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

Special Infected

Timestamp: Ike Merodach 05:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: New Skill/Class

Scope: zombies

Description: I thought that this would be something interesting to add to the pretty homogenous zombie hordes out there. I propose that a zombie, after acquiring the maximum amount of zombie skills, be able to pick a unique skill that would allow him to evolve into a "Special Infected". These special infected would have enhanced powers such as beefed up attack, more HP, AP, or AP recharge rate. But here are the catches. First of all, you must only have ZOMBIE skills in your skill set. Any survivor skill would dilute the level of infected blood in the zombie's body, rendering that type of evolution almost impossible. Secondly, you have to have all the ZOMBIE skills for it to work. Finally, you can only choose one type, and it is irreversible. I think that having various types of special infected would keep those survivors on their toes, and it could even produce new strategies and methods for playing the game. Here are some of the types that I've thought of: Gnasher Special power: Choose between 30% increase in bite hit or double bite damage. Description: A zombie whose protuding teeth drip with black oil. He is rumored to be able to bite through anything. Ripper Special power: Choose between 20% claw hit or double claw damage. Description: A zombie with long bloody claws. His attacking force is lethal to all but the strongest survivors. Tank Special Power: Choose between 20 extra HP or double defense from guns or melee. Description: A looming behemoth. His body can withstand heavy bombardment. These are the classes that I've thought up so far. I really think this could work, if it was implemented right. I'll now leave this up for discussion.

Discussion (Special Infected)

More HP, AP, or regeneration invariably leads to imbalance.

• Faster AP regen? You can get more done, faster, than other players. Too much of an advantage.
• 2x attack? Extremely powerful. Do you mean double to-hit, or to-damage?
• Increased Defense? How so? Takes less damage from firearms, or all weapons, and if so, how much of a reduction is there?
• Traps humans? How do they get free? Can the zombie do anything while they're trapping a human?
• Healing other zombies? They don't need healing. They can die and get up again cheaply (at high level), and they can eat flesh if they have Digestion.

Also, you basically stole ideas from Left 4 Dead, didn't you? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. No L4D interpretations please. L4D is one game, UD is another. They play in totally different ways and don't need to lend off of each other for gameplay ideas. --

 

 

 

 

05:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I do believe there is a template for this kinda suggestion. Further more, fuck and no. This is the worst suggestion I have seen since the last one Zombie Lord posted. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

05:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead

This is not fucking Left 4 Dead.

You're welcome. 14:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I can actually see some appeal in differentiating maxed zombies beyond the distinction between rotters and the death-culting non-rotters, but these concrete skills are either plainly broken, fuck deeply into the mechanics, or both. See Bob Boberton's break-down of the points, he's absolutely right about it. I'd recommend that you check the Do's and Don'ts and come back with skill ideas that aren't straight from that list. --Spiderzed 06:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even going to say much here because this suggestion needs more detail, specifically on the classes? Your one-sentence descriptions do nothing to tackle the actual mechanics of implementing these classes, and that needs to be addressed before any criticism (constructive or otherwise) can really be brought forth. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, first off, thanks for bringing your suggestion here. I think that players should be encouraged to play zombies vs survivors and specialization in one category should provide some benefit against the other side. The particular skills you've suggested are too strong, as others have noted here, but don't let that stop you from trying to think of a more balanced suggestion that would accomplish the variety and specialization you had in mind.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 08:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Goast? As in, zombie goasts? Are they in front of a house? --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 08:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw goatse. Thats what I saw.Cookies and Cream 10:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's nothing to boast about mate. Chief Seagull talk 11:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I know. i was afraid.Cookies and Cream 11:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As always, Maybe in a new city.Cookies and Cream 10:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Since I'm an admitted fan of a certain game with four survivors in it, it managed to have some influence in my initial thinking about Special Infected. The main idea is to have an incentive for people with pure zombies, that requires effort and resisting temptation to get survivor skills when revived. I've edited the classes up there now to something, hopefully, more balanced but still worth the effort of being pure zombie. Ike Merodach 16:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, let's begin.

First, don't edit your suggestion after people have already commented on it, or at least add obvious tags and strikes to show the changes, otherwise when I show up late due to computer problems I have no idea what everyone above was on about.

