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.
• If you decide not to take your suggestion to voting, please remove it from this page to avoid clutter.
• 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 your 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.

Please add new suggestions to the top of the list

---

Suggestions

New Skill: Agility Version 2

Timestamp: Chase1993 12:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Type: New Skill

Scope: Survivors AND Zombies

Description: Alright, so here's my new and improved Agility suggestion. Again, this would be a Civilian skill; it would only be available once a player has learned Free Running and is level 10 or above. '''''1.''''' Would give a flat 5% chance that a survivor would not lose an AP when doing ANY action that requires an AP. '''''2.''''' Would give a 80%/60%/40% chance that a survivor with this skill would be able to climb over HB, VHB, and EHB barricades, respectively. Once the survivor has tried, if he failed he cannot try on that same building on that same day. As before, this is to not make it overpowering for Pkers and Death Cultists, and so as to not replace Free Running. '''''3.''''' Any zombie on the block when a player climbs over would be able to "see the routes the player takes to get over the barricade" and would have a 40%/30%/20% (basically half the survivor rate) chance to climb over the barricade. This zombie would be able to try TWICE to get over. If it fails both times, the zombie could not try again. (Note 1: This would only work if the survivor had actually succeeded in getting over the barricade. Note 2: Zombies would NOT have to have the skill, NOR be level 10 to follow a survivor over the barricade) IF the zombie succeeds in getting over the barricade, for the following 10 minutes ANY zombie that comes into the block would see this message "You see the telltale signs of a route over the barricades; obviously a fellow undead has recently cimbed over this barricade" or something to that effect. That zombie would then have two chances (same rates as any other zombie) to climb over the barricade. '''''3.''''' A survivor could make a barricade unclimbable from the inside. As before, this would NOT make the barricade any stronger, but WOULD cost an AP to do. Again, this would be for paranoid survivors scared of Pkers and Death Cultists, or just people trying to be assholes. '''''4.''''' A killed survivor could carry over a portion of this skill into the undeath; namely, he would have a 4% chance for an action to not cost an AP. He would NOT, however, be able to climb barricades (accept if he's following a survivor, as above). Alright, there's my revised Agility suggestion. I hope I have made it more balanced, and of course, the numbers are subject to change. '''''Clarification 1:''''' A zombie CANNOT learn this skill unless he had learned it as a survivor and then been killed. '''''Clarification 2:''''' Just in case anyone's wondering, the 4% chance for zombies is not a typo, it's meant to be that way. Come on, whoever heard of agile zombies? '''''Clarification 3''''' As to previous concerns of it overpowering Pkers and Death Cultists: Firstly, I think in real-life, this could happen. A traitor COULD leave the building and show the zombies a way in. Secondly, I think if we're adding a buff to Survivors and Zombies, it's only fair to add a buff for Death Cultists, especially as it would be something they COULD do in real-life. '''''Clarification 4:''''' Free Running is, as Rorybob stated, a Military skill. I thought to make Agility a Civilian skill so as to make it more accessible to all classes. However, it doesn't really matter to me which class it's under. Anyway, that's my idea. Now have fun tearing it to shreds. --Chase1993 12:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (New Skill: Agility Version 2)

Free Running is a military skill; therefore this skill should be a Military skill, not, as stated in the description, a Civilian skill. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}12:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

My bad. What do you think of the actual skill though? --Chase1993 12:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again I want to know why you think survivors need more AP. - User:Whitehouse 12:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the climbing of barricades should happen. It borders on gamebreaking, especially when you factor in a horde of zombies seeing a survivor climb into a large building; the building would be lost within the day. Depending, of course, on the size of the horde and their luck. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: WHITEHOUSE: With my new revision though, it wouldn't just be survivors gaining AP, it would potentially be zombies as well. Plus, other AP increasing skills have passed Peer Review, so obviously it's not entirely disliked. I mean, come on, everybody wants a little more AP.

No Freerunning from Ruins

Timestamp: RinKou 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Type: Ruin tweak

Scope: Survivors with freerunning, zombies with ruin.

Description: I'm sure the general consensus is ruin is a very powerful skill. Maintained ruin in TRPs can and will shut down a suburb unless supplies can come in from outside, or the buildings are retaken. This still only applies to TRPs, though. As far as any other building goes, zombies not only have few reasons to ruin them, but they're at a severe disadvantage to even put out the effort to do so. A zombie will ruin a non-TRP building for only three reasons: 1. Reduce places survivors can hide safely. 2. Morale boost for zombies/hit for survivors. 3. Disrupt freerunning lanes. Seeing as if repaired within the first week of being ruined, survivors still have a net AP gain over the zombie who ruined the building. That, plus how easily an unmaintained ruin (bound to be the non-TRPs) can be barricade strafed, we have each of these ruins costing zombies significant amounts of AP, both for tearing down the barricades in the first place as well as ruining it. Secondly, the morale boost works both ways. If anything, it's stacked against the zombies much more. At current ratess, a survivor can repair six ruins for every one ruin a zombie can make, assuming it's unmaintained. And as noted, no real zombie is going to maintain a non-TRP ruin. Not only does that put zombies at the AP disadvantage as noted above, but it also allows survivors to claim, "Look how efficiently we're reclaiming the suburb from the horde," boosting their morale theoretically 6:1. So that leaves the only real tactical reason for ruining non-TRP buildings: disrupting freerunning lanes. You can't freerun in to a ruin, forcing survivors to spend 3 extra AP to go around each one. One to jump onto the street next to the ruin, one to move to the ruined square, and one to enter the ruin and be reconnected to the freerunning lane. The only problem with this strategy is, though, ruins, if anything, help feral survivors to be so much more easily connected to a freerunning lane. A survivor unfamiliar with a suburb who doesn't metagame no longer has to check every building for an entry point. They can spot ruins easily on their 3x3 map and just get in one to hop into the lane. All that being said then, let's say we disallow freerunning from ruined buildings. Attempting to do so would result in the flavor text: "The ledges and outcrops on this building are too dilapidated to free run from." and an AP is spent for the attempt, but the character will not be moved a space. Because really, zombies should be ruining every building they can. They really shouldn't be at a disadvantage for doing exactly what they were meant to do.

Discussion (No Freerunning from Ruins)

Dupe.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of if it’s a dupe, I'm definitely not a fan. The whole 6:1 AP argument doesn't take into account the fact that only survivors with Toolboxes and Construction can fix ruins, or the fact that the net AP loss for survivors is generally much larger than six since they're sacrificing AP every time they try to move through that block. And while it does generally help feral survivors, I think that's a good thing, since it balances out the act of destruction that would otherwise entirely disrupt things for them. Plus, pinatas REALLY put a damper on a person's day already. —Aichon— 00:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Also against this idea. You are essentially penalizing survivors who do not metagame, and that's a big no-no. Those who metagame should not have such a significant advantage over those who do not.--Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 05:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I definetly like this idea. I mean, how many players past level 3 or 4 don't have construction? And toolboxes are a dime a dozen nowadays. -- User:Leoofvgcats 08:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, a startlingly large number of trenchies. —Aichon— 07:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I also know a large number of people who do not carry a toolbox because of the weight. They can carry more needles/FAKs and prefer it that way. Generally these are people in well-organized groups, but still. Not everyone has a toolbox.--Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary. I've been playing a death cultist again recently... consequently I don't give a damn if I do get caught outside and eaten, and I spend a lot of time in zombie-infested areas. Even so, once about 1/3 of the buildings in a suburb get ruined, getting around is a giant pain in the ass for me, I'm sure it's worse for people that don't like group hagz and gh!zzaz. Besides, I think ruins functioning as entry points to the free running network is a good thing. It provides more opportunities for people who don't metagame much, and serves as a useful counter to idiots trying to turn an entire suburb into EHB Barricade Fortresses of DOOM. Especially when a whole burb is in defense mode and every building is either ruined or EHB, it'd be pretty lame for there to be no practical way for breathers, death cultists and PKs to get back inside once they're ejected. --Mold 08:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good change. Survivors do not need to be anymore nerfed than they already have been. At most, let there only be a CHANCE that Free Running doesn't work, ie, 40% chance that a survivor cannot Free Run into a ruin. --Chase1993 11:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Feeding Groan Tweak

Timestamp: RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Type: Feeding Groan Tweak

Scope: Zombies with Feeding Groan

Description: Right. The distance in squares that a feeding groan can be heard is based on the number of survivors present at a 1 to 1 ratio. What I propose is that zombies are also counted within this figure at a rate of 0.5 to 1. So for example if you enter a building that contains 2 survivors and 2 other zombies your groans can be heard 3 squares away (1+1+0.5+0.5) all halves would be rounded down and you wouldn't count yourself. Flavour justification? The more zombies present the larger the chance of a freshly served brain, and the louder the groan of hunger. Obviously one surivor must be present. Normal maximum distances apply.

