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

Encumbrance Effects II

Discussion (Encumbrance Effects II)

No. Most of us will continue to be over 70% rendering melee weapons useless. The encumbrance rules dramatically effect survivor life, if you're going to include nerfs then you may need to rework the whole system. --Thadeous Oakley 23:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with some sort of system like this as long as it was balanced. Right now it is a severe penalty to survivors. Maybe if you significantly raised the % increase in skills for low encumbered players that might help. However figuring out what that increase might be to balance things would be a tricky subject in itself. PLUS, why no penalty to firearms attacks? So you are saying that PKers full of shotties and shells should have no penalty like the rest of us would? Cmon man, there are two sides to this game. --YoEleven 00:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Festering Wound v.2.1

Timestamp:	Jack13 16:18, 31 December 2009
Type:	Skill
Scope:	Zambahz
Description:	A subskill of Infectious Bite Cost 100xp. Skill Decription Festering Wound the advanced toxins of your Infectious Bite have a 5% chance per turn to cause an additional 1 damage per AP spent . When a Zombie with Festering Wound attacks a survivor the same text would appear as does now, i.e. "a zombie bit you for 4 damage, the zombies bite was infected!" Then after every action (other than speaking) taken the following text will be given if the 5% chance is successfull. "you lost 2hp to your festering wound." If the 5% is not successful then the normal message would appear "you lost 1hp to your infection". There are no additional variations from infectious bite, and no bonus XP

Discussion (Festering Wound)

it's an idea i had a long, long time ago, and completely forgot about. I've lowerd the success rates substantially, and altered the discriptive text to be more to the point. please discuss.

Why is it red? and why is it just 5%? also, if someone isn't carrying a FAK they deserve to be infected. Cookies and Cream 16:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I do like the idea of increased infection. Here's a thought, though - have the % chance be equal to the character's level. 1% means newbies don't worry as much about it, but 40+% makes it a real tactic against established players. 17:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's kinda gimmicky, I think. Stick to a fixed percentage or something that seems to make more in-game sense. 25% seemed perfectly reasonable to me, so I don't see why it was bumped down to 5%. At 5%, it's basically worthless. At 25%, it's a nice boost, but not game-breaking, since it's mean an average of 5 HP lost per 4 actions taken, which is perfectly reasonable. —Aichon— 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There's something similar out there in PR, though the mechanic is slightly different; it involves multiple infectious zombies biting the same target. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the general idea. Infection is anyway more a psychological warfare thing than a real threat (at least with half-way organized and prepared survivors), and making it less predictable aids the idea behind it. I'd even go as far and make it a save-or-die check each turn with a low chance as 1% or 2% - not a real threat if you always carry at least one FAK with you at all times and step back a minute to calculate (which you should _always_ do if you want to breath), but something that makes you think twice before you do anything but taking care of your wound - or doing reckless things as cading or shooting with zeds present without waiting for the game's output. --Spiderzed 21:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

---

XP system change

Timestamp: Necrofeelinya 09:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Type: XP system change

Scope: all players

Description: One of the biggest problems with UD is that characters max out and then there's no point in continuing, with nowhere to further progress. There ceases to be any challenge to it. Another problem is that survivors who max out have absolutely no more incentive to engage zombies, nor to actually do anything at all in the game. They can just run around, or even sit still for that matter most of the time, and effectively do nothing. We've all heard the complaints of "what do I do with my 10,000 accumulated XP? Kevan, we need another update so I can spend it! Give us more flavor, more skills!" All this is old news, and a number of ways of changing it have been proposed, some of them needlessly complex. I figured I'd propose a simpler method, and hope this is generally acceptable: I suggest all characters, human and zombie alike, lose 1 XP every 2 hours automatically down to a minimum of 0. If you spend 24 hours without accumulating any XP once you reach 0, you exchange the last skill you acquired for 50 XP, and keep losing AP and skills until you start participating again. That 50 XP gives you a significant advantage on regaining your lost skill if you decide you want to... if you accidentally let things slide until you're at the point where you've lost a skill, you don't have to start entirely from scratch to get it back. It also means it'll be at least 5 days before you lose another skill. 4 plus change for the XP loss from 50 to 0, then another day for staying at 0 for 24 hours. If a character just sits around and does nothing to earn XP all the time, they'll eventually find they lose even their free running and construction abilities, or their lurching gait and vigour mortis abilities. Whaddya think? Decent idea, or just another futile and halfhearted attempt at accomplishing something on DevSug?

