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

Booby Trap

Timestamp:	--02:16, 1 May 2009 OMGitspattyrick
Type:	Skill and item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I was thinking that perhaps the game would be more fun if there was an option of creating booby traps. The concept is pretty simple. You would need first a Booby Trap skill (or what ever other name fits bits perhaps Gurilla tactics). The skill would be learned through the military tree, or perhaps it could be learnt through finding a guilla warfare book in an armory. Then you would also need the items to make a trap. Items: Trip wire, pistol or shotgun, and maybe small amounts of explosives (big maybe) Once you have all of the items you would create the booby trap on the inside of a building. I suggest it would cost 2 or 3 AP to create a booby trap considering how in real life it can be time intensive and labor intensive to actually create a booby trap. The booby trap itself doesn't discriminate against its target so it would damage humans and zombies alike, including yourself. The actual trap will go off if someone attempts to enter the building. Causing perhaps the damage that the weapon itself would cause if you used it against a player. This would not give an advantage to either the survivors especially because it will still damage other survivors if they enter that building. The reason i said explosives are maybe its because of course that would be a new introduction of an item and they of course could theoretically be used against other players as just the c4 themselves instead of a booby trap. This is my first post on the wiki so please critique me on my post.

Discussion (Booby Trap)

Now, I like this idea, but I think it needs a little change. In the Zombie Apocalypse, people would try to set up booby traps. I don't think explosives would be right exactly, but I'd be for adding in a trap that the first person who enters the building (without free running) gets attacked by one attack from the weapon set up. This would most likely require maybe like, construction, One loaded pistol, shotgun, or maybe even Flare Gun (removes from inventory) --LarzAluphe 20:48, 1 May 2009 (BST)

I don't like this idea one bit. It doesn't give advantages to either side, but it gives strong advantages to a single survivor. More specifically, to a griefer - survivors are a lot more likely to enter a building than zombies are, putting a great question mark over the point of it all. --LaosOman 21:44, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Booby Trap, Set Trap, Shotgun Trap, all from Frequently Suggested - The List. Just saying.--Necrofeelinya 01:11, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Auto-attacks and the ability to hurt yourself with no warning are no good at all. Imagine if you managed to survive being dragged outside with 3 HP only to die trying to get back inside. And these definitely cannot stack... though they're not going to get implemented anyway. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:29, 2 May 2009 (BST)

---

Thorough Search

Timestamp:	--05:32, 1 May 2009 (BST)LarzAluphe
Type:	Balance Change?
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Alright, so I've heard a lot of people complaining about adding new weapons would make it harder to find ____, (yet oddly, they vote FOR new random useless items *shrugs*) I don't know if this has been suggested or too hard to implement, but the idea pretty much goes like this: Let's say, in a Police Department, there is a 15% chance of finding something. instead of looking for any old thing, wouldn't you, if you were in this situation, try and find specific items? Like, instead of picking up random items when, in this instance, Bob Bobberson searches, he has a set goal in his head. He WANTS those pistol clips and shotgun shells, but why does this mean Bob is FORCED to pick up random things? (or waste that search anyway by making him auto-discard such items) He has a set goal he wants, so he's going to search more thoroughly for them Pistol clips. So, this suggestion would be: in a separate box that that you can hide/unhide, you check off items that you wish to search for. This then devides up that 15% into parts for each of what you are looking for. This would be devided up based on the BASE search rate (regular search rate), so that way you would have about the same ratio of items found. This could be implemented by adding a new skill: Thorough Search: after obtaining the skill, survivors will from now on be able to access a new search button that lets them decide what exactly they are searching for. This then divides up what they are looking for based on their regular search percentage for that item and the total search percentage (up to a MAX of 10% per item). This skill would probably be forced, in all fairness, to cost more AP then regular searches. It would probably be 2 or 3 AP for Thorough Searches, if not maybe even more?

Discussion (Thorough Search)

Thorough and specific searches have been suggested before. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:38, 1 May 2009 (BST)

"(yet oddly, they vote FOR new random useless items *shrugs*)" Well I hope you didn't hurt yourself shruging... but the reason we can vote for useless items is because they're not found in the same locations as useful items (usually Museums etc.) As with guns, these sort of things have trouble getting passed - if they increase overall search rates, zombies are going to rabble and kill it; if they don't increase overall search rates, why implement it in the first place? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:17, 1 May 2009 (BST)

This would actually make SENSE in a game like this. Also: I would like to say that, despite popular belief among the wiki, CHANGE IS GOOD.

P.S. In order for this game to progress. The zombies will have to one day get over themselves. One day they are going to figure out. If they want to play the same game for the next five years, fine, I'd like the source code so me and a few friends can play a game that would actually CHANGE and become better.--LarzAluphe 10:34, 1 May 2009 (BST)

zombies have to get over themselves? huuuuuuuuh??? the people who think that these factions exist have to get over themselves. assuming "hardcore zombie players" exist, which they don't, really, b/c most of those players you're talking about also play "hardcore survivor alts" too... they are often the ones who push for some of the bigger changes in the game. but, people who are into the zombie metagame are usually very knowledgeable about the game and its mechanics and know bad ideas when they read them. and, they also KNOW that zombies get the short end of the stick in terms of balance, and point it out sometimes. so what? but, they have nothing to get over. they keep playing and having fun. and eating silly, badly organised survivors.

i think you need to get over yourself, buddy. and your idiotic, arrogant and obsolete us vs. them attitude. see, change is good when it's good. but a bad idea is just a bad idea. period. deal with it. or... go code your own game if you're so much smarter than the rest of us. good luck with that project. --WanYao 13:54, 1 May 2009 (BST)

You aren't going to get anywhere by coming onto the wiki of Urban Dead, making 20 contributions, suggesting a dupe that's littered with unfounded and ignorant statements that offend the community, and then insulting the community when they tell you that you're wrong. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:10, 1 May 2009 (BST)

I tried a suggestion like this before. Didn't work. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 14:47, 1 May 2009 (BST)

It makes you wonder, given his responses, if the author has ever actually PLAYED a zombie.--Pesatyel 16:09, 1 May 2009 (BST)

With all his caps, I'm reminded of Zombie Lord shouting about hardcore survivor balls! And yes, he's being blatantly moronic with fallacious argumentation. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:00, 1 May 2009 (BST)

While I have played a zombie, I just find it illogical that the Wiki community seems to think change is bad. Whenever someone says something should be added, it's more or less immediately shot down because they fear it's too big of a change. While it may be a big change for survivors, what we need to do is buff Zombies too. As it is, I see too many Survivor ideas, and not enough Zombo ideas. I just find it funny how, in the actual game, people actually seem to be nice and smart, but on the wiki, people seem to act immature when they disapprove of a more realistic idea. The only real reason that I suggested the Rifle idea in the first place is to counter the fact that there's only TWO real weapons in this game. The Revolver, and the Double-barreled Shotgun. I mean, this game has been around for, what, two, three years? And there's ONLY a Revolver and an Obsolete Shotgun?

The only reason I really SAID that zombies need to get over themselves, is that so far, by what I've read, most kill votes to help survivors come from Zombies (and most kill votes that help zombies come from survivors). And now, instead of continuing to argue, why don't we ALL grow up (including me) and try to improve this game's realness AND funnest? (Is that even proper grammar?)

P.S. No matter how much some people hate it, this is actually something that would happen IRL. I mean, if you were in the zombie apocalypse, searching through a police station, would YOU pick up the first things you find and go back to camp? I mean last night, I got four radios on my main guy, and then this morning, I go to search with my alt, and he gets THREE Fire axes in a row.--LarzAluphe 20:42, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Couple important notes: As before, you're ignoring people saying "Change isn't bad, but bad changes are bad." Not to mention this is a dupe. The reason there are more survivor ideas versus zombie ideas is simple: Zombies eat brains, Survivors survive. There's a huge complexity difference there. Buff everyone? Then it turns into "I can kill 5 other players!" Player "power" is in a good place now, let's not upset it by buffing both sides simultaneously. "Two" "real" weapons? I would say four - Pistols, Shotguns, Axes, and Knives. Mor importantly, UD isn't a game that prides itself on having "over 25 weapons to beat up your enemies with!!", it's about the balance. Finally, it is very important to realize that realism ("realness") does not equate to enjoyability ("funnest"). Zombies aren't realistic. You have to be extremely careful bringing "this makes sense" types of arguments into UD's realm. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:48, 1 May 2009 (BST)

If all you're grousing about is finding unwanted items, the answer is simple. When you next log on with your character, click the button that says "Settings". Scroll down to "Game Preferences". Uncheck all the little boxes of items you don't want your character to find, and leave all the ones you're looking for checked. Adjust your settings to your preference of observation of feeding groans, radio broadcasts, flares, and barricades. Click "Make Changes". You are no longer required to pick up random things, and it costs you no additional AP. Continue playing as usual. If what you want is a way to buff search rates for desired items, all the above bickering still applies, as do the objections due to dupishness, pardon the intrusion, and please carry on.--Necrofeelinya 00:59, 2 May 2009 (BST)

---

Choke Tube

Timestamp:	Treviabot92 00:54, 1 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Man, it's been some time since I've been here, let alone posted a suggestion. Anyways...Ok, so choke tubes are meant for shotguns. They actually narrow the spread of the projectiles, so that the damage is focused onto one specific place. For our purposes, this will either do more damage to the target or increase the chance of hitting your target. Your choice, not mine. If this is put in, I'd suggest it be placed in the gun store, because it's used with shotguns.