Discussion (Feeding Groan Tweak)

I see this as being useful. One addition I would like, however, would be flavor text to indicate if you're hearing the groan because of this change. For instance, with your example, if you were within two blocks, you'd get the standard groan text ("You heard a loud and low groaning..."), but if you were three blocks away, the text would change to indicate that you can hear the noise because of the additional zombies (e.g. "You heard a group of loud and low groanings..."). —Aichon— 22:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So a zombie logs in to see a major groan going off seven blocks away several minutes before, but arrives only to find 18 zombies who have since eaten the only harmanbargar. It's kind of unfair to ferals/newbies, the people who need groans most. This suggestion would turn groans from a tool to help small crowds of zombies maximize break-ins into an ap-wasting spam button that has no real information content. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I agree that it needs to have something built in to distinguish whether the groan is carrying further because of more survivors or more zombies (or both). It would help with distinguishing whether there's more food/resistance around than the groaner can handle, or there's a feeding frenzy going on that will probably be over quickly. Important difference for youngsters that need XP, especially those that don't have Lurching Gait yet and can't afford to be shambling after empty promises. --Mold 07:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

---

New Skill -- Agility

Timestamp: Chase1993 13:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Type: Survivors

Scope: Survivors

Description: Alright, first off, I'd like to ask everybody reading this suggestion to not be biased by my previous AP suggestion. That's a different chapter, and by talking to you, I've seen how I was wrong. So please, let's start on a fresh sheet with this suggestion. Alright, so here's my suggestion for a new skill: Agility. Agility would be a Survivor-Only Civilian skill, perhaps a subskill of Free Running, I'm not sure. Anyways, here's how it would work: 1. Would give a 5% chance that when attacking something, an AP would not be lost. 2. Would give a 10% chance that when doing any action besides attacking or moving, an AP would not be lost. 3. Would give a 15% (used to be 20%; people thought it was too much) chance that when moving (from block to block, OR going in or out of a building), an AP would not be lost. 4. Would give a survivor a 60%/40%/20% chance to be able to climb over HB, VHB, and EHB barricades, respectively. Once a player has tried to climb over a barricade, if it doesn't work, he may not try on that same building on that same day. This is so as to not overpower Pkers and Death Cultists, and so that it does not entirely replace the Free Running skill (this part could be optional). This would be the main basis of the skill. I don't think it would overpower survivors to strongly, as it will only give a 2.5-7.9 AP gain per 50 AP on average. This next part is an optional part that I thought to include afterwards, to increase the Role-Playing and complexity factors. When discussing it, please do not consider this next part as part of the core skill. 1. If a survivor tries to climb over barricades into a building with a zombie present on the same square, the zombie could "see what routes the survivor takes to get over it". The zombie could then attempt to climb over the barricade, at 30%/20%/10% chance (basically half of a survivors chance). This would only work if the survivor actually succeeded in getting over. I thought to mention this as it would also slightly increase zombies power, so that the skill does not overpower survivors. As it is, I don't think that the skill overpowers survivors, whereas I think barricade-climbing zombies would be overpowering on the zombie side. Therefore, this part of the skill is entirely opttional. 2. Survivors may be able to make the barricade "unclimbable" from the inside, to stop survivors climbing over. This would NOT increase a barricade's strength, and WOULD cost an AP to do. This part could be for overly paranoid survivors scared of Pkers and Death Cultists, or simply trying to be assholes :). Again, this part is entirely optional. So, all that to say, please comment on ways the core idea could be tweaked, etc. Percentage rates, etc, are of course subject to change. 1rst Edit: Changed 20% movement chance to 15% movement chance; changed the average AP gain. --Chase1993 13:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion (New Skill -- Agility)

tl;dr. What I did see, no. never.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Finished reading. Terrible idea. Completely overpowering for survivors in every way.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Needs more balanced numbers, need a payoff for zombies other than a "I see someone going in I can follow them and get a face full of lead as a result because no one can follow me in", or can all the zombies take the same route? If you fail the first time on the route as a zombie, do you get a second chance or is that it? Incomplete, imbalanced, etc. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, all the zombies on the square could follow him in. I understand your points about it overpowering though, and I've been thinking how to revise it. Any suggestions for things zombies could do as well? Perhaps dead survivors COULD retain this skill (after learning Lurching Gait, of course), to make it more balanced. Also, the numbers are entirely subject to change. Perhaps only a 15% chance for moving? --Chase1993 14:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Needs moar zombie rape plz-- SA 15:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to grant more AP, please give it to both sides. - User:Whitehouse 15:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The amount of AP I'm adding is so minimal though. If the movement percentage was changed down to 15%, which is probably better, it would only give a 2.5-7.9 AP advantage per 50 AP. That's only an average 10.4% increase, which isn't very much anyway. Personally, I think survivors are somewhat nerfed (besides the fact there's more survivors). I think giving zombies an AP advantage would be DREADFULLY overpowering, whereas giving survivors a small AP advantage could be a timely element to balance out the game. --Chase1993 16:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I SAID MOAR ZOMBIE RAEP PLZ-- SA 16:12, 29 October 2009(UTC)

Could you explain why survivors need more AP? - User:Whitehouse 16:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you suggest for zombies Suicidalangel? Don't you feel zombies are already overpowered? --Chase1993 16:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesus christ no we're not. Not only does the RNg randomly rape everyone, but survivors have easily have the advantage when you think about it. They can find a syringe a lot easier than it takes a zombie to kill the survivor more often than not. It takes a zombie a lot more ap to bust down a barricade than it does a survivor to build one. Fuck, I spent 50 ap on a lightly barricaded building two days ago. Not one single hit for fucks sake. So, not only in game mechanics are zombies not overpowered, but when you factor in chance, it just shows how utterly screwed zombies can be.-- SA 16:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the RNG for you. Earlier, I took down the barricades of Borehamwood shopping centre from VSB with my level 2 zombie. Shame I couldn't walk inside though.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't even call it a RNG...it seems more like a glorified timer. —Aichon— 17:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This idea has quite a few major flaws with it. For instance, if I was a survivor, and I got locked outside, I'd just go to the block next door that had no zombies at it, effectively denying zombies the ability to ever use their new skill. It lets the survivors have their cake and eat it too, since zombies are entirely dependent on the foolishness of survivors if they want to use their skill. Also, in a twist of irony, I think you have just given a massive buff to death cultists, since they could basically walk outside during a siege, try to enter the building by crawling in, and, if they succeed, they would have just opened up a path for 30% of the zombies outside to come walking in behind them for 1AP instead of having to break through the barricades. So, that new zombie skill is basically worthless for small groups of zombies, which is where survivors tend to be more dominant, since humans will just avoid the zombies, and, since it can be abused, it's overpowered when dealing with zombie hordes, which is when survivors are at a disadvantage. It basically favors whichever side is already at the advantage and doesn't really buff one side or the other except when they least deserve it.

Also, if we apply the "multiply it by a billion" rule, a 10.4% change is massive. Changes of just 1-2% can make all the difference when you have this many players in the game. If we average that out across the city, you're talking about the survivors getting an extra 60,034 AP each day, assuming your 10.4% number is correct. Zombies, meanwhile, get the ability to follow survivors inside buildings, but that's dependent on the survivor being foolish enough to actually do it right in front of the zombies, rather than walking a block to the side and doing it there. It sounds like it generally comes out as a massive buff to survivors, and then a cause for increased volatility across the board due to giving buffs to the side that is already more powerful. While I can't speak for others, I'm personally not in favor of increased volatility. —Aichon— 17:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[1] Heres a similar game, where both survivors and humans can climb into buildings in the way you suggest. Go and play it, the ask yourself "Is this what I want urban dead to be?" Also note the number of registered players, approximately 600. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

EPIC WIN Wait, what? The title's wrong... Come to think of it, what the hell is up with the picture? Uhuh. No way. No fucking way. You're telling me that someone actually made a good suggestion on DS? Get your lying ass out of here before I start putting bullets into it.

This idea is so fucking broken it's not even funny; you do know that zombies aren't NPCs, right?

Lelouch vi Britannia 17:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Survivor-Only." Looks like everything to be said about how ridiculously overpowered this is has already been said. So, let's say on average, right between your 2.5 and 7.9 estimates, that each survivor gets 5.4 extra AP a day. Round that down to 5. What can you do with 5 AP? Do about 30-40 damage with a shotgun if you're lucky. Bring up a building from wide open to quite strongly barricaded. Dump five bodies. Likely find a syringe. Find one or two FAKs, and assuming you have all the healing skills, you're already doing 30HP of healing in two + searching AP, which will take an extremely lucky zombie 10 AP + debarricading AP to do. And that's at the very least. On average it'd be 17 or so AP on top of the barricade dropping, which, from VSB+2 if experience serves me right, is about 30-40 AP to drop already. So on an lucky day, a zombie can hope to take down some barricades, kill the one wounded survivor inside, and ruin the building in 50AP. With this, a survivor, on anyday, can undo that damage threefold. Please try playing all sides before you start deciding to give any one an exclusive buff. RinKou 20:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand all the points here completely. I will revise my suggestion and post it again when it's more well-rounded. Thank you all for posting and sharing ideas. And come on Lelouch, it doesn't deserve an epic fail. --Chase1993 23:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahaha, yes it does. I'm not going to be mean since you're taking advice and finding flaws, but this is one of the most overpowered and one-sided suggestions I've seen in a while. I've seen skills and buffs and nerfs and tweaks, but this is the first time I've seen anyone suggest a side actually get more AP. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Multiply by a billion. .User:Leoofvgcats/sig 08:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Multiple Building Levels

Timestamp: Maverick Talk - OBR 404 08:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Type: Building Modification

Scope: Any building that you can currently jump out of

Description: I'm pretty sure that nothing like this has been suggested before, but if it has and I missed it in my search I apologize. Currently we have all these locations throughout Malton that people can jump out of, so presumably these buildings have multiple floors. Why not represent these floors in-game? Whenever you are inside of a building that has multiple floors, you will have a new button Go to upper floors or Go to lower floors. Gameplay effects would be as follows: Essentially different rooms in the same location. Players in one area cannot see those in the other. Upper Floors and Lower Floors would need to be powered separately. For the purposes of NecroTech buildings, all the NT equipment is on the upper floors. Therefore, syringe manufacture and scans can only be done if the upper floors are powered. Floors are not co-dependent on power (ex: in an NT, you could scan if the upper floor was power and not the lower floors), but they ARE co-dependent on repairs (if one is ruined they both are...but obviously both need to be cleared of survivors/zombies for ruination/repair to occur). Upper Floors CANNOT be barricaded. The only way to reach the upper floors is from the lower floors. Players Free Running to the location automatically end up in the Lower Floors upon entering the location. Equally true, you cannot free run from the Upper Floors out of the location. The only ways to leave the Upper Floors is to go to the Lower Floors or jump out the window. A new graphic would need to be introduced for these buildings to reflect the varying levels of powered status (no power at all/lower powered, upper not/upper powered, lower not/both powered). New descriptions would be needed as well, one example might be something like "You are standing outside the Pask Building. Light on the upper floors illuminated the NecroTech logo, but the lower floors are dark." This is not meant as a buff to survivors or zombies, but rather a new dynamic for players. I tried to make it interesting without favoring either side, but input is appreciatied.