Discussion (XP system change)

Points for trying, but I don't think this will ever pass. Particularly because I do not think that the server keeps a record of the order in which a player obtained skills, making the skill loss thing kind of difficult to implement. Also, this seems to punish players with low XP (say you just bought a skill) and who might not do anything to earn XP for a day. What if you are walking across the city, or you are maintaining barricades during a siege? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 10:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If the server doesn't keep track of the order in which a player accumulates skills, then just make the lost skill random, or allow the player to choose which skill he loses. He'll likely choose to lose them in the reverse order he accumulated them anyway. And there's a 1 day buffer period for not accumulating XP for players with low XP. As far as penalizing new players, 1) it never takes them below 0 with no skills, 2) most newbies quickly learn to whack'n'fak anyway (we really should do something to stop that) and 3) if you lack skills, shouldn't you be focusing on accumulating XP, not just running around hiding or serving as someone else's 'cade bot? In fact, if you're able to 'cade, you've got a skill right there, so you've clearly gotten on the road to accumulating XP. You must have a fire axe or something you can earn XP with. Whack'n'fak a little each day along with your 'cading, or better yet, go fight a zombie and leave the 'cading to the big boys who've already built up 10,000 XP! If you're a zombie with lurching gait, you've clearly earned a skill already, keep earning XP by clawing other zombies or better yet, kick down some 'cades and kill a survivor. It's not a perfect system, but it might work a lot better than what we have. I'd be willing to haggle over the length of time a player can sit at 0 XP without losing a skill, but it shouldn't be all that long.--Necrofeelinya 10:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And in this example you'll be seeing two of my characters, DY and Cloister. Let's make clear that neither has been idled for prolonged periods of time causing the other to have an advantage on XP gain/retention under this suggestion. DY has 40 levels and 999XP, amounting to 5299XP earned in the game (if my tired brain can add up correctly), compared to Cloister and his 21 levels and 6700XP, amounting to 8800XP earned in the game.

Now Cloister has three and a half thousand more XP than DY, quite acceptable if you want to point out that Cloister participate for most of the Mall Tour, quite unacceptable if you realise that Cloister was created in October 2008 and DY was created in December 2007. DY has nearly a full year game time on his clock and is still down by so much. Why? Their activities. Cloister ferals his way, most of his action involve cracking weak buildings (for XP), killing (for XP) and ransacking (for XP), DY barricades (not for XP) and repairs (not for XP). Asking for more skills is old news? So instead you want to make valid and altruistic play styles obsolete by punishing survivors that don't kill zombies on the street and zombies that block RPs and hold doors open? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't invalidate those play styles, it just makes characters put out enough effort to maintain XP levels adequate to sustain the levels they need to keep the skills they want. By the way, would you perhaps like to also calculate how long it would take for each of those characters to lose their first skill under this system? I'm not sure my tired brain can manage it, but I'm pretty sure it'd be nearly 2 years for the one with the least XP. And that's if he doesn't accumulate a single XP in all that time. Which just serves to point out that if you want to avoid losing skills and go a long while without earning XP, you can just buff your current XP first. Pretty simple, really.--Necrofeelinya 10:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! This is the best idea ever - If you are into trenching outdoor Zombies. Let me put it this way, I have 2 alts who do nothing but barricade their AP each day. If I'm lucky I get to repair a building for 2 or 3 AP, but otherwise I havent gained any real XP with them in months. Are you saying they arent useful? If you play a survivor you are benefiting from mine and other peoples cade work. I fail to see why I should be penalized for not shooting a zombie outdoors with a shotgun every day. Pfft. I'm down for new skills if they make sense. Penalties for not continuing to farm xp, no thank you. --YoEleven 10:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well ideally, I'd like to see a system where if all you do is 'cade all day, you lose or diminish all your other skills for not using them, but I wanted to keep it simple. I think the XP system should reflect the activities you spend your time actually performing in-game, just as in real life our skills reflect the things we engage in on a regular basis. But hey, if everyone's happy with the current system (which I think it's been made abundantly clear a million times that countless people aren't), then to heck with it.--Necrofeelinya 10:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I can respect that upkeep of skills could be based upon how you play the game. God knows 75% of the skills are quite useless depending on how a person plays. However I can't see anybody going for simple subtraction of XP or skills without in turn receiving a bonus for the skills they are regularly using. Not to mention it would be a whole different suggestion if you were to word it like that. AND!!! What about Jenny farmers? How would they fit into things? --YoEleven 00:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This inordinately punishes people that just earned skills. Some poor guy gets his 101XP together, buys his skill, and logs back on the next day to find that he has 39 XP and no skill. If you think about it, he could be losing XP at 2-4x the rate that a veteran player would, because he'd lose 50XP each time that happened, vs. the 12 that a vet would lose over 24 hours. That's hardly right. In general though, it doesn't matter what rate you choose for the loss, since this idea simply makes the game less fun for players by punishing them unnecessarily. You punish players if you want to discourage certain behaviors. In this case, the behavior you're punishing is playing the game itself, and you're especially punishing certain play styles that are enjoyable, productive, and conducive to good gameplay. Again, that's hardly right. —Aichon— 11:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea, it punishes survivors for playing in the most effective possible way (cading/repairing/powering). And don't nobody start wittering about XP as e-penis. I like mine, unapologetically. It's girthy. Garum 12:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This would seriously kill new players. WHYYY? I get that you want to make xp mean something after level 43, but stomping all over new chaps' progression (particularly new zombies; the zombie XP path is painfully slow) is something that the whole game dislikes. See: the old Headshot, which took away XP. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