Discussion (Choke Tube)

Shotgun choke applies to "flechette type ammo rather than the standard issue police shells and as such does not fit with the current ammo. In any event, even if we assumed a shotgun round that fired in a spreading pattern then surely any increase in damage would represent a narrowing of pattern and hence reduced accuracy and vice versa (ie bonus to hit/penalty to damage)--Honestmistake 01:06, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Actually, it doesn't apply only to flechette type ammo. My dad uses a semi-auto 12 gauge shotgun with a choke tube (albeit, he doesn't hit the clay birds as much as my pump-action 12 gauge, because of that choke, plus he has to rely on special glasses to see the bird properly). The penalty to damage wouldn't make sense, because more pellets are hitting the target. If anything, then, in retrospect, it should be a penalty to accuracy. Treviabot92 01:10, 1 May 2009 (BST)

This is YOUR idea, not ours. If you don't know what YOU want with the idea, why should we bother discussing it? We are here to critique and discuss the suggestion, not make it for you.--Pesatyel 01:49, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Well, which would you suggest? Damage buff or hit buff? Cos I ain't decreasing anything if I can help it, a person's accuracy isn't affected by the weapon they use (unless, of course, the weapon is never maintained, then it sucks). Treviabot92 02:51, 1 May 2009 (BST)

I would suggest "neither." Shotguns are fine as is. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:40, 1 May 2009 (BST)

...No, they're not. Treviabot92 04:53, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Aaaand that's where the disagreement lies. If you improve guns at all, your suggestion isn't going to be passed because everyone will rabble about unbalancing. If you don't improve them and make them on-par with current guns, your suggestion isn't going to be passed because it'll be extra junk in the system (why implement it in the first place?). --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:51, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Sorta reminds me of you Bob... ALRIGHT: On topic. I do believe that shotguns SHOULD be changed in some way. There is NO chance that a Shotgun is as accurate as a Pistol (assuming this is longer range) This is why, in some way shape or form, I support making the Shotgun LESS accurate, but packing it with extra punch.

I remind you of me? Well, alright... but have you ever seen Olympic Shooting? That's pretty damn accurate (and we all have advanced shotgun training - and these might be long-barrelled models), not to mention that there's no such thing as "range" in UD. You're either standing right next to someone in the same location, or you're not. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:13, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Um, yea, I'll let you in on a secret Bob. They are most likely using Choke Tubes in the olympics.--LarzAluphe 10:44, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Who's to say the shotguns in UD don't already have choke tubes? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:58, 1 May 2009 (BST)

It is not our job to make that decision. This is YOUR idea! YOU don't even know what you want? How are we supposed to discuss the subject if the AUTHOR doesn't even know what he's suggesting? YOU tell us what you are suggesting and we read it and give examples of why the idea wouldn't work and/or how it could be improved.--Pesatyel 16:14, 1 May 2009 (BST)

I think what he's arguing is that a shotgun firing normal ammunition, the shot in the shell would disperse over a wide area. But with this "choke tube", he's effectively turning the shotgun into a "rifle" as the tube lessens the dispersal pattern of the shot.--Pesatyel 07:34, 1 May 2009 (BST)

I like it. -CaptainVideo 08:27, 1 May 2009 (BST)

What's to like? The suggestion doesn't DO anything.--Pesatyel 16:11, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Ok, Instead of leaving the shotgun as is, how about we decrease the attack by a couple of points, let this item bring it up to the attack it used to be, and add some accuracy? Treviabot92 17:10, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Any overall buff is going to be shot down by zombies who don't want to die faster than they already do. If you nerf it additionally to begin with, that's just more reason for survivors to vote kill. Do you have to find one choke tube per shotgun or just one, like a flak jacket? How heavy are they? Do they add weight when installed? Does it cost AP to install it? Any of those being true will result in rabbling survivors. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:58, 1 May 2009 (BST)

---

Notice When Out of Ammo

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 18:42, 30 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	When a survivor tries to fire a gun and they have no loaded ammunition it'll cost them 1AP to receive a message telling them their guns are empty. This can happen very easily mid-combat since unless you scroll down to check your inventory after every shot, it can be hard to keep track of a jumbled mass of guns with varying amounts of ammo. I suggest when you empty all of a kind of gun, either pistol or shotgun, you receive a tiny message after the result of your last attack: You empty your pistol. Simple as pie.

Discussion (Notice When Out Of Ammo)

Dupe of in-game. It tells you this already, pay attention. --WanYao 20:26, 30 April 2009 (BST)

He's right. It also doesn't waste an AP, thank God. Treviabot92 00:57, 1 May 2009 (BST)

The AP cost represents the panic of dry firing a gun. If you can't keep track of how many bullets/shells you have yourself who else is going to tell you?--DI Sweeny 00:55, 1 May 2009 (BST)

---

.22 Rifle

Timestamp:	LarzAluphe 22:04, 29 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Weapon
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	As to break away from the fact that apparently there are only Pistols, Shotguns, and Flare Guns in Malton, and to break away from the usual Rifle spam. I'm introducing: the .22 Rifle! Damage 7 points (5 against a flak jacket.) Base accuracy 10% Capacity 1 Round Locations Mall Gun Stores (2%) (The rounds 4% or maybe Higher?) Police Departments (3%) (Rounds 5%) Encumbrance 8% * Starting Skill: 15% Accuracy * Basic Firearms Training: 35% Accuracy * Rifle Training: 60% Accuracy * Advanced Rifle Training: 75% Accuracy Now, while this is going to be subject of spam and mass kills, I WOULD like to say, that this would mostly just be there to fill the gap of a less-damaging but more accurate gun, and to get rid of the fact that there's only pistols, shotguns, and flare guns in this city when it comes to guns.

Discussion (.22 Rifle)

This is too similar to the shotgun to justify adding it into the game. Plus, how would hunting rifles make it into the city in the first place? I doubt that too many people in a large city like Malton would have them before a zombie outbreak, and they wouldn't be able to make it in after the quarantine. --Pestolence^(talk) 23:13, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe. That's about how many times this has been suggested. We have shotguns and pistols and that's balance - and that's all we need. Check Frequently Suggested, please. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:59, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Honestly? It's easy that they would make it into a city. What do gun stores have in them? Only pistols and Shotguns? No, they do have Hunting Rifles in gun shops, even if it's the big city. Also: It's not ALL about balancing. It just bugs me and my cousin (who also plays this) to the point that he said that there's "only Revolvers and Double-Barreled Shotguns. What is this, the Wild West?" --User:LarzAluphe 23:30, 29 April 2009 (BST) ((Last time I edit that. Can't get the link to work)

I actually think that hunting rifles are more likely to be found in shops than pistols and shotguns. Since, you know, hunting rifles are actually legal... But I too must ask, how is the difference significant enough to warrant a new weapon? --LaosOman 14:45, 30 April 2009 (BST)

This is an instance where the mechanics are more important then the realism. In Urban Dead, The shotgun fills the role of a high damage, low ammo weapon. The pistol fills the roll of a medium damage, medium ammo weapon. What does THIS weapon do? It gets a +5% accuracy bonus over the shotgun and that's it. It is heavier then the shotgun --User:Pesatyel 04:37, 30 April 2009 (BST)

I don't need to read this. UD doesn't need new weapons. --WanYao 20:28, 30 April 2009 (BST)

Alright, I changed the suggestion a bit to reflect the fact that the Hunting Rifle would fill in a roll of higher accuracy, but at a damage Penalty. Also: I find it funny that people thing that cities should only have Revolvers (What pistols do YOU know of that uses CLIPS (different then magazines) and only has 6 shots?) and Double-Barreled Shotguns? They would have at LEAST an Auto-shotty or SOMETHING better then a double-barreled shotgun. P.S. I changed the name to a more realistic name, which is an actual rifle caliber.--User:LarzAluphe 23:32, 30 April 2009 (BST)

This has been suggested about 80 bazillion trillion times. And it's always shot down by experienced players for a number of reasons. Primarily, UD doesn't need any new weapons. Period. The choices we have make for game balance and simplicity. Adding more weapons will water down all search %ages in PDs. Adding more weapons is considered trenchcoatish - but let's explain why that's said... The focus of the game is not on shooting zombies. The focus of the game is not on guns and military types. Sure, these exist, but mostly it's about regular people scrambling to make do with what's around them. Surviving. And surviving isn't about shooting stuff: it's about hiding behind barricades or running when the barricades fall... and on healing the injured and reviving the undead... These are the most important and productive things for survivors to do -- not shoot shit -- and the game mechanics actually reflect this assumption. Except for XP gaining... but that's another story. Focusing on shooting zombies is seen by experienced players as non-productive behavior, and combined with a certain attitude which thinks this is an FPS and revels in pointlessly killing zombies in the street for example, then it's bona fide "trenchy".

Anyway... no new guns are really needed in UD. --WanYao 01:12, 1 May 2009 (BST)

As I said, its NOT about "not wanting" new guns in the game. We already have a combat shotgun, flamethrower, MP-5, Pipe Gun, and Another Submachinegun in Peer Review (as well as Brass Knuckles, Chainsaws, Bricks, Machetes, and Molotov Cocktails). Take a look at those and see WHY they made it into Peer Review and this idea won't. Urban Dead has very simplistic. And I don't think a +10% to hit bonus outweighs all the negiatve comparisons to the shotgun.--Pesatyel 01:57, 1 May 2009 (BST)

What I would like to say, is that this game pretty much NEEDS a rifle. No one IRL would suddenly be able to craft a Rail-spike shooting gun, or randomly find a FLAME thrower, but they WOULD be able to find a RIFLE. I do believe that there should be more Weapons in this game, a way to single down your searches (Only look for, say, Shotgun, Shotgun Shells, Pistol Clips) that would recalculate what you'd find, based on what you're LOOKING for. Another thing: where the HELL would you find a flame thrower? It's not like someone wold suddenly become McGyver and fashion one of of a paper clip, two rocks, and a piece of clothing. Once again, I would like to state the more or less NEED of a Rifle in this game. The best way to DO this, is find a balanced way to combine less powerful shots, with more accuracy. Another thing about this game, is that you won't be able to fire a shotgun as accurately as a pistol. So you we should PROBABLY try and tone down the accuracy on that, while buffing the fire power.

