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

Rename "Fire Axe" to "Axe"

Timestamp: CorndogheroT-S-Z 11:36, 12 May 2010 (BST)

Type: small textual adjustment

Scope: Anyone who uses or comes in contact with axes

Description: Instead of appearing as "Fire Axe" in the inventory, the item currently known as "Fire Axe" would simply be known as "Axe". This allows for some ambiguity as to whether one is using a fire axe, a hatchet, a medieval battleaxe, a woodcutting axe, et cetera.

Discussion (Rename "Fire Axe" to "Axe")

Kitchen knife was renamed to "knife" because of the veritable plethora of places where it could be found, it made zero sense for them all to be kitchen knives. The fire axe though is well named as last time I checked there is only one type of axe that would make sense to be found in those places. People usually don't store their battleaxe in auto repair shops. -Devorac 13:16, 12 May 2010 (BST)

I think, think, this is a dupe. I'd suggest checking for this if you ever decide to take it to voting. --

 

 

 

 

13:24, 12 May 2010 (BST)

As a medieval re-enactor, I personnally store my battleaxe in my garage.

In all honesty, a fire axe is the only thing that makes sense to crop up with such regularity in a city. 14:00, 12 May 2010 (BST)

How about renaming it to Fire Ax.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:14, 12 May 2010 (BST)

Because that's not a word. 14:46, 12 May 2010 (BST)

I want an "Axe of Fire"! But really, I can't imagine there being that many variations of axes in Malton. The one variation I can imagine would be the sort you take with you when you go camping. - User:Whitehouse 14:29, 12 May 2010 (BST)

---

Shove Zombies

Timestamp: Scvideoking 02:58, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Type: Skill

Scope: Survivors

Description:OK se we all know a zombie can grab us and drag us to street level at some point right? well how about survivors can shove zombies out windows? I mean its realistic and a bit more fair. This would have the same use as a weapon except if you succeded text would be You grab the zombie by the neck and shove it with all your might out the nearest window Heres are examples You are stading in x the building is dark there is 2 zombies here(AP would be 10 to shove one out of the dark building) You are standing in x the building unlit There is 1 zombie here(5 AP to shove out) Youu are standing in x the building is lit There is 1 zombie here(3 AP) What happens to the zombie? he is forced to street level You could also be brought with the zombie(Cause its pretty damn hard to get one off you) Credit to maverick though i did make some adjustments 15% you shove the zombie out the window 75% you and the zombie both go out the window 10% you miss the zombie and fall out the window if you fall out with it you suffer -5 HP without The zombie you die This also isnt something EVERYONE can do you must get the skill witch would be a misc skill Not an insta kill if u shove them out of a window

Discussion (Shove Zombies)

I think you need to learn to follow the instructions at the top of this page, rather than thinking you can outsmart them by just copy/pasting from someone else (I had to fix it for you, just as someone has to for almost every suggestion you make). I also think it's a horribly overpowered idea. You're essentially giving survivors an insta-kill against zombies that always works and will cost 5ap or less in most cases. Currently, the cheapest way to remove a zombie from a building is to revive it, which costs 10AP for the revive, an average of 12AP for the searching, 1AP for the body dump, and some unknown amount of AP for travel to and from the NT facility. So, you're suggesting we go from the best method being, say, 30AP to 5AP, and you see nothing wrong with this at all? —Aichon— 03:27, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Did you read this correctly Aichon? there is no INSTA-kill you just shove them out a nearby window and since they are already dead they lose no HP plus if u revive a zombie there is a chance they will just PK u.--Scvideoking 22:08, 11 May 2010 (BST)scvideoking

I read it correctly (back before you removed the text). It said What happens to the zombie? he is forced to street level and needs to stand up HP loss is 2 for they are already dead. Since I couldn't make sense of the "HP loss is 2" part (I thought you were saying that they lost all of their HP too), it sounded an awful lot like an insta-kill attack. Anyway, as was pointed out, throwing a zombie outside is as good as killing them anyway. Whereas survivors lose a lot of AP having to get revived, zombies lose it when they have to break into a building. Insta-kill or not, it's overpowered to ludicrous levels. —Aichon— 00:18, 12 May 2010 (BST)

