read "Wearing: A terrifying expression, tattered jeans, blood-soaked and tattered brown shoes". The line "cunningly" would be added to their attacks, and when they used groan, the descriptive word "menacing" would be added. Example: "You hear a menacing loud groan from 2 blocks east, 1 block south." etc.
• Every year an update would occur so that in order for players to maintain the benefits of the brain virus, (dual-wielding and terrifying intelligence) they would need to have succumbed to the virus at least once per year that the virus has been active.
• The skill in player profiles would read either: Brain Virus (active) or Brain Virus (dormant) depending on it's current status. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 22:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't too good of an idea, and shame on you for making me think the Mistress has returned!--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 00:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Gragh SA, go back to Zombie Strippers! D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 00:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this. It's intimidatingly complicated. Can you streamline it to something that makes sense after a one-sentence explanation? Not that details are bad, but the basic idea itself is too confusing. -CaptainVideo 03:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay here it is in a streamlined sentence. "In order to encourage players to become zombies, people can voluntarily take a temporary form of brain rot and receive a fucking awesome but totally inconsequential upgrade to their character." --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 06:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Musket

Timestamp:	--Johnny Bass 19:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Item Type: Weapon Item Location: A musket would be only found in skeleton and stuffed animal museums (to go with the theme of hunting that both seem to present) Encumberance: 12% Find Rate: <5% Accuracy: 10% without firearms training, 35% with Ammunition: None. Musket would be 1 use only item discarded after each use Damage: 20% Chance of the musket not firing due to age and being discarded, 60% chance of 5 damage (4 with flak), 20% of 10 damage (8 with flak). Rationale: Adding an element of a potentially unreliable, 1 and done weapon that probably wouldn't be very useful unless the player is at a lower level and adding something more amusing for occasional use. Personally, I doubt I got the percentages looking decent for this and I'm very open to changing them around a bit.

Discussion (Musket)

"Adding an element of a potentially unreliable, 1 and done weapon that probably wouldn't be very useful unless the player is at a lower level and adding something more amusing for occasional use."

Surely thats a flare gun? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly somewhat yes, only minus the ability to shoot it into the air. --Johnny Bass 20:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As well as substantially better accuracy. I like it. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been playing a fair bit of Empire Total War lately and I agree that muskets would be pretty awesome to see in game.

Since it can't be found in malls (and hence affect other weapon's search rates,) at a first glance, this seems fine. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It should cost more AP to fire. A modern gun is NOT that hard to figure out how to operate, but a musket? First of all, it depends on what KIND of musket we are talking about, but I suppose that can be "generalized". Sharpshooters during the Civil War could fire their muskets as fast as 3 times per MINUTE. That should give a rough indication of how long it takes to use. Of course, since this is a one shot, reloading can be ignored. But there is a certain amount of "prep" needed just to fire, I'd imagine. The idea is somewhat novel and, IMO, has potential, but this is just an inferior flare gun (3 points less AND the chance of a misfire).--Pesatyel 02:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, Kevan stated that AP used is for an action rather than a unit of time. The idea is actually supposed to be a little less useful than a flare gun and really just for color rather than usefulness. Either way, I forgot to check for dupes anyways. --Johnny Bass 03:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? I was commenting on the complexity of the action. Granted it doesn't actually work to well if you consider surgery, but that's beside the point. Why would you wnat to make a "flavor item less useful then a flaregun" when people rarely use flareguns themselves?--Pesatyel 04:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The basic idea behind this has been rejected twice: Suggestion:20090303_Museum_Enhancements and Suggestion:20070619 Antique Weapons. Not that I don't personally love it. -CaptainVideo 03:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was really hungover and bored at work when writing this, so I didn't bother checking for dupes/rejects. Oh well, back to nothingness for this one. --Johnny Bass 03:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A gun JB? For shame.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh, boredom + hangover. That and I like more useless toys. --Johnny Bass 04:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We need a weapon that embodies those goals. Possibly a yo-yo. -CaptainVideo 02:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We already have, what, a dozen of those?--Pesatyel 04:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Limited Give

Timestamp:	Kamikazie-Bunny 14:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Survivor Trading
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	'Give' allows players to give items to another survivor. It consists of a box similar to the attack box and consists of a 'Give' button, drop down list of survivors and a drop down list of items. The cost to give an item is 1AP. When a survivor is given an item they receive the message "Player X gave you an item." In order to prevent zerg abuse the give item function is limited: Survivors are only capable of giving Infinite-use items excluding pistols and shotguns! The only consumable items available to give are: Beer Wine Books (inc. poetry) Decorative Items These items are available to give primarily for role-play purposes. If a player attempts to give an item to someone who is over 100% Enc. they receive the message "Player X is carrying too much already." This allows for survivors to give items to fellow survivors but helps to reduce zerg abuse because they cannot be used as "search farms" effectively.

Discussion (LimitedGive)

-1 Morality point if you read the name and went 'gah' without reading the content--Kamikazie-Bunny 14:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

+1 Troll point for the generic and inaccurate name, +1 Self-Righteousness point for pre-emptive moralization. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I qualify for the troll point or inaccurate name, generic yes... But I'll gladly take the SRppem... oh +1 point for knowing the point game. --Kamikazie-Bunny 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is quite a limited "Give" suggestion. It's inaccurate the same way as saying "9/11 was orchestrated by a group of simians". It's technically true (humans are simians), but the majority are going to interpret it incorrectly. Using such an inaccurate and generic name is just inviting people to go "Gah" when they see the name and quite possibly ignore the actual content (hence the Troll). Actually, it's not until the fourth paragraph where you explain that no, it's not the regular completely retarded "Give" suggestion. So yeah, call it "Limited Give" or something and people might pay attention to it. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, name changed. --Kamikazie-Bunny 14:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It'd be nice to see people be able to give each other the flavor items and whatnot, but I doubt it will happen. Kevan did say in the past that he was working on some kind of workable way of doing this and explains why it isn't in the game here. --Johnny Bass 14:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientists level quite effectively from reading. This is a zergers slow burning dream. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be an issue, 10AP a day for zergs is not exactly going to break the game and I'm pretty sure the 'professional' zergers out there have a more effective strategy such as FAKPunching in hospitals, good point though but I just don't see a significant risk of Zerg abuse. --Kamikazie-Bunny 14:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I attempted something similar to this a long time ago:

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/21st-Aug-2006

That was as good as I could get it. I don't fancy your chances, but have a look at that and see if it gives you any thought's. The Mad Axeman 14:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think our suggestions are opposite ends of the spectrum, Mine gives useless items, yours does not. The biggest difference is mine drastically reduces the zergabusility by preventing consumables being transferred. Having read it though an idea for transferring consumables has come to mind... you can only give items to a player if they do not have one in their inventory... But I'll see how this one goes and might expanded it to include that pending on feed back or voting results (people give a lot more feedback there). --Kamikazie-Bunny 14:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the "jerk" factor here is wildly underestimated. You could just shove thirty useless items into some guy's hands just to be obnoxious. Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing - assuming it costs AP to give, but not drop. It could be fun, in a petulant sort of way. -CaptainVideo 03:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is probably the biggest problem. There WILL be assholes who will do that, whether it costs AP or not.--Pesatyel 04:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So I suppose that, should this be implemented, a "accept/deny gift" option is in order? --Private Mark 07:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but then no "giving" would REALLY get done because of the 10 minute game window.--Pesatyel 10:12, 29 March 2009 (BST)

The jerk factor is mostly negated by the 0AP to drop function, the only other concern would be IP limits from dropping which is rarely an issue for most players. Jerk loaders would spend 50AP to offload their contents (assuming their entire inventory consisted of books and beer) on to someone else but cost 0AP to drop. An obvious solution (which I missed) would be to prevent givving of items to someone over 100%Enc, which I will add now. --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:21, 30 March 2009 (BST)

---

Change to Free Running

Timestamp:	ScaredPlayer 23:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Game mechanics change
Scope:	Users with Free Running
Description:	Recently I discovered what seems to be a major flaw in the free-running skill. As you know, it is impossible to get stuck inside a building, not matter what the barricade level is - you are always able to move to an adjacent square by clicking on it. However, with the recent change to the way free running works - that you cannot free run into a ruined building - free running has become a potential drawback to people wishing to move about in suburbs with ruined buildings. Let me give an example. You are standing inside a police station that has been caded to VSB. The building directly to the west is ruined. If you do not have free running, it will take two AP to safely move into that building; one to move to that square, and one to enter the building. However, if you have free running, you cannot simply click on the that square as you would normally do, as you risk the chance of falling and injuring yourself. So, to safely enter that building, you must first leave the building you are currently in, click the adjacent square, and then enter the building. This costs 3 AP in total. This makes absolutely no sense - that a player with free running must spend more AP to safely move from the inside a non-ruined building to the inside a ruined building than a player without free running is completely beyond me. Also worth noting is that if you have free running and you are trying to move from a HB or abov building to a ruined one, you cannot take the safe way (that costs more AP) - you can only click on the ruined building, and hope that you don't fall and break your leg. For survivors without free running, they can do the same thing without any chance of injury. In light of this, perhaps giving players a choice between utilising free running and not utilising it would be wise, so that players with free running aren't forced to take unfair risks as compared to players that don't have the skill. My suggestion to fix this would be to remove the chance of "falling and injuring" yourself when you click on a ruined building. Is this a bad thing? I think not. What could of sensible survivor would try to jump from a building into a wrecked one? It makes absolutely no sense. Of course, not being able to free run into a ruined building should be kept; that makes absolute sense. But to allow people to fall and injure themselves is completely contrary to what free running denotes - that is, the ability to move safely and without impediment between buildings.

Discussion (Change to Free Running)

The chance of "falling and injuring" yourself is to add a bonus to ruins for zombies. I usually just take the risk anyway - 5HP isn't much at all.

(By the way, be sure to add your suggestions to the top.) Linkthewindow  Talk  05:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not just provide an option to go outside the building? In fact, why not do that for ALL buildings when you have freerunning? --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Free Running should already cost more as it is. Free Running is overpowered. Up until ruin was added, there were survivors that NEVER even SAW zombies. They just acquired free running (via healing, etc.) and never bothered to go outside. The point of the recent changes was to make it less overpowered.--Pesatyel 08:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you bring up argument of free-running being overpowered here? The recent balance makes perfect sense - how can you run into a ruined building? You can't! What's a bit messed up IMHO is that a player without free running can safely enter a ruined building using LESS AP than someone who has free running. If you have free running, you either a) take the risk of losing 5 hp or b) spend an extra AP to go into the building. My suggestion has nothing to do with allowing people to free run into ruined buildings - that would be retarded. I'm only advocating allowing people to walk instead of free run (to not risk falling and hurting yourself) or, even better, remove the chance of hurting yourself when you free run into a ruined building. Why not simply display a message like "The building is ruined. You cannot free run into it.", and put you outside that building. --ScaredPlayer 23:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

First thing you should do: use paragraphs. You'll get more feedback that way. I'll comment more when I can be bothered to read the whole thing :P. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The 5 Hp loss that comes with injury doesn't always occur and isn't actually all that much. As far as realism goes, a sensible survivor wouldn't try free running into a ruined building, but we have the option of doing what we can obviously see as being a bad decision just as we do in real life. --Johnny Bass 14:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually you're incorrect - if you're a survivor with free running, you cannot choose the safe way, unless you are willing to give up an extra AP. You are forced to make a bad and dangerous choice (risking injury), or lose an AP that a person without free running would not lose. Either way, you lose. --ScaredPlayer 23:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a classic trade-off: Take the risk of injury but move faster, or move slowly and carefully. It's fine the way it is. The only issue I could see where this would be unfair is in an HB or higher building surrounded completely by ruins - you have no choice but to take the injury chance. Still, this scenario is unlikely. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 16:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok what you said is true, that Free-running is kind of overpowered, but shouldn't people with free running have the choice to walk outside of a building just like someone without free running, instead of automatically trying (and failing) to jump into from the second story, or whatever? You shouldn't have to click "exit building" and then click the next block just to get outside the building safely... someone without free running can do that in 1 step whereas you have to take two steps. Caution shouldn't cost AP. --ScaredPlayer 18:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should. You can run across a minefield with a mine detector, or you can walk across it with a mine detector. Which one is going to be safer? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What does your example have to do with anything? With survivors without free-running, caution comes at no extra cost. Does it make sense that acquiring an ability that makes you more agile NECESSITATES uncessary risk? Shouldn't people have a choice of walking from one building to the next instead of automatically trying to jump the gap, putting yourself in danger in the process?--ScaredPlayer 18:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You do have a choice though, you can step outside of the building that you are in provided it's VSB or lower. That's one of the trade offs that you have to accept when you barricade every building in a suburb up to EHB. --Johnny Bass 18:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you do have a choice to do that, but it costs more AP (did you read my suggestion at all?). A survivor wouldn't even have to exit the building, they could just click the next block, saving them an AP. But if you have free running, to avoid the chance of falling and hurting yourself you have to first exit the building, click the next square, then enter that building; this costs 1 AP more than it would cost a survivor without free running to do. This is my whole point - moving from buildings into ruined buildings is safer and cheaper (in terms of AP cost) for someone without free-running. Plus, if the building you're in is VSB or higher, you can't take the "safe way" - you have to risk it, while a survivor without free running in the same situation suffers no such risk. --ScaredPlayer 22:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I wrote a "free running toggle" suggestion a while ago. It would have solved this issue, but was seen as to much of a "free lunch". I think if using free-running cost 2 AP per move (explainable as the city getting harder to move around due to decay) it would balance rather nicely, though. And yeah, I also don't see why falling damage is needed; if you can move without free-running, you always SHOULD do so when appropriate (IE, moving to ruins blocks). If ruins should cause damage, it should be a random chance of doing so when you enter them, to both zombies and survivors.  Swiers 19:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that you can't die from the damage caused by free running into a ruin. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, really? You can't slip and crack your skull open? Come to think of it, I've never tested this... --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What about making survivors fall when they free run out of the ruin building? There will be no way to use ruins as entry points. --Vissarion Belinski 02:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Better thing to do, I think, would be to just allow the person to leave, via the "leave" button OR attempt to free run with a chance of falling and getting injured.--Pesatyel 02:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting. Make a freerun toggle, and make skill having a chance to be used unsuccesfully, and an increased chance of failure if freerunning in/out ruins. --Vissarion Belinski 02:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Crowbar training

Timestamp:	Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	From months of continuing to lever away sections of barricades, survivors are becoming more skilled in finding the fastest way to pry away the boards. This would be a new training, either as a basic civilian, or off of construction, which would give something like a +10% (Or something like that, feel free to discuss) boost to using a crowbar on barricades. This would primarily help to deal with over-barricading, and zombie pinatas. I don't think that there's much window for alt abuse, and this would mainly just edge the statistics slightly, without changing the game fully. (How many people would buy this skill early on?)