First, don't forget to sign your posts. Second, the flamethrower is found in the Armory. Third, I've already tried to explain it, now THREE times, that Urban Dead is very simplistic. When it comes to guns, you have 3 factors involved:

• Ammo capacity
• Damage
• Accuracy

The shotgun has high damage and low ammo. The Pistol has medium damage and medium ammo. Both have high accuracy. So what does that leave? A gun with low damage and high ammo. Your really NOT going to be able to affect accuracy at all since guns are meant to be highly accurate in the first place.--Pesatyel 07:39, 1 May 2009 (BST)

AUTO-SPAM - 'Nuff said. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} (status:‎Mudkip!) 01:32, 1 May 2009 (BST)

---

Relay Baton

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 16:49, 29 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Item
Scope:	Special events, like the Malton itidarod
Description:	Players invent special events, and their own games and contests within the overall battle for the city. Here's a fun idea for a special item people can find a variety of uses for: relay batons. A relay baton is just a metal stick. It'd have 2% encumbrance. It'd be useable as a weapon, but no better than a pipe. You wouldn't be able to bar doors with it. Survivors or zombies holding a baton would be singled out in the room description, and you'd be able to select them with all actions as if they were in your contacts: Survivorname/A zombie is holding the red baton Players would be able to give relay batons to any other player (that has unchecked a default box in the preferences preventing this), transferring it to that person's inventory. Unlike every other item, a relay baton cannot be discarded and deleted. Instead, someone can (still for 0 AP) drop it wherever they are. It would appear on the location description, along with any artwork. Unlike artwork though any person can pick up and take the relay baton for 1AP. If someone is killed, they automatically drop any relay batons they are holding. Someone who idles out will also drop the relay baton. Relay batons can be moved from person to person, dropped and taken, but do not leave gameplay at any point. To prevent batons from piling around all over the city there would only be a limited number. You would not be able to find batons by searching. Instead a number would appear in the city's stadiums, parks, and schools for whoever comes first to take. Each baton would have a color unique to it, so there would only be one "red baton" in the game. How many there should be is up to debate, but I think there's no need for more than a few dozen. In time people would think up events and games to use them in, or maybe just hoard and fight for them pointlessly which is a kind of a game in itself. Thematic to a zombie apocalypse? Not really. But it fits in with fun flavor stuff like artwork, halloween masks, etc. And who says people quarantined in a zombie city wouldn't find ways to amuse themselves?

Discussion (Relay Batons)

All hail green baton! Maybe even 0% encumber, as these things are dead fixed in number. It'd certainly be interesting to see cults of batons and baton control warfare break out. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:58, 29 April 2009 (BST)

The good thing about the way special events and mini-games work now is that people who don't want to be a part of them can just ignore them. Maybe announce that someone has one of these on their profile page, but don't include it in the room description. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 03:28, 30 April 2009 (BST)

Good suggestion. The final version won't announce anything on the room description, unless one of your contacts is holding the object. --A Big F'ing Dog 19:36, 30 April 2009 (BST)

These ideas have been suggested before and haven't been received too well. That's not to say I don't like the idea, just that people aren't too fond of them. The main problem is that this is NOT thematic. A baton? A soccerball (the last similar idea I recall)? While it makes sense the survivors would "find things to do" it should be more in keeping with the story. In this case, instead of a "baton" how about a large animal femur or something? You see Bob holding an elephant femur or something like that.--Pesatyel 08:28, 30 April 2009 (BST)

A dog skull.... then we can play jugger! --Honestmistake 12:13, 30 April 2009 (BST)

Why??? In any event, you could do this with special items like halloween candy. So, again, why? --WanYao 20:29, 30 April 2009 (BST)

On one hand, it makes sense the survivors would "find things to do". Realistically speaking they would find ways to entertain themselves to keep themselves sane (well according to the Zombie Survival Guide). In UD terms, the game is, apparently, boring and they want other things to do.--Pesatyel 07:41, 1 May 2009 (BST)

---

Many Will Search, Few Will Win

Timestamp:	CaptainVideo 08:17, 26 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	New items of epic rareness. None of these are weapons.
Scope:	Survivors or treasure hunters
Description:

What makes these special is that they would all have extremely low yield rates. I don't just mean that it'll take more than one day to find one of these. I mean that they are so rare finding one can never be reasonably expected to happen. My proposed yield value is one in one thousand for starters - there would be even rarer things.

None of these items has any practical value. They are all either decorative additions to buildings or usable items that can be displayed to other survivors. No weapons. And the search yield would be so low that this suggestion wouldn't throw off yield values for anything normal in any detectable way. Since this is 'development,' pitch any suggestions you may have.

One in One Thousand

Non-alcoholic beer (pubs, motels) (E: 2)

• For when you just want to enjoy the taste of something that isn't quite right.

Rotary phone (hotels) (E: 5)

• Obviously it doesn't work, but you can set it up somewhere and look at it.

One in Ten Thousand

Music Boxes (Mansions) (E: 5)

• A nod to Night of the Living Dead, where Barbara finds a music box in the farmhouse. These would be small, and you'd just break yours out to show other people. "____ pulled out a music box and wound it up. It plays for a little while." Winding it would cost 1 AP.

Television set (malls) (E: 20)

• But all you get is static, since you don't have cable or an antenna. "A generator is here. It is running, and powering a television set displaying only static."

One in One Hundred Thousand

Fireworks (Fire Departments) (E: 10)

• Another Romero nod (to a later film). For one action point, light that sucker up and everybody in Malton gets "[X amount of time ago] A bright [color] explosion filled the sky briefly before dissolving into twinkling sparks." If people used these things as they surface, you'd be seeing a couple each week. Then again, if these people were to get together and stockpile their finds, they could have a holiday celebration. Their call, really.

Military Radio Transceiver (forts) (E: 15)

• This one is almost practical. Almost. It's a portable broadcasting device that would let you be able to use 26.96 (the channel just above the one Flyboy uses for the helicopter reports). You're probably thinking this would an amazing stealth tool, or an awesome transmitting one. You'd be wrong. It's not stealth (anyone could listen) but it's not really any better than having a channel on the regular bands to yourself (because nobody would HAVE to listen). Useless or epic? You decide!

Rocket launcher (forts) (E:20)

• "But you said no weapons!" Well, yes, but there's a catch: there are no rockets to go with it. For one AP, you'd be able to "use" it: "You take out your rocket launcher and examine it." Other people would get: "____ took out an unloaded rocket launcher and inspected it." It's a weapon that's totally useless but conceptually awesome. The trenchcoaters will love this.

Discussion (Where do you come up with this stuff?)

"Full description. Check spelling and be descriptive." Way to mess up formatting a suggestion. HOWEVER I love this idea! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:40, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Lots of potential here, I would like to add cigars to the list. 1AP adds something like this to a rooms description for 1 hour "survivor bob is smoking a big fat stogie" --Honestmistake 08:25, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Edit: Oh wait it's just flavor items. --Parakirby 14:33, 28 April 2009 (BST)

First of all, what are the search rates? Secondly, RARE means nothing in game with UNLIMITED resources.--Pesatyel 02:45, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Oh yes it does. You can only have unlimited results with infinite time. We each get 50AP a day. Also, the items above are categorized by how rare they are - one in X searches, in the (place in parentheses). -CaptainVideo 02:51, 29 April 2009 (BST)

And with the RNG God always being a douche, the people who really don't need to get a hold of these things would have them all before the days end. While the rest of us who aren't annoying trenchie bastards spend months searching for the shit. But still kind of a fun idea. :) --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Cuckoo clocks. We definitely need cuckoo clocks. -CaptainVideo 02:57, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Oh god yes. 1AP to wind and it will annoy the living piss out of everyone present by cookooing loudly enough to be heard outside, it will do this every hour for 24 hours. If placed in a fort or mall it will only be destroyed with a successful flare gun hit ;) --Honestmistake 09:34, 29 April 2009 (BST)

What is the point of something with search odds of 1/100,000? That's so rare as to be practically worthless. --Pestolence^(talk) 03:08, 29 April 2009 (BST)

None of these items have practical value. They are all pure flavor - rarity is part of that. -CaptainVideo 03:57, 29 April 2009 (BST)

A lot of players have nothing better to do....--Pesatyel 05:30, 30 April 2009 (BST)

A bucket of water. 1AP to set up and the next person to enter the building via the door (ie not freerunning) gets the message "someone balanced a bucket of water above the doorway, entering the building caused it to drop on you and you and thoroughly soak your clothes!" clothing descriptions will include the prefix "wet" for an hour or so. --Honestmistake 09:39, 29 April 2009 (BST)

A banana. Set next to door. Whichever survivor/zombie enters the building slips over, loses 1HP and says "XXXXXXX just slipped on a banana." If a zombie slides on a banana, and said banana is laid by a zombie hunter, headshot applies. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:14, 29 April 2009 (BST)

while that would indeed be very funny I think it only fair that the zombie should get to keep the banana and (if he spots said hunter within 36 hours) yell "Ram Bananah in harmanz azz!" thus killing said hunter with a quick and embarrassing auto attack!--Honestmistake 13:31, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Honestly? No. Bad idea. Instead of putting in more useless crap, why don't we try adding things like guns. We don't NEED joke items right now. What we need it more things that we would actually find IRL. And, before that even, working on the actual gameplay itself. --LarzAluphe 05:11, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Fair enough, but you don't get those suggestions from me. You get those from most everybody else. -CaptainVideo 08:26, 1 May 2009 (BST)

---

Sprinter

Timestamp:	12:09, 27 April 2009 (BST) (By WarlockVI)
Type:	Skill.
Scope:	Zombies/Humans/both.
Description:	+10 to your AP max. (Basicaly allows you to store more AP, so you can do more things in a big sprint.) (you can do Exactly the same ammount as anyone else, in total, just more in one session (if you want to)).