Yes this is entirely equal to feeding drag. Perhaps better adherence to barricade plans, HIPS, damn tactics, Sutherland's, or any number of good tactical doctrines expounded on this wiki would mean that you'd be better prepared to HOLY FUCKING SHIT A ZOMBIE WE ARE SO SHITTERED 03:33, 10 May 2010 (BST)

The only way I would get behind this is if the attack rates were as follows:

• 10% you shove the zombie out the window
• 10% you and the zombie both go out the window
• 80% you miss the zombie and fall out the window

Naturally, if the survivor goes out the window, s/he dies as per usual. Then MAYBE I could get behind this. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:00, 10 May 2010 (BST)

I would definitely vote keep with the percentages above. Make it a 1AP action, too. Also, make it the survivor default attack. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 15:43, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Okay, I'll bite and give serious feedback. Change the above numbers to 10% each and the remaining 70% doing nothing and I could vote for it... As long as the following were all added:

• It's a new skill requiring maxed hand to hand.
• It only kills if you were in tall buildings with less than VS barricades
• It only causes 5 damaged if used from any other building (and even then can only be used if no cades are present.
• but most importantly... it was an alternative skill to headshot. Thats right, one or the other but not both. --Honestmistake 17:08, 10 May 2010 (BST)

What about people who have headshot and want zombie shove instead?--V darkstar 19:33, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Fuck them! --Honestmistake 00:53, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Oh okay.... I suppose we could just have kevan recode the database to refund the xp cost to every player with headshot? --Honestmistake 00:55, 11 May 2010 (BST)

I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but on the off-chance you are, it'd only take a one-line SQL command to the database to refund the XP. Anyone familiar with relational tables and SQL could probably write you the code in a minute or two. —Aichon— 00:29, 12 May 2010 (BST)

This is an awful concept as presented, but I can think of a couple of changes to make it worthwhile. In fact, I'm not entirely opposed to the whole concept if it's modified properly.

First, Feeding Drag requires that the victim be low on health... down to 13 HP, actually. I see no reason that the same restriction shouldn't apply to Shove. You shouldn't be able to shove a reasonably healthy zombie out the door, both for realism and game play purposes.

Second, I think it should be a standard attack on the dropdown menu appearing like Feeding Drag, and have a % chance of success or failure just like other attacks.

Third, your system of varied AP cost to shove depending on building type and condition is weird and unappealing. It shouldn't cost more than 1 AP, regardless of building type. I do think that some sort of modifier is appropriate for building conditions, but not an AP modifier. More likely a % chance of success modifier, or a chance for the zombie to retaliate with one or more bite auto-attacks (Yes, I know, "no auto-attacks". I don't care. I think it's a good idea in this case. We're talking about someone trying to greco-roman wrestle a zombie through a door... the odds of a bite would be gigantic and merit an auto-attack, and more than one if you're trying to do it in the dark).

Fourth, I like Maverick's idea of the player possibly ending up outside with or instead of the zombie, but not his implementation. I think it's perfectly reasonable that you should likely end up outside, but that shouldn't hurt on its own, and you can just spend another 1 AP to go back inside. A minor feature, nearly meaningless, but kind of nice and good flavor.

Fifth, I don't see the point of this costing the zombie any health or knocking him down. It's a shove. It takes 5 shotgun blasts to knock a healthy zombie down, and you want to hurt him and knock him down with a shove? Don't be ridiculous. Besides, zombies only fall down when they're at 0 HP, for reasons seen on this page many times in the past, and always rise with full health.

These changes would result in your example looking more like this:

• You are stading in x the building is dark

there is 2 zombies here - attack option - Shove 1 out- 1 AP, 25% of normal chance of success, zombie gets 2 bite auto attacks, 90% chance you are dragged outside with the zombie

• You are standing in x the building unlit

There is 1 zombie here - attack option - Shove 1 out- 1 AP, 66% of normal chance of success, zombie gets 1 bite auto attack, 75% chance you are dragged outside with the zombie

• You are standing in x the building is lit

There is 1 zombie here- attack option - Shove 1 out- 1 AP, 100% of normal chance of success, zombie gets 1 bite auto attack, 50% chance you are dragged outside with the zombie

Of course, this requires figuring out what the "normal chance of success" should be. I think it should be fairly low, since it's hard to shove anyone through any door. Ever tried it? It's pretty damn hard if they don't want to go. But it could also open up a new hand-to-hand branch on the skill tree for improvement in this. If it's just a set skill with no hope of improvement, I'd suggest maybe a 25% chance. If it becomes its own branch on the skill tree with room for improvement, I'd suggest less, maybe 10-20%. That'd give room for more skills to improve it. Or it could be enhanced by Body Building, so that the skills could become complimentary.