Discussion (Crowbar Training)

Personally, I think crowbars could use a +5% base to-hit. As it sits right now, crowbars are more useful than fire axes only twice a year-- when there are supply crates dropping (and even then, it's not about being better at getting the crate, it's about breakage of items inside). Once you have Axe Training, there's really no reason to ever touch a crowbar again, and I think that's a shame. Anyway, I don't really like this idea, first because I think crowbars should get a boost without a skill, and second because I think saying "crowbar training" sounds silly. But I support the general idea. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 07:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Crowbars are lighter than axes but have the same chances to hit barricades. If you don't need a melee weapon, a crowbar is better than an axe. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 08:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

True, but 2% is really insiginificant when the crowbar's "purpose" is debarricading while the axe's "purpose" is to be the best for melee combat. Having the axe able to do both purpose overpowers the axe as well as makes the one more useless melee weapon.--Pesatyel 01:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of increasing the base to-hit for a crowbar, what about a skill that gives a +5% or +10% bonus... but ONLY for the purpose of removing barricades? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of what I meant. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of either, +5% to the base stat is easier to implement but a +10% to barricades only is more plausible and makes sense when you consider what they are designed for. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, though perhaps we should name the skill: "Freeman Training". :P --Private Mark 23:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I was late for work, and couldn't think of a good name. Yours is better. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with a simple debarricading bonus.--Pesatyel 01:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Which do you guys think is more appropriate, 5% or 10%? --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No more than 5%, because that 25% chance is equal to maxed zombie claws without tangling grasp. If you make it more than that, then survivors will have a better chance to break into a building by carrying a crowbar than a zombie ripping with its claws. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 07:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Tangling grasp doesn't affect buildings, does it? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. What I meant was that a zombie who has everything but tangling grasp hits at 50%, half of which (on barricades) is 25%, and no crowbar boost should go above that. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 09:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Tearing down a barricade with a crowbar should be easier than using claws... its a tool designed pretty much for that specific task. If implemented it would be a popular move with the death cultists but it does make sense.--Honestmistake 09:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If your increasing it's base stat 5% but if it's an exclusive boost to de-cading then 10%... As for a name how about Burglary / Breaking and entering... thats what it's used for. --Kamikazie-Bunny 13:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So, this would be a civilian skill that provides +10% to using crowbars on barricades. The skill could be called something like burglary of crowbar proficiency, but I'd rather leave that minor aspect to Kevan. Anything else I need to deal with, or should I post this to suggestions? --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding to the crowbar's base accuracy. As a weapon it's pretty useless but as it is now, like people have said, the fire axe skills make it just as good. No point carrying two weapons when you can carry two that do the same job? Adding to the base accuracy would give people a reason to keep their crowbar.--ScaredPlayer 18:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest this properly. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Let's make some difference between classes

I know it's too complex, but I think it is interesting. I'd like to develop skill and make classes differ from each other. The following skill suggestion is just a try. And excuse me for my bad English.

Timestamp:	--Vissarion Belinski 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skills
Scope:	All players
Description:	UD has 4 starting classes. There are three survivor classes (Civilian, Military, Scientist) and Zombie class, which you recieve after death. Starting as a Zombie and getting revived makes you Civilian. So there are three classes. Civilian<->Zed; Military<->Zed and Scientist<->. And VERY slight difference between them. So slight, that we feel it only two starting months (if we really feel). That slight difference makes me say that there is only one class for 30000 active players. We need some difference! Every class should have one (or few maybe) unique skill, and if you take Zombie unique skill, you can't take survivor unique skill. That would make the game much more interesting. Let's discuss and develop it. Military Skill or skills may be: Improved Headshot, making zombies spend 10, not 5 AP to stand up. Professional [firearm] training, which adds further +10% to hit chance. That's more balanced, as it can be used by PKers and Z-spies, not only by Hunters. Science NecroTech put smart english word here. You need to spend just 5 AP to revive zombie and just 10 to manufacture syringe. Civilian Treasure Hunting, adds +10% bonus to find something when searching any building. Zombie And to balance all that survivor skills let's make zombies more powerfull with special zombie skill. I don't know how to call it, but I know how it should work, not making zeds too powerfull. When zombie attacks a survivor and if the survivor HP drop to 25 or lower (wounded), zombie starts to feel hunger and rage, making all attacks stronger. That's just like feedeng drag, but adding +1 bite attack. Getting skills To take special survivor skill you must have all other survivor skills of your class. All Science skills -> NT something skill etc. Zombies must complete Vigour Mortis tree.

Discussion (Let's make difference between classes)

It's very clear to me you have no understanding about balance in this game at all. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Second. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

ya i agree with iscariot. --User:Ricci Bobby 16:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And do you think that all balance is about 50 APs? I really don't know about the numbers, chances, rates and calculations in UD. Or do you say that whole idea is shit? --Vissarion Belinski 01:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What these ideas do is cripple the zombie side by overpowering survivors. Survivors are already winning the AP race due to their superior ability to bank AP and the soak of barricades. The best rule of thumb in buffing everything is to use the 'Times by a million' rule. Compare the damage that your suggestion could do with the current status quo and the overkill of this should be startlingly apparent. Just a guess, but I'm thinking you've never played a pure zombie. Go create one and try and level it on your own and see how crippling headshot is in its current form and then try and imagine how nasty it would be to just implement your headshot section. In short, yes, the whole thing is shit. However, start to look through the numbers and try to see why we're saying this rather than get offended and disappear. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest you move this suggestion to the Humorous section? No one's going to take this seriously. It's severely unbalancing. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest you be quiet? The notion of the rules against humour in the suggestions system do not, have not, and will never apply to Talk:Suggestions. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the move because it is genuinely funny (to a vet, at least... the ignorance is astounding) and because my trollsense is tingling. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"In short, yes, the whole thing is shit." And what about the whole idea of making them different? Also I played (and play) pure zombie, and I really do not think headshot so crippling as you say. Maybe others have different opninion.--Vissarion Belinski 01:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should they be different? I like the fact that there are no practical differences between the classes after reaching a certain level. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 07:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. What Midinian says also factorises in realism. After months in a zombie apocalypse, all survivors would be acting the same way. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't reckon that would be true, people react differently to the same situation, the length of time people have been in Malton will yield some variance even if the overall mentality is the same (survive)... Take a look at the game at the moment, we have long term players Killing survivors, zombies and mechanical equipment, people obsessed with certain 'strongholds' and people touring the city, running to and running from the fight... does that sound like they're all acting the same? Back to the suggestion though, you (Midianian) make like every character being the same when they've maxed out and I can see the appeal, but personally I would like to see at least a little variance nothing game breaking but something which allows people to play to their strengths rather than being another Mr Generic. --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I want everyone to be the same. I want everyone to be capable of doing the same things. Your inventory and how you use it is what makes you different from anyone else. Class specific skills are a bad way of differentiating anyway, since they force you to make a choice in the beginning of the game when you don't yet know what's useful. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why bother having "classes" at all? Why not just have "Survivors" and "Zombies". Survivors can start with whatever skill they want and, in their profiles, can put whatever the hell they want for "class"?--Pesatyel 01:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Because class also effects what you start with, and the ability to pick ANY skill would be far too dangerous for multi-abuse. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

With certain limitations of course. And starting equipment is minimal when one can easily search.--Pesatyel 02:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got to disagree about starting equipment. Newbies starting survivor characters need to be performing some survivor actions the VERY FIRST MOMENT they start playing the game, lest they get "over it" and leave. Thus, we have characters start with guns'n'ammo, axe, DNA extractor, etc. Personally, when I first tried this game a couple years ago, I left after I ran out of ammo because I didn't know how to search for more pistol clips. It wasn't until I got bored and read the wiki about two years later that I found out I could search for ammo in PD's. I might be running the less bright side of the newbie gamut, but given new players' lack of commitment when trying any new game, I believe that having to spend even a few minutes searching for equipment would be too taxing on newbies' attention spans. --Idly Hummingbird 08:34, 29 March 2009 (BST)

So all "survivors" start with a knife, a FAK and a GPS or something.--Pesatyel 10:11, 29 March 2009 (BST)

---

Shotgun Shells Stacking

Timestamp:	=ScaredPlayer 23:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I'm pretty new to UD, and I looked in the frequently suggested area for something that might be similar to this, and I didn't really find anything. As we all know, pistol ammo comes in the form of a clip - a cartridge that holds six bullets. Shotgun ammunition comes in the form of shells, single shots that are found individually. I think that changing the interface to stack shotgun shells would be a great improvement to UD. My reasoning for this is that if you are carrying a lot of shotgun shells, your inventory area will be filled up with buttons that say "shotgun shell". I propose, to fix this problem of filling up that space with repeat names for the same item, it be changed to "Shotgun shells (x)", where x is the number of shells currently in your inventory. Reloading would be the same - clicking on the button would reduce x by 1, and fill up your next empty shotgun, just as it is now. I can anticipate some arguments against this, such as "If this is implemented, how will you drop individual shotgun shells?" As it is now, you must drop items one at a time from the dropdown menu. If this change were implemented, the same thing would still apply; you would see simply "Drop: Shotgun shell". When you do that, the number of shells is decreased by one at no AP cost, exactly the same as it is now. As well, some people might find this to be "useless", as I can see from other suggestions that have been deemed "useless" as well (which is many). I would argue that this isn't in fact useless - it solves the problem of having an inventory full of white boxes labelled "shotgun shells", and rather consolidates all of those annoying buttons into one button; thus simplifying the task of looking through your potentially huge inventory for that next shotgun shell.

Discussion (Shotgun Shells Stacking)

This is a good idea but there is already something close to that but you would have to download mozilla firefox and one of the add-ons for UD has that User:Close to death 4:43pm 24 March 2009 (EPT)

http://www.adzone.org/UDTool/ --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 13:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

not everyone can use Firefox or add-ons so as an improvement to the basic interface this would certainly merit a keep from me, especially if it were to includes FAKs and Syringes too. --Honestmistake 14:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It'd be nice if at least ammo and items that don't get a target drop down box got stacked. I'd imagine that those would be the easiest to set up. I'd love to see a udtool type inventory organization be readily available to everyone that didn't want the add ons or firefox. --Johnny Bass 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, something like this has been suggested at least as early as 2005 (and fairly regularly after that). If Kevan was going to implement it, it would've been implemented already. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah whoops. Spam it is then... --Johnny Bass 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not Spam. Spam is for LaZoRs, chainsaw nunchucks and other ridiculous ideas, this actually a sensible suggestion, the fact that it's been suggested before would class it as a DUPE. Having said that if it went to voting I'd vote keep, I want it... --Kamikazie-Bunny 20:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If done, there should also be FAK stacking, Needle stacking, clip staking, newspaper stacking, gps stacking, DNA scanner... basically stacking for anything that doesn't have an ammo capacity, frequency setting, or other character that makes it potentially different from similar items. Which seems easy enough, given that so many extensions / scripts do this for yah. The extra server work would likely be offset by the work the server does NOT do; currently each FAK, needle, and weapon has / is a potentially HUGE form with a long drop list of who to use it on. Condensing FAKS and Needles (and scanners) would reduce the numbers of forms a fair bit, and thus the amount of HTML the server needs to send out.  Swiers 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah thanks for bringing that up - the drop down list of things to drop is HUGE and ANNOYING to look through. Having just one of each item in that list would make things soooo much easier and neater for the rest of us. --ScaredPlayer 23:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't care if this is a dupe, I'd vote keep.--Idly Hummingbird 08:36, 29 March 2009 (BST)

