Developing Suggestions

Developing Suggestions

This section is for presenting and reviewing suggestions which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.

Nothing on this page will be archived.

Further Discussion

• Discussion concerning this page takes place here.
• Discussion concerning the suggestions system in general, including policies about it, takes place here.

Please Read Before Posting

• Be sure to check The Frequently Suggested List and the Suggestions Dos and Do Nots before you post your idea. You can read about many ideas that have been suggested already, which users should be aware of before posting what could be a dupe: a duplicate of an existing suggestion. These include Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles.
• Users should be aware that page is discussion oriented. Other users are free to express their own point of view and are not required to be neutral.
• It is recommended that users spend some time familiarizing themselves with this page before posting their own suggestions.
• After new game updates, users are requested to allow time for the game and community to adjust to these changes before suggesting alterations.

How To Make a Suggestion

Adding a New Suggestion

• Copy the code in the box below.
• Click here to begin editing. This is the same as clicking the [edit] link to the right of the Suggestions header.

• Paste the copied text above the other suggestions, right under the heading.
• Substitute the text in RED CAPITALS with the details of your suggestion.

{{subst:DevelopingSuggestion
|time=~~~~
|name=SUGGESTION NAME
|type=TYPE HERE
|scope=SCOPE HERE
|description=DESCRIPTION HERE
}}

• Name - Give the suggestion a short but descriptive name.
• Type is the nature of the suggestion, such as a new class, skill change, balance change, etc. Basically: What is it? and Is it new, or a change?
• Scope is who or what the suggestion affects. Typically survivors or zombies (or both), but occasionally Malton, the game interface or something else.
• Description should be a full explanation of your suggestion. Include information like flavor text, search odds, hit percentages, etc, as appropriate. Unless you are as yet unsure of the exact details behind the suggestion, try not to leave out anything important. Check you spelling and grammar.

Cycling Suggestions

• Suggestions with no new discussion in the past two days should be given a warning notice. This can be done by adding {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section, where date is the day the suggestion will be removed.
• Suggestions with no new discussion in the past week may be removed.
• If you are adding a comment to a suggestion that has the warning template please remove the {{SDW|date}} at the top of the discussion section to show that there is still ongoing discussion.

This page is prone to breaking when the page gets too long, so sometimes suggestions still under discussion will be moved to the Overflow page, so the discussion can continue.

Suggestions in Overflow: No suggestions currently in overflow.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list

---

Suggestions

Laser Beam Eyes for Fiffy

Timestamp: MoonShine 02:10, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Type: New Skill

Scope: Characters Listed Here

Description: "10:49 AM Fiffy: would have the fury of a thousand suns and shoot lasor beams from her eyes" I propose a skill given to all current and future characters of Fiffy and only Fiffy which can be used as a human or zombie for 1 AP at 100% accuracy. Laser Beam Eyes have the effect, on use to disentegrate any item of clothing occupying the Pants slot on the selected target. Reasoning: Fiffy is awesome, everyone loves Fiffy she should have laser beam eyes.

Discussion (Laser Beam Eyes for Fiffy)

• This is the best idea I've seen on the suggestions page in a long time. - Murray Jay Suskind 02:12, 1 July 2009 (BST)
• Agreeing with this idea, but it would be cool if we could work her amazing ass into the skill somehow. --Ricket 02:16, 1 July 2009 (BST)
• Whatever the old zambah said. --Skouth 02:20, 1 July 2009 (BST)

---

name pending

Timestamp: Zagert 19:58, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Type: zombie skill

Scope: for zombies

Description: could there be a skill to improve zeds accuracy with blunt meelee weapons such increase in 10% accuracy. this skill would cost 100 xp and come under a skill tree. it would be helpful if you could suggest a good name for this skill.

Discussion (name pending)

Why would any zombie want to get this when their claw/bite attacks are always more damaging and more accurate? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:01, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Second. --Anotherpongo 21:18, 29 June 2009 (BST)

agreed, I personally find that bite attacks should give a little more exp but over all, zombies weren't designed on here to be resident evil and hold chainsaws and such... --Kakashi on crack 22:45, 29 June 2009 (BST)

For the same reason the survivor players use tennis rackets, ski poles and other such items. Hell I think there is a guy that just goes around punching everything. The zombie's ablity to use melee weapons has been a part of the game since the beginning, so far as I know, and it is the one avenue of zombiedom that can still be explored.--Pesatyel 09:02, 30 June 2009 (BST)

---

The rare car!

Timestamp: Kakashi on crack 13:19, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Type: travel

Scope: survivors

Description: as we all know, the city is abandoned, most cars and trucks and such have been abandoned, and everything is in ruin BUT, I believe that there would still be a working car out there somewhere! now I know a lot of people are probably already writeing hate mail as soon as they heard the word car but it isn't as bad as it sounds... basic idea: in car parks there is a small chance of finding a car that may/may not be beat up and useless, you could fix these cars up and then use them to travel farther distances in a shorter amount of time. They could also be used to hide in for a nights lodging if you were running out of AP, only 1 survivor could hide in a car at a time unless it was completely fixed up and everything. cars allow faster and more efficient travel... "Hijacking" cars: yea I know this sounds really unrealistic but hear me out: there are two ways to activate a car when you fix it up and put in fuel, one is hi-jacking which has a 1% chance of working without the skill construction, a 5% chance of working with it, and a 10% chance of working if you were above level 10 with the skill construction. OR you can search the area for a key which will have a 10% chance of being found but will allow automatic acess to the car. either way, once you have access to the car, it will be accesible to YOU forever, though it may be destroyed... using the car: using the car lets you travel 2 spaces at the cost of 1 but if you stop at say, 7 spaces it will count as 4 instead of 3. premium cars can travel one more space but are very, very, rare and hard to get a hold of though they allow a pasenger... refueling the car: the car eats up 3x as much fuel as a generator does but if it runs out still offers great protection, leaving a car to get more fuel (going inside a building counts as leaving) will make the car timer set, basically you then have 48 hours to find fuel and get back in or a car alarm will go off that counts as a flare/feeding groan basically and will attract zeds/let survivors steal it... foul play: premium cars are rare and as such can be seen driving down the roads by multiple people, if you have a premium car someone can enter it BUT be forewarned, they may/may not be a friend and could easily kill you in your sleep and steal it, attacks inside a car get a 10% bonus to accuracy if they are ranged since you are very close to the person. (on the other hand zeds basically pull you out so they don't get a bonus for attacking you in the car) on that note, if they drive somewhere and you are in the car, you go with them... radio: a powered, moveable, car has a radio in it that can be set to non-restricted frequencies... searching: when a zed enters an area, they can search for cars, (1 AP) if they find cars, they can search for survivors. (also 1 AP) (if an area has 3 or more cars/ is a car park, zeds can skip the search for cars option and go straight to searching for survivors car baracade basics: broken down: no baricade, once the window is destroyed a zombie can pull you out and attack you beat up car: loosely baricaded, after attacked enough it becomes a broken down car. out of shape car: lightly baricaded, after attacking enough it downgrades to a beat up car then a broken down car... ok car: VSB, it downgrades until it is broken down like the others but can be repaired with percents doubled if the owner survives, is noticeable by zombies without searching but requires them to search it for survivors still... premium car: EHB (with the exception that survivors can get into it) it downgrades liek the others and percents double on rebuilding if the owner survives, is automatically considered survivor infested by zombies no matter if there is one in them or not... roofs: a car you find has a 50/50 chance of having a roof when you find it, if it doesn't then you can automatically be attacked by zombies in it without them having to break the windows (they may be stylish but they also provide no protection without a roof) finding a car: you can only search a carpark once a day for a car so if you don't find the one you want, you can search again tommorrow repairing cars: repairing cars will require certain items at different levels which I'll explain below... all cars below out of shape will require a toolbox to fix and only a rare few cars will not require a fuel can... car types: the car would be ranked acordingly to how capable you are to finding one in a carpark but would also require different specifications to fix. broken down car: 70% chance of finding, a survivor could hide in this but a zombie simply needs to break the window to reach in and pull them out. it reuires a survivor to fix it with a toolbox into a beat up car at a 35% chance of success, and has no fuel. beat up car: 50% chance of finding, basically a car that still can't run but offers better protection from the zombies, it requires the use of a toolbox to fix it into an out of shape car with a 30% rate of success, and requires fuel if you haven't already refueled it... out of shape car: 25% chance of finding, basically the weakest car capable of moving... it offers better protection then a beat up car but is more noticeable to zombies so it would be bad to drive it near them... it requires fuel if not already refueled, and needs to be hi-jacked to drive it. repairing it into a ok car is at 25% chance of success. ok car: 10% chance of finding, this car has lights on it so zombies will be notified of where you are up to the next 3 squares you are at if you drive by them but at the same time offers some of the best protection that the cars can. it needs fuel if you haven't refueled it, needs to be hi-jacked if not done already and can become a premium car with a toolbox at a 7% chance of success... premium car: 2% chance of finding, this car has some of the best protection and can travel one square farther then the others, you can't upgrade this car but you have to hi-jack it and refuel it still. unfortunatly zeds can trace you twice as far in this car as it is much more noticeable and another survivor can get in it... Zombie benefits from cars(kinda sorta): survivors can set the alarm on automatically if inside the car so that other survivors can steal it/ to alert the zombies (a death cultist strategy if they find a car that's salvageable) zombies get XP from destroying cars and get an extra 1 XP for destroying the windows zombies can hide in a car without a roof on it so that it looks like a survivor though the alarm will still go off (then when someone goes to get the car they find a suprise and have to kill it if they want to use the car) zombies can be cordinated to cemetaries for revives... of course if this was put into play they would have to make it so that if you were in a car the map would be larger by a couple squares but the squares outside of the 3x3 box would be invisible on what they are, and it would require a lot of programming, I believe this feature would add a lot to the UD experience!

