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

Fire Through 'Cades

Timestamp:	Sorakairi 05:42, 11 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement?
Scope:	Barricaded Buildings
Description:	Everyone is afraid of zombies standing outside their building right? well I think that Humans with all gun skills should now be able to fire through Loosely or Lightly Barricades, but they can't choose who to shoot at (to deal with the X-ray rule) and their accuracy is lowered from 65% to 35%, due to trying to fire through objects. They can fire through, even if there is no one there.

Discussion (Fire Through 'Cades)

I'll happily take any ideas you have, if you have any. Just don't flame me. I hate it when I'm flamed.Sorakairi 05:42, 11 May 2009 (BST)

You're going to be flamed heavily when you suggest something heavily duped and expressly covered in the guidelines. We can't shoot outside unless we can see out if there's something to shoot at all (or it's just plain stupid guesswork), and shooting zombies outside, even from inside, is a tremendous waste in the AP war we fight. Not to mention zombies can't fight back. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:50, 11 May 2009 (BST)

It would be good to have this as a skill you can buy, and have a skill that zombies can buy to match it ("Reach through Barricades," or something to that effect). That way, the two sides do not become unbalanced. -George Zip ^◆◆◆ 06:13, 11 May 2009 (BST)

Please tell me you're being sarcastic. I'm horrible at detecting it in text. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:21, 11 May 2009 (BST)

I think it would be hilarious if two survivors on either side of a barricade were accidentally shooting each other and they didn't know it. Wait a minute... No I don't! This suggestion is stupid! To find out why, look up. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:58, 11 May 2009 (BST)

I'm still not convinced this is a bad idea (and no, I'm not being sarcastic). Zombies can reach through the barricades in Night of the Living Dead, why shouldn't that be possible here? Just have a cap on it - you can't reach (or shoot) through above, say, QSB. I'd say the farmhouse in Night was QSB. -George Zip ^◆◆◆ 22:15, 11 May 2009 (BST)

There is a limit, you can only go through Loosely or Lightly Barricades. And I think that it would make a good skill. I just wasn't sure what to make it in suggestion type. and the zombie thing is good as well.Sorakairi 23:14, 11 May 2009 (BST) Well since some players keep arguing your ONLY allowed to deal with zombies if they break in (ie. you can ONLY be on the defensive), why not? One of the basic tenants of the game is that, if you want to attack/kill an enemy you have to risk they would retaliate.--Pesatyel 08:07, 11 May 2009 (BST)

Exactly. What in gods name does this achieve? Does it stop zeds from attacking? No, because they just stand up. Does it get XP? No, because the lowered accuracy just means you might as well just step outside. Can you PK? Not on purpose. This suggestions has nothing to offer. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:58, 11 May 2009 (BST)

I think the goons got bored with commemorating how they failed to break UD last year, and decided to troll Talk:Suggestions... Kinda like last year at this time... **suspicious look** --WanYao 10:46, 11 May 2009 (BST)

There is a limit, you can only go through Loosely or Lightly Barricades. And I think that it would make a good skill. I just wasn't sure what to make it in suggestion type. and the zombie thing is good as well. It achieves something. If your in a siege, and the zeds are smashing your 'cades down, you can fire through at them without endangering yourself. And if the opposite is happening, 'Reach Through 'Cades' is happening as well, then that adds a new feel of realism.Sorakairi 23:14, 11 May 2009 (BST)

Or, you can just barricade and actually keep them out instead of barely damaging their AP. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:12, 12 May 2009 (BST)

Insta-spam... not only is it unfair to be able to attack without endangering yourself, it's counter-productive. The only reason to go outside to shoot at zombies is for the XP or to clear revive points of rotters. This helps with neither, being indiscriminate and a hugely lower xp/ap rate. The only reason for a zombie to get upset about someone shooting them through the 'cades would be because of the blatant stupidity of it all -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:04 12 May 2009 (BST)

I don't know if you read what other people posted, but they say that Zeds should also be able to do this, but not firing, reaching through the 'cades. I reckon that'd be good, so I'd obviously rewrite it to apply to zeds and humans., but not as a cross skill like Body Building. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sorakairi (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 May 2009 (BST).

One person said that. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:03, 12 May 2009 (BST)

I had kept an open mind about this suggestion until someone above mentioned that survivors only had to step outside to nerf this completely. Why the hell would you want to fire from inside loosely or lightly 'caded buildings when you can get your full attack % by just stepping outside? And why would zombies who are close to bringing down a building's 'cades want to waste AP on diminished attacks? But I'll say one thing for it... it has potential for baby zombahs who don't yet have Memories of Life. They benefit from this, though the diminished attack makes it almost impossible for them to hit anything and they'd be more helpful to the horde working on the 'cades to crack the building in general. But since it would provide strong encouragement for players to continue as baby zombahs by providing better access to meat treats for them, it may be somehow salvageable from that perspective. I don't see any other value in it.--Necrofeelinya 05:13, 12 May 2009 (BST)

It is pretty obvious why survivors would want to do this. Sure, you have only half the chance to hit. However, you ALSO have up to 4 points of "armor", not to mention the fact that one could repair the armor for only 1 AP per AND free run away if they really had to.--Pesatyel 05:48, 12 May 2009 (BST)

Obvious to you, maybe. To me, it's obvious that it's a waste of time. Your 4 points of "armor" are nixed if, as has been discussed, zombies are given the same ability. I wouldn't even consider this suggestion without that. Besides, usually when a survivor steps outside the zombies in the area are dormant. Unless he stumbles upon a live one or into a mob so big that there are inevitably a few awake, he won't get bitten through a little adventurism. And even if he is bitten, the whole value of this is nixed if he has a single FAK to heal any infection. And this doesn't affect his ability to free run away... he can do that regardless, unless someone 'cades him out in the few minutes per day he's out fighting. I don't like the idea of removing that risk for him, as survivors already have it too easy in this game.--Necrofeelinya 07:54, 12 May 2009 (BST)

No, the "armor" benefit still really only applies to survivors. This ability only works if the barricade is set at lightly or lower. Given that, survivors can shoot out and zombies can reach in, but both attacks are, roughly, half normal. However, if the survivor wants to "maximize" his attack he can step out, take some shots and step back in with little difficulty. The zombie on the other hand has to tear through the 4 points of barricade to do the same thing, so it will take at least 4 AP for the zombie to do what the survivor can do with only 2 (probably close to 6 instead of 4). So that's a benefit that leans toward survivors. Also, the survivor can instantly nullify a zombie's ability to reach through with a mere 1 AP (taking the barricade QS) much easier/faster than a zombie can counter it. Basically put, even with the zombie counter ability to reach through, this suggestion still leans more heavily into the survivor side then zombies. Besides, its all pretty much moot anyway since this boils down to x-ray vision (which, again, favors survivors). But even then, IS it a bad thing?--Pesatyel 08:15, 12 May 2009 (BST)

Well I never thought that there would be this much argument. But I've thought about it, and say your a zed, and you've knocked the 'cades to Lightly or Loosely, but you've got 3-4 AP. You could take down the barricades some more, AP out and then the survivors re'cade OR you could reach through at lower accuracy and maybe get some XP and injure some zeds. I also think if this goes on much longer, I'm going to rewrite this and put it back on here more detailed. Sorakairi 23:19, 12 May 2009 (BST)

---

Suicide With A Vengeance

Timestamp:	Necrofeelinya 02:31, 9 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Players in tall buildings
Description:	Since we all seem to think suicide could use a bit of an upgrade, here's my idea. 1. Add descriptive message for people in room and outside building. Thus, As seen inside: "(player) leaps out a window to their death." As seen outside: "(player) leaps out an upper-story window to their death, making a sickening thud as they land." 2. Add a feature where you type in text in the speech box without hitting the speak button, then jump, and your character is seen by those inside to say a message while jumping, without the waste of an AP for doing so. Thus, a message might read "(player) said 'Grab mah manbagz harmanz' and then plunged out the window to his death." instead of the character spending an AP to say "Grab mah manbagz harmanz" and then another to jump. 3. Make suicides a targetable attack against players outside the building. Add the option to the attack dropdown menu. Immediate outdoor square only, 10% chance to hit, 20 damage, attacker has only a 10% chance of survival, and if he survives he loses 4/5ths of his Max HP and gets a Grievous Injury, similar in effect to Infectious Bite, costing 1 HP per move, but only for 20 moves. The bleed from Grievous Injuries would be accompanied by its own descriptive message, different from infectious bite, indicating that the character is horribly wounded and bleeding to death. FAKs cure the HP drain from Grievous Injuries same as Infectious Bites. If the character chooses to enter text in the speech box before a targeted attack like this, everyone outside the building hears it as well as those within, in the form of an all-caps scream. Successful attacks would result in their own descriptive messages... victims would get a message like "you suddenly look up, but too late as a blurred form crashes down on you with the weight of an anvil." Human players would see something like "You look on in shock as (player) leaps from a tall building onto (player) below. The devastating impact knocks both of them to the ground." Zombie players would get a message like "You watch dispassionately as (player) leaps from a nearby tall building onto (player) below. The sight of fresh meat sharpens your hunger." Both players would be knocked down by the impact in a successful attack. In the event of an unsuccessful attack, the character's dying scream, if any, would be accompanied by the normal outside descriptive message as shown in part 1. Just to clarify: The computer knows who's outside the building, so here's how it would work. You know how the control panel presents attack options in a format of "(Attack button) (Dropdown target menu) with (weapon dropdown menu)"? Just add the names of targetable people outside the building to the dropdown target menu with an asterisk indicating that they're outside. If they're selected, the only available option on the weapon dropdown menu becomes "Suicide leap". The targets wouldn't appear in any way on the actual map until you've actually jumped and ended up outside, but this would represent someone leaning out the window in preparation for killing themselves fairly well. 4.And just because some zombies might want to munch on survivors who jump from a suicide attack and survive, but refuse to get up immediately, I'd also like to add a suggestion that the "feed on corpse" option should do 3 HP of damage to downed characters who haven't yet been either pricked with a syringe or syringed with a prick, so that you can kill someone who refuses to get up. Their bodies should be discernable from corpses by a slightly different descriptive message... something like "There is a gasping, wounded survivor on the ground in front of you". Then you eat them. There's nothing more appealing than mashed harman, a pained, writhing snack just waiting to be consumed. Yes, I just added this part a day after the original post. Yes, it makes the change even bigger. So what. It's meaty and delicious. Summary: This change would add descriptive messages to suicides, combine saying your final words with the jump function in one descriptive message as a single move, and allow for an attempt at kamikaze jumping directly onto people out in the street, with a low chance of success and a near-guarantee of death but glorious results worth bragging about if you pull it off and live. And it would do it all without adding a single button to the control panel, just an added attack to the dropdown menu, so it wouldn't clutter the game screen. And it now allows for finishing off downed survivors and makes "feed on corpse" a much more useful and appealing skill.