---

Assault Rifle

I am aware this is not to be suggested, however please review fairly

Timestamp:	Deadmrzombie 22 Mar 09, 1345 hours
Type:	Weapon, Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I will open this with the stated knowledge of two facts, I am aware that these should not be suggested. I am an infantry combat veteran, and hope I can provided a new thought process on the weapon. Locating a rifle and ammunition Updated 22 Mar 09, 2242 hours Originally I attempted to offer the concept below, however Im updating the concept to include that rifles would be available at all normal weapon locations with a lower chance of finding them than other fire arms. since as stated it would be very difficult to locate one and finding rifle magazines would frustrate players. Original Concept 22 Mar 09, 1345 Hours Rifles would only be available from an Armorie. Ammunition would be found in all normal ammo providing locations, a rifle magazine would hold 18 rounds at 6% encumbrance. Statistics Updated --dead mr zombie 04:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Damage: 6 points (5 against Flak Jacket) Encumbrance: 6% This update to damage is to help prevent the view that this is a inferior pistol. However still the weapon would be less accurate. See Skills. Original Concept 22 Mar 09, 1245 Hours Damage: 5 points (4 against Flak Jacket) Skills Starting Skill: 5% accuracy Basic Rifle Training: 25% accuracy Advanced Rifle Training: 50% accuracy Jamming and Reloading Updated --dead mr zombie 04:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Jamming rate: 10% or 15% Fix Jam: 2AP and loss of one bullet. Reload: 1AP Im making this update with regards to the statements made regarding the amount of AP use and what it reflects in game. In the Concept Outline below, my original concept for jamming and reloading is summarized. Original Concept 22 Mar 09, 1245 Hours Jamming rate: 10% or 15% Fix Jam: 5AP and loss of one bullet. Reload: 2AP or 3AP Concept Outline The idea is that the assualt rifle would be very hard to locate and more difficult to use. The skill set would be seperate from the other weapons, making it more taxing to learn. Jamming is a balancing measure for the larger surplus of ammo available per reload, as well as a heavier reload tax. In reality rifles jam, if in Urban Dead one AP represents a single trigger squeeze, then fixing a jam should require 5 (SLAP the magazine, PULL the charging handle, OBSERVE ejecting round, RELEASE charging handle, TAP feed assist) and the loss of one round of ammunition. Reloading the Weapon would require 2AP or 3AP to balance the larger ammo surplus and that it would be more complicated to reload a Rifle. The damage of the weapon would be the same as a pistol for balance and "realism". I specifically offered the weapon should be less accurate, this again is for balance and "realism". A rifle is more difficult to hit a target with then a pistol or shotgun, which are more point low and shoot then aim and shoot. Rifles also have an series of thoughts that should be put into every squeeze of the trigger (realistically: steady firing postition, trigger squeeze, maintain site picture, and breathing control) in a combat situation these fundamentals are often passed over making the shooter less accurate than on the firing range. In summary the rifle would not be as effective as the currently available firearms (save longer time between reloads), generally this suggestion is offered to allow a realistic and balanced concept of a rifle to be implemented. I understand that the overall concept of the External Military's removal of "heavy weapons" (note assualt rifles are "small arms") realistically I feel that such a mission would be very difficult to achieve. Having been in a combat unit in Iraq that attempted to disarm a city I speak from experience when I say the process takes years to achieve and is impossible to date. A military unit on mission to achieve this while in the midst of a zombie outbreak is terribly unlikely in any reasonable period of time. I eagerly await your honest discussion. Thank you for your time, consideration, and dedication to the improvement of the truly awesome game.

Discussion (Assault Rifle)

This seems a bit pointless. Its less accurate than a pistol and also less reliable, add to that its weight and the fact that it does the same damage and having a larger clip really doesn't seem much of a saving grace. Basically you gotta ask... why would anyone want one?--Honestmistake 18:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel the power of grim compel me ARRGHHH! COUP!!!!! (Ahem) It dilutes ammo search rates. If Im a new survivor searching for ammo at a pd and i keep on finding assault rifle ammo (Which is almost pointless, especially far away from forts) instead of shotgun and pistol ammo, I'm going to get bored. Or spend all my times hanging out in forts. (Shudders and gains control of left hand) Nurse! --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt to add flavor to the game and perhaps a new weapon would do that, however I must agree with Rosslessness on the ammo dilution. I've never even seen a fort with my character, why should I have to waste my AP finding and dumping ammo I'll never use. Also, AP just represents actions, not the time it takes to do those actions. So it takes 1AP to reload a weapon, run up the side of a building, or say "Chuck Norris", though in reality that should require infinite AP. (sorry) --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 22:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A large percentage of the melee weapons are pointless, the idea is to add another weapon to the game. The magazine weight is equal to the same number of pistol clips, the suggestion allows for a new medium to engage your targets without making an over-powered weapon like most previous suggestions. I did, when posting the concept attempt to "nerf" the weapon to allow for a more open response. And in its defense, it would surely be more useful than a crucifix or fencing foil.--Deadmrzombie 22 Mar 09, 2251 hours (UTC)

I'll vote YES. We're tired of all that shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol... Malton's big city with two military forts. It just need to be properly balanced. And need to be explained. For example, military helicopters have dropped containers with rifles to forts bla-bla. --Vissarion Belinski 22:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol, shotgun, pistol FLARE GUN surely? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think people use it as a weapon too often. You need tons of them to kill someone. Another real weapon will add something new and fresh to the game anyway. --Vissarion Belinski 00:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, realism, in a game with zombies.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, I'm hoping the discussion would offer suggestions on how to implement the item fairly into Urban Dead.--Deadmrzombie 22 Mar 09, 2251 hours (UTC)

SUGGESTION: Don't. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"I am aware this is not to be suggested, however please review fairly" - Erm, why? You obviously know that the community's tired of new gun suggestions and still you thought to bring it, spam up this page and waste all our time. Why then would we treat you with anything less than the same contempt you've treated us with? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so hard. They continue to suggest and doesn't it means they want it? Is it a game for players or conservatives (maybe that's not the right word =)? And maybe I know nothing about balance, but that Assault Rifle seems pretty balanced =) It will just add something new to UD. --Vissarion Belinski 01:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidently you don't know Iscariot. Anyway, UD isn't a game we should change for change's sake - it should be balanced, bring something new to the game, etc. There's a reason there have only been pistols and shotguns so far - the two-gun system works, and more stuff means dilution (mentioned above) and more junk in the system. We're not fans of spam 'round here. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you all reject third weapon. Properly balanced it won't do any harm. Just another weapon. Is that so bad? --Vissarion Belinski 02:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not really even about balance - the game's fine as it is, no need to add in a third weapon that could be (or probably is) unbalanced. We don't really need "just another weapon." --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I offer, there are "pointless" items in Urban Dead, why carry a GPS when we have the wiki? Why use the radio when we have external communication? Why have stats for a fencing foil? Why go to the mall and pick out clothing for our characters? If you embrace none of the unsubstantial elements of a game then why even have games? Games are created to allow our imaginations to engage in a fantastical environment. --Deadmrzombie 22 Mar 09, 2251 hours (UTC)

Not everyone uses the Wiki or metagaming, for both GPS and radios. Some people like to RP with foils. Some people like to choose clothing. They're there because they're fun and they don't really substantially affect game mechanics. You can RP UD as much as you want, or play it as only a game with mechanics. Where are you going with this? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is that adding a weapon to the game like UD is not a far-fetched though process, hence the game contains many RP elements. Adding a rifle is something commonly requested, I'm offering a concept of a rifle that should not feel over-powered hoping that the people who come to this page are looking for ways to add things to the game, if your not here to critique and improve the item then haunt the peer reviews and vote no when an item shows up, if your here to build then build. Games like UD are not purely about mechanics, if you want a purely mechanical game, play pong. --dead mr zombie 21:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

At any rate, it's a stand-up weapon suggestion nonetheless. The the dilution argument is very true, but seeing as there's only two armories, I doubt it would effect gaming balance too much. That said, if this were implemented, it would be more so for roleplaying purposes, much like the creation of cricket bats. --Private Mark 02:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet the ammo is found everywhere. This'd require dropping all that rifle ammo (IP hits), and either the lessening of search rates for pistol/shotgun ammo or the increase of search odds overall in ammo locations. I don't like the idea of a pilgrimage to an Armory to get a rifle, and then having to hold on to one (or more). --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated, I do see the dilution argument, which was not in my initial thought process. I have updated accordingly and left the original information above. --Deadmrzombie 22 Mar 09, 2251 hours (UTC)

"im updating the concept to include that rifles would be available at all normal weapon locations" That's not good. Why should MALL stores have Assault Rifles? It is a military weapon after all. Police Depts is used by starting players. They won't be happy to waste 150/200 addtional XPs or to waste their APs and get rid of useless Rifles to get Pistols. Junkyards - maybe, with a very low chance to find it. But the only main point for Rifle should be Fort's Armory. Otherwise it will cause problems. It is even better not to just add Rifle to the Armory, but to replace Shotgun there with Rifle, as double-barreled shotgun is not really military weapon. --Vissarion Belinski 03:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Im attempting to find a balance point for the weapon, personally I've never seen a gun store in a mall. --dead mr zombie 21:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with new weapon suggestions. The TWO submachineguns in peer review are proof that they can get in to peer review even after being spammed/killed several times. The key is that the weapon needs to both be unique AND fun, within the confines of simplicity of Urban Dead. The way I read this one, its nothing more than an INFERIOR pistol. The fact it has a higher ammo capacity is not enough to offset all the bad parts.--Pesatyel 02:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I did attempt to "nerf" the item when I originally posted it, hoping the discussion would generate constructive critiques on how to better implement the weapon. --Deadmrzombie 22 Mar 09, 2251 hours (UTC)

Well there are a LOT of factors to consider. Location, for example. If you include a new weapon into the locations were weapons are currently found, people will complain about it "diluting" search rates for current weapons. That's true. So consider OTHER locations. Mansions, for example. The second is the KIND of rifle we are talking about which, I see your thinking "assault" rifle. Urban Dead is simplistic. The pistol is medium ammo and medium damage. The shotgun is low ammo and high damage, so what does that leave? High ammo and low damage. Or some kind of 'special' feature. The submachine guns both have a limited version "multi target" or "area affect".--Pesatyel 01:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How about a gun that could deal damage from about 4-12. That way, it could be good, or bad. That might fall under submachinegun, as it would be hard to keep hold of. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How would it do damage like that?--Pesatyel 01:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Plague

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 16:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zombies
Description:	I like the Necrotech skills but there's one thing that bothers me - they're too altruistic. I want there to be a choice between helping revive others and hording syringes for yourself. Plague would be a zombie subskill of Infectious Bite. Biting an already infected survivor who has less than 25hp would make them plagued, a new condition. The plague is a more potent version of the zombie infection that can linger in weak immune systems. A plagued survivor loses 1hp per turn just like infection, but only when they have less than 25HP. While a survivor can be infected and plagued at the same time the damage doesn't stack, even with both only 1hp is lost per turn. Healing the survivor to 25HP or higher would stop the health drain, but they'd still have the plagued condition. When their health is reduced to 24 or lower it'll start draining their HP again. So FAKs are effective treatment, but they can only put plague into remission. Only a revivification syringe would cure plague. Injecting a living human being (including yourself) would only cost 1AP, because they wouldn't struggle, but still use up the syringe. Being revived from the dead would also cure any plague you had while living. Theoretically someone could live with plague forever, but you'd want to cure it to make yourself less vulnerable if you're ever injured. It'd give people a reason to be selfish with syringes, appropriate for the zombie apocalypse.

Discussion (Plague)

This is annoyingly how i wanted infection to work in monroeville during the permaheadshot era. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Annoying, but interesting. It'd probably need a needle boost to even it out and I can't say that I'd like to see something like that happen. --Johnny Bass 18:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Or leave needles where they are and slightly boost FAK search rates. It probably wouldn't be terribly unbalancing even without something to counteract it though. Survivors may just want to keep two FAKs in reserve instead of one so they can bring themselves to 25 if they're badly injured and plagued. --A Big F'ing Dog 19:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I like this. It gives zombies another way to damage survivors and it gives needles another use, and yet neither application would be overpowered. Perfectly well reasoned.--Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 00:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't. This tips the scale too far over to chaos. The whole city would be red in ten days. -CaptainVideo 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Advanced Rot

Suugestion now up for voting (May Grud have mercy!)--Honestmistake 10:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Infection Safety

Timestamp:	Haliman - Talk 12:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Infection Change
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Alright, I made this one after I saw the Multiple Infection Starins suggestion. Basically, this game isn't very newbie friendly. Most people quit right away. Well, what this would do, is make new players (say, level 5 and below)immune to infection. This won't be too much of a balence change since they are only level 5. Nothing is permanent yet, but what do you guys think?

