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

Zombies can bash down doors

Timestamp: Enigma179 09:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: Gameplay change

Scope: Zombies

Description: My last suggestion was shot down quickly, and that was probably my fault, but hear me out. I've heard that being a low level zombie isn't extremely fun; You don't get to attack survivors except for the lucky finds in the street, unless you go through the trouble of travelling with a horde you can't get into safehouses, and even if you find a loosely barricaded place with the lights on inside, you bash down the barricade and can't get in, because of one thing. The door. I propose that zombies without Memories of Life can bash down doors as if they were another barricade level, as I can assume the survivors lock the doors. Those with memories of life of course, can waltz right in without going through the trouble of taking down another barricade level. This would allow lower level zombies to get xp in the standard way without Zking and Memories of Life still saves you some AP.

Discussion (Zombies can bash down doors)

Something like this was proposed very recently by Zombie Lord, I believe, and I seem to recall that this aspect of his suggestion was well-regarded. I think it'd be a good idea. Zombies without a horde are weaker than survivors without a group, and this helps the newbies specifically without overpowering them. Sounds good all around. The only concern I'd have would be for lowbie survivors without Construction, but unbarricaded buildings that have their doors closed but are also unruined are uncommon as it is, and sleeping in ruined buildings has always been dangerous. It'd change very little for lowbie survivors. —Aichon— 10:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I like it. When I Z, I'd like to know that if I wanted to, I could rip off the doors and feed on the meat. My one problem is that, where do the smashed doors go when your recade? Cookies and Cream 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming they haven't been ripped to shreds, you could just repair them using a toolbox. Chief Seagull (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

When playing a Z you're supposed to travel in a group - of any level low or high. The whole balance of this game is based on low numbers of Survivors and Zombies the Survivors have the advantage; High numbers of each the Zombies have the advantage. All of our favorite zombie movies would have been pretty dull if there was only one zombie knocking on the door... Yawn of the Dead --YoEleven 00:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Building Population Cap

Removed for further thought. Those still wishing to discuss it can find discussion here. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Adding PUMP Shotguns Read Before Killing

Timestamp: --Supercohboy 05:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: Add New Weapon, Balancing with others

Scope: Survivors and zombies, inventory(?)