Secondly, have you run the numbers through this? Specifically the average damage per attack when contrasted to current numbers and de-cading percentages? Have you run that 'tank' of yours through the average survivor damage when you have that additional HP bonus? (As an aside, the fire axe, best melee weapon versus zombies in the game, average damage per AP is 1.2 IMS. When put up against an 80HP zombie with no deductions, FR and FJ don't apply to axes, you have 67AP needed to take out one of these. Kiss goodbye to Axes High as a territorial group... I wouldn't weep.) You need to be understanding that this entire game is about maths, AP expended compared to effectiveness.

Thirdly, mixing your specifics even from in genre gets frowned on in this game (particularly if it buffs the zombie side), the trenchies whined and cried when the zombies started using shotguns against them even though multiple examples from the genre show them using them (notably both Day of the Deads, I saw the remake last night, what a turgid bowl of vomit it was, watch American Beauty instead, Kevin Spacey being awesome and at least Mena takes her top off in that one), if we can't have guns achievable only through the intelligence of url codes with 10% accuracy, your chances of getting this through if fort radio gets a sniff are minimal.

Finally, I'm not a fan of the game you've taken this from (some would say stolen from), so I ask you, why do we need to go plundering the specifics of another game when we have our own to explore that are pretty much unique to us? Death cultists for example. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

EPIC FAIL This idea or suggestion is based around a concept or worldview so fundamentally flawed that it is completely beyond any redemption or improvement whatsoever, excluding complete obliteration and reconstruction from scratch, which doesn't count.

Also, get my font the fuck out of your sig, General; it's well past a month. Wub you!

Lelouch vi Britannia 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

_

I find it interesting that some people are allowed to attack a suggestion as "worst ever" (among other derogatory points) without actually saying what is wrong it with it. The point of Developing Suggestions is to discuss the suggestion. Work on it if it needs work or say why it wouldn't work. Not just attack. But I digress. I like the idea of class differentiation. But these ideas are way overpowered. Limiting the player to only zombie skills is irrelevant as an offset penalty since the only survivor skill that would be "lost" is NecroTech Employment. You don't want to go higher than, say +10% to any combat bonus and +2 to any damage bonuses. Probably not even THAT high. But 60%/70% to bite or 8 damage to bite is too much. As is 70%/80% to hit or 6 damage with claws. The problem with giving a zombie 80 HP is that you can't differentiate because of zombie anonymity. And what does "double defense against guns and melee" mean?--Pesatyel 05:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming he means just that. So a shotgun against that particular breed of zombie would do 6 damage instead of 10. I also like the concept, but I would make 2 suggestions:

• (1) BALANCE. All of these are horribly overpowered, as has been explained by both Iscariot and Pesatyel. The numbers need some serious work, and you can fine tune those if you start small and play the game some more.
• (2) EVEN-UP. Survivors should get some similar kind of bonus option based on the initial class they chose, and should be equally balanced with the zombie options.

My advice would be to move this suggestion to your userspace somewhere, do some fine-tuning and adjusting and then bring it back here in a couple of weeks for more input. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Survivors Need Light, Zombies Don't Like Light

Timestamp: A Big F'ing Dog 00:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: Generator use

Scope: All

Description: Generators currently have no use except in resource buildings or dark buildings. This is an idea to make them useful in all buildings. Let's assume survivors need light to see. Zombies also need light to see but not as much, and too much light dazzles their sensitive eyes. Here's what this would do. In any non-dark building without a working generator survivors would suffer a -10% penalty to accuracy. Zombies would suffer no penalty. However in buildings with light survivors would gain a +10% bonus to accuracy. The light would also be a bit too much for undead eyes and zombies would suffer a -10% penalty to their accuracy inside a building with a working generator. This balances out a double-benefit to survivors from generators (+10 to you, -10 to zombies) by imposing a penalty on all survivors without a generator. Plus, zombies would be able to destroy the generator to get rid of that benefit/penalty. This would make destroying the generator a top priority before attacking survivors. Dark buildings (such as cinemas) would still provide a penalty for survivors and zombies when dark, and when lighting them would just negate that penalty. Lightning dark buildings would not provide any other benefit or penalty. Outdoor squares would be unaffected by this change, as would junkyards. So to recap: Dark Buildings, Junkyards, Outdoor Squares Work exactly the same as now. Inside every other building Survivors suffer -10% accuracy without a working generator Survivors gain +10% accuracy with a working generator Zombies suffer -10% accuracy with a working generator This would make lightning a non-resource non-dark building a tactical decision (gain bonus/negate penalty but advertise your position) rather than ill advised purposeless showing off. Thoughts?

