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

Viewable Inventory

Timestamp: Hatchet Man 21:52, 4 July 2009 (BST)

Type: Information and flavor

Scope: Character Profile page

Description: Beneath the description and clothing sections would be a overview of a characters inventory, not a complete rundown as in 14 magazines and 6 pistols and 2 axes, but rather "You see several magazines and a pistol, and an axe." Something to show your character is more aware of the people around him. Something that could reaffirm a player is who they say they are (a self proclaimed reviver loaded for bear with guns but not a syringe to be seen might be one to watch, likewise someone who doesn't say much but has plenty of FAKS might be worth traveling with). Could potentially also free up some description space from the numerous backpack & duffelbags & tactical vests descriptions, I suppose for some who feel compelled to prove who's side they are on. As a bonus we can finally see all the shiny katanas and Minimi's and mini-nukes we've heard so much about!

---

Standing PKer, Bounty Hunter and Death Cultist Count

Timestamp: Anotherpongo 11:48, 4 July 2009 (BST)

Type: Information

Scope: Users of the stats page

Description: The statistics page would display a count of all the active, standing survivors who had killed another survivor in the past month.

Discussion (Standing PKer, Bounty Hunter and Death Cultist Count)

That would be quite misleading.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:51, 4 July 2009 (BST)

---

Barricade building stabilization.

Timestamp: Adam Whitsell 07:00, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Type: Ruining balance

Scope: Zombies and Survivors

Description: Remove the ability for paratroopers to ruin buildings while barricades are still standing. Paratroopers are not the problem, the current way ruining works is, and if ruining is made to only work in a building where the barricades are down, then it would simply fix the problem. Barricades, as I see it, would act as a stabilization for the building, and in order for the building to be properly ruined, they would have to remove what supports it. This would remove what I see as possibly the most exploited tactic in the game.

Discussion (Barricade building stabilization.)

Pinatas are fairly rare, and hard to achieve, they're not a problem, or exploit, that needs fixing -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:23 3 July 2009 (BST)

As Boxy, pinataing is just one of those things that if Kevan wanted to change, he will do it himself. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:46, 3 July 2009 (BST)

They're not too prevalent in the game where I would change the mechanic for this. Pinatas are a pain in the ass, but they're balanced out by being a pain in the ass to make. --Johnny Bass 17:54, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Pinatas are not really all that bad. Most of the time they are in areas that are already messed up pretty bad and there are plenty of Zombified Dedicated Survivors around to tear the cades down to VSB in short order. I personally don't find the effort required to make a pinata worth the result.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:39 4 July 2009

---

Zombie XP Reform

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 22:43 2 July 2009

Type: Improvment

Scope: Zombies and their XP

Description: Zombies can no longer attack other zombies. Attempting to do so costs 1 AP and gives the following message: "That is not a food source." Zombies now get +1 XP for Feeding or Biting. So, Feeding on a corpse grants 1 XP, and Biting now grants 5 XP per bite, while still causing only 4 HP worth of damage. Successfully lowering cades by one level now grants 4 XP. Destroying Barricades from Loosely Barricaded to "The last of the barricades fall away", now grants a 6 point XP bonus, or 10 points total. This is to encourage new zombies to act like, you know, fuckin' zombies. It's also to discourage fucktarded "role playing" such as Life Cultisting.

Discussion (Zombie XP Reform)

ZKing is a valid tactic. Also, holy shit that is WAY too much XP for decading. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:55, 2 July 2009 (BST)

Well of course it's "valid". Anything that works under the current rules is "valid". Anyway, so suggest better numbers. Something has to replace the lost XP from newbie zombies eating other zombies if this were to go into effect.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:57 2 July 2009

1 XP for smashing cades is plenty. Zombies should get the bulk of their XP from eating harmanz. Suggesting the removal of ZKing is tantamount to suggesting the removal of PKing - either the XP gain or the very ability to attack other survivors. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:59, 2 July 2009 (BST)

PKing and ZKing are rather different don't you think? Anyhow, I agree, removing ZKing is probably not the way to go. If only because me and other friends with zombie characters sometimes attack each other for fun. - User:Whitehouse 23:10, 2 July 2009 (BST)