Discussion (Multiple Building Levels)

I like that you took the time to think about this suggestion and you didn't make it balance breaking for anyone, nor does it violate the usual "do nots" like x-ray eyes, etc. However it would create an unnecessary AP drain for everyone. Survivors would spend an extra 2AP using NTs, or even looking for people to heal, zombies to evict, etc. Similarly, zombies would have to spend extra AP searching through upperfloors for survivors to eat. So the net effect would be a small but steady drain on every player's AP, without any noticeable reward.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 11:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Plus theres the danger it will be duped Suggestions/20th-Nov-2005#Multiple_Tower_Floors or Suggestions/7th-Jul-2006#Multiple_Story_Buildings --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If if is in fact a dupe then this suggestion can be taken down; or do you think that this is different enough through detail/time elapsed to warrant discussion? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider it a dupe as it answers a few questions not answered by the above link (especially the second one) and there have been significant changes (Ransack) to revaluate the idea. The question you have to ask yourself is what is the benefit to survivors to having a second story? Why can't survivors free run from the upper floor? to be honest, the ONLY consideration you have here over the first suggestion is the inclusion of Ransack.--Pesatyel 03:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't looking to benefit either side with this suggestion, just present a new dynamic for sieges of some buildings that are literally all over the place. As far as why they can't free run from the Upper Floors, I figured that was only logical since you can't free run to anything but the Lower Floors. If you wanted to justify it you could say that it's because the Upper Floors are too far above surrounding buildings. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's just it though, other then Ransack, this IS a dupe.--Pesatyel 06:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this quite a few times before. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It is relatively well thought out, but it is pretty much just an AP drain. (The same is true for Quarantine 2019, which this suggestion features in.) By "They need to be repaired/ruined separately", does that mean they must both be ruined for the building to show up as ruined? Or would it not be possible to ruin one of the floors without ruining the other? --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My intention was that if one part was ruined, the whole thing would be considered ruined for things that are dependent upon that status. Tweaking obviously being done here. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If you meant the 3x3 map display, I would think that they could be shown separately (since a new graphic would be needed anyways), but that might get confusing if the Lower Floors were ruined and the Upper Floors were not. Re-wrote that part of the suggestion to (hopefully) better explain my thoughts on this issue.--Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a very good idea. As to the AP drain issue, there are already several useless things in UD that cost AP, but are done for the sake of Role-Playing. This idea would add a very cool Role-Playing element to the game, as in real-life, most buildings WOULD have more than 1 floor. Of course, not all buildings would have to have more than 1 floor in UD. You have my support. --Chase1993 13:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Chase said: You have my support.

Well if this wasn't already beaten into the ground, that's the kiss of death for this suggestion right there^. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 21:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Epic Hi-five.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Win achieved; cookies will now be dispensed. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Remove Brain Rot for Monroeville

Timestamp: Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Type: Skill change

Scope: Zombies

Description: Basically, remove Brain Rot as a skill from Monroeville and Borehamwood. The skill does nothing in the cities, as revive has been removed, so I say we get rid of the skill, which costs 100XP, and only serves as a buffer to prevent zombies acquiring flesh rot, which actually does do something. If we did this, Flesh rot would just become a skill on its own. This doesn't effect Malton at all. N.B. If you've already bought it, you get 100XP back.

Discussion (Remove Brain Rot for Monroeville)

Speaking as the first player in Monroeville to get flesh rot,I have to ask. What would this achieve? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Zombies don't have to spend 100 more XP to buy flesh rot. Currently, the skill practically costs 200XP.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems a lot of coding for something that will probably affect less than 100 indivduals. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh. It's probably because I'm really in to Monroeville at the moment, but I'm not happy about buying a useless skill before I can actually hunt for humans. Ah well, you raise an excellent point.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am now confused. Why do you need brain rot to hunt for humans? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I need flesh rot, so that they don't kill me in my sleep. If I have to buy Brain Rot to get that, it's kind of unfair... Speaking of which, I'm outside your mall in Borehamwood.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Any survivor still alive in Monroeville has done so by not having any contact with zombies for months. As soon as one tries to shoot you, you'd post it all over the wiki and 90 or so zombies would come and eat him. And it's really not my Mall. I'm not even there. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I was hoping to eat you. But the argument stands that there shouldn't be a pointless skill. As soon as wirecutters became redundant, they were removed. Hence, Brain rot should be removed from the temporaries.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he could get away with minimal coding. For instance, setting the cost of Brain Rot to 0XP would take minimal effort, and then a simple database query and update could be used to locate players with Brain Rot and return 100XP to them, assuming that's what was desired. Seems like it'd be a 5 minute job, though obviously not the same as removing it entirely. —Aichon— 16:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was a year after they became redundant, but yeah. Monroeville was actually shut before flesh rot happened, so its no suprise kevan didn;t want to code an alternative. Don;t forget all those survivors in the perma death cities with Necrotech employment. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's another issue. But since that one would only affect 4 people, I'll stick with this for now.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If this happens I want my 100XP for Brain Rot back. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That was implied. I'll add it to the suggestion above.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Multi-Dump

Timestamp: Bob Boberton TF / DW 20:41, 26 October 2009 (BST)

Type: UI change

Scope: Survivors/Dead bodies

Description: Currently, bodies are dumped one at a time, for one AP. This proposal changes the "dump [a/the] body outside" action choice to "dump the [body/bodies] outside (<COST> AP)." Effectively, you still pay one AP per body to dump them outside, but you can dump all bodies with one button press and save several IP hits in the process. Alternative: It still costs an IP hit per body, but consolidates multiple dumps into one button press. This makes building recovery more consistent, as repairing a building functions in this way at present. Possible Issues: Negative AP - Functions the same way as building repair. ?rise implications - Doesn't really affect real-time combat; you can still only target/kill one zombie at a time.

Discussion (Multi-Dump)

So similar to the old Dumping Bodies? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sort of, except (AP cost = number of bodies), not "one AP to dump all of them." --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:54, 26 October 2009 (BST)

Nerfs parachuting to buff survivors for no credible reason. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Howzat? This is a change from "press this button a couple times" to "press it once." It's primarily intended to be a UI change, not a mechanics one. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:54, 26 October 2009 (BST)

I fear it will never pass, because it would open the floodgates to other suggestions, runniing, firing 6 bullets at the same time, speed cading etc. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with it not passing. I'm just more interested in making building reclamation less of a click-fest when there are piles of smelly bodies all over the place. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:59, 26 October 2009 (BST)

You step into your safehouse with one AP, me and my friend (Death Cultist B) are shooting each other/dying of an infection. You stay logged in with your 1 AP and see when we both die and appear as bodies. Normally you could only dump one of us, under your proposal you could dump 10,000 of us. If you can go into negative AP with this activity, which has clear tactical advantages, why can't I have a button that shoots all my guns until I run out of ammo and sets me at the appropriate negative AP? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do building repairs allow for negative AP? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:01, 26 October 2009 (BST)

Because otherwise repairs over 50 wouldn't be able to repaired. Buildings with over 50 bodies can be cleared. Basic logic. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Massive repairs could've been made to drain you to zero AP while not completely annulling the cost of the repair. However, they weren't designed that way. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:04, 26 October 2009 (BST)

Bodies weren't designed to be dumped in multiple either. Want to make it less of a click-fest? Don't dump them, bodies don't block repairs, or ruins for that matter, just accept the consequences for not performing the actions that everyone else has to. There's also the major 'Times it by a thousand' argument of Forts in this, which could have a player into -1000AP.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, forgot the fort one. You have to move with that action, and since players aren't some kind of super(wo)men (debatable I know but stick with me here), you'd have to drag them individually. Basically, I'm looking to draw body dumping in line with how building repairs are handled, which had two options: One, this side of it (change body dumping); Two, change building repair. The second is quite dupish, though. Hence, I suggest the other. Consistency, is all. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:11, 26 October 2009 (BST)

Unlike ruins though, this specifically affects other players, players who have a hard enough time as it is getting through cades, they don't need to be shot by you until you have 1AP and can then be safe in the knowledge that you can clear all the non-risen zombies due to the ability to go into negative AP, an ability that zombies don't have, we can't claw into negative AP, or ruin for that matter. If you're saying that things should be brought into line with repairs, surely you should start with the zombie analogue of ruining the building to begin with. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A simple ?rise at the right time can cost a survivor quite a bit of AP to undo, will usually send a zombie into negative AP, and can be used to keep a building ruined or the cades down (via interference). It's not a true analogue, admittedly, but it's the obvious zombie ability that can disrupt survivor plans in a hurry, just as you're proposing his suggestion would do to zombies. I can't speak towards forts though, since I'm still a bit hazy on some of the mechanics involved. —Aichon— 21:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of it as it is, though I'd prefer that it not allow negative AP. Then again, I don't like negative AP anyway and think it should be done away with (e.g. partial repairs, not allowing negative AP for rising, syringes, or reviving, etc.). —Aichon— 21:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What about just doing it in clumps of 5?--Pesatyel 02:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you have to click for every body you dump as it is. In a real-time situation, it means you take longer to clear a room, so more zombies might get in while you're trying to clean up and re-'cade. It might not be too relevant otherwise, but if we're both active, it gives you an advantage to do what you're proposing.--Necrofeelinya 06:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Making AP's More Abundant

