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

Identification by Clothing (IbC)

Timestamp: Murdoc 13:06, 5 May 2010 (BST)

Type: New characters identification system

Scope: Improve Bounty Hunter vs PK game

Description: Hey buddies, One of my PK-oriented characters has just been condamned to be killed again and again by some lousy bunch of crappy guys. I don't fear them and I am heading back to their HQ in order to randomly fire all my guns at them. BUT (the actual suggestion begins here :) ) It would be cool if the first thing of a survivor you can see is his clothing. This way, he could change after having comitted a forfeit, and the whole PK/bounty hunters thing will be a lot funnier. Moreover, it would require a lot of talents to be a Bounty Hunter, which is challenging. Currently, any stupid weaponed guy can be one, which is a shame. The cool stuff would be : all characters are designated the same way on the map. You click on one, and you see the clothes he wears. If there is no interaction between you and the character, you just see his clothes. If the guy hits you, you see his name in the text saying "XxX hits you with a fire axe/shot you with a gun/whatever". If the guy speaks, you also see his name. So the Bounty Hunters will have to make suspected people speak to gently check their names. If the guy builds anything, you see his name. So if he barricades a building in the rage of a siege, and a bounty hunter is present, their will be a cool movie-like scene were the guys are united by danger but divided by revenge. If you hit the guy, you see his name. This way, if BH suspect a people who just don't talk, they could check his identity. As it is a rule that incitates people to hit others, their will be a bit more chaos in Malton. And healers will havea bit more work to do. Edit : of course, it implies that all characters receive random clothes at the beginning of the game. And you cannot just put anything. You have to wear something at any moment in the game.

Discussion (Identification by Clothing (IbC))

Would discourage to fill out profile descriptions as only a fraction gets to see them, makes role-playing difficult, makes zerg-hunting and -detecting difficult, would really run the contacts list limit to the hilt quickly... And those are just the first few severe mistakes I thought of in the first minute of reading this. I'd really prefer to give a friendlier conclusion and some advice for improvement with a new user's first suggestion, but all what this one leaves me to say is this: Spaminate this and kill it with fire, just to be sure. -- Spiderzed▋ 13:55, 5 May 2010 (BST)

Likewise. Also, it'd look far too unwieldy in actual usage. 14:18, 5 May 2010 (BST)

I'm ok with you remarks, except that I do think it would greatly enhances the role-playing ^^

---

Expert Skills v0.2

Timestamp: Devorac 16:30, 3 May 2010 (BST)