PKing makes sense. People kill other people. It's apparently one of the things we are best at. Generally Zombies don't attack each other within the Genre. With this new zombies would spend their time attacking barricades and eating rather than going to RP lines and attacking other zombies. Which is just retarded from almost any standpoint you want to take. It makes no sense Genre-wise and it makes no sense Gameplay-wise, as it stupidly pits new zombies against their own side, regardless of whether the zombie they attack are just Mhr Cows or not.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:09 3 July 2009

You forget UD zombies aren't genre zombies - they're intelligent. And the game doesn't pit new zombies against new zombies, it does not encourage ZKing. It encourages barricade smashing and eating harmanz because of their relationship and the fact that those actions grant the most XP, which is what a zombie should do. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:57, 3 July 2009 (BST)

If they're so intelligent, why does it take them an entire level to learn to use a doorknob? It's not true that the fastest method of advancement for new zombies is eating humans. Not unless someone is feeding them street treats, which is another lame tactic. New zombies have a higher hit rate and faster rate of XP gain against one another than they do against 'cades, and humans aren't usually available for them to attack. More XP per hit doesn't mean faster advancement if the target isn't available to be attacked.--Necrofeelinya 01:35, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Because of game mechanics. Zombies are controlled by humans, therefore they are intelligent. I think. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:41, 3 July 2009 (BST)

I don't think it hurts to encourage players to differentiate between characters and players. Survivors are encouraged to attack zombies, while, as it stands now, baby zombies are encouraged to attack other zombies if they want to gain XP at an optimal rate while no open buildings are available. As Necrofeelinya says, right now such zergy tactics as "street treats" are are a temptation we could do without. Though for the Dedicated Survivor, even that can be a "good thing" for them since it only promotes the zombie leveling up while doing nothing towards having an effect on the game such as barricades being lowered. This whole "zombies are intelligent as characters" slant it pure conjecture anyway. Basically, if the Genre does not agree with their argument, then they just replace it with Genre conventions of their own making.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:51 3 July 2009

Genre is a murky thing to mix with UD, especially the zombie genre. There are ninety different creature-things I've come across called "zombies," and they're so radically different the term hardly means anything. Accordingly, the term "zombie genre" can mean ninety different things... UD has its own interpretation. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:55, 3 July 2009 (BST)

And where has Kevan specifically defined this "interpretation". The UD interpretation is whatever the game reflects at any given time, and that interpretation has often been re-interpreted over the years with updates, and is always open to re-interpretation.--

| T | BALLS! | 02:01 3 July 2009

Exactly - so you can't say that ZKing isn't in the spirit of UD and then it is magically set in stone that way. He keeps it fairly open ended, both to be able to alter it and for role-playing purposes. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:07, 3 July 2009 (BST)

No it doesn't, read the intro for Urban Dead. The logical course of action for "zombies not being zombie enough" would be to introduce more ways of gaining XP (which would be "zombiesh"), not removing a way and further forcing zombies into one, repetitive playstyle. Attack barricades, eat humans again and again. It's one of reasons survivors are played more, as they are a lot more things to do as a survivor. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:59, 3 July 2009 (BST)

And here I thought the reason Survivors are played more was because baby zombies only options are to spend 50 AP flailing uselessly against barricades for minuscule XP or attacking their own side. Give zombies a reason to actually act like zombies and maybe it would be more fun to play one. It's not the repetitive play style, so much as the worthlessness of spending AP unless you are in a metegaming megahorde. Which I'm sure the megahordes just love, since they couldn't have come up with a better recruiting tool than the one the game hands them.--

| T | BALLS! | 02:11 3 July 2009

That is a reason, clearly there is more than one factor. Zombies sure look like zombies to me, I'm not sure which game you're playing. Basically with your suggestion, you giving players less of a reason to want to play one. You make barricades no more fun to claw against by increasing the XP, it's just the rather fundamental "lack of progress" zombies feel when they attack barricades. Removing ZKing removes a valid way for zombies and survivors who turn into zombies to play, for no good reason really. You're just restricting options, that's all, and that would be no fun in my opinion. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:23, 3 July 2009 (BST)