Discussion (Infection Safety)

I remember something like this being suggested earlier (not sure if it was infection immunity, though). The fact is that it just postpones the eventual collision with reality. It's not really much of a difference whether they quit on level 1 or level 5. Also, this doesn't make any kind of sense flavour-wise. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You and your flavour. Ok. Newer survivors are much more resistant to zombie infections as their immune systems are much more robust than long term survivors, who are only held together by necrotech chemicals. OR New survivors are more resistant to infection, having been pumped full of antibiotics before being airlifted into Malton. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your immune system gets better when you're exposed to nastities, and as such new players should be more vulnerable ;P. Also, if I recall correctly, only military characters are brought into Malton, the rest essentially just leave their homes when you start playing them. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 16:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on the ailment in question. AIDS for example does nothing to boost your immune system. I'm pretty sure that anyone wandering into malton and its disease would have made sure they were topped up with useful anti zombie dugs. Incidently, where's all the flaming on developing suggestions? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Infection isn't mainly what makes the game newby unfriendly. The spartan interface, lack of easily enterable buildings, and (really massive) dis-incentive to keep playing as a zombie once your level 1 survivor dies are what does that.  Swiers 14:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just have to put in my bit on this topic. This game is very newb unfriendly. Sure, you read that first day in Malton guide, right? Does it really help? Aside from telling you what the different classes are and what the guns are and some other relatively useless information, it doesn't help one bit. What are you going to do when you walk around, looking for a VSB PD, when all these other people have caded them up to EHB? It really is annoying, and there really aren't any guides that will give newbs a good idea of what to do in this game, like if your a shooter character, look for PDs, search for ammo, unload into zombies and if your a doctor, find hospitals, get faks, unload into wounded survivors. For veterans of this game this is obvious, but the same really cannot be said for the people who just started playing today. --ScaredPlayer 23:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The main problem of the game is that it is really hard at the beginning. As a level 1 you really are nothing more then a meatbag, be it a survivor or zombie. However making it more newbie friendly would require fundamental changes in the game. Which are hard to come by. This change might actually help though. I think infections can be quite an annoyance for newbies since they don't know how or where they can cure it (unless their doctors). Maybe a special ingame message would appear when you get your first infection telling you how and where to cure it. (just like with first times deaths)--Thadeous Oakley 15:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it gives some kind of message every time you're infected. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 16:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard to level up at the beginning--it takes a long time and a little bit of effort. Therefore, a lot of people quit. So what? I want to play with the people who sucked it up, not the idiocracy and their ever-vanishing attention spans. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 16:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Paddy. Suck it up, meatbags. :P ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Infection is already on the weakside with the ability of anyone to heal it with a single FAK. Hell most players learn early on to carry at least 1 FAK for such emergencies, and it isn't THAT difficult for newbie survivors to find one. In fact, because healing is one of the most common ways of getting XP, infection is kinda inconsequential since it is automatically healed, even if the healer doesn't know the person is infected. I can see level 1 and level 2 characters being unaffected, but 5 is just too much.--```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pesatyel (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

neg on that chum. I reckon infection could use a boost, not a nerf. When's the last time anyone actually died of an infection anyway? --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 00:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That's my point.--Pesatyel 09:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding right? You are aware that it's possible to run a level 5 character around Malton for a year contributing to the survivor cause every successfully? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Then how about a time limit too? Level 5, or two months. Whichever comes first? --Haliman - Talk 01:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I would even go as far to say rule of 3: after level 3, or after 3 weeks, you lose the immunity. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Simpler, I think and less of a hit on people who can't play regularly, is once you get, say, 300 XP, your no long immune (whether you SPEND the XP or not).--Pesatyel 09:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Since none of you seem to be getting it, you can have this when newbie zombies get immunity from headshot and stand up costs for the same amount of time. Deal? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's actually not a bad idea. It's really painful for new people to lose 15 AP. Maybe not relieve them of all 10 of the cost, but preventing headshot's +5 cost wouldn't be too shabby. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

New zombies get immunity from Headshot and stand up costs right after we get permanently rid of zergers, ie. never. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 07:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, the point of this suggestion is to make the game more newbie friendly. Let's stop fighting and start giving structured criticism. I like the 300 XP idea. Have humans immune to infection, and zombies immune to head shot until then? You have been bitten. Normally, you would lose one HP per AP, but your body is filled with so many antibiotics from before getting dropped in, you are immune for now... AND You have been shot in the head. Normally, you would have to spend another 5 AP to stand up, but your body is barely decomposed, the bullet simply embeds itself in your head. Eh? --Haliman - Talk 05:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My constructive criticism is that it is unfair to make players immune to infection. The XP limit or time limit or AP limit is secondary to the fact that this would be a nerf to infectious bite, and it seems infection is weak enough already. Therefore if you are going to give survivors some kind of immunity to infection, think of a way to give zombies a similar advantage at the same time. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 22:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Vague Idea for a Rifle

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 16:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Keeping this vague while I solicit your feedback. Nothing here is set in stone. Here's the basic idea. Rifles are ideal for long range attacks, while pistols and shotguns are better at close range. This makes rifles useful primarily just for outdoor use. If used indoors their accuracy would be reduced by half. A rifle would do 7 damage per bullet (6 through a flak). Max accuracyy with skills would be 65%, so max indoor accuracy would be just 32.5%. A rifle would be a poor choice for clearing out a building, but an ideal choice for attacking a rotter in a revive queue. Where could it be found? Mall sports stores, fort gatehouses? Suggestions welcome.

Discussion (Rifles)

well it would keep the trenchies happy... they love shooting stuff outdoors ;) On the whole though I think you would do well to find Grim's "no new guns" template and read it carefully. Its not all true and unbiased but he did make some very good points. --Honestmistake 16:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase. adding another weapon reduces the rate of finding the existing ones. Which is bad. Especially for newbs who have only a few skills, especially when that weapon will have 32.5% accuracy a lot of the time. secondly, remember most rotters will also have fleshrot, so theres at least another drop in damage per ap. Look at the sniper rifle link above in the pages intro, theres a couple of useful points summarised there. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

fleshrot and flak don't stack, do they?--Honestmistake 18:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

They don't stack. And yes, a new gun drops existing search rates but only if you put them in gun stores and police stations and replace part of the percentage for existing weapons to do so. I was thinking of not putting them in PDs at all. Perhaps mall sports stores, as a kind of outdoor recreation gear? They already sell knives and binoculars. Fort gatehouses?--A Big F'ing Dog 19:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't really make sense not to find em in the armouries though and adding the search rate as a bonus to the current percentages is a pretty big boost to survivor AP storage potential. --Honestmistake 19:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"ideal choice for attacking a rotter in a revive queue" Ideal how? The max accuracy is the same as other guns. Sure, flaks/flesh rot eat a slightly smaller portion of the damage but that doesn't affect much. Being only able to use it outside is a significant downside. If you're going to put this in places where I can't get the other guns, I'd rather just carry the regular mix of pistols and shotguns. Since they can both be found in the same place, the search rates are effectively double as I don't care which I get. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your missing some stuff, like ammo capacity, AP cost to use, base attack percentage and "upgrade" skills. The problem with new weapons is that Urban Dead is overly simplistic so there are only so many "roles" weapons can play. The pistol is moderate damage, moderate ammo. The shotgun is high damage, low ammo. All that REALLY leaves is low damage high ammo. The only other feature I can think of for a rifle would be the ablity to shoot into a different square. SOMETHING has to stand out to make this different from what we've already got. Why do you think 80% of the melee weapons aren't used? They are all, effectively, the same--Pesatyel 05:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Except for axes, which are the best for hacking and tied with debarricading and knives, which are best for GKing/RKing and finishing off foes for those who care not for xp. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, since that player would be maxed out, they would have the maximum attack percentages for weapons, so it would be whatever weapon they wish to use. Probably the shotgun.--Pesatyel 09:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Portable NecroTech Equipment

Timestamp:	Nuerotoxic2213 13:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Slight Improvement/Balance Change
Scope:	Survivors - High Level
Description:	As Far as i'm Concerned i've been defending Ackland Mall for a good number of Years(been around since 05' actually) and i've always noticed that while i can't complain too much about the distance of NT's to some malls, Ackland by far is mostly boned. instead i believe that we should implement ever so slightly a form of portable Syringe/Necronet access equipment. much like a generator, once setup it can only be destroyed, not picked up and carried. while i know this sounds rediculously unfair to zombies, i believe that the following measures for said equipment is still fair while. in such cases as ackland mall, the mall falls too easily because it has never been able to get a fair chance to acquire syringes, since all zombies have to do is camp a few of themselves inside the ruined NT(like 7 blocks away) and the entire surburb goes to hell. A) Must be hooked up to a powered Generator to work B) Still costs 20AP to manufacture a syringe, and cannot search for syringes. they MUST be manufactured, eliminating the chance for any survivor to gain the ability to "find" syringes in any building other than the NT's C) Give it a HORRBILE search rate to severely lessen the chances of finding one and can only be Found in powered NT's by people with the all the NecroTech skills. D) For NecroNet Access the closest Phone Mast should be powered(provided were assuming it would run off of wireless internet) E) Identifying the portable equipment(for each necronet skill the search rate could increase 1%)can only be done by people who have all Necrotech skills(although the search rate would go up 1% per level it would only be able to be found once you acquire the last necrotech skill). F) Zombies gain more XP for destroying said equipment than they do for destroying generators G) Zombies have a higher percentage hit rate to destroy said equipment making the equipment "fragile"(which means zombie can easily de-commission said equipment by either destroying the equipment itself or by disabling the generator) H) Zombies can identify buildings with said equipment when powered, much like zombies can see which buildings have powered generators, eliminating the chances for a hidden NT "factory".

Discussion Portable NecroTech Equipment

I like all the provisions for this except "H" - not so much because I think it's unreasonable, but because I think it's impossible. How would a zombie know which building had a Portascanner in it? -CaptainVideo 13:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

i thought about that and i had to figure it this way, would it be completely fair to zombies if these portable machines could be easily hidden from view? while i made sure that zombies and humans alike benefit from this idea, i had to try and be as fair as possible. zombies who have sufficient skills can identify NT buildings. i say the same goes for this machine. as i said, that way there aren't any hidden NT's factories about. this also makes them more of a target for zombies. while it provides survivors with an ability to create syringes on the spot, it also makes them more prone to attack. Nuerotoxic2213 13:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I like your balanced approach, but I can't support this until this detail is either dropped or given a good backstory. Here, I have an idea. How about, "You are at [BUILDING]. Lights are on, and you hear the whir of light machinery inside"? Sooner or later - probably sooner - you'd figure out that this sound meant portable NecroNet gear. -CaptainVideo 00:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So you are asking for a portable necronet system which connects wirelessly and works indefinitely? Check out the flavour text for rotter revives to see exactly why the first part would be a massive nerf to zombie kind wireless access to NecroNet. Change the explaination for how it works and i could see how this might work for a limited use item; ie it carries enough chemicals to produce 10 syringes or it has a chance to run out in a similar way too spray cans with replacement chemical stocks (like fueling a generator) available. Even balanced out like that I am still not sure it is needed.--Honestmistake 14:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

sure, limited uses sounds like a good part. its why this is in developement still. Nuerotoxic2213 14:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would have to be limited in use or at least require some form of "ammo" in the form of refills... still leaves the problem of whether its actually needed though. Sure 1 mall gets it a little tough but no-one makes folk stay in malls, they stay because the benefits outweigh the draw backs. For this thing to be even halfway fair to zombies it would have to be so AP inefficient that even travelling 20 blocks to search would be a better option and that just makes it pointless froth--Honestmistake 14:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

i was only using Ackland as an example, i am sure that in many other places the same problem occurs. and while zombies have the ability to stand back up and be fine and we have the ability to barricade and use items most buildings fall due to either a lack of needles or a lack of survivors. this would possibly bring life back into abandonded suburbs giving zombies more of an area. or you could make it so every so often a syringe wouldn't work. there are many ways where you can cut back. make it have limited uses, keep it at 25 AP to manufacture and have it work 70% of the time. although in some opinions it may be "nerfing" zombies i don't think i was entirely unfair in that it can be identified from the street and easily destroyed by zombies while giving them more XP for destroying it while increasing their hit rate for it. Nuerotoxic2213 14:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this. If you're not comfortable at Ackland, move somewhere else. Not all places should be equally defendable, the differences give places identity. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

again......using ackland as an example. and i've been at ackland since 05'. and while its a really tough place to defend, it makes havercroft friendly to mostly high leveled players who also meta-game. looking for a way to involve and draw new players into current ghost-towns as well. lets face it, most new survivors run for the soft spots of malton such as the SW quad. Nuerotoxic2213 14:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem in new survivors going to "soft spots". Once they level up and/or find the safer places boring, they can go to more interesting places where everything is not flowers and candy. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

i never said new players going to soft spots WAS a problem, however this could entice them, as well as other players to different locations. in essence it make the game a little richer, as well as detract from it. Nuerotoxic2213 15:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the game is still heavily mallcentric. That's the reason that the search rates for FAK were changed. For most players, there are really only 5 locations total anyone gives a crap about (malls, nts, hospitals, factories (generator) and auto repair (fuel)), especially after acquiring the 2 mall skills. Turning 3 other 4 into "mini nts" just makes it worse.--Pesatyel 05:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter how you tried to nerf this update it would be devastating to zombies. Green suburbs would have a portable NT in every building and survivors could be a real pest if they decided to move into a ruined suburb with an armada of NTs at their disposal. It might be better to suggest an update for the wasteland next to ackland mall to become an NT building. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 00:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my, me! What a brilliant idea(!) We could have a whole slew of these, you know Santlerville doesn't have any libraries? Let's have a portable library! The Arkhams are a long way from any malls, so let's have portable malls!

/sarcasm

Welcome to this thing we call reality. Your parents lied to you, life isn't fair, not all men are born equal and not everywhere is as easy to defend. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am totally going to patent and market the Portable Mall^TM. It should be out in time for the holidays. It's sure to be the #1 Christmas gift boutique item. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 09:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. In time for Christmas: Portable Malton^TM! Its a computer file you load onto your desktop or portable device. Works just like a video game! -CaptainVideo 03:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Brain Rot Option

Timestamp:	Bob Boberton TF / DW 04:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Brain Rot change
Scope:	Brain rotted zombies
Description:	This adds an option in your settings if you are a brain-rotted zombie: "Accept Revives" with a checkbox. With the checkbox empty, all revive attempts fail, even during break-ins to powered NT buildings. When the checkbox is filled, you can only be revived inside a powered NT, as is the situation now. Basically, if you're a rotter, and you don't want to be revived, you can't be. This is the original purpose of Brain Rot, unless I'm mistaken.