I think that with these modifications, or something like them, this could provide an interesting alternative for daring survivors to remove low-HP zombies from a building rather than spending the AP on attacks to finish them and dump the bodies. I wouldn't expect it to pass a vote, though, and I'm betting that someone shows poor reading comprehension and/or ends up CNR by claiming that what I'm proposing is a 100% chance of success in lit buildings rather than not having a penalty on their normal attack rate of somewhere around 10-25%. So let's be clear, the % chances listed in the examples are suggestions of modifiers to their normal % chance of attack success, not their actual % chance to succeed at this. Just in case anyone reads this far. Which they probably won't, at least not attentively.

And while I'm here, where ideas go to die, I've been wondering about something unrelated. When a survivor climbs up a tall building and jumps off, he dies. He then has to stand up, and is at full zombie HP. When a zombie does the same, he doesn't even fall down, and his HP aren't renewed. Why? Is there any point to this? It seems like it's deliberate, because it runs contrary to the rest of gameflow. Low-HP zombies can kill one another to avoid headshot, why can't they climb and jump to do the same? I figured I'd ask a group of people whose experience rationalizing and justifying poor game features that put zombies at a disadvantage is truly staggering, so I came here. It's definitely a minor issue, but it's got me curious, and perhaps one of you can provide an actual reason.--Necrofeelinya 00:54, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Basically its because getting someone else to kill you to avoid headshot requires co-operation and timing while an action that allows you to do it without help is much easier to abuse. --Honestmistake 00:57, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Yeah, but it doesn't matter when zombies die. They just get up again. Closing off a minor game exploit like that with a feature that runs contrary to common sense while leaving open the options of Whack'N'Fak, VSB ruins, pro-human zombies, etc. doesn't make sense to me. I'm wondering if there's a reason that goes beyond that. After all, for a zombie to seek out a tall building, enter, climb, jump and rise again would usually take a certain amount of AP... often more than just eating the headshot. Can you think of any other reason that zombies committing suicide might negatively affect gameplay?--Necrofeelinya 01:07, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Yes. So a zombie doesn't just enter, jump out, stand up, and re-enter any time he takes down the barricades of a tall building. That's what feeding on corpses is for. Getting other zombies to kill you is a really unavoidable side effect of a system which doesn't prohibit life cultism. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 02:53, 11 May 2010 (BST)

So the whole purpose of this is to prevent lone ferals low on HP from breaking into the occasional tall building, finding harmans, spending AP to climb, jump, stand and reenter instead of just attacking right away, and holding position with 50 or 60 HP while groaning for help instead of whatever HP they had before? It's not hard enough to kill and dump a lone zombie, even at full health, for that to seem like much reason to code in such a fashion as to prevent zombies from suicide. All this does is help nerf the already-largely-nerfed feral and baby zombies. It has no effect on any group larger than 2, and it looks like the likelihood of it having a serious in-game effect is next to nil. I'm beginning to wonder if it's just an oversight on Kevan's part, where for some reason the "jump" option was only coded to affect survivors, but on the face of it, it seems deliberate.--Necrofeelinya 03:38, 11 May 2010 (BST)

"zombie gets 2 bite auto attacks" NO AUTO-ATTACKS this has been proven to be unbalanced and unfair to the gameplay, just look it up on the frequently suggested.--V darkstar 13:40, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Before getting your hackles up you might want to actually look into past precedent, I know of at least one auto-attack that is sitting in peer reviewed. -Devorac 19:16, 11 May 2010 (BST)

I'd also like to point out that in this instance, an auto-attack is far less dangerous than a regular attack. If I'm a survivor, which do I prefer? Getting hit with an auto-attack by a logged-off player, or getting hit with a full-on assault by a logged in zombie while I'm logged off? If I get bitten by an auto-attack, I can spend the rest of my AP fleeing and healing before the zombie even wakes up. It's not that big a deal. The most it's likely to do is startle me and possibly trick me into fleeing out of fear that the zombie player is also logged on and might continue attacking, which still doesn't prevent me from fleeing and healing even if he is logged on. In a regular attack, the survivor is asleep and gets teed off on until the zombie runs out of AP.