The good reason is that it would encourage Zombies to be proactive, rather than be forced into totally spinning their wheels attacking other zombies. Seriously, what is more demoralizing than knowing that actually attacking barricades is the worst thing you can do at low level and that attacking your own side is usually the best? This would also encourage more dual nature play if Dedicated Survivors were denied their Life Cultisting. Ok, they would most likely just go Mhr in their little pens, but at least zombies would no longer be attacked by their own side, which effectively ruins the concept of "the more people zombies kill, the stronger they become as the formerly living join their ranks."--

| T | BALLS! | 02:32 3 July 2009

Perhaps, instead of removing ZKing, zombies were given a new objective, instead of attacking other zombies? (I don't have any ideas, don't ask). There's not much you can do with encouraging dual nature, if there's no options for a dead survivor, they will likely just idle out, as seen in Monroeville and Borehamwood. I am simply against removing such a fundamental mechanic to a game, unless said mechanics is terrible, which it isn't. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:39, 3 July 2009 (BST)

No. just no. --Skouth 23:17, 2 July 2009 (BST)

If you don't see why this is a bad idea, you need to stop suggesting things. This is not the way to fix the zombie class.--SirArgo ^Talk 23:26, 2 July 2009 (BST)

Yes, it is. The way the game currently works, survivors stay 'caded inside and diddle each other, only emerging briefly to farm XP off of zombies if they don't feel like whack'n'faking one another. Zombies farm each other for XP until they gain enough levels to be effective. You might as well start all zombies off at max or near-max, since that's the only time they really interact with humans. This change would force zombies to start acting like zombies, as Zombie Lord says, and personally I would further add the change that survivors using a FAK on a fellow player should no longer be a source of XP either... especially the ultra-stupid ability to gain XP from survivors using FAKs on zombies. It's enough of a benefit to keep your fellow survivors alive, you shouldn't have an additional XP incentive to do it.--Necrofeelinya 00:04, 3 July 2009 (BST)

But zombies should have to work hard to get XP. Just like survivors. All of my zombies have always been a cakewalk to get XP in for me, so if you can't find a way to level up you are doing it wrong. Granted, the zombie class should get more added to it, but copious XP amounts are not that. Zombies in this game are not like zombies in other games or movies or whatever. That's the way it should be. It's like that so that the transition from life to death is easy in the game. The classes more compliment each other than act as separate existences.--SirArgo ^Talk 00:16, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Please, it's much easier and faster to gain XP as a Survivor. The current "best" way to gain XP for baby Zombies is extremely counter-intuitive for new players. "I wanna pay a zombie!" "Ok, go kill other zombies." "What!?" I'm sure Survivors love the fact that new Zombies spend all their AP killing other zombies if they are being "efficient", but come on.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:25 3 July 2009

I've got no problem with giving new zombies some kind of XP boost. However I don't agree with disabling ZKing. Therefore I disagree with your proposal. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:50, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Total bullshit. If you are killing other zombies all the time, it's because you're too lazy to go to where the survivors are. ZKing is legitimate, but is not the primary source of XP for a good zombie. Zombies have to learn to move to where survivor stronghold are. I have a zombie who has been at Caiger for months now and in a day I can usally tear a building open and infect everyone inside. This can net me 30-40 XP in a single day. Plus, the building then can fall into the hands of other zombies who are able to reap even more XP than I. I have bad runs of luck but I understand that more XP and the elimination of ZKing will not help me out.--SirArgo ^Talk 00:54, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Ok, just ignore the fact that I was talking about new zombies, and the advice often given to them to attack other zombies if they can't get inside buildings. Or that they are required to spend 2 AP per square to walk to get to these Survivors you speak of. Fuckin' Brilliant. The real issue is why is the zombie population the de facto XP farming herd used by both low level Survivors AND low level zombies. Yeah, that's balanced. I like how the last time I brought something like this up the counter-argument was "Where will new zombie get their best source of XP?", but now it's morphed into the complete opposite. I also like how Genre concerns only seem to matter to people if they support their argument, but otherwise are worthless. Talk about total bullshit.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:22 3 July 2009