Discussion (Suicide With A Vengeance)

The whole "damage you take from falling" is overly complex and I'd also like to think a method that guarantees death should be available. Oh, and this little part: "Both players would be knocked down by the impact in a successful attack." What? UD supports falling down? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:02, 9 May 2009 (BST)

There is a method that guarantees death. It's called "not jumping on someone". Just commit suicide as usual. The only reason you'd get a chance to live under this suggestion is because you used someone beneath you to break your fall. As for the damage, it's not very complex at all. You get a chance to do damage to an opponent, like a normal attack. If you hit, you do 20 damage by falling on them from a great height. The damage to yourself is 4/5ths of your Max HP provided you make your 10% RNC to not die immediately, so if you're not at max that also can kill you right off, but if you are you incur an effect similar to Infectious Bite, but caused by blood loss instead of infection. It's easy to cure with a FAK. And yes, UD supports falling down. At least it does for zombies, I don't see why it would be impossible to do for survivors as well, and the only difference between a zombie falling down upon being killed and a zombie or survivor falling down this way would be that the HP wouldn't reset at max when they stand up unless the damage incurred killed them.--Necrofeelinya 05:18, 9 May 2009 (BST)

"Falling down" amounts to invincibility then, yeah? We can't attack downed bodies, after all. In UD, you're either standing and alive (or alive-ish, for zombies) or down on the ground and dead. Suggestions centered around feigning death get shot down for a reason. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:29, 11 May 2009 (BST)

Dealt with that more than a day ago by adding damage to "feed on corpse" and a different description for downed survivors than corpses. You may have been too busy arguing with Kamikaze Bunny and Pesatyel below about stuff that's not in the suggestion to notice. : )--Necrofeelinya 05:00, 12 May 2009 (BST)

You've added too many suggestions in one go. Grievous Injury is worth a suggestion in itself, and being able to target players outside a building is a slight breach of the X-Ray rule. I admire the flavour text addition with the suicide option though. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:06, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Number one is definitely a dupe. Number two I think is also a dupe. And number three is impossible as it is: you can't see who's outside, so how the hell can you target any of them? If you change it so that you can see who's outside, then it's X-Ray Vision. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:06, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Well, the computer knows who's outside the building, so here's how it would work. You know how the control panel presents attack options in a format of "(Attack button) (Dropdown target menu) with (weapon dropdown menu)"? Just add the names of targetable people outside the building to the dropdown target menu with an asterisk indicating that they're outside. If they're selected, the only available option on the weapon dropdown menu becomes "Suicide leap". The targets wouldn't appear in any way on the map until you've actually jumped and ended up outside, but this would represent someone leaning out the window in preparation for killing themselves fairly well. In fact, now that the notion of seeing who's outside comes up, I could see making the case for outdoor target anonymity, giving only the option of choosing between zombie or human targets to jump on, or even just total anonymity, you don't know who you'll hit because all you can see is the top of their head. But I don't know if that's necessary... it depends what people prefer. I kind of like the option of picking a specific target.--Necrofeelinya 00:41, 10 May 2009 (BST)

I'm in favour of targeted suicides, but it would probably be simpler and more fun to have an instant kill for both players on a successful hit (acc 5%). The problem is getting it to work with out breaking the X-Ray rule... wait I got it.

-Jump

-Are you sure

-As you fall to the ground, wind whistling past your ears you see Player x, Player y & Player z

-Aim for Player x/Player y/Player z/the ground

-You hit Target... HARD!

--Kamikazie-Bunny 14:55, 9 May 2009 (BST)

So, I get to make decisions mid-air. Where exactly is my character at this time, is he inside or outside? Can he be attacked or healed? What happens if I don't choose at all and just wait? How long do I have to make a choice, if the time is limited? When do the flavour messages appear to others, is it when I jump or when I choose the target? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 23:53, 9 May 2009 (BST)

I think some of those answers speak for themselves, don't they? I mean, for example, if I scan a zombie and I am presented with the option of reviving said zombie, the option doesn't go away if the zombie moves will I'm trying to decide to revive him or not (at least not that I'm aware of).--Pesatyel 07:09, 10 May 2009 (BST)

Funny, that's one of the questions I didn't ask. I don't think you realize the problem here. KB's suggesting that you're already committed to jumping when you click the "Are you sure?" button, but still have time to make choices, and as far as I can tell, can't go back (in order to keep it from allowing X-ray vision). Scanning and reviving is very different from this. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:00, 10 May 2009 (BST)

Yes, but it appears, to me, that your confusing REALISM with GAME MECHANICS. Your trying to argue that a person jumping out a window would not have the request time to look around, see Bob and then aim for him all while already falling. That is irrelevant because this is a game mechanics issue not a realism issue (I could argue that it would take a similar amount of time for a survivor to dna extract a zombie, read the information, take out his syringe on a "revivable" result, move around to position the syringe at the correct location and use it). The game mechanics are very simple, which is why I used the scan/revive comparison. The idea, as I am reading it, has nothing to do with how much time it takes to perform an action, but only on the mechanics of the game and what happens as a result of the button pressed. Nothing more. If I scan a zombie, the button immediately comes up to revive if I choose. If I jump out of the window (after the are you sure button is pressed) the "chose a target" (or whatever) button immeidately comes up to attempt to hit someone if I choose. Pressing those buttons (revive or hit target [X]) happens regardless of how much time in reality has passed OR how much time in game has passed, with the only stipulation being whether the target moves before the button is pressed. We can't have it be "x-ray vision" so the ONLY way to make it work is to make the choice AFTER you've started the jump. Expedience trumps virtue (presuming the idea is a good one in the first place).--Pesatyel 21:53, 10 May 2009 (BST)

And my point goes right over your head. Don't tell me what I'm trying to argue; realism isn't it. Real and game time are largely irrelevant to my actual problem with this. Ignore the "How long" question for now, and please, try to answer the other questions I asked. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 00:22, 11 May 2009 (BST)

AAAh, ok, I see what your trying to say now. I think I was over simplifying. Beyond that, I can't answer since its Kamizakie's idea, but I'd imagine that your technically "unavailable" for anything.--Pesatyel 08:03, 11 May 2009 (BST)

And you see no problem with someone being unreachable by anyone, while still being able to attack? With a massive 20 HP damage? But this discussion is becoming pointless since the author is going with a solution that gives x-ray vision. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:28, 11 May 2009 (BST)

I didn't say I didn't see a problem with it, merely offering a possibility since the original "idea" we are discussing belonged to someone else. Beyond that, I think we got off on a tangent since its not likely this idea will work period.--Pesatyel 02:12, 12 May 2009 (BST)

Also you seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding that you can stand and scan at an RP for whatever amount of time you want but if you jump out of a building gravity is going to make a pancake out of you in a few seconds. Unless players can float. I don't think players can float. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:29, 11 May 2009 (BST)

Fundamental lack of understanding of what? Why are you arguing realism? Did you even read anything that was said above? The scan/revive was a comparitive example of a button that occurs when another button is pressed. In this instance, the option to revive appears BECAUSE you scanned the zombie, the same way the option to land on someone appears BECAUSE you jumped out the window. I was describing a mechanics issue. What does realism have to do with it?--Pesatyel 08:03, 11 May 2009 (BST)

Woosh. Where are you when you hit the "Yes" response to "Are you sure?" when jumping out of a window? Floating in never-never land? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 08:08, 11 May 2009 (BST)

What part of it being an issue of GAME MECHANICS and not REALISM do you not understand?--Pesatyel 02:12, 12 May 2009 (BST)

I do understand it. Explain the "GAME MECHANICS" of it, please. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:05, 12 May 2009 (BST)

You HAVE been reading the discussion, right? The primary problem with the idea is x-ray vision. Thus to solve the problem, you cannot pick your target until you've made the choice to jump. So, for intents and purposes, you ARE "hovering in the air" until you make the decision which target you want to hit. Why? Because it is a requirement of the game mechanics to overcome the x-ray vision. If you go by only realism, you would have to look out the window, see Bob standing below, then jump out aiming for him. Obviously you can't do that the way the game works. In other words, the game mechanic in question is x-ray vision.--Pesatyel 05:56, 12 May 2009 (BST)

Alright. So when you jump (mid-air now), are you inside, outside, or neither (in another "room")? Can you see other falling players? Can you interact with them? Can you remain in this falling room indefinitely? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:54, 12 May 2009 (BST)

First of all, its not my job to decide those. Neither the main suggestion under which this discussion is happening is mine nor is the side idea thought up by kamakizie-bunny. I was merely pointing out that it was a question of mechanics (to which all of your questions are as well). Not to mention I don't really like this idea in the first place.--Pesatyel 08:05, 12 May 2009 (BST)

---

Suicide Improvement

Timestamp:	--Kamikazie-Bunny 22:47, 8 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Jumpers
Description:	Any dedicated zombie knows that combat revives can be a pain but are easily negated by suicide. Whilst it may appear to be an easy choice with a low AP cost suicide should never be taken lightly. The blunt trauma inflicted across the entire body can quite easily exceed the effects of a well aimed cricket bat to the head. With that in mind I present the following: 1) When a player commits suicide by jumping from a tall building they must spend an extra 5AP to stand up. 2) Any player inside/outside a building a player jumps from receives the message "Player jumped out a window".