Timestamp: Chase1993 18:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Type: Entire Game

Scope: Entire Game

Description: Okay, I may seem stupid, and this has probably been asked many times before, but WHY do we have so few AP's and WHY do they take so long to recharge? This makes the game EXTREMELY annoying to people who are not entirely dedicated to the game. When I recommended the game to my friends, they all replied in various ways this basic statement: "What the hell is this? It's not even a game; all you can do is spend 5 minutes max everyday on it." I myself enjoy the game, but it actually keeps me awake at night wondering WHY the game is like this. I propose that these changes be made: 1. Player's maximum AP points increased to 100 2. AP points recharge at the rate of 1 every 5 minutes 3. After a player logs out, there character would stay online for 30 minutes before disapperaing I understand that this would change some of the fundamental aspects of the game, but I think it would make the game much funner for all, and would CERTAINLY make it easier for casual gamers to play, get something accomplished, and enjoy the game. I would like people to comment on my ideas, and ways they could be tweaked, as I realize that other things may need to be changed as well for these changes to be feasible.

Discussion (Making AP's More Abundant)

No. This makes individual players way too powerful, and you seem to miss the point that UD is meant to be a five-minutes-a-day kind of game. There are plenty of other ways to use up your free time between UD sessions, metagaming/joining a group being one of them. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 18:23, 26 October 2009 (BST)

Well, I'm not entirely opposed to increasing the max AP. But recharging at 1AP per 5 minutes is way too fast, 288AP per day is just overkill. As for everyone disappearing after 30 minutes, how the hell are zombies going to get food and XP when they break into buildings and there is no one there to attack? - User:Whitehouse 18:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Too many questions. Even the worst suicide repairs ever recorded (160 ap plus I think is the highest ever done) could be completed in a day. And zombies could ruin everything if players idled out so quickly. Also would probably cripple the server. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks in my group have done 220+AP repairs, I believe, and there are others who have done larger ones.

Anyway, getting back to the bigger issue, these changes would not make the game more casual friendly; they would actually do the opposite. Also, the entire game is balanced around a slow recharge rate and a limited max AP, otherwise people can do too much before others log back in again. There's a similar zombie game that recharges AP every 7.5 minutes. That game seems to be unbalanced though, in that people can go on killing sprees while others are recharging, and your suggestion is way beyond what that other game has. It would ruin the tempo and nature of the game and upset all of the balances done over the years, since AP is everything. So, no. Just no. —Aichon— 19:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: TO ALL OF THE ABOVE Of course, the 30 minute after logout could be changed. Perhaps 2 hours would be better. As to letting people accomplish way to much while other people are logged out, that's the idea. If people could accomplish alot, more people would be encouraged to play. It would obviously change the whole style of the game, and I didn't expect my suggestion to be universally well recieved, but come on, don;t you ever wish you could spend hours playing at a time? In my opinion, Urban Dead is the best game out there, and i've played WOW. I just wish I could play Urban Dead more often than I can now. -- Chase1993

Hours spent playing UD being fun? Sure. Would that be fair to other players? Definitely not. There's your crux. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:41, 26 October 2009 (BST)

How do people talk to each other in-game if they disappear quickly after logout? Or heal each other, for that matter? How does one justify a zombie being able to singlehandedly take a building from EHB to ruin in a day, even with a survivor or two inside? Or, on the flipside, justify singlehandedly barricade strafing half of a suburb to VSB in a day? These changes would create lots of empty buildings and even more boredom since people wouldn't be able to find each other.

If you'd like to play UD for longer periods of time, there are already ways to go about doing that. Multiple characters, planning out in detail how to spend AP, meta-gaming with others, and participating on the wiki are just a few I've found. I can spend several hours a day on UD-related things if I so choose, but I like that I only need to spend 5 minutes a day. This game is not supposed to play like WoW. —Aichon— 20:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If people could accomplish a lot more than they can now, people would be driven out of the game. As it is, it's possible to survive the night in one place. With your suggestion, it would be difficult for even that to be achieved. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}19:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: To post directly above: In what way would it be impossible to survive the night in one place? If you dissapear 30 minutes - 2 hours after logging out, you can't be killed. I KNOW what I'm saying would drastically change the game. RE: To BobBoberton's Post: How would it not be fair to other players? If everyone played more often, then it would be fair to everyone. Also, there would be much more live action. Players would mainly be combating other active players (of which there would be many more if these changes took place), instead of always just attacking logged-out characters. As is, there is almost NO live action. The main purpose of my suggestion is to change this. -- Chase1993

Real-time combat isn't fair either. Faster internet connection? You win. Zombie with Infectious Bite? Either your opponent flees or uses lots of resources. Human? Run away with free running! And it doesn't make it fair if a player can kill half a dozen others every day - now, you're lucky to kill one player a day on average (taking stocking and cade-smashing into the equation). I could easily foresee a zombie victory (since a human one is nigh-impossible) where players just log in every, what, nine hours or so and kill five times as many other players a day. Zombies get stronger with more volume - as in how every well-coordinated large horde is always successful in a mall/NT siege. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:13, 26 October 2009 (BST)

(dang edit conflicts) There would be less active players at any given time because of the fast disappearance and less live action with your changes (though live action would make up a larger percentage of encounters). Having played a game that works similarly to what you're describing, I can speak from experience. You don't see enemies for a few days, then suddenly wake up to find out that someone killed you in the night (as well as all of the other friendlies nearby). It's a giant game of hide-and-seek, with no sieges or close calls or real strategy, which is what UD would become with these changes. And see my earlier issues about FAKing and talking. —Aichon— 20:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: ABOVE POSTS: Firsty, Aichon, again, you would NOT wkae up and find yourself dead because as I have said many times before, your character will disapper 2 hours after logging out. Secondly, you WOULD see enemies, because more people would log on and play. To BobBoberton: FASTER INTERNET CONNECTION??!!! I've played Urban Dead on 33.3Kbs, which is THE slowest connection availabe, and it worked just as fast as it does on my current connection. Again, focus on what you said: " you're lucky to kill one player a day on average". THAT'S what I want to change. What you need to understand is that of course, it would DRASTICALLY change the game (and to be frank, I don't think it's a change that will happen, because of server issues). As to it being a good change if it were possible, obviously my idea would have to be majorly tweaked, however, I cannot amagine anyone NOT being happy with the core element of my idea: being able to play for longer periods of time. -- Chase1993

I was speaking from experience with another game that's similar to your idea, and yes, you do wake up dead often. And no, you would not see more people, because 2 hours is not appropriately scaled to the AP recharge rate (do the math for it...a 12-24 hour timeout would be more appropriate, but still problematic). Also, no, that is not the slowest connection. And finally, if you can't imagine anyone not being happy, then you're clearly not listening to what anyone is saying. —Aichon— 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(yay edit conflicts) Not wake up dead? With players getting max AP every eight hours or so (1 per 5 minutes), there's a very good chance that yes, you will wake up dead. I don't know about you, but on occasion UD is quite slow for me. It might be because the server's in the UK and I live in the US; it might be because of heavy server load at the time. Either way, sometimes UD is sluggish - and when that happens, it can be fatal with regards to real-time combat. And as stated before, killing more than one other player a day makes players too powerful, and the game severely unbalanced. UD's not broken, why "fix" it in this manner? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:47, 26 October 2009 (BST)

How long have you been playing? I'm guessing sub-3 months. Otherwise you'd know that entire suburbs would go down in minutes if unlimited play was allowed, MOB would take entire suburbs in a strike, Mall Tours would be over in an hour and if a group like The Dead came from another community it would be the end of Malton. Your idea would kill the game for people who wanted to play casually, a hardcore strata of players would emerge on the zombie side and literally win the game through attrition. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am unhappy. With characters disappearing every two hours, how could humans ever win a siege? More importantly, this does nothing to get survivors back on their feet more quickly. The sticking point will still be revives. OR would you be happy having to log in every two hours to stop your character at a revive point disappearing. Finally, this punishes all those players who aren't online 24/7. Urban deads simplicity is that it can be played in 5 minutes. And this is a zergers dream. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: ABOVE POSTS: To Iscariot, no I am not a long term player -- I have been playing the game for about 3-4 months now. However, I do LOVE the game. Is there no conceivable way that the game could be improved to let people play for long periods at a time? Secondly, in what way does it punish players that aren't online 24/7? They wouldn't get as much XP as others? Of course they wouldn't! In ANY MMORPG, the players that DO play are the ones that get to advance the levels, etc. It is SUPPOSED to be rewarding to the players that play often. That's what MMORPG's are TRYING to do. But at the same time, the dissapear 2 hours after logout would make sure that casual players can stay in the game without being killed. Of course they wouldn't advance as fast; that's the point. Also, of course it would make the game faster paced. It would change the gameplay. I don;t expect hardcore UD players to be entirely happy with it. But it WOULD make for faster gameplay, and more importantly, it would allow people to truely immerse themselves in Urban Dead. TO ALL ABOVE POSTS: Maybe I'm missing something, but why is it that everyone is saying it would nerf humans and make zombies too powerful? I simply don't understand the logic. -- Chase1993