Total bullshit yourself. We're talking about new zombies killing each other for XP, not maxxed zombies that already have Infectious Bite have no reason to worry about XP anyway. Your entire argument misses the point. "Too lazy to go to where the survivors are"? How about "too crippled by not having Lurching Gait yet"? Or "too recently headshotted, and don't yet have Ankle Grab"? Or even "don't yet have Memories of Life, so I can't get inside unless someone opens the door for me. Zombies are just easier, better targets for rapid XP gain"? Though I do feel we're discussing two issues here... one is the trouble and discouragement faced by new zombies. The other is the utter stupidity of zombie vs. zombie gaming being encouraged.--Necrofeelinya 01:26, 3 July 2009 (BST)

"and personally I would further add the change that survivors using a FAK on a fellow player should no longer be a source of XP either..." Don't forget about the Scientist character class, Doctor, which starts with only diagnosis. --Fiffy ^{404 ♥ OBR ♥ RRF} 01:14, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Maybe Doctors should get reduced XP from combat, and other classes get reduced XP from healing. I could see 1 XP for non-medical class survivors for applying FAKs to others, 1 XP for Doctors for combat.--Necrofeelinya 01:21, 3 July 2009 (BST)

It's "Life Cultism". --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 01:36, 3 July 2009 (BST)

this suggestion is dumb because theres no way kevan is going to make changes anywhere near this sweeping this late in the game sorry --Cyberbob 02:03, 3 July 2009 (BST)

but we liek to maek fun of the silly testicle fetish guy --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:08, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Yet, somehow, I'm willing to take those long odds in the hopes that he will turn this game of kick the cripple into an actual game someday.--

| T | BALLS! | 02:22 3 July 2009

No, this suggestion is dumb because it assumes that the community that frequents DevSug would ever support something that threatens their survivor character's E.R.A.*

* Enormously Retarded Advantage

--Necrofeelinya 02:30, 3 July 2009 (BST)

ho ho ho aren't we witty --Cyberbob 02:32, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Probably the most misinformed comment on the whole of DS. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:07, 3 July 2009 (BST)

No. Besides the first comment on here about too much XP for decading, also, way to much xp for biting. I maxed my Zombie out from level 10 to level 41 by breaking into entry points as a zed and just biting & infecting everyone- it is already a perfectly legitimate and disruptive method of levelling up- it needs no alterations. And as for Necrofeelinya, don't assume that the DS community are pro survivor sheep. They just understand balance. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:07, 3 July 2009 (BST)

I'm not suggesting that the DS community are sheep! They're much more like self-interested weasels. And if they understood balance, then both the suggestions and responses here would be just that... balanced between survivor and zombie sides. They aren't. They're not even close.--Necrofeelinya 03:20, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Why are you so quick to assume that there are even 'sides'? Most of the people on DS have both characters. Wait till a suggestion like this goes to voting before you claim survivor bias. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:30, 3 July 2009 (BST)

You also say "they" an awful lot, forgetting that you yourself are part of the DS community. If you and zombie lord are pushing a suggestion which only helps zombies, then I'd say you're the ones trying to further your own side without any consideration of the other. And Zombie Lord, if this game is pointless, unfair and rubbish, then GTFO.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:52, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Necrofeelinya is obviously referring to a specific type of user. Funny how you ignore DDR's constant use of "we" though to somehow imply that he speaks for the entire UD community, when he really only means his little circle jerk clique.--

| T | BALLS! | 12:36 3 July 2009

Where did he say that? Link plz.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:18, 3 July 2009 (BST)

You don't need a link, Yonnua, come on. He refers to the "DS community". A rather small % of the entire UD community.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:02 4 July 2009