Discussion (The rare car!)

so basically (forgot to add this and pretty tired) the cars that can barely run are the best because they are less noticeable with more protection then those that can't run... --Kakashi on crack 13:21, 29 June 2009 (BST)

tl;dr.--xoxo 13:23, 29 June 2009 (BST)

It's ridiculously long, and both concepts (hiding and using) are dupes. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:30, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Use capital letters and full stops, maybe even some boldings and indents. Sort things out logically. A suggestion this long needs those things. Then I might consider reading it in its entirity. --Anotherpongo 21:18, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Basically as above. It's long, complex, and dupes a few different suggestions. Cars in this game really can never come to fruition. They just don't work.--SirArgo ^Talk 22:08, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Long and complex or not, one of the basic problems with a suggestion like this is the "teleporation effect". If I have the ablity to move 2 spaces for 1 AP, the reaction time of the computer moving me from point A to B to C is MUCH faster than a human player at point B to react (especially if you don't stop at C). Also, the suggestion itself is counterintuitive to working. If vehicles (among other things) are abandoned everywhere, where are you going to find the room to drive? You'd probably actually end up going SLOWER than if you were on foot.--Pesatyel 09:07, 30 June 2009 (BST)

Shoop-da-DUPE! No mega movement bonus or any of that sort of nonsense. If survivors need ANYTHING at all, it would be a way to make things go dead and faster. Namely some other type of bonus, say an over-all melee attack increase and even that is a stretch only because it makes zombie buffs into nerfs if they can be slain at a higher rate. No, survivors need to develop tactics to work against the hordes, not more skills. Chaplain Drakon Macar 00:37, 1 July 2009 (BST)

---

Injured Alert

Timestamp: Devin Rolland 21:13, 28 June 2009 (BST)

Type: skill improvement

Scope: Diagnosis shows injury status

Description: By simply changing the color of the hp to red instead of white when a player is not at max. hp would allow healers to identify wounded. This would also lower servers use because the healer would not need to check all the players in the current building for body building to know if they have 50 or 60 hp. The script would be fairly simple, no more info would appear on the page, and it should not effect game balance. To clerify: without UI mod or what ever you are running, the hp on my screen are always white. My suggestion is to change it to red if it anything other than the players max, whether 59 of 60 or 49 of 50 or the often confusing 50 of 60. Agian the advantage is no new skills are needed and this would not use up server resources. In fact it should free them up as healers don't need to check other players for body building. Sorry for any confusion.

Discussion (Injured Alert)

I'm not sure what your suggesting here. If I'm maxed out it shows as green. If I'm missing HP, it shows as white. So are you suggesting if I have body building it shows as white but if my HP goes below 50 it shows as red?--Pesatyel 21:30, 28 June 2009 (BST)

You must have a UI modification. Normally HP doesn't get any coloration besides the default color unless you're below 10 or so. He's suggesting something that UI mods already do, only to do it internally so that it is available to all players. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:34, 28 June 2009 (BST)

Which would be a good idea, but would never pass. Few people vote for stuff which you "can" do, which is a shame, but whatever.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:14, 28 June 2009 (BST)

I'd vote kill on the basis that UI mods already do it, and that even if passed, it would basically be asking Kevan to do something that's already been done and is available to all players with the knowledge and desire. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:43, 28 June 2009 (BST)

True, but an argument can also be made that mods shouldn't be needed for functionality that should already be in the game. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:19, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Don't vote kill because of add-ons that do the same thing. Not everyone has FF, and shouldn't be required to use it to get full functionality -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:05 29 June 2009 (BST)

Dupish of this one, that is a skill that means that the dropdown menu on FAKs lists only injured survivors, and their HP. It's a better suggestion that this, as it makes injured survivors easier to find when you go to heal them (but not if a PK is looking to kill them) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:05 29 June 2009 (BST)

---

Undead Standing up and feeding change

Timestamp: Josh Clark 21:05, 28 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Balance

Scope: Zombies

Description: The game has become out of balance, and in favor of the undead. Currently survivors have no way of stoping a hoard once it attacks. Add in the Pkers and GKers that help the zombies, and the survivors don't have a chance. To help balance the game, I would like to make the folowing suggestions. We all know that humans stand up at half health points after a revive and spend 10 or more AP's looking for a First Aide Kit, if he can get into a Hospital. Zombies however stand up at full health, and can feed on corpses without missing, and gain health back from biting a survivor while inflicting damage at the same time. To help balance the game Zombies should stand up at half life just the same as humans. When feeding Zombies should have the same percentage chance of a survivor searching for a first aide kit. Zombies would receive the message, "You try to feed, but find no meat on the bone." Just as a human receives the message "You search and find nothing." Currently Zombies receive 4 HP when feeding or biting, this should remain the same.

Discussion (Undead Standing up and feeding change)

Does this mean you've never been in a siege where the survivors stopped the zombies? Interesting. In terms of planning you should always try and keep a first aid kit with you. Zombie feeding isn't automatic. I can't remember the circumstances but in some cases it does fail.

Also it appears that survivors are "winning" having 7% more characters than zombies. This suggestion would harm new zombies (those without ankle grab) the most. Its bad enough they have to spend 15ap to stand up, cant gain hp from feeding or even open doors. Lets not make the game harder for newbs. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:17, 28 June 2009 (BST)

I could see the not making feeding on corpses 100%, but the rest? Me thinks he doesn't play much. One of the FIRST things survivors learn is to have at least 1 (If not 2 or 3) FAK on them at all times if possible. Lets not forget that survivors get XP for healing each other so its generally not difficult to find someone to do it for you (over "spending 10 AP or more searching"). The main argument is that survivors need better teamwork and planning.--Pesatyel 21:35, 28 June 2009 (BST)

Digestion is needed for feeding. Survivors do not need any skills to heal themselves. Zombies also die a lot more often than survivors. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 21:44, 28 June 2009 (BST)

Some reading: User:Grim_s/Rants/Revival_Imbalance. Also, saying "the game has become out of balance" automatically made you lose ten cool points. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:53, 28 June 2009 (BST)

I have to say, I hate this outlook, which most people seem to have. Even I have had it in the past. Everyone thinks that their side is unbalanced. Zombies think that survivors have it better, because zombies die all the time, and survivors have powerful revives and free running. Survivors, on the other hand, feel it's unfair because death is worse for them, and zombies have infection and don't need ammo. The simple fact is this. Survivors generally have a higher % of the population, because they need it. Zombies take over the city about twice a year, and survivors rule most areas for the rest. 50% each is not balanced. A good balance in Urbandead is about 65/55, in favour of survivors, because that's the percentage that means neither side can oust the other completely. However you look at it, the game IS balanced.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:21, 28 June 2009 (BST)

Er... do you mean 65/35 or 55/45? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:53, 28 June 2009 (BST)

It's mostly a product of the idea that people must favor one side, and that side above all others. Some dual natured playing on your one alt (or running several alts,) is the recommended cure :) Linkthewindow  Talk  01:26, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Firstly, with a little planning, coordination and tactics, it's perfectly possible for a survivor (group) to win a siege. Zombies nearly always win when survivors aren't coordinated, but that's due to lack of coordination not "ZOMG UNBALANCE!!!" And, that said, even uncoordinated survivors can occasionally beat zombies, although it's unlikely.