Discussion (Survivors Need Light, Zombies Don't Like Light)

Personally, I'd say get rid of the +10% bonus with lights. You don't see as well in the dark, but turning the lights on doesn't make you see better, it just makes you see at the regular rate. And how come dark buildings don't get this bonus/penalty? The lights are on all the same. They're just a lot darker with them off. RinKou 01:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"This would make destroying the generator a top priority before attacking survivors. " And why would we want that to be the case?--Trevor Wrist 02:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why zombies would be effected, even as a balancing factor. Most genre has them able to attack regardless of the conditions in which they find themselves, including zombies that don't HAVE eyes.--Pesatyel 05:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Zombies need a +10% accuracy without a working generator, or this is straight-up unbalanced even at a cursory glance. Also, chance to damage a generator needs to be unaffected by these odds. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It's already highly attractive to smash the genny first and wouldn't need a beefing. A dead survivor costs a high-level zombie ~25AP and can be back up for at most 30AP (and more likely 12AP with ankle grab). Finding a genny and fuel costs rather ~50AP, and smashing it can safely be done with ~15AP. Every time but in exceptional circumstances (like a fort or mall that has lost nearby NTs and thus cheap revivives), it's already attacking the gennys what wins the AP race between humans and zombies. --Spiderzed 18:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss a memo somewhere? In what zombie break-in is breaking the generator NOT the first priority? Beyond that, Revenant is in the right that for this to be "balanced" it should be -10% one way and +10% the other for both sides. And regardless of what I just said, why do we need this? If you want to change your hit %, either buy a skill or go play in a dark building without a generator. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the genny is a priority. However how would -10% one way and +10% both ways be balanced? Sounds like a survivor penalty only that way. Regardless this suggestion is on the right track, just needs some re-tooling. --YoEleven 05:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's not a bad idea but as others have stated you messed up the numbers there, because you're giving a 20% edge to survivors and only a 10% edge to zombies.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Dragging Bodies

Timestamp: Officer Mead Sheaffer 20:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: Skill or innate Ability

Scope: Survivors & Zombies

Description: In the uttermost realistic sense, people drag people all the time. Be it wounded people, be it dead bodies, etc. This is featured in Horror Movies, in real life... everywhere. To add the ability to drag a sleeping survivor, a dead body, or something of the like would of course have to be balanced. I'd personally propose that it wastes 2-3 AP to drag another body, dead, about a square at a time. This would thoroughly waste a lot of survivor AP, so one would have to be tactical in the use of this ability. To further balance these, Zombies and Humans alike should be able to do this. The tactical use of this is quite obvious, and can work to both ends. If a tweak for this should be made, include it in your comments. Note. I tweaked it to DEAD bodies only. Seriously, I don't personally believe anyone would collaborate to drag someone from Lockettside to Ridleybank, especially when that body isn't identified.

Discussion (Drag Skill (Or innate?))

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: Jan 27 at 22:41 (UTC)

Multiply by a billion = Zerg army = No concern for AP = Pied Piper powers. NOW EVERYONE WILL BE IN FORT CREEDY!!! Also, I can screw with your buildings while you're gone.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Tweaked to Dead Bodies only. Get up and run or get eaten, don't idle out.--Officer Mead Sheaffer 04:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiply by a billion = Zerg Army = No concern for AP = Ability to kill you and then use aforementioned Pied Piper Powers.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You have nerfed feeding drag! Congratulations, you would pass go normally but I dragged you into the heart of ridleybank so the zombies devour you. Just think for a moment the kind of damage death cults could do... Three death cultists for a total of 150 AP get 50-37 drags. (2-3 AP each plus one for going back inside to grab another body.) Wow... If you loaded those same cultists up with Kalashnikovs and katanas you might be able to achieve that same level of damage. Maybe. Lelouch would you mind doing the honors of putting an epic fail template on this? -Devorac 04:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not an expert on Zombie Skills as I am a fulltime user of a Survivor Character, but have been meaning to actually have a Zed account. I was unaware of Feeding Drag. But that is beside one thing, which is Survivors cannot drag bodies. I mentioned that I tweaked it to dead bodies only. Good point on the Death Cultists! Sleeping people would be catastrophic and make the game truly horrifying. --Officer Mead Sheaffer 04:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? You were unaware of Feeding Drag? What, have you never been dragged, or are you just oblivious to the fact that Z's are people too? Cookies and Cream 11:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this a dupe? --LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 04:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