Discussion (Brain Rot Option)

Does a DNA Scan reveal the zombie's status to a survivor? Also, still a little worried about blocking queues at Rot Revive clinics, and concerned about making it significantly harder to reclaim lost NTs as far as game balance in the long-term. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 05:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt to say "This zombie is too decomposed for a successful revive" in scans, I suppose. As for NT reclamation, I really do not like combat revives since it basically invites the newly risen death cultists to kill you from the inside out (OK, so this only happens some of the time - but it still happens). As for clogging up Rot Revives, regular RPs get clogged too, do they not? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This would totally nerf the best survivor strategy for defending or attacking NT buildings - combat reviving.

Do survivors get the ability to toggle the ability to die? Linkthewindow  Talk  06:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean the way that introducing rotter revives totally nerfed zombies ability to hold NT's?--Honestmistake 07:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And this isn't toggling off a Zombies ability to die at all. It would just force Survivors to actually kill them. It's not like there is some sort of "Reverse Syringe" that knocks Survivors down as bodies but lets them Stand up alive so Death Cultists can make pinatas easier. :)--Zombie Lord 07:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, I would still vote kill for this because i don't see any justification for rot being togglable. I would much rather go with a new skill (such as the advanced rot below) which would make it harder or impossible to revive said rotters.--Honestmistake 08:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not toggling rot entirely - under this suggestion, if you have rot, you can still only be revived inside a powered NT. It's toggling whether revives for those with rot will succeed in a powered NT. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 08:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the point. Currently the best way to take back an NT is by popping in and CR-ing all the zombies - it requires a lot of coordination, but it's effective when tried.

This would totally nerf that tactic described above, and hence making taking back NT's (especially in a red suburb) a lot harder. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A zombie's death doesn't mean much and is by no means comparable with a survivor's death. When a survivor dies they get transformed into a zombie. When a zombie dies, they just spend X amount of AP to stand up. However, when a zombie gets combat revived, they are transformed into survivors. Survivor death and a combat revive are roughly equivalent, except that a zombie can solve the situation all by himself, while a survivor can't. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 08:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at - this pretty much means a rotted zombie can never become a human again. Hence, they totally bypass the effects of a combat revive. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice, Link. Combat reviving is a valid tactic, just like clogging revive points with rotters is a valid tactic. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a question, and while this wouldn't normally be considered the place for it, it fits in with this suggestion quite well. Why can Brain Rot zombies be revived in a ruined yet powered NT building? I thought the justification for being able to revive zombies here was that you have the NT labs, but surely you can't claim to be using ruined labs - the equipment is broken. Would an acceptable alternative suggestion to this one be that rotters can only be revived in a powered, non-ruined NT building? I accept this changes the dynamic (does it really go as far as nerfing the combat revive? I don't think so) and would make it harder to reclaim a ransacked NT building. Survivors can speak though, so what stops your NT guardians popping across to your local mall, picking a time within the next 48 hours and having everybody tool up to reclaim it. I would have thought there would be an amount of in-game satisfaction with a successful raid performed in that style (but maybe I'm wrong). --Roorgh 08:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember a discussion on just that idea a good while back (not long after rot got nerfed) I don't think it got to suggestions though. I would be all for it though--Honestmistake 09:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a pity you can't change more than one game dynamic at a time in a suggestion. If we removed the ability to combat revive rotters in a powered but ruined NT building, and changed it so identified rotters were placed at the bottom of a revive queue (no clogging) then there would seem to be somewhat of a balance. The game still changes, and those that want Brain Rot may feel better, but without making it easier to grief people wanting to revive. Is there anyway to suggest a combination of these? --Roorgh 10:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

But is it really griefing? Stopping the "other side" is a legitimate aim in game and slowing the rate that survivors can revive is the main way zombies can do that. The game has enough ways to screw lone or small groups of zombies and seeing the work of 5 or 6 zeds overturned in minutes is pretty demoralizing. The current mechanic makes NT's very poor targets for anone but large hordes and of course PKers. --Honestmistake 11:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I, personally find jumping in and having a big CRAP on the zombies in the NT is quite satisfying, myself XD.

But as I've said, combat reviving every zombie inside is the best way to take back NT's - although it requires a lot of coordination, and you might revive a pker. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason why you can revive rotters in a powered NT isn't the labs or equipment, it's the wireless access to NecroNet. That's why you need NecroNet Access to do the revives, and that's also why the building doesn't need to be fixed in order to do it. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

but wireless access is being supplied by a piece of equipment. Where I work all the wireless access points are quite visible (not really the sort of thing you want to start hiding behind walls really) so should be just as easy to trash as lab equipment. It still seems like whatever equipment is required for making syringes and using them is ruined. If this really is the desire of Kevan's I'd like to see the description of the NT buildings changed to make it clear. --Roorgh 10:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can't fix a broken access point with just a toolbox which would imply that zombies don't break them. Often times access points are placed pretty high (even at ceiling level), so it could be that zombies can't reach them (or just don't care enough to try). --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombie death is a big deal as it costs a huge chunk of your AP to stand up if you have not bought ankle grab. Syringes = insta kill unless you buy a skill to make you immune to the insta kill... that skill then gets nerfed so that it protects you everywhere except inside the most important building in the game... How about we bring in a special zombie mechanic that makes infections curable only in a powered hospital unless the FAKer has a special skill or item? It sounds very harsh but its basically what you are advocating for the survivor side because you enjoy the power to squash resistance for 1 click of a button. Clearing NT's should always be a priority for the survivor side.... not to create rotter revive stations but to defend their own supply of vital syringes, asking for a mechanic designed to allow rotters to change their mind to be kept because you enjoy using it to make the game easier is a very one sided way to look at the issue.--Honestmistake 11:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If they're one-clicking for CRs, then they're idiots and will soon find themselves dead. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In the context of this discussion they have no need to scan 1st as they are in a powered NT and just want the attacking zed out ASAP. --Honestmistake 19:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it might be useful for Kevan to occasionally open up other mini-cities like Borehamwood to try out radically different rulesets. It'd be like an experiment-- I'd certainly try out a new rules set to see what it would actually be like. And then better mechanics could bleed into Malton once they were proven in other cities. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 21:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hell, YEAH. I suggest we call it "Ballstown"--Zombie Lord 21:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming everyone's in on it, otherwise mass CRing is going to back-fire. Still, it's on building type, one situation (there needs to be a generator) and it requires the use of an item. Not a big deal. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone always seems to forget...or ignore the fact that it cost 10 AP to do a revive too.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pesatyel (talk • contribs) 07:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

Yes... it's not as cheap as it's often made out to be, and the side affects (Gkers, Pkers, although they are frequently overblown) can be annoying too. Cheaper then using ammo, but not game-ruinage cheap. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If a single full health flesh rotter gets in you need to shoot him over 20 times on average to knock him down with a pistol... or you can stab him once with a needle! Those extra clicks would have given the rotter time to do something a bit more fun than clawing barricades so sod the relative AP costs its player fun that's imbalanced.--Honestmistake 11:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I am well aware it costs 10 AP. But it's also the SPEED of the CR that is a big bonus. A Survivor can drop and dump 3 to 4 Zombies in a matter of seconds. And in the cases of NT's, we're talking usually TEAMS of Survivors that can drop and dump a whole Mob in seconds. The need to actually KILL Zombies takes longer and generally a lot more AP. If Zombies had some equivalent way to empty whole buildings of Survivors in mere moments and have the building Ruined only a few moments later, Dedicated Survivors might be a little more understanding of the average Zombies annoyance with CR tactics. And let me tell you it SEEMS really cheap on the zombie side, especially when you have blown through most of your AP just to get in the damn building only to have a Survivor undo your work in 1 second for a measly 10 AP, and rebuild the cades for a fraction of what it cost you to take them down. "Ammo" is rarely a concern for the dedicated CRer, they never seem to run out and they can pick it up right there in the NT. Imagine a Shotgun Shell that could take out a 60HP Zombie with one hit and never missed.--Zombie Lord 15:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And zombies have barricade blocking. Which makes it hard, or sometimes impossible to barricade. If you're complaining about a coordinated effort by survivors to actually do something useful, then look at zombies. When groups like Mall Tour (after they get their act together), or LUE and such other groups coordinates a bunch of zombies to strike at one instance, massing numerous zombies inside in mere minutes and making killing or CRing hard because smart zombies will have 7AP to stand up and reenter. Of course, zombies can coordinate like this in any building, but survivors can only do this in one building type, under one condition and with use of an item they need to search for. It may seem "cheap" but it's a valid tactic, just like clogging RPs with rotters and humans killing humans are valid tactics. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a valid tactic, just like RP clogging is. It may be annoying (and RP clogging is,) but it's still a valid way to play the game. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So you are actually complaining about survivor coordination? The only reason zombies are so effective in this game is because of coordination. The only reason survivors are so ineffective (a lot of the time) is because of lack of coordination.

I know that teams of survivors are usually involved in taking back a NT using combat revives - I've been in those teams. There is a lot of effort involved - it's not just "lol got ammoz?" You'll need people with needles (which take time to search for,) a generator and fuel, someone to take the (occasionally hefty) repair cost, to barricade and spam ?dump at the end of the attack. Some of those can be done by more then one person, of course. And this tactic is only usable in one building in the game. I know of zombie groups that can destroy an entire suburb in a few days. I can't see survivors doing that by combat reviving (because they simply can't.) Likewise, I don't hear survivors (beyond mindless trenches,) claiming that coordinated zombies are unfair to the game, like you appear to be doing with coordinated survivors. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have nothing against survivor co-operation in the circumstances you are talking about... sadly the only time my rotter gets revived is while attacking an NT not while defending it after its been taken and I took the rot especialy to prevent revives. The powered revive was implemented specifically to give zeds who took the rot a chance to switch sides but it is most commonly used to clear zeds from NTs after (or worse during) a fight. What you are defending is a one shot kill that undoes a lot of hard work that is most often done by individual players rather than just the meta hordes.--Honestmistake 01:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I like what Roorgh had to say. Cancelling RP clogging would be a fair equivalent to cancelling NT rotter revives. They are both a bane to the opposition but beloved by their practitioners. There seems to be lot of effort to take away survivor advantages lately. BOooo on you! --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 00:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

RP clogging is an in game tactic designed to counter an in game tactic while rotter revives are a coded solution to a percieved problem. RP's are player artifices that are not hardcoded into the game, they exist solely because the player base designate certain spots as places to wait for a revive. Rotter revives on the other hand are coded directly into the game, supposedly to allow rotters a chance to play as survivors for whatever reason but most frequently used by survivors as a way to clear NT's quickly. The two are not really comparable as they evolved in very different ways--Honestmistake 01:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We have tried before to weaponise syringes correctly and remove this 100% hit and kill weapon, but the trenchies rally round and cry until we take the idea away. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

[remove this 100% hit and kill weapon] It seems to me that those finding too much trouble with this 10ap kill... well, they buy rot. That's what the cool kids do now a days, right? --YoHoho^Talk 02:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely why I made this suggestion - the reason people bought the Rot was to avoid being Combat Revived against their will. It would seem to me that you need the fancy labs in an NT to revive rotted specimens, and apparently survivors tackle, tie down, and repeatedly stab zombies to combat revive them. I'd rather it be that the zombie can actively resist this procedure. Hell, they can (and do) everywhere else, passively. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't argue logic in Urban Dead, there is no logic. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure there is. Not everywhere, but for the most part Malton is logical. Mostly not the whole zombies thing though. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends how technical you want to be. Why doesn't the survivor struggle when being dragged out of a building? Why can I be shot in the chest 5 times and yet live? How do I perform surgery on myself? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite being crazy sounding, you just gave me an idea. Survivors can't be dragged out until they're beaten to a pulp, so why can full-health rotted zombies be insta-kicked from powered NTs? Maybe change this up so that if they have more than 25 HP or such they can't be revived, still using the checkbox - "refuse revives while above 25 HP? <box>" Also buildings in Malton don't spontaneously turn into turnips and float away. On a semi-related note, about six of us in TF cleared 11 zeds (there was one more til a smelly person CRed a zed... and he came back to kill someone. RRF guy.) without much trouble AP-wise. We're still holding it, EHB. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This game isn't fantasy either. CRing a 25HP zombie (or anything that low) is pointless and wasteful of other survivors AP. A change like that would render Combat Reviving useless. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It would render Combat Reviving rotted zombies in powered NTs useless. CRing non-rotters wouldn't be changed and remain a valid tactic. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, in one building type, under one condition, with the use of an item and with the use of a coordinated effort.* --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In case you can't tell, I harbor deep distaste for Combat Reviving. It's been many a time SS (one of my characters) has broken in to have somebody recognize him as Dual Nature and be revived that I had to start threatening PKs of CRers. (I try to spend 50-50 human-zombie time on him, but CRers keep pushing it towards 100-0). But hey, that's a matter of opinion, and suggestions are democratic. I'm not Grim and I don't intend to be, haha. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey now, Dual-Naturers shouldn't care :P Do what I do, track down the CRer and kill him, they're typically easy to find. Have a trenchy inventory beforehand so you won't have to search. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I do indeed! I only care because then I'm supposed to play as a survivor (I really don't like to force myself to transmission from one to the other - it feels like cheating) and then it ends up I play more survivor than zombie when, as Dual, I'm meant to play both sides an equal amount. In my view of Dual, anyway. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Just ask for the update you really want, the elimination of needles. The NT building is the only thing preventing this game from degenerating into zomb on zomb action. Accept the fact that if you hang out in an NT building for a while you are probably going to get revived. NT buildings are essential to survivors and so they have a way to easily retake this one type of building. It's a game balance issue. Are you asking for an endgame? To use a commonly repeated mantra, adapt your tactics. Try laying siege to an NT, killing all of the survivors inside and then clogging their revive cue instead of standing around like a crap target. Or try carrying some ammo on you and punishing the survivors for reviving you. Try anything. Here is one place in the game where the tactic of "standing gaurd" doesn't work. ADAPT, don't whine.--Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 00:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Zombies EAT the Living!