Secondly, as Ross has said, this would hurt newer zombies (as a skill is required to feed,) and zombies also die a lot more then survivors, and can't be healed by other zombies. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:26, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Im very much against this suggestion. As link said, zombies die a lot. Every player in urban dead is immortal. The only thing keeping zombies somewhat like zombies is the fact that they can act more like "tanks" and take a ton of damage and stand up at full health. If you take that advantage away from zeds the game will become unplayable for them. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 06:17, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Zombie's aren't winning. You can't go through UDWiki making assumptions and bluffing their truth like that, you get caught out. God, if I hear another noob say the Zeds are winning... D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:35, 29 June 2009 (BST)

---

Place on Altar

Timestamp: Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 08:23, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Flavour

Scope: Church-dwellers

Description: After several years of being stranded with the zombies in the city following the outbreak, survivors are beginning to return to their everyday activities, including weekly worship. Needless to say, these activities have also adapted to the zombie apocalypse. This suggestion allows people to place items onto the altar of churches and cathedrals, purely for religious reasons. The item cannot be picked back up again, and the altar can only hold one item (placing a second 'deletes' the first). For the larger buildings, only one of the squares has the altar, randomly chosen upon implementation of the suggestion. Zombies can destroy items on the altar for 1 XP. 2, if the item is a decorative item. This should add some interesting flavour to the otherwise mundane churches. Being able to use any item on the altar means that you can decorate it anyway you want. Want to have a traditional church? Stick a crucifix on there. How about a revival point? Use a needle. PK'er paradise? Use an axe. Death cultist? Try praying to a Human Skeleton. Want to worship the God of Trenchcoats? Place thine Holy Shotgun upon the altar.

Discussion (Place on Altar)

I'd vote keep. - User:Whitehouse 14:07, 26 June 2009 (BST)

I wouldn't. Make this church specific, if anything. Keep religion in the churches, keep reality in Malton. ;) D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:15, 26 June 2009 (BST)

What's wrong with the Cathedrals? - User:Whitehouse 14:22, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Oh, I read 'Other Buildings' as Blake implying that it could be found in any building type in Malton. Never mind. Though I wonder why this is necessary, can decorative items already be places in churches? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:29, 26 June 2009 (BST)

I think decorative items can be placed in churches, can't see why not. This would just allow some extra fun for roleplayers. And we could finally say the crucifix has a purpose. - User:Whitehouse 14:35, 26 June 2009 (BST)

It just seems to me like a more restricted, less communicative version of spraypainting, and unless it said 'XXXXX put a syringe onto the altar', I couldn't see the roleplaying element being as strong in this suggestion. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:45, 26 June 2009 (BST)

That's a thought, I like that idea. It would make the message/symbolism more immediately obvious to the inhabitants of the church, and you'd know what had been placed there in case someone had replaced an item before you could log in to see the first one. - User:Whitehouse 14:58, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Ah this suggestion reminds me of nethack. I'd vote to keep it for nostalgia alone. TDTTOE!! --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 17:47, 26 June 2009 (BST)

What is your flavor text?--Pesatyel 02:03, 27 June 2009 (BST)

A/An [Item] has been placed onto the altar, You place [item] onto the altar, You clear the altar and place [item] upon it, [Name] placed [item] onto the altar, You destroy the [item] on the altar, [name] destroyed the [item] on the altar. I think that about covers everything. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 08:42, 27 June 2009 (BST)

I quite like this, although the whole anti-crucifix crowd will shout it down without even bothering to read it...--xoxo 08:49, 27 June 2009 (BST)

The ones that blindly support "Crucifixes should be useless, just like in real life" people? Sigh. I'd keep this. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}10:51, 27 June 2009 (BST)

Hey, people hang them on their walls IRL, I don't see why this is so bad. This may add a use to the crucifix, but it's still 'useless' as it still can't be used for anything useful, like beating zombies to death or SUPAH MAGIC FAITH HEALING. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 12:34, 30 June 2009 (BST)

I'd keep it. Fun flavour, doesn't hurt anybody. And even not having a PKer or Trenchy alt, I want to see churches with axes and shotguns on the altars :D --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 13:56, 27 June 2009 (BST)

This just seems like a variation of the ability to decorate and doesn't really hurt anything, so why not?--Pesatyel 19:36, 27 June 2009 (BST)

I was thinking about this, and I was wondering whether or not I should allow radios placed on the altar to still receive transmissions, or if I should allow them to be retuned. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 12:35, 30 June 2009 (BST)

I think that you shouldn't allow the radios to receive transmissions. Don't overcomplicate what is already a good suggestion. - User:Whitehouse 14:25, 30 June 2009 (BST)

---

Fuel Siphon Pump

Timestamp: Jaeger ayers 19:30, 25 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Item

Scope: Survivors

Description: (I deliver auto parts for a living, and this tool is rare even among mechanics. The only place you would find one with any reliability is a junkyard, to drain cars before they go to the crusher.) Found in junkyards, 2% find rate, 4% encumbrance (the siphon is started with a hand pump and driven by gravity, so it's light, but it's assumed that it includes an empty fuel can.) When a survivor carrying a siphon is in a street or a carpark, clicking on the item's inventory button will spend 1 AP and has a chance (2% for streets, 4% for carparks) of changing into an item called Siphoned Fuel, which has a 12% encumbrance and cannot be acquired any other way. Use of this item is identical to Fuel Can, although using it as a melee weapon has a 50% chance of breaking the siphon and changing the item into a regular old Fuel Can (with the standard 10% encumbrance.) Using it to refuel a generator removes Siphoned Fuel from your inventory and replaces it with the pump you first had. When a survivor carrying a siphon is in a building with a fueled generator (i.e. not described as "low on fuel" or "only a little fuel left",) clicking on the item's inventory button will spend 1 AP, does not use up or change the item, and has a 25% chance of significantly emptying the fuel tank . A successful emptying action changes the description to "low on fuel" and adds "the smell of spilled fuel" to the building description (generators are usually set up on the ground for safety and to reduce noise, but the gravity-driven siphon will only move fuel to a lower height, so generators can only be drained onto the ground.) Nearby survivors will observe, "Sir Sucky of Pumpsalot siphoned fuel out of the generator." Using the pump on a generator described as "low on fuel" has a 50% chance of reducing it to "only a little fuel", and using it on one with "only a little fuel" has a 50% chance to change it to "out of fuel". This item would add several dynamics - differentiating streets and carparks from other empty blocks, an alternative weapon for GKers, a new use for junkyards, and the ability to kill the lights in a building without destroying the generator (which would be very useful in red suburbs.)