Discussion (Sprint)

Not against it per say but it would lead to a rush of violence when all the office only players log in on a Monday morning--Honestmistake 12:11, 27 April 2009 (BST)

As with HM, I think it would be interesting to see this in action. I doubt that it would be game breaking, but it would cause all sorts of chaos. --Johnny Bass 20:44, 27 April 2009 (BST)

Not to mention that IP hits would need to possibly be re-calculated. The hit limit now is 160, and this is for 3 characters - about 53 apiece, so 50 AP and some login stuff. This would potentially require a 190 hit limit, or people with this skill are going to more frequently run into the current limit. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:53, 27 April 2009 (BST)

Not really. All the characters would still get only 48 AP per 24 hours, so most of the time there wouldn't be a problem. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:46, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Well yes, but if you take a day off then it's going to stack up and your third character will be screwed over halfway through playing. The IP limit is based not on regen, but on max AP. Well, if we change max AP... it's still something to take into consideration. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:49, 28 April 2009 (BST)

How?--Pesatyel 03:29, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Exactly, under what circumstances? What is the inherent disadvantage of choosing to use this action? There needs to be more details to this suggestion. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:11, 29 April 2009 (BST)

? Disadvantage to using this action? it isnt an action, The Disadvantage would be that you wasted your xp on the Skill, it just is, like so many other skills. +x% to hit combat skills, Free running, actualy 90% of the skills, they dont have a disadvantage, They just are. Ps: more details?, this kinda says all thats needed i believe. namely exactly what it does, it simply adds +10 to you AP storage Max. Aka Allowing you to store up to 60ap, instead of just 50.--WarlockVI 12:36, 29 April 2009 (BST)

The other skills are generally limited in their use by requiring some extrnal addition. Free Running requires you be in a building from which you can free run. Tagging requires a spraycan. This is an "always on" skill. So why not just suggest +50 AP? +100 AP? ALL skills require some level of realism. Just saying you want more AP doesn't mean you should just GET more AP. Take a look at the update history of the game. Everything that has been added has been added with a thematic/realism element attached. All THIS suggestion says is that veteran players can kick the crap out of newbies that much longer. There HAS to be some kind of penalty/downside.--Pesatyel 04:44, 30 April 2009 (BST)

there is a downside, if you come back after a weekend away and burn through those 60AP over your monday morning coffee break you will log on for tuesdays coffee break to find you have 12 less AP than you had yesterday... thats the same number you would have had before the AP cap was raised but its going to seem less. Also (as pointed out above) if you play 3 characters without donating then one of them is only going to run out of IP hits pretty fast. --Honestmistake 09:23, 1 May 2009 (BST)

This would result in many players (esp zombies) creating an extra character so they can cycle round the IP hits for maximum actions per day... not necessarily a bad thing but worth considering the negative aspects, IP switching zergers would just have more actions for less effort while the rest of us would have the annoying option of choosing which character didn't get to use all his AP today--Honestmistake 13:36, 29 April 2009 (BST)

---

Contacts Management Page

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 15:22, 26 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	The contacts system is great, but can get unwieldy when you have many contacts. I suggest added a link to the Contacts Page leading to a Contacts Management page. This is basically an advanced control page - it doesn't change anything we have now, but if you choose to use it it'd provide several useful tools. Among those tools: Color A to Color B: Allows you to switch every contact of the color of your choice to another color of your choice. Handy for when you alter your internal labeling system, or combine two labels. Would also let you delete every contact of that color. Delete Inactive Contacts: Click and automatically deletes every contact you have with a line struck through their name. You'd also be able to select specific colors, for example if you only wanted to delete inactive green contacts. Add All To Contacts: Adds every single survivor (not zombies) in your current location as a default gray contact. Wouldn't let you save more profiles then you have room in your contact list for though. Delete All Present From Contacts: Removes every single survivor in the room from your contacts. This would be useful if you're moving to a new neighborhood and want to get rid of locals you probably won't see anymore. Auto-add: Would let you connect colors to specific actions, such as revives or heals, and automatically add strangers who do that to your contacts as that color. For example, you could make it so every time a stranger revives you they're instantly added as a blue contact. Or every time someone kills you they get added as red. While this by itself would quickly swamp your contact list, you'd have two subtools to prevent this. One would be the ability to set limits. For example, only allowing 10 green contacts so once you have 10 green no more would be added. Another would be a toggle to cycle new ones in and old ones out. So when a green contact is auto-added to your list of 10, one person already on the list is auto-deleted. So this would make the autoadded contacts a few small groups of the people that most recently interacted with you in those various ways. Whether technical issues prevent any of these, the remainder would still be worth implementing. I think each of these abilities would be very useful by itself.

Discussion (Contacts Management Page)

I know it sounds like I'm trying to find a reason to put this down, but it has to be expressed that I believe automation isn't a desired goal in Urban Dead features. I would find these convenient though. I do know that a one or two of these are already possible through extensions, but not most of your proposed additions. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:32, 26 April 2009 (BST)

I agree that automation has no place in the game, like autoattacks or pied piper skills. But I don't think contacts management is the game, just something you have to get out of the way in order to play the game effectively. Kinda like, a computer makes it easier to write than a typewriter because it's faster. But it doesn't ruin writing, or make writing unfair. Nobody misses ink ribbons. And everyone likes spellcheck. It's just getting rid of the obstacles that make life more inconvenient and waste everybody's time. --A Big F'ing Dog 16:15, 26 April 2009 (BST)

Those are all very good ideas. Enough so that I built a lot of those functions (as parts of more general functionality) into a GM script called massContacts. Color changing and "struck contact" deleting it handles just fine, by allowing you to clear the box and select contacts into the box via color or "striking", and then modify the color / status of the contacts in the box. The "add all" and "drop all" can be achieved by viewing the code for the page and pasting in any one of the drop down selections or that include character ID #'s into the box, and using the auto-format feature. It can't do auto adds, but that's about it, really.  Swiers 01:04, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Use masscontacts. --WanYao 20:30, 30 April 2009 (BST)

My first thought was that it is always better to improve the game itself rather than having to resort to metagaming or outside scripts. But given how in frequently he is able to update the game, it seems we have little choice.--Pesatyel 16:27, 1 May 2009 (BST)

---

Sanity

Timestamp:	Parakirby 22:32, 25 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Humans
Description:	There's only so much one man could take. People are social animals by nature, and the sight of their fellow man dying around them is bound to drive them closer towards the edge. A lack of stimulus, as well, can lend to the weakening of the spirit, as well as seeing contacts die. When a human goes mad, various things can happen: 1. They see players as zombies - Or zombies as players. With HILARIOUS results. 2. The player becomes a gibbering madman, whining in his corner. All actions cost +1 AP because he has trouble motivating himself. 3. Player believes he is a zombie, but is actually still human. Will talk like a zombie. Other players will be able to see him and will see him as a zombie (Although there could be a skill to see past this, as well as offer counseling to the insane). 4. Player becomes a kleptomaniac, and must search every other turn for items. 5. Player must go and hurt zombies. Otherwise, they take HP damage.

Discussion (Sanity)

This is a game - making it un-fun by crippling people is horrible. Forced Trenchcoating? Ahaha. You're going to be a world of hurt for even suggesting that here in developing. Not to mention you don't even remotely explain how these conditions could be cured mechanics-wise, if at all. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:02, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Cute... but this isn't Call of Cthulhu... or... wait what actually goes on down in Old Arkham??? --WanYao 23:26, 25 April 2009 (BST)

You see, death doesn't really exist in Malton. Seeing your buddies "die" is much easier to deal with when you know all you need to do is stick them with a needle and apply a couple of FAKs and they'll be as good as new. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 00:54, 26 April 2009 (BST)

Sorry, but I've always understood it that the 'characters' that couldn't handle the zombie apocalypse went idle as their creators just got off Mozilla and started playing their PS3 instead. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:50, 26 April 2009 (BST)

This sounds familiar. I know its not specifically a dupe, but the idea of making survivors "insane" has been suggested before. The idea, above, isn't exactly bad (at least not for a "hard" mode), it just has some significant flaws.. Primarily being how a character "cures" himself (I'd also imagine Zombie Hunters would be immune).--Pesatyel 05:12, 26 April 2009 (BST)

I'm sorry, I'm new to the game and I know it's -probably- been suggested before but I couldn't find a relevant topic in my searches. Generally, this is to stop human players from simply boarding up for all eternity and encourage them to get out of their bunker and go grab items or get in a fight, rather than hold off by barricading in a single building for all eternity. A way for it to be cured is a doctor's psychotherapy, attacking zombies, and/or acquiring items of the pleasing nature (Beer being a good example, as well as decoration). Nothing I suggest is 'this is how it should be done 100%', but rather 'I have an idea, what do you think'.--Parakirby 23:36, 26 April 2009 (BST)

The way to do that is by spreading all the "good stuff" (guns, ammo, generators, syringes, etc.) around to other locations.--Pesatyel 07:15, 27 April 2009 (BST)

The 1st and 3rd of your examples are already in game (to an extent anyway) I play a survivor who is convinced that all those "Non-Descript" guys are out to eat him and I used to see a lot of cultists who RP'd death rattle and general zombiness. The searching and hunting bits are pure SPAM and quaking in fear is not much better really as all it does is make the game less fun rather than more challenging. --Honestmistake 08:19, 27 April 2009 (BST)

Aaah, I guess you're right.--Parakirby 07:00, 27 April 2009 (BST)

---

Food and Water

Timestamp:	Parakirby 22:20, 25 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Balance change?
Scope:	Heavy fortifications with many humans
Description:	Every person needs oxygen, water, shelter, and food (In that order of importance). Why should survivors be the same? I propose the addition of food items that can be scavanged from Malls, Supermarkets (To be added?) and Farms, as well as rarely in suburb housing. I also propose that water items (Bottled water, canteens, etc.) be added to the same, as well as randomly finding bottled water in normal buildings such as suburbs. On top of that, although the water supply has been cut off, someone with a toolkit could access the building's pipes and let the water flow freely. A normal person can live one to three days without water, and one to four weeks without food. But because this is a game where you have fun, I suggest make it a week without water (Survivors will drink from sources of water automatically) and two weeks without food? Survivors who are starving/dehydrated have trouble fighting, moving quickly, and should take damage over time. This is a pretty big game changer. No longer will it be so easy for large groups to hole up in one extremely fortified building. Instead, they'll have to make occasional food runs. This means that buildings with no easy access to food feel more pressured when zombies attack.