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 02:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement.
Scope:	Zombies.
Description:	Zombies can no longer attack other Zombies. If a Zombie tries to attack another Zombie no damage is caused and they receive the following message: "That is not a food source, you cheesy fuck!"

Discussion (Zombies EAT the Living!)

And the point of this is what, to eliminate the easiest, fastest method newly created level 1 zombies have of earning XPs?  Swiers 02:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombies don't eat Zombies. Would end Life Cultists, which are the GAYEST thing since GAY came to GAYTOWN.--Zombie Lord 03:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No its about testicles, like all his other suggestions for some reason....---Pesatyel 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me our time would be better spent ENCOURAGINE attacking survivors then taking away a, sometimes necessary, source of XP for zombies. Survivors have NINE (10 if you include PKing) different ways of getting XP. Zombies have ONE way: attacking. Sure, it could be argued that zombies "actually" have 6 (atttacking survivors, zombies, radios/generators, destroying barricades, destroying decorations and ransask), but all of them are some variation on attacking which requires, generally some interaction with other players. Survivors have the luxury of having several XP gains that put them in no danger what so ever (healing being primary). In fact, granted I don't know how it is now, I remember stories of survivors leveling up WITHOUT EVER EVEN ENCOUNTERING A ZOMBIE. They just stay indoors, free running and healing or reading. And you want to get rid of one of the few ways for newbie zombies to get XP?--Pesatyel 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So we come up with some new ones. How about attacking barricades gives XP equal to your Claw damage. The really fucked up thing is that the first thing new zombies learn is not to waste time trying to attack survivors...but their fellow zombies...WTF?! HELLO?! Anyone else think that's ass backwards? Let's not teach bad habits right off the damn bat!--Zombie Lord 03:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why you only get half XP by attacking other zombies. Are you going to suggest getting rid of ALL PKing or just the zombie-on-zombie kind.--Pesatyel 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just the zombie on zombie kind. It makes sense for Survivors to kill each other.--Zombie Lord 03:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombies don't make sense. No blood circulation, no energy production - they're dead and shouldn't be able to move. Therefore we should eliminate zombies from the game. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You DO know this is a game about zombies fighting survivors right? So why would you "allow" survivor PKing but not zombie PKing? Have you ever even PLAYED a zombie?--Pesatyel 03:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't be a fool. Ever seen some zombie movies? Survivors are their own worst enemy. Zombies don't kill each other. Survivors do. Ben blows Harry away in NOTLD, Bikers raid the Mall in DOTD, Rhodes kills people in DAY. Zombies don't hurt each other ever. In the zombie movies, Zombies are decent people and Survivors are self-defeating assholes.--Zombie Lord 04:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes zombies are portrayed as eating each other, though. And zombies are supposed to be mindless, though DAY upsets this with Bub. There's more than one kind of zombie. Zombies certainly don't coordinate via metagaming etc. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen zombies eat each other in a movie. Sometimes they fight a little bit over food, but that's more like animals. They don't harm each other, just "show dominance" until one backs off and lets the other feed. Life Cultisting is just a very lame tactic, and HORRIBLE Role-Playing. Metegaming zombies is unfortunate, but sadly almost the only option the game gives for zombies to accomplish something.--Zombie Lord 04:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your forgetting an important facet of Urban Dead, one that sets it apart from standard zombie genre. ZOMBIES ARE PLAYER CONTROLLED. If the zombies in Urban Dead were all NPCs, then your logic, here, would work. The game is BASED ON zombie genre, but necessarily different because of that factor. Urban Dead is a zombie apocalypse game where survivors fight to stay alive againset zombies...and the occasional "crazy survivor". But it is more than just the mechanics of zombie genre, it is the mechanics of a game that is actually a simplified version of that genre. And, yes, there ARE zombie movies where zombies fight/kill each other.--Pesatyel 07:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

ZL, I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're wrong. True, in a Romero-style Zombie pandemic the dead would never attack each other - but if this was a story strictly conforming to conformity, it wouldn't be interactive. The whole point of letting humans play the game is letting them make descisions - and, in each case where two options are presented, one of them will be inferior. Letting the player choose is the whole point of the game. Since even the zombies - allegedly mindless killing machines who hunger endlessly for the flesh of the living - are played by humans, they too much have that option to be truly interactive. -CaptainVideo 05:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should drop the choice that does not help other Zombies while trying to level, and pick up something that does help, like boosting Barricade XP. Zombies really only have 2 choices anyway, attack cades or attack other Zombies unless they just happen to hear a groan (that probably leads to a Building that has already been recaded anyway)--Zombie Lord 06:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you deprived a zombie of its food source that it would turn to canabalism. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 06:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This behavior is already discouraged by the reduced XP. Do you really honestly believe "the first thing new zombies learn is not to waste time trying to attack survivors...but their fellow zombies"? I would say that what they learn is that if they have no other options, they can tear into another zombie for reduced XP, which is better than nothing, until they are strong enough to break through barricades on their own or fortunate enough to hear a feeding groan nearby and horde up. I seriously doubt that there are lowbie zombies out there who are genuinely under the impression that attacking other zombies is what they're supposed to be doing in UD. It's a stop-gap method to earn much needed XP. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 06:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So how about adding in the XP boost to Barricade attacks? Let's at least encourage a choice that helps other zombies WHILE lowbies are trying to level up.--Zombie Lord 06:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, barricades don't really take "hit points" of damage, so XP based on single "hits" makes more sense. Plus, while it encourages good zombie behavior, if it was a 1-to-1 XP per "hit point," many zombies would exclusively de-barricade instead of killing survivors, because the risk is greatly reduced and the XP nearly the same. However, what about an XP bonus for dropping that last cade level, sort of like a "kill bonus"? I could get behind that, if we kept it sensible like 10 XP. Though now that I'm thinking about it, it might lead to cooperation, where a death cultist and a zombie work together to get quick XP for the zombie by having the cultist continue to cade only one level, and let the zombie tear it down over and over. Hmm. Okay, this needs more thought. Short answer, I'm not opposed to some sort of increase in de-barricade XP, I just don't know what I think is a good way to implement it. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 06:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just a simple increase to 2 XP per "hit". That's 8.75 "hits" per 50 AP and 17.5 XP for a level 1 Zombie with VM. They could still get about 35 XP for just attacking other Zombies though. So let's say 4 XP per "Hit" and that's 8.75 "hits" per 50 AP spent x 4 = 35. So, if we dropped Zombies attacking other Zombies from the game, but increased Barricade XP to 4 per "hit" we'd just about even out, except for the 10 point kill bonuses. That might not be too bad though since it would give Zombies incentive to kill Survivors for the 10 point bonuses.--Zombie Lord 07:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As for, well ALL of Zombie Lord's suggestions....can you stick to ONE suggestion at a time?--Pesatyel 07:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Only if they get the same effect for attacking Gens/Rads/Decs... wait... that would be stupid! --Kamikazie-Bunny 08:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Starting bite hit rate (assuming Vigor Mortis) is 20%, right? Which means .4 XP per AP attacking zombies, plus the 10 you get for a kill. As a new zed working on gaining harman killing skills, I've manage to score zombie kills at revive points every 100 AP or so, so call it .5 XP per AP.
For cade attacks to equal that... Lets see, 30% hit rate, halved for attacking cades... Looks like each cade hit would have to be worth 3 or 4 XP. Not an unreasonable idea, I guess, although it seems odd a single cade hit could be worth more than a hit on a human!  Swiers 15:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It does seem a bit odd, but maybe we just need XP Reform Legislation! That's right, all combat hits now give a flat 5 XP per hit, for Zombies and Survivors. Non-Combat XP is left alone, so Scans and all those non-combat sources remain the same. That way a 4 XP Cade hit would still be less than XP than attacking a Survivor. Sure Survivors have to search for Ammo, but they also get those cades to hide behind and really there's no difference finding a shotgun shell vs a Pistol Clip, why should one give double XP? It would just mean shotguns would be used for what they are good for: lots of damage quickly, instead of a massive XP gainer, especially when they are used too much in that "knock a zombie down to 1 HP, then unload with a shotgun" for more XP per HP then you would normally get. Zombies don't get an equivalent "20 XP for one killshot XP cheat" now do they? It would also stop hurting new players on the "you lose 1 XP because of Flak Jackets/Flesh Rot. Why should you lose XP just because your target is wearing armor. You still hit em!--Zombie Lord 19:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What about PKing XP? Also, if you'd get 5 XP even from knives, you should expect survivors to level up purely by stab'n'heal. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

PKers should get full XP as well. As for Stab and Heal. We need Health Care Reform Legislation as well. Healing would now take time, not the Magical Wizard Heal Spell it is now. So any Stabbers would get attacked right back for their rudeness.--Zombie Lord 19:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Reform this, reform that. Do you remember what I said about a completely different game? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

People bitch about "magic" when some fool wants Crucifix's to have some "effect", but we accept this Dungeons and Dragons style magical heal spell no probs. I'm just asking for some consistency.--Zombie Lord 19:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Crucifixes repelling or harming the undead is explicitly "magic" (or other supernatural force). Healing having instanenous effects is merely a simplification. The flavour is important here and makes those two cases very different. Also, delayed (or just slow) effects would seem odd if all actions were still instantaneous. And changing that would be a BIG change. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 20:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Come one, it's essentially magic. Change is good for you. Don't fear change. :)--Zombie Lord 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Plus, it wouldn't have to be a delayed or slow effect. How about, you heal 1 HP per half hour inherently. FAKS still heal Infection, plus we could add Bleeding rules. If you are Bleeding, you stop healing. FAKS stop Bleeding and allow the heal rate to continue.--Zombie Lord 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn. That's actually not half bad. Except that it still wouldn't solve the stab'n'heal problem, you'd just have to switch targets after every heal. All targets would end up at (full health - 2 HP) and one hour later they'd all be back in perfect health. You'd still get 5 XP from the knifing and (presumably) 5 XP from the heal. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 23:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, your right on the stab and healers, but a lot times those fellows don't have Diagnosis when they are doing that so if several came along they might not see how much damage is adding up on people. There are guys who get really pissed even now at stab and healers even though it does not really harm them mechanics-wise. I get that it's mostly an RP consideration right now, but if they are getting pissed now, I imagine with this that stab and healers would start to become a bit more discouraged by those around them taking the hits. With this the First Aid/Surgery rules would need a tweak too though...maybe without First Aid FAKS fail 50% of the time, First Aid=100% working rate, Surgery: Maybe normally it takes one FAK each to heal separate cases of Bleeding and Infection, by that I mean if you had both it would require one FAK each, but a Surgeon can heal both at once with a single FAK. So, that might cut into stab and healers without First Aid who might need more FAK to get the heal part done and if they ran out before the guy they hit was healed...pissed off guy when he wakes up! :)--Zombie Lord 23:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Sign Up Bonus

Suggestion up for voting, discussion moved to here.--Kamikazie-Bunny 19:51, 30 March 2009 (BST)

---

Bellow

Suggestion up for voting, comments moved to suggestion talk page.  Swiers 18:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC) (sorry about that accidentally replaced it) --Kamikazie-Bunny 19:55, 30 March 2009 (BST)

---

Free Running Lanes

Timestamp:	Zombie Lord 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Improvement.
Scope:	Free Running
Description:	1. Freerunning is no longer a Skill. Everybody loses it. 2. All Players CAN "Free Run" across buildings inherently, under the following circumstances: a.Free Running Lanes are Structures, makeshift bridges that span buildings. They must be built and maintained. Inside each Building (that is directly adjacent to another building) there is a new Option to Build Free Running Lanes. This requires a toolbox, 5 AP, and a new Item: Lumber Lumber. 20% Encumbrance. Found in Warehouses, Factories, Junkyards, and Mall Hardware Stores. Once built they can be destroyed the same as Generators, with the following Levels of damage: Undamaged, Lightly Damaged, Damaged, heavily Damaged, Destroyed. The Running Lanes level of damage is reported in the building the same as Generators so all can see how damaged it may be. Running Lanes that are damaged from Lightly Damaged to Heavily Damaged can be repaired by a Survivors with a Toolkit for 1 AP, which totally restores the Lanes to Undamaged status. Running Lanes inside Ruined buildings cannot be Built or Repaired. A building that has it's Free Running Lanes Destroyed cannot be Free Run into or out of. If you try to run into a building that has its Lanes destroyed you get a message: "That building has no Running Lanes" at 0 AP cost to you. A survivor who is encumbered at 75% or less can free run freely as long as the lanes are not Destroyed. A Survivor who is encumbered at 76% or above has a 25% chance to fall to the street, as long as the lanes are not Destroyed. A zombie has a 50% to fall to the street if they attempt to use a Running Lane, as long as the Lanes are not Destroyed. Destroying a Running Lane grants 5 XP to the destroyer, but only if they are a Zombie.