Type: New Skills

Scope: Everyone banging their heads against the granite ceiling

Description: Most everyone knows that the game burnout hits at level 41 (43 for zombies) when all skills have been earned, personally I think there should be more to work towards, (other than the tic-tac-toe of defending/destroying suburbs and buildings in the war against zombies/harmanz) a bit more to achieve. Unfortunately there are numerous problems with introducing any new skills into the game, the biggest goes something like this: "All the old players will suddenly get a buff out of nowhere.". That concern is quite legitimate, and previous means of circumventing it (reducing everyone who has 41-43 levels XP to zero, setting an XP ceiling) have been met with hostility and usually something involving EP size. This brings us to my proposal... Expert Skills, or proficiency, whatever you want to call it. What this means is that for most actions there is an additional skill that cannot be purchased with XP, it must be earned through repetition. These are skills for people who do what they do really well, you won't get these for blowing two lvl 1 zombies in half with a shotgun (120 XP) or healing 5 10HP lvl 1 survivors back to full health (100-200XP, 20-40 FAKs). For instance I think that to achieve an expert skill level with FAKs you should have to use about 2200 of them. Yes, twenty-two-hundred. Work out the AP math of that and it is two solid months of AP usage. Two solid months doing nothing but FAK people. Yeah that's a lot but I want these skills to be really cool things that you can be proud of, not just milestones. On the skill tree theses would show up as a third area after zombie skills labeled Expert Skills. The skills themselves are cool things that you will be happy to have, but the won't break the game. This is a current list of all the expert skills, I'll try to keep it as balanced between zombie and survivor skills as I can. Survivor (Many More Coming) Frugal Doctor (0/2200 First-Aid Kits Administered) Not yet Achieved 5% chance that a FAK will not be used up when healing a patient. Waste Not, Want Not. Junkyard Jackal (2543/2200 Hits with Improvised Weapons) Achieved! +10% chance to hit with all improvised weapons 5% chance to deal +1 damage when striking with improvised weapons as well. I don't know what this is, but I bet it'll hurt when it hits you. Toughness (2349/6000 Damage taken as a Survivor) Not yet Achieved 5% To take only half normal damage when attacked, rounded up. Applied after Flack jacket where applicable. I'd be lying if I said this didn't sting like all get out. Doorman (42/3000 Barricade levels lowered or raised.) Not Yet achieved +5% chance to successfully raise barricades when building. +5% chance to lower barricades on strike. Strength comes from the back and legs, use your shoulders on the big stuff and you'll just torque something Lumberjack (1438/3000 Hits with an Axe) Not Yet Achieved +5% chance to hit with Fire Axe 10% chance to not use an AP on a miss. You lose yourself in the Rhythm after a while; Raise, chop, recover, raise, chop, recover, raise... Pack Rat (1071/6000 Items found) Not Yet Achieved +10% max encumbrance. Hold on, I just need one more thing... just one more... Deadeye (721/2200 Pistol Hits) 5% chance to deal an additional 1 point of damage with the pistol. Happiness is a warm gun... Tuck and Roll (6092/6000 Free runs made) +15% chance to not take damage from free-running into a ruin. It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end. Zombie (Many More Coming) Masticate (0/2200 Survivors Bitten) Not yet Achieved* Extra 10% Increase to Zombie Bite accuracy when gripping target. 15% chance that the zombie will not use an AP when missing a bite on a gripped target. OMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOMNOM Iron Grasp (0/2200 Survivors Gripped**) Not Yet Achieved 5% extra accuracy bonus when using tangling grasp. 5% Reduced chance for a survivor to slip grasp. Oh God I think he's got me, oh sh- *crunch* Scar Tissue (281/9000 Damage taken as a Zombie) Not Yet Achieved HP Maximum as a Zombie raised by an additional 5 points. Stacks with body-building, or rotting flesh. Goddamnit! These bitches just won't die! Destructive Intent (4/2200 Barricade levels lowered as a zombie) Not Yet Achieved 10% chance to lower barricade levels by an extra point on a successful strike. Did you hear someth- AUGHH! Hunter's Instinct (15/1500 Scent Trails Activated) Not Yet Achieved Zombie gets a +1 Damage on the last Character to attack it. +10% to hit bonus when attacking the last survivor to attack it. Word of advice boy, Don't start what you can't finish... These bastards get pretty angry Blood Hunt (1/2500 Scent Death Maps Activated) Not Yet Achieved Squares with infected or dying survivors are asterisked on the scent death map. Look kid, if someone gets wounded too badly and you can't fix it, you either leave them behind or shoot them... It's safer to you and kinder to them. Ripping Hands (237/2200 Hand impacts on a survivor) Not Yet Achieved +5% Accuracy bonus with hands. 5% Chance to deal an extra 1 damage. Luckily for them it doesn't take much in the way of brains to slaughter and maim. Omni-sense (1/1000 Survivors killed as a zombie) Not Yet Achieved No accuracy debuffs affect the zombie. (I.e Dark buildings) ...The prevailing theory is that they rely on all their senses equally, it would explain how they are undeterred by darkness or extreme light... Additionally I'm thinking of adding a single additional special expert skill for each class to make things a bit more unique. Battlefield Surgeon Required Class: Medic Pre-requisite Expert Skill: Frugal Doctor The Character can perform surgery in any powered building. Bite down on this... try to relax. Jack Of All Trades Required Class: Consumer Pre-requisite Expert Skill: Junkyard Jackal 1% chance to deal +2 damage with any weapon. He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence Endurance Runner Required class: Scout Pre-requisite Expert Skill: Tuck and Roll 10% chance to not use an AP when running out in the open. (Not free-running) You run. You run and run until you can't feel your legs and your chest feels like it's going to split, and then you run some more. These skills are hidden as a second tier skill underneath their pre-requisite expert skill, effectively hiding them until the first tier expert skill is earned. Now I'm thinking that this extra skill is automatically given once you earn it's pre-requisite, after all there is only one per character class and it is meant to amplify your base class. I*This may seem over-powered and it may indeed replace maul for high level zombies, but I really think the Uber zombies should be, well Uber. I**Counts each time you re-grip, crushes don't count. Okay. thoughts?

Discussion (Expert Skills V0.2)

Alright we are updated with 7 (seven) new skills awaiting your comments-Devorac 16:35, 3 May 2010 (BST) (Lelouch I kept your comment because it made me feel all fuzzy inside.. :P)

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

This is the best idea you've ever had, ever.

Lelouch vi Britannia 03:00, 3 May 2010 (BST)

I still like your idea, very well balanced and fun for newbies and experts alike. You do plan on special expert skill for all classes right?--V darkstar 17:13, 3 May 2010 (BST)

Yes... It is difficult to think of skills that are balanced, fit the class, and have a fitting pre-req though... I'll probably release a few more tomorrow. -Devorac 17:53, 3 May 2010 (BST)

I still don't like the idea of expert skills at all, and I think that a good number of the ones you've given as examples are overpowered. --User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 19:59, 3 May 2010 (BST)

Please by all means go into how and why they are unbalanced, I'll do whatever I can to address your concerns. While I probably won't be able to do anything about it I would also like to hear your thoughts on why you don't like Expert Skills in general. -Devorac 21:05, 3 May 2010 (BST)

Right, here we go: Scar Tissue - providing one side with an instant +10 health, especially combined with the fact that they stand up with full health, is slightly unfair. The 9000 points of damage equates to roughly 150 kills, something all three of my main characters can claim, as well as my minor characters being a good part of the way there. Major newb killer, as well as making it much harder to kill anyone.

Omni-sense - Theoretically not too bad, but the prerequisite has nothing to do with the skill.

Masticate, Lumberjack, Endurance Runner - Simply put, if you don't want to use an action point, then don't perform an action. Misses are there for a reason, and if we take them away, the game nears pointlessness. Before you attempt to reply that it'll only be on rare occassions, I direct you to the guideline: Rare does not equal balanced. This suggestion holds true to that.

Deadeye, Jack Of All Trades and to a lesser extent Ripping Hands - +1 damage to the most powerful weapon in the game is insanely unbalancing. +2 damage to all weapons, including the most powerful weapon in the game, is INSANELY unbalancing. Hopefully Aichon will provide us with some of his brilliant maths.

Pack Rat - 100% =/= 110%.

Frugal Doctor - As with Masticate, etc, if you don't want to use an item, don't use it.

Battlefield Surgeon - Seriously overpowered. The extra 5hp should be a benefit from staying around a certain type of building, it should most definitely not be a permanent feature.