Discussion (Suicide Improvement)

Part two is a dupe, as below. As for part one, I don't think brain-rot zed players should be punished for getting combat revived. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:00, 8 May 2009 (BST)

Part two was pretty much inspired by that minus the radius but it's only flavour and entirely optional. The penalty is not intended to punish Zombies, it is intended to add a bit more realism and balance. Yes CR's are annoying but they cost the user and Rot also helps counter, the ability to (literally) jump to zeds and stand up for as little as 2AP and with full health is a bit unfair, my alternative idea would be standing up at 1/2 health (similar to being revived) but I fear there may be more opposition. --Kamikazie-Bunny 00:03, 9 May 2009 (BST)

I loathe this suggestion (the AP loss part of it anyway), but there is a change to suicide that I would support... letting people use suicide as a targeted attack against anyone in the immediate space outside the building. Lots o' damage, not a great chance to hit, but it would be oh-so worth it to try. Also, I don't think I've ever seen a suicide from outside a building, or if so I haven't noticed. Is it accompanied by a descriptive message? It should be. Especially if they land on you. What a great way to encourage people to jump off of tall buildings.--Necrofeelinya 00:41, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Oh, and to juice it more, give it a 10% chance that when you jump off a building and successfully land on someone, you don't die right away, instead losing 4/5ths of your Max HP immediately and get a condition called Grievous Injury, which has basically the same effect as infectious bite, but stops costing HP after the first 20... that way you can stay alive (barely) even if it's just by drinking tons of beer, but if you don't do anything to heal pretty quickly you'll croak.--Necrofeelinya 01:08, 9 May 2009 (BST)

You want to give all buildings free headshot? Fuck you!

Let's look at Newbie Zombie A. Newbie Zombie A has only Vigour Mortis, but he wants to play in character so he spends a day attacking a building. With his last AP he enters the building as any good zombie should. Unfortunately NZA doesn't know that this building is a NT because he doesn't metagame in anyway, even to the point of never looking at the wiki. He's the 10 minutes a day casual player this game is supposed to be for, not us hours a day way to serious pseudo tacticians. He can't even tell which buildings are NTs even when he grows up as there's no skill to tell him and he refuses to buy harman skills. Now, back to his break in. So, when he's asleep and swaying, one of you mighty mathematical warriors saunter over to him and sticks a needle in the back of his head, first time, every time, putting him down in a single shot. Now hypocrites that you are you don't seem to think it odd that you can walk up to a sleeping zombie, place a pistol to its head and still miss 35% of the time but anything other than a 100% hit ratio for delicate and precise medical procedures is a game breaking nerf that will cause the extinction of all survivor kind, but I digress.

When NZA wakes up in the morning with his daily AP he has to stand up, this costs him 10AP because he does not have Ankle Grab, this is more than a fifth of his daily AP, a very damaging loss to him. Now his problems aren't over, he wishes to play in character and not buy any harman skills or spend time breathing so he has to die to play in character. Now he can't immediately jump out the window because the maths warriors have dumped his body and caded past VSB. He could wait for a passing zombie to kill him, but he wants to have his turn today and he can only play for 10 minutes a day, so he goes looking to die. So he must find a tall building with cades at VSB or less, he doesn't have free running remember, enter and jump. I'll be exceedingly generous and say this process takes 5AP, something I consider a smaller amount than it would actually take him. Now NZA jumps and he must stand up, this now costs him 15AP due to your dumb 'buildings have headshot' suggestion. Finally though, he can play as the in-genre character he's chosen to.

Since all you number crunchers love the equations, let's do the maths. 10AP to stand from the needle + 5AP to search and enter and jump + 15AP to stand from suicide due to the street having headshot = 30AP to play as the in-genre character type. That's 62.5% of his daily AP to play as a zombie in a zombie apocalypse game! And because he doesn't have the XP yet to buy Brain Rot, there's nothing to stop you doing that to him again tomorrow, or the next day, or every day until he decides that he doesn't want to play a game where someone can spend 14AP to remove 30 of his, and with his remaining 28AP he can at most move 14 squares and then do nothing, or attack where he stands 28 times at 35% and hope he can get lucky, remove the cades and get in some valuable XP earning shots on a harman.

Fuck you on behalf of every casual zombie player who takes the time to log in every day even though cunts like you would piss and cry if your 100% hit ratio was taken away for the same balance your try and claim when you go out of your way to fuck the casual player this game was designed for and the zombie players who make this game what it is. Retards like you make them leave this game, and we take one step closer to Urban PKer being the next update to the game's name. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:22, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Agreed entirely. Also, Dupe. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:27, 9 May 2009 (BST)

I didn't think that would count as a dupe because it was removed from voting for "revisioning".

As for Iscariots emo-esque rant...

Paragraph 1 (I'm ignoring that first sentance) - Congratulations for NZA getting into a NT which is most probably EHB (from your description either the suburb is full of survivors or be attacked by a strike team who are prioritising NTs). I agree that syringes should not be 100% accurate, so don't start bitching to me cause its not like I see you doing anything about it.

Paragraph 2 - So NZA has the normal stand up cost (which is another thing I feel needs changing), gets up and out right decides that he wants nothing to do with the survivor side... Ok, I'll accept that this player has a zombie fetish/hates humanity/odd (if he hated humanity he'd probably turn G/R/PKiller when alive. He then decides he wants to commit suicide (I'm assuming that he has been playing long enough to have broke into a few tall buildings and find out what suicide is and simultaneously not figured out how to spend XP/spent it on the scent tree as opposed to something obviously more beneficial).

Once again you've outlined the ideal situation for your argument and probably not considered the other end of the spectrum where experienced player use this mechanic to abuse the system. I'm not going to bother arguing about it with you, in fact I thank you for actually putting some effort into your response as opposed to just doing your traditional 'dupe without a link', even though you did result to the 'play as a zombie, you've never played as a zombie, if you had played as a zombie you would feel the way I do' whining that you do so well, but then again without that and your angst it wouldn't have your trade mark internet tough guy mark. I must admit your last paragraph was a little weaker than the rest of it though, the whole "fuck you on behalf of" was done not to long ago and to much greater effect. I'm not sure how you figured it was zombies who make this game what it is, true it would be fairly boring without them, but it would probably be even more boring without survivors (zombies DO have less things to entertain themselves with), the game is about both sides. As for your final thought, If I could make players who only played one side of the game leave I would, granted that would probably include you but telling you to fuck of is a bit pointless and we both know it, if more people played dual nature it would be better in my opinion. I know this may be difficult for you to fathom but one of my characters is a lvl 2 zed with shopping, the rot and excess XP and it's the only player I'm not playing dual nature with, considering how I spend most of my time as a zombie because I don't actively use a cemetery to get revived I probably know just as much as you (if not more) about playing as a zombie without LG&AG as you do. Either way if other people agree this version sucks I'll put the alternate version up for discussion anyway. --Kamikazie-Bunny 14:45, 9 May 2009 (BST)

A free headshot in every tall building =/= good idea. Why the fuck screw over zombie players like this?? Why not, as Iscariot rightly points out, nerf our 100% to hit, 100% effective anti-zombie attack? Sure, you don't like CRs? Get rot! But... wait... your suggestion screws me for getting rot!!! Great. Fucking. Idea.

And, if being a better writer and having more acute critical thinking skills than you makes Iscariot "emo"... Then I'm off to buy my tortiseshell glasses right now!! --WanYao 15:12, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Don't forget your little sisters makeup and jeans! D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:25, 9 May 2009 (BST)

But seriously, listen to Iscariot. Or Wan, who can sum it up in much smaller rant. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:27, 9 May 2009 (BST)

I'm not sure how this screws over rotters? Could you clarify that a bit please. The whole point of this suggestion is to make suicide less appealing, it doesn't stop you doing it but it makes you think that little bit more about before you do it. If your concerned about making every AP count then attack the barricades and wait outside for the hoard to retake you or play as a survivor until your inevitable demise. The emo comment, well that's just a different interpretation, I was referring to the attitude he used (AII) not the content which is pretty solid but biased. I have actually read Iscs comment numerous times, it's not exactly easy reading though. To summarise how I read it, "this screws over newbies who commit suicide every time they're revived". --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:07, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Do you actually play a dedicated zombie, KB? One usually buys rot to play a dedicated zombie. If a rotter is CRed in an NT and choses to jump -- which is what dedicated rotters do -- he now pays an extra 5 ap for it. Shafted. Wait, let the other zombies eat me? Did you know that's a big waste of AP which could be better spent on barricades or on eating survivors? This suggestion sucks because it screws over people who play a totally legitimate style. And, your emo comments just paint you as an in-the-closet jocko homo, and are lame. Like this suggestion. --WanYao 19:29, 9 May 2009 (BST)

As I mentioned earlier my dedicated zombie has the rot and nothing else, my others are dual natured. I wouldn't say this screws over a legitimate way of playing, it just means that every time you commit suicide there's a penalty. And now we come back to the age old argument that there's only 1% of the map where rotters can't be revived, if they hate being revived don't go to those places. As it stands enough people don't appear to want it so feel free to let it die unless the mood switches. --Kamikazie-Bunny 21:15, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Wow. I'm glad this is going to be left to die, because no matter how many times we say it, and how many different ways we word it, you're totally missing the point. Even though you just agreed with me, you still don't get it... And, playing a level 2 feral does NOT count as playing a dedicated zombie, sorry. And FTR no one is whining about rotters getting CRed in NTs, as you seem to be implying. Dedicated rotters accept that they may be CRed in NTs. But then after you misapprehend (and misrepresent) that rotters are whining, you tell them to stay away from the most strategically important buildings in the game??? If that weren't so contemptable, it'd be laughable. If you comprehended zombie play better, none of this would even be an argument. And, finally, "the mood won't change": this is a bad idea and it will remain a bad idea. Period. Now go back to calling people "emo" and pretending you're butch... --WanYao 21:56, 9 May 2009 (BST)