---

New Revive Rules Part III: The Revive Warriors

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 23:06 30 December 2009(UTC)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Revives

Description: Now using a Syringe is treated the same as any other weapon. It costs 1 AP, but only has a 10% chance to “hit“. Any “miss” with a Syringe has a 10% chance to have the Syringe break during the struggle, effectively losing the Syringe for no effect. This is because sticking a Zombie with a Syringe should be like a combat action. Zombies don’t wait passively in line to peacefully accept being jabbed. It should be a struggle. However, now a Revived Zombie automatically spends 25 XP in order to Stand as a Survivor. If the character does not have 25 XP, they get a message: "You are permanently dead." Headshot Zombies must spend 25 XP to Stand. If the character does not have 25 XP, they get a message: "You are permanently dead." Headshot no longer causes you to spend extra AP to Stand. Some players will cry because they want to keep their extra XP in order to grow their E-penis. So, now there will be a new section on your profile that shows all XP you have ever earned underneath the XP you have available to spend.

Discussion (New Revive Rules Part III: The Revive Warriors)

Yeah, totally, perma-death is the way to do this. Same as below. Spam. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Perma death would rule.--

| T | BALLS! | 23:25 30 December 2009(UTC)

23:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Second. Again. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 23:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

	Attention
	Please do not feed the Trolls

Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

See my E-Penis argument below.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry ZL,Permanent death DOESNT rule.Also,the only ones that may enjoy this will be the griefers.--Kralion 00:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Monroeville had permanent zombification, which caused it to go extinct. Perma-death would be much, much worse. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 01:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

...I see, so now the game would be ruled by the people with 3 year old characters who can die in excess of 1000 times before even coming close to running out of XP? This screws. It does not screw any group in particular it just gives them all a general screw. -Devorac 02:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Easy fix: Total Reset.--

| T | BALLS! | 03:01 31 December 2009(UTC)

You are hullarious and ZANY!!!! --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 03:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This game and its Wiki does lack...Zazz.--

| T | BALLS! | 03:25 31 December 2009(UTC)

Sod that. It lack Zsasz. 03:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. It actually lacks File:Zasz.gif --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 03:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. The Hive demands compliance!-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 15:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is that? Cookies and Cream 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A Cerebrate from StarCraft. Greatest game evar.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 16:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know... Starcraft two is looking pretty core. :P -Devorac 02:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd vote for the chance of needle breakage if you also then improve search rates. As for the 1AP/10% chance, well that just causes mroe IP hits so I'm not a big fan. I think you're on to something though. --YoEleven 10:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

not that i'm advocating the idea, but my two cents is that you would have to update syringes to "a pack of revivification needles" much like a pistol clip. put 5, in a pack (per say), with a 25% hit rate.... maybe. I just spent 50 AP to find 3 needles, so 25% to hit and acrually revive a zed, or fallen comrade would almost completely nerf NT's at all. the idea's still incomplete --Jack ^{S13 T! PC} 16:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that and effing with XP is utter nonsense Jack ^{S13 T! PC} 16:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I maxed out a while back, and I still enjoy ripping into humans, be it with my axe or my claws..btw how to I get claws right after I die? Cookies and Cream 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Because this is Retarded Dead, where Zombies don't bite, they scratch.--

| T | BALLS! | 16:35 31 December 2009(UTC)