Last but not least Toughness - If you need me to explain why halving all damage to a target is a bad idea, then I doubt explaining would help. :P

And on the subject of these skills in general they will ALWAYS benefit advanced players more than newbies. The gap will always be made larger, and it will become harder and harder for new players to play the game. --User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 21:25, 3 May 2010 (BST)

To clarify, read the costly does not equal balanced section here to see what I'm getting at.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 21:30, 3 May 2010 (BST)

Okay,

Scar Tissue I'm open to changing this to the same as human toughness or halving the bonus.... in fact I think I will do that... It is a much more difficult one to balance out.

Omni-sense If you can think of better I'll gladly put it in... Otherwise consider it the zombie brain getting used balancing the senses.

Masticate, Lumberjack, Endurance Runner Lumber jack, 1.5 Extra attacks. Masticate, about 2 extra attacks. Endurance runner if you happen to spend all of your 50 AP outside (unlikely) you get 5 additional AP. Also Rare was meant for items (I.E the suggestion for a 0.001% chance to find a minigun in armories) not so much for percentages, if it was we would never have flare guns. On rare occasions the RNG opens up to me and I can get 40+ shots out without missing (42 is my record) does this mean I should have my pistols taken from me? No.

Deadeye, Jack Of All Trades and to a lesser extent Ripping Hands It was far FAR less overpowered than a 5% accuracy buff. Deadeye 1.625 bonus damage under ideal circumstances (50 AP, no reloads). Jack of all trades pistol, .7 average bonus. Shotgun (full load no reloads 32 shots) .416 bonus damage. Fire Axe, .4 Bonus damage. Err... Massive Overpower isn't quite what I think of when I look at this.

Pack Rat - 100% =/= 110%. Well that is brilliant math there, it doesn't exactly tell me why you object though.

Frugal Doctor ... Okay if that wasn't a joke I'm going to have to look at you like you're crazy. "If you don't want to die confronting zombies don't confront zombies" Why thank you captain obvious. This is a "Hey Cool!" buff. If you really believe that it is too over powered I am open to halving it again.

Battlefield Surgeon - Sorry not changing this one.

Toughness Please read the suggestion. It hurts my massive ego when people do this.

Gaps are what make it fun. If there was no gap between 1 and 41 few people would have any interest. Even if a character had all of these skills (I need to make a note that any zombie expert skills do not carry over as a survivor and vice versa) The difference between a 41 and a 41 with expert skills is not great. The fun of them comes from achieving them, these skills are designed to be things that happen on a "Well that was nice" basis.-Devorac 22:30, 3 May 2010 (BST)

I do not consider you to have fully addressed my points, and still do not agree with this suggestion. However, since neither of us are going to agree, I guess that leaves it at that.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 22:40, 3 May 2010 (BST)

Well no I didn't largely because several were on the odd side (Pack rat, toughness) however I am glad that you have decided to leave it off here rather than fill the page with needless drama. If you would like to explain more clearly (And include your own math to back your arguments up) you are welcome on the talk page of my Mad Science lab. -Devorac 22:51, 3 May 2010 (BST)

Jusy remember Devorac you can't please everyone I think the originals where good enough.--V darkstar 13:26, 4 May 2010 (BST)

I think that Pack Rat is kind of towards the OP side, because all survivors search frequently and we hit 118% encumbrance too often as a side as it is. Battlefield Surgery might need to be in a powered building? Just an idea, not a big thing. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 03:41, 5 May 2010 (BST)

Alright I'll see if I can change pack rat a little to make it work... The Surgery is a fair change and it makes sense, done. -Devorac 06:08, 5 May 2010 (BST)

---

Windows shading

Timestamp: Girobu 09:14, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Type: New mechanics

Scope: all

Description: When a building is powered, the light is observable from the street. It attractss zombies and PKers to lit buildings, and makes non-lit ones a little bit safer. But what if we'd have ability to shade the windows with newspapers? The idea is - if you have certain amount of newspapers (different for different building types), you can shade the windows for cost 1 AP per newspaper (NO partial shading!). When building is shaded, it looks like unpowered one from the street, even when powered. When zombie enters the building, he/she can destroy shading for one succesful attack (I assume, that newspapers are not very strong) - there is an option in attacked things list - "shading". Variants: No need to newspapers, just some AP (let's say 5-20 for different bildings) to shade windows ("you shade the windows with some duct tape"), and the same mechanics to remove shading (one successful attack to shading). But there is more fun with newspapers (and you need pay AP's to find them).

Discussion (Windows shading)

The added danger is the balance for the huge search advantage a generator gives. No making them invisible. If you don't want to pay the price, smash the generator yourself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:18 29 April 2010 (BST)

It makes non-lit building more dangerous, so the price is paid. Plus it paid by amount of AP required to shade building, and just 1-2 to fully deshade it. --Girobu 09:27, 29 April 2010 (BST)

The danger is displaced or spread around from valuable locations to less valuable locations. Still an advantage. —Aichon— 09:32, 29 April 2010 (BST)

I think, balance kept (there are advantages and disadvantages for both sides) - and the strategy becomes more interesting for both parties. --Girobu 11:29, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Aichon and Boxy really nailed this one on the head. The light of the genny is the trade-off, AND you're trying to make a RP item (newspaper) useful at the same time. If you want your genny to stay hidden, put it in a ruined building. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 10:14, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Orly? 14:40, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Plus this will really annoy those zombies in Perma Death Cities, searching through the ruins for that single lit building. Oh! and if the genny was destroyed whilst the windows were covered, would the building become Dark? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:19, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Yes, it's good idea (making them dark). And if you want to find something, you must de-shade it. Price paid? :) --Girobu 10:50, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Bad idea. We'd see a lot of newspaper-darkened non-TRPs just to have a safe sleep place, while zombies have no way to dismantle them by ripping away the paper or setting up a gennie. --Spiderzed 14:36, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Now you can cade and power the whole suburb just to have a safe sleep place while zombies have no way... you know. Does it ruin the game? I want just to have another strategy. And - shading is expensive, de-shading is cheap - to keep the balance. --Girobu 15:39, 29 April 2010 (BST)