The ban on auto-attacks is to prevent things like land mines, where the player is unaware that the attack might be forthcoming and the damage may be severe. In this case, the player knows the attack might occur, and chooses whether or not to risk it. It's both voluntary to risk it and extremely limited in potential damage (unless the survivor is stupid enough to shove without a FAK and gets infected, in which case he deserves to die). Besides, there's already an auto-attack implemented in-game. When you free run into ruins you fall to the ground and injure yourself. That's effectively an auto-attack. It hasn't had any noticeable effect on game balance. And as far as I'm concerned, even with my suggestions adopted to change it, this is still just basically a survivor buff, albeit an interesting one. The only question is whether the auto-attack should cost the zombie AP, to which I say no. I think the effect is minor, and it's generally not considered a good idea to mess with players' AP... they might prefer to use it another way, such as attacking when they actually have a chance of killing someone. No need for the auto-attack to use any AP, especially since the survivor is coming to them.--Necrofeelinya 01:02, 12 May 2010 (BST)

I agree with what maverick said--Scvideoking 21:48, 11 May 2010 (BST)scvideoking

I'm afraid that, even though you insist it isn't an instant kill, it is. Zombies, having no ability to die, instead experience death by being kicked out of buildings and made to stand up. That's their equivalent of death. Your suggestions includes both as part of the attack.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:29, 11 May 2010 (BST)

If you fall ou will land on your back our face up and since a zombie can still control the body but quite poorly i may add they would have to stand up--Scvideoking 22:47, 11 May 2010 (BST)scvideoking

Your formatting sucks and I had to fix your comment for you; your idea is completely idiotic and shows both a complete lack of experience as a zombie and a total inability to read what people who know what they're talking about have written; your suggestion is a stupid, over-powered instant kill that hurts zombies even more than normal death by preventing them from responding with a timely rise. Your idea would break the game, end playing as a zombie, decide all sieges in survivor favor, and destroy Urban Dead as we know it. Wise up or I get the pretty pictures to better explain this simple concept. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:08, 12 May 2010 (BST)

---

Yet Another Flashlight/Torch/Portable Light Source Suggestion

Timestamp: BoboTalkClown 15:53, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Type: Item

Scope: Searchers of dark and unlit buildings and the zombies and PKers that hunt them.

Description: Below is the text from the Portable Light Sources section with my comments as to address its points. Please read my suggestion before voting. “Portable Light Sources” “Flashlight, torch, lantern, or glowstick. No matter what you call it, a portable light source is overpowered.” I believe my suggestion addresses those concerns. “Light sources boost search rates and aid skills like Surgery.” My suggestion does not assist Surgery. That seems silly. In addition, it only boosts search rates up to the unpowered norm in dark buildings, and provides half the generator bonus in undarkened buildings. “There is a huge difference between a portable generator and one of the previously mentioned items. A generator is carried until set up and then always in place until destroyed. A portable (or personal) light source will be kept in a player's inventory until dropped by that player. The portable personal light source offers all of the benefits with out any of the risk. It can not be destroyed as long as it is in an inventory.” My suggestion is not identical to a generator, as seen above and below. It also has a 1% chance to “flicker and die” during a search. It is found in Mall tech stores at 2%, a Fort barracks at 1%, Fire Stations at 2%, Junkyards at 1%, Police Departments at 2%, and Warehouses at 4%. It can't be balanced by limiting the length of duration and adding a fuel source that needs to be found because it will only be used when searching for more fuel for it. Thereby removing the "balancing factor" of the time and fuel. My balancing factor is a 5% to-hit bonus against the target. This is removed if in a powered building or the attacker is receving the 10% tangling grasp bonus unless the grasp is in a dark building, where the flashligt bonus is simply reduced to 10%. It is increased to 15% (unmodified by darkness) if the target is in a dark building. Flashlights illuminate buildings, shown with a dim glow, like the “powered” yellow, but much more greyish. If the item is also able to be turned off and on at will it makes it ridiculously unfair due to the fact that the main balancing drawback of a lit building is the fact that it attracts zombies. It can’t be, and it (as stated above) also provides a 10% to-hit bonus against the wielder. The only way to avoid the bonus is to drop the flashlight.