Discussion (Fuel Siphon Pump)

I think this had been suggested before. Anyway, its a zombie nerf with the killing of the lights and the waoopsidoozey. Sorakairi 23:18, 25 June 2009 (BST)

With those success percentages, it makes generator draining easier than GKing with maxed knife attacks (and more accessible, as you don't need HtH and Knife Combat,) which will make survivors' lives more complicated. How about modifying one of the Scent skills so zombies can smell a fuel spill from outside the building? That way, survivors can kill the lights to keep from drawing attention from neighboring blocks, but zombies who cross the block still have a sign of potential targets (doubly so if the generator is refueled before the spill evaporates.) Or link it to Scent Death and within 5 blocks, the zombie is told, "You smell spilled fuel to the north/east/wherever." Put the fuel smell lifespan at, say 72 hours - not instantly hidden but not long enough to overwhelm scent trackers with false positives. I'm not interested in penalizing zombies, just giving more tactical choices to survivors. With the right Scent penalties, I think this could do that without dramatically boosting survivor strength.--Jaeger ayers 01:47, 26 June 2009 (BST)

I recon it's more of a survivor boost than a zombie nerf, anyhoo... You might want to ditch the "spilled fuel" description to reduce word spam. This suggestion is fresh but I wonder about the carpark thing. It might be overkill to have so many places to find fuel. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:05, 26 June 2009 (BST)

There should be at least a message for who runs the genny runs dry, otherwise you have an unpunishable stealth GK weapon (of course, that could justify/balance the greater availability of fuel.) You could throw out the success on the street and lower the carpark success rate, if there is a concern about fuel oversaturation.--Jaeger ayers 01:43, 26 June 2009 (BST)

One of the things Iscariot was actually good for on the wiki was finding dupes... I've seen this kind of thing before, more than once... But CBA'd to find it. --WanYao 03:25, 26 June 2009 (BST)

I don't think this is a dupe. That's because its overcomplicated and unncessary, not to mention promoting PKing. The simple thing (which MAY be a dupe) is to just allow players to siphon gas from cars. But everything beyond that is just bad.--Pesatyel 03:37, 26 June 2009 (BST)

It's a combo of gas siphoner and siphon fuel -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:50 26 June 2009 (BST)

Yup, it's a duplicate of my suggestion. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 05:27, 26 June 2009 (BST)]

Wellll... I'll be a cock monger. It was a good suggestion when you did it friendo. A shame it got peer rejected. Ah well, looks like this one is doomed. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 05:31, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Not necessarily. The problems with the first one were many. The primary problem with the second one (and this one) are that you can use it against generators. A simple suggestion of allowing a player with a fuel can and a hose (new item) to have a like 20% chance (or something) to siphon gas on a "street" and a 30%" (or something) at a carpark and it costs like 5 AP (or something comparable to the search rate for fuel cans). Oh and, of course, fuel cans could/would be kept as empties. That's it.--Pesatyel 05:13, 28 June 2009 (BST)

I was thinking about the empty Fuel Can conundrum following my suggestion, and I believe that the best way to solve it would be to make it so that you only find full fuel cans, and thus the only way to get an empty is by using a full one. That way, people who can't refill them will just discard the empty ones for 0 AP, and the ones that can won't. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 12:40, 30 June 2009 (BST)

---

Wash Yourself V1.2

Timestamp: Sorakairi 04:34, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Flavour / Negate / Items

Scope: Humans.

Description: This is a rethought version of the earlier Washing. You can collect Soap, Shampoo, Deodorant and Cleaning packs from Malls, which can be used to wash yourself. If you have washed recently, you negate the effects of Scent Fear and Scent Blood for 20 Actions, and if you wash while being Scent Trailed you can weaken it. Not Washed - Scent Trail isn't affected at all. Washed with one item - Scent Trail range is reduced by one. Washed with two items - Scent Trail range is reduced by two. Washed with all three items - Scent Trail range is reduced by three. Washed with a Cleaning Pack - Scent Trail range is reduced by four.

Discussion (Wash Yourself V1.2)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 3 at 3:33(BST)

First of all, you forgot the numbers for your items. Where are they found? What is the encumberance? What is the find rate? I only say that because they are necesary for a complete suggestion. However, beyond that, I don't think "items" is a good idea. The easier thing to do would just be have a "washing success" percentage at different locations. For example, a school could have a 20% while a junkyard 5% or something. Also, go with the "levels" from the first suggestion.--Pesatyel 06:40, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I agree. While people can waste their AP on whatever they'd like, adding MORE items to search rates would only screw up the possibility of actually finding something of use/value that MOST people will actually use. I mean, sure. The germ freaks would enjoy this addition, but its practical use is a bit on the low side. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 06:51, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I agree as well, it should be a flat percentage for each type of building. POSSIBLY you could add an item in game that increased that percentage by a small amount, but trying to find 4 items to make it effective. --Bjorn 17:59, 24 June 2009 (BST)

This idea smells bad. It's, to put it bluntly, a silly idea. But moreover it's an unnecessary zombie nerf and I can't support it on that basis. --WanYao 15:55, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Luckily for me I have school Holidays coming up so I'm going to completely remake this. With some friends, so i have ideas from both sides. Okay? Sorakairi 23:35, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I'm enjoying the evolution of this. I agree this version is just a zombie nerf and not really necessary. If being clean benefits survivors, then being dirty should benefit zombies. I still like the Scent bonus for tracking people that reek, maybe modify Scent Death so the zombie can detect a really putrid survivor it has on its contact list (maybe under a certain HP as well, a combination of B.O. and blood?) within its current 3x3 grid - nothing specific, "you recognize the scent of Stinky McNeverWashed nearby." Could lead to amusing bits of peer pressure - "Dude, go take a bath! You wanna get us killed?" --Jaeger ayers 04:35, 25 June 2009 (BST)

While zombie olfactory augmentation is an accepted part of the game, I'm not sure we want to really introduce a smell rating system to the game. It's gross. Also lolz @ survivors being eaten half to death by zombies, jumping into a beauty salon and taking a nice little bath before free running to the nearest hospital. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:09, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Also, this is arguably a dupe of the cologne/perfume suggestions that have popped up over the years... --WanYao 03:33, 26 June 2009 (BST)

---

Limit radio spam

Timestamp: -- boxy talk • teh rulz 01:53 24 June 2009 (BST)

Type: improvement

Scope: survivors and radio spam

Description: In order to make radio spam more difficult to do, I suggest that each character is limited to a set number of APs that can be spent on radio messages in a day. 5 to 10 ap should be plenty for anyone sending useful messages.

Discussion (Limit radio spam)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 3 at 19:12(BST)

I like you boxy, but this isn't really fair. What about radio stations/shows? Kinda limits them in their ability to entertain. Tuning to a station that doesn't spam is best I think. Limiting those that use it for a noble cause isn't really worth the ability to stop radio spamming. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 05:31, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Well they should play the game properly, and put up some barricades every now and then, like the rest of us :P Seriously though, how many broadcasts would such a player need per day? I don't listen to the radio unless someone else turns it on (because of the spammage) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:43 24 June 2009 (BST)

I don't either. Spreading some great propaganda truth is all I ever use it for. But sometimes it's nice to tune into one of the decent stations and enjoy a reading or song or some such. Adds to the role-playing IMHO. I think maybe 20-25 AP on radio broadcasts may be a bit more fair. And hey, if that's how they want to waste their AP, I say let 'em. It'd make the spammers a bit more limited still, too. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 06:49, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I don't see how a per-character limit would do much good. It'd have to be per-IP to do anything, but even then I don't see much benefit. You have to remember that radio messages are short and it can take ~4 messages to say one thing, then consider if you need to say it on more than one channel. Seriously, the best cure for spam is to tune off 28.01, or (if you're living with people who like to listen to that crap) select "Only listen to broadcasts from your handheld radios" in settings. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:02, 24 June 2009 (BST)

10 should be plenty. Some groups might complain that 'ooh lookie we have a specialist guy who sends out radio messages' but usually they're just spamming shit. Evils used to do pretty good radio shows and we'd lose stuff like that, but to have spam limited so much it'd be worth it.--xoxo 09:12, 24 June 2009 (BST)

No... No... NOO! Really, there are few ideas that I would supprout less than that- there are numerous good radio shows, and making rarely takes less than 20AP. And Great Radio Messages is another good reason for shooting this suggestion down. And it would directly harm this and I do not want it being harmed, for it's my own, personal station!:P--Gargulec 12:39, 24 June 2009 (BST)

No. If someone wants to waste hits on spamming the radio... well... And, as everyone else, this'd take away a totally legit RP aspect of the game. Instead, I'd like to see stronger anti-zerg measures -- that'd stop the REAL spammers. Yes... I can dream... --WanYao 16:07, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Fair enough. I'll just continue to ignoring the radio as predominantly a griefer tool -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 17:08 24 June 2009 (BST)

Try listening to other channels, hm? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:12, 26 June 2009 (BST)

No, players should be able to spend their AP however they want. If you don't want to listen to it, drop your radio(s) and stay in a place without a transmitter. --Bjorn 17:59, 24 June 2009 (BST)

NO. as above. if I want to spend 50ap singing "the humpty dance" over the radio i should be able. and I agree with WanYao, we need way more anti-zerg measures.!! they are ruining the damn game.----Sexualharrison 13:15, 25 June 2009 (BST)

---

Wash Yourself

Timestamp: Sorakairi 23:21, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Flavour / New Items.