Learn to sign your posts, and fast if you're going to engage in walls of text debates. Four months? Four whole months? There are players on this page who have played for four years, and they're going to give you the same opinion everyone else has given you. This is a bad idea and will hurt people. Given you weren't here, The Dead were an organised group of 1200 people from an external forum from all timezones of the planet. They could easily have people active 24 hours a day and given that the refresh time from the server isn't huge on UD, with limitless AP they could monitor the interior and exterior of every building in the city permanently. It doesn't matter that you'd idle in two hours, you'd be found long before then, a post made on their communication networks and you'd be dead five minutes after, as simple as. That's before we even get onto Extinction, spying add-ons and auto-scripts. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Because if people dissapeared after 2 hours, zombies could ruin buildings without having to kill the humans inside the buildings. If this happened, the zombies could ruin all the NTs in a suburb in a day or two. The surivors would then be unable to revive anyone.--Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}21:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the zombies are better organised. Its no secret that of the top 5 groups in urban dead, usually 4 are zombies. Also your point is that if people idle out more quickly, they won't be killed as much. What's that about? Its a zombie apocalypse. Dying is part of the process. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Zombies can't ruin buildings until after all survivors are out of it, and your suggestion would make it so that there would be less survivors in buildings since they'd be disappearing constantly. Sieges, which happen all over the city, all the time, at very small scales, only work because humans can act as meatshields once the zombies break in (which they already do on a routine basis). If the meatshields are gone, the buildings will fall while people have disappeared. They'll come back to ruined buildings and a lack of revives if they were unfortunate enough to be one of the few that hadn't disappeared when it was attacked.

As someone who has been playing the game for even less time than you, I'd suggest checking up on some of the historical stuff that happened in 2007 and 2008 with Extinction and the Salt the Land ideas. Now imagine if the zombies had no limits. The game would end, which is no fun for anyone. —Aichon— 21:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

*Cough* Eve Online *cough* Why don't you create more characters? This is supposed to be more of a quick, time killer game anyways. Well, the game that is, not the wiki or forums... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: ABOVE POSTS: Again, I still do not understand WHY zombies would win. If zombie groups are more organized it just means that human players will need to get BETTER organized, which would actually add elements of gameplay. Again, obviously elements of gameplay would need to be changed, and I don't have all the answers. I accept that in a gameplay debate, I cannot stand up to many of you who have played the game for years. However, I have played for several months, and I cannot understand HOW it could possibly be SUCH a big issue in gameplay. I mean, there MUST be a way to increase gameplaying time. -- Chase1993

Organization won't matter if all it takes is 1-2 zombies online at the same time to break open any building in the game, kill all of the survivors, and ruin it, all in less than 5 minutes. There's no way survivors could react in time. If those 1-2 zombies are all it takes to ruin any building, you wouldn't even need organization of the zombies...ferals alone could hold every TRP in the game, or else re-ruin them on a daily basis for relatively cheap. Especially so when compared to the cost of reviving the dead, finding gennies, finding fuel, clearing the zeds, repairing the building, and re-barricading it. —Aichon— 23:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: ABOVE POSTS: Also, one thing people seem to be forgeting is that there will still be humans in the game. Everybody's saying things like "Zombies will run wild" and "Zombies will destroy everything" and "Zombie groups will takeover". Um... there WILL still be human players in the game. As there are MORE human players than zombies, I don't see how it could work in the zombies favour. Humans could do exactly the same as the zombies could. -- Chase1993

Not sure why people are saying that either. Possibly because zombies are an attacking force and survivors have to react to attack, thus zombies have an easier time of coordination than survivors (this is thinking on an out of game level, just so people don't tear my apart for misrepresenting who has best in game communication options), because survivors have to wait for the attack to occur, then plan and assemble a reaction force. But even then, once an attack has taken place, it would not be hard for solo survivors to quickly repair and re-barricade a substantial portion of what has been destroyed. As zombies could not hold every building due to insufficient amounts of coordinated zombies, many buildings would remain empty, just waiting for a barricade straffer to come along. A barricade straffer could easily manage 20 buildings at VSB level. Costing him 200AP, and costing the zombies 800AP to undo his work. Anyhow, the changes you have suggested are way too drastic for most peoples liking. It's just too much of a change to something that works rather well right now. - User:Whitehouse 23:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If a human finds a zombie and kills it, the zombie stands up for a worst case loss to zombie AP of 15AP, or a typical cost of 6AP, since most zombies get Ankle Grab early on and most survivors have Headshot. If a zombie finds a human and kills him, the human, in the best case, costs his side 13AP (two ?rise, one revive, and one search). And that's assuming that the reviver found the syringe on his very first search and that the revivee has Ankle Grab. The more likely outcome is that he doesn't have Ankle Grab and that the reviver had to spend 8AP on average to find a syringe, yielding a loss of 38AP to the survivor side, and that's still ignoring any AP the revivee gains while capped as a zombie or AP spent traveling to revive points, NT facilities, or elsewhere. Reviving is a major drain on gross survivor AP.

The reason why this matters is because this is not a game of zombies against humans, but, rather, zombies against barricades. Barricades are life to humans, and rendering them useless by giving everyone so much AP means that it becomes a straight-up war of attrition between the two sides. And in a war of attrition, humans simply cannot keep up because of the AP costs involved with reviving and the scarcity of the syringes involved during emergencies. Plus, the AP cost would actually go up even higher in my earlier equations if a lit NT facility wasn't handy, such as when they're ruined. If nothing else, the zombies would simply win the AP war, resulting in new zombies being created faster than they could be revived all across the city. —Aichon— 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Not if the zombies broke into buildings where there was nobody to kill (likely to occur if players disappear after 30 minutes). The fact is if the changes were implemented, the zombies wouldn't be able to kill enough survivors for it to destroy the survivor population. If the zombie players could be on 24/7, I might agree, but as they can't, I don't really think this would aid either side hugely, just make the loses and gains increase in size, and frustrate newbies who can not find targets to help increase their XP quickly, be it by killing, healing or reviving. - User:Whitehouse 23:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

They don't have to break into every building. They just need to crack open the NTs and keep them ruined most of the time. After that, they've won. Just picking off a few survivors here and there would bleed the survivors' needle supply dry, which is a win condition for the zombies. And since there hasn't been talk of increasing encumbrance limits to match the greater AP, survivors simply couldn't pack enough needles to keep up with the increase in deaths. And we still haven't had an answer on how survivors would revive/FAK/talk to people that have disappeared. —Aichon— 23:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Because survivors would be safe while inactive, the focus of the game would shift. Zombies would become the defensive force, keeping survivors out of buildings where they can get resources. Survivors would become the strike forces, coordinating attack times, stocking up on supplies and scattering to safe "idle" locations. Due to zombies also idling out, these strike teams would have no problem repairing the buildings and getting what they needed from them. Zombies would need to be logging in every hour to keep a significant presence in buildings they want to keep from survivors, while survivors no longer need to worry about the zombies eating them once "idled". As you just added on before I could finish this: Interaction would suffer from this, no talking, hardly and healing, reviving having to be coordinated. All in all it's a bad game change. I'm just not convinced that either side would "win" because of it. - User:Whitehouse 00:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Babah zambahz don't get anything to eat, newbie breathers don't get anything semi-damaged to fix with their minimal skills, tactical resource points get ruined (original poster: that means they can't be re-barricaded until they're repaired, and they can't be repaired until all the zombies are gone) quickly and easily, and people are encouraged and rewarded (practically required) for spending many hours of their life per day on this. This is just a bad idea all around, and no amount of tinkering will make it good. Chase1993, don't even worry about Urban Dead right now. I want you to read this, think about what it means, and then take a serious look at your life and how you're living it.--Mold 03:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: ABOVE POSTS: Aichon, and most everyone else: I STILL cannot understand HOW there would be no barricades left. Human players can (almost) just as easily repair the barricades as zombies can attack them. Now, did you know that there are 2 times more active humans than active zombies? The humans would be barricading MUCH faster. Again, to Aichon: About the syringe thing, etc, I've said many times that I know many things would have to be revamped for my idea to work. If my idea were implemented, DRASTIC changes to the rest of the game would have to occur. Seeing a way my idea does not fit in with such and such aspect of the game is not good enough reason to shoot it down, as I'm not suggesting it be implemented EXACTLY as I have put it down. I simply would love to see some changes that would make the game more friendly to players who want to play all more often. To Mold: Qoute, "and people are encouraged and rewarded (practically required) for spending many hours of their life per day on this. This is just a bad idea all around". Um... what about my posts (and life in general) have you been missing?! It's SUPPOSED to encourage and reward those people! The point of ANY MMORPG IS to reward those people. That's how it goes with ANYTHING in life. I practice parkour; do you think that I got out of bed one day and just decided to do parkour? EMPHATICALLY NO! I spent YEARS of my life training EVERY day. Life is designed to reward those who work hard at something. That's the WHOLE point of my game changes. Unlike it is now, the hardcores SHOULD be able to gain XP faster than the casual gamers. I mean, haven't you played ANY other MMORPG, or any other game (or practice any real-life skill)??!! If you had, you would know that working hard and consistently at it is par for the course. (Also, that link really wansn't as clever as you think it is) -- Chase1993

Who said anything about being clever? I'm not here to show off, and I don't need to entertain you. You need help kid, seriously, and if you can't see why, I hope somebody nearby has the sense to stage an intervention for you.

Regarding your inability to see how there would be no barricades left, it's pretty simple: this suggestion makes ruining buildings and keeping them ruined much easier, and ruined buildings cannot be barricaded until they're repaired.