So, 4 XP per bite is just the right amount, but 5 would be "way too much". Especially considering that zombies would no longer have access to XP from killing other zombies. Uh, ok, whatever. Isn't it enough that Zombies are sitting ducks for Survivor XP? Must they be sitting ducks for zombie XP as well? Especially at low levels where everyone, (Survivor and Zombie) in the game is looking to knock them over and force them to spend 10 to 15 AP just to Stand Up? It doesn't matter if you technically "play both sides", it's glaringly obvious where your bias lies. Most likely, most of you in here actually do know balance, and your claims of "objectivity based on playing both sides" or claims of "shooting down Survivor ideas too" are all smokescreen for the objective of preserving the status quo of the game exactly where it is: with a clear advantage towards Survivor players, and encouraging all players in general to join the side that has that advantage.--

| T | BALLS! | 06:31 3 July 2009

You are making no sense. God forbid people have an opinion that differs from yours. I have had five zombies characters in my time in UD, and I maxed three of them out. It wasn't hard, didn't involve much ZKing and it was very enjoyable for me. Giving out this much XP to new zombies will let them max out even faster, and having no more goals they will be *gasp* forced to play the game by searching for survivor strongholds, something they should have been doing before. I guess my main problem with this suggestion is that is rewards zombies for sitting around and not traveling, but rather farming easy to reach cades.--SirArgo ^Talk 06:36, 3 July 2009 (BST)

I hate to break it to you, Einstein, but those Survivors that you refer to hunting down...they are actually behind those cades that would be "being farmed". Or should every zombie in the game just wander around until they find a building with no cades...oh right, then they would never see, attack, or eat any Survivors at all. Jesus fucking Christ. Yeah, thanks for bringing "sense" to the argument.--

| T | BALLS! | 06:47 3 July 2009

Survivor tactics are to cade areas, and then leave. What you wind up with are many loosely barricaded buildings with nobody in them. And I know this because if people were in them and zombies were attacking survivors enough, in your opinion, you would have never suggested this. Because your whole idea was that not enough people were in these buildings being destroyed so you needed to boost the XP given for bringing the cades down and stop those who get bored of doing that from attackign other zombies.--SirArgo ^Talk 22:51, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Well, really I think it would be a nice disincentive to cade strafing, which only promotes equally lame tactics such as Zombie Spies. I don't think Kev had those things in mind when he was trying to balance the barricade mechanics.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:02 4 July 2009

I misread your suggestion. I thought you meant +5 on the original 4XP. I have no bias towards either side in the game because I don't give a shit what happens in the game, as long as none of it is influenced by people like you. My bias lies towards groups who can legitimately make the game chaotic through respectable leadership, like The Dead, LUE and BB2, not through whining arseholes like you who uses consistent paranoia as an excuse for the failure of your poorly revised suggestions. Dare I speculate where your bias lies? With those who side with you because they don't understand the true nature of balance properly, and blame it on ever-natural fluctuations in population behaviour? My advice would be this: Kevan has already notified us that he is updating the game soon, I would wait for that before suggestion any game-warping features. Not that this is one, of course, because I initially misread it. An XP boost is not bad but in my opinion (for bite/claw but not for Cades), but if a user is stupid enough to ZK, then they deserve the pissy XP that comes with it. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:48, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Respectable leadership? We're talking The Dead, LUE and BB2 here right? Insta-groups that required no organization or real recruiting at all. "Uh, guys, everyone attack at x time." "ok" "oh, look another cheap and easy victory" "yay!" Fuck that noise. Sure The Dead were the only group that actually made this game a challenge, and that was great, but take "respectable leadership" and shove that right back up your ass. Hilarious.

It's not paranoia. Many users here are obviously very reactionary towards any real change beyond pointless flavor ideas. This "game" has potential that is unfortunately being wasted by being a laid back social club where no actions really matter and players are never really inconvenienced with real consequences, rather than an actual game that would provide some sort of challenge, risk, or strategy.--

| T | BALLS! | 07:18 3 July 2009

I don't know where in God's name you've come from ZL but you have absolutely no idea, and running around pretending like you have any sort of backing behind your dreadful suggestions/opinions is a falsity and you know it. Everyone can see from your idiotic comics that you refuse to take a realistic grasp on what makes a good game. You want 'Hardcore City' to happen? Program it yourself. Because the community is over such crap. Why? Because we are afraid of change? No. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Simple. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:56, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Haha, you are fucking priceless, man. :) Seriously, can you ever remain on topic? Nope, not since you can't mount even the resemblance of a logical argument, so you once again revert to your petty little ad hominem attacks. I mean, you were originally in such a rush to break your neck and launch into one of your patented retarded snotty dismissals, that you didn't even bother to comprehend the suggestion in your first post. Keep up the good work there, fucktard!