"... there's only 1% of the map where rotters can't be revived, if they hate being revived don't go to those places." You sure don't sound any kind of experienced to me. Please try again. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:03, 9 May 2009 (BST)

I accepted that as a typo and let it go. Even that latitude, however, doesn't change the fact that basically everything KB has argued in favour of this bad idea is totally fallacious. It's shit like this which is why some of us become "trollish" on Talk:Suggestions... the constant stream of newbie suggestions from people who can't be arsed to read the Freq Suggested page, interspersed with people who think they know shit and arrogantly ignore and dismiss what everyone else says as "just some passing emo mood swing"... And when it rains, it pours... --WanYao 01:35, 10 May 2009 (BST)

Iscariot expressed everything I was thinking while reading this suggestion. Think about the effects this will have on both sides of the game before suggesting something. --Pestolence^(talk) 16:02, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Combat Reviving isn't used for the AP drain on the zombie - just getting the zombie out as fast and reliably as possible. The extra 5AP to stand up from a fall just seems randomly punishing. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:29, 9 May 2009 (BST)

I might have supported this if it weren't for the fact that we need those die-hard zombies to have a 30-40% zombie population. This should technically encourage dual nature, but then you need to encourage survivors to play dual nature too, not just the zombies. - User:Whitehouse 17:08, 9 May 2009 (BST)

first of all, it's my first time posting... so be gentle with me please... *makes 'oowww' noise* I guess this suggestion does make a nice way of viewing the game... but as people know, being a SURVIVOR means you want to... well... surprise... SURVIVE. even if you were a undead, now you feel alive, or you wouldn't have the "adrenaline rush"... so... the chance on hitting someone outside wouldn't count as much as the chance to TAKE THE GUTS to jump from a REALLY DARN TALL BUILDING. let's face it, it's not like it's going to happen so often... tall buildings aren't that rare, are they? they are? oh christ... anyways... i don't know by you guys, but the chance of hitting someone while falling must be quite impossible, (as MythBusters told me so, lol). then you should redo it a little bit... like a little chance to take the guts to jump off the building and a even smaller chance to hit somebody... unless you're a total psyco who simply wants to kamikaze (erm... sorry... haven't seen your nickname untill now...). rotten brains really aren't that easy to get the shock from the falling... i mean... no neural system and all... so same amount of AP to stand up, i guess... no headshot for those. if the building is so tall it can kill somebody when u fall, it should kill you, even tho you use somebody as a "soft bed"... if you can survive from the falling, the person you fall over really should survive also... physics, sorry, bro. 4/5 of the HP seems too much for me... i mean... YOU @!@#!# FELT FROM A BUILDING!!! COM'ON!!!! that means if i'm a regular full-lifed person (like, let's say, an macdonald's eater...) i would get to 10HP... looks simple to me... let's grab a FAK and jump! if i got bodybuilding... well, u do the math, i'm simply not in the mood... feels like i would get it a little down a bit... with the same wounds effect... but... only SURGERY would fix me! com'on! IM BLEEDING! and i can't perform surgery while i'm BLEEDING AND DYING AND COFFING AND SO! zombies could easily access me while i'm on the floor also... and because i'm bleeding and my skin is like... ruined (plastical surgery?) i would be easier to be taken HP from (feeding). if i think in any more suggestions for your suggestion... well... i'll post it here. even tho the details are like... well... the general idea sounds fair. --HentaiX 06:11, 10 May 2009 (BST)

now THAT was emo --WanYao 06:20, 10 May 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I don't know, but there's been a surge of people around here with the SELECTIVE CAPS so that they can EMPHASIZE certain things and make themselves look silly. Now we've got tons of ellipses and more AOLspeak, too! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:45, 10 May 2009 (BST)

I don't know what "AOLspeak" means. --WanYao 10:23, 10 May 2009 (BST)

I think the widespread acknowledgement of this idea being more retarded than a sysop justifies what I wrote and makes KB look like a brat. The only thing I will comment on is "probably not considered the other end of the spectrum where experienced player use this mechanic to abuse the system" - What? As opposed to survivor players who get PKed, stand up for one AP and stand up for another one AP after being revived? Odd how zombies standing after returning to their play style for 2AP is 'abusing the system' but a survivor doing it is all fine and dandy.... I think we have a positive trenchie diagnosis. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:18, 10 May 2009 (BST)

Well, let's look at Newbie Survivor A. Newbie Survivor A has only Free Running, but he wants to play in character so he spends the day scouting the area, and uses his last AP to get to a safehouse as any good survivor should. Unfortunately NSA doesn't know that this building is an NT because he doesn't metagame in any way, to the point of never looking at the wiki. Blah di blah di blah, zombies come in and kill him.

When NSA wakes up in the morning with his daily AP he has to stand up, this costs him 10AP because he doesn't have Ankle Grab, this is more than a fifth of his daily AP, a very damaging loss to him. Now his problems aren't over, he wishes to play in character and not buy any zombie skills or spend time smelling funny so he has to become revived to play in character. Now he can't revive himself, so he needs to find a revive point. Since he doesn't metagame, the only way to tell where the RP's are is by graffiti - first he has to find graffiti, then he has to get to the actual RP. I'll be exceedingly generous and say this process takes 10AP, something I consider a smaller amount than it would actually take him. Now NSA has to wait for a revive, which is even more AP gone to waste. A survivor then has to spend 10AP on reviving him, and NSA is forced to spend another 10AP getting up. Finally though, he can play as the in-genre character he chose to.

Since all you number crunchers love the equations, let's do the maths. 10AP to stand from death + 10AP to search an RP + 10AP to stand from the needle = 30AP to play as the in-genre character type. That's 62.5% of his daily AP to play as a survivor in a zombie apocalypse game! And because he doesn't want to buy the zombie skill Ankle Grab, there's nothing to stop you doing that to him again tomorrow, or the next day, or every day until he decides that he doesn't want to play a game where someone can spend 16AP to remove 30 of his (upon getting revived, he'll have 25HP), and with his remaining 28AP he can at most move 14 squares and then do nothing, or attack where he stands 28 times at 10% and hope he can get lucky, do some 1-damage punches and gain at least a little XP.

I say, zombies killing people will only discourage newbies from playing the game at all! Let's make a policy where zombies don't get to make survivors dead anymore. I hope you realise now how silly it is to complain about combat revives? --LaosOman 08:31, 12 May 2009 (BST)

Combat revives are still silly. And, I think it should more expensive for survivors to get revived - it's as you said, a zombie apocalypse game, not "let's have a party in Malton!" or "PKer Apocalypse." --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:10, 12 May 2009 (BST)

Look at your math from the newbie zombie point of view. No ankle grab + headshot = 15AP stand-up and happens almost everyday in many/most burbs. That leaves only 35AP and bugger all chance to do anything but scratch ineffectually at the barricades, without a stroke of luck they are probably not going to earn more than 10XP a day until they have at least 1 or 2 more skills. Your level one scout on the other hand will probably only make the "OOOPS, I camped in an NT" mistake once before working out where he is and thus will almost always be somewhere none descript and strongly (or better) caded for the rest of his UD life. A smart (and lucky) survivor can go months without ever dying or even seeing a zombie, while a zed will be lucky to make it over a weekend unless he is in the middle of a dead burb or huge horde--Honestmistake 19:34, 12 May 2009 (BST)

---

The OTHER Gun Range

Timestamp:	Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 13:24, 8 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Flavour change
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	Allows survivors in Forts to use the target ranges for weapon practice. You spend 1 AP to place a target, which then appears in the Attack menu, listed AFTER all the survivor names as "Range target" (as is the way with the generator, barricades etc.) The target can take 6 hits, after which you will see the message The target falls over. You then need to set it back up. No XP benefit for hitting the target, but 1 XP is given for a target kill. This will encourage survivors with free time to use the targets, but at a rate where the gain is minimal.

Discussion (The OTHER Gun Range)

I like it, although the having to stand the target back up again seems like an unnecessary extra. It would be nice if the hit message had some flavour such as "You score (RNG^1-10x10) points" as a suffix with 1XP being rewarded for scoring 100 points. That way you still get the slow XP gain, but don't have to bother standing the target back up. --Kamikazie-Bunny 15:59, 8 May 2009 (BST)

Meh. This basically makes no sense to me, sorry. It's kind of pointless. You want a better idea? Here... The Fort Armouries and all PDs now have firing ranges. You can attack a firing range target. Flavour text is irrelevant but wuold exist. For each shot you take, you have a 10% chance of gaining an XP, which is just like reading a book. It does use ammo, of course. Survivors really don't need new ways to level up, but this is such a huge waste of AP that it's "why the hell not?"

Ain't that better than all these other lousy suggestions? Simple. Straightforward. To the point. Parallels a current game mechanic to boot. That's how you do a suggestion... And I made this up on the spot. Oh... and suicide as an attack?? That's just fucking retarded. --WanYao 14:56, 9 May 2009 (BST)

I like that idea.--Pesatyel 18:45, 9 May 2009 (BST)

It's not bad, is it? :) --WanYao 19:35, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Well people need to be reminded of K.I.S.S. and it IS something survivors would probably do.--Pesatyel 07:10, 10 May 2009 (BST)

I know, lol. It'd probably pass Peer Review, too. --WanYao 10:28, 10 May 2009 (BST)

So suggest it?--Pesatyel 08:08, 11 May 2009 (BST)

---

"THUD"

Timestamp:	Winton 06:14, 8 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Flavor
Scope:	All players
Description:	This is a pure flavor suggestion. I propose a script addition to accompany the suicidal leap of a player returning to the state of BARHAH. Script: You hear a looooong scream cut short by a dull "THUD." Range: Audible within a one block radius of the event. No direction given.