Scope: Humans

Description: This is simple. You can now collect Soap, Shampoo and Conditioner to wash yourself when you're in a Necrotech or a Hospital. Washing yourself doesn't really do anything, just adds a message to your profile saying one of the following. Filthy - If You have Never washed, or at least not for 3 weeks Unwashed - You get this if you haven't washed for 2 weeks Unclean - If you haven't washed for 1 week Clean - You've washed sometime between now and 4 days ago. Washed - You've washed sometime in the last 4 days. Pristine - You have just washed within the last day. It's as simple as that. Happy Discussion

Discussion (Wash Yourself)

I might like it if it didn't involve collecting items. Like you just need a powered building and it costs 1 AP for the action.--SirArgo ^Talk 23:24, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Just a waste of AP on stuff that people can put in their character profiles themselves, if they're at all interested in doing so. Pointless RP realism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:56 24 June 2009 (BST)

Maybe zombies could get a "bonus square" on the Scent skills for those that really stink.--Pesatyel 02:25, 24 June 2009 (BST)

What if "filthy" and "unwashed" give you some kind of penalty to infection? Someone who is dirty for a long time is more likely to get and/or stay sick.--Pesatyel 06:42, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I like the concept in theory (especially the Scent bonus suggestion) but I imagine implementing it would be a headache for not much benefit. --Jaeger ayers 04:17, 25 June 2009 (BST)

How about if you are especially filthy it will affect your ability to interact with other survivors. They'll just keep thinking about how gross you are and anything you say will be censored and replaced with "blah blah blah". And if you wash too frequently you will develop obsessive compulsive disorder and you will have to spend 5Ap every day washing yourself or you will have a panic attack which wastes 10AP.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:16, 26 June 2009 (BST)

I've seen pictures of people who live in the woods for months on end and only wash their skin off with lake water to keep from getting infected, and let me tell you that you couldn't tell the difference between one of them and a monster... perhaps if you are filthy, survivors will mistake you as a zombie at first and you could get shot in the face before they realise you're human lol --Kakashi on crack 12:14, 29 June 2009 (BST)

---

Mounted Weapons

Timestamp: Barzini 7.35 HK/Singapore time Date:23rd June

Type: Defense for Buildings

Scope: All Buildings

Description: I want players to be able to get more weapons that can only be placed on buildings.Such as mounted machine guns which can be used by players to shoot at Zeds outside.Of course Zeds can destroy those too.

Discussion (Mounted Weapons)

Bad idea. I'll let others explain why. --Papa Moloch 13:31, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Hahahahaaaa. No -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:32 23 June 2009 (BST)

Would be cool, but its going to get voted down. --Bjorn 18:07, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Wouldn't be cool here's why for starters. Give me a sec to pull up more things.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:13, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Perfectly fits in here as well.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:14, 23 June 2009 (BST)

No, I mean it is a cool idea. You are correct however and it would tip the game balance to far for the survivors. --Bjorn 17:59, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Hahahaha...hehehe...--Thadeous Oakley 23:44, 23 June 2009 (BST)

The moment I read "mounted machine guns" sorry hahe...--Thadeous Oakley 23:45, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Oh my... D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:47, 24 June 2009 (BST)

... oh my oh my my my my... --WanYao 16:09, 24 June 2009 (BST)

After this response, you know I'm tempted to put this forward to voting myself. But I'll get VB'd. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:46, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Besides the problem inherent in new weapons, it implies the addition of the ability to see targets outside the building (pretty useless without it, I'd say.) --Jaeger ayers 04:12, 25 June 2009 (BST)

no, if you remember: Malton is a quaruntined, (sorry for spelling wrong but REALLY tired and my hand's numb)with snipers around it, and maximum security. I don't think the military will leave behind any equipment they could possibly use to escape these thick walls unscathed. shotties and pistols were left behind at police stations as they weren't nearly as dangerous/worth collecting. also I don't think you read the do's and dont's --Kakashi on crack 12:11, 29 June 2009 (BST)

---

Talk Is Cheap(er)

Timestamp: Jaeger ayers 08:43, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Game Mechanic

Scope: Everyone

Description: Create a pool of max 5 AP for each character, only used for speaking, that recharges at a rate of 1 AP every 5 hours. Radio transmissions are ineligible, as they require punching in codes, twiddling knobs and tweaking settings or whatever it is the Radio Operation skill enables the broadcaster to do. Pros: encourages communication, fraternization and teamwork on both sides. One is not forced to choose between speaking and life-or-death actions. Cons: encourages all speaking, including mindless chatter; potentially tricky coding; extra server load? (though the IP hit cap would still curb this.)

Discussion (Talk Is Cheap(er))

I've sat in rooms where certain groups have 5 members churning their 50ap out into walls of text, every day, for 5 months. It is maddening and I would not give one, let alone 5 of these chumps an extra 5 just for talking. Having that minority accounted for, I also think 1AP isn't too much, for the sake of getting out a quick message. One speech box allows for 180 characters or something, plenty to get a quick message across, in my opinion. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:17, 23 June 2009 (BST)

I personally enjoy the RP aspect of UD greatly. I end up spending 2-5 AP a day on friendly conversation, good-natured taunting of zeds and reporting observations of horde movement, barricade levels, etc. I find much of the radio chatter to be inane and maddening, but that's what my profile settings and ignore list are for.--Jaeger ayers 10:44, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Only if speech is limited to only those 5AP per day :D -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:52 23 June 2009 (BST)

Would zombxorz get the same 5AP pool for speaking? --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 03:24, 25 June 2009 (BST)

Sure. You could argue that talking is more of an actual exertion for them, but the point is to combat the perception that "talking is a waste of AP", encourage things like role-playing and non-combat interaction, and generally make the game less trenchy and (I think) more fun. (But then I enjoy other in-game actions more than killing people. I guess I'm weird. :P) --Jaeger ayers 03:59, 25 June 2009 (BST)

If you're weird then so am I. With zombies getting the same allowance I likes it. =) --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:22, 26 June 2009 (BST)

I personally like this idea, but I do agree that those stupid frequencies that noobs waste 50 AP on are anoying... anyone else ever hunt down that idiot who keeps shrieking "how do I mines for goldzlolzers11111" I mean have you ever seen someone say !!!!!!!! how the heck do they do that in real life??? --Kakashi on crack 12:07, 29 June 2009 (BST)

---

High Metabolism

Timestamp: Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 13:23, 22 June 2009 (BST)

Type: Skill

Scope: Everyone with the skill

Description: Zombie Hunter skill. With High Metabolism, players can 'regenerate' health at half the rate that they would gain AP (1 HP every hour). However, there are 3 conditions: 1. They must have a full AP reserve (50AP) 2. They must have logged into their character within the last day (i.e. no going inactive for a week to heal up) 3. They must not be infected This will not only strengthen Infection (by preventing players from healing via the skill during attacks), but also give survivors the feasable option to heal some wounds, at the cost of staying still for prolonged periods. Zombies also benefit from this skill, but they do not need to worry about being infected or not.