Hmm, I suppose if you want a non-game where nothing ever really happens, to players or to the environment, then you could say it ain't broke. If you want a challenge, then sorry, but it's broke as fuck. What's the "goal" of this "game"? To bore the opposition away, so you can then claim that you "won". Or, "I win because I have less of a life than you!" Not exactly the most satisfying way to "achieve" in a game when every victory is a pyrrhic victory.--

| T | BALLS! | 12:36 3 July 2009

I'm not sure any side is meant to "win" in this game. I think it's meant to have a cyclical nature. - User:Whitehouse 12:57, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Well, not "win" in some total game victory sense, but rather the small "victories" that occur here and there all over the map.--

| T | BALLS! | 13:54 3 July 2009

Ooooh, would you really like on-topic? Fine. From now on, disregard this entire conversation and read my complete conclusion: You're suggestion is unnecessary, it's shit and it is forcing zombies to play a specific way, which goes against the entire spirit of the game. Disagree with me? Leave a heated reply, then take this fucking bomb of a suggestion to voting and see how many people agree with me, and how many people agree with you. Please. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:40, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Leave a heated reply? Project much? :) Heh. Naw, let's digress, you enjoy it so much. I was thinking about ol Boxy. I suspect he does not like me any better than you do, but just look at that guy's calm demeanor. He's got style. Class. One might say he acts like, I dunno, a SysOp. Oh, wait a minute, I think I was convinced to try a compromise on this whole thing somewhere below. So I guess I'll pass right now on submitting this in it's original form...--

| T | BALLS! | 13:54 3 July 2009

I'm sorry to bring out the bureaucracy onto you, but there is absolutely nothing which says a sysop has any expectation to be civil in any way. Boxy and I actually are quite alike in our principles, so the job gets done the same way regardless of whether you work with me or him. But whatever. If we aren't discussing the suggestion at hand, which I have no further desire to do, then I might as well go do something more productive. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:04, 3 July 2009 (BST)

See, I knew you just needed a little tough love. You're welcome.--

| T | BALLS! | 14:10 3 July 2009

Likewise. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:12, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Oh yeah, well...likewise-er :P--

| T | BALLS! | 01:06 4 July 2009

Perhaps the extra HP damage done once Rend Flesh is bought can be made to not apply to zombie on zombie attacks. It's pretty ridiculous that life cultist zombies can (at full hit/damage rates) knock attacking zombie's HP down (not ZK, just knock the HP off) so that they're so much easier to headshot and dump by others if they actually succeed in breaking in -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:25 3 July 2009 (BST)

It's pretty ridiculous in general, and makes getting a Revive even more of a minor inconvenience since they don't technically need a revive to "keep fighting for their own side". They don't have to fight for the zombies obviously, but at least take em out of play until they do get that Revive to sort of simulate the growing ranks of the dead as they kill people. Taking away Rend Flesh damage wouldn't achieve that, but I suppose it would at least be something.--

| T | BALLS! | 06:42 3 July 2009

Taking away the rend flesh damage in ZvZ combat would mean that a zombified survivor would be much better off saving their AP and shooting or fireaxing once revived, and it stops zomblings (low levels) from having their ZKing nerfed if they can't get into a building and at survivors. It makes the lamest life culting tactic counter productive, while still allowing other uses of ZvZ combat -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:30 3 July 2009 (BST)

Hmm, yes this makes more and more sense to me. I think this would be an acceptable compromise.--

| T | BALLS! | 12:36 3 July 2009

Argo, DDR, Bob--I think it's clear that you need to grow a pair of BIG BALLZZ. Zombiez RULEZ! Get HARDCORE, BIATCHEZ! --Paddy Dignam^{IS DEAD} 05:40, 3 July 2009 (BST)

WE WENT OVER THIS BEFORE. I GLUED MY BHALLZ TO THE WHALLZ LONG AGO.--SirArgo ^Talk 06:30, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Surprised that no one mentioned the other reason that zeds kill one another in revive lines.... it makes the lines shorter (at least for a short while) A lot of those revive ZKers are actually survivors trying to speed their own revive! --Honestmistake 09:19, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Well lets take a look at a each one.