Why is this a combination suggestion? Seems like the syringes idea should be broken off from the XP idea since they don't seem necessary for each other. And given that you're changing a core game mechanic, seeing some math behind the AP numbers for syringes would be a good idea as well, that way we'd at least have a grasp for how much of a difference it'd make. —Aichon— 04:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

---

New Revive Rules Part II: Revive Rule's Revenge

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 22:24 30 December 2009(UTC)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Revives

Description: Now using a Syringe is treated the same as any other weapon. It costs 1 AP, but only has a 10% chance to “hit“. Any “miss” with a Syringe has a 10% chance to have the Syringe break during the struggle, effectively losing the Syringe for no effect. This is because sticking a Zombie with a Syringe should be like a combat action. Zombies don’t wait passively in line to peacefully accept being jabbed. It should be a struggle. However, now a Revived Zombie automatically spends 100 XP in order to Stand as a Survivor. If the character does not have 100 XP, they Stand as a Zombie and get the message: “The Revivification Serum seems to have failed.” Some players will cry because they want to keep their extra XP in order to grow their E-penis. So, now there will be a new section on your profile that shows all XP you have ever earned underneath the XP you have available to spend.

Discussion (New Revive Rules Part II: Revive Rule's Revenge)

It will result in a lot of frustrated level 0 zombies, whom will soon quit the game because they can not level up and can not get a revive. - User:Whitehouse 22:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Second. There might be "problems" with syringes now, but this sure as hell isn't the way to fixing it. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a surefire way to end the game. Also, see my comments for the suggestion above. —Aichon— 04:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

---

New Revive Rules

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 12:50 30 December 2009(UTC)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Revives

Description: Now it only costs 1 AP to use a Syringe. However, now a Revived Zombie automatically spends 100 XP in order to Stand as a Survivor. If the character does not have 100 XP, they Stand as a Zombie and get the message: “The Revivification Serum seems to have failed.” Some players will cry because they want to keep their extra XP in order to grow their E-penis. So, now there will be a new section on your profile that shows all XP you have ever earned underneath the XP you have available to spend.

Discussion (New Revive Rules)

Why do you hate new players so much :( --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't.--

| T | BALLS! | 18:53 30 December 2009(UTC)

Looks like it would force people to play as zombies, primarily the newbies, which I have a feeling would be a bad idea. It is better to encourage, than force. Also it would slightly harm zombies saving up XP for when they get revived. - User:Whitehouse 13:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It would make Survivors want to live instead of basically committing suicide as a tactic. Survivors level twice or even 3 times as fast anyway so that would balance better anyway. Survivors would just have to plan better, moving to safer places instead of running into danger with no real consequences. It would be more like...a game.--

| T | BALLS! | 18:53 30 December 2009(UTC)

Even worse than the original Headshot, which was changed because it was hideously punitive. --Papa Moloch 14:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. No one can touch your XP if it is under 100, and if it is over 100, just spend it! If you have all the skills and cant spend any, you're obviously well off enough to make not dying a higher priority. PKer wars would be more fun since now, since your death ratio would mean something on both sides.--

| T | BALLS! | 18:53 30 December 2009(UTC)

As Karl, Whitehouse, and Moloch, god awful.-- Adward  14:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What is this i don't even 15:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The only people damaged by losing EXP are the people with little experience. I have two characters with all skills, so they can be revived without a single problem, but a new player would have a hard time gaining exp fast enough to account for combat and random revives. I must say that this is a flawed idea (and not to mention that after a good amount of searching, I would be able to revive ~30-50 zombies in one blast (30-50 because I assume some of them have rot). Don't screw with EXP. Verance 15:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a real idea people. Please don't feed the trolls by responding to this obvious flamebait. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 16:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Irony.--

| T | BALLS! | 18:53 30 December 2009(UTC)

lolololol rush into a besieged NT with 20 zombies inside and clear them out all by myself!!! Add any kind of group tactics or zerging, and non-rot zombies can't ever hold anything, not to mention getting 220 XP a day from reviving and dumping all those lovely corpses. Totally fair and balanced. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 20:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good reason to make Syringe use a combat action with a %.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:46 30 December 2009(UTC)