Discussion (Food and Water)

It's only fair then that zombies have to eat too or permanently die of starvation. They have to get energy, somehow, or they simply can't expend any more. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:04, 25 April 2009 (BST)

This has been suggested about a zillion times before. More realism =/= more fun. --WanYao 23:27, 25 April 2009 (BST)

First of all, zombie is already assumed a part of the game. Characters have to use the bathroom and sleep too, but they are assumed to do that too. Such things are fundamentally part of the game, like the fact there is unlimited resources in every searchable building. While this won't pass, I DO want to help you with your work on suggestion ideas. All your giving us, here, is that you want food and water added. But you don't give us any "game stats". Where is "food/water" found and at what search percentage? What are their encumberance values? What happens if I don't eat/drink? What happens if a zombie doesn't eat/drink? I'm not saying all that to improve this idea. I"m saying that to point out that a suggestin is more than "I want this". You have to tell us HOW you want it.--Pesatyel 05:18, 26 April 2009 (BST)

What I'm trying to suggest is, like my sanity suggestion above, another reason for survivors to go out and search rather than barricade up in an office or a station. Water would be fairly easy to come by - Parks would have ponds to drink out of, most buildings would have pipelines that survivors can access with a toolkit, and almost everywhere there'd be bottled water to find (albiet at a low percentage rate, such as .5% in the street, but much higher in a mall/supermarket, somewhere like 10%). I'm not suggesting it be a major encumberance, but rather something to think about, especially during a major zombie attack. Food, on the other hand, would be a bit different. Since most buildings have been ransacked already, it comes down to fairly low percentages. Suburban homes, for example, should have somewhere between a 2% - 5% chance for food (Or higher, really, considering) whereas supermarkets and/or malls would have a 5% - 10% chance, and theaters have a 2% - 5% chance. If a person doesn't drink water for approximately a week real time (Which, considering all the available resources, would be difficult to do) would take 1 damage per action they perform. A starving person, on the other hand, would find it more difficult to defend himself and attack others, due to a lack of energy. Since it takes a while for a human to starve to death, perhaps the entire concept should be discarded for the game. To encourage zombies to go out hunting rather than grind barricades for XP or smash generators, perhaps an instant 10 damage for every 72 hour period without attacking a human? As far as encumberance is concerned, it varies. A bottle of water weighs very little at all, and 1% - 2% sounds decent enough, while a gallon of water is fairly heavy, and 5% or 10% sounds fair. Food varies more than water. Obviously, a small bag of chips would be much lighter than a whole turkey. The way food and water would be displayed would be percentages, with drinking and eating restoring a set percentage, based on the item imbiled. --Parakirby 23:50, 26 April 2009 (BST)

To me this sounds like simply penalizing them with no gains, possibly unbalancing the game. Therefore, i think if this would/should be implemented it needs to give a bonus as well, say +XHP For when ever you do drink/eat, as it refreshes you. WarlockVI 12:36, 27 April 2009 (BST)

That could work. It'd have to be a scale based on the food type, of course (A small bag of chips, while common, would require 1 AP to eat, but would restore 5% food and subtract 2% water, as well as restoring 1 HP. A large turkey, on the other hand, would restore 50% - 100% food, subtract 5% - 25% water (Turkey DOES make you thirsty. And tired, actually, there's a chemical in it!), 5 AP, and restore 10 health? It would be much more rarer compared to the bag of chips, after all. ...If it'll even exist. I don't want to start going into specifics with foods vs. numbers until I get a feeling that people generally like this idea.--Parakirby 07:03, 27 April 2009 (BST)

Not quite, and that's just sucking up too much AP. I don't think people are going to go for this to begin with as it adds complexity and micromanagement to survivors without doing anything to zombies. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:03, 30 April 2009 (BST)

Once this is implemented, we'd have to add a suggestion for taking a shit.--Pesatyel 04:44, 30 April 2009 (BST)

If I'm right, I already suggested this once, about, what, five years ago? It was blammed, so this is a dupe. Treviabot92 00:35, 1 May 2009 (BST)

---

Dang, This Generator Is Heavy!

Timestamp:	Winton 06:01, 25 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Survivors/Generators
Description:	This proposal is to make generator possession and transportation more realistic and consistent with actual human capabilities. A portable generator as depicted in the items page, Portable Generator, would be the approximately correct size and wattage capacity to accomplish what generators do in UD. A generator that size will typically weigh about 91 kg (200 lbs). They are very heavy and unwieldy, and a single man has difficulty maneuvering and transporting one. It is simply not possible for one person to have more than one of these under his control. A man cannot transport more than one of these, and certainly cannot run with one, let alone climb stairs or navigate wooden bridges constructed between buildings. I propose the following: Generator Encumbrance: 51% (renders possession of multiple generators nearly impossible, more closely approximates actual encumbrance of a generator) Movement cost with a generator in inventory: 2AP Free Running not allowed with a generator in inventory These proposed changes will make the time and effort required to repair and power buildings more realistic. The anticipated argument is that UD need not be 100% consistent with reality, which is true. However, one of the touchstones of suggestion evaluation is that a suggestion not grant players any superhuman capacities in the post-apocalyptic world that they would not have had in a pre-apocalyptic world. As the encumbrance and movement currently stand, that is exactly what we have. Survivors are being ascribed a strength and capability which simply does not exist in "the real world". A previous suggester has already acknowledged the currently unrealistic situation (he described it as an "absurdity") and suggested a fix: Rename Generator. His suggested fix is to change the name "Generator" to "Generator Parts." This would remove the problem of generator transport, as he is suggesting that survivors are simply finding and transporting parts which are then used to repair broken generators that remain in place. This suggestion just sidesteps the issue. If you are carrying enough parts to be able to repair any damage done to any generator, you are then essentially carrying a generator. In addition, current scripting describes the generator as broken "beyond repair."

Discussion (Dang, This Generator Is Heavy!)

You obviously ignored the days-old message on your talk page regarding the absurdity of this suggestion, you are fully nullifying the gameplay of any account with a generator in their inventory. You have made 3 major nerfs and stuck them all into one suggestion. I can't wait for more ultra-realistic suggestions so we can add realism to a zombie apocalypse. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:28, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Well, you probably wouldn't really be able to carry ANYTHING else if your actually carrying a generator that heavy.--Pesatyel 06:51, 25 April 2009 (BST)

I did not ignore your message, DDR. I chose to post my idea in Developing Suggestions for additional input from others. If I had thought the idea had no merit, I wouldn't have been working on it.--Winton 07:42, 25 April 2009 (BST)

I actually agree with this idea, in terms of accuracy, but I don't think I'd support it if it went to a vote. It would make it extremely hard to get power to the critical NecroTech buildings, which, in turn, would destabilize the city - perhaps catastrophically. -CaptainVideo 06:50, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Hey, I just had an idea. This would be really interesting if implemented at the same time as my power station suggestion below. Again, I doubt there'd be any support for that, but it would be different. -CaptainVideo 06:55, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Think about it this way. If it took this much effort to get a generator to the place you need, and it took about 5 pistol shots or 10 claws, then do you see where this in inbalanced? If you buffed generators to have 40HP, then maybe you are balancing this out. But then it totally changes the nature of Urban Dead. Just think about the situation in hand. Reclaiming ruined areas where you have to travel across a whole suburb, thats a huge amount of valuable AP already gone, and once your there, you have nearly no items to help you sustain yourself, nothing except a massive generator in your building which tells all zeds where you are, and which, once a break-in occurs, gets destroyed in 10 seconds. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:57, 25 April 2009 (BST)

It would be almost cool to watch the whole city fall apart in 48 hours, though. It'd be like the apocalypse AFTER the apocalypse. The afterpocalypse. -CaptainVideo 07:26, 25 April 2009 (BST)

That's what it felt like when The Dead surprised us all. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:57, 25 April 2009 (BST)

First, the 2AP movement and inability to free run shouldn't be directly tied to having a generator in your inventory. It doesn't make much sense that you'd get penalized at 51% from one generator, but could do just fine at 100% from any other stuff. Second, this doesn't make multiple generators impossible or even difficult. If you're below 100%, you can pick up any item you find. Increasing the weight to 50% (the 1% over that is absolutely pointless) only prevents you from carrying more than two. It'd have to weigh 100% if you wanted it to be limited to only one generator. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:29, 25 April 2009 (BST)

I would prefer it if Portable Generators were still only 20%, but you could still only carry two. Though that still detracts from the logic of this suggestion. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:02, 25 April 2009 (BST)