Discussion (Free Running Lanes)

Free Running. Since you appear to want the game to be completely different from what it currently is, why don't you make one yourself? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a stretch. The Free Running you link to allows people to fly I guess; or teleport. As far as I know Kevan has never explained what "Free Running" actually is in UD, so this is in no way an attempt to "change the game from what it currently is". Sorry, but "street acrobatics" does not allow one to span buildings like Spiderman.--Zombie Lord 19:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

First, notice that the skill is not called Bridges. It's called Free Running. The street-acrobatics-thingy is called Free Running. It's not like I'm assuming the pistol to actually be an evil monkey that spits miniature black holes. No, I'm "assuming" that Free Running is Free Running. Second, those two sentences weren't supposed to be connected, I meant the game mechanics (and your Death Penalty suggestion) with the second sentence. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 20:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're telling me that every person in Malton is a freakin Cirque du Soleil performer...Yeah, THATS more logical that bridges...Jesus FUCKING Christ.--Zombie Lord 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is also a surgeon, so fuck off with that reasoning. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 20:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hell no. That shit should be changed as well.--Zombie Lord 20:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we now need to get into the whole "Zombies are impossible" thing and how survivors can just walk up to zombies and stab them in the neck with syringes? And how there seems to be an infinite number of supplies in buildings? etc. etc. I'd rather have a fun, balanced game than one where everything is completely and totally logical. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why do you play UD? --Zombie Lord 23:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I play because I find it to be fun and it's mostly balanced. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it's balanced all right. 1 Survivor = 5 zombies.--Zombie Lord 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's how a zombie apocalypse functions. And it's still only 2 to 1, not 5 to 1. The population balance like this fluctuates normally. It's not a sign of unbalanced game mechanics. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that 1 Survivor can hold off 5 Zombies with 50 AP forcing them to spend 250 AP on barricades. Throw the 2 to 1 pop ratio on top of that and its even worse. The main battle in this game is over barricades. 1 Survivor cancels 5 zombies. Now add in that zombie are outnumbered 2 to 1. Do the math.--Zombie Lord 00:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Except it's not pure math - two or three zombies can tear down EHB cades before the one survivor logs in, and then do damage to said survivor. Maybe even the other two zombies would log in before the survivor too and kill him off. With more volume (more total players, say 50 survivors to 250 zombies), as in Mall sieges and hordes etc., the zombies invariably have the upper hand - more log ins and break-ins around the clock. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe 5 zombies MIGHT kill off one survivor. This is what kills me about Survivors. They just accept the fact that their opponent REQUIRES 5 to 1 odds just to maybe kill one of them as if its somehow balanced.--Zombie Lord 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're just plain wrong there. At best the barricade construction/destruction advantage is a bit below 4 to 1 in favor of survivors, but that's only on QSB and below. As the cades get higher, the advantage gets lower, until at EHB level the advantage is on the zombies' side. Building barricades from none to EHB+2 takes an average of 34.67 AP, while taking them down from that takes an average of 76 AP, meaning that the true advantage of barricades is only about 2.2 to 1. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You obviously don't know how to barricade properly.--Zombie Lord 13:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And you obviously don't know what you're talking about (or math, for that matter). --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're giving me a mouthful of greek salad. A bunch of charts and numbers that don't mean anything. Only fools cade to EHB. You give me any 5 zombies and one building and I'll hold those fuckers out. Guaran-fuckin-teed.--Zombie Lord 14:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm really tempted to prove you wrong ^{(though I doubt you'd aknowledge it even if I did)}. Anyone else interested? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Course I'd acknowledge it (that's acknowledge with a c, fool). You must be projecting your own bad habits on me. So, where shall we throw down? The funny thing is that you're too thick to realize that even if you DID get in, you'd still be proving MY overall point, cause you're not going to be able to KILL me. In the end, I'll spend 50 AP and your Zombies will spend 250 and achieve nothing. It's about the AP ratio, not whether or not you can make the breach. --Zombie Lord 15:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha, oh wow. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 15:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You still don't get it that the best ratio you can achieve (on average) is 4 to 1? That leaves 50AP to kill you with. Let's see if anyone else is interested, I'm not going to start alt-abusing just to prove you wrong. Then we'll talk about the location. Also, you did read this, right? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if you DID kill me, I'd still be right fool. 50 AP vs 250 AP. Hello?! I will concede that it's possible to achieve both those things (but not likely), but it's still 50 to 250. Even if for the sake of argument you could do both those things with only 4 zombies it's still 50 to 200. You're just trying to distract from my real argument with a Red Herring (like your Surgery dodge earlier)--Zombie Lord 16:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you'd be wrong. You said you could hold five zombies out, "guaran-fuckin-teed." Please don't set yourself up for "No matter what happens, I'm right" arguments. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 16:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Was I talkin to you, bitch? I already stated above that I concede he could possibly get in with 5 zombies. I let Mid side rail me with his Red Herring into this totally irrelevant issue. The point is he is going to need 4 or 5 fucking zombies to deal with one Survivor and blow 200 to 250 AP vs my 50. When you toss the 2 to 1 Pop ratio on top of those ridiculous numbers its obvious we have a major AP imbalance in this game. NOW GO GET YOUR FUCKIN SHINEBOX.--Zombie Lord 16:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a stupid argument. There are too many factors to make any accurate claims on how many zombies a survivor can repel (except broad claims based on known facts like to-hit chances, etc.). Are the zombies organized? Has the survivor player paid $5 for additional IP hits? Does the survivor player have a life away from the computer? If the survivor player cannot afford to hit refresh every two minutes, and the zombies act in coordination, there is a very good chance that they will get in and eat him before he can react, because the interface of UD favors the active player. Perpetually keeping barricades at VSB against multiple zombies really requires that the survivor player can refresh the page constantly and that the zombies aren't coordinated. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 16:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are some great points Extro. But which side does being active benefit more? Survivors. Active cading...extremely efficient. Active decading...useless. About the ONLY thing on the Zombie side in this is holding a Ruin, and even then you're pushing yourself to least dangerous place in the stack every time you check, so you can watch other Zombies die and hopefully get the word out that Survivors are whittling away at the stack. I have one Survivor character and active cading is about the only way I cade with it. Zombies, and zombie players in general play the one log in a day method because there is hardly any reason not to. Survivors OTOH, play active and conserve their AP for use throughout the day A LOT more, cause its so damn useful. So, they have an AP advantage, numbers advantage AND are about the only useful characters for an active style of play, which is the best style of play. This helps their numbers because Survivors can play lone wolves if they want. More play styles, more players interested. Zombies are pretty much required to use metagaming hordes to achieve anything, more restricted play style, less players interested. The advantages just keeping stacking up on the Survivor side, and a few more AP sinks, harder maintenance for their buildings/tools are desperately called for. It's not going to "break the game" for Survivors to give up a little in one area of these numerous advantages in game mechanics.--Zombie Lord 23:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me; when I say the UD interface favors the active player, I do not mean the player who logs in 10 times a day-- though certainly, they have an advantage by being able to keep tabs on things. I meant the player who is currently acting. A "sleeping" player cannot do a thing. Urban Dead has an active attack, passive defense scheme: survivors spend AP building cades so that they can walk away from their computer, and zombies spend AP attacking buildings, hoping to take advantage of the fact that the survivor player if off at work. Just as an anecdotal example, I have a character who hangs around quite a bit with MCM at Saint George's, where there are commonly 60-90 survivors clustered in a VSB building. Usually, the building is penetrated twice or three times a day by zombies, usually in groups of 2. And they accomplish this because they act in concert, as opposed to the survivors inside, who cannot watch the barricades every minute of every day. I've only engaged in "real time" combat twice in the four months I have played, and your "1 survivor can hold off 4 zombies" idea seems to be predicated on a real-time barricading/de-barricading model, where everyone is taking their actions at the same time. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 17:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's possible to get 4 to 1, but it requires a lot of work (and IP hits) and is risky. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 17:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Based on the average response from Zombie Lord there's nothing to be gained in going beyond saying the idea is shit (if that's your opinion). Any comment seems to be rewarded with (essentially) I don't care how you want to play, this is how I want it. --Roorgh 14:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're clear on this, the building's going to be unbarricaded when the experiment starts? Or you lose if you can't get it back to the same level it was in the beginning? Either way is fine with me, but in any other situation it wouldn't be just you keeping the zombies out, it would also be the person who barricaded it in the first place, making it 2 vs 5, not 1 vs 5. Also, the experiment should be repeated to smoothen any bumps caused by the RNG. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion isn't even internally consistent, never mind the game-breaking ramifications. And as Mid said, Free Running ≠ Makeshift Bridges... --  RoosterDragon  19:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Not internally consistent". Explain. How is it not internally consistent?--Zombie Lord 19:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Building A has FR lanes built. Building B does not. Can you free run from A to B? Unclear, and the converse? Yet survivors in A would appear to have these lanes built that lead to buildings for whom the same lanes do not exist. And the fact these are supposed to be bridges? Some sort of special one-way variety? Even addressing this, still spam of inordinate magnitude. --  RoosterDragon  20:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's simple. If a building has no lanes you can't run in or out of it. So, no you cant run from a building with lanes to one without. A building would need several actual bridges that lead to all possible buildings. So a building with lanes would have all it's bridges up that lead to other buildings with their lanes up, but not building that don't have their lanes up. Its a way of simplifying what would actually take several bridges leading from one building. So, a building that technically had it's own lanes up but no other building around it did would indeed be cut off, and yes that's not entirely logical, but it's just a way to avoid excessive over-complications.

It's still more reasonable than teleporting with magical FreeRunning acrobatics.--Zombie Lord 20:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You've over-simplified evidently. A building that has lanes up doesn't have them unless the other one does too, but only for that building? If you build some lanes you could still be trapped because the others don't? That is magic. Unlike free running which, in case you have heard, is possible in real life. You could try and close the hole in this odd explanation, but this isn't the major issue with the suggestion, the major issue is the game-breaking-ness of the whole thing. --  RoosterDragon  20:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Free Running as described in that link does exist, but trying to use that as a reason for the ability that exists in UD is stretching the boundaries of that real life skill considerably. Again, whats more reasonable, that we make bridges or that everyone in Malton is a super acrobat? And saying "game-breaking" is not a magic talisman that explains everything. How is gods name would this break the game. It would just make it a bit harder.--Zombie Lord 20:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you make this too complex you get hit with the KISS principle, but it could be changed to only buildings with their Lanes up can be run into or out of. So, a building with Lanes up could always be run into or out of regardless of whether the buildings around it have their Lanes up or not. This would actually help low level Survivors since they would not have to have a Skill in order to free run.--Zombie Lord 20:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Not saying I support this, just pointing out that the concept of bridges from each building only extending half-way across the gap that is the streets is not impossible to grasp. If one building doesn't have its section of bridges up, well then the bridges from the other buildings that extend half-way across to that building have nothing to connect with and end up with a drop into the streets until the bridges that are to connect to them can be raised (I think that made sense). - User:Whitehouse 21:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah that would make sense too actually. Thanks, I think my original concept would work fine under that reasoning. It would make more sense that way, with each building requiring its own section to be anchored properly, which would be hard to do from the building over. --Zombie Lord 21:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Game-breakage. I am assuming the suggestion lifts the limit on cade entry, if not it's even more breaking, whatever.

1. Let us initially assume survivors would seek to maintain these lanes as a method of safe travel. Any survivor wishing to build them will need a toolbox and 20% per bit of lumber. This is a massive encroachment onto the carrying capacity. They now need to search for lumber, spend 5AP to make the damn thing and an additional cost of entering the building from ground level.
   1. Survivors now have a heavily reduced carrying capacity. Limiting the ability to stockpile other important items.
   2. Survivors now have a new AP sink where one did not exist before. Searching, building lanes and getting into the building adds up to a lot, for one measly extension to the network.
2. Let us now assume that the network is low priority, being hard to create and maintain and needing a lot of infrastructure before it creates a network of a useful size and spread. Now survivors are forced to use an AP to exit buildings, then go towards their destination. Once there, they must spend another AP to get inside.
   1. You've cost the survivor additional AP for movement.
   2. You save zombie AP since some survivors may find themselves stuck outside when they would've otherwise been inside the FR network and safe.
3. Further, you've just allowed zombies to bypass cades. They can now raid a building but leave the lanes intact. At which point they can now free run into adjoining buildings with 50% success, and spend only a few AP to keep trying, certainly saves AP as opposed to knocking down those EHB cades that are now everywhere. So much for the usefulness of cades then, since zombies can just walk in from next door. In which case, lanes are strategically destroyed when under attack to prevent this, limiting mobility and wasting their high AP cost for their installation.
   1. Zombies can bypass cades? That's game breaking spam in itself.

To summarise:

• Survivor AP is now used heavily on this new addition, leaving less for other things.
• Survivor efficiency is reduced due to less carrying capacity and lengthier movement times.
• Zombies could bypass cades.

And if high cades levels still prevent entry...

• Survivors could get stuck outside in overcaded areas, along with wasting AP looking for an entry, zombies get free meals occasionally when one gets stuck outside.
• VSB cades would have to be more common, saving zombies a lot of AP in breaking down cades.