• 1 XP for feeding: Somewhat overpowered. Sure, its only 1 XP, but all I have to do is find a corpse and I have a permanent 50 XP buffet. If there was a limitation of some kind (eventually the corpse would be fully consumed, for example) it would be better.
• +1 XP (total 5) for biting. Not too bad considering that most players ONLY use bite to infect. Might be added incentive to use the skill.
• +3 XP (total 4). Under the current rules, a zombie can earn 21 XP if they can get the barricade down from full EHB to nothing. This idea would grant 84 XP. Actually 90 since you get a "6 point bonus" for the last section.

The idea is promote the zombie-survivor conflict. I'm sure the numbers can be played with, but why is the idea bad?--Pesatyel 19:44, 3 July 2009 (BST)

• Corpses already run out of feeding ability; I myself have reached said limit when feeding myself in a Mall Seige. (How many times may require spading.) I was confused when I realized ZKing was possible (Admittedly, I was incredibly new.) --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}22:29, 3 July 2009 (BST)

I did not realize that.--Pesatyel 22:46, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Yes, I think it's around 10 feedings before a corpse becomes "cold and indigestible". Otherwise, no, I would not have suggested XP for the action.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:06 4 July 2009

How about this?

• Reduce the XP for ZKing to 1 and reduce the XP for debarricading to 2 per. Also how about instead of that "6 point bonus" for the last level, you get XP for opening the door?--Pesatyel 03:43, 4 July 2009 (BST)

  That would make more sense, adding more XP for breaking cades has been suggested in the past, I'm pretty sure, and people voted against it because cades stay still and therefore there is no skill involved by just walking to a building and scratching cades, as a method of levelling up. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:03, 4 July 2009 (BST)

True, but even a maxed-claw zombie still only has a 25% chance of getting XP, whether it is 1 or 2 points.--Pesatyel 08:02, 4 July 2009 (BST)

---

Flak Jacket Damage

Timestamp: --Haliman - Talk 02:35, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Type: Human Item Change

Scope: Anyone with a flak jacket

Description: Alright, I RARELY ever suggest anything, but this has been bugging me. As of now, once you find a flak jacket, that's it. You're done. My jacket probably has thousands of cuts and bullet holes. I was thinking it have a 5/5 health range. Everytime someone successfully attacks you, there is a 10% chance it will knock out one health (Down to 4/5). The percentage is still in the works. I wanna hear from everyone.

Discussion (Flak Jacket Damage)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 8 at 18:44(BST)

• I like it... However, Shotguns should have more chance to damage, cuz, they are shotguns, you know... --Skouth 02:38, 1 July 2009 (BST)

We already need to search for sticks, ammo, FAKs, power supplies, etc. and I'd rather not tack on "flak jackets every so often" to that list --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:50, 1 July 2009 (BST)

The current flak jacket is boring. Newbie: OMG I FOUND A FLAK JACKET! - Three years later - Vet: OMG I STILL HAVE MY FLAK JACKET! --Haliman - Talk 02:54, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Fencing foils and a ton of other items now are "boring" too. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 02:57, 1 July 2009 (BST)

What I'm saying is realistically if you get shot 100 times, the vest will be demolished. --Haliman - Talk 02:58, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Realistically if you shoot a zombie in the head 100 times (or give it a good crushing once), they'll be destroyed. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:02, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Then suggest that. --Haliman - Talk 03:03, 1 July 2009 (BST)

No, because that's not fun. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:04, 1 July 2009 (BST)

And it would break the game. --Haliman - Talk 03:06, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Yes. Your suggestion isn't fun, either, is my point with this. And arguing towards realism is a minefield filled with nuclear ordinance. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:09, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Well ok. I suggested this because the current flak jacket is too boring. --Haliman - Talk 03:11, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Well alright, here's your dupe. =P --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:13, 1 July 2009 (BST)

As i recall back when i was a newfag to UD Flak Vests used to take damage and you had to find new ones -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

04:34, 1 July 2009 (BST)