"A portable generator as depicted in the items page, Portable Generator, would be the approximately correct size and wattage capacity to accomplish what generators do in UD. A generator that size will typically weigh about 91 kg (200 lbs)." I would actually say that generators in UD are little tiny things that only need to power a single bright light since all buildings in UD are just one room. You can't hide in a closet or attic or anything, it's either "inside" or "outside," implying one chamber. From that, I would say a workable generator would be something like this, which is only 14 kg / 30 lbs, far lighter than your suggested 90 kg / 200 lbs. If you really want to get nitty-gritty, 5 gallons of gas - presumably what the fuel cans in UD hold - weighs about 30 lbs. If a fuel can at 30 lbs is 10% encumbrance, then a slightly larger generator than the one described above weighing 60 lbs is 20% encumbrance. Yay maths. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:30, 25 April 2009 (BST)

One gallon gas cans seem more likely. That's what you typically find for sale at a gas station / auto repair shop, or stored in a car boot. 10 gallons of gas is 60 lbs, and could be quite unwieldy if in 10 separate cans, so 1 gallon per can fits the 10% encumbrence figure decently.  Swiers 22:37, 25 April 2009 (BST)

You know, reading the specs for that thing reminded me that wall voltage is higher in Europe than it is here in the States. Does the European grid use lower amperage for equal wattage, or is Europe actually using more energy than the US to actually power stuff? -CaptainVideo 07:56, 26 April 2009 (BST)

They use lower amperage for the same watts; its simple physics that Volts*Amps=Watts. Higher voltage is MUCH more efficient for long range transmission, because there is less loss due to resistance in the wiring; for that reason EVERYBODY'S power grid is (very) high voltage, with step down transformers at the neighborhood / building level. I'm not sure there is actually any real difference in effeciency once you get down to the user-level circuits, as it would depend on just how house wiring interfaces with the grid. In the US, a house breakerbox typically has two incoming 120 volt lines that are 180 degrees out of phase; that means it actually has 240 volts coming in, but you typically only use one line to power any given circuit (barring heavy appliances and HAVAC). Not sure if they do the same England; it maybe the same, only with both lines carried through every circuit. In either case, its likely similar enough to wash. Mostly it boils down to safety; 120 means less danger of electrocution, 240 means less danger of fire.  Swiers 01:17, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Again, Swiers astounds us all with his very large ability to know everything. :) --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:01, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Fascinating logic, if true: It would suggest that the Americans trust their equipment more than themselves, and vice-versa. At any rate, yes, that was my question. Malton's location in the world has always been explicitly vague (which is just as confusing as it sounds); I figure than any game characteristics should have plausibility on either continent. Or Australia. Or South Africa. Or Belize. Don't want to make any English-speaking people angry here. -CaptainVideo 03:10, 28 April 2009 (BST)

What's more, you'll end up with zerge "generator toters". If these things are going to be that much trouble to have/use, I'll make a level 1 to do that work for me.--Pesatyel 20:12, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Precisely. If having a generator makes free-running impossible, there's no reason not to use a level 1 over a higher-level character. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:30, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Balance asside (is there really to many generators in use? Do survivors really need generators at all?) I see two problems with the basic suggestion mechanics. First is that without free-running, you can't get the generator into the buildings that you'd most want them in. Second is that 51% encumbrance still makes it pretty easy to carry two of them. Pick one up. Is your encumbrence still under 100%? Then you can pick up another. If you really want to be sure people can only carry one, make the encumbrence 100%; that way you can always pick one up (if not already at or past 100%) but after you do you can't pick up anything else.  Swiers 22:34, 25 April 2009 (BST)

A part of me is sympathetic, what with all those powered useless buildings everywhere. However, it already costs 20% plus 10% (for fuel) plus the fact that gennies are one of the most difficult common items to find in UD... WanYao 23:31, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, but those places with needless generators are places that have no zombie threat. Remember the seiges/attacks. Generators get destroyed on a rate of 4 a day in Haslock at the moment, and thats against just 30 zombies. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:37, 26 April 2009 (BST)

Not to mention GKers. The Whitlock Building in Dulston has it's generator replaced sometimes 3/4 times a minute. Also, if we're going by "logic", how amny shotguns can you carry? Because if you can carry 12 shotguns, you're awesome. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:11, 26 April 2009 (BST)

---

Organize Your Inventory

Timestamp:	Master Nicholas 04:03, 25 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Zombies and Survivors
Description:	A method that allows you to organize your inventory, so items can be found easier, and the inventory part of the screen does not look so cluttered. :D

Discussion (Organize Your Inventory)

You need to be a LOT more specific on what you want. Take a look at these.--Pesatyel 06:00, 25 April 2009 (BST)

I can't believe that wasn't implemented. -CaptainVideo 06:57, 25 April 2009 (BST)

There are many scripts that do this. And many previoous suggestions to this effect. --WanYao 23:32, 25 April 2009 (BST)

---

Burn bodies

Timestamp:	Supflidowg 22:03, 24 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Human
Description:	(this may have been put up multiple times but I wouldn't know since im new and anyway this is a version I created) This is a skill that allows someone to burn corpses like in a real zombie armagedon. It would require you to have a fuel can(duh) and a flare gun(since there are no matches) it would cost 4Ap for every 5 corpses and so on,(pouring fuel is 2 Ap and lighting is 2 Ap) the person doing the burning would have a 20% chance at burning the corpses(with the flare) and the action pour fuel on bodies button would be first -(name here) pours fuel over the bodies-(100% chance of this)then they would attempt to light the fuel soaked bodies with the button fire flare -(name here) sets fire to the bodies on the ground- and if you miss -(name here) misses with the flare-. If the bodies are alighted,(set on fire) whenever they stand up they would have the condition Burned on them (it would sap 1 Hp per move untill they reach 40 Hp) and a 25% reduction in accuracy -(name here) misses due to the 3rd degree burns on their body- it shows no mercy to any body, surviver or zombie and a first aid kit would heal the burned status and 5 Hp but the accuracy is still reduced untill 15 moves after being burned(not including standing up), death or an extra first aid kit use(the extra kit will have a healing reduction of 3 points). Bodies cannot be burned more than once or you recieve the message -you see there is nothing left to burn-(appears when you attempt to pour the fuel and wont cost Ap) and burned bodies do appear on the browser screen as -there are X burned bodies here-(I also had another idea but I would like anyones opinion on it, Burnig the body of a surviver would also prevent survivers from becoming infected since you burned the infection off)

Discussion (Burn bodies)

First of all, this has been suggested a lot. Secondly, this just hurts newbies (especially converts). Is that 25% reduction off the top or straight? Meaning, if my bite is 30%, does tat mean its reduced to 22% or to 5%? You say it "shows no mercy to any body", so does that man my burning zombie gets a "flame" bonus to his sttacks?--Pesatyel 05:59, 25 April 2009 (BST)

It's a dupe. Although after a quick look, I couldn't find said original suggestion, so maybe the suggestion I'm thinking of never made it off this page. Hmm. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:59, 25 April 2009 (BST)

the % value is relitive of your total accuracy percentage so if your bite is 30% it is reduced to 22% and no, you cant be a flaming zombie(because if the flame still lingered after the body was burned it would also happen to survivers who DO feel pain and it would cause damage penalty like infection to the surviver for being on fire making an advantage to burned zombies and a disadvantage to burned survivers making the Burn Bodies skill a total PKer skill and useless to pro surviver people. And the "no mercy to anybody" means that you can use it on any dead body not just zombies(like in the real post apocoliptic zombie infested world) Supflidowg 19:02, 25 April 2009 (BST)

So, in other words, this is still pro-PKer since I can use it on reviving corpses.--Pesatyel 20:26, 25 April 2009 (BST)

"accuracy is still reduced untill 30 moves after being burned(not including standing up) or death." I'm sorry, that's just comically bad. An infection doesn't damage you for 30 HP regardless of whether or not you cure it - curing burns should cure the thing, hands down. Not to mention the dupe-y-ness of this suggestion. I found this suggestion, panned for XP loss (which headshot was when this game first came out), but not exactly a dupe. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:22, 25 April 2009 (BST)

To anwser all your questions(in reverse order) How about an extra FAK fixes the accuracy reduction and I cut the affected moves in half?(I said it would be LIKE infection not the human equivelent of the infection skill, I was using a hypothetical meaning if it caused the reviving person/zombie to stand up on fire) Also this move will still help survivers(example you take a bulding back from some zombies then you burn them to hinder them in retaking the building) so it could work both ways as a PKer skill and a survival skill. Supflidowg 01:32, 27 April 2009 (BST)

---

Field Medic training

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 12:50, 24 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill, Item
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Yes, I know I put an idea similar to this up for discussion before, under Nurses Training, or something similar. Military base skill. With all the injuries happening as a direct result of the zombie uprising, the local hospitals are running low on medical supplies. Thus, the surviving Malton Military enlistees are now utilising their field medic training in order to help already-maxed hospitals. Using bandages (found in hospitals at a 7% base rate, and in malls for a 5% base rate), a survivor with field medic training can help increase the effectiveness of FAKs by applying basic treatment beforehand. Bandages are used in the same way as FAKs. When used, they increase the recipients "Bandaged HP" by 2 HP each time. A player can have up to 10 "Bandaged HP", or BHP at a time, but can never have the total of their regular HP and BHP be more than their max HP. (i.e. if they have 46/50 HP, they can only have up to 4 BHP.) Bandaged HP does not contribute to the total when working out Scent Fear or Scent Blood, as bandages have such a mild smell. BHP is listed after the player's regular HP if the observer has Diagnosis, like this: [player name] (XX + B HP), where XX is their health, and B is their BHP. When a FAK is used on a survivor with bandaged HP, both the FAK value and Bandaged HP values are added to their current health. If, however, the player doing the healing didn't have First Aid, only 5 BHP could be added at a time. For example, if Survivor 1 has 35 HP and 5 BHP, if Survivor 2 had First Aid and used a FAK on Survivor 1, they would go to 50 HP, as this is the 10 HP from the FAK, plus the 5 BHP. If a bandaged player is attacked before the wounds are treated, their bandages are 'ripped off' and they lose all their BHP.