As others have already said, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you can't live with being attacked in a lit resource building, destroy the genny, or even smarter yet, go to the TRP only to stock up and then sleep somewhere safer. But don't go and pester Kevan to change the game just because you can't be bothered to endure a trade-off that has been long established in UD, and that most survivor players have learned to deal with. --Spiderzed 14:36, 29 April 2010 (BST)

No, it isn't. Addition of such possibility won't give you a free cookie, because everyone will know about it, so there is no way to be safe in TRP like in dark bank today. I'd say, there will be no safe dark banks with this suggestion implemented. --Girobu 15:34, 29 April 2010 (BST)

I didn't see anything in your suggestion that would make dark banks more dangerous. But the criticism brought up by others here is warranted. This would really mess up the game for feral zombies and cause more of them to stop playing. When there aren't any feeding groans, attacking lit buildings is one of the best ways for ferals to try and find a snack. Zombies already have to guess at where there prey is, since they can't see inside the buildings. The newspaper trick would further conceal the presence of survivors all across Malton almost overnight, making the game more difficult and frustrating for all zombies.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 07:59, 30 April 2010 (BST)

When zombie KNOWS that buildings, looking like unlit, may actualy be powered and shaded, s/he will attack unlit buildings more often, than now. So, no safe dark places. --Girobu 15:31, 4 May 2010 (BST)

---

Zombies > Barricades (When Inside)

Timestamp: Maverick Talk - OBR 404 06:26, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Type: Mechanics change

Scope: Seiges & zombies looking for bra!ns

Description: Barricades are a zombies worst enemy, but why should it be just as hard when the zombie is INSIDE the building? One would think that would make it far easier to remove the things blocking the way in so those pesky harmans can't just throw up barricades behind you and separate you from all your hungry friends. Simply put, I am suggesting a change to the attack percentages for zombies attacking barricades from INSIDE a building. This is meant to go along with Survivor:Zombie Interference Negation. When inside a building the base chance for a zombie to destroy a level of barricade is 70%. This would be 80% with Vigor Mortis or 95% with Death Grip. Hence, MUCH easier to destroy cades from the inside, although still that small 5% chance of failure.

Discussion (Zombies > Barricades (When Inside))

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 7 May 2010

Doesn't being inside already give everyone a small boost? Even if not, your numbers are insane. ~25 to 95?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:18, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Yes, apparently it does already give a small boost... but that boost is insanely underpowered (so much so that you cant tell the difference). It really could do with an increase -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:26 29 April 2010 (BST)

The problem with this is that it only makes sense if survivors get a similar boost and that would make it too easy to overcade during an attack and then take em back down to allow entry. Also, as Yonnua says, those numbers are insanely high. --Honestmistake 08:47, 29 April 2010 (BST)

+1 --Girobu 08:51, 29 April 2010 (BST)

I don't see why it makes sense to offer the same to survivors. Survivors shouldn't be taking down barricades. Zombies should be. If you want to make the realism argument, I'll counter with the "let's go with what's best for the game and what's fun" argument. For a zombie on the inside, they can attack barricades at points where they're not fortified against attack, enabling them to take them down faster. As boxy said, it needs a buff. Badly. 95% is a bit high, I think, but bumping it up closer to 50-75% seems reasonable to me. —Aichon— 09:47, 29 April 2010 (BST)

The numbers are insanely high for a reason. As I said, this suggestion is meant as a compliment to the one below. Besides, are you telling me that it shouldn't be significantly easier to remove barricades from the inside? As a stand-alone, all I really see this suggestion doing is offering up a new tactics for trans-mortal zombies and dealth cultists in siege situations because right now zeds have nothing to gain by attacking 'cades from the inside of a building. This would provide a new incentive (incredibly AP efficient) and possibly even suggest some new tactics for both survivors and zombies. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:41, 29 April 2010 (BST)

No linking suggestions.--Pesatyel 04:43, 30 April 2010 (BST)

There is a guideline about not making compound or multi-part suggestions, but nothing about paired suggestions. Besides, analyze each for what they're worth. They do work best together, but each stands on its own just fine. —Aichon— 06:28, 30 April 2010 (BST)

Do not reference other suggestions not already implemented in the game. :( --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:28, 30 April 2010 (BST)

I stand corrected (thanks, incidentally; I don't like continuing in my ignorance whenever possible). Still, I think they stand alone just fine, as I said. —Aichon— 08:48, 30 April 2010 (BST)

The problem is that the below suggestion does the exact opposite of what Kevan has been trying to do. And it's retarded. --VVV ^RPMBG 05:41, 30 April 2010 (BST)

You're wrong on both counts, and your casual dismissal of an elegant solution does not speak well of you. Barricades are used to balance out the AP spent by zombies, otherwise survivors would be overrun. If zombies are inside buildings though, that's a different matter entirely, and the barricades are now serving a different purpose. Forcing the survivors to split their attention more between putting up new barricades and killing zombies on the inside is good, since it creates more interesting gameplay. Ross' suggestion covers that entire idea in an elegant and simple manner. DIsmissing it offhand with such a rude comment is, well, rude. I know this page has a lot of vitriol on it, but I have a lot more respect for someone who puts up a strongly worded counter-argument than I do for someone who offers a meritless dismissal of a good idea any day. —Aichon— 06:28, 30 April 2010 (BST)