Discussion (High Metabolism)

1. You're making it a survivor only skill (zombie hunter skill), forcing hardcore zombies to get a revive to achieve this, and 2. you're encouraging players not to play. Where's the fun in sitting still to heal, especially when it means you've got to be over your daily AP limit already, effectively missing turns in order to heal yourself? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:11 22 June 2009 (BST)

This man speaks the truth. Make the game more fun, not less fun. --Anotherpongo 20:40, 22 June 2009 (BST)

This in combo with the 5/10/15 HP insta-heals already in the game is too much. It's got to be one or the other, IMO, either natural healing OR the Magical Wizard Healing Spell we already have. I'd like to see only natural myself, but not both.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:41, 22 June 2009 (BST)

This is seriously underpowered for replacing the current healing system. --Anotherpongo 20:40, 22 June 2009 (BST)

Well of course it would have to be tweaked. What I'm saying is one style over the other, but certainly not both.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:03, 22 June 2009 (BST)

Why only natural healing?--Pesatyel 06:23, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Because the Magical Wizard Healing Spell we have now just doesn't fit into the genre, IMO.--

| T | BALLS! | 11:53 23 June 2009

So, basically, your arguing semantics?--Pesatyel 02:15, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Uh, no...there would be quite a difference between slowly healing HP over time vs. the Instant and massively high healing we have now...As in, you could not just stand in one place taking massive damage and massively healing yourself/being healed over and over. That's "magical", if you will. Whereas slow healing would be more Natural. That's one reason I get a good chuckle over people who hate Crucifix suggestions on the grounds that they are "magical", because the current healing system is about as magical as it gets. Laying on of Hands/Faith Healer style "magical".--

| T | BALLS! | 03:22 24 June 2009

No. It is semantics. AP =/= time. For 1 AP, I get out the first aid kit, open it, administer the various drugs (painkiller, antibiotics, etc.), clean/disinfect wounds, perform minor surgery (dig out sharpnel or something, for example), sew up wounds, apply bandages, splints and tourniquets, etc. I'm sure there is more but that's just off the top of my head. THOSE are things that occur when you "use a FAK on someone". And, yes, I'm well aware that you would make it cost an AP to do each of those (as well has have failure chances and shit), but this isn't Snake Eater. This is a simple text based game where it is a "given" that you do all that stuff listed above when you use a FAK without having to go into the waste of time and the semantics of DOING it. Just like survivors have to eat and shit and sleep. Its and assumed task. What it boils down to is that your argument is that using a FAK should realistically be "more difficult and/or time consuming".--Pesatyel 06:34, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Did you even read the suggestion? Blake is talking about regenerating HP the same way AP is regenerated, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the mechanics of using a FAK. This is what I am referring to as "natural healing". I'm saying either we have regeneration(natural healing) or FAK's(magical healing), but not both. It has absolutely nothing to do with semantics regarding the way FAK's work.--

| T | BALLS! | 07:19 24 June 2009

Yes. I did. Your assertion was that this was better than "magic healing" when, apparently, you didn't seem to UNDERSTAND how a first aid kit worked, so I attempted to explain it to you. By your logic, every character is Wolverine if we were to only go by this suggestion. And, arguably, we CAN have both because the realistic use of first aid treatments, medicines and surgeries is to SPEED UP the natural healing process of the body. For example, if you have a cold you can get over it "naturally" but if you take cold medicine, you get over the cold FASTER. Or another example, do you know how long it would take to "heal naturally" from a stab wound or a having chunks of flesh torn/ripped from your body (among other things)? Realistically, your not "good as new" after 2 days of rest (when your HP is "naturally healed" back to 50/60). It takes weeks, if you survive, since your NOT using any medical supplies.--Pesatyel 15:41, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Now you're not even making any sense. The current system is much more like "Wolverine" than actually regenerating HP would be. There is nothing magical about regeneration...that's what the body does. It regenerates. Medical attention merely optimizes the body's own powers of regeneration. Medical attention does NOT in and of itself heal anything. "Wolverine" just has an insanely FAST regeneration power, much like the way FAKS already work in this game. If you want to go that route then all the "doctors" in this game are really Jesus, especially if you throw Revives in! (Which is why the "anti-crucifix on magical grounds" crowd is so amusing to me) Regardless of all that, none of this ever, had anything, to do with all the procedures using a FAK represents in one AP. It's not about the number of procedures that you listed, it's the actual quickness of the healing itself. (Again, much more like "Wolverine" than anything I have suggested to replace it) I would prefer regeneration of HP only because it would be more challenging. A much better representation of FAKs would be if there were Bleeding rules that stopped regeneration and a FAK would be required to bandage yourself up enough to allow that regeneration to continue. Again, none of this has anything to do with the way FAKs work currently, as they would either be removed or given an entirely new function.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:13 24 June 2009

So now your reiterating what I was saying as a counter? First of all, you obviously don't understand the Wolverine reference, but I digress. You were saying that the game would be better without FAK and with only this idea of natural healing. Do you have ANY idea how long it would take a person to heal to full health without medical aid? Especially when they've had significant injuries? Your not "back to health" after resting for 2 days after you've been stabbed or shot or had chuncks of flesh torn out of you. In fact, without medical attention your probably DEAD. But since you can't seem to understand THAT either, let us move on. The best result would be a combination of this idea and the FAK system. Your bleeding idea isn't that bad, but bear in mind K.I.S.S. Realism is a requirement for all suggestions but shouldn't be the only thing. Given a choice between the current system and this suggestion, the current system is more logical and fits better into the game.--Pesatyel 04:09, 25 June 2009 (BST)

No, you blockhead, your Wolverine reference actually supports my argument. Seriously, if you refuse to see even that...then you're just being willfully dense. I said I would support natural healing in general, not necessarily exactly the way Blake describes it. I'll assume you didn't actually read or comprehend as usual and quote my original comment: "Well of course it would have to be tweaked. What I'm saying is one style over the other, but certainly not both." I would much rather see 1 HP per half and without the "full AP" conditions he has put on it. The current system is certainly NOT more logical. Jesus Christ in the passenger seat with his balls hangin' out the window, but your whole debating style is just to twist everything someone says completely out of its context or meaning until it fits whatever you want it to mean. And for God's sake learn the difference between Your and You're. Holy Fuck, but you would try the patience of a saint!--

| T | BALLS! | 04:57 25 June 2009

Wolverine didn't require an object to heal. He just healed. That's what this "natural healing" idea is. So how is the current system like Wolverine's healing factor? Also, I like how you focus on the unimportant parts of the argument. I notice you ignored my comment about how long it would take to heal from injuries without medical treatment since that's what you are advocating.--Pesatyel 03:44, 26 June 2009 (BST) Oh, and thanks for keeping it civil!  :) Spot on!-Pesatyel 03:44, 26 June 2009 (BST)

OMG, I'm beginning to think you really are just dense! And here I was trying to credit you with some sort of intelligence and assume you were just bullshitting to get out of the obvious logical flaws in your argument. I'll spell it out for you: Wolverine heals really, really FAST. You know, like when you apply 4 or 5 FAKS and totally heal in about 2.3 seconds?! GET IT?! Let's see, now the other idea...1 HP per half hour...I'd say that was a hell of a lot slower, wouldn't you? Oh wait, I forgot you live in fuckin Superman's Bizarro world where everything is the opposite! Out the handful of attempts you made at making a point, the one about how long it would take to heal from injuries without medical treatment was the only valid one! Since you ignored or twisted everything I said, I figured turnabout was fair play! Fun hue?! Tell you what, you start to read and comprehend and I will be more than glad to keep it civil. Jerk me around with your usual obvious bullshitting (once you have figured out your argument is full of holes) and you can forget about civility.--

| T | BALLS! | 04:16 26 June 2009

You still don't get it because you choose to ignore the rest of what I said. Would you like me to reiterate AGAIN? I have a better idea (and no, I'm not trying to be hostile). Go stab yourself with a knife, then DON'T apply any kind of medical treatment. Hell just give yourelf a good cut. Just lay down for a few days. A few weeks. See how long it takes you to heal where you no longer have the wound. THIS suggestion is like Wolverine's healing factor because you would WITHOUT using FAKS be healed to your full HP after only 2 days. Yes, your body does/will recuperate given time and rest but it will be a very long time. This suggestion (which you keep bringing up) is that this suggestion heals 1 HP per hour. That is VERY fast considering that it would literally take WEEKS to heal WITHOUT medical treatment. Or another idea, stab yourself TWICE but only apply medical treatment to one wound. See which one heals faster, M'kay?--Pesatyel 07:36, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Somehow I just knew you wouldn't be able to keep away, heh. You lasted a whole four hours or so. Anyhow, your example of course ignores my assertion that the mechanics would have to be tweaked. It also ignores my idea about Bleeding rules, which would address your concerns about "healing without medical aid" nicely. But of course, since none of that fits into your argument, you choose to ignore it, and remain rigidly within the confines of Blakes original proposals with absolutely no room for change. Are we done here?--

| T | BALLS! | 07:58 26 June 2009

Realism is not a requirement for suggestions, but believability is, for the most part. Realism doesn't hurt a suggestion's chances, though. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:07, 25 June 2009 (BST).