Discussion (Field Medic training)

Too complex. Perhaps if "bandaging" gave a status marker (like infection) that automatically increased the effectiveness of the next FAK it would be easier to understand (and help zeds target the bandaged!) Over all though I am not really sure that FAKs need this kind of a boost. --Honestmistake 15:14, 24 April 2009 (BST)

From what I can discern this would only serve to dilute the search rates for FAKs and bandages are less effective that FAKs. There's already been a decrease to FAK search rates in malls, so I don't think another decrease is necessary. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 23:30, 24 April 2009 (BST)

First Aid and Surgery.--Pesatyel 05:49, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Giles got it right. And, yeah, it's just too complicated. --WanYao 23:34, 25 April 2009 (BST)

---

No Dark Faks

Timestamp:	Necrofeelinya 02:09, 24 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Balance Change
Scope:	Humans
Description:	It's really simple, and this time I guarantee it's not a dupe. No goddamn Faks in the dark. If you can't see shit, if you can't hit someone, you can't heal them either. If you need convincing, then just check my latest post in the news of the Indian/Pakistani Leftovers group. This darkness modifier is bullshit. This won't fix it, but it'll sure as hell make it a little better.--Necrofeelinya 02:09, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Discussion (No Dark Faks)

An interesting and unique idea, but I don't like it. You aren't factoring in the fact that healing can be done at a slower, more calculated pace than stabbing someone or trying to him him with a pistol shot from the other side of the room. -CaptainVideo 03:49, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Are you seriously arguing that healing someone is easier than hurting them? Seriously? Come the fuck on. What a joke.--Necrofeelinya 04:01, 24 April 2009 (BST)

And why do you think this isn't a dupe? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:40, 24 April 2009 (BST)

If it is, it's chronically overdue for implementation. But if you reference it, then to hell with it. It's as easy to quit bothering as it is to fight over it.--Necrofeelinya 04:48, 24 April 2009 (BST)

There was a similar rejected suggestion called Suggestion:20080730 Reduce FAK effectiveness in dark buildings. The only difference was that impeded healing in dark buildings; this restricts it entirely. This isn't a dupe, but that was a better suggestion and it still got shot down, even though the author used logic instead of bullying to make his argument. Your move, jerk. -CaptainVideo 05:10, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Fair enough, twat. Like I said, it's as easy to quit bothering as it is to fight over. You've seen the example of what a disaster the current system is, I've provided the link to a perfect illustration of it. Let the survivor masturbathon continue. Maybe even with Music! Music! Music!--Necrofeelinya 05:24, 24 April 2009 (BST)

I'm really only contesting the point because your counterpoint to a disagreeing voice is sarcastic derision. You're really pretty close to making valid counterpoints, but then you start swearing. The thing is that I don't think this is a bad idea - I just disagree with it and think you're presenting it badly. -CaptainVideo 05:56, 24 April 2009 (BST)

You DO know the affects darkness has right? Darkness doesn't impede attacking, barricading, reviving and searching. It makes them harder to do. So I can see making healing harder to do too, but making impossible? No.--Pesatyel 04:54, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Because medical care, of all those things, is the easiest to do in the dark. Let's be honest, you can't do much more than put on a frickin' band-aid in the dark, and even that you can't do very well. The notion that you can offer proper medical care in a darkened room is stupid. Not just stupid, but asinine.--Necrofeelinya 05:05, 24 April 2009 (BST)

The 5HP heal essentially is just a band aid. You don't even need to know First Aid to do it. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 06:26, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Not to mention the probability that, despite it not being a part of the game mechanics, survivors would probably have falshlights of some sort. It's easier to patch someone up while using a flashlight to see than it is to shoot a specific someone in a mob while trying to see and get a decent sight on them with that little flashlight.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 11:30, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Because medical care, of all those things, is the easiest to do in the dark. LOL, yeah, right. Ever been to an ER? Lights EVERYWHERE. Surgeons don't operate in the dark, but murderers often do. Granted, you can't do "surgery" (the skill) in any dark building, but even simple first aid is gonna be tricky without some good light to examine the wound.  Swiers 22:49, 25 April 2009 (BST)

I like it. It's logical. There doesn't seem to be any question that darkness would make administering effective first aid difficult, if not impossible. Since there is no current way to modify % chance of healing, it leaves a simple question of heal/no heal; and it seems more likely to me to be unable to heal at all, as opposed to being able to heal exactly as in normal circumstances. --Winton 05:30, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Of course the percentages can be modified. Just like revives in the dark. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 06:26, 24 April 2009 (BST)

I didn't know revives were affected by darkness, makes sense but i didn't know. --Honestmistake 08:15, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Like I said in the discussion for the similar suggestion, just cap the healing at 5HP per FAK. If you want to make it even more difficult, give it only a 50% chance of success. There's no way in hell I'd support making healing impossible. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 06:26, 24 April 2009 (BST)

It's hard to say what is and isn't realistic when you're shooting for "normal" in a text-based video game with zombies. For instance, when you walk into a room full of people, you don't automatically know all their names. Nor do you ever see a whole city filled with buildings that have only one room each, or a whole city with no gas stations, etc., etc. Knowing that normality is a bent ruler, what is "reasonable" for handicapping medical aide in pitch darkness? -CaptainVideo 06:58, 24 April 2009 (BST)

Are you replying to the right comment? Because I said nothing about realism, "normal" or "reasonable" here. I just don't think healing should be made impossible. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 07:17, 24 April 2009 (BST)

I know. I'm just curious what your though process is. *I* never take reasonableness into account when I draw things up. It costs me sometimes, but the results are consistently interesting. -CaptainVideo 07:24, 24 April 2009 (BST)

I would support this but I doubt if it would get enough support to pass voting (hell a lot of surivors would probably yell SPAM), perhaps just reducing a Fak's effectiveness by 5 and removing its ability to cure infection? The reduced effect could be argued as the result of sloppy work and improperly sterilized wounds... --Honestmistake 08:15, 24 April 2009 (BST)

More difficult healing is fine with me. I believe a 50% success rate and a cap of 5 HP per heal have been suggested: both are pretty good ideas, although I wouldn't like to see them both used - one or the other, and preferably the 5 HP max one. For the sake of consistency, Diagnosis should also be blocked. --LaosOman 16:44, 24 April 2009 (BST)

I really don't care for this idea, although there is no doubt it would affect balance. I'm just not convinced game balance needs this much adjustment. Necro you seem to have a lot of anger over a game. Rocky Ford 20:01, 24 April 2009 (BST)

This might be worth trying with the 50% success rate and 5 HP cap. I like them both. The 50% success rate would be consistent with already established dark building modifiers, and the cap would reflect the lower efficacy of first aid in a dark building. The earlier suggestion actually got a lot of positive feedback, with quite a few Kill votes indicating support for a 50% success modifier.--Winton 05:23, 25 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, there was a big debate over this subject when dark first came in. It's not new. It also got shot down, though I supported it. Hell, I might have even suggested it? --WanYao 23:36, 25 April 2009 (BST)

It was your suggestion, WanYao. --Winton 01:19, 26 April 2009 (BST)

Let me shake your hand. -CaptainVideo 07:58, 26 April 2009 (BST)

---

Whisper

Timestamp:	Necrofeelinya 10:53, 22 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	Humans
Description:	Would allow for limited in-game stealth communications by survivors in the same room. Basically, survivors would be able to target the person they speak to, and only that individual would be able to hear what they say distinctly. Other players in the room would get a message saying "(player) whispers something to (player)" instead of being able to hear the comment as usual. This way they'd know something was said, they just wouldn't know what. The person being targeted with the message would hear "(player) whispers (normal message)", so they know that the message was whispered to them directly and that nobody else heard it. To target the message, you'd use a dropdown box just like the attack targeting box, but it would be attached to the speech text box or have its own text box. The hope is that by promoting in-game communications this way, metagaming could be reduced. Players wouldn't have to go to other forums to spread messages among their fellow players discreetly and selectively, though some would obviously still choose to do so for convenience's sake, to save on AP and organize from separate locations.