Discussion (THUD)

In favor of reminding combat revivers that it takes minimal AP to their 15+ AP to be a zombie. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:27, 8 May 2009 (BST)

17 seconds. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:00, 8 May 2009 (BST)

"Dooh!" (Smacks head.) And I really looked for the dupe too, darn it. Thanks, Iscariot.--Winton 13:11, 8 May 2009 (BST)

---

Sewers (work-in-progress)

Timestamp:	--YoEleven 11:31, 6 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Predominantly zombie players, players unable to find building access.
Description:	I have never understood why, beyond extra coding work for big-K, that Malton has never had a sewer system. Having sewers accessable via man-holes would allow zombies and survivors alike an alternative method for travelling around the city - underground. For ease of negotiation there could be a simple north-south and east-west grid system with sewer tubes running at intervals of every fourth or fifth block. Likewise man-hole access points could be limited to all 'street' blocks - And no access into a building of course. Access to the street could be marked by a message of "you can see light coming from a hole leading to the street above" or something of that ilk. AP cost for entering or exiting the sewer system would be the same as that of entering or exiting buildings. Once inside the sewers, due to darkness, players would only be able to see others in their current block much like players inside buildings currently do. This would provide limited cover for survivors hiding out inside the sewer system instead of being trapped outside on the street, plus it would allow zombie hordes to mask their numbers by sleeping underground if they so choose.

Discussion (Sewers)

Dupe, many times over. Sorry. --Pestolence^(talk) 12:01, 6 May 2009 (BST)

Too bad. Maybe it should also be on the frequently suggested ideas page as I have a short memory and might bring it back up again in a month. --YoEleven 19:03, 6 May 2009 (BST)

It's on the talk page at Frequently Suggested now, anyone who wants to give an opinion on Sewers being added to the Frequently Suggested List can make it known there. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:47, 6 May 2009 (BST)

Actually, NOT a dupe. Thing is, the author did not give us enough information. We neec more game mechanics. The problem with the "dupe" system is that people tend to go off titles only. YES this idea has been submitted several times. But that doesn't mean it can't be suggested again.--Pesatyel 04:09, 8 May 2009 (BST)

It is a dupe. The mechanic will be another submap below the current one with intersecting entrances and exits. This has been suggested since time immemorial, it's not liked or wanted by the community. And Kevan has implemented it even though he's taken multiple ideas from peer rejected, it's a dupe, it's dead. Get. Over. It. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:21, 8 May 2009 (BST)

---

Marksmanship (Work-in-progress)

Timestamp:	Alexandy 05:07, 6 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors with guns who have Basic Firearms Training
Description:	Gives survivors the ability to lean out of the windows of a building and fire at a zombie outside of the building. Simply because we have idiots who barricade up to EHB while we are outside fending off an invasion of our current safehouse. Chance of hit drops 2%-3%, damage remains satus-quo.

Discussion (Marksmanship)

Shooting zombies outside is a stupid idea, why should we be encouraging it? Also you do realise you can always exit a building if you do want to go outside and do this? So saying that people are barricading above VSB doesn't actually stop you going outside. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:21, 6 May 2009 (BST)

He means "We go outside to shoot, and in the minute we're outside someone active inside cades up so we can't get back in," I think. It's still a positively moronic argument. You want to be a trenchie and spit in the face of real survivor goals, you deserve it if you get caught outside by cades. Fend off invasions from the inside, where you can actually keep them out. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:24, 6 May 2009 (BST)

I like how some players tell others how to play (ie. "shooting zombies outside is stupid"). Of course, I'm doing the same, in a way, with regards to this suggestion. This HAS been suggested a lot. The problem with it is that ZOMBIES ARE PLAYERS TOO All this does is gives EVERY survivor in the building as much as 21 points of "armor" that zombies have to get through to get to the survivor who is shooting at them. And since said survivor is actively shooting, they can spend an AP to keep the barricades from falling too. And then probably Free Run away for an AP if the barricades did fall. While it may be realistic to shoot out of the safety of a barricaded building, it doesn't work for Urban Dead where one of the main tenants is that, if you want to get XP for attacking another player, you have to risk they will attack back.--Pesatyel 06:40, 6 May 2009 (BST)

For fuck sake .... READ THIS STUFF: Frequently_Suggested#The_List and Suggestions Dos and Do Nots.

Anyway... it's not "telling people how to play" by pointing out that shooting zombies in the street is idiotic. It's also obvious that, while the game allows it, the mechanics are such that it's pretty clear you were intended to defend buildings from inside, not to go shoot zombies outside who'll just stand up again for 6 AP... --WanYao 10:27, 6 May 2009 (BST)

If your trying to make the game realistic, when you lean out the window, wouldn't your target drag you out and brutally murder you. Just that one, tiny little flaw that its a stupid idea. -- User:Ben A Martin

Unless you are bright enough to use stairs and shoot from an upper floor window :D --Honestmistake 12:58, 6 May 2009 (BST)

Note that in this ame, all buildings have one floor. -- User:Ben A Martin

You mean all those times I threw myself out the window to escape the horror of breathing, I was only falling six feet into the bushes? Hmmmm....--Winton 05:44, 8 May 2009 (BST)

"we are outside fending off an invasion of our current safehouse". We ought to have a guide telling people to spend their AP on re-barricading buildings, or securing nearby buildings as back-up safehouses, or searching for radio transceivers, or indeed anything that doesn't completely waste the AP... In regard to the suggestion, it's game-breakingly powerful. I'd spam it if it were up for voting. --LaosOman 13:50, 7 May 2009 (BST)

Define "waste of AP".--Pesatyel 04:10, 8 May 2009 (BST)

OK. A waste of AP is the act of spending one's AP in such a way that no significant contribution is made to whatever intentions the character has at that moment. --LaosOman 13:06, 8 May 2009 (BST)

"...whatever intentions the character has at the moment."? What is that supposed to mean? Would youlike ME to give YOU examples?--Pesatyel 01:56, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Static defence of a single location is not smart. --WanYao 14:57, 9 May 2009 (BST)

True, but the subject is wasting AP. Doing something not smart and wasting AP are NOT (necessarily) the same thing.--Pesatyel 18:22, 9 May 2009 (BST)

As I said below: Sniper pistols = INSTA-SPAM! --Pestolence^(talk) 18:25, 9 May 2009 (BST)

---

Blunt Weapon Critical Hit

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 15:47, 5 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	Blunt weapons
Description:	Blunt weapons have no purpose, but it makes sense a sharp ergonomic axe would be more damaging and accurate. However bats and pipes can do massive harm occasionally, it's the difference between a bruising blow and a bone shattering one. Therefore I suggest giving some blunt weapons a high but infrequent critical hit. Right now axes do 6 av damage per 5 attacks. Several blunt weapons do 2.5 av damage per 5 attacks. I suggest giving those weapons around a 60% chance of doing 3 additional damage on a successful hit. Since these weapons only have 25% accuracy that means that survivors are likely to only have one crit per 5 attacks, making the overall average damage per 5 attacks identical to the axe (my math is inaccurate but the final numbers would be tweaked to statistical perfection). This would give blunt weapons a much wider variance in possible damage compared to the axe. The axe would have a range of 0-15 damage per 5 attacks. A blunt weapon would have a maximum (very unlikely) damage of 25! However it would also be much more likely to do very little or no damage. With only a 25% hit rate, and just a 60% crit rate it would be common to only do 2 damage per 5 attacks, or maybe none at all. Blunt weapons with different stats could also be given criticals, but they'd have to be calibrated differently. So that's the improvement. Now there are two ways of introducing this. One is just a blanket improvement to blunt weapons. This would make blunt weapons the ideal choice for new players after they get hand to hand combat but before they get axe proficiency. Or it could require an additional skill, with would leave blunt weapons solely used by roleplayers (but now more viably) or by gamblers who want to play the odds.

Discussion (Blunt Weapon Critical Hit)

This made my head hurt. If anyone can figure out the correct numbers it'd be happy to hear them, these are just ballpark figures. --A Big F'ing Dog 15:55, 5 May 2009 (BST)

I think this is too much of a boost. More reasonable might be a 25% chance to cause double damage and a headshot (headshot skill not required but obviously the blow would still have to be the killer!) Still I do hate headshot as it stands and giving it away as a freebie, even a rare newbie special freebie, would upset a lot of people. --Honestmistake 16:53, 5 May 2009 (BST)

ugh. more realism =/= more fun, you know. also... "realistically", how do you justify critical hits against the fucking undead??? bludgeon damage is mostly meaningless, and edged crits would have to dismember the Zeds to mean anything. and i don't think zombies would take kindly to having what would need, to be logical at all, to be permanent damage from crits.

bad idea. all round. --WanYao 19:07, 5 May 2009 (BST)

I mean, technically headshot is a kind of critical hit. Just because they're dead doesn't mean they don't have bones. --A Big F'ing Dog 19:59, 5 May 2009 (BST)

No, it isn't. Otherwise it would work on survivors as well. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:17, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Does it not work on survivors? I know the old XP drain version didn't but i didn't realize the newer version didn't either. Probably should have tho, must be ages since I last got PK'd --Honestmistake 23:50, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Actually it is a kind of critical hit, imo. But an automagical one, sigh. Anyway... yeah... zombies have bones... exactly... and if you crit them, they're fucking dead so those broken bones, etc. aren't going to mend. are they? meaning... a crit = a permanent penalty/disability if it has any meaning at all = really shitty if you're zombie. as I explianed before. and, as I said, and repeat, "bad idea. all round." --WanYao 10:32, 6 May 2009 (BST)

/me is losing patience with all these horrible suggestions ... apparently. siiiiiiiiigh. --WanYao 10:43, 6 May 2009 (BST)

Why wouldn't they mend? Zombies heal. Also, with all that jumping out of windows they must have broken bones now and then. --A Big F'ing Dog 14:42, 6 May 2009 (BST)

I present the zombie chewbacca defence: Zombies do not heal in canon, being dead, and Chewbacca is not a zombie! It - does - not - make - sense! I rest my bum. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 14:58, 6 May 2009 (BST)