I'm sorry, is this the five minute argument or the full half hour? --VVV ^RPMBG 07:57, 30 April 2010 (BST)

Almost everything with me is the half hour version vs. the five minute version, since I'm always long-winded, but three lines does not a half hour of reading make, and there's no argument here. Merely a pointing out of your incorrectness. :) —Aichon— 08:02, 30 April 2010 (BST)

Regardless of the other suggestion below, I'd say make this a standalone change. Decading from inside should be easier than outside. Here's a crazy alternative. Attacks inside building on barricades are not subject to the 50% decrease in accuracy normally associated with barricade attacks. for everyone. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:56, 29 April 2010 (BST)

I like the simpleness of Ross' suggestion. If you want to go with anything, go with this one. --Spiderzed 14:40, 29 April 2010 (BST)

+1 14:49, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Simplistic, not bad.--Pesatyel 04:43, 30 April 2010 (BST)

Not simplistic. Simple. There's a big difference. And yes, it's not a bad idea at all. I'd get behind it. —Aichon— 06:29, 30 April 2010 (BST)

+4 - Send it through. It will pass. --VVV ^RPMBG 05:41, 30 April 2010 (BST)

What about Piñatas?--Pesatyel 04:43, 30 April 2010 (BST)

It would aply to buildings regardless of ruin status. Not like any zombie smart enough to make a piñata would be dumb enough to open it. --VVV ^RPMBG 05:41, 30 April 2010 (BST)

Sometimes zombies parachute into heavily barricaded buildings, killing survivors before ruining them. Any survivors that were killed inside can stand up as zombies inside (because zombies can't dump bodies) and decade -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:39 30 April 2010 (BST)

I don't like this at all. The biggest reason being that it would make parachuting ridiculously overpowered, as it would be used to instantly remove any barricades. But I can think of a few other problems too.
Right now, when a zombie gets into a building they can do plenty of damage by eating brains and smashing generators. Currently, if a lone zed feels like being altruistic and de-barricading, then they are making a tactical decision to spend their AP helping others, rather than taking the immediate personal payoff of eating brains. So, in a way, this suggestion would be removing a tactical consideration from the game. Trade-offs are good for the game, because they offer the opportunity to make meaningful decisions, right?
With this suggestion, there's no trade off. So if I'm a zombie in a building and the survivors decide to erect barricades around me, I just bring the barricades down and then start eating brains. Also, this would basically mean that 1 or 2 standing zombies in a building would signal the end game of a siege, rather than a manageable set back, which would in turn make sieges less possible and therefore discourage prolonged conflicts between zombies and survivors and in turn move the game farther away from zombies vs survivors.
However, zombies getting barricaded into buildings is really only an occasional situation. Most of the time, when a zombie breaks in, there are no cades up and they just AP out eating brains. What this really is, is a massive buff to parachuting. The really big problem here is that this would provide a way for 2 coordinating players (or 1 zerger) to instantly remove barricades, the single most important defense that survivors have. I'd never vote for something that could have the potential to so badly cripple the game, and I can't imagine too many other survivors voting for it either.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 08:32, 30 April 2010 (BST)

Thats why I prefer mine. Simpler, and more balanced. We might even get some people decading entry points from EHB. Scary! --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:21, 30 April 2010 (BST)

Entry points? *Scoffs* Entry points are a myth. -Devorac 16:51, 30 April 2010 (BST)

In fairness I know of only one guaranteed entry point in the whole of Malton. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:39, 30 April 2010 (BST)

Wild guess: A certain hospital in Kempsterbank, where rotters enjoy safety in numbers and where fungus has grown strong? --Spiderzed 18:48, 30 April 2010 (BST)

When it comes to helping level one survivors, we do everything we can. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:51, 30 April 2010 (BST)

Like speeding them on their way to the joys of being a level 1 zombie :) --Honestmistake 23:12, 30 April 2010 (BST)

---

Survivor:Zombie Interference Negation

Timestamp: Maverick Talk - OBR 404 06:26, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Type: Mechanics fix

Scope: Zombie interference

Description: Zombie interference and the beachhead tactic are too powerful. Where there could be tension for control of a building/mall, there is instead a kind of "lost cause" mentality when even a small number of zeds break into a building--regardless of whether there are 4 survivors or 86 survivors. This suggestion seeks to remedy that somewhat while still keeping zombie interfence and the beachhead tactic viable; this is meant to go along with Zombies > Barricades (When Inside). Zombie interference takes effect when there are two or more zombies in a building. Based on preliminary experiments, current best guess is that it hampers barricade chances by roughly 50%. I suggest that this should be less of an issue if there are sufficiently more survivors present than zombies--10 to 1, in fact. How much of a difference I am leaving up for debate, but I was thinking 15% for every 10 extra survivors with there always being a minimum of 5% zombie interference. Example: 2 zombies and 14 survivors = zombie interference functions as normal 2 zombies and 20 survivors = zombie interference is 15% less (so zombies only block barricades 35% of the time instead of 50%) 3 zombies and 40 survivors = zombie interference is 30% less (or 20% chance of z-block) 4 zombies and 86 survivors = zombie interference is 45% less (46 extra survivors, but must always be at least 5% chance of z-block) 5 zombies and 48 survivors = zombie interference functions as normal

Discussion (Survivor:Zombie Interference Negation)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 7 May 2010