Game breaking enough yet? --  RoosterDragon  21:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This all assumes Survivors REFUSING to adapt. It assumes Survivors carry on as under the old system without consideration for the new situation. A new AP sink is called for. Survivors already have an insane surplus regarding this in the overall AP attrition battle. Zombie entering your building through running lanes? break the Lanes around you OR just break the ones inside your own building. Simple. Your statement that zombies can "bypass cades" is an huge oversimplification, they cant just do it at will. You'd have to weight the bonuses and the drawbacks to maintaining your Running Lanes. Survivors would just have to adapt. Think a little maybe. Asking too much I guess.--Zombie Lord 21:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not too much to ask that survivors think and adapt (and they do it already) - you're just doing it in a game-breakingly bad way. And remember, a few zombies could easily use the lanes to get inside somewhere before someone in the sieged building logged in and destroyed the lanes. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's all pile up in a building and hit the Barricade button occasionally. Yeah, hardcore thinking there.--Zombie Lord 22:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not the fact it's difficult to overcome cades, it's the fact it might happen. Barricades are a core mechanic and you do not fuck with the cade mechanics. If you suggest even a minor change in build success you would get spammed. Let alone letting zombies bypass them entirely, and not to mention the other problems... --  RoosterDragon  22:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pretty reactionary. Survivors outnumber zombies 2 to 1, so I wouldn't be surprised if they spammed something that would lessen their not only numbers advantage, but also their basic mechanics advantage. That doesn't inherently mean anything though, aside from highlighting their fear of change and a challenge.--Zombie Lord 22:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Kevan alters the search rates on syringes occasionally to deal with such things, this has a direct impact on the revive rate but little unexpected collateral. Altering barricades affects everything. Ratio wise, it's always been pretty survivor biased. See the Statistics or even go nuts and check out Survivor-Zombie Imbalance for the full story. If you're looking to nudge it towards a more equal ratio, find a more directed, considered and non-breaking approach. This is a nuke that'll leave a smoking crater of a game afterwards. --  RoosterDragon  23:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I just don't get this whole "sacred core mechanic" thing. In a game where Survivors outnumber zombies 2 to 1 and a single Survivor can hold off 5 zombies, spending 50 AP to their 250 AP in a barricade battle, is it REALLY going to be the END OF THE WORLD to mess with things? Sometimes it just stinks too much of a majority that likes to play kick the cripple refusing to have any sort of balance introduced.--Zombie Lord 23:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Now who's being reactionary? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How is that reactionary?--Zombie Lord 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It's reactionary when you're suggesting it because the survivor-to-zombie ratio is now 2 to 1. This ratio fluctuates normally and is not a sign of mechanical imbalances. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The only major fluctuation we ever had that meant anything was when The Dead came to town.--Zombie Lord 00:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. There was a flux in November 2008, with about 60% zombies to 40% survivors. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I said one that "meant anything" You do know that occasionally Survivor groups run a lot of zombie alts around tearing things up, just so they have something to "heroically fight".--Zombie Lord 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So, when survivors outnumber zombies 2 to 1 it's imbalance, and when zombies outnumber survivors (almost) 2 to 1 it doesn't mean anything. As for your claim of zombie alts around tearing things up, evidence please. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't, not when the AP imbalance is so far out of whack. As far as your request for "evidence", you're either being willfully ignorant, or are genuinely stupid.--Zombie Lord 13:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither. I just have not seen anything to point towards that. If it's that obvious, you should have no trouble with the proof. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to throw something out there, because the ratio thing bothers me. The ratio being 2-to-1 in favor of survivors simply means that more players are interested in being survivors than zombies; if my survivor wanted to be a zombie, I can leap out a window for 1AP and rise. It's easier in this game to get killed and stay dead than to get a revive and stay alive-- there's an immediate cure for revives, being suicide by window. No one is forcing people to be alive. What the ratio demonstrates is simply that more UD players right now (and I think, probably always) would rather play a "heroic" survivor than an "evil" zombie. So what you need to figure out is how to get players to want to be zombies, not punish them for wanting to be survivors. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 23:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree. I think it's because zombies are more difficult to play. If the Zombies had an easy time of it as the Survivors, I think you'd see the ratio reversed. I don't think its about good and evil, it's about what is easier. Most people take the path of least resistance. It's much easier to get a Revive and go about your business than spend 50 AP on cades to achieve no real result day after day. It gets boring, people quit or "go survivor" because you have more options. Survivors have it much better in the "feeling of achievement" department, simply because they have feast of options to choose from in what they wish to do. Even if its just to jack off over the Radio all day, or sit in the zoo and talk about molesting Koala bears with all the other furry freaks.--Zombie Lord 00:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It also makes Parachuting extremely easy, and then survivors have to sink even more AP to clear those EHB cades to VSB to even get inside. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And it allows survivors to create piñatas that can be maintained. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 21:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Game-breaking. Not to mention every failed free-run (no lanes) would result in an IP hit, and it would probably happen frequently. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Game-breaking, Rooster threw it down perfectly.--SirArgo ^Talk 21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as clarification, how does a player know if free running "bridges" are present? Is it a graphical change (little bridges connecting squares), or a wall of text describing the bridges going off in every direction they go? Also, how would damage to the bridges be textually represented to adjacent buildings? For example, let's say we have three buildings in a row, A, B, and C. Zombies crash into A and damage its bridges to heavily damaged. Then they break into C and damage it's bridges to lightly. Will survivors in B see "You are in the BLAH Building. There are heavily damaged free running bridges here leading West. There are lightly damaged free running bridges here leading East"? Or would they have no idea until the bridges in A and C were completely destroyed, and now they cannot free run anywhere? ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 23:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking just a line of text that would go next to the same area that Generators/Radios go. If you tried to freerun somewhere without Lanes, you just get a message that you cant go there at 0 AP cost to you. I suppose little graphics could be employed, or even the more involved description that would inform Survivors of the conditions of the Lanes around them that you describe. If we went with Whitehouse's idea of partial bridges (which I think is pretty awesome), maybe you would need to travel to discover the exact condition of bridges around you. I do think that little graphics would be a good idea though for the building you are currently inside of, that are only present if you CAN run to a building as that would save IP hits and having to "test" run just to see if it's possible to go that direction. There would need to be one graphic for each destination, so you could see the status of all possible directions.--Zombie Lord 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why is everyone still trying to explain why this lame suggestion is so fucking lame? For the love of Christ let it smother in its own lameness. Happy St. Paddy's Day! --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 00:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, refuse to even acknowledge the over the top Survivor advantage. Then you'll never lose it, right? Pathetic.--Zombie Lord 00:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The survivors have generally held a margin over the zombies over the game's history. Graphs FTW. Anyway, my point is, despite a generally high survivor population, they've never been able to go much higher than 2:1, zombies hold out well enough and some existential event or update sometimes comes along to reverse things for a while. The current 5:3 ratio is pretty run of the mill TBH. --  RoosterDragon  23:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Goddamit, Im talking about that basic AP attrition imbalance, not the population. If the population was 50-50, the AP imbalance would still be hugely in favor of the Survivors.--Zombie Lord 02:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the best thing in this whole discussion area. I am suddenly in agreement! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing particularly helpful to add but I will not let that stop me. Free running as in parkour is done by very fit people in light weight athletic clothing, Free Running in UD is done by a besieged population living on tinned food and wearing Flak vests while carrying a full load of shotguns/generators/medicine cabinets etc. They are obviously not the same thing! Changing the mechanic so comprehensively in Malton is not going to fly. --Honestmistake 01:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I will have you know, we're all very fit around here. We all find time to become bodybuilders and I can balance 3 portable generators on my head while I swing an axe at zombies. And I have never eaten food ever. I just drink beer and wine. It's the diet secret of the stars! ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 01:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My only question is why we are still discussing this lame notion of an idea. It would break the game. Can we move on, now?!? --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 19:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[1] --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Oh! Well, then... Carry on! --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 19:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus H. Me! OK people, repeat after me: Do. Not. Feed. The. Troll. This can't disappear until he spends five days talking to himself. It's already been explain to him multiple times why these are all stupid fucking ideas. Stop giving him an audience. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

thing is though, free running is broken and discussion of the topic can't hurt. Sure this version of change is not good but it stimulates discussion and that might lead to something useful.... stranger things have happened. --Honestmistake 00:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also it tickles my humerus. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Sirens, the founder and creator of RedRum, make a nearly identical suggestion shortly before leaving the game?  Swiers 01:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but Mr. Hardcore Zombie Overlord With BIG BALLS is going to make a suggestion a day until the BALL-LESS survivors get over their PUSSYNESS and submit to his overwhelming HARDCORE-NESS. --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 02:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's right, bitch.--Zombie Lord 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone reading this come to Humourous Suggestions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yonnua Koponen (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

/*claps* Congrats, Yonnua. --Private Mark 03:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Multiple Infection Strains

This suggestion has been moved to voting. The suggestion itself is located here and the discussion is located on the suggestion's talk page. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Advanced Diagnosis

Timestamp:	--Giles Sednik CAPDSWA 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Type:	Skill, balance change
Scope:	Survivors and Zombies
Description:	This skill would allow survivors to distinguish infected survivors from the uninfected. Infected survivors' HP would be shown in light green with this skill. Conversely, zombies could use this skill, in the same way that they can currently use diagnosis. Because undead physiology is different from the living, this skill could not be used to diagnose an infection in a zombie. Realism - It makes sense that survivors with a background in medicine (diagnosis) could pick out a survivor suffering from a zombie infection. In movies and literature infected survivors show signs of their impending demise in the form of cold sweats, palid complexion, shaking, etc. Even laypeople can spot a cold in a total stranger. If survivors and zombies can detect a 5HP loss in someone who slipped and fell in a ruined building they should also be able to spot the signature zombie bite and symptoms of an infection with the added experience of having basic diagnosis skills and witnessing their comrades die of infections. Game Balance - Just as Flesh Rot provided zombies with 2 advantages long enjoyed by survivors (Flak Jacket and Body Building), Advanced Diagnosis would provide survivors with the zombie advantage of being able to identify an infectection. Also it's a crossover skill so zombie players can make use of it. Furthermore, it would even out the number of survivor and zombie skills without having to introduce a new gameplay element. Implementation - This would go in the Scientific Skill tree as a 2nd level skill of diagnosis. However since Advanced Diagnosis would make it easier for survivors to heal infections, I could see introducing this new skill coupled with a boost to Infectious Bite, causing a 2HP loss for every 1AP spent.

Discussion (Advanced Diagnosis)

Make it a skill that is REQUIRED to cure infections, and make infections 2HP per AP, and you might get some traction. Sure, its "genre appropriate" that skilled doctors can detect infections, but its similarly appropriate that ONLY skilled doctors can cure them (not any shmoe with a first aid kit) and that they kill yah pretty quick.  Swiers 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I second Swiers. These are two ideas that have been offered up separately a couple (dozen) times, maybe together they would work. --Zombie Lord 03:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Prognosis.--Pesatyel 03:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How about the Swiers combo idea. That a dupe too?--Zombie Lord 04:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey I kinda like the idea of advanced diagnosis being required to treat infections. Anyone with a FAK could still heal damage, but the infection itself could only be cured by someone with advanced diagnosis. With advanced diagnosis you would get the message - You restore 10HP to JoeJoe, using your medical training to cure the infection. Though maybe the name would have to change if it was used for treating and not just diagnosing. Like Advanced Medicine , dunno --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 15:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

By the time you locate somebody who can cure you, you'll have perished... Whether the zombie ran out of AP or you just got revivified, you'll probably have 25 HP or less, meaning that you can take only 13 steps before dying of infection. I think survivors should still be able to recognise and cure their own infections: it's really not difficult. --LaosOman 16:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when could you NOT cure your own infection? That is the primary reason Infectious Bite is considered "underpowered".--Pesatyel 03:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Requiring an additional skill in order to cure infection wouldn't really do much I don't think. It would just make it harder on newbies. If I can't cure myself, I'm screwed until I can find someone who can cure me.--Pesatyel 03:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So let's set aside the notion of a boost to infectious bite (either by doubling the damage or requiring a new skill to treat it). Lets take the suggestion 1 proposition at a time. How do you feel about a new skill called Advanced Diagnosis that would allow survivors to see who is infected? --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 20:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Prognosis.--Pesatyel 03:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)--Pesatyel 02:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Advanced Diagnosis sounds good. Just don't make it a requirement for curing infection. --LaosOman 17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You did a good job outlining this skill. I'm surprised Prognosis wasn't implemented. Admittedly I've enjoyed the guessing game survivors have of predicting which survivors need infections cured, but this skill makes sense. I also like how you suggest it being paired with an update of a more intense infection. --Fiffy 03:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So it seems there is no real objection to the idea of advanced diagnosis as stated? Or perhaps this suggestion has been lost in the clutter? --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 22:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As stated, this is exactly like Prognosis.--Pesatyel 02:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this is exactly like prognosis. For instance, prognosis has the following stipulation, "The maximum HP level of the survivor is also displayed next to their name." Advanced diagnosis does not. Also I've stated that it could not be used to diagnose an infection in a zombie, whereas the prognosis proposal doesn't appear to specify. Furthermore, this skill would be a cross over that zombies could also use, and I see nothing to that effect in the prognosis link you've sited. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 23:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, go for it, but the basic idea is the same and zombies don't NEED another cross over skill when they can already sense infection (and HP) with Scent Blood. And a dupe doesn't have to be EXACTLY like to be a dupe.--Pesatyel 10:02, 29 March 2009 (BST)

---

---