Right. Anyway... Zombies in canon do not heal, what with being CORPSES and all. However, eating corpses in UD heals HP, I sorta forgot abt that, it being such a useless feature which I never use.... But, anyway, is HP = to physical integrity when you're dead? Not necessarily. Anyway, more realism =/= more fun. And Chewbacca is dead, it was "a long time ago", remember? --WanYao 15:25, 6 May 2009 (BST)

Ok. I will support this suggestion under one condition: large trout are added to the game and act as blunt weapons. --WanYao 15:29, 6 May 2009 (BST)

you can broke a bone by chopping an axe at your arm, for example... so no crits for bone breaking, or you should put to axes too, as they would chop off an member or get stuck on their heads (if you're saying blunt weapons are going to give them braindamage). even tho it would make blunt weapons used more often, is not a great idea... then if i use a knife, i can crit and hit him on the eyeball!!! jk --HentaiX 06:40, 10 May 2009 (BST)

---

Gun Range

Timestamp:	Ben A Martin 01:45, 5 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	Survivors with guns
Description:	Seems to me like the only reason that one would us a pistol over a shotgun is for the clip, (accuracy is hardly differnt) so to make the pistol a ittle better, the shotgun can only hit the block your in, while the pistol can hit your block, adjasent blocks, and blocks adjasent to those, but accuracy decrases 15% for every block away. I'm escepting this idea to get shot down, but its a dream. Posted by Ben A Martin

Discussion (Gun Range)

*shoots the suggestion down* No. No multi-block range and please, please, please think about what's horribly wrong with "Seems to me like the only reason that one would us a pistol over a shotgun is for the clip." For the love of jimminy crickett we can't even see past one block away. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:48, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Perhaps when this guy has a character above level 10 and more than one zombie skill between his three alts he'll understand pistols are the superior weapon. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:12, 5 May 2009 (BST)

While it may be more realistic to have guns being able to hit a target more than a block away, it's not really fair to allow survivors to attack from the relative safety of adjacent blocks. Pistols are superior to shotguns because you don't need to waste an AP reloading for every single shot -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:41 5 May 2009 (BST)

Sniper pistols = INSTA-SPAM! --Pestolence^(talk) 03:02, 5 May 2009 (BST)

That sounds like a bumper sticker. -George Zip ^◆◆◆ 03:27, 5 May 2009 (BST)

The pistol and shotgun already have roles. Why change them uncessarily?--Pesatyel 06:08, 5 May 2009 (BST)

"Seems to me like the only reason that one would us a pistol over a shotgun is for the clip" -- from your opening phrase you're wrong. Pistols are far better than shotguns. Calculate AP usage per damage point and damage relative to encumbrance... Pistols win hands down, especially in the all-important-in-Urban-Dead AP war. In fact, pistols are superior on every count except one: shotguns inflict more damage faster. And sometimes this is important, and when it is, it makes using shotguns worth incurring the disadvantages. However, I still prefer pistols -- and so do many experienced players. --WanYao 15:37, 6 May 2009 (BST)

---

GPS Use - Display Suburb

Timestamp:	A Big F'ing Dog 18:28, 4 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Improvement
Scope:	GPS Device
Description:	I suggest allowing people to use GPS units to inform others of their general area. Clicking a GPS unit would cost 1AP and turn on this feature. Clicking it again would turn it off. If you have a GPS unit your contact list would display the current suburb of any contact with an activated GPS unit in their inventory. Your own GPS need not be activated. This makes GPS units useful but risky to use, as they can attract both friends and enemies. However only providing the suburb, not the precise location, prevents them from being overpowered or overly dangerous. Zombies would be able to use this as well, but they'd have to acquire their GPS units and turn them on or off while living. They'd also be able to drop their GPS units to hide.

Discussion (GPS Use - Display Suburb)

Certainly allows for a lot of harassment. I'd say you should only be able to access it if yours is on as well. No free rides (positions). Then again, I'm not a fan of the idea in general. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:38, 4 May 2009 (BST)

I thought about that, but someone could just turn it on, check their contact list for someone's positions, and then turn it off again. Making it work for mutual contacts only is one option, but people use their contact list for enemies as much as allies. A complicated system to only allow certain color contacts would work, but I decided to follow K.I.S.S. Also to make it less "free" this could be dependent on both parties having a powered phone mast in their suburb.--A Big F'ing Dog 19:13, 4 May 2009 (BST)

"Last known location" could be one way to discourage people just flipping it on for a second. You ping, you're visible. Like active sonar in a submarine! --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:15, 4 May 2009 (BST)

True, but since the odds of the person staying in the same location the entire time your using your AP for te day is pretty high, that wouldn't matter so much.--Pesatyel 06:11, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Pinging isn't a bad idea, but can't be the only method or zombies wouldn't be able to use GPS units they carry. How about if your GPS unit is on it displays your current suburb in normal text, if it is off it just displays the last suburb it was on within in faint gray text. Dropping all GPS units would make it blank.--A Big F'ing Dog 15:02, 5 May 2009 (BST)

nothing against your general ideia... but for me zombies can't check a GPS once or awhile. in "realistic mode" they're kinda dumb... (unless they buy the skill memories of life...? or something...?) in UD mode (im not saying it isn't realistic... dont glare at me like that!), they can't see what they're carrying.--HentaiX 06:48, 10 May 2009 (BST)

---

Weather

Timestamp:	LaosOman 17:06, 4 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Flavour
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	It's not so much needed as it is wanted. I'm sure I'm not the only one who fancies some climate. I've yet to find a duplicate for this suggestion: most of them have only three options, and most of them affect gameplay. Now, here's the idea. Outdoor areas and certain buildings would get a small line added to the description of the site. This would be right after "You are standing outside the Millett Building, a fire-damaged red-brick building with smoke drifting from its roof." Basically, first you get the description of the building, then the weather, and then the building's status. "You are standing outside the Millett Building, a fire-damaged red-brick building with smoke drifting from its roof. The rain forms small puddles around you. The building has been very strongly barricaded." Weather would be one of the following: sunny, heat, cloudy, windy, rain, thunderstorm, snow, hail. Buildings that allow the survivors to witness weather are Stadiums, Fort Gatehouses, all Zoo buildings except the Reptile House and the Aquarium, Buildings (NT or normal), Hospitals, Hotels, Schools, Towers and Junkyards. Standing on an Empty Block or outside a building also lets you witness the weather, obviously. The weather changes every day at midnight, and the available weathers depend on the season. On weather events (like the Halloween fog), the event gets priority. Spring: sunny (20%), heat (5%), cloudy (25%), windy (20%), rain (25%), thunderstorm (5%) Summer: sunny (30%), heat (25%), cloudy (20%), windy (15%), rain (10%) Autumn: sunny (10%), cloudy (25%), windy (25%), rain (30%), thunderstorm (10%) Winter: sunny (5%), cloudy (25%), windy (15%), rain (15%), snow (25%), hail (15%) Flavour text for outdoors, Zoo Enclosures, Stadiums and Junkyards could be like this: You are standing outside <place>. The sun is shining. You are standing outside <place>. Heat pounds down on you. You are standing outside <place>. Clouds block the sunlight. You are standing outside <place>. A few leaves are blown around. You are standing outside <place>. The rain forms puddles on the ground. You are standing outside <place>. Lightning flashes in the sky. You are standing outside <place>. The ground is covered in a blanket of snow. You are standing outside <place>. Hail falls down around you. For indoors: You are inside <place>. The sun shines in through the windows. You are inside <place>. With the AC broken, the heat is killing. You are inside <place>. Through the window, you can see a grey sky. You are inside <place>. Rain droplets slide down the window. You are inside <place>. You hear the wind howling outside. You are inside <place>. Every so often, you hear thunder. You are inside <place>. Through the window, you see the snow falling down. You are inside <place>. Hail constantly taps against the windows.

Discussion (Weather)

You'd have saved yourself lots of typing if you'd have found the real dupe. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:12, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Could you provide a link to "the real dupe", please? --LaosOman 14:14, 5 May 2009 (BST)

I could. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:15, 5 May 2009 (BST)

*snark* --Pestolence^(talk) 20:30, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Why did I even try...? Anyway, I went through 181 seach results containing the word "weather". Either they affected gameplay, or they had significantly less possibilities for the weather. --LaosOman 19:08, 6 May 2009 (BST)

As Iscariot, and you pretty much duped yourself even though you say it's "not a dupe." I still think it's dupish enough to be duped. Weather should be the same across Malton (both for realism and ease of coding on Kevan's part, really), and freak snowstorms and all that jazz in the middle of summer doesn't make any sense either. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:40, 4 May 2009 (BST)

What, so all weather-related suggestions are now dupes because there's one weather-related suggestion already in existence? I still believe that this is arguably different - more weather types and it doesn't affect gameplay. I'll take the other things you said into account, though. --LaosOman 14:14, 5 May 2009 (BST)

So it's just flavour? As such it's not a bad idea. I don't love it, but I don't hate it, either. Oh.... pls find the "real dupe"... otherwise it's hearsay. --WanYao 19:11, 5 May 2009 (BST)

It's a good idea for flavour but needs adjusting; remove the snow as it's already in game, you don't need rain AND downpour, as for heat, it makes me think of rabbits humping... and it's more of an effect of the weather than actual weather. The descriptions could probably use a touch up but I'll leave that for later. --Kamikazie-Bunny 23:10, 8 May 2009 (BST)

...Snow's in the game? I've never seen it, though? Rain and downpour are two very different things (as any Dutchman will confirm), and I couldn't think of a better name for the weather that causes heat. The descriptions might need a little improvement, yeah... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LaosOman (talk • contribs) 10:52, 9 May 2009.