In the genre, how many people hang around when a zombie breaks in to the building? Even if there are a hundred people in a mall with you, when you zombie breaks in, you flee. Currently, I think the game reflects this well.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:21, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Actually survivors don't flee. They cade/kill. This is the reason for beachhead. If they fled the scene then zombies would not have to keep an open door.--Dirty 08:47, 29 April 2010 (BST)

I really like this idea. Interference is currently overpowered and doesn't scale well at all with the number of humans and zombies. Having it scale appropriately would be a GREAT change for the game. —Aichon— 09:49, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Cade blocking is fine as it is now. Not all zombies act in strike teams, some of us prefer to go feral and see it already as a big success to squeeze 3 or so in before the cades are up again. There's anyway already a built-in advantage for the survivor's numerical advantage, as they can shoot down intruding zombies to make the building cadeable again. No need to bolster that further. --Spiderzed 14:44, 29 April 2010 (BST)

This. Changes based on the existence of organised zombies can't ignore the extreme difficulty of playing as a feral. 14:51, 29 April 2010 (BST)

How often does a group of 2-3 ferals break into a building with 20+ survivors though? I kept that in mind when setting up the ratio so that the focus is on organized hordes and would have as little effect on ferals as possible. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:38, 29 April 2010 (BST)

I've seen that regularly, especially with timed Feral Movement tactics and/or high-profile targets as malls or fort gatehouses. If you want to leave the ferals alone and only nerf organized hordes a bit, leave the cade-blocking of lower zombie numbers alone (up to 5 or so), and nerf everything above that mark. --Spiderzed 22:27, 29 April 2010 (BST)

I think you just need to suggest a leash that can be applied to survivors only, based on a check of what percentage (50? 65?) of their last, say, 200 AP has been spent on attacking. This can be used to drag idiot trenchies to break-in sites where their bullets will actually do some good. --Mold 05:46, 30 April 2010 (BST)

I kinda like the current barricade blocking the way it is. The current situation encourages survivors to keep the barricades up at all costs in a siege, because letting zombies in has a compounding effect. I appreciate the thought you put into the percentages, but as others have pointed out, it would make things a bit more difficult for ferals.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 08:38, 30 April 2010 (BST)

---

New FAK rules

Timestamp: -- | T | BALLS! | 00:54 24 April 2010(UTC)

Type: Improvement

Scope: FAK's/Healing

Description: FAK's in this game are ridiculous. Injuries should heal slower than they are inflicted but in Urban Dead its just the opposite, they heal much faster than inflicted. FAK's are overpowered anyway even if you ignore the rest. So here are some new rules: 1 FAK heals 1 HP. First Aid Skill increases it to 1 FAK heals 2 HP. Surgery Skill increases it to 1 FAK heals 4 HP if in a powered Hospital. Cons for Survivors: Obviously takes more FAK's to heal up. Pro for Survivors: Low level players will have a lot more chance for XP gain.

Discussion (New FAK rules)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 6 May 2010

Fuck, he's alive. Also how would this affect xp gain? 01:02, 24 April 2010 (BST)

I didn't think about that. Could make it too easy to XP whore if it remained 5 per I suppose. Suggestions?--

| T | BALLS! | 01:04 24 April 2010(UTC)

XP equal to HP healed. 01:06, 24 April 2010 (BST)

Healing does need a nerf, but this makes the game less fun by increasing search time overwhelmingly. I think and appropriate change would be that there is a limit to how much healing can be done to one player in each half hour (AP regen) period. You can still apply FAKs, but the healing wouldn't take affect until the next AP tick. This would mean that survivors couldn't heal quicker than a zombie can attack. Nothing lamer than watching the survivor you are attacking miraculously gain full health in the time it takes you to claw at him a couple of times -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:09 24 April 2010 (BST)

I agree completely. Healing is ridiculously overpowered. Dropping the HP healed isn't the answer, but this would work great. No added 'omg, more searching!?! so boring!' but the removal of 'Kill the medic, not the heavy!'

Also here are HealthyDude (60_HP), HealingDude (34+15_HP), and HurtDude (46_HP) --VVV ^RPMBG 04:51, 24 April 2010 (BST)

My original idea was along these lines but I thought people would get all K.I.S.S. on me. Then there is the healing someone who already has their heal for the half hour and how that works. I guess there could be a new color for that. One fix for doing it my way would be to increase search rates for FAK's so they are easier to find. I like that better because it limits the total healing potential that a single Survivor could carry at once. Instead of a Survivor being able to carry 50 FAK's at once for max 250/500/750 possible healing potential (just looking at those number makes me sick) it would be 50/100/200. A lot more sane. Increased Search Rates would make Hospitals a great Resource Point as well! As Survivors could cycle through their FAKs like mad as long as they had patients to treat. Anything that puts more focus on the "lesser Resource Points" over those Malls is a plus in my book.--

| T | BALLS! | 08:10 24 April 2010(UTC)

I could certainly get behind VVV's idea of only 5 HP-worth of healing getting applied every AP tick, as long as you could still apply multiple FAKs to the same player (they just wouldn't take effect right away). So now I suppose I'll just wait and see if that idea ever shows its face for voting... --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:38, 28 April 2010 (BST)

For further development, I think it's worth taking to voting, myself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:26 28 April 2010 (BST)

If I see it in voting, it'll have my vote. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:13, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Or you could make the FAKs simular to a fuel can, in that you find 1 that weighs a shit load, the number of 5/10/15HP heals it deals are limited to the amount of medical equipment inside the kit. keep the search rates the same all over the place. i dunno, just tossing ideas out. but i agree with the basis of this suggestion.--Dirty 03:01, 24 April 2010 (BST)