To get back closer to the main point of contention, no, MMOs are not necessarily about sitting on your ass all day grinding for XP and gold, greens or whatever the game uses to show how much time you've wasted. Many of them present themselves that way, and apparently that's a thing about MMO games that you like. That doesn't mean MMO games that don't do things that way -- and in fact go out of their way to discourage players trying to do it that way -- need to be dragged into conformity with all the treadmills that make you fatter. Urban Dead isn't that kind of game, the creator of the game has clearly intended for it not to be that kind of game, and taken steps to ensure it doesn't become that kind of game. Even if you were gaining any support for the idea here (which you clearly aren't), it's not going to fly because it goes so hard against what Urban Dead is. You're barking up the wrong tree trying to drum up support for turning UD into WoW with zombies.--Mold 07:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: ABOVE POST: Firstly, my friend, I'm not trying to make this into a war of insults against each other, but I MUST question your logic. In WHAT way do I need help? From my point of view, it is YOU who have been GREATLY deprived of an important aspect of life: working hard to achieve something. If people want to spend their time playing MMORPG's, so be it. However, you clearly do not understand my situation. Why you do not understand I CANNOT think. I have cleary stated that I practice parkour. Perhaps you don't know what prakour is? Look it up. I can assure you, however, that parkour requires a GREAT amount of time OFF of your ass. Therefore, my life seems pretty balanced, as I have time to get outside with my club and partake of exercise, and also have time to play games. It's YOU that should be seeking help, and maybe should START putting your mind to a goal in life. Insults over, I understand that many hardcore UD players would not like the fact that it requires people to play more often, as playing for small periods is something that makes UD what it is. I still think that if there were a way to let players who want to play for longer periods of time do so, it would please more gamers out there, which is the general idea. -- Chase1993

I know what parkour is, and I know that a lot more people claim to practice it than actually do. Something to do with its trendiness in sandbox video games, no doubt. Whether or not you actually practice it is no concern of mine. The issue we're having here is this: Your suggestion is dead on arrival, and people before me have quite clearly pointed out why it's no good, and you don't care. This implies that the problem isn't actually with the suggestion, but rather, with you. I don't really care why you want to turn Urban Dead into World of Warcraft with zombies, I'm telling you it's not going to happen, full stop. Your inability to hear or understand what people are saying to you, and your celebration of the worst (at times lethally bad) aspect of MMOs as integral and good and able to teach valuable lessons about life, implies you have dangerous psychological problems and may wind up hurting or killing yourself with them over time. I mean, if you want to go hurt yourself, that's none of my business, but I wish the windup toward your breakdown and suicide attempt could happen somewhere other than Developing Suggestions.--Mold 08:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing a way my idea does not fit in with such and such aspect of the game is not good enough reason to shoot it down

Yes, it is. You're providing us with an idea here on Developing Suggestions. It's your task to develop the suggestion into something that the players can agree is a good idea. If your idea would break the game, it's our duty to shoot it down and tell you where it's broken. We've told you repeatedly where it's broken, but have yet to see any development. I believe most of us agree that your idea is fundamentally broken and will not work, regardless of the tweaks involved. I'm sorry that you we can't understand each other, but it's not any of our responsibility to make you understand our reasoning, but it is your responsibility to bring us around to an understanding of and agreement with yours. This will be my last response unless I see significant changes to the suggestion, since there's no point in continuing a discussion that can only serve to frustrate both of us.

Regarding humans and zombies, there are not twice as many humans. Check the stats. And you're arguing that net barricade levels would be on the increase, but net barricade levels don't matter when the zombies just need to hold a few positions to win, which would be trivial if they could break down the barricades at will. You've been playing this game long enough that you must realize that humans are incapable of winning the game (literally and technically) and, faced with large enough hordes, have no recourse but to flee.

Due to Beachhead Tactics and the like, only a small number of zombies are necessary in order to render buildings ruined, and as we saw before with Extinction, ruining buildings is already very doable and is extremely dangerous. Even though humans could repair the buildings, as you point out, they'd have to expose themselves to do so, which comes at great cost to them if they're found and killed. On the other hand, zombies risk practically nothing to undo the barricades. There's also the fact that a lone zombie now has enough AP to take down a VSB by himself and maybe get a few hits in on survivors. A handful working in unison can expect to get in and do serious damage. The way that survivors can survive in this game is by having those barricades stay up 24/7. Once the barricades fall, survivors start dying, and dying is extremely costly. Your suggestion would make the barricades fall all the time, which means lots of survivor deaths. Or maybe they disappeared, in which case they just gave away the building to the zombies.

Also, you seem to have missed the point of the game. It is not to reward the hardcore players, and not all MMOs are the way you described. Life may reward those that work hard, but games don't have to reflect life since they are meant to be fun. This game, like many others, chooses not to make a point of rewarding an individual's hard work, and instead tries to be fun for the demographic that it's aimed at: people who only want to spend five minutes a day playing the game. I played WoW for years (back when it wasn't nerfed all to hell), I raided at the high end, I was there for guild and server firsts, and if you think that this game is supposed to play out like WoW, you've most certainly missed the point.

Anyway, I'm done for now with the arguing, but I would like to reiterate a few things that have already been said. First, if your suggestion needs "drastic" (using your words here) changes to work, make them instead of beating around the bush. Don't keep arguing it as it is, since it just wastes everyone's time. Second, if this many people are coming out against your idea, whether or not you can see a problem, you need to admit that the players think there is a problem and that your suggestion will never be accepted as it is, since suggestions get voted on by the very people that you are arguing against right now. Third, use a signature. Iscariot mentioned this to you already, and I posted on your talk page even before he mentioned it to you, but it's common etiquette to use one. If you need help, I'll be glad to help you with it. —Aichon— 08:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: MOLD'S POST: "I know what parkour is, and I know that a lot more people claim to practice it than actually do." Firstly, friend, you have to take what I say for granted. If everytime someone made a claim "I've played UD for 4 years" I said "HAHA, you're just lying", we'd never get anywhere. I DO practice parkour, by myself AND with a club, and you're just going to have to take that for granted. "Something to do with its trendiness in sandbox video games, no doubt." Seriously, my friend, stop trying to insert clever lines everywhere; it comes out, for want of a better word, extremely dorky. "Whether or not you actually practice it is no concern of mine." Not in the general sense, but for this debate, it IS a concern of yours. You have said that I should get off my ass and stop wasting time. As I have proved that I DO get off my ass, it is a concern of yours, as you were the one who first stated that I was inactive. "The issue we're having here is this: Your suggestion is dead on arrival, and people before me have quite clearly pointed out why it's no good, and you don't care." Of course I care. I was the one who said at the very top of the page, if you'd care to look, that I wanted feedback as to how it would not work. Maybe you are not familiarized with the construction of debates. I'll fill you in. The point of a debate is that we're arguing something. If everybody agreed to my suggestion, there WOULDN'T be any debate, now would there? "This implies that the problem isn't actually with the suggestion, but rather, with you". Um... let me get this straight. You're saying that because I argue my point, there must be something seriously wrong with me. Simply put, I don't understand the logic of that statement. "I don't really care why you want to turn Urban Dead into World of Warcraft with zombies, I'm telling you it's not going to happen, full stop". To be honest, as I have said before, I didn't think it would ever really happen, because of server issues. However, to be quite frank, and I know that most hardcore UD's will hate me for this; yes, I would like to make UD more WOW style. And in all fairness, if it were more WOW style, it would attract far more players. "Your inability to hear or understand what people are saying to you, and your celebration of the worst (at times lethally bad) aspect of MMOs as integral and good and able to teach valuable lessons about life, implies you have dangerous psychological problems and may wind up hurting or killing yourself with them over time. I mean, if you want to go hurt yourself, that's none of my business, but I wish the windup toward your breakdown and suicide attempt could happen somewhere other than Developing Suggestions". Firstly, as I have stated above, I do understand what people are saying. I'm simply debating the point. Secondly, are you saying that all MMORPG's that require gameplay time of more than 10 minutes daily should be shut down? If so, you are the bane of pretty much EVERY gamer out there. If you would not like to partake of such "time-wasting activities", perhaps you should refrain from them, and live a quiet life with the Amish somewhere. And finally, please stop with the dramatism. "Winding up killing myself". Get real. I could start throwing any number of unfounded accusations at you: "If you don't start playing WOW, there is a serious chance you will kill all your family". Stick to reality. Playing MMORPG's will NOT make me kill myself. It's just a stupid thing to say. -- Chase1993

Okay, this is getting very boring, and seems increasingly pointless. A few last things and I'm done.

You haven't proved anything, you've claimed things but a claim that I can't disprove isn't proof of your claim. Proof looks more like this: "I started playing Mold roughly four years ago, feel free to check the character profile to verify this." And that's not even airtight logical proof of the claim, that's just pretty strong evidence that the player database thinks that somebody started playing a character with that name on that date. Though I have made a slight change to his profile just to firm things up a little.

Debating involves more than just stating your opinion over and over again while other people say other things.

There's more to arguing than saying something that a lot of people disagree with. I suggest you start with the wikipedia article on argument and go from there. Many here at the wiki don't actually argue, lord knows I often don't, but if you're going to claim to be using things like "argument"s and "logic" it might help if you were doing so.