Good point. How the hell did I get into ANOTHER argument with this guy and why is perpetuating it when he's just going to ignore the important parts? Oh well, I'm done before it escalates. It was getting away from the central suggestion anyway.--Pesatyel 03:44, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Oh, promises, promises!--

| T | BALLS! | 04:16 26 June 2009

Yeah your right, I can't "win" against you cause I was only trying to be mean. I give up. Feel better?--Pesatyel 07:48, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Yep.--

| T | BALLS! | 08:05 26 June 2009

Lol.--Pesatyel 02:01, 27 June 2009 (BST)

I would say that #1, it can't be survivor only. Second, why even bother with the differing rate between HP and AP? Once your AP is maxed, then you start recovering health at the same rate. Seems simpler, although if Kevan doesn't think it would be too much computer work I do think that the natural health recovery should be 1 hp/hour as you suggested. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:39, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Recovering 50hp in a day is ridiculous. Blake's numbers are much better. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:25, 23 June 2009 (BST)

I've been thinking a rotter equivalent in conjunction would solve this. Obviously the two skills wouldn't stack. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 07:47, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Not a fan of the fact that this could allow zed zergers meat-cow alts that would regenerate their own health for free tasty XP. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 04:41, 25 June 2009 (BST)

That's probably the best reason against right there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pesatyel (talk • contribs) 07:38, 26 June 2009 (BST).

That's also why it's a Zombie Hunter skill, and as such inaccessable until Level 10. Not to mention the fact that you can't let the character go idle. Besides, if you were going for a meat-cow alt you could harvest for free XP, surely FAK'ing the meat-cow before it dies would be easier? After all, FAK's take less time and also give XP. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 07:47, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Sure but that requires searching for FAKs. You could take your cows to some far off corner away from everyone else (or at least away from hospitals) and or sprinkle them around the city some. If your going for "realism" a combination of natural healing and FAK use would be more logical. Also zombies DON'T heal. They are zombies. So "natural" healing wouldn't apply to them.--Pesatyel 07:51, 26 June 2009 (BST)

Anything can be zerg abused. I don't see how, if they are zerging anyway, they can't just make a shitload of alts and stand them up over and over. Would regen really help that much more?--

| T | BALLS! | 08:11 26 June 2009

so basically you're saying that a survivor who was clsoe to dieing and was going on vacation could go into this mode and heal themselves in that timeframe? I can see humans regenerating skin cells over time but this is a little too quick, the idea is ok though overall, just has one too many flaws in it. It's kinda like saying how doctors somehow make a spine or intestine out of med kits A.K.A. bandages and test tubes with possible trace of anesthetics...--Kakashi on crack 11:58, 29 June 2009 (BST)

---

Zombies Drop Heavy Shit V1.2

Discussion (Zombies Drop Heavy Shit V1.2)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 2 at 05:17(BST)

I kept the 100% on 20% Encumbrance items for this version. It could be lowered on a later version, but I wanted to see how people felt about it after these other new changes, especially the automatic hold on 2% Items. These could easily be secured and not near as likely to fall off after death. But I just don't see how any zombie holds onto a generator or transmitter and still be able to use its Claws/Teeth. The same could be said for a Toolbox and Fuel Cans, but I suppose they might get a good "rigor mortis grip" on it or something.--

| T | BALLS! | 23:11, 20 June 2009 (BST)

Still playing a survivor, still think death is nothing to be feared, still like your suggestion =)--Bjorn 01:23, 21 June 2009 (BST)

From last discussion: This won't instill fear of death in people, it'll instill (more of) a dislike for death. It's not "oh no, the zombies are going to get me," it's "goddamnit, now I have to do more searching." Fear is not the same as disliking something. I could say ZL is afraid of ball-less survivors, but that's not the truth - he just dislikes them. Intensely. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:27, 21 June 2009 (BST)

Yep to all you said.--SirArgo ^Talk 17:00, 21 June 2009 (BST)

You're still guaranteeing that all generators are dropped, and that your toolbox will probably also go, every time a survivor dies. Sure, a chance to loose on or two of these big items, but not a 100% chance. Decorative items however... sure, they need to go, kill them with in a fire ;) Toolboxes especially are a pain to go searching for, and are esential -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:23 22 June 2009 (BST)

Essential for reconstruction, but not so much for pure survival. I'm of the opinion that it would force Survivors to "retreat back to civilization" more often, allowing for a more natural ebb and flow of zombie infested areas. This would probably mostly effect the type of Survivor that gets overly attached to a particular "patch of ground" or Suburb so rather than moving around and trying to survive they just never leave their "home". What sort of numbers for Genny/Trans/toolboxes would you find more acceptable, though?--

| T | BALLS! | 19:58, 22 June 2009 (BST)

I'd like to see an upper limit on how much could be lost per death. If you did the maths, and worked out how much is lost per death on a fully stocked survivor, it would be quite a hit, IMO. A clear disincentive to stocking up -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:46 23 June 2009 (BST)

But a clear incentive to staying alive. PKers could actually be punished for their killing sprees, and PKer groups could likewise put a hurt on Bounty Hunters. Well, not so much with these new lower numbers on losing 6% and less Items. It just seems to me that a lot of strategy could be gained with some sort of actual loss for dying. Anyway, I'll work on those items lost per death numbers.--

| T | BALLS! | 03:15 24 June 2009

I like this suggestion. Yeah, maybe 65% on the gennies and radios and a lower number (I'm thinking 35-50%) on the toolboxes, but this suggestion is good enough as is. --Anotherpongo 20:31, 22 June 2009 (BST)

How do these numbers look:

Encumbrance	% Chance to Drop
20%	50%
16%	40%
10%	25%
6%	15%
4%	10%
2%	5%

I used this formula for this table: Each 1% of an Item's Encumbrance = 2.5% chance for dropping it. So, 20% Encumbrance Item is: 20 x 2.5% = 50%, a 2% Encumbrance Item is 2 x 2.5% = 5%, and so on.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:05, 22 June 2009 (BST)

a shit idea from a shit user tbqh --Cyberbob 14:11, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Logical, but this will mainly affect toolboxes, generators and fuel, i.e. stuff that PKers don't use. Plus, isn't repairing ruins already hard enough? --Jaeger ayers 04:51, 25 June 2009 (BST)

Well, those numbers have been moved around a lot, but one of the original intentions was to make Survivors think more about killing other Survivors if they though some "police" group might being the hammer down and make their life hell by making them drop numerous items. Death itself isn't really much of a consequence, IMO. As for the Ruins part, it probably depends on what side you're on at the time, Zombies or Survivors. :) From a dedicated zombie perspective, I think it's sort of lame that 6 AP worth of work can be undone with 1 AP unless a few days have gone by. Usually no one is probably going to be around to "hold" a ruin before 6 days goes by, so the Survivor is generally getting off cheaper than the Zombie who Ruined it. OTOH, months worth of Ruin repair AP build up can be undone in 1 second by a suicide repair, and yeah the repairer is going to die, but again, death isn't much of a consequence IMO, and you can always just play one of your alts while the Suicide guy recharges.--

| T | BALLS! | 05:17 25 June 2009

---

Improved Aim

Timestamp: Serran 07:39, 19 June 2009 (BST)