Okay so Newby McNewberton spawns into a building that is under siege by zombies (I just did that with my new pacifist char), Newby McNewberton stays through the siege trying to get enough XP for freerunning (Very few real new bloods go for Free Running first). So let's say he started as scientist and will get his XP through tagging zombies, during the siege he manages to make 30 XP before the horde conquers the place, he is now a zombie until he can make 70 more XP just to be revived. Even if Newby McNewberton does not resign in disgust after learning that all the tagging he did was for nothing he probably will after the third or forth time he gets trampled by zombies. Really man, 80% of the people my rotter kills are in the lvl 1-3 range, these newbies are a vital resource to the game as they form the staple diet of most new zombies and thus the majority of the experience earned through healing/reviving/being attacked by zombies. You kill the new blood you kill the game mechanics. -Devorac 21:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

He would be better of spending his next 100 on some zombie skills.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:43 30 December 2009(UTC)

That's not for you to decide. Making a a push towards something is a good idea (like freerunning and how it is a core skill) but forcing people to play as zombies for any length of time without the possibility of revival is just plain stupid. -Devorac 21:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. But it would be a challenge. You'd have to earn being alive, which is million times better for making XP and all the other advantages they get. More like a game. If they were really into being a Survivor, make a new character.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:50 30 December 2009(UTC)

Please don't interfere with the proper feeding and growth of my E-penis.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 21:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You could still grow your E-penis with the new profile change.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:52 30 December 2009(UTC)

By Spending XP I feel that my E-penis is shrinking precisely at the rate of XPenis spent. While I like the idea of a separate section showing total XP accrued, that feels more like a virtual E-Penis as apposed to my REAL E-Penis, which is the amount of XPenis available to spend. Inflating this number, and thus, my REAL E-Penis is crucial to my enjoyment of UD.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You deserve some kind of epic prize for sneaking that redirect link in there. :D --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You deserve some kind of epic prize for how far you can manage to lodge your head in someone elses ass.--

| T | BALLS! | 01:41 31 December 2009(UTC)

"If they were really into being a Survivor, make a new character." And their new character would also inevitably succumb to untimely demise as well, then this cycle would repeat, or they would go cruise the internet for porn instead of playing something so frustrating (Probably more likely). Everyone dies in malton, everyone. Although I suppose survivors could protect themselves by arming up with 50 Syringes each and stabbing any zombies that came by, forcing all the new zombies created by your experience-to-revive Pre-requisite to spend 10 AP over and over again... Look, this screws zombies, I don't want my beachheads completely wiped by one survivor with 40 needles, nor do I want four man CR-teams knocking 100 zombies down every day. This Screws newbies because almost no one wants to play as a zombie at first, most people play pro-survivor until they get bored and then raise hell as a zombie. -Devorac 22:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, we need to make the CR a % action then. Around 10%. I think it would force Survivors to "play safer", but I dunno, maybe it would be too gross. I have leveled a Survivor character up to 22 without dying at all, but I played it very safe.--

| T | BALLS! | 22:10 30 December 2009(UTC)

I had a response all typed up, but then I realized that discussing the finer details of what's wrong with the suggestion would be like arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If it goes up for vote, it'd get a Spam from me. —Aichon— 22:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Travel Light, Stab Fast

Timestamp: A Big F'ing Dog 17:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Knives

Description: The Knife Combat skill has little purpose, since maxed out knives are suboptimal compared to maxed out axes. This suggests an idea to improve them slightly, and add flavor to the game. ROLEPLAY REASONING: When a survivor is lightly encumbered they are able to move swiftly, and use a light weapon like a knife more effectively. Swinging a big heavy axe is always a good idea. Lunging with a knife is harder when carrying a bunch of generators. EFFECT: When a survivor is at 30% encumbrance or lower, the Knife Combat skill's benefit is increased from +15% to +25% to knife accuracy, bringing maximum accuracy to 60%. This is actually equivalent to the axe in average damage but has less variance. An axe's greater damage and lower accuracy means it could potentially deal far more or far less damage with the same AP, making the knife a safer bet if not necessarily a better or worse choice. I like this idea because it would give the knife and the knife skill a purpose, rather than leaving it on the skill tree like a vestigial tail. More importantly, I like anything that provides players with a choice of tactical trade offs. People could decide whether they prefer having a more predictable output of damage, or whether having a stockpile of ammo, faks, and generators is preferable. Your thoughts about the skill, and whether the numbers are appropriate (+10% at 30 encumbrance) are welcome. I picked +10% to match, not surpass the axe's average damage, and 30% seemed low enough to require some sacrifice but not low enough to be a terrible constraint either.