Discussion (Whisper)

I'll say right now it's similar to Different Speech Types, but without the "shout" option, and many of the votes on that one, which went to undecided, suggested reposting just as whisper anyway. I didn't see the repost if it occurred.--Necrofeelinya 11:17, 22 April 2009 (BST)

Well there is Communication in Peer Review. There is also Texting in Peer Review which is similar (but requires a phone which isn't that bad).--Pesatyel 04:01, 23 April 2009 (BST)

Dupe numba 2! That's two dupes in a row for me!--Necrofeelinya 13:18, 23 April 2009 (BST)

Don't think of it that way. They are good ideas, hence being in Peer Review. That makes me think of a new wiki idea. What if we had a "Peer Reviewed Suggestion of the Week". Maybe we could vote on one or two suggestions currently in Peer Review that would be highlighted on the front page (or some place more likely to get Kevan's attention). Kinda like a reminder to him.--Pesatyel 04:58, 24 April 2009 (BST)

I don't think Kevan needs the hassle unless it's been sitting for more than a year with maybe a 5/6ths majority and people really, desperately want it. There's a reason Kevan ignores Peer Reviewed suggestions.--Necrofeelinya 05:12, 24 April 2009 (BST)

more importantly how would we decide which suggestions to review? Perhaps a new page for such a procedure where any one would be free to bring up a maximum of 1 suggestion per week from those more than 12 months old, any that pass there could then be moved to the normal suggestion page. --Honestmistake 08:20, 24 April 2009 (BST)

We could just...vote for it.--Pesatyel 07:25, 25 April 2009 (BST)

---

Narrow the Quarantine

Timestamp:	Murray Jay Suskind 18:33, 17 April 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Everybody
Description:	I know this is going to rain hell-fire upon me as I'll be suggesting that somebody's favorite suburb disappears, but Malton is far too big right now. We have 10,000 square blocks for 28,000 players (and about 15,000 of them are active daily). At a given moment there are about 12-15k standing survivors. This means that there is an average of 150 standing survivors (being generous) in a suburb. Obviously the distribution is unequal. However, this means that there's a large number of suburbs that are functionally abandoned. Additionally, the average suburb has absolutely no hope of standing up to a zombie horde like the Ridleybank Resistance Front, Mall Tour, or Militant Order of Barhah. Even if the average suburb crammed every single survivor into one building, that would only even out the numbers, which still isn't a winning proposition with coordinated zombies and barricade obstruction. Even in relatively well-populated areas of Malton, there still aren't enough survivors to defend against well-coordinated zombies. For instance, almost every single mall in the game will have a population distribution of roughly 75, 25, 30, 15. Even if survivors ran a proper distributed defense, this generic mall doesn't stand a prayer against a well-coordinated zombie horde. Then there's the impact upon the game being too spread out upon the feral zombie. There are roughly 9,000 standing zombies. About 1,000 of them are active metagamers (ie. members of an organized horde that's on the stats page). Let's say another 3,000 aren't active everyday or are level 1's about to idle out. That leaves about 5,000 true feral zombie players (and that's being generous). That's only 50 feral zombies per suburb. It may sound like a lot, but if they're not coordinating then there's not going to be the same kind of specific targeting you get with the organized hordes, with only one (maybe two) ferals active in an area at a given time, they aren't going to break into an EHB building and if they do, it's going to be small enough that they can't obstruct the barricades to any effect. Essentially the feral zombie is completely alone and powerless unless they happen to be in the same suburb that a large horde is targeting, and even then they're going to have a hard time following them because of how quickly the organized hordes are gobbling up suburbs. All of this is a long way of saying that the quarantine zone in Malton needs to close in somewhat. I personally feel that the game would greatly benefit if Malton were reduced from a 10x10 suburb map into a 6x6 suburb map. Simply make the corner suburbs Darvall Heights, Santlerville, Gulsonside, and South Blythville. I know, I know... but I'm tearing up Creedy!?! I'm cutting Caiger in Half!?! I'm getting rid of Giddings and Perryn!?! I'm daring to completely do away with (insert your group's suburb here)!?! Yes. That is exactly what I'm proposing. If we get rid of 9 malls, all of a sudden we'll see the density of the population surge in the rest. If we get rid of 64 suburbs, the density of players in the rest of Malton suddenly increases three-fold. Survivors would suddenly be able to meatsheild again. Ferals would suddenly be in groaning distance of other ferals and create more organic break-ins. Large zombie hordes would have to chew their way through some suburbs building by building again. Survivors would be close enough to one another to, you know, help each other in case of zombie attack. This game needs a kick-start. I know it's asking a lot to abandon the sentimental attachments to certain places, but things are more fun if you have more people you're playing with. If we share a smaller area, then suddenly we've got a lot more neighbors to play with. Anyway, discuss.

Discussion (Narrow the Quarantine)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active conversation. It is marked for deletion in 2 days.

Less distribution of survivor forces that comes with fewer buildings makes it easier for the "bad" endgame to happen. I say "bad" because in zombie canon the zombies are the bad guys, and them winning is "bad." Fewer overall NTs makes it easier for groups of zombies to coordinate and stack up inside and it becomes exponentially easier to cut off survivors from revives. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:52, 17 April 2009 (BST)

What makes you think any single given building (especially a mall) must be defensible against a well co-ordinated zombie horde? Large, organized zombie groups SHOULD smash all that stands in their way. Theres only maybe 4 groups in a game that consistently approach that level, and even they can only take out a few buildings at a time. That leaves 96% of the suburbs and 99% of all buildings safe from major zombie attacks.
Suvivors don't need to cluster up and stage a static defense; in fact, they should do exactly the opposite. By spreading out and focusing on rapid recovery (IE, lots of revies, repairs, and cading) they ensure there is always someplace safe to move to. Shrink the city down, and you just make it so there's fewer places to run to once the area you are in gets wrecked.  Swiers 18:56, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Dang, BobBoberton got the ninja post. Basically the same idea.  Swiers 18:56, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Its also worth noting that the games population has at times been almost 3 times what is is now. It didn't make the game notably better, and lower populations don't make it worse.  Swiers 18:58, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Whoop whoop! Not to mention it's good to have room to grow if another invasion of the Dead or such happens or the game naturally gets more players. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:05, 17 April 2009 (BST)

I don't think it should be easy to defend against a well coordinated horde. I think it should be in the realm of a realistic possibility. Right now it's really not. Zombies have been running over malls on auto-pilot that we would have been forced to really try on in the past. Also, the game was much better when the population was higher (see: Blackmore, Caiger III, Shacknews at Stickling, Mall Tour II at Stickling, RRF at Santlerville). Finally, if the Dead invade again, Kevan will take care of it the way he always does, nerfing / buffing the game mechanics. Nothing prevents survivors from playing the game they're currently playing, it just gives them another option. Also the game is pretty horrible for ferals (moreso than usual) right now. -- Murray Jay Suskind 20:59, 17 April 2009 (BST)

I think you're vastly underrating the attachment some of these emotional retards have for "their" Suburbs. I was thinking of something along these lines (but only the outer 36 boundary burbs to start with and then shrink further if needed) but decided that getting such a thing passed would be a herculean effort, plus I wouldn't want all those suicides on my hands.--Zombie Lord 19:50, 17 April 2009 (BST)

It's not bad because of the act of eliminating "their" suburbs - there are other issues with this as well. See above. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:11, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I read it. I'm still not convinced it would be bad to shrink the City. It's just NEVER gonna happen because of the attachment people have for their burbs, even if it would improve the game.--Zombie Lord 20:37, 17 April 2009 (BST)

I'm not trying to get this past a peer review. Peer review doesn't remotely matter in getting a change implemented. I'm arguing this on the off chance that Kevan is actually reading this. -- Murray Jay Suskind 20:59, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, thats usually what I try to do...I don't even want to imagine the On Strike campaign someone like Mobius would try to organize if he though Dulston might go down though. Good luck at any rate. I think shrinking the city would be great for the game myself. Or better yet, a total redesign with less malls, less NTs, and an actual street plan that organized buildings into blocks cut off from each other as far as running lanes went.--Zombie Lord 21:14, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Again, this'd be something nice to do with a test city or a new city... in fact, I feel a suggestion coming on... --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:03, 17 April 2009 (BST)

This sounds like a "multiply it by a billion" kind of thing. A feral zombie CAN get through even the tougher barricades on their own. a "horde" of 3 can do quite a bit of damage even through that.--Pesatyel 04:12, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Call this a place holder for comments later. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:28, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Leave my Butt alone. >=( -- Cheese 12:10, 18 April 2009 (BST)

There could be problems with people's alts (ie: zerging, and keeping them outside of 10 squares with less squares) and as above, attachment to locations. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:02, 18 April 2009 (BST)

What you want is a new Monroeville or Borhamwood. Your idea has too many problems to be taken seriously. What happens to characters in the suburbs you are eliminating? Density might end up higher, but then you also eliminate a core idea of zombie canon--survivors SHOULDN'T clump up. They spread out and avoid the zombie hordes. Add in the problems that everyone else has already brought up and I tell you to quit whining. If the population bothers you, get more people to play the game! --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 13:10, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Exactly. IMO an organised zombie horde should tear down everything they come across. And even then, they still don't always win. And when they do, you should MOVE. Do the old "clean up behind them" tricks, etc. Sadly, your suggestion would just cluster fark MORE survivors and have the opposite effect of what you intended: more mallrats, etc. No, what K needs to do is make non-life for ferals easier somehow. --WanYao 19:44, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah, a zombie horde is SUPPOSED to come through every now and then. Hordes are good, as they leave ferals. But if there's less room, then hordes have less room to move, meaning more time in 1 place and more frequent visits, which becomes bad, as you might fix your whole 'burb, only to have the horde come back and wreck it. Time and AP wasted. to conclude, I don't like it. Sorakairi 03:14, 21 April 2009 (BST)

Just a note: you could keep all the suburbs and accomplish the overall map diminution by reducing the size of each suburb. Instead of getting rid of x% of suburbs, you get rid of x% of each suburb. 36 suburbs @ 100 squares = 100 suburbs @ 36 squares. I don't know that this particularly helps or hinders any arguments for or against this idea, its just another way to look at it.--Winton 16:24, 19 April 2009 (BST)

I thought about this at one point, but there comes a problem with the smaller the space the more likely alts are to run into each other. If you take away half of Malton you really start having a problem with keeping alts 2 burbs a part. Now I know with a game like this the whole alt separation thing is dependent on the person. But it would make it easier for zergs and griefers to do what they do, because there would be less space to hide from them. --Jelly Otter 05:29, 20 April 2009 (BST)

This requires game resetting. How do you get the people out of the areas before they're removed? --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:28, 27 April 2009 (BST)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Disembowel

This suggestion is now up for voting. It's discussion has been moved to its talk page. -- Cheese 16:03, 25 April 2009 (BST)

---