Description: The concept is adding a pump shotgun that does less damage than the double barrel, but has six (or five realistically) shells instead of two that you can load. Im thinking in the range of 7-8 damage, with the same default possibility to hit(%5)or a little more (%6-7), which would be added on to with training(firarms training, shotgun prof). This would also mean changing the text of Shotgun to Double Barrel Shotgun, which may prove a pain to change, but I thought it would be worth it. Now as you see this is different from other weapon suggestions, I'm not suggesting a military-grade shotgun I mean like ones you see in *a certain game where you are left to die* where it's pump action but doesn't look military grade. If I'm wrong about that than they could just be civilian pump shotguns, like hunting ones. Tell me what you think, and I'm sure it needs tweaking somewhere;) UPDATE: Changed the way the accuracy part of the reading looks for easier reading, and look at that, my shotty here ends up being a combo of 2 that were scrapped. Does that decrease my odds then? lol...I may also tweak the damage-to shell ratio in this version or a future version if I try this again. Discussion (Adding PUMP Shotguns Read Before Killing) WARNING This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: Jan 16 at 05:09 (UTC) Okay, I fixed your formatting so there was a barrier between suggestions. One sec and I'll pull out a set of dupes. Okay done. Dupe 1 Combat shotgun, and it seems to be combined with this one. -Devorac 06:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Alright, so you want a weapon which deals 8 damage, has a 70% hit rate, and has six shells. Well then, looks like the pistol, shotgun, fire axe, and all other weapons ever conceieved are now useless.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Adding new firearms only makes all the other firearms weaker, by diluting the search odds and making stockpiling more difficult. That's before you get to this weapon being a super-pistol which renders the pistol almost obsolete. 15:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC) *Sigh*You guys don't understand what I was saying. Its just a shotgun with a little less damage, SAME ODDS TO HIT as the other (maybe a little better by a few percent), but can carry more shells. That's it. Sorry if It was hard to understand that way. Thanks for fixing the formatting Devorac. Looking at the dupes after I write this. Thanks you for the output, but you guys misunderstood what I was saying. I'm editing it to be more clear now. Is this where I should put down replies to suggestions? --Supercohboy 18:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I understood perfectly. It's just a really bad suggestion.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Oh, I understand it. It's a new weapon, and as it deals different damage it needs unique ammunition. As such, it dilutes search odds by introducing two new items to the possibilities - finding a gun and the relevent ammo for said gun is now harder, as there are three guns and three types of ammunition. It's already frustrating enough finding clip after clip when you need shells, bringing in a third (sixth) possibility makes things worse. 19:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC) User:Grim_s/Sandbox/GunSuggestVote --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 19:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC) That makes sense. Wow. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sorakairi (talk • contribs) at an unknown time. Alright then. Since this suggestion has been kicked in the faced and KOed....do I delete it or does it get archived by a moderator or something? I will clean up my own mess of course but what do I do with it throw it in the trash or put it on a shelf?--Supercohboy 20:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Just delete it from the page if you want. Either that, or leave it to be discussed more, and it'll get wiped after a while.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 20:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC) How about making it use 2 AP to fire (one to "fire" one to "pump")?--Pesatyel 04:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC) How about, if this gets implemented, we increase the odds of finding a clip. Because We can never have enough clips. Cookies and Cream 01:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC) What is your point?--Pesatyel 05:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Zombies can start fire Timestamp: Lailai 06:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Type: Gameplay element Scope: Zombies, Survivors Description: Currently, all you do as a zombie is: ATTACK CADES -> KILL -> REPEAT. There isn't many things interesting going on, unlike survivors (FAKs, talking, ammo, different weapons, and more). So, to make it more interesting for zombies, a new skill, under branch of memories of life: Ability to start fires with matches (new item for zombies only). Here's how it will work: Each day, 8% of the number of zombies that logged in yesterday AND have the skill required is the number of match-spawns. They will be spawned randomly outside or inside buildings. It will show "You see a box of matches on the street", etc. Zombies can pick it up if he/she have the skills. So, if they have matches, the skill, and are inside a building, they can start a fire (5AP). For every 8 people inside the building, 1 successful put out the fire are needed from the survivors. If the fire is not put out, survivors can do nothing else other than put out the fire. They have 20% chance to put it out per AP, however a new skill allows them to: a) 80% chance to put out fire sucessfully b) throw matches away if they see matches so zombies can't use them. This will: a) make people think about if they want to go with a group (more fire putouts needed) or stay with few number of survivors (8- people in a group can't be affected by fires) b) give zombies a reason to go hunt for matches c) waste 1 or 2 APs for every 8 person inside. NOT to all players, only to 1 player that is online and puts off the fire. Zombies can still attack with the fire (they don't care about dying!) and can only start a fire if they are inside the building. I'd say only 10-20 buildings will be put on fire across the whole game, since it's 8% of players