Discussion (Travel Light, Stab Fast)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: Jan 6 at 09:32 (UTC)

I like the idea of situational accuracy, but I'd make it +5% accuracy. Knives are best for property destruction, so overall damage doesn't matter when you can take out generators, radio transmitters, etc, so much easier. 55% accuracy for successful attacks on objects is pretty damn funky. 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I too like the idea, but it is rather overpowered. I have a character who hunts down injured survivors, and all he has is a knife. I pick up about a kill a day with it. This would only overpower him and make it easier for him to work. The 50% as is, is very decent all things considered, so I suggest you accept that it is 50% chance of striking and leave it at that. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

17:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting idea, but don't see much point. As Mis said, Knives are already best for property damage, due to their high accuracy. Further increasing it would buff GKers/RKers (whether that's a good or a bad thing is a matter of opinion). And the only ones who will likely reap the benefits are PKers and trenchies, since normal survivors would restock on ammo before getting that low or would be carrying a Toolbox, either of which would bump them over 30% easily. Just don't see the point. —Aichon— 04:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaking encumbrance for weight and bulk carried, and thus ease of combat. Encumbrance =/= realism. For example, you take two generators strapped to your back and a knife (42% encumbrance IIRC) and I'll take 49 syringes in a backpack and a knife (100% encumbrance) and we'll have ourselves a duel. Who'll win? Me. By a long way. Encumbrance exists to limit certain in game items, not to represent reality and therefore combat potential. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot makes a valid point of the logical fallacy that people make in many games, mistaking encumbrance for bulk. I will add the point that of all players, I think the ones that will benefit the most from this will actually be PKers (as The Colonel hinted at). Once a PKer uses up all his/her ammo (and a large amount of encumbrance), they usually just have either an axe or a knife left. If they drop any excess empty weapons *coughSHOTGUNScough* they can easily hit below that 30% and get a nice bonus giving them a reliable way to finish a kill. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Maverick is on the money. I have a dedicated PK're character, and the knife is my best friend for finishing kills. not only when i'm out of ammo, but also to save it for the next poor bastard i pick out of a crowd. Give me 55% to hit, and my axe pretty much becomes dead weight. I think for the sake of balance, the accuracy is fine. But I see the fundimental point of the idea, it's maybe just not applicable to Urban Dead. At least not in this way. ---Jack ^{S13 T! PC} 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Even at 55% hit the knife is still slightly worse than the axe in terms of damage/AP. I'm not keeping my encumberance below 30% just so I can have a weapon that is as good as or slightly worse (or even slightly better) than the best melee weapon in the vast majority of cases. As a PKer I would keep my axe for emergencies and try to keep enough ammo in reserve that I rarely ever had to use it. Who does this help? GKers? Even if it gave the knife 65% hit rate it would still be unused by most players. An easy way around the problem of uber property destruction would be to cap all melee hit rates against generators and transmitters at 50%; though as I mentioned above, while not flawed as such, this suggestion has a very limited scope. --Anotherpongo 09:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

---

New Encumbrance/Search Rates (or: Zombie Lord’s Next Amazing Idea)

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 03:56 22 December 2009(BST)

Type: Improvement

Scope: Encumbrance/Search Rates

Description: Ok, now the Encumbrance of all Items is doubled. But, now all search rates are doubled as well. (or tripled, whatever works better) This way you can carry less Items and it’s less retarded with the whole carrying 5 Portables Generators at once BS, but at the same time you can cycle through Items quicker so basically you have to use em up a lot faster. In a siege this could help Survivors in special areas (getting more FAKs out in Hospitals making them much cooler, same with PD’s etc.) But you would no longer be a walking fuckin Warehouse.