This is a dupe, unfortunately, I do like the idea of a flak wearing down, but unfortunately no suggestion has had the right numbers for me so far, which is the same as this one. I would prefer a system where it has 200 (or some colossal amount) deaths worth of life, and was triggered automatically once someone died (100% chance). But the reason I don't support these sorts of suggestions is that I think the system is fine at the moment and there are many better ways to make the game less boring. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:44, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Well this sort of thing could be implemented now that zombies have an alternative to getting a revive to find another every time it wore out, but it is a dupe in the system already, so if Kevan wants it, he'll do it, sometime, without us going over it again -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:03 1 July 2009 (BST)

Uber-dupe. --WanYao 18:44, 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)

Out of genre: zombies are really clumsy using tools, they're dead bodies, after all. And as above. --WanYao 18:47, 1 July 2009 (BST)

How is it out of genre? It isn't like he's suggesting allowing them to use them, they already can.--Pesatyel 02:29, 2 July 2009 (BST)

albeit clumsily. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:09, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Yes but I don't think +10% to hit is going to suddenly make lots of zombies switch from claws to weapons since it will still be inferior. How does it hurt things?--Pesatyel 19:49, 3 July 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!)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 8 at 19:03(BST)

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)

• a) tl;dnr
• b) rarity =\= balance
• c) unbalanced & multiply by a billion
• d) dupe

That enough reason to send this to the trash? --WanYao 18:49, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Apart from the incredibly long-windedness of the suggestion, this has been duped, thousands upon thousands of times. I also believe it's disparaged on Do's and Do Not's. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}19:03, 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)

Congrats, Devin. This one got implemented before it even reached Current Suggestions. :)--

| T | BALLS! | 12:41 3 July 2009

Um, how?--Pesatyel 19:50, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Have you not logged in recently? Now HP is reddish if not at max, if you have Diagnosis, I believe.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:12 4 July 2009

Actually, I have. I haven't seen a survivor in awhile....--Pesatyel 03:46, 4 July 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)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 6 at 14:35(BST)

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)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 9 at 02:31(BST)

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)

Fair enough. You place the [mobile phone/radio] onto the altar, switching it off first. Y'know, because txting in church is a sin or something. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 13:29, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Ok... Time to sum this up. We don't need this, and it's kind of out of genre. Besides, we already have people worshipping stuffed lizards, what more do you need??? Ok, I might conceded the addition of some new, simple "installations", but making altars is just too much. --WanYao 18:54, 1 July 2009 (BST)

Why is it "just too much"?--Pesatyel 02:31, 2 July 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)

I'm new to the wiki so if I do something wrong please correct me ok! Ok here goes. I don't like the idea of siphoning from streets and carparks, it seems to bypass the search function. I do like the idea of finding a siphon in a junkyard, and siphoning fuel from a generator. I see only one problem, it being an infinite fuel supply. When generators are fueled they are topped off. Siphoning a partial tank and refueling the generator to full could be a problem. If it only worked on fully fueled generators then it wouldn't be an issue anymore. You attempt to siphon some fuel, but there is too little to create suction... I don't see why GKers would use a siphon, it's much better to them to make us search for a new fuel can AND a new generator, right? Why would a drained tank be worse than a destroyed generator? Perhaps siphoning fuel should consume as many AP's as destroying a generator with a knife (I think that's the best GKing weapon?), that way a griefer will definitely destroy the generator! Additionally I think the siphon does not create a gas can, but holds the fuel in itself and empties itself into the generator. So a siphoner could not just drop the gas can, but either find a new generator to fuel (not really a griefers MO) or drop his full siphon and search for a new one (at a low search rate), either option is not beneficial to a griefer, right? I like the tactical value in a siege of saving at least the fuel from a freshly topped generator before a safehouse falls, the generator and radio are lost though. It also opens some inter-survivor warfare that actually fits into the apocalypse theme, rival groups and even just separate safehouses would heist fuel from each other. Sorry this is so long, I wanted to be very clear... --Hatchet Man 17:36, 4 July 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)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 6 at 12:14(BST)

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)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 6 at 12:11(BST)

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))

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 6 at 12:07{BST)

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)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: July 6 at 11:58(BST)

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)

---

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)

---