this, this, this, and, technically, this.--Pesatyel 04:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe we had one here a while back.

Read the damn Suggestions Dos and Do Nots, then wise up about the hopeless, time-tested flaws built into your pied piper skill. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 22:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Give Parks An Inside

Timestamp: A Big F'ing Dog 21:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Type: Location change

Scope: Parks

Description: Right now parks are just another outdoor square, no different than wasteland or streets. However most city parks are usually separated from the street by a fence and do have a inside and outside, just like a junkyard. The difference is that as public property a park wouldn't have high fences, and it wouldn't have much to barricade with if anything. What I suggest is giving parks an inside/outside with no door just like a junkyard, but not allowing any barricading either. Parks would also not be a valid targets to free run into or out of - clicking on a park from indoors would drop you outside. This would give parks a purpose as a hiding place for both survivors and zombies. Can't find an unbarricaded building? Maybe you won't be spotted hiding in the trees of a nearby park. Secretly amassing a horde to attack a nearby building? Avoid detection by hiding in a park instead of right out on the street.

Discussion (Give Parks An Inside)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: Jan 27 at 04:36 (UTC)

Parks can currently be used as RPs. This prevents that.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This idea's also come up before; one incarnation had the plants growing to obscure sight and they could be trimmed down. I seem to recall an argument along the lines of "survivors shouldn't get yet another hiding place, and zombies shouldn't ever need or even want to hide." --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I want this to be implemented, JUST so that hordes of thousands of zombies could lie in wait in parks for survivors to come in with low AP, looking for a place to hide. :D --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be funny... though really, when you want to "hide" a horde, you might as well just have it a suburb away or scattered around in smaller groups and then co-ordinate a massed attack. Also, they can "hide" as dead bodies. :P --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, I've always wanted to see a group of a couple hundred zombies slowly filter in to a place and wait as bodies. One minute, it's a normal green suburb; the next, every block has thirty zombies! >XD --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

... say, wanna start a new group called "Shock and Graagh!"? :Ð --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To answer your point Yonnua, this shouldn't prevent parks from being used as revive points. Nothing would prevent zombies from standing outside the park to wait for a revive. If you want scientists to see you, just don't go inside. --A Big F'ing Dog 22:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So basically you want to swap park squares for woodland --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh you other city rascal! But yes, that's what they want, except they want it to be enterable. -- Rahrah needs new ideas for his sig. 22:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? There really isn't much in "parks" to enter. Bathrooms? This could be easily implemented using Rosslessness's link.--Pesatyel 03:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else, it would provide some RP flavor so . . . seems like a good idea to me. Douglas Summers 23:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Malton doesnt have large multi-square park areas though. That said I do like the idea even if it isnt a new one. --YoEleven 00:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's my point. Othe then bathrooms, how many parks have "buildings" on the grounds people can even enter?--Pesatyel 07:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In the UK? Lots, a good number of them where once posh estates of the landed Genty... in fact I can't think of any parks in my city that do not have a substantial area that would fit this idea. --Honestmistake 18:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't aware of that. Makes sense in THAT respect. I just don't think there really need to be actual "inside/outside" buildings in the area. I don't see anything wrong with transplanting woodlands though.--Pesatyel 05:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What about parking structures? Seems like they should get this change before parks do. RinKou 00:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be applied to both. I'd imagine not all parks OR parking structures have "buildings".--Pesatyel 04:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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)

Obviously Your toolbox is much better than mine. Cookies and Cream 09:19, 16 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)