That sounds cool too.--

| T | BALLS! | 08:13 24 April 2010(UTC)

How bout scotty don't! -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

03:24, 24 April 2010 (BST)

F.A.K.K.² --Arthur Dent BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 09:24, 24 April 2010 (BST)

It changes game a little - I've just have to spend more boring time searching. --Girobu 14:09, 26 April 2010 (BST)

What if you found more at one time? Say when you search you could find 1 to 3 each search.--Pesatyel 02:08, 27 April 2010 (BST)

So what? This guy wants play zed without nerf, his next suggestion will (I think) - "New cade rules - one attack to destroy all cades around" :) --Girobu 09:44, 27 April 2010 (BST)

What?--Pesatyel 03:37, 28 April 2010 (BST)

The plain balance shift, I meant --Girobu 07:40, 28 April 2010 (BST)

Again. What? The suggestion was to reduce the healing power of an individual FAK. The main argument against it is that it means "more mindnumbing searching". While I think I like Honestmistake's idea better, as far as THIS suggestion goes, what about increasing the number of FAK you find in a search to compensate for weaker FAK themselves? Or, how about the ability to manufacture a "more powerful" FAK?--Pesatyel 04:29, 29 April 2010 (BST)

make each single FAK weaker, but easier to find? And what the reason? The first suggestion is bad, but I can, at least, understand why it's made. --Girobu 08:46, 29 April 2010 (BST)

I think that zombies healing is just a powerful. I mean 1 AP to restore 4 HP no item needed, and bodies are found everywhere. You need to keep the game balanced.--V darkstar 13:46, 27 April 2010 (BST)

I think, the FAKs shouldn't work on zombies, just because medicine doesn't cure dead. Let's write new suggestion on this? --Girobu 08:54, 29 April 2010 (BST)

How about 1 FAK heals 1HP immediately and continues healing 1 HP per AP tick until it reaches its current total (IE 5/10/15) depending on all the factors. That way the FAK still heals the same amount, it just doesn't do it instantly. --Honestmistake 21:40, 27 April 2010 (BST)

I like the idea.--Pesatyel 03:37, 28 April 2010 (BST)

You think, that AP equals to hour, ninute or so, but it's not true. AP is a single action. What you're saying is just bad. Cutting AP's for no reason makes game boring, not interesting. Boring game = less gamers= much more boring game. --Girobu 07:39, 28 April 2010 (BST)

You obviously don't understand, read it carefully and you might realize that I am not suggesting that using the FAK cost more.... just that each tickover that restores an AP would also restore a HP. Put simply if "total noob" uses a FAK he would no longer restore 5HP instantly, instead he would restore 1 immediately and 1 more every half hour until either the target is fully healed or the full 5 are regained (2 hours) In no way am I suggesting that "noob" needs to stay and keep clicking, just that the "patient" no longer gets the full benefit in one single lump.--Honestmistake 23:45, 28 April 2010 (BST)

Try not to say "I want FAK to work another way", but: "I want add the ***** to the game". What this change will add to the game? Nothing, as I can see. Just more AP wasting for the same result. Let's just ask Kevan to cut daily AP from 50 to 30 - the same thing. --Girobu 08:39, 29 April 2010 (BST)

OK, obviously English is not your 1st language so I will try and make this as simple as possible for you.

Currently 1AP + 1 FAK = instant heal for 5, 10 or 15 HP depending on skill and location.

My suggestion is that 1AP + 1 FAK = 5, 10 or 15 HP added over time.

That time will be measured by the AP tick. The AP tick is the mechanism that works out when your character should regain any spent AP, I am not in anyway suggesting something that would make healing cost extra AP. I am not in any way suggestiong that the healer must do anything more than he/she already does (ie click to use a FAK for 1AP) the wounded person also does not have to do anything. The server does all the additional work with no help (or interference) from the players. Is that clear?

It's perfectly clear. Please, explain, what it will add to game process? I must do 5-10-15 actions in order to heal myself before sleeping. Nice. Cool. Can't wait when it comes true. 5-15 stupid actions for just healing. Let's also add "physical exercise" (or just "do something stupid") to list of possible actions :) Finally, it comes to simple AP cut, as I've said. No beauty. --Girobu 09:26, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Dude. You wouldn't have to do 5-10-15 actions, they would happen automatically, it's just that the HP would be added over time instead of all in one hit. Just like in R/L, the wounds would take time to heal, rather than instantaneously as soon as you applied the bandage -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:30 29 April 2010 (BST)

Wait 5 hrs to heal 10 HP? Wait 15 hrs to full healing after revive? Please, finally, answer - what it would add to the game, besides "realism"? --Girobu 10:47, 29 April 2010 (BST)

It adds balance. Being able to fully heal another survivor in a fraction of the time it takes a zombie who is right there to kill is ridiculous. But you do make a good point about survivors coming online, having to wait for full health before venturing out. Perhaps self-applied FAK should be immune from this -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:02 29 April 2010 (BST)

As I can see, zombies kill survivors with good rate. And zombies almost un-killable by design. Also note, that in "real life" we do not sleep so long, but do many things doesn't implemented in game. So "real life" isn't a reason. And I'm strongly against auto-FAK - it removes some nerf from the game. And in most cases auto-FAKed survivours will act like terminators. --Girobu 11:18, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Now, what will this change? Very simply this will make it much easier for zombies to kill 'sleeping' survivors in a live fight because 1 FAK will no longer undo the work of 6 or 7 zombie AP (not to mention the break in cost!) It would also open the way to more skills as survivors who specialise in healing will want ways to tell who is already under the effect of a FAK. --Honestmistake 09:10, 29 April 2010 (BST)