Maybe you ought to spend more time familiarizing yourself with the game and its community before you start suggesting drastic -- or even small -- changes to it. Give it a year or so. Run around independent. Join a breather group. Join a zombie group. Get a feel for how the game looks and plays from different angles. Know what you're talking about.--Mold 09:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: TO AICHON'S POST: I understand completely what you are saying. If everyone is against me, why do I keep debating? Because my idea from the first was not to implement changes EXACTLY how I put them down. I simply want to find a way that players can play for long periods of time. I DON'T have all the answers. I want everyone to work together and try and find a way that my idea could be implemented. As it happens, I am VERY surprised to find that most people do NOT want to play for long periods of time. That's peoples prerogative. I STILL however, cannot understand why, if there were a way to implement it, people would not like it. Seriously, I don't understand how someone would not like to be able to play a game they love for a longer period of time than 10 minutes daily. But I hope you see where I'm coming from. My proposal was the only way I could think of to reinforce my idea; that of longer playing periods. I understand that this forum is unanimously against me, but all I was trying to do was find a way to make the game funner. I salute you, Aichon, for debating with me thus far, but all I would like is simply for people to try and find a way to play for longer periods. -- Chase1993

RE: MOLD'S POST: Firstly, I understand where you're coming from. I have never posted on this wiki before, and I do not know very well how this community operates. I HAVE played the game for the past 3-4 months, but perhaps I still do not quite understand the mentality of most of it's players. That's part of the reason I wrote this suggestion in the first place, as it says at the top. Finally, as I have stated several times before, the purpose of this suggestion is to throw around ideas that would increase playing time. Several players, BobBoberton, Whitehouse, Aichon, and others, have offered constructive criticism. You have offered nothing but insults and unfounded accusations. Perhaps my suggestion isn't airtight. That's why I posted it in the developing suggestions page; to get an idea if how it would be received. Obviously, it has been very poorly recieved; that still gives me a right to state my opinions as opposed to other people's. Anyway, all that to say, the purpose of this page is, as far as I am aware, to debate, make suggestions better,and give constructive criticsm. You have done none of those. I do understand your point. However, continously reiterating that I should shut up and get help is NOT helping the game. If you have nothing constructive to add to my suggestion, say you don't like it and then stop posting. It makes life easier for everyone. -- Chase1993 10:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[2] Heres a similar game, with almost identical graphics and similar skills, and a massively increased ap rate. Go and play it, the ask yourself "Is this what I want urban dead to be?" Also note the number of registered players, approximately 600. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this idea sucks ass so very badly. Even worse than my worst suggestions. Cookies and Cream 13:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

EPIC WIN Wait, what? The title's wrong... Come to think of it, what the hell is up with the picture? Uhuh. No way. No fucking way. You're telling me that someone actually made a good suggestion on DS? Get your lying ass out of here before I start putting bullets into it.

This time, it's been earned.

Lelouch vi Britannia 19:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WOW. I sure am happy I remembered to jump back into DS at the right time. I'm saving this crap in my userspace. So much argument for such a abysmal idea... It's mindblowing! --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like all the logical arguments have been made here. I'll just point out the whole "Urban Dead...fun" quote. Just because I find that hilarious. RinKou 10:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Jammed In The Door

Timestamp: Cookies and Cream 09:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Type: I have no idea

Scope: Everyone

Description: Okay, simply put a Zombie can choose to jam themselves in the doorway for 10AP. Being jammed in the door increases your AP regen time to 1AP/Hour. Jamming in doorway makes closing the door impossible until you clear the body, and as such make barricading impossible. Clearing the body pushes it outside. Clearing the doorway costs 5AP. When clearing, you can push up to 5 Zombies at at time i.e. If there are 6 Zombie jammed, then it will cost 10 AP to unjam. It costs another 10AP for a zombie to unjam themselves from the door.

Discussion (Jammed In The Door)

You'll run into problems, since this violates one of the basic "do not" principles of suggestions, namely don't mess with your AP. Also you need to specify how it would work. Do the barricades need to be down for a zombie to jam themselves in a door? Why would it make them regen their AP faster to be trapped in a doorway? How can you actually jam your body into a doorway, is it even possible? I'm just asking these question to get you to consider some of the possible answers.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 10:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

When you say it "increases your AP regen time to 1AP/Hour," do you mean that it decreases to 1AP/hour (i.e. AP recharges at half the usual rate) or that it increases by 1AP/hour (i.e. AP recharges 50% faster)? Anyway, the concept doesn't make sense from a realism standpoint, since if a zombie is jammed in the door so hard that a survivor can't close the door, the doorway itself would effectively be closed off, blocking any further zombies from entering. Also, why does it cost those values for AP and why can multiple zombies be cleared at once (and why up to five and not more/less)? There are a lot of details here that haven't been justified in any way, and, as I seem to be making a habit out of saying here, seem rather arbitrary. —Aichon— 10:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I see what you are after but I doubt it would work in game. I was going to suggest a "defend door" skill for zombies a while back but knew it would hit problems. For the record i was thinking something like adding "next barricader" to the attack drop down and having the system run the attack whenever that action triggered it. --Honestmistake 12:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bother because i could hear the trenchies screaming "auto attack"... Still the idea of some bugger trying to close the door in a siege only to have 20-30 dormant zeds suddenly savage him is funny :) --Honestmistake 12:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, as is some ignorant trenchie trying to 'cade his one man army base and finding that he can't because a zombie is stuck in the door.

I meant it like decreasing to just 1AP per hour. And seeing as and its a volutary thing, but I can see what you mean by not messing with AP. I figured moving 5 would be okay, because each of those zombies would probably weigh around 40kg and if your tough enough to survive in a Zombocalypse, then you should be able to push 40kg of dead body. And if I put my foot in a doorway, then you can't shut it - What if a) I was a dead body that felt no pain and/or b) my entire body was in the way. Cookies and Cream 13:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of blocking doorways, so I'm all over this in flavour terms. As you're trying to implement it, though, is another matter. I would say that blocking the door should cost, say, 5AP, and you can make no further actions after blocking the door or the effects are lost. While blocking you're just treated as a standing zombie, but the doors can't be closed unless you're dead. Having multiple zombies blocking a door seems a bit unfeasible though, since doors tend to be sized for one person. This way it's a more simple and elegant idea, which retains the flavour, and gives zeds a nice option in a smaller siege (especially if they've got a rotter or two on their side). 14:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason for the AP regen change (thematically) is that the body is being "used" (squished in the door). As for the "don't mess with your ap", I have this, from the FAQ as a counter There may eventually be character skills which modify the maximum AP and its recharge rate, but the basic starting-character settings will remain the same.. If your jamed in the door, wouldn't that still impede others from entering, unless you were laying down? And if your laying down, your a "corpse" and could be tossed like any other corpse.--Pesatyel 19:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd imagine he tacked that sentence on so that if there were any great suggestions about AP manipulation, they could be implemented. This doesn't nearly qualify for that.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean because this suggestion sucks? Agreed, it does. I just think people tend to automatically use the "dos and don'ts" as set-in-stone rules when they are actually just guidelines and suggestions.--Pesatyel 01:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever been in a major siege? It's virtually impossible to stop zombies from getting in, so the real way the winner is determined is a contest between the humans who meatshield, re-cade, and kill, and the zombies who rush in, interfere, and take down humans. How does letting zombies stop humans from re-cading balance this situation out? For that matter, doesn't interference already cover this in spades? Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Building Repair Change

Timestamp: Necrofeelinya 03:55, 24 October 2009 (BST)

Type: Game Mechanic Change

Scope: Survivors

Description: Just running this idea up the flagpole to see who salutes, fact is I've played a zombie for so long I don't remember all that well how ruin repairs work for harmans anyway, and this is kind of a spur of the moment idea, but here it is. I think suicide repairs are kind of silly. First, you take a building that may have been down for so long it's utterly decrepit and turn it into a functioning building in an instant. Your buddies 'cade you in, or maybe you use your zombie buddies to turn it to a VSB ruin from inside, and the guy who suicide repaired is stuck there for an indeterminate amount of time until he goes back to positive AP, possibly even idling out while he does so. He can't play, so he may as well not even log on until the day he's calculated his next positive AP balance will be. I'd like to propose an alternative. I suggest that ruin repairs no longer occur in an instant. I think that players with the construction skill and toolboxes should be able to set their character to repair a ruined building, and the AP cost to repair should be gradually deducted from their AP at a rate of 1 point per half hour, the same rate at which they accumulate AP. The effects as I see it (and if anyone else sees another effect I'm sure you'll let me know) are as follows: First, ruin repairs would take longer to bring a building up to a functional level where they can be 'caded. No more buildings instantly coming up and your buddies protecting you by 'cading for you. That's the negative for survivors. Second, you would no longer be stuck in a building while suicide repairing it. If you have 50 AP, you can set yourself to repair a building and all along you'll have 50 AP, since the rate of AP consumption is the same as the rate of AP accrual. And what this means is that you can interrupt a suicide repair and run away if you're ambushed. You're no longer stuck. Say you start a repair with 23 AP saved. Your 23 AP remains intact the whole time you're repairing. You can use it to run away at any time if the heat in the neighborhood gets to be too much. Third, this opens up a new possibility... multiple survivors working to repair a building more quickly. If more than one survivor wants to work on repairing a building, their efforts combine to speed its repair. Thus, if two survivors want to repair a building that costs 150 AP to fix, it'll cost them just 75 AP each. If a third survivor joins in, that'll bring it to 50 AP each. Fourth, since repairing becomes an action that works over a period of time, you can no longer idle out while recovering from a suicide repair. If you idle out, you stop repairing the building. It's that simple, if you're not technically there, you can't repair. Honestly, I'm not really sure what the effect on game balance would be, and I have no idea what the effect in Malton would be. It's hard to predict. But I think it just makes more sense this way. Old ruins instantly coming up and becoming functional has been kind of a silly concept all along, and the notion that you can't run away while repairing a building is kind of silly too. The notion that the cost of repair all has to fall on one survivor has been silly, and being able to idle out to avoid the full cost of suicide repairs is as well. This would address all of that. Opinions?