Discussion (New Encumbrance/Search Rates (or: Zombie Lord’s Next Amazing Idea))

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: Jan 6 at 21:56 (UTC)

What if I like carrying 20 or so shotguns underneath my trenchcoat? Now I won't be able to carry them and be hardcore zombie killer who shoots people outside buildings. I will have to rely on overcading like I normally do to keep zombies out because you nerfed my encumberance. Truthfully...I don't like it, as a Death cultist, I like to take a day or two to stock up on ammo, and once I'm out, I jump and eat people. This would limit the number of kills I can make my limiting my guns and ammo that I can carry, I understand I can find more, but carry less. Without the ability to carry, I don't like it. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

04:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Just double the max AP possible while you're at it. I mean, if we double/triple everything, it won't fuck with the intended way the game is supposed to be played, right? It'll just make things more epic? --

 

 

 

 

04:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but I think we're way past "intended way the game is supposed to be played". Do you honestly take that seriously? Besides, doubling the AP would just be stupid.--

| T | BALLS! | 04:43 22 December 2009(BST)

Yeah, doubling AP is stupid, it's not like Nexus War did it for years.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Better to just make the 50 AP we have more effective. It would increase the "fun factor" if half your actions (or more) didn't turn out to be completely wasted and would not double the server load.--

| T | BALLS! | 16:42 22 December 2009(BST)

As is simply doubling other random aspects of the game. If you actually thought the game was as broken as you claim it is; you'd go to further lengths when suggesting balance/gameplay improvements, methinks. --

 

 

 

 

04:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously just a basic idea, open for discussion. The core being making things easier to find, but being able to carry less of them. The rest is open to development.--

| T | BALLS! | 04:59 22 December 2009(BST)

Well, I think it would make short-term seige gameplay much more engaging for survivors, but at the same time, well, seiges aren't what they used to be (ie. decent or long-term) since Kevan introduced Cadeblocking, so I dunno. At first I thought it would also make it a lot more difficult for survivors to pick back up after a big trouncing, but doubling search rates would also mean that the search rates would be so good that lighting buildings wouldn't be necessary so they could recover without needing a fuel and genny. Hmm. Interesting proposal. --

 

 

 

 

05:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm yes, depending on how high the search rates went it could make PG's less needed for rebuilding, which I had not really considered. It makes sense though, a ruined building should not be THAT large an impediment to searches. I'd think the presence of Zombies probably should, but that's for another suggestion. I was more thinking that if PG's weighed 40% or so then you'd want to set them up somewhere ASAP instead of lugging them all over, and I like the idea of empowering the special qualities of specific buildings (Hospitals, PD's etc.) Malls search rates might need to be lowered slightly to keep them form being the Fortress of Doom and make their bonus the luxury of variety vs amazing search rates, which might lead to less Mall-centric play.--

| T | BALLS! | 05:20 22 December 2009(BST)

Not a fan. However, to note something, what happens to the people who are already over the encumbrance rate if this gets implemented? E.g. My Encumbrance is 87%. This happens. Effectively, I could now only hold < 50%. Do I keep all of the junk I had before? But, as I said, still not a fan. Doubling/Halving is way too much to even consider.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You probably get to keep your junk until you use it up.--

| T | BALLS! | 00:08 23 December 2009(UTC)

I don't like this. Makes it too difficult for zombies that don't spend much time alive to go off like bombs when they get combat revived. Before the "Get Brain Rot and STFU!" types chime in, I should point out I mainly mean rotters. They do get CRed (in fact my last two CRs were suffered by this guy, and unlike death cultists or the less committed, if they want to punish the CR with gunplay they've got to stock up a lot in advance because while it happens, it's not very often, and they need to move quick before they get PKed just for having the rot. --Mold 05:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

But what if I WANT to be a walking Warehouse? Some of us enjoy the hilarity of holding what could be tons of stuff and still being able to even move. Cookies and Cream 11:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, some of you are complete pussies.--

| T | BALLS! | 17:12 26 December 2009(UTC)

this final statement makes me feel that the best approach would be to completly disregard any, if not all future comments from zombie lord. Congrats ZL, congrats. --Jack ^{S13 T! PC} 15:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

He isn't all that bad once you get used to him, and if you reclassify all insults as banter.-Devorac 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorakunt was just being a asshole anyway. Hardy har, he "enjoys the hilarity of being a walking warehouse." Gimme a break.--

| T | BALLS! | 21:56 30 December 2009(UTC)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Alt Proximity Warning

Moved to Suggestion talk:20091219 Alt Proximity Warning