It happens every Christmas. Sign yo posts. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:00, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Rain and downpour are just descriptions of how heavy the rain is, so are wind and gale, what would be better would be having descriptions for the middle ground. e.g. Rain/Downpour - <Rain falls down around you>/<Rain pounds on the windows> that way you don't have too many descriptions and it also leaves room for the players imagination to fill in the gaps. Part of the charm of UD is the way it leaves banks for you to fill by giving you a general view. --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:30, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Point taken and worked in. --LaosOman 19:38, 10 May 2009 (BST)

---

New Communication

Timestamp:	Ben A Martin 12:31, 4 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	Zombies and Survivors
Description:	Starting with the zed bonus, a new communication skill, under the death rattle skill, allowing them to make out basic words,(such as Helllp?, or Saave!, etc.), and with Survivors, the ability to Whisper, privately talking to someone in the same building, and (not or, must have both) on your contacts list. This is my first time suggesting, so im not sure if these have been asked for before. Posted by Ben A Martin

Discussion (New Communication)

Hmm. Not bad. I think whisper has already been suggested. See http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Suggestions/5th-Feb-2006#Different_Speech_Types As for the zombie side, do you mean they can say these words? Because at the moment zombies can understand everything you say...... --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:43, 4 May 2009 (BST)

I'm not sure how else to reply, so ill do it this way. For the zombies, it adds more advanced options, so rather than mere groans. While they cannot type willy-nilly, they get a select set of word options to replace the groans and inform the survivors of there intensions, so, for example, if at a revive point, zombie gestures at you. zombie cries helllllppp to you, so you (hopefully) won't kill him, and know that he wants to be revived.

Why not just Mrh? and gesture at themselves? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:40, 5 May 2009 (BST)

The beauty of zombie speech is that if you want to make yourself understood in a lengthy dialog, you need to put some effort into it, meaning that all those idiot talk spammers just STFU unless they've something useful to say. Zombie communication is superior to survivor communication for this reason. No scrolling through pages of drivel, either it's a short "speech", or it's something that gives an informative message like a feeding groan (which is very hard to fake) or a "Mrh?". Whisper is fairly well duped already -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:05 5 May 2009 (BST)

this comment was sheer genius. boxy, you get ALL my cookies. --WanYao 19:13, 5 May 2009 (BST)

---

Slanted Killing XP

Timestamp:	Parakirby 10:36, 5 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	Balance change
Scope:	Everyone
Description:	As it stands now, both teams are running around, killing people at complete random. While this may seem fair for long term players, people who are new and have yet to level up may find the constant death frustrating. In order to counteract the constant lower-level character killing, why not change the amount of XP gained from killing? As it is now: 10 XP is earned per kill, no matter what. What is suggested: 5 XP for someone who is five levels or more under you, 8 for anyone between four and one level under you, 10 for anyone your level or two levels higher, 12 for anyone three to five levels higher, and 15 for anyone higher than six levels above you. Impacts: This means that all players who are more experienced will be targetted over new players, leading to a decrease in frustration among the newbie population. It will also encourage players to attack other players who are much higher levelled than them, in an effort to get the larger XP bonus.

Discussion (Slanted Killing XP)

Speaking from experience, as A zombie I always try and kill the highest level survivor in the room anyway. And if im killing a zombie chances are I don't know his level anyway unless I've DNA scanned him first. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:08, 3 May 2009 (BST)

This is another one that's been suggested in various forms, many times. Anyway... Ross'ss is right: most organised zombies already target high level characters first because they constitute the greatest threat. Ferals, however, are often another story... And because zombies are anonymous, this won't help babahz -- sadly, because headshot sucks as a babah. Anyhoo... Revives are easy to come by, so getting killed lots isn't an issue. Get used to dying, it's part of the game. And as a babah harman, avoid the most dangerous suburbs. Hit the orange or "hot yellow" suburbs where there will be opportunities to level up (green burbs are a waste b/c there's nothing to do to level, red zones are well you know...) And btw it's not random if you join a good group, wink wink nudge nudge... --WanYao 17:00, 3 May 2009 (BST)

You do realize that the kill XP is only a fraction of the total XP you gain from a kill? You get 1 XP for every point of damage you cause, so you end up getting 50 or 60 XP just from that. 5XP either way wouldn't make much of a difference. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 17:31, 3 May 2009 (BST)

Works fine for zombies, sucks for humans. Even if you can scan, if the stack is already all scanned, you'll only be able to hit one zombie unless you use contacts. Zombies can target and view profiles of anyone they choose. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:00, 3 May 2009 (BST)

But levelling is WAY easier for survivors. Still, you have a point -- though if they matter, I have local zombies all contacted. --WanYao 11:13, 4 May 2009 (BST)

I think it is being forgotten that 80% of the time, fights encounters players aren't active. That is to say, that when one player encounters another, the other player is most often not actively controlling the character.--Pesatyel 18:07, 4 May 2009 (BST)

same to the dificulty of finding someone at some areas, as said above. it's pretty much hard as hell to find a lone zombie if you're not experienced as a survivor (somewhat im feeling like im talking bout myself). same goes to unexperienced zombies, who must try to focus on unbarricated (read as wandering) survivors for the kill. --HentaiX 07:03, 10 May 2009 (BST)

---

Day / Night Cycle

Timestamp:	Allope 22:26, 2 May 2009 (BST)
Type:	improvement
Scope:	Survivors and zombies
Description:	To make things easier and challenging to both sides I would suggest a day and night cycle. This could make things interesting by utilizing the games dice roll function. During the night cycle it would make finding objects harder for survivors and decrease the visibility of zombies to survivors until they were closer. Also it could affect the the dice roll for survivor/zombie battles. During day cycles it could improve the dice roll for survivors for finding/fighting objects/zombies. Since this game is played by people all over the world the clock could be based on GMT time or something. Zombies are scarier in the dark aren't they? I got this idea from old greats like "Ultima" and Zork (remember the grues when you were in the dark w/o a lantern??). I am new to this game so forgive if the suggestion is "out there" hah. Look forward to running into some of you in Malton. alex255

Discussion (Day / Night Cycle)

First off I think it has been suggested before, I'm not sure though. Second, what about those players who live in the wrong time zone for their side? The easy example being survivors who can't be awake during the in-game daytime and take advantage of that, forced to always search during in-game darkness because that is when they play? - User:Whitehouse 23:00, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Dice? DICE? How dare you blaspheme the Mighty RNG!! On a more off-topic note, I don't mind new blood, but all these junk suggestions lately coupled with the "I'm new (and didn't do my homework) so don't hurt me" lines in the suggestions is getting old. On-topic - if you use GMT (or any timezone for that matter), you're screwing players who happen to be in other timezones over if they're only able to play at night. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:18, 3 May 2009 (BST)

Similar stuff has been suggested before. But as said above, it can't, simply can't, be based on GMT or any other 24hr timezone. It needs to be out of sync with any timezone, so that everyone gets their share of positive and negative day cycle changes in their own preferred playing time. I suggest making a full in-game day cycle last either 36 or 48 hours. Also I'd make sure that all styles of play had something to do that will benefit them, and also something that would detract from them, in both day and night cycles, so that there isn't a time of day when players need to do nothing but hide without being penalised -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:05 3 May 2009 (BST)

Sure, it could be based on a Urban Dead standard time which isn't a time clock but just some kind of day/night timer. But if this has been a suggestion that was not able to be considered in the past then it should be put in the dead topic list. Before i suggested this I made sure it was not in that list. --User:Allope 01:25, 3 May 2009 (BST)

As long as you make it sufficiently different from past suggestions (easy enough if you put a bit of time into it here), it won't be duped -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:43 3 May 2009 (BST)

Thanks for the advice Boxy, I'll do my best. I have a question though. Being an IT person myself, I am wondering if this sort of change is technically possible since it would affect a large part of the game? And do any of you think it would really make the game more interesting. These are probably the more important questions.

If you read the areas describing suggestions, I'm fairly sure it mentions somewhere that we're not supposed to talk about coding feasibility or program efficiency when it comes to suggestions - that's for Kevan and Kevan alone to decide. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:11, 3 May 2009 (BST)

People still do however - one must remember that those guidelines are old, and it's not all that unreasonable for those with some coding experience (don't look at me) to discuss how hard it may be for a suggestion to be implemented.

Oh, and one must always remember that Kevan doesn't really like coding, so difficult mega-suggestions aren't likely to be implemented. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:11, 3 May 2009 (BST)

Don't forget that we're not allowed to shoot down suggestions because of coding difficulty. It's written down in the rules. -George Zip ^◆◆◆ 03:24, 5 May 2009 (BST)

I reckon a cycle where day and night are both 24 hours long would work well. Perhaps with Survivor benefits during the day (improved search rates), but with improved Zombie benefits at night (accuracy boost) --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 09:21, 3 May 2009 (BST)

Above issues asides, you are suggestions a 12 hour period when survivors have a search rate advantage, and a night were everything is hindered. It is sounding like the right way to make Urban Dead less fun, with no drawcards bar a search rate boost for the group that is currently dominating. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:24, 3 May 2009 (BST)

I, for one think it is a great idea, and will for for it when the time comes. You have to agree, in all movies, the zombies are at the full stage of power in the night, and weaker during the day. However, a server time indicator would be needed, otherwise this idea would be horrible, because some would always see the negative, and sticking to realism, can't you notice when it day or night? Great thoughts.-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ben A Martin (talk • contribs) 00:38, 5 May 2009.