Discussion (Building Repair Change)

Well, first of all AP =/= time. It is related, but they are not equal. Everything else in game occurs instantly, including syringe manufacturing and surgery (two things that would, comparatively, take longer to do). This idea IS different, but that will be the primary argument I think people will use. What might be better is to allow a player to allocate X amount of AP to a repair job as they see fit.--Pesatyel 04:06, 24 October 2009 (BST)

Yeah, you can run away if ambushed - because the probability of logging on in the middle of an attack and still being alive is so high. Granted, you're probably not going to be noticed in a ruin, but still - high level zed wanders in with 30+ AP, you die. Oh, and you could just zerg buildings to "repair them faster" or leave expendable sleeper characters in buildings repairing them over time. UD does not play the game for you. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:38, 24 October 2009 (BST)

I think your missing part of the point. If you attempted to repair a 150 AP ruin, for example, your charcter is out of action for 3 days. If your APed out in a building and get attacked before you play again, there is the chance the attacker won't kill you and, when you log back in with some AP, you can respond (attack back, heal, run). But if your APed out for multiple days, if your attacker can't get you on day 1, there is always day 2 and 3 (using the above example). As for the other part, there IS an "auto-effect" feature in the game already. Granted the suggestion isn't quite the same as the in-game feature, nor do I like the suggestion as it is, but just stating a fact.--Pesatyel 06:32, 24 October 2009 (BST)

My main issue with this idea is the automatic aspect of it. Auto-attacking and auto-defending aren't kosher (and for good reasons), and I don't see why auto-repairing should be either. I do agree with the idea that it's a bit silly for a single person to be able to undo a half year's worth of ruination in one action though. Perhaps a better way to handle it would be to only let survivors spend AP that they actually have? So, if a building needs 75AP to be repaired, and someone wanders in with 25AP, they could repair it back to 50AP by themselves. It's somewhere in the middle between your suggestion and what we have now. —Aichon— 05:48, 24 October 2009 (BST)

I kind of like that idea. Or even tweak it to say that you cannot complete any action that would take you to less than -10 AP, and apply it across the board to all actions. So using Aichon's survivor, they could repair 35AP on the building. A survivor with only 1 AP could not complete a syringe manufacture (or might not be able to do so at all). I don't like the auto-repair as the initial suggestion goes, but I'm all for the partial-repair. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:52, 24 October 2009 (BST)

I was actually thinking of suggesting that we disallow any negative AP at all, but I figured that might be a bit of a bigger issue, and I didn't want to distract people from the suggestion as it is now by bringing up even more points (such as ?rise, suicide revives, etc.). —Aichon— 08:39, 24 October 2009 (BST)

I was thinking that initially too, but then realized that it isn't the going into negative AP that bothers people so much as MASSIVE negative AP. So setting some kind of barrier (-10, -15, whatever) helps limit things. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:14, 24 October 2009 (BST)

I like the sentiment, I don't like the mechanics. Maybe it'd be better to increase the rate of repair AP needed? So instead of 1 AP a day, we'd go 5. That way, you're not out for only three days to repair half a year's worth of ruination, you're spending fifteen days, even if it's instant. RinKou 22:44, 24 October 2009 (BST)

That still doesn't fix the issue of someone essentially idling out from doing a suicide repair though, which was one of the issues being addressed. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 23:06, 24 October 2009 (BST)

As this suggestion is currently proposed, there would be little cost to survivors for repairing a building. You would simply plan to rest in a ruined building while you were near 50AP and then allow yourself to automatically pump out the "repair points". As it is now, massive repairs are a sacrifice and a major pain in the ass to survivors. Dealing with -80AP requires teamwork and we should encourage teamwork. I could see 3 or 4 survivors fixing any building with almost no drawback if this suggestion were implemented.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:16, 25 October 2009 (BST)

Giles is right and the limited AP repairs working towards the total are no better as they would allow a survivor to wander in spend 40AP and wander off again only to come back and do it all over again until its fixed. Nothing a zombie could do would counteract that as they could not speed the ruin back to its former state! --Honestmistake 01:32, 25 October 2009 (BST)

that makes sense. What about just a cap on how long a building could contine to "ruin"?--Pesatyel 18:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, with all that said, I think this suggestion is basically DOA. Especially because of the zerging issue. I don't see a way to really fix it without scrapping the suggestion and starting from scratch. Thanks for the input.--Necrofeelinya 02:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Focused Search

Timestamp: Blake Firedancer T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T. 11:40, 23 October 2009 (BST)

Type: Skill (Civilian)

Scope: Survivors

Description: This civilian ability allows survivors to search for a specific item. Next to the Search button, there will be a drop-down menu. In that menu, there will be a listing of every item in the game, as well as a default setting of "Anything". When it is set to a specific item, searches will automatically discard any found item that is not the specified item, stating You search for [wanted item], but find [received item] instead. Searching for a specific item ignores the 'auto-discard' settings in the player's profile. Search rates are NOT affected. This means that, no matter how often you look for one, you'll never find a shotgun in a school. You will also not be informed if the item cannot be found in the current area. You also cannot search for guns with specific ammo counts.

Discussion (Focused Search)

So, this is essentially the equivalent of unchecking all but one option in your Settings, except that it would be faster to do? Or is there more to it than that? —Aichon— 11:48, 23 October 2009 (BST)

Yeah, that's pretty much it. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 22:52, 23 October 2009 (BST)

no. :| -- SA 12:17, 23 October 2009 (BST)

It's like no-one even checks the archives for better versions any more. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:43, 23 October 2009 (BST)

I could find some others I reckon. But yep, its a dupe. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:08, 23 October 2009 (BST)

Not sure, but I think I suggested a version of this. It was crap though. Cookies and Cream 01:06, 24 October 2009 (BST)

Haha, everything ever has been suggested it seems. What would we do without Iscariot finding all the dupes?

Generally. But the above dupe is nearly 4 years old to the day. A lot has happened since then and there is no reason not to retry ideas. Some people don't actually give a crap about suggestions. They just like yelling "DUPE!".--Pesatyel 04:11, 24 October 2009 (BST)

Sure, a lot has happened, but how much has happened to searching? That's the only thing that matters here. --Midianian 11:38, 24 October 2009 (BST)

Well, as mentioned in the suggestion, you have the auto-discard feature.--Pesatyel 19:26, 24 October 2009 (BST)

I don't see the need for a change that can be just as easily done by going into your Settings page. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:10, 24 October 2009 (BST)

---

Who killed me?

Timestamp: --Haliman - Talk 00:23, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Type: Interface Change (I think?)

Scope: All players

Description: Simple. I think the capitalized letter "i" should be viewed as this instead of a lowercase "L". Why? To stop confusion. EX: RossIessness "rossiessness" attacks and kills another group's member. That member takes a screenshot, and reports it to his group. Now "Rosslessness" and "Rossiessness" are both going to be blacklisted/searched by the group. The current "i" now is a major troll tool.

Discussion Who killed me?

[Haliman] profile A....[Haliman ]Profile B...still very exploitable in my opinion. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

00:56, 21 October 2009 (BST)

So, you want a serif font to be used, but only for capital letter Is in character names? Seems somewhat convoluted to me. Besides, it seems kinda odd to make a change like this in order to support meta-gaming, since that's the only time that it matters. Most of the PK list sites require links to the profile anyway, so you have the character ID, which is already unique. —Aichon— 01:03, 21 October 2009 (BST)

it seems kinda odd to make a change like this in order to support meta-gaming, since that's the only time that it matters. - That's pretty much all that keeps ALOT of the players here playing UD. --Haliman - Talk 01:13, 21 October 2009 (BST)

I don't disagree with that, but, aside from making data available, which is already being done, stuff like this seems to fall outside the scope of the game. Besides, a more consistent way to do it would be to display the character ID of the person that killed you in parenthesis next to their name, but since we already have a link to their profile, such things should be unnecessary. —Aichon— 01:26, 21 October 2009 (BST)

That would take up a lot of space on the game screen.--Haliman - Talk 01:37, 21 October 2009 (BST)

We're arguing details of an unrelated issue, but 9 characters (e.g. "(1598119)"), at most, is not a lot of space. Besides, as I said, such things aren't necessary anyway. —Aichon— 03:07, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Totally unneeded. If I want to confuse the subject or frame you I will. Read the section on Industrial Light and Magical Fraud. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:18, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Already saw. But all the names to frame me are taken *cough, KRAUSER cough cough*--Haliman - Talk 01:31, 21 October 2009 (BST)

I don't even need control of the account I'm using to frame you with. I could make an iwit of Bub killing Petro with a katana if I so chose. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:37, 21 October 2009 (BST)

After reading that...he scares me. I found it rather amusing though, and a good read. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

17:05, 21 October 2009 (BST)

I've always been annoyed with fonts that don't distinguish between I and l, Illustrated by the Ill coceived font on this page. However I agree with others here that it isn't a gameplay problem. STIll, I'd support you just because I, GIles the lIl, fucking hate fonts that use the same characters for different letters.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 02:27, 24 October 2009 (BST)

i c wut u did thur... Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:55, 24 October 2009 (BST)

For one thing, it isn't the same character used. Lower case L's have a little curvature at the bottom, which is visible in-game. Capital i's are completely straight, and if you view pictures with characters who use this trick, you will definitely notice the dissimilarity. Also, there are entire groups who depend upon this text for their gimmic. Changing the font suddenly would inconvenience these existing groups, and make them considerably less interesting to see in-game. Additionally, this similarity in character makes it all the more important to click on your attacker's name, and actually look at who they are. --DT^PK 20:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

---