Type: New skill

Scope: All classes - human and zombie

Description: High Level Character Skill - Improved Aim Improved Aim would increase hit percentage and add to damage done for weapon types the skill is purchased for. Human or zombies can benefit equally. Suggestion scope This is available to characters level 15 or 20+ only, and has skill tree requirements specific to weapon chosen as well as class and also varied XP costs to reflect the specialization of class skills. Suggestion description Higher Level Skills – Specialization: Improved Aim This would be the addition of increased percentages for damages. This would encourage specialization of skill sets somewhat more instead of broad Jack-of-all-traders. Possessing the Improved Aim for (weapon type) would give a 10% increase to hit with that weapon (Axe, Knife, Pistol, Shotgun, Bite, or Hand Attack) to hit and a +1 increase to damage done. This would be a level 15 or level 20 requirements and also require Headshot for survivors & Flesh Rot for zombies. I got pretty detailed below, and I’m totally up for suggestions. I don’t think that this has been considered before – but I apologize if something similar has been. Increased Damage – “Improved Aim” • Prerequisites: Have to be level 15+ or 20+ • Location in Skill tree: Must have headshot skill & Advanced Pistol or Advanced Shotgun Training or Axe Proficiency. Headshot + any one other skill = Improved Aim for that form of combat. • Crossover skill: This skill could cross over for zombies but be applied to having Flesh Rot + Neck Lurch + Infectious Bite or Death Grip + Rend Flesh. Flesh Rot would be used as it is deeper in the skill tree and my reason for tying the skill to a skill like Headshot or Flesh Rot + others is to prolong someone from getting the skill of Improved Aim until later in the game which is also why there is a level requirement also. This is to reflect the characters improvement in combat if they have specialized. The skill should be bought separately for each form of combat to reap all benefits as well. Buying Improved Aim for Shotgun’s will not give the bonus to attacks made with Pistols, Axes, Knives etc. it will only benefit Shotgun attacks. • Cost in XP: 150 XP cost per/improved attack type. To get Improved Aim for Axes, Shotguns, and Pistols here are the costs: Civilian – Cop/Firefighter: 600 XP military skill set + 100 XP headshot + 150 XP Improved Aim Axe + 150 XP Improved Aim Shotguns + 150 XP Improved Aim Pistols = 1150 XP total cost Civilian – Consumer: 700 XP military skill set + 100 XP headshot + 150 XP Improved Aim Axe + 150 XP Improved Aim Shotguns + 150 XP Improved Aim Pistols = 1250 XP total cost Scientist – Necro Tech Lab Assistant/Doctor: 1050 XP military skill set + 100 XP headshot + 150 XP Improved Aim Axe + 150 XP Improved Aim Shotguns + 150 XP Improved Aim Pistols = 1600 XP total cost Military - Private: 450 XP military skill set + 100 XP headshot + 150 XP Improved Aim Axe + 150 XP Improved Aim Shotguns + 150 XP Improved Aim Pistols = 1000 XP total cost Military – Medic/Scout: 525 XP military skill set + 100 XP headshot + 150 XP Improved Aim Axe + 150 XP Improved Aim Shotguns + 150 XP Improved Aim Pistols = 1075 XP total cost For zombies to get Improved Aim Bite & Improved Aim Hand Attacks here are the costs: Zombie – Corpse: 700 XP required zombie skills + 150 Improved Aim Bite + 150 Improved Aim Hand Attack = 1000 XP total cost Zombie – Any other Class: 800 XP required zombie skills + 150 Improved Aim Bite + 150 Improved Aim Hand Attack = 1100 XP total cost The zombie costs are on the lower end but their attacks are slightly under powered compared to shotguns and pistols so I feel it would even out. Each class has varied costs too which reflects the specialties of their class. A similar skill like Improved Aid or Improved Revive (using less AP for those filling up a special skill tree and reaching level 15) could also be implemented to advantage those who do not use combat. I believe also that there should be a 5 level increment required between specialization. If someone chooses to buy Improved Aim Shotgun at level 15 then they must be at least level 20 before you purchase your 2nd Improved Aim skill. They would accrue if not gained (as I don’t see how else it could be done) and so by level 35 a character could simply purchase them all if he hadn’t already – which is at the high end of character levels as it stands which would reflect the character’s level of experience. The base level could be changed to level 20 making the Improved Aim skill set complete only at level 40 or higher. This outline could be used for Knife or Blunt weapons also (If a blunt specialty is ever introduced. I believe a similar skill that bolsters each class & subclass would maintain balance in the game. The Flesh Rot requirement may throw the balance off as only those who especially want to play zombies would go for it – but that seems to make sense as only dedicated zombies would have improved biting ability etc. • How it's activated: This ability would be active anytime a character used an attack that they had Improved Aim in and it would give +10% to hit, +1 to damage. • Cost in AP: There would be no difference in AP cost to make an attack. Perhaps a trade-off could be that each attack that has Improved Aim takes 2 AP to perform to reflect the character focusing their aim. If a 200% increase per attack of AP is implemented however I feel that the percentage to hit should be increased to 15% or the damage increase to be +2.

Discussion (Improved Aim)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 4 at 00:12(BST)

That's pretty fresh. I like the idea of specializing in one thing. How about removing the headshot/fleshrot requirement though? Not all zombies want to have rot but all survivors want headshot. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 07:48, 19 June 2009 (BST)

I like the idea, but I think your numbers are too high. What about a 5% increase to hit percentages and no damage increase; makes you slightly better but not game breaking.(I think)--Bjorn 13:10, 19 June 2009 (BST)

I agree with Bjorn, but only if you only get to specialise in one thing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:13, 19 June 2009 (BST)

That's a good idea. But there's way too many people who hate the idea of players NOT being a homogenized mass of bland, boring sameness to ever get it through. Probably.--

| T | BALLS! | 14:38, 19 June 2009 (BST)

XP cost is no way to balance out a suggestion when you consider how many players are maxed out with thousands of extra XP. You need to find a different way to offer a balance here. --Johnny Bass 16:47, 19 June 2009 (BST)

--Kakashi on crack 22:33, 22 June 2009 (BST) This reminds me of the dnd class weapon master, Perhaps the one using this technique should only be able to focus in ONE weapon to keep it balanced so that each survivor is a little bit different?

I like that this is the first idea I've seen for a +% to hit and +damage that helps both survivors and zombies. I do agree with the others here that a player should be forced to specialize (pistol/shotgun/melee/bite/claw) and can only buy one. I'm also a fan of the idea of it costing that one extra AP, but maybe that should only be through a new button on the display (suggesting that some attacks you're focusing more on a good hit than others). --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:54, 23 June 2009 (BST)

I'm going to repost an altered version of this and utilize the suggestions below as soon as I have a break in class. I believe the specialization in one weapon type would be good as well as a reduction in the % to 5 I think. I also would like to keep the + to damage as well though. Anyone have any suggestions about making this more balanced between zed and human? I am wondering about the skill tree and requirements. Also - should someone be able to get a specialization in 1 zed attack AND 1 survivor attack - or should they have to pick just 1 either human or zed?? Suggestions? serran 16:04, 26 June 2009 (PST)

As a Dual Nature supporter, I don't really like the idea of having to pick the either option. Then again, most people are already set on what they want to be - Pure Zed, Pure Survivor, Pure Trenchie, Pure PKer, etc. Anyway, the thing about improving aim/attacks/damage/all that jazz is that it allows more kills for the same amount of AP and you start getting more powerful players. That, in itself, upsets the relatively good balance we have now. 5% doesn't sound like a lot, but this IS the RNG we're talking about in a city with tens of thousands of players. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:12, 27 June 2009 (BST)

---

Suggestions up for voting

boom, headshot

This suggestion is now up for voting. Its discussion has been moved to its talk page.--

| T | BALLS! | 23:35 27 June 2009

Scent Trail Alteration

This suggestion is now up for voting. Its discussion has been moved to its talk page.--

| T | BALLS! | 10:39 25 June 2009

Crumbling Barricades Notification

This suggestion is now up for voting as Outside Barricades Notifications. Its discussion has been moved to its talk page. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:15, 21 June 2009 (BST)

Sterilise

This suggestion is now up for voting. Its discussion has been moved to its talk page. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 11:55, 30 June 2009 (BST)

---