who logged in yesterday that have the skill required. Discussion (Zombies can start fire) WARNING This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: Jan 14 at 19:11 (UTC) I'll point out a few issues I have: Zombies do not use objects. Full stop. It even says so in-game. Changing that mechanic seems like a bad idea. Why do matches spawn on the street of all places? Why does it take a skill to pick up matches and dispose of them for survivors? Why does it take 5AP to start a fire in the first place? Have you read the Frequently Suggested list? Area of effect actions are listed as something to generally avoid. You're mistaking complexity vs. simplicity for fun vs. boring. They aren't the same. Zombies already have more fun, if you ask me, and if your zombie isn't, you're in the wrong horde. Honestly, I just don't see the point in the suggestion, and think it introduces major changes to gameplay for no discernible reason. —Aichon— 07:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty much with Aichon on this one. That and the fact that I demand to know why a zombie would be able to use matches and a survivor wouldn't! Maybe I want to burn down Old Arkham and start fresh! :P --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 07:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I think it's been proven often enough that we're smarter than the harmanz in malton...--Papa Johnny 15:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I'm not going to argue that fact. But the concept that someone with a rotted cerebral cortex knows how to use a set of matches and someone who has a "healthy" brain cannot defies logic. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 02:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC) I'm not a fan of this skill, it's out of genre and slightly broken. Area of effect is always a bad idea. --Papa Johnny 15:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Only one word properly describes this suggestion... "What?" -Devorac 21:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Aside from this being an overly complex move for a brain-eater; I'm a little confused as to why survivors can't also use matches. There are death cults you know. --YoEleven 00:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC) How about we just no! --    Timmah!     Talk   00:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC) This suggestion just sucks all over. Also: Quit stealing my font, Colonel. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC) But its nice and fancy, and I needed a nice and fancy font. I will give it back in about a month, I promise. --    Timmah!     Talk   02:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC) How about for Survivors to start a fireplace or fireworks in 4th of july, and even then that's REALLY pushin it. Also I remember zombies fearing fire, not a bad suggestion, just not quite right. --Supercohboy 05:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Kevan's English. November 5th is the best date you'll get from him for fireworks. 19:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Encumbrance Effects II Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 07:12 1 January 2010(UTC) Type: Improvement Scope: Survivors Description: Now you get bonuses or penalties to all Actions (except Firearms attacks) depending on your Encumbrance. Encumbrance Effect 0%-10% +10% 11%-30% +5% 31%-70% 0 71%-90% -5% 91%-100% -10% 101% and above -20% Inspired by the Travel Light, Stab Fast suggestion. Discussion (Encumbrance Effects II) WARNING This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: Jan 13 at 15:12 (UTC) 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) I thought 75% on Firearms would be too gross.-- | T | BALLS! | 01:06 2 January 2010(UTC) You don't need to give bonuses. Realistically, you can only aim so well if you factor in atmospheric effects, nerves, fatigue, etc. While most of that doesn't really equate to UD very well it could be simplified and defined as the maximum being 65%. Anything above that and realism says all those things I mentioned erode your shooting.--Pesatyel 05:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I can't believe I forgot about atmospheric effects. Anyway, fine. But Yo is right, it would make the "I only carry guns" people too gross. The Encumbrance system needs Bulk factored in.-- | T | BALLS! | 07:29 5 January 2010(UTC) I was just making comments about realism to explain why guns aren't as "benefited" as other weapons. As I said in comment in another suggestion, "bulk" is factored into "encumbrance". The problem is that Urban Dead is very simplistic. IF you were to split encumbrance and bulk, how would it work?--Pesatyel 03:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Good idea in principle but those numbers seem wrong to me. I would put the +5% on anything upto 50% (leave the +10 as is) Penalties should only be in place for those getting real close to the full load so I would say -10 at 100% load and lower it on a 1 for 1 basis (ie: 95% load = -5%) As for enc. over 100% simply preventing (or restricting ) free running seems a lot more realistic and reasonable to me as you would probably be dropping most of your gear to actually fight but can't if you are trying to flee! --Honestmistake 12:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC) How about we add one suggestion you make, and in exchange you stop posting them? Sound good, if so I would vote for this, it's the first thing you wrote that makes any sort of sense. --    Timmah!     Talk   22:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC) How about, you...fuck off?-- | T | BALLS! | 07:30 5 January 2010(UTC) Nice comeback, very original. --Thadeous Oakley 20:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I expected better, like an A/A because of my comment, how unoriginal of you Zombie Lord. --    Timmah!     Talk   21:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Hit percentages are fine the way they are. --Papa Johnny 15:12, 6 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) WARNING This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: Jan 13 at 18:39 (UTC) 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) 5% does seem rather under-powered considering you're only adding 1 extra damage. I would say something along the lines of 15-25% seems about right. Aside from that, I like this. Simple and to the point; a no-nonsense suggestion that I can get behind. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 19:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC) you guys are great. I reduced the % from 25% to 5% because i thought the full 25% would get "overpowered" responses. Thanks also for the link to the PR, I can post the link witht the suggestion noting it's different because it involves only 1 zombie. do you guys think that 15% or 20% is fair? I hate putting things to voting just for them to get destroyed by spam and kill votes. Jack S13 T! PC 20:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC) What if you linked the percentile chance to the HP of the victim, so as the infection got progressively worse and HP is lost the chance for additional damage increases. What about 1% for every HP lost, so 46/50 HP is a 4 percent chance to take 2 damage instead of one, 20/50 HP is 30% chance, Etc, etc. -Devorac 21:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC) That works backwards from how it should. Even though it makes in-game sense, the gameplay of that would be annoying for players. I'd honestly just go with a flat 25%, since it really is a nice number that'd mean you take 5 damage per 4 AP spent. Seems reasonable. —Aichon— 01:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Fair point, but how does linking it to health make it work backwards? I've treated serious infections in animals, farther it goes the faster the infection accelerates its growth as the body slowly stops fighting.-Devorac 15:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Like I said, it makes in-game sense (i.e. your example of how real-life works), but it doesn't make gameplay sense, since it penalizes those who are least in need of being penalized. If it worked the opposite way, though it doesn't make much sense, it'd be a more interesting mechanic, since it would serve to take off a lot of HP, but wouldn't kill someone, making it dangerous but not lethal, whereas the way it is now, it wouldn't take off much AP at first, but then would become progressively more dangerous as it went on. It'd also give people a much more uncertain idea of how many actions they could take before getting themselves killed, which is already a frustrating experience. —Aichon— 18:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Devorac's idea is really amazing, but for UD adds complication where it's not needed. This kind of mechanic would be great though in a consol game. ok. well, I think there's been enough said. I'll put up the suggestion at 25% for the extra damage, and if it flops, I'll lower it by 5 and try again. thanks folks. Jack S13 T! PC 17:47, 6 January 2010 (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) WARNING This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: Jan 15 at 04:31 (UTC) 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) What if it took affect after level 43? Cookies and Cream 10:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Well the main argument that there is "nothing to do" or "no challenge" when you max out depends on who you are. Maybe the author's maxed out characters are boring. But not everyone's is. When your leveling, for a lot of players "gaining XP" is the end-all-be-all of playing. But when your maxed? That is when you can roleplay, for example. You can focus on more than just "gaining XP".--Pesatyel 05:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC) This is retarded. You want to make XP "mean something" then WHY would you do the opposite? As Karloth said, all this does is hurt players that haven't maxed out. The end result is to "force" players to "earn xp" every 2 hours or lose it. MOST players play at the same time every day. It would suck ass to log in at the same time I play every day and learn I've lost 12 XP and, quite possibly a skill. You must not have been around when Headshot took away XP.--Pesatyel 05:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC) "This is retarded". Is that constructive? Come on.-- | T | BALLS! | 07:32 5 January 2010(UTC) Did you bother to read past the first sentence?--Pesatyel 03:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Well that's sort of the point, Pesatyel. When you lead off with "This is retarded", you are shutting down constructive collaboration with unnecessary negativity that does nothing to encourage discussion, but is only off-putting. Your comments work much better if "This is retarded" is removed.-- | T | BALLS! | 22:33 7 January 2010(UTC) Good point. I'll keep that in mind.--Pesatyel 04:31, 8 January 2010 (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 14 at 22:39 (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) K.I.S.S. It seems to me you tend to complicate things too much. If your argument is realism, as in, it isn't realistic for an individual to carry multiple generators (to use one example), why not just make a suggestion saying you can only carry one or something?--Pesatyel 05:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Too complicated, huh. Probably, but I don't like those "band-aid fixes" though. Better to try and create a system that everything just works within instead of those "situational" fixes. That's just me.-- | T | BALLS! | 07:36 5 January 2010(UTC) Well maybe not. My bad. How about just suggesting changing the encumbrance of some items? Just increase the generator encumbrance to 40%, for example. And how is making it so that you can only carry one a "band aid fix"?--Pesatyel 03:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, I have suggested that before (the 40% idea). The band-aid thing is making some random declaration, without considering how to give it some internal logic within the entirety of the system. It's just that in my experience the Band-Aid approach leads to the "Unstoppable Force vs. the Immovable Object" paradox that plagues all badly designed games when it is taken too far. Best to just avoid it.-- | T | BALLS! | 22:39 7 January 2010(UTC) Suggestions up for voting New Candy Each Year Discussion moved to Suggestion talk:20100108 New Candy Each Year.-- | T | BALLS! | 09:26 9 January 2010(UTC) Killing Blow Flavour Text Discussion moved to Suggestion talk:20100107 Killing Blow Flavour Text.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 20:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)