I think that the first FAK applied should still heal the full amount of HP (depending on the healers skills), and only subsequent FAKs should be added over time. Stopping the bleeding, and giving medication will improve the health immediately, followed by a slow healing process -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:10 29 April 2010 (BST)

Actually I was thinking that A FAK should heal 1point without skill, 2points with skill and 3points with skill and power then 2 hours (4AP ticks) later the system should add the appropriate outstanding amount (4/8/12) depending on the current status (ie power and your current health) that gives a neater system but still slows the healing rate to a manageable level. --Honestmistake 16:52, 29 April 2010 (BST)

The point has been made before that a single Action Point represents a single action - building a barricade, or walking from one building to another would obviously take more time than whipping out a newspaper and slapping someone in the face with it. The action point spent using the FAK represents the time it takes to crack that bad boy open and apply some magical healing salve. A tendency towards realism in a game like this makes it less fun for everyone - especially those trenchies who run around with ten shotguns stuffed in the waistand of their trousers! Sage|Carr ^Cobra 21:44, 27 April 2010 (BST)

I'm not sure what your point is exactly. Did you read the suggestion?--Pesatyel 03:37, 28 April 2010 (BST)

Too strong of a nerf. FAKs go pretty quick as it is. I can't imagine rebuilding a suburb or maintaining a conflict against any kind of zombie presence if it took 8 or 9 FAKs to fully restore 1 survivor. This would hasten the end of the game as we know it.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:32, 28 April 2010 (BST)

Thats the point, you should not be able to cure 300HP in one day.... that gives you the advantage, that makes taken a suburb into zombie hands almost impossible.--Dirty 18:39, 28 April 2010 (BST)

Look at the map - good zombie players take suburbs, bad players - not, no matter how FAKs work. --Girobu 08:48, 29 April 2010 (BST)

• coughridleybankcough* Seriously, this game isn't about realism. I like Honestmistake's idea best here, that way survivors lose their advantage of healing in live combat (while zombies still have a chance of boosting health with a successful bite), and the FAK does not become horribly useless. Seriously, 1 HP? That makes a FAK beer with infection healing. --Enigma^talk 01:31, 29 April 2010 (BST)

Here is a ricola, now keep in mind the massive amount of zombies in ridleybank. There is a reason it is red. It is the home to the largest zombie group in malton. Even then its not hard to stay alive in ridley bank when you have 40 faks. feeling better now? --Dirty 04:56, 29 April 2010 (BST)

---

Caffine Pills

Timestamp: BlackDragon2026 23:35, 17 April 2010 (BST)

Type: New Item

Scope: Survivors

Description: Similar to beer or wine, except that this consumable item, found mainly in mall drug stores or police and fire stations will give an AP increase, while your health decrease slightly every time you take a pill. Each box of caffine pills can have 5 to 10 pills, and each pill, which takes no AP to digest, will increase one AP and decrease one health. Drug stores would have these for sale, while EMS personnel at fire stations and police officers on night shift would have them in their lockers.

Discussion (Caffine Pills)

	WARNING
	This suggestion has no active discussion. It will be removed on: 11 May 2010

My death-cultist would gladly pack some. Health degradation not just for free, but for extra AP? Amazing parachutes could be done by that... --Spiderzed 23:40, 17 April 2010 (BST)

My thoughts exactly. A pack of 5 or 10 of these, as you say, plus an infection, halves the amount of AP expended dying in a parachute. I like it but it's powerful. Gain 1 AP, lose 5 HP, doses found individually (flavour it as taking several pills at once, rather than finding individual pills), then they'd probably balance out more. I'd vote for them in a watered-down form, as I'd find great use for them. 23:44, 17 April 2010 (BST)

Could allow for massive AP usage in a single burst. Overpowered. - User:Whitehouse 23:41, 17 April 2010 (BST)

Upon use: Gain 5AP, doesn't take any to eat. The next five AP using actions: Nothing unusual. The next five AP using actions: Costs double the normal AP. It all stacks, so if you eat four pills, you get 20AP, make 20 Normal moves, and then have the hangover last for 20 moves. But of corse, it would never work, like anything that afects AP. --VVV ^RPMBG 00:23, 18 April 2010 (BST)

If this was implemented, I would stock up my inventory half full with these, and half full with bottles of wine. Then, for the next month, I'd play non-stop, Using the extra AP from this healing the 1HP cost.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:28, 18 April 2010 (BST)

00:34, 18 April 2010 (BST)

You might want to image ark that somewhere. :/ --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:36, 18 April 2010 (BST)

Done. Ain't nobody deleting mah Belushi. 00:49, 18 April 2010 (BST)

Dupe --Explodey 00:35, 22 April 2010 (BST)

No. This suggestion adds up to an increased ability to store AP for later use, but only for those who play at least part of their time as a survivor. More AP for survivors, less for dedicated zombies -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:33 22 April 2010 (BST)

Ridiculously overpowered. Consume 5, use a FAK, and you still have 4 AP left to use. Also tilts things too much in favor of survivors. Q. JuliusTBH 21:29, 22 April 2010 (BST)

Ok well in my opinion its should be a max of say 2 pills for 36hours each one 10ap so you use them wisely anyway you would probarly get yourself a drug overdose eventully......... -- User:Boomer Australia 22:54 (GMT+10) 4th of may 2010

---

Suggestions up for voting

None at this time.