Discussion (Yet Another Flashlight/Torch/Portable Light Source Suggestion)

Being fairly new to the wiki, perhaps I'm missing something, but what are the actual details of your suggestion?--Austin hunt 18:38, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Yeah, it seems like there's something missing. Also I'm not keen on the idea in general, to be honest. 18:40, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Agreed. This is like saying, "I'm thinking of a person with a pronounced chin, brown hair, and blue eyes," and then expecting us to know exactly who you're talking about. —Aichon— 02:11, 9 May 2010 (BST)

You refute arguments, but you seem to have entirely forgotten to actually tell us about your suggestion. Portable light source, got it. But what are the details? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:56, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Actually he has, he just did it in a really confusing way.... From what I can see it works like this,

• 1% chance to “flicker and die” during a search
• It is found in Mall tech stores at 2%, a Fort barracks at 1%, Fire Stations at 2%, Junkyards at 1%, Police Departments at 2%, and Warehouses at 4%
• provides a 10% to-hit bonus against the wielder, increased to 15% if the user is in a dark building. Nulled if the user is in a lit building.
• In a dark building it raises search rates to that of a non-dark building
• In a non-dark building it raises search rates to 50% of lit search rates
• 5% to-hit bonus against the target in a dark building.

You still need to give us the encumbrance of the item, though I would assume 4% or so. I do not like it giving the user an to hit buffs except in dark buildings and even then they should be very small. (How are you whaling about with a fire axe and still keeping your light trained on the target?) Does it effect the dark buildings syringe de-buff? You left out a few little things. Also just as an aside, how are these things powered? -Devorac 17:50, 11 May 2010 (BST)

---

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 ^^

How would they be displayed on the map exactly? Would it be like there is a herd of 52 mrh co- *Ahem* survivors here? (Although that makes it nigh impossible to click individual people) Or would it be ...,a survivor, a survivor, a survivor, a survivor, etc etc etc... That approach though is horrifically clunky at best, and utterly bewildering to new bloods at worst. While it would be nice to see the newspaper achieve importance (100% to hit 0 DAM, perfect for finding out names) This is not the way to do it. I have no idea how this would affect UDtool lists, but I'd wager it wouldn't be good. Simply put it makes us too powerful, as it is I'm only recognized in certain areas the rogues gallery has recognized 3 of my kills, This would just let me slip in and murder without having to make a contingency plan. Being hunted is half the fun of pking. -Devorac 17:00, 5 May 2010 (BST)

Non-compatible with URL. I note down the URL of your clothing page, type it in to google, and I'll instantly know who you are.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 17:41, 5 May 2010 (BST)

The suggestion is a little difficult to read. All I had to read was the scope to immediately think "no". PKing does NOT need to be promoted. That having been said, as I understand the suggestion, this is ALREADY part of the game.

• All characters are "designated the same on the map". They already are, essentially, by their name.
• When you click on their name, you see their description. Including what they are wearing.
• When you interact with a character (they speak, attack, barricade, etc.) you see their name as doing the deed.

Have you actually PLAYED the game? The only thing I can see as an "actual" suggestion here is that you want the clothing section of the profile above the personal description (in order to "see the clothing first"). When my zombie attacked someone, I got this message: You maul Jane for 3 damage, and grab hold of their blood-flecked pale blue short-sleeved shirt. They drop to 37 HP. So what exactly is it you want added to the game that isn't already there?--Pesatyel 04:54, 6 May 2010 (BST)

I cannot think of any feasible way of doing this without spamming the UD interface with text about what people are wearing, particularly in large areas like malls and TRPs. You also ignore the fact that it is extremely easy for a person to change clothing; just move to a new building, click "Settings", badda bing badda boom. This might be plausible in another game where it isn't so easy to change clothes, but I just don't see this working for UD. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 23:02, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Very roleplay heavy. I don't like it. Stick to simple. BoboTalkClown 16:03, 8 May 2010 (BST)

@Pesatyel : useless to react this way when obviously you are the only people who don't understand the trick ^^ Of course I wouldn't have typed all that if there was nothing added ^^ But I understand it's not feasible, it is no big deal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Murdoc (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

So what is the trick? What am I missing?--Pesatyel 04:54, 12 May 2010 (BST)

"All characters are "designated the same on the map". They already are, essentially, by their name" => their name is distinctive. They would be designated with a "x" or something in this way.

---

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)

---

Suggestions up for voting

Change to Barricade Attacks Numbers When Inside

by Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} at 11:20, 7 May 2010 (BST)