Closed doors are really important in sieges, and this harms newbie survivors as much as it helps lone zombies. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 01:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

s mentioned above these would need to be repairable otherwise NO building would have doors pretty quick. How would pipes factor in?--Pesatyel 05:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I honest thought this has been proposed like, 50 times. But I'm not going back to check :P. Either way, that's basically the way I'd imagine it should work, so no objections here. Locked doors will still act as an insta-barricade (as per pipes) for survivors without construction, but won't be completely invincible to new zombies. The argument is that low level survivors have any number of things they can do to get XP, several of which (ie healing) don't require any skills to do, and only requires one to do effectively for XP gain. Whereas zombies only have one source of XP and need to max out at least one combat tree in addition to MoL to max efficiency for their XP gain. RinKou 06:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I was thinking that (I didn't put much detail in the OP anyway) when a door is bashed open, you can close it at the cost of one AP, no skills required. This means that there won't be a whole crapload of buildings out there with no doors, and people won't have to start door-repair plans to keep a suburb somewhat safe. And to YoEleven, when I started Urban Dead I had no idea about this wiki, revive points, hordes or anything, I thought that the closest thing to organization was feeding groan. If I ever did get to a horde bashing down a barricade, I wouldn't be able to get more then one or two punches out of the survivors before they were all devoured. And it makes perfect sense from a flavour point of view, zombies would try to break a locked door just as much as one with a couch behind it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enigma179 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

The closed door thing is just ridiculous. So lets do this. I would propose that the door be it's own level of barricade, so it would require 3 successful hits to gain entry. The door would be instantly closed again whenever a survivor added barricades, exactly how it works now. The door would essentially be 1 last level of barricades to protect survivors, that zombies with memories of life could simply bypass by opening the door. The door never breaks or needs repair, it is either closed or opened, and it can be opened by MoL, or by "forcing" the door open with 3 successful hits. The hit rate would be the same as to barricades.

How about this for flavor text?

• You smash at the door (this is a miss)
• You smash at the door, it creaks. (this is an unsuccessful hit)
• You smash at the door, weakening it. (this is a successful hit)
• You smash at the door, forcing it open. (this happens after 3 successful hits)--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 20:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the three-hit idea. That'd handle my concerns about lowbies by making this more reasonable, while still giving solo, lowbie ferals a chance to get into buildings. —Aichon— 21:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that a problem with the three-hit idea is that survivors could potentially use doors as a somewhat effective barricade. 3 successful hits, plus perhaps one more if the survivor inside happened to have a pipe... that means that the zombie has to work through 4 levels of barricades, the equivalent of a lightly +2 barricade. It may seem low, but to a newbie zombie, even if it does have vigour mortis, it won't be able to get that barricade down in one sitting (I'm pretty sure). Survivors shouldn't rely on closed doors and pipes to defend themselves against zombies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enigma179 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Well, keep in mind it's an improvement over the current situation, where newbie zombies can't enter at all. I also don't know of any survivors who rely on pipes frequently. I've seen that cited quite a bit, but I've yet to hear of anyone actually putting it into practice on a regular basis. And this change wouldn't have any impact at all on veteran zombies, so all-in-all, it seems like an improvement. The number of hits necessary can always be reduced later as well. —Aichon— 14:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I say cut it down to one level of barricade, but have each zombie forcing it open have to open it separately. The flavour text for successfully opening it could read:

• You smash at the door, forcing it open. It swings closed heavily behind you.

This would cause it to be less of a nuisance for low-level zombies, while still maintaining a level of protection against them - each zombie would be its own separate threat, until one with memories opens it properly for them. 20:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As mis. One level, normal memories of life means you can just open it, otherwise to open it is half hand attack percentage. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Same. I like it this way. Cookies and Cream 09:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So, you guys think I should actually put this one up to voting, perhaps some more detail in it? Template:Enigma179 10:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How does the pipe affect this?--Pesatyel 18:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The pipe is just a barricade... I propose making the closed door another barricade level and zombies with MoL can open it as normal. Template:Enigma179 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok. It just didn't appear to be part of the discussion is all. I'm inclined to agree with Giles. Make it 2 (3 at most) attacks to break through. This is a special circumstance and 1 level just seemed a little to weak.--Pesatyel 04:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody want to put this up for a vote?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 08:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

---