Those are vampires. Zombies don't give two brain cells (mostly because theirs are, you know, dead) about whether or not it's daytime. And you forgot a verb and duplicated a preposition too. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:38, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Actually, that was just a general jumble of incoherency. You are awarded no points, sir. --Pestolence^(talk) 03:33, 5 May 2009 (BST)

something is pretty much wrong about your idea, and is quite simple: why shouldn't i just adventure myself in daylight as a survivor and hide/barricate myself at night? that means i only have to spend out my AP at day, and logoff when it's close to night, or (when night) spending all the remaining AP sitted at my comfortable hospital's bench drink beer and reading books? people who can only login at night times (for any-or-so reason) should have this as permanent disvantage? zombies wouldnt find any lone wanderers to kill anymore, cuz every survivor will try to hide himself when night and all zombies will only try to go hunting when the sun is gone... no more fights? or zombies will have to dare into the sunlight (that may burn them? wth!) having a disvantage or the other way around...? (EDITED) oh, btw... making an somewhat flavour description of it would really be greater... like "the sun shines over the broken windows" or "the darkness stands outside" or anything cooler than those jerky phrases... --HentaiX 07:13, 10 May 2009 (BST)

---

Move Body

Timestamp:	--01:17, May 2, 2009 Alex Randall
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Survivors
Description:	I don't know if this has been suggested before so don't get mad at me if it has. Okay, basically I have noticed that the survivors are losing, quickly. The reason why is because of the fact that we can only throw the zombies outside of a building but never farther than that. I think there should be a skill that allows you to carry a dead body a certain distance away from where is was before. Maybe there is a limited amount of moves you can make before you just drop the body, or it could make it so the each move you make costs you more AP. Of course, if the character logs on and does the whole entire get up kind of thing the person instantly drops the body. If you need another risk to make this skill not seem overpowerful then how about whenever the body awakens and is still being carried it decreases the AP cost of reviving, and/or the person carrying the body is damaged by the body getting up. An exception could be if the body is a person who was revived, they could gain the decrease in AP cost but they don't injure the carrier. It would be a nice skill to have due to the fact that the survivors are indeed losing way too fast, the major cause is that once a zombie is in a suburb it doesn't have to leave, and imagine whenever a horde of zombies invade. Look at the maps. Zombies own about 3/4 of the city.

Discussion (Move Body)

Survivors are not losing. This is a dupe. There's massive potential for zerging body-carriers to move people where they don't want to be. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:51, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Im curious. Why do you think survivors are losing? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:54, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Fireman skill, survivor whining = INSTA-SPAM! --Pestolence^(talk) 19:56, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Moving bodies would be an absolute waste of AP, even if dragging a corpse cost only 1AP. You see, you have drag the corpse to where ever you're taking it, and then you have to walk back. The zombie only needs to walk the route once, while you need to do it twice. And guess what the survivors at the other location are going to do? That's right, they're going to drag it somewhere else, quite possible right back to your doorstep. You lose AP, the other survivors lose AP, and zombies laugh at the stupid harmans dragging them back and forth. The only places where moving bodies makes any kind of sense are the forts, and they can already do that. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:05, 2 May 2009 (BST)

The stat's page tells the story, and barring huge events or the addition of a new mega-group of zombies, the ratio of survivors to zombies stays around 60/40. Zombies may hold more territory, but survivors have plenty of places to call safe. Dragging bodies is a terrible idea in any case, as Midian explains from the survivor POV... unless there is a big tactical advantage (such as the need to clear a fort, or empty a building of potential zombies) player's bodies shouldn't be able to be moved elsewhere on the whim of individuals (who can gang up to grief unpopular players even further) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:23 3 May 2009 (BST)

I can see why this has been suggested but it wont pass and wouldn't work if it did. (AP expenditure balance etc.) I've always wondered about the possibility of flare guns working like zombie lures (pied piper I know, but it's an idea that has bounced around my head for a while.) A flare fired into the air has a X% chance to attract zombie within X number of blocks. It'd be a way for survivors to break up mega hordes but without any real control over the process.--DI Sweeny 12:13, 3 May 2009 (BST)

First of all, I join the chorus: zombies aren't dominating, anything but, so quit your whinging. In any event, short terms swings in the balance between one side or the other is not a justification for game changes. Secondly, all this is is a griefing tool. I could drag bodies halfway across the map and SCREW OVER the person I did this to. Multiply by a million, add in zergs... Super-spam.

Please, people, read the fucking Do's and Don't's ... .--WanYao 13:02, 3 May 2009 (BST)

As do I. Imagine if a guy like Finis had a tool like this. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:09, 3 May 2009 (BST)

We could play Bub soccer! Go find his body, drag it to the centre of Malton, and the first team to drag him to one corner or the other wins. A four way tug of war... AWESOME!!!11 ;) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:15 3 May 2009 (BST)

Now that does sound kinda cool. --WarlockVI 13:05, 5 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)

For what it's worth, you're wrong about "zombie players" and voting on suggestions. I've been at this a long time (gaaaad) and I will tell you that most people vote on the merits of the suggestion. I've seen those alleged "zombie players" vote for good pro-survivor ideas, and shoot down crappy zombie buffs. All the time. And the same for alleged "survivor players". If you perceive a bias, it's because so many suggestions have been (and still are) made from a pro-survivor POV usually by people who don't really understand the ins and outs of how the game treats zombies. So people with that experience are often vociferous in attacking stuff that hurts zombies, or that is blatantly one-sidedly pro-survivor.

It's great you want to get involved in the community. Seriously. But you have to understand that this is a community, an established one. And you can't waltz into a community and offend people, or not listen to the "elders" of the community when they try to tell you something. I try not to flame people like I used to, these days.. But shit your comments pissed me off... --WanYao 04:59, 2 May 2009 (BST)

You have to consider what you are saying, too, with your "Most survivor buff suggestions that are killed are from 'zombies'". The game has been going for 4 years, and you come in and after 3 days, you spurt crap about the trends in the suggestion voting system. Also, try considering this: In this wiki, you will encounter some of the smartest personalities you'll care to remember, but you'll also notice the most ignorant. You'll meet the most engaging, but also the most droning and lethargic. So please don't try and tell us that we are all retarded and all fearful of change. We generally know from our suggestion history (something you still need to grasp), what suggestions are bad and what are possible. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:26, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Oh, and I had noticed WanYao's lack-of-flaming. I used to get a lot of it with my crappy suggestions. Still, I stuck around and really got into the game, and I noticed my suggestions getting better. Heck, my last 2 suggestions became Peer Reviewed. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 15:02, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Even when yours were strange and only worthy of rejection, at leased you pumped out lots that were original. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:57, 4 May 2009 (BST)

True 'dat. My ideas were very rarely duped. Then again, they were even more rarely accepted either. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 12:21, 4 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)

All that does is auto-drop unwanted items. It doesn't change search rates for a designated 'wanted' item, as this suggestion proposes. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:36, 3 May 2009 (BST)

He isn't saying "dupe" or anything. The author's main premise is that a person would be searching for specific things rather than just keeping whatever they have to find. THAT is already part of the game.--Pesatyel 18:13, 4 May 2009 (BST)

You can't use that kind of "reality" argument in Urban Dead. In "reality" we wouldn't have unlimited materials to scavenge. Once building was completely searched, it would be EMPTY.--Pesatyel 18:13, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Maybe we need to compile a list of "Suggestions that 'make sense' but should not be implemented or submitted to DevSug." I'll start:

1. Eating, Drinking, Pooping, and others that fall into the category of Ye Olde Bodily Functions
2. "New" guns and "useful" weapons "that aren't dupes"
3. Permanent death after headshot (oh you mean if I blow your head off, it just grows back?)
4. Running out of supplies to search for in buildings
5. The military carpet-bombing the hell out of Malton and/or nuking it!
6. Sewers, multiple building levels, hiding on top of ladder forts since we all know zombies can't climb ladders, hiding in closets, hiding under tables
7. Auto-attacks or free attacks of any kind ("Would YOU stand around while a zombie nom'd you to death?" "No goddammit UD doesn't work that way goddamn!")
8. Changing up the FAK/HP system because gauze doesn't heal wounds in real life
9. Removing rot revives ("So... the only thing that causes rot revives to work is... wireless necrotech internet?" "DO NOT QUESTION THE WIRELESS GODS!")

I bet I'm missing tons. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:25, 4 May 2009 (BST)

This idiot was very lucky I was taking a break from this page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:18, 4 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)

what bout a nail gunner? lots of ammo, low damage *laughs* --HentaiX 07:51, 10 May 2009 (BST)

How about axes and knives? No ammo needed, low/moderate damage. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:56, 10 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)

what bout this new skill simply need u to use something to "boost" ur character? like using a dose of adrenalyne... "you inject yourself with adrenalyne..." or "you summon the powerful snickers out off the bible" or even "u eat the newspaper!"? --HentaiX 08:05, 10 May 2009 (BST)

Adrenaline would kinda give you just X AP if it where ever implemented, While this is just saving your energy's for a later date. its just a character trait, (one i myself personaly posses) your able to expend a lot of energy in one go, but will need to rest a lot lot longer then most others for it to fill up again. (wich is kinda what this does) --WarlockVI 15:16, 11 May 2009

I feel to many people are thinking to much about the implementation and scripting of it And the IP limit etc, not just the general suggestion. Wich is what this should be about, (well according to their own Suggestions FAQ) Implementation beeing left to the designer. But thats just my oppinion. --WarlockVI 15:19, 11 May 2009

This has the potential to change the whole balance of the game. Increase the stored AP too much and no barricaded building would be safe from even a single zombie, let alone a horde. Organised zombie hordes attack in coordinated waves, waiting until they are all at maximum AP and breaking in. A 10 zombie break in, with 10 extra ap each means something like 3 extra, full HP, survivor deaths per break in. Keep multiplying, and you get the idea. The games percentages and damage rates have been designed around that 50ap limit.

The 50ap limit also works well for time management reasons. Every 24hours you are close to maximum aps without having missed any. People work on daily timetables, and getting time for UD often only comes at a set time of day, meaning that you can coordinate with others in your optimal play-time. Having your maximum APs come up at a different time each day (every 30 hours) wouldn't be as convenient... unless you're going to modify your sleep patterns to optimise your UD ap usage :P -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:54 11 May 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)

any other sugggestions or is this good enough? Supflidowg 21:28, 5 May 2009 (BST)

I suggest not putting it up as it will be duped immediately. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:55, 5 May 2009 (BST)

If its duped i lose the idea, if i take it down same thing, so there is no major loss for any choice I make. Right...? Supflidowg 05:08, 9 